Thursday, February 25, 2010

Joel Fitzgibbon Has Got To Go!

Hunter Region Is Stalking Ground Of An Evil Empire

The Federal Member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, may continue to huff and puff about being libelled by the miserable Sydney Morning Herald over allegations of particular financial payments and gifts from Chinese businesswoman, Helen Liu, but he cannot avoid the real question: why did he develop links with this Chinese capitalist who was Vice President of the World Federation Of Overseas Chinese Associations?

Indeed, Helen Liu was a major player at points in the last decade in the overall effort of Chinese imperialism to intrude into the affairs of innumerable countries, acquire political and economic influence and use these things to the advantage of the emergent Chinese superpower.

A local toad like Fitzgibbon was useful in spreading the good cheer that the Chinese superpower is a friendly dragon willing to throw money around to the advantage of all sorts of investors and developers. It seems Fitzgibbon, like his father, also benefited. The Labor Party benefited with good donations.

Collaboration with the Chinese superpower is treason to Australia. But in these days of globalisation, China is seen by the traitor class elite as a great mate who is propping up the economic order. Or is it that China is biding its time?

The traitor class in our country does not even understand the idea of treason. Treason to whom? To what? This class would argue that Australia is just part of an economic system, a geographic placename where vast quantities of minerals can be found for sale. The business of the class – is business. In that regard, China is just another partner.

However, China is not just some economic partner. China is a superpower with vast reserves of foreign currency to buy up strategic assets and to facilitate the growth of a fifth column on Australian soil. The call of the Motherland resonates in the vast herd of Chinese immigrants, contract labourers and students presently standing upon our piece of earth. The call inside a Fitzgibbon is the urge to profit.

Australia First promises traitor Fitzgibbon that we will forget him. At the very least, he shall not be forgotten in election year. This man belongs not in Parliament – but on the dole. Or overseas perhaps, working for one of Helen Liu’s companies? It is our aim to help him out of Parliament.


We Pledge To Implement These Policies.

This is draft election policy for Australia First party in the 2010 Federal poll and for subsequent polls. The final version is yet to be approved. Our general programme is set out in the “Eight Core Policies” of the party; these policies are in accordance with these statements of position. What appears below is an electoral and community programme for action. It may be used as local circumstances permit in tandem with any purely local issue of community significance. Such policies may be added to if they are in accordance with the Eight Core Policies that guarantee the unity of the party around the idea of ‘Australia First’.

Eleven Points For Action

Australia First Party stands in this election with a program for action and change for our country. Any Australia First representative elected is pledged to advocate these policies. The party is pledged to motivate the community generally to support these key demands to secure Australia’s identity, independence and freedom...

1. We demand that YOU the people should be represented in the parliaments and not be the victims of cynical, corrupt, and foreign-loyal party machines.

2. We demand the Implementation of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum and Voters’ Recall of parliamentarians, so that you the people can propose the laws and get rid of unresponsive parliamentarians.

3. We demand accountability for all politicians: for all those who have failed and corrupted Australia, sold the country to foreign states and agencies, or devoted themselves to globalisation; we pledge to nationalize their personal property and deny them parliamentary pensions and benefits.

4. We demand the promotion and rebuilding of Australian manufacturing and other enterprise and thence guarantee Australian jobs for Australian workers.

5. We demand the re-instatement of the Commonwealth Bank as originally intended to limit interest rates to a minimum charge and to eliminate the private control of the nation’s credit.

6. We demand the control of currency exchange rates to end speculation in the national currency and resources.

7. We demand the reform of taxation, its simplification to end the exemptions for the speculators, the multinationals and the super-rich.

8. We demand an end to foreign ownership and control of Australian real estate and Australian resources.

9. We demand: the end of all immigration for a long period on environmental, cultural, ethnic and security grounds; the repudiation of all treaties on refugees; the end of contract labour; the end of residency for foreign students; the end of multiculturalism.

10. We demand that the Australian transport industry be freed of bureaucratic control with the end of world-parity-pricing for fuel, the creation of an Australian fuel industry with a domestic fuel price and with public ownership of all roads and abolition of tolls.

11. We demand protection for Australian farmers by the provision of a guaranteed national market and pricing system, such that all food necessary to sustain the Australian People may be grown in Australia and regional Australia and its lifestyle be maintained.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

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

A prominent executive member of the One Nation party, Mr. Bob Vinnicombe, has signalled in recent public material, that he would sell-out to the Liberal Party.

If Mr. Vinnicombe is accepting as “spot on” Tony Abbott’s recent deceptive mouthing’s 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 (i.e. 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 fulfilment 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!