.

‘Go Back Where You Came From’: SBS Propaganda: Is It Also A Hoax – And An Opportunity? (Bill Rezac)

2011-06-22T07:40:00.001+08:00

SBS screens this week a three part series ‘Go Back Where You Came From’, a documentary which shows a group of Australians being confronted (sic) with the living conditions of so-called ‘refugees’ in the camps of Asia and Africa and with their difficult journeys (sic) to come to Australia.

The program is pure propaganda.

Originally, Australia First members Jim Saleam and Perry Jewell, were also approached to participate. As could reasonably be expected, the tentative invitations to these nationalists were not pursued. At all points, the true purpose of the producers was to choose persons who were likely to be ‘remoulded’ by a type of hands-on live-drama re-education.

So it was.

At no time does this program really explain that refugees (sic) are often people who have declined to take up arms against their alleged oppressors, that the conditions they may find themselves in are in one sense of their own making, what economic refugees may be as opposed to political dissenters, that many consider permanent flight of better value than a fighting return, that many have social practises repugnant to Australian society, that many of these people may also hate and be envious of those who possess wealth and territory – and that overpopulation and New World Order wars and other ethnic based strife are the chief underlying causes of many outpourings from the Third World.

We are witness then to an attempt to brainwash Australians to accept that they are guilty people if they lack compassion.

In fact, for most Australians other than the liberal minded, there is a feeling that this brainwash should be resisted but they don’t know how.

The Case Of Raye Colbey

The star of the show, Raye Colbey, is described as a lady from Inverbrackie in South Australia where a refugee detention centre has been founded. Mrs. Colbey goes on the SBS organized jaunt overseas and learns about her ‘hate’, learns of compassion and so forth.

Reports passed to Australia First in South Australia, suggest that Mrs. Colbey has family members involved in support campaigns for so-called refugees.

Mrs Colbey has been a victim, if she really is a victim, of psychological manipulation. We note how quickly the usual media suspects have been to publish a public recant from her of her ‘former’, t=racist (sic) views.

Schools Will Get The SBS Doco But ‘The Camp Of The Saints’ Will Be There In Reply

A report was given to Australia First in New South Wales that the program will be shown on DVD to high school students as part of a propaganda offensive to soften students’ attitudes to the refugee invasion. This offers an opportunity for the new Eureka Youth League and Australia First Party to fight back.

Both organisations will surely seek to make mass awareness of the antidote: The Camp Of The Saints, the 1972 novel which explained the psychosis the dominant groups of our Western societies faced with a refugee invasion of European lands – a work composed before there were any mass refugee outpourings from the Third World. This revolutionary novel posited that overpopulation and poverty, war and envy, would propel masses towards the vision of a better life. It then pilloried the false-moralities that would justify to certain Westerners the very destruction of their own societies.

For the curious:

http://www.archive.org/details/CampOfTheSaints

This book should be studied by all Australians who need a counter-morality to the SBS type propaganda about to invade our screens.

Intensify The Struggle: ‘Expel The Refugees’

Australians need to act against the army of churchmen, Greens, Trotskyites, lawyer-advocates and others who play morality games over the refugee invasion and who mobilize daily to beat down Australians.

The morality is on the side of the Australian people, who under the challenge of mass immigration and now refugee invasion, have opted to resist.

Our party will repudiate the United Nations Convention On Refugees (1951). Ultimately, we will expel the refugees! But we make this very, very, dark promise: the traitors who have decided to give away our birthright will pay for the assisted return, if necessary of hundreds of thousands of persons to countries of origin – by the public seizure of their assets.

It has come to this.

Warn your friends and children against the latest SBS propaganda.

Australia First (Western Australia) Meets On June 25: Dr. Jim Saleam To Speak

2011-06-03T11:29:00.001+08:00

Bill Rezac

The nationalist movement in Western Australia is set to grow throughout 2011, with a view to acquiring the beginnings of a real activist presence in universities, schools, workplaces and community groups. Australia First Party is not simply an electoral organisation, but a political movement of thought and action.

This broad theme will be addressed by party National Council member, Dr. Jim Saleam, at a meeting in Perth set for June 25.

Members of the party, Eureka Youth League contacts and other interested persons have all been invited.

The Australia First Party is growing across Australia. Recruitment is now under way to acquire the necessary membership to register the party in South Australia and Queensland. Western Australian nationalists admit to not being advanced towards a similar goal, but we have a firm commitment to building the party on strong foundations.

The Australia First Party intends to take a leading role in warning people in this State of a number of dire dangers: the Chinese mining corporations which operate here and which seek Chinese slave labour as their workforces, the shadowy plans to break open the borders with East Timor and the denial of freedom of speech through certain State laws.

Our meeting on June 25 promises to set our agenda. Join Australia First!

Palerang Election Campaign: John McGrath For Australia First Polls A Solid 6.1%

2011-05-16T08:06:00.003+08:00

Australia First Party candidate for Palerang Council, John McGrath, has won a solid 6.1% - 430 votes - in the by-election held yesterday (these figures are not yet final)

Once again, we have shown that there is a definite community and electoral clientele for our party. In the 2008 NSW local government poll, Australia First won 4% in the Sutherland Shire and some 5.67% in Blacktown City. In a Sutherland Shire by-election in October last year we crossed over the 4% line again. In June 2010, in the Hawkesbury City by-election, we won 9.4%.

If a full Council election had been held in Palerang yesterday, John McGrath may have picked up the last position; indeed, some of our polling booth workers conversed with the current Mayor, who himself picked up the last seat in Palerang in 2008 - with just over 3 % of the vote!

Mr. McGrath has signalled his willingness to contest Palerang in 2012, along side of Australia First Party candidates set to contest (and win!) - in a swathe of councils across the State.

Farmers, Truckies, Young Workers Targets Of The Campaign

The Australia First Party campaign followed the political line of the party. It set out to target specific social sectors which we call Real Australia, or those parts of our community who have, in one way or another, stepped outside of the globalising norms of the present anti Australian economic and political system either to vote for something new or wage their economic struggles: some farmers challenged by the Murray Darling Basic Authority water legislation and who have opted to resist outside of the usual sell-out farmers organisations and the National Party; truck owner-drivers who are pushed to the wall by bureaucracy at the service of the big companies, citizens who have rejected the big parties and the Greens on immigration and young workers under the gun of contract labour and who see no party willing to say no. In ways specific to local conditions, these groups were the ‘targets’ of the McGrath campaign

Importantly too, Australia First publicly campaigned for People’s Referendum or Citizens’ Initiated Referendum where it is the people who may propose directly local rules and ‘laws’. This resonated in chaotic Palerang.

There is another aspect of the Real Australia strategy. Because the party targets Real Australia for support, Australia First leaves the ‘mainstream’ people behind at this stage: sadly, the majority of our fellow Australians accept their lot and relish its rewards and comforts; they may grumble at this or that, but are psychically bound to a ‘comfort zone’ of political normality and so consequently support the candidates and parties that actually undermine them too. This truth is the truth and it is not changed by wishful thinking. These folks are not the agents of change at this point in time. Essentially, our strategy is the logical one: build where we can, with whom we must, at this crucial phase of party and community network construction. That same big-picture logic plays out at local level politics also.

John McGrath’s thirty five years of political experience, served him well in doing what needed to be done at a local level and he was witness to how all these sobering strategic facts work themselves out.

Hard Work Yields Results

John McGrath campaigned very hard in Palerang. John spoke at the three community meetings and was received well and his candidature and the party name were mentioned at length in the Bungendore Mirror, the Braidwood Times and community newsletters. The Queanbeyan Age (which covers a part of the council area) referred to him as “arguably the most controversial candidate”. Indeed, the latter paper reported on a growing community angst across Palerang at the “plan” to explode the Shire’s population by nearly 70% by 2036 – and noted what our candidate was saying. Had we tapped a growing consciousness? We think so.

The party mobilised some Australia First members in Canberra and in Palerang Shire to assist on polling day with how to vote cards. Most booths were covered. Ironically, in the only booth where we have no worker (the isolated area of Nerriga), we polled 20%. These same members earlier letterboxed streets and spoke with residents and gave the party ‘name-recognition’. John campaigned personally in Captain’s Flat, Burra and Bungendore, meeting local residents and soliciting votes.

A Statement Of Position

Despite the candidates against John McGrath all running as ‘independents’, there were party allegiances in the poll. One candidate had Labor Party connections and another is active in the National Party, whilst yet another had some Green input to his support-base. What is equally clear is that a layer of voters in Palerang have also made a statement of position in voting for Australia First.

This statement is an ideological statement of Real Australia. It is a rock base of support that will be expanded, but only by the party being involved directly in community politics, if the party markets itself as a protest and defence organisation for issues that affect the lives of people.

Underground name recognition helps Australia First. As the polling booth workers attest, our party has a name that travels by pubs, clubs, workplaces, cafeterias, truck-stops, from brothers to sisters and mothers to fathers. The thousands of people across different States who have voted for Australia First in the last three years carry the name of the party to other Australians and the same process has now commenced in Palerang Shire.

Australia First Party thanks all who assisted in any way on this campaign and we look forward to further electoral successes in New South Wales.

For A Patriotic United Front

2011-01-27T08:01:00.003+08:00

The following statement was approved by the management committee of the party on January10 2011. It is now published.

The Australia First Party recognises the dependent nature of the Australian state upon the forces of globalism. Australia is a client state, ruled by a traitor class which is integrated into a transnational network of globalist elites and their economic and political structures. This class would govern Australia as a resources quarry cowed by thought-policing and a secret political police. Australia is further menaced by a new Chinese imperialism that competes with the American face of the New World Order for domination over Asia and the Pacific, with Australia a pawn in the game. The unfolding population / food crisis coupled with New World Order wars launches refugee hordes at Australia’s borders, whilst the traitor class sponsors a mass immigration recolonization of Australia for the purposes of economic enmeshment with the ‘global economy’. In the world crisis of the first quarter of the twenty-first century, Australia lacks status as an independent country. Indeed, Australia may disappear by century’s end as a country - and suffer partition by other states.

To rescue our country and our people means removing Australia to a position outside of the chaos of globalism. That means the creation of an independent Australia. To win an independent Australia where political power can be exercised directly by the people, where wealth comes to all who labour and where arms and the initiation and the enforcement of the laws are in the hands of the people, a new force outside of the old parties and their worn-out ideologies and prejudices - has become necessary. This new nationalist movement must now fight and win the struggle for Australia’s national independence.

It is ultimately necessary to unite all who can be united against the traitor class into a broad patriotic front to achieve Australian national independence. All those parties, groups and trade and community associations which contest the ideology, the politics, the economics and the cultural expressions of globalism, can find common ground against the foreign control and exploitation of Australia. Their uniting thread is the cause of Australian national independence.

The patriotic united front should not be a matter for tomorrow, but a matter of immediacy. United fronts operate in two ways: we predict the ultimate formation of a mass united front in times future, one that will win Australian national independence at a moment when parties and groups, economic and social and cultural associations all bond together in intense struggle. For today, we must build for that future in struggles on a daily basis around all manner of issues; we must wage community campaigns apposite to each Australian group and build unity on the ground. It is mandatory to seek this unity.

The Australia First Party is an incorporation registered as a Federal party. That does not mean that its function is only to contest elections. The party operates to the ‘three tier method’. This means that the party contests elections, wages community campaigns of all sorts to build links with fellow Australians and to unite all Australians - and develops its ideas and principles into an Australianist ideology that also carries on a cultural defence of Australianity against globalisation. The three tiers operate as a unity.

In one sense, the party reaches out to groups of a patriotic nature which may operate to one or another of the three tiers as their individual method. The party seeks to build relationships with such parties and groups and to unite whenever necessary to defend common interests and win common victories. New patriotic groups form either as political, trade, or cultural groups. As Australia descends into chaos, that process is organic.

Australia First Party within the broad Australian patriotic movement seeks to be a vanguard movement. This means that the party struggles to affirm the power of the ideals of Australian identity, independence and freedom, to carry those ideals everywhere, to defend them and preach them with zeal as a veritable Australianism and to inspire all others to tread the path towards the overweening fight for Australian national independence.

The party states clearly how it would prefer its dealings with other patriotic political organisations to be conducted and what relationships should be developed.

The Australia First Party recognises that different parties and groups exist for several reasons. These reasons can include: geographic circumstance, particular historical factors, previous organisational histories, the inter-relationships of people and sometimes - internecine struggles that are to be regretted, but which are human nature.

The Australia First Party declares that it will treat the other political organisations within a patriotic united front in this way:

1. Negotiate with any would-be candidate to avoid electoral competition.

2. Assist, when requested, other parties etc. in an electorate or council area where Australia First Party has no candidate.

3. Develop united activist campaigns on public issues or on other fronts, with any party or group - and do this in a consultative and cooperative spirit.

4. Exchange intelligence on disruptive elements, or state or other programs which undermine the integrity of the patriotic movement.

5. Avoid all unnecessary, unreasonable comment on other parties and groups; but point out fairly and reasonably, what any differences may be, whenever appropriate.

The party states clearly how it would prefer its dealings with other patriotic community organisations to be conducted and what relationships should be developed.

The Australia First Party recognises that different community associations arise for different reasons. Some defend the interests of the Australian productive classes - workers, farmers, small-business or other patriotic working people. Some advance the defence of Australian heritage and identity. Some explain new ideas that can inspire a very different Australia.

The Australia First Party declares that it will treat other organisations that represent the Australian community within a patriotic united front in this way:

1 Build links with each group and attempt to link together each group that all understand and appreciate the role of the party and each other.

2. Assist all in their struggles as requested.

3. .Develop united activist campaigns on public issues with each group - and do this in a consultative and cooperative spirit.

4. Exchange intelligence on disruptive elements, or state or other programs which undermine the integrity of the patriotic movement.

5. Avoid all unnecessary, unreasonable comment on groups; but point out fairly and reasonably, what any differences may be, whenever appropriate.

The Australia First Party will always maintain its independence and initiative in any united front arrangement and will act to secure its interests. However, it accepts that the times require a flexible and co-operative attitude.

Certainly, the goals of the Australia First Party are (i) to unite all nationalist and activist minded people into a single party and then to seek further working arrangements with whatever political forces may thereafter exist for whatever reasons outside of the party's ambit and (ii) to deepen the unity of Australia’s productive classes and their organisations against the traitor class and to create wider unity amongst all those resistance organisations which critique globalisation in ideas and culture.

Certainly, the party's aim is indeed to impose order where we detect diffuseness and to give focus where we note disarray.

Nonetheless, the party reasons that such general goals can not be reached by a self-proclamation of virtue. Rather, the party will fight such that its ideological position and political line progressively gain hegemony. It shall do so openly and honestly and by all fair means of discourse. No other organisation should feel anything else than a sense of relief that the position is made clear.

In the interim, and given that the fair contest of parties and other forces will continue, the Australia First Party has concluded that the only practical way whereby all may learn of each other and build the necessary bonds and links which allow for final unity, is to work confederally to construct a practical unity in struggle.

The united patriotic front is the requirement to which all should work.

Western Australian Information Commissioner Denies Australia First Its Own Records!

2010-12-20T08:06:00.000+08:00

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.

The ‘Anti-Fascists’ Of ‘Antifa Australia’ Fail To Stop The Sydney Forum: It Is A Serious Political Defeat For Those Who Deny Free Speech

2010-09-21T14:25:00.002+08:00

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.

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott ‘Tough’ On Immigration / Refugees?

2010-07-05T08:05:00.001+08:00

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!

Combat 18 Perth Racial Violence Arrests. Or Just More Rubbish From The Stable Of “CC18”?

2010-06-02T15:22:00.006+08:00

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?

Liberal Party Seeks Out Its ‘Patriotic’ Three Stooges

2010-05-26T15:58:00.003+08:00

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.

End Free Trade In Beef! Keep Mad Cow Disease Beef Out Of Australia!

2010-03-31T11:14:00.002+08:00

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 :

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!

Japanese Multinationals Threaten Australian Workers: Who Comes First – Australia Or The Foreign Bosses?

2010-03-01T20:19:00.001+08:00

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.

Sir Edmund Barton’s ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907

2010-02-23T15:40:00.004+08:00

'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.

2010-02-23T08:31:00.001+08:00

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.

An idea for Australian business owners

2010-02-04T18:27:00.011+08:00

This restaurant owner in North Versailles, Pennsylvania has the right idea. Gives the local community something to think about.

One Nation Leader Signals Sell-Out To The Liberals On Immigration, Population And National Identity?

2010-01-31T19:11:00.001+08:00

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!

General Cosgrove Levels Verbal Guns At Patriotic Australians

2010-01-24T19:52:00.000+08:00

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.

Long Live The Southern Cross! Australia First Replies To Culture-Buster Warwick Thornton

2010-01-24T19:50:00.001+08:00

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.

Tony Abbott Belongs In Prison: Not In Parliament!

2009-12-17T15:07:00.002+08:00

Jim Saleam / Brendan Gidley

The elevation of Tony Abbott to lead the Liberal Party represents the workings of our political system at its most intricate and at its most dirty.

Most Australians consider that Australia has a ‘two party democracy’, two main parties, surrounded by other ‘minor’ parties which favour in one way or another one or the other of the central two machines, but which offer variations on each and ensure political honesty. The two main parties ‘argue’ - and these arguments are taken as real.

In truth, Australia has a one single regime party with two faces. Occasionally, as amongst any leadership, a division of opinion may result and a brawl ensues. We see that over so-called climate change, but we do not see anything other than ‘bipartisanship’ over all else that really counts. We may see the minor parties bicker too, but all roads lead back to keeping the main parties in the saddle.

The class which owns the Australian state (we can call it the ‘regime’ if we like) wants the opening of borders to the free movement of capital and labour, wishes to facilitate the rise of China to superpower status, supports multiculturalism, follows the US superpower into Middle Eastern wars for oil and Israel, agrees with increases in Third World immigration and refugees, and supports internal repressive laws and structures to impose these policies.

The two main parties follow these policies absolutely because they are owned and managed by the same class of people, a veritable traitor class that serves the foreign interest and in which many politicians themselves can also find membership. The rewards are great.

As circumstances change, the colouring of one or the other of these parties is more suited to carry out the governance of Australia to ensure the traitor class line is implemented.

At present the Labor face is in the ascendant. This means the soft face says there is inclusion for all and welfare for hard times, reliance on the chattering classes to explain policy and the liberal media - and increasing immigration for growth because it is our future to become a larger country of diversity and wonder.

However, like with a fine tune dial on a TV set, we can tune in the Liberal face which is the secondary one at this time. It is there to ensure the continued system loyalty of its voters and followers and the minor parties and groups which ‘lean conservative.’ Out of government it may be, but that part of the Liberal game goes on. If people get annoyed with the Labor face, this one promises a ‘change’ back to conservative principles and family values and some flag waving.

Nothing systemic will change here. However, we are to be told increasingly that some struggle exists between the faces of the regime. Why tell us this? Unless the traitor class that owns the state itself is fearful of a new challenge. Challenge from whom? From the nationalists like Australia First and other patriotic forces. So, enter Tony Abbott to fight that challenge.

Dirty and dirtier……

We have to consider the dirty side of politics. Traitor class politics is spiritual dirt paraded about as mainstream cleanliness. Mainstream? Sewer stream!

So Abbott has conspired in the past to serve his fellows. The ‘mad monk’, the Catholic conservative who almost baulked at sex before marriage and preaches for the family, has a real-life side, a dirty side, which is there to serve the traitor class.

Some years ago, through the Australians For Honest Government, he laboured to bring down popular figure, Pauline Hanson. This shadowy body run by Peter Coleman, father in law of Tim Costello and one-time NSW Opposition Leader, raised funds to sponsor a legal case against Mrs. Hanson. It offered to pay off a low dog called Terry Sharples who filed a civil suit against Hanson over electoral entitlements. The evidence produced became the basis of a flawed prosecution which saw Hanson falsely imprisoned. Yet, her release from prison served as the cover-up for a full investigation into Abbott’s role in the operations of these ‘Honest’ men. The successful appeal case meant no commission of inquiry would ever investigate the ‘Honest’ ones; and we can be certain that the regime of KRudds and Abbotts will make sure that never happens. The ‘Honest’ men stay in the shadows.

The ‘Honest’ men infiltrate parties, undermine political rivals, spy for the Liberal Party (mainly) and spread rumour and falsehood against their targets. Their staff and their agents privatise the aims of Australia’s even ‘more secret’ political police agencies – which do admit to working against Australian patriots and nationalists. We could, if we wished, name innumerable persons formerly of One Nation and other parties who have served as disruptors for the ‘Honest’ men (and for the political police).

Tony Abbott knows much and says nought. He knows how politics really works and it’s not the fairy-land of free elections where bits of pencilled paper in ballot boxes determine who governs. That determines only which face of the traitor class is presented to us; it does not determine whether we, the people, govern.

Essentially, Abbott is just another grub in a long line of grubs. He is part of a machine. When he faced off the One Nation challenge, he did so with more than pimps and court cases. He even reconstructed the Liberal Party, dredging up some old leaders from an old 1980’s faction and he relaunched them (mainly in New South Wales) to keep the conservative faithful in the ranks long enough for him to disintegrate Hansonism. It was masterly muck, done at Howard’s request. It has a certain gutter style and is to be respected for its diabolically anti democratic quality! Bravo, grub!

Yet, Abbott shows a propensity to undertake destabilizing pursuits on a much larger scale, when in 2003, in his position as a Howard Liberal Party Cabinet Minister he supported the war against Iraq. The Liberal inner circle employed a litany of deceit to inflict war against the people of Iraq – for oil and for Israel – all the while telling us outright lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam’s “links with Al Qaeda”. The resultant carnage, suffering and environmental devastation - is the first great war crime of the twenty first century.

So we stand in the presence of a determined traitor class fighter from whom we should expect little mercy or regard now that we are organizing ourselves as a party. Nor should we give the slightest concession to the pseudo-patriotism the Liberal Party will surely invoke. Not the slightest wink at ‘border control’ chatter, ‘tough’ lines on asylum seeker invaders, flag waving. We have seen it all before. And to use Abbott’s favourite word: it’s bullshit.

Prison not parliament ……

For his role in the Hanson affair and for the Iraq war, Tony Abbott belongs in prison and not in parliament. He takes risks to do his job. So must we – to rid ourselves of creatures like this..

The Australian people demand from their party determined advocacy of their rights – to employment without contracts, to a tertiary education without overseas students, to run a business without bureaucracy, to preserve their heritage and their identity as a people. So the Liberal Party under its new boss will receive from us what it deserves – contempt and trenchant opposition. Forward Australia First!

Drop The Charges Against Brendon O’Connell

2009-11-17T19:02:00.002+08:00

A Perth man, Brendon O’Connell was raided yesterday (again!) by the Western Australian police ‘State Security Investigation Group’. He has been charged again under Western Australia’s odious racial vilification laws. He now faces two lots of 14 years imprisonment.

Why? Because he has criticised Israel and its Zionist ideology. This has been falsely labelled as vilification of Jews.

When Brendon O'Connell, 38, was charged last May for the thought crime offence of condemning Israel, its false and brutal terror against the Palestinians and the ideology that encourages all this (Zionism), Australia First Party condemned the arrest as the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation, that sort of political arrest liberal-democratic free speech advocates would once criticise. Because Mr. O'Connell was a fearless campaigner for truth, his ‘crime’ is to be punished as a warning. Given that the so-called democratic Australian government supports Israeli state crime and offers up the lives of Australian soldiers, not even to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to defend the big-picture Zionist interest in the Middle East, we interpreted this arrest as one of the most significant political free speech challenges of modern times in Australia. It struck at the right of the Australian people to work out their own independent line on the Middle East and Islamic extremism, free of the lie that Israel is any sort of friend of Australia.

And now, Mr. O’Connell finds himself charged yet again.

As on the first occasion, the State Security Investigation Group arrested Mr. O'Connell and charged him with "conduct with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment". In other words, a political police agency has direct powers of arrest against a citizen for the exercise of his free speech. Mr. O'Connell now faces another 14 years imprisonment. Certainly, this time around, the political police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were concerned that Mr. O’Connell worked in a very public way to expose the false nature of the charge. Crooks never like exposure!

How did this affair come into being?

Mr. O'Connell had published some videos on U-Tube. He is seen on film in front of Perth's Bell Tower and at a South Perth supermarket. The political police accuse him of making anti-Semitic comments to a couple of Jewish men. The allegation of anti semitism is one big furphy. Mr. O'Connell is a Christian and he is entitled to criticise Judaism, just as followers of that religion may - and do - criticise Christianity or Islam in the most strident terms. At the level of religious debate, strong language is to be expected and allowed. Indeed, it is constitutionally protected. What is really at issue is Mr. O’Connell’s criticism of the Zionist ideology and the state crime of Israel.

All Australians observe today the false and hopeless war in Afghanistan and whilst maintaining their awareness of the serious question of Islamic extremism internationally and locally, are beginning to see Israeli state crime and the Zionist ideology as prime causes of this very problem. In the midst of this, a political police agency harasses a critic of Zionist policyLast May, it was Western Australian Opposition Multicultural Interests spokesman Labor MP John Hyde, who served as the fingerman, alerting police, Jewish community leaders and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA about the videos. He had praised WA Police for using the anti-vilification laws to lay the charges. He was quoted as saying: "Members of the multicultural community can take comfort in the knowledge that this alleged race hate crime will now go before the courts.'' Indeed, and the multicultural industry may well now look for more targets! Mr. Hyde has undoubtedly allowed himself to be used by Zionists and other so-called 'anti-racists' who front for them. There is no race hate crime in this affair. But there is an implied attack upon religious freedom and an attack upon political freedom. The Australia First Party will now campaign directly against Mr. Hyde. The party will campaign to expose Mr. Hyde before his electorate as a snivelling opponent of genuine free speech.

Now that Mr. O’Connell, who has campaigned publically since his arrest against the first charge, has been charged again, his right to any sort of fair process is even further undermined. Mr. O’Connell sent out an urgent plea of his own today. We publish an edited version of it:

“Hello. Brendon O'Connell here. I was raided by the state security unit led by detective timothy Richard Paini. He was IN THE HOUSE before the other police came through the side gate. I confronted him - he stated he had come through the side gate also - that is a lie. He was in the house "DOING" something. I went OFF. I stated he was attempting to frame me and plant something. Their behaviour was DESPERATE!I have been charged AGAIN with "Conduct Intended To Incite Racial Vilification". I was also charged with "obstructing police". I refused to acknowledge THEM or their BULLSHIT warrant. Paini is CORRUPT. He is NOT acting as he should. He appears desperate. The D.P.P is desperate…... I RANG Paini at 10 am Monday morning to complain important files (including raw video footage of the I.G.A confrontation) were missing. 7 hours later I was RAIDED! Please get the word out. ALL my communications … cut. Computers gone. Mobile gone. Passport taken. COURT DOCUMENTS taken. UNBELIEVABLE! I am scared because they appear absolutely DESPERATE. …….

contact me on...brendonoconnellencrypted2@gmail.com I screamed at Paini that he and his friends had deleted e-mails that morning and been hacking my computer. He SMIRKED! I said I'd wipe the smirk OFF HIS FACE. I will ALWAYS have time for the Uniformed coppers, but my days of co-operating with detectives are O-V-E-R.I will represent myself. It was said to me by Rod Keely (Barrister) that they had NO CASE from the beginning. Regards, Brendon O'Connell”

This is the cry of a true advocate of democratic liberty and it must not go unheeded.

The Australia First Party calls on all patriots and advocates of freedom of speech to support Mr. O'Connell as best they can and in accordance with his wishes. Mr. O’Connell has created a blogsite:

http://brendonoconnell.blogspot.com

Donations can be made.

Australia First Party demands the repeal of the 'anti vilification' laws in Western Australia as falsely crafted thought crime legislation whose real nature is finally revealed

Australia First Party demands that the charges against Brendon O’Connell be dropped.

Australia First Party demands an open commission of inquiry into treatment metered out to Brendon O’Connell and to establish who initiated these charges and why.

Repeal The Thought Crime ‘Racial Vilification’ Legislation In Western Australia!

2009-11-17T19:01:00.003+08:00

The Australia First Party will launch a public campaign for the repeal of Western Australia’s thought crime laws.

These laws, which style themselves as laws against “racial vilification” “harassment” and so forth, are there not to combat silly people who may vilify and harass some person or group literally on account of race, but to intimidate the mass of Australians who are concerned that immigration and multiculturalism have threatened the very survival of their identity.

These law were brought about in 1990 and amended in 2004 to increase the penalties. The Western Australian Criminal Code says:

Section 77:
Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassmentAny person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonmentfor 14 years.

Section 78:
Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment. Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
Summary conviction penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $24,000

The sheer brutality of the sentencing regime tends to suggest that these laws are seen as vital weapons of State defence.

State defence against what?

The laws can be misused as they have in the case of Brendon O’Connell and will undoubtedly be misused in the future, probably against parties and individuals who are critical of immigration levels and multiculturalism.

We reject any idea that these laws are needed to combat a few stupid people with photocopy machines, those who might publish a few batches of leaflets which call some people names – or which may even call for blood and guts revolutions against some minority or other. There always were plenty of laws for that. It is that the laws label someone in advance and then proceed to catch genuine dissent in a false framework.

These laws protect the big end of town which seeks to make billions of dollars from trade and investment, those who fear that any pro Australian sentiment to take back economic control of our country and to deny the wealthy elites of Asia and the rising Chinese superpower access to cheap resources, might also inconvenience them financially. Hence false cries of racism and heavy punishments. These laws are false in every way.

Australia First Party demands the repeal of this evil thought crime legislation

Australian Government Refugee Allowances vs.Aust Pensioners

2009-11-11T08:14:00.001+08:00

It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a Single Refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580. 00 in Social Assistance, so a total of $2,470.00 per month.. Family of 4 can receive $9,880.00 per month or yearly $118,685 A single Australian pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Australia for 40 to 50 years, receives only a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. (Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!)

*Let's send this to all Australians so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we are forced to submit to the Government in taxes.

It’s A Small World? Who And What Is Now Mobilizing Against Us?

2009-11-09T08:31:00.002+08:00

Dr. Jim Saleam

This article might be difficult territory for some. It is a minor labyrinth of detail. Even those amongst us with no particular interest in political ‘detective work’ and an esoteric discussion about a lot of funny persons from the political twilight, might spare a moment for reflection. Why?

Essentially, it has become obvious that Australia First (and anyone else pushing a pro Australian barrow for that matter) is now on the receiving end of electronic and paper smears and incitements and at long last – confrontation.

This was shown when the Sydney Forum was picketed on September 25. A small number of demonstrators arrived to shout ‘fascist’ at Forum guests and try to obstruct entry to the RSL venue. The Police ultimately moved them on. These people called themselves ‘Antifa’ (or anti fascists as the term means) and were drawn largely from the anarchist inner-city sub-culture. A couple of websites have tried to fuel this world of marginal people with the hype to take on the nationalists physically and, although there is some sort of tension between the anarchists and the scribblers at these sites, they finally took their cue.

Some weeks prior in Melbourne, the Antifa opted to damage the shop of a man involved in organising a younger persons’ music gig. Reason: Antifa considered the gig “fascist” and “racist”. Needless to say, this may have led to other incidents and the anarchists complain of – a certain direct response.

Let us be very clear and precise. Anti-fascism is usually a game operated by deluded people at the behest of others who play from behind the scenes. A group is found that the establishment dislikes and fears. Australia First Party, the nationalist movement generally, is that target. The media reacts and smears the challenger in any number of ways. Lately, figures from the major parties and other liberal commentators have criticised our movement as a dangerous and evil thing, but our challenge grows and has raised itself to a national profile. We are still a small force, but we are taking on organizational flesh.

So it occurs that we must now receive a dual attack: an entity (ie. Antifa) is brought to bear, one that stalks the new movement physically whilst also stigmatizing it propagandistically in the terms the establishment would have it labelled. In other words: through confrontation and harassment, we may be restricted; by calling us names in public and via reporting of the new group’s actions, some people who may be available to us as voters and activists, could turn away in confusion. Just as screaming at a bloke “wife beater, wife beater” might cause some to think he is one, so calling patriotic ordinary Australian working people “fascists”, could cause some members of the public to think it’s true – and they would decline support.

This anti-fascism is as much psycho-politics as physical politics. It is designed to vex, confuse and disorient. Having someone scream that the party is something it is not, to risk arrest and carry out assaults in the name of a false position, is bizarre. Yet, that is the point. To mobilize people against us, the operators of Antifa must spoon feed something to the troops to keep up their activism. “I get it”, said one old World War Two veteran, who had just been called a “Nazi” as he entered the Sydney Forum venue; “he needed a straw man to knock down, some idea in his head to keep him fighting.” True.

The anti-fascists in the street are genuine fools. They really believe that the Australian nationalists would impose fascist rule if we could, will cause no end of social turmoils and hatreds on our path to power and they really imagine that we are inspired by historical fascism. As anarchists or Trotskyites or Maoists, they are impelled to act. For sure, it is all a delusion. In fact, we intend to impose (sic) a radical democracy upon Australia! Yet, knowing this impulse to act against us exists, the shadowy players who need a confrontational Antifa to do the dirty work can move more easily to mobilize it. Hence, we observed websites like ‘Fight Dem Back’ and ‘Slackbastard’ tried to organize the protest movement, but they had establishment connections with the Labor Party and Zionist groups and so on; this was just too brazen and the Antifa was hesitant. Reasonably, pseudo revolutionaries don’t like the establishment either. So other less obvious agents are undoubtedly employed such that the new Antifa structure can be promoted into street politics and given a certain media sanction - as long as it does its job.

Good Intel ….

A month or so ago, the staff at the inveterate pro Australian ‘intelligence Blog’ ‘Whitelaw Towers’, put it out there that in Sydney at least, a peculiar clique of people based on the leadership of the former Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (BLF) in New South Wales and a network that was connected to it and formerly instrumental in the old Maoist-style Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), had been sniffing about, setting up small structures to push odd communist type agendas.

The members of this grouping have freed themselves of much of the ideological baggage of Maoism, but have retained their taste for a radical communist solution. In that regard, these people were not beyond embracing some of the arguments and methods of the anarchists if this leads to ‘direct action’.

After yet another ‘anti-fascist’ action on October 2 in Sydney, this time aimed at a speaking event in inner-city Chippendale, the interest of the ex Maoist group in anti-fascism, was revealed. Such a small world politics can be when bad eggs return to the fray.

A certain writer appeared on the Indymedia website, someone whose suggestions are pregnant with the future. This writer, who I quickly understood to be one C. Maltby, recorded how he and his friends once turned over a literature table of a student nationalist organisation at the University of New South Wales and directly confronted the group. That was 1979. I was there. Maltby naturally omitted that he had positioned himself behind Mr. F.K. Salter chairman of our group and struck him to the head with a (thankfully smooth) rock. Although Salter sustained no real injury, it was a dangerous assault. Maltby was alluding to old, perhaps to his mind, happy memories. His article counselled further and aggressive action based upon the ‘validity’ of violent confrontation.

To say that Maltby is just a would-be thug underestimates the fellow and those he sails with. The Maoists were not unintelligent. He has reviewed the political landscape and - using my name to make the point - tells his readers:

…. Kevvie’s ALP, with the Breakfast Creek mob providing invaluable support 'in the rear' - but beware, the collapse of the ALP could give the likes of Saleam rallying points around which to gather votes …..
If Saleam et al ever get anywhere west of Parramatta in Sydney, watch out! And what will the likes of the Greens do then? Hit them with banana leaves, or try to reason with them? No, they'll just 'peacefully protest' as all democratic institutions are torn apart. Only one answer and it's still Socialism Comrades - it would be a very different form of Socialism - perhaps the Anarcho-Syndicalists do have something, other than books to sell! Cheers, The Captain.

In one regard, Mr. Maltby is dead right. Australia First intends to campaign to gather the support of working people – and Western Sydney holds many disgruntled unionists and self-employed people under the gun of big business and now too hosts a legion of young unemployed. This social pattern is duplicated in every metropolis.

Maltby proposed a new alliance to stop us from realising our objective – an alliance of the anarchist movement and leftover activist Maoism. Interesting. Now that anti-fascism is in the street, we now see the forces of our opposition meld together. We are warned and must become prepared.

Forward! ….

The opposition, which Australia First Party and the entire patriotic movement faces, will gather in pace and in intensity. This cannot be avoided and is a reflex to our growth. How we handle it will be a major test of our courage, resources and professional acumen. Needless to say, whatever plans we may have cannot be discussed in the open on a website or in an e-mail newsletter.

Certainly, we will stand our ground and extend our reach. We intend to develop a party with popular roots and to do so over the next twelve months. Swatting the blowflies of Antifa is simply ensuring that we reach those Australians we need that we may move to higher stages in building our mass work.

Australia First Registration Applicants Uphold The Ideals Of Australianism

2009-11-03T16:13:00.000+08:00

Australia First Party has applied for registration as a party with the Australian Electoral Commission. The application was made on October 2 and will take some months to be processed.

Our party aims to consolidate those Australians who are prepared – right now – to stand up in the cause of Australian Identity, Independence and Freedom.

Some eleven members were obliged by law to co-sign the party registration application.

We are pleased to provide political biography on these members precisely because our party certainly aims to consolidate into one party those activists and shapers from earlier movements of nationalist resistance to the globalisation of our country. Our party has drawn together those who wish to pursue the struggle in an activist way. We have united people with long experience and we want other activists still involved elsewhere to appreciate that fact. In simple truth, Australia First Party represents a veritable tradition in Australian political life stretching back over decades. We aim to become the common vehicle that will achieve success.

1. Tony Pettitt

Tony will serve as Registered Officer. He entered nationalist politics in the late 1980’s as an independent candidate and then worked through Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation when he was a candidate several times and worked in an organizational capacity. He joined the new Australia First in 2008.

2. Jim Saleam

Jim participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action which he led until 1991.He has written extensively on Australian identity. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2001 and the new Australia First in 2007. He will serve as National Secretary.

3. Nick Maine

As an ‘old warrior’ in the patriotic struggle, Nick is 87 years and served in the Australian army in New Guinea. He both founded, and was a member of, several organisations, which arose after the betrayal of the White Australia Policy in 1966, to warn Australians of the dangers of liberal immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 1996 and the new Australia First in 2007

4. Brendan Gidley

Brendan entered the nationalist struggle in 1984 as a member of National Action until 1991 and was involved thereafter in Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation as an organizer He has co-operated some nationalist websites and publishing services. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new party in 2007.

5. Neil Baird

Neil entered the nationalist struggle in 1992 as a member of Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined One Nation in 1997 and served the party as a candidate and in several administrative functions. He is a regular speaker for nationalist forums and joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new party in 2007

6. Alex Norwick

Alex participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action; he also worked in the 1980’s with other patriotic groups. In the 1990’s he worked with Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He has written on Australian labour history. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

7. Perry Jewell

Perry migrated to Australia from South Africa in 1972 and in 1990 co-founded Australia’s first mass nationalist-minded party – Confederate Action Party. He worked subsequently through other groups in Queensland and founded in 2007 a movement to combat drug addiction in Australia. As a man of considerable political and other talent, he joined the new Australia First in 2009.

8. Rob Fraser

Rob entered the nationalist arena in 1988, being an editor of the magazine, Bunyip Bulletin. He later participated in Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

9. Nathan Clarke

Nathan is a younger nationalist activist who entered the movement in 2005. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new Australia First in 2007. He was a lead Council candidate for the new Australia First in Newcastle in 2008.

10. Terry Cooksley

Terry joined Australian National Alliance (1979-80) and was a co-founder of National Action with which he remained until 1991.He was candidate in the 1990’s for Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

11. Darrell Wallbridge

Darrell founded a local nationalist party in his native Coffs Harbour (1981) and passed into National Action (1982-91) and was a candidate for Confederate Action Party. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

The Greater Significance Of The Australian Light Horse Charge at Beersheba

2009-11-03T16:12:00.003+08:00

The following is a speech given by Jim Saleam to a special commemorative meeting for the 92nd anniversary of the great Light Horse Charge at Beersheba.

The meeting, hosted by the Friends Of Henry Lawson, featured speakers from cultural groups and readings from Australian military history.
The speech has been very slightly edited.

I am not talking of the history of the event we are here to honour. Rather, I am talking about impressions of that event. I suppose that’s about building culture myths. Mythology doesn’t just mean those wild Greek tales - or fairy-stories peoples sometimes tell. I can tell you as a student of Australian culture history that the Myth is actually about the setting of images in people’s minds, an idea, a standard, a set of moral ideals and so a collective unconscious emerges that unites a people together. We go on to fashion ourselves and our lives around it. Myth is a powerful thing. And to use the Greek sounding term palingenesis – rebirth – we could say that the eternal return of the central Myths of a people presses people into its service in a new time.
Weighty stuff. So, now you get it. What did Beersheba mean for Australians? Then? Later? Now?

Let’s Make It Personal

The first thing I ever heard about the charge at Beersheba was a little bit of adult chatter, somewhere, sometime. Maybe I was 6 years of age. It became real a few years after that, when our primary school was blessed with an elderly gent who was brought along one day about 1965 to tell the tale.

Let’s be honest. Some bloke about 70 looked like a bloke about 100 when you’re ten. So, he was revered on that account alone.

But he told a bloody good story. The only bit I remember was something about the Turks being bad shots ‘cos they hadn’t adjusted their gun sights. He was here and that was the proof of that.

That’s the Myth in action folks. The storyteller from the golden age, telling you a great tale from when he was young, when he could have died, but for luck. Something that did all proud. It was your history. No one else’s. The truth belonged to you if you too dared to live it. And there was the promise that if ever you were tested you could do just as well.

Our school was blessed by such a speaker. Indeed, we often had speakers about important events in the national history or we saw great icons of that history like the Eureka Flag.

The day our Beersheba veteran spoke, the school showed the classic film, Forty Thousand Horsemen.

Forty Thousand Horsemen

Released in 1940, the film’s nationalistic sentiment and dramatisation of Australian success in battle touched a strong chord with a new generation then at war. The story follows three larrikin Light Horsemen and their role in the desert campaigns. The three leads, played by Grant Taylor, Chips Rafferty and Pat Toohill, are introduced to us playing two-up in a market place and indulging in tom foolery, including taking a wild donkey ride through town and into a cabaret club (the same themes used in Mel Gibson’s Gallipoli). The celebrated climax of the story plays out the famous charge at Beersheba. The film broke national box office records and also had considerable success on the international market.

We all loved it as 1960’s kids.
For one, I have shown the film at various meetings since in my adult life.

This film renders sacred too the sand dunes at Kurnell, but a few kilometres from where Captain Cook proclaimed that modern civilisation had come to the oldest Continent. White fellas history all that, but just as meaningful to us as black fellas’ Dreamings.

In other words, in fact, film about the charge at Beersheba sanctified our native ground in the reliving of it.

A Legend Born

The charge at Beersheba soon entered the Australian consciousness. The realist paintings of Lambert, the exhibitions collected for the National War Museum, the ANZAC Day commemerations that began in the 1920’s, at the RSSAILA Clubs and so on – were all signs of that. Side by side with ANZAC Cove, it illustrated the right of the new nation to be taken seriously by others. At the Versailles Treaty conference in 1919, Australia spoke for herself. One could say that the desert war gave more of a right to this than the meat-grinder trench warfare in France. It is proper to remember.

And Today?

Of late, as part of our own Culture Wars in Australia, publicity has been given to an incident where some Light Horse committed what was, in modern politically-correct-speak, a war crime in shooting some people in a local village.

It is one thing to record the truth, whatever it might be. I wonder whether the publicity given to this minor affair serves a darker purpose? To undermine the national myth perhaps?

Interesting too that we can also draw a point about Australian service in war. Some people say that this service has always been at the behest of big players who misused our manhood. Sad to say, but there is truth in that. A young country can be swallowed up in the misdeeds of others. But the Australians in Palestine had another side too. We know that the British and the French betrayed the Arabs who rose against the Turks. Yet, young Australia believed as Colonel Lawrence believed, that a free Arab world was in the interest of the Allied Powers and that the Ottomon Empire be consigned to history.

It is sad that some people get that wrong today. I saw a newspaper last year issued by some Christian folks around Fred Nile – and they say that the Charge at Beersheba was all about making Israel and they praised up the Israeli government for allowing certain remembrance ceremonies on the site. Bad religion and bad history. If the Aussie charge had anything to do with the birth of that state, it was because of the betrayal of the Arab Rising by the British and the French – and not of an action born of our will.

Yet, history plays tricks on that – and the Australians are still recalled in Palestine and Syria as men who came to set those countries free to make a better world. The Arabs might rail against the others, but not against the Australians.

If it had been up to the Australians alone, I can see that this would have been precisely what they would have done.

We may say that freedom, the freedom for all peoples, rode with the Light Horse. Let us remember that as we try to set our own country free.

The Legend of the Light Horse lives in all of us. Celebrate it.

New Zealand Flag Day Rally Unites Kiwi And Australian Nationalists

2009-10-27T15:38:00.004+08:00

Flag Day in New Zealand has once again deepened the ANZAC bonds between Australian and New Zealand nationalists.

All up, some 50 activists were present in Wellington on Saturday, October 24, to mark the sixth annual Flag Day. Flag Day was also celebrated in Christchurch, where some 20 (mainly) young New Zealand nationalists demonstrated in the city centre.

Three Australians participated in the Flag Day march and demonstration in Wellington. As in 2008, an Australian nationalist also addressed the marchers and the crowd.

Flag Day has been held since 2004 to remind Kiwis of their heritage now under full challenge by mass immigration and multiculturalism. Flag Day was initiated in 2004 at a significant moment when Chinese imperialism began raising its ugly Dragon-head over New Zealand’s economy and politics. It has now become a fixture and the day that unites many patriots who travel from across the country to attend. They show the Kiwi spirit is far from defeated and that the struggle for New Zealand freedom will only grow.

A day of successful action ….

The main event was organised by the redoubtable Wellington branch of the National Front (NF). The NF provided the organizational effort that made the day possible.

The demonstration assembled at the Cenotaph in central Wellington. Here the group honoured New Zealand’s sacred dead. From there, the participants marched to the Seddon Statue outside the National Parliament where up to 20 New Zealand Flags were held aloft. The first national flag of New Zealand from the years 1834-40 was also carried for the first time at Flag Day. This red, white and blue flag is also called the United Tribes Flag, since British officials proposed it to the Maori chiefs who warmly embraced it and to this day, some Maoris still revere it. The Australians, to mark their ANZAC links with the Kiwi patriots, flew the Australian National Flag and the Eureka Flag.

Speeches were given which noted the history of the National Flag, the first flag of New Zealand too and the need for the retention of the ANZAC link. It was noted by speakers that this year’s Flag Day was not opposed by the usual anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ rabble, who traditionally turn out to taunt marchers, or try to assault them - and abuse the police. Although they informed media they opted to boycott the Day so as “not to give publicity” to the nationalists, the truth was different. The Wellington anarcho-underground is torn apart by the realisation that their leadership (sic) has duped them to be a street gang against the nationalists, whilst they maintain links with the Labour Party and other establishment forces. The shattering of Wellington’s so-called anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ movements is a gain for all. Indeed, Vince Stephens, Wellington NF organiser quipped:

“I feel totally let down by the opposition for not supporting our Flag Day – by turning up and acting as they do.”

From the Seddon Statue, a march then took place into the busier parts of the city where a further rally was conducted. Hundreds of leaflets were handed out to minimal objection and considerable interest.

Discussions to build unity …

The marchers returned to the Wellington railway station where they took a special charter-bus, back to a meeting area.

Here various discussions were held amongst and between the National Front, the Right-Wing Resistance (which provided many of the marchers) and certain youth groups. Kiwi leaders such as Col Ansell, Kyle Chapman, Steve Larsen and Vince Stephens talked over the issues in building the New Zealand nationalist movement.

At a meeting later in the day, all present resolved that the National Front will be the political party name that activists will strive to register for electoral purposes. The goal is to have the 500 members enrolled by the next Flag Day. The privileges of a registered party can only benefit the entire New Zealand movement.

Perceptions….

What did the participants in Flag Day perceive they had achieved? One male activist said that it was a matter of demonstrating that there was “a future for our children’. A young woman said: “it is my first Flag Day; I just want to say who I am”. For another it was “about access to the people, not just a confrontation with those who oppose us, a real victory for Flag Day.”

The activists had come from Christchurch, Palmerston North, Hamilton, Auckland and Wanganui and other places; they were members of different groups, but all were New Zealanders. Their next task is to create a stronger nationalist movement in New Zealand.

Flag Day 2010…

Flag Day 2010 in Wellington promises to be a larger event. It will receive a delegation from the Australia First Party to the march and to a united meeting with speakers who will endorse the new phase of New Zealand nationalism which will be opened by the application to register National Front as a party. It may be the case too that Flag Day, held on Labour Weekend, will be advertised as a Day of Labour, a call for the ordinary Kiwi working person to achieve better than the false promises of globalisation.

As is clear, the Kiwi nationalists do not rest on their laurels. And the Australian nationalists will be there in support.

Zionist Leadership Attacks Freedoms Of Assembly And Association For Australia First

2009-10-19T16:58:00.002+08:00

Two prominent figures in Australia’s Jewish community, both of whom are committed to Zionism and who speak for major structures inside that community, have attacked traditional Australian freedoms of assembly and association and directed this attack against the Australia First Party.

In the Australia Jewish News (October 9), we read a disturbing report that should inspire all Australian democrats and upholders of civil liberty, to condemn the Zionist fraction of Australian Jewry as thugs who employ twisted words to serve an alien and un Australian agenda.

The report said:

NSW Board of Deputies president, Robin Margo, said all Australians need to be on guard against the bigotry that Australia First exploits “under the guise of patriotism and nationalism” and to take care “they do not unwittingly lend it assistance by provision of venues, finance or otherwise.”

“Australia First is trying to gather support ahead of the next election. There should be no place in modern Australian politics for anyone promoting a form of ‘white Australia’ or racism of any kind and Australia First has a bad record in that regard”, he said.

B’nai B’rith Anti Defamation Commission executive director Deborah Stone, said all vendors have the right to decide on applicants seeking to rent space on their sites. But she also issued a warning.

“We and many other Australians have very strong concerns of the danger the far-right represents”, she said. “We would encourage people who are considering renting premises or providing services to them to consider seriously whether they really want to be supporting that kind of challenge to the cohesion of Australian society”.

Such comments are open threats upon democratic liberty. This latest attempt to bully clubs, councils and other owners from renting us halls or space and then to hold up to contempt and abuse any person who deals or trades with us (printers etc), shows these people will resort to foul means to restrict a political opponent .

What will the Zionists precisely do? We could anticipate lists of suspect (sic) names / groups issued to clubs etc. with a call to ban them from holding meetings. There could be phone calls and threats of unfavourable publicity if certain meetings went ahead. We can perceive threats to businesses (whether direct or through ‘demonstrators’ who can be conjured up) that they will lose money because their trade with Australia First Party will be ‘revealed’ in the media, or through open trade boycotts they may commercially suffer. Once this overall program gets going it becomes a virus.

It is all part of an old technique of the Zionists which has been used in Australia before. In 1998, a magazine called the Australia Israel Review, published the names of some 1700 members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and vilified Hanson in various ways as a descendant of Nazism. This publication effectively encouraged people to violently confront Hanson and set out to poison the political debate to compel people to turn away from dealings with that party. Why?

The Hanson party had never even criticised Zionism, let alone spoke against Jews as Jews, something which is called ‘anti-semitism’. A clue might be found in the incredible statement of Isi Leibler, an Australian Zionist who went on to live in Israel as “President” of the World Jewish Congress, that “multiculturalism was right for Australia”, but ‘not for Israel”. Is multiculturalism a policy that the Zionits can hide behind?

Certainly, the Australia First Party has criticised the Zionists. We have said that the Zionists seek to involve Australia in foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve Israel’s Middle Eastern politics, that they would involve Australia in an attack upon Iran and that they misuse Australia’s diplomatic support to endorse Israel’s violence against Palestinians and indeed, the theft of Palestine itself. No wonder there is Moslem terror! More and more Australians understand all this. The Australia First Party has also noted the link between the Zionists and the policy of multiculturalism and their support for continued immigration. However, the Australia First Party has never criticised Jews as Jews. Rather, it is because we have told the truth about the Zionists that we are vilified by them and targeted to have our democratic right to organize curtailed by pressure upon all who deal with us.

Masking themselves behind a murky rhetoric about protecting Jews from ‘threats’ (where are these threats?), the Zionists, will lash out at freedom itself.

No one should be fooled by the Zionists talking about “cohesion” and “far right” dangers. We note that the Anti Defamation Commission (ADC) is a private spy agency that collects data upon Australians and which briefs (sic) politicians and media operatives with smear against critics of Israel and Zionism. It was these very Zionists in the ADC who sponsored in the 1990's Australia’s Federal thought-policing laws that can criminalize criticism of immigration policy and multiculturalism under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’. With the Zionists everything serves some agenda best known to them and nothing is ever as it appears.

Freedom of assembly and association are important things to Australia First. These freedoms have been defended by Australian soldiers with their lives. We refuse to be intimidated. Australia First will stand up for the rights of all Australians to be heard at meetings, at elections, n print and on the Internet.

“The Nationalist And Patriotic Movement In Western Australia: Which Way Forwards? … “

2009-10-13T21:05:00.004+08:00

Interview with Dr. Jim Saleam and Brendan Gidley, October 12 2009

The Western Australian patriotic and nationalist movement seems to be in flux at the moment and we considered this overview from a position in the Eastern states might be of assistance in defining issues and groups. Jim and Brendan speak as participants in the struggle and as members of the Australia First Party national management committee. Their frankness is noted.

AF (WA): Where do you see us Westralian nationalists and patriots placed at this point in time?

Reply: There are big and available issues that could be used to mobilize a new force in Western Australia. Your State has problems with over-population, the degradation of soils and water shortage in the South-East, the political corruption, the free-trade driven mining ‘boom’ which benefits the multinationals and their contract labour – and Chinese imperialism lurking to seize resources. There is a combative unionist rank and file which might just, with the current Labor betrayal of the true national interest, decide to fight on against “work place reform”, foreign takeover and cheap labour. There is increasing youth unemployment and the utterly odious overseas student program which is robbing youth of an education. There is the multinational and big company attack upon Australian truck owners and drivers. Therefore, clearly, there is a substantial political base to be organized.

Sadly right now, activist nationalist forces are weak on the ground. One Nation has a residual structure left over from the splits and troubles of the past and there are loose people about. Australia First has members, but little structure as yet. We are moving on that. There may be other circles of youth and people meeting informally in Perth to discuss issues and there is the odd independent Web Site. We hear too that Graeme Campbell is still active. However, there is no decisive leadership in your State that can ‘rally the forces’ so to speak. We must build that.

There are signs of a turnaround. Yet, we suspect the real change won’t occur until some groups exhaust their current line and embrace the Australia First position. We predict a radicalisation of the One Nation rank and file but only after the electoralist line runs its course and while Australia First members forge a more interventionist force, one which goes beyond electioneering towards community action, grassroots action in schools, factories, universities and at street level – a genuine, organized, political structure which truly offers a pole of attraction for these other patriots.

The problem with some people is – electoralism. They don’t get it. Electoral participation should be just one part of the overall strategy of action. They will tailor policy and activity, organization and finance, to this one thing. Yet, experience teaches and the next Federal election will (we hate to say it) see much of ‘our side’ restricted to the 3% range (that’s the academic definition of a fringe party), but at least we will notice a base exists and be able to move on later. We will be able to take on these people and lead them in struggle.

Our problems in Western Australia derive of the ups and downs of a broad scene. We inherit from that. Australia First will liquidate this past and create a new future for our nationalist cause.

AF (WA): So, is our difficulty one that derives from history? And if so, how far back should we look to get at the problems?

Reply: A bit of history may be in order. We need to take the long view.

The earliest nationalists in WA got together around the issue of immigration. There were many efforts in the period from 1968 until 1982. In that year, National Action appeared in Perth as a summation of these efforts. The old League Of Rights was still active and often had a lot of good things to say. However in 1985, Jack van Tongeren, founded the rather misnamed ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. He ultimately soured the field first with his violence campaign in the period 1988-89 and then with his trial 1989-90. The State government relied on that to pass draconian laws against freedom of speech on immigration matters and to stigmatize oppositional groups, particularly on the immigration question, as either crypto-terrorists, or neo-nazis, or just beyond the pale of polite discussion. That has lingered long and just a few years back these political laws were given tougher penalties. Recently, a Christian man was seized at his home for making a video supporting the Palestinian cause; he was ‘charged’ with racism!! KGB? Gestapo? That vile law must be campaigned against.

We recall the next real initiatives came with weak sections of Confederate Action Party and the Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) in the years 1991-95. Then Graeme Campbell founded Australia First from his base in Kalgoorlie in 1996. There was the emergence of a new cadre of people. That was a real step forward. And then, crisis, the rise and fall of One Nation and the massive loss of members and resources after a good start. etc. The party with no plan, no strategy, went for the mainstream with untrained leaders.. Disaster.

That’s the potted history. But we have to know it. We can learn.

What are the problems? Well, there is a stifling atmosphere of failure. Mainly electoral failure, but also organizational failure. Graeme lost his Kalgoorlie Federal seat in 1998, thanks to One Nation’s then-bosses David Oldfield and Pauline Hanson. The other two One Nation upper house reps went out years back. They were credible players, but their electoral base was gone. No one group has managed to gain hegemony over the scene since. Graeme went into One Nation in 2001 and was finally pushed out. It was all a sad waste of time.

There remains a weakness of ideology. Graeme Campbell put up the best synthesis which combined some enviro-nationalist ideas from AAFI (immigration is an environmental disaster!), with the old Labour style (the unity of the producers against corporate capitalism), with an awareness of the need for a new take of issues like free trade, open-borders and the defence of democratic freedom. That is the true meaning of the word ‘populism’; a nationalist populism was forming up. That synthesis is still the best one to get people into action. However, it also requires a strong set of core nationalist principles inspiring an activist cadre of people, who put these ideas into campaigns and policies.

At the deeper level, we need to ensure the whole movement is firmly grounded in Australian history and traditions. It must answer the questions of national identity and heritage, affirm the native-soil European heritage as the essential heritage. In the former movements of Australian nationalism we locate our tasks: to win national independence, to create a society that establishes fairness and true social-equality and a state that gives personal freedom. To us, this is the vision splendid that old-Labour a century ago attempted and which we must finally win. We have a historical mission. Groups like the One Nation do not. We say it is the mission that inspires the will to act, to win victories – and to take defeats.

AF (WA): Can the patriotic forces be united? How?

Reply: The first thing is amnesty for all decent people against the inevitable ‘sleights’ that have gone on in any organisation from the past. We must put aside all pettiness. If too in the past, there were cutting ideological or political questions at the core of earlier disunion, we need to look again at how these things worked and see how important it all was and how it impacts on getting unity now. People should meet and talk.

The aim must be to consolidate a nationalist party on the ground with a structure and a presence. That does not mean unity with just anyone. It means uniting the best, the positive people.

This can be done over the next twelve months. Australia First can be built ideologically, politically and organizationally to be the new command centre of national resistance. This coming election – as noted - will kill off a section of the past. Hansonism without Hanson will be gone and the temptation to see politics as a contest to provide folks with an electoral alternative – put aside. Australia First will thus – fill the gap.

AF (WA) : Obviously, you propose a different model of behaviour?

Reply: Very much so. This model is hardly novel to us, but for many it is ‘new’ and may be daunting to some.

It is called the ‘three tier model’. It simply means that an organization (‘party’) is three things simultaneously: a machine to contest elections, including local government elections to win publicity and to meet and organize new people ; a staff that organizes campaigns and activism in the street, factory, school, university or association ; it is a school that trains people in their cultural identity and political faith, whilst arguing these ideas in various ways and defending the Australian historical creation. Such a party integrates its ideology with a politics which defines who can be mobilised for change into a structure which is inspired culturally and ‘ideologically’ to act in the Australian people’s service.

In the next few weeks two crucial new Australia First pamphlets will argue this case. We intend that the party adopts these statements of general principle and acts on them in a united way.

The three tier model cures the nationalist movement of all illusions as to its purpose and promotes clear thinking. It preserves the movement which is more important ultimately than any electoral contest. Indeed, it transforms elections into a method to build the movement.

Has the three tier model ever been applied in Australia? In the past, the once great nationalist Labour Party did that. It integrated 100 years ago a political league, unions, education and cultural societies into one entity. Some minor groups (like today’s Greens who have an utterly non Australian ideology) still adapt the general framework of this method, although they apply it to their own goals. It works.

AF (WA): Possibly the WA patriotic scene has its share of odd birds. How does one deal with fractious people?

Reply: It is never easy. Sometimes it’s better not to try to integrate some people into the one party. Their interests and yours might be better served by staying separate. Indeed, in the case of educational and similar ideological forces, that is more positive because in that case the people are positive but are simply taking another road.. As for truly fractious people, one needs to utterly avoid them. If they join you, get them out. Our side has paid a heavy price for the presence of this type. It is time to become professional in the area of ‘human resources’.

AF (WA): Do you think in terms of laying down the law to all patriotic groups and people?

Reply: No. Not all groups are political in character. As noted, some are cultural, or sub-cultural, or educational and so forth. It is imperative to have a friendly attitude towards all organisations and groups that have any sort of a pro Australian perspective. We have to work on that in some cases, but it is worth it, absolutely.

The riot act need only ever be read to obviously disruptive individuals or to organisations which refuse to deal reasonably with ourselves. And to anyone, who knowingly continues to open doors to them. Thankfully, there won’t be much of that in short term, but it may occur again.

AF (WA): What role for Australia First?

Reply: There must be a small organizational core of people who devote a sizeable portion of their lives to the struggle. In other words, we favour the support of a semi-professional core of permanent activists. With younger leaders and a couple of older staff, this core could be assembled. We need to be able not only to perform the very necessary bureaucratic functions of organization, but to be able to respond to public events and otherwise so as to rally supporters to activist campaigns.

As time goes on we will surely prove our worth in Western Australia. We call on all nationalists to get behind the party. The future is now in your hands.

Thankyou, Jim and Brendan.

The Eight Core Policies Of Australia First

2009-10-06T13:03:00.004+08:00

The eight core policies of Australia First are the basis of association for the party. They are (with explanations and the implied ninth point) as follows:

1 Ensure Australia Retains Full Independence
Protect our sovereignty (national, constitutional and personal) and maintain an adequate defence, whilst being reasonable and fair in our nation's international dealings.

2 Rebuild Australian Manufacturing Industries
This is the only way we can be self sufficient. It will provide jobs for our children, help buy back the farms and allow Australia to be free of foreign debts. Our infrastructure has been run down over many years. It must be rebuilt. We must improve the practicality and relevance of our educational systems, and target government support to empower industry to diversify, innovate, perform and expand. We recognise that small business is fundamental to this policy. A satisfactory financial environment is also urgent and essential.

3 Control Foreign Ownership
Bring foreign ownership and investment back under control.

4 Reduce and Limit Immigration
Immigration mistakes can be big long term mistakes. Immigration policy must take into account social cohesion, employment opportunities, urbanisation and environmental issues.

5 Abolish Multiculturalism
End the divisive, government funded and institutionalised policy of multiculturalism.

6 Introduce Citizens' Initiated Referenda
Amend the Australian Constitution such that the people can initiate a Constitutional Referendum which, if approved by the Australian people, will amend the Australian Constitution. This simple step will confirm the political authority of voters and make legislators aware that they are the servants of the Australian People, not their masters. The people directly should also possess the sovereign right and the power to initiate other legislation.

7. Strengthen the family
Promote policies that strengthen and protect the traditional family.

8 Strive to Rebuild A United Australia
Promote policies that recognise the interdependence of city and country.

9 Democratise Other Policy Issues
The party's core policies also imply a point nine.

All other policies (non-core policies) are matters of free conscience and are not binding upon Australia First’s future parliamentarians or councillors who are to represent their electorates.

Issues of public interest on which Australia First needs to formulate policy will be canvassed with the party membership and plebiscites conducted where deemed appropriate by the party’s National Council. The party also permits branches to formulate specific electoral policies or community policies not inconsistent with the Eight Core Policies.

From time to time, the party will issue material that provides interpretation of the core policies. This interpretative material would reflect the spirit of the party.

The organisational purpose for this statement of policy and system for policy creation is simple: Australia First does not require weighty tomes, which change from month to month, as do the programmes of the Establishment parties and those who ape them. It requires a focus for action and for unity within the party.

Australia First is to build a new national movement. Practicality is method.