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!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
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.
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.
PUT AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIANS FIRST!
We Pledge To Implement These Policies.
This is draft election policy for Australia First party in the 2010 Federal poll and for subsequent polls. The final version is yet to be approved. Our general programme is set out in the “Eight Core Policies” of the party; these policies are in accordance with these statements of position. What appears below is an electoral and community programme for action. It may be used as local circumstances permit in tandem with any purely local issue of community significance. Such policies may be added to if they are in accordance with the Eight Core Policies that guarantee the unity of the party around the idea of ‘Australia First’.
Eleven Points For Action
Australia First Party stands in this election with a 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.
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!
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!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
It’s A Small World? Who And What Is Now Mobilizing Against Us?
Dr. Jim Saleam
This article might be difficult territory for some. It is a minor labyrinth of detail. Even those amongst us with no particular interest in political ‘detective work’ and an esoteric discussion about a lot of funny persons from the political twilight, might spare a moment for reflection. Why?
Essentially, it has become obvious that Australia First (and anyone else pushing a pro Australian barrow for that matter) is now on the receiving end of electronic and paper smears and incitements and at long last – confrontation.
This was shown when the Sydney Forum was picketed on September 25. A small number of demonstrators arrived to shout ‘fascist’ at Forum guests and try to obstruct entry to the RSL venue. The Police ultimately moved them on. These people called themselves ‘Antifa’ (or anti fascists as the term means) and were drawn largely from the anarchist inner-city sub-culture. A couple of websites have tried to fuel this world of marginal people with the hype to take on the nationalists physically and, although there is some sort of tension between the anarchists and the scribblers at these sites, they finally took their cue.
Some weeks prior in Melbourne, the Antifa opted to damage the shop of a man involved in organising a younger persons’ music gig. Reason: Antifa considered the gig “fascist” and “racist”. Needless to say, this may have led to other incidents and the anarchists complain of – a certain direct response.
Let us be very clear and precise. Anti-fascism is usually a game operated by deluded people at the behest of others who play from behind the scenes. A group is found that the establishment dislikes and fears. Australia First Party, the nationalist movement generally, is that target. The media reacts and smears the challenger in any number of ways. Lately, figures from the major parties and other liberal commentators have criticised our movement as a dangerous and evil thing, but our challenge grows and has raised itself to a national profile. We are still a small force, but we are taking on organizational flesh.
So it occurs that we must now receive a dual attack: an entity (ie. Antifa) is brought to bear, one that stalks the new movement physically whilst also stigmatizing it propagandistically in the terms the establishment would have it labelled. In other words: through confrontation and harassment, we may be restricted; by calling us names in public and via reporting of the new group’s actions, some people who may be available to us as voters and activists, could turn away in confusion. Just as screaming at a bloke “wife beater, wife beater” might cause some to think he is one, so calling patriotic ordinary Australian working people “fascists”, could cause some members of the public to think it’s true – and they would decline support.
This anti-fascism is as much psycho-politics as physical politics. It is designed to vex, confuse and disorient. Having someone scream that the party is something it is not, to risk arrest and carry out assaults in the name of a false position, is bizarre. Yet, that is the point. To mobilize people against us, the operators of Antifa must spoon feed something to the troops to keep up their activism. “I get it”, said one old World War Two veteran, who had just been called a “Nazi” as he entered the Sydney Forum venue; “he needed a straw man to knock down, some idea in his head to keep him fighting.” True.
The anti-fascists in the street are genuine fools. They really believe that the Australian nationalists would impose fascist rule if we could, will cause no end of social turmoils and hatreds on our path to power and they really imagine that we are inspired by historical fascism. As anarchists or Trotskyites or Maoists, they are impelled to act. For sure, it is all a delusion. In fact, we intend to impose (sic) a radical democracy upon Australia! Yet, knowing this impulse to act against us exists, the shadowy players who need a confrontational Antifa to do the dirty work can move more easily to mobilize it. Hence, we observed websites like ‘Fight Dem Back’ and ‘Slackbastard’ tried to organize the protest movement, but they had establishment connections with the Labor Party and Zionist groups and so on; this was just too brazen and the Antifa was hesitant. Reasonably, pseudo revolutionaries don’t like the establishment either. So other less obvious agents are undoubtedly employed such that the new Antifa structure can be promoted into street politics and given a certain media sanction - as long as it does its job.
Good Intel ….
A month or so ago, the staff at the inveterate pro Australian ‘intelligence Blog’ ‘Whitelaw Towers’, put it out there that in Sydney at least, a peculiar clique of people based on the leadership of the former Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (BLF) in New South Wales and a network that was connected to it and formerly instrumental in the old Maoist-style Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), had been sniffing about, setting up small structures to push odd communist type agendas.
The members of this grouping have freed themselves of much of the ideological baggage of Maoism, but have retained their taste for a radical communist solution. In that regard, these people were not beyond embracing some of the arguments and methods of the anarchists if this leads to ‘direct action’.
After yet another ‘anti-fascist’ action on October 2 in Sydney, this time aimed at a speaking event in inner-city Chippendale, the interest of the ex Maoist group in anti-fascism, was revealed. Such a small world politics can be when bad eggs return to the fray.
A certain writer appeared on the Indymedia website, someone whose suggestions are pregnant with the future. This writer, who I quickly understood to be one C. Maltby, recorded how he and his friends once turned over a literature table of a student nationalist organisation at the University of New South Wales and directly confronted the group. That was 1979. I was there. Maltby naturally omitted that he had positioned himself behind Mr. F.K. Salter chairman of our group and struck him to the head with a (thankfully smooth) rock. Although Salter sustained no real injury, it was a dangerous assault. Maltby was alluding to old, perhaps to his mind, happy memories. His article counselled further and aggressive action based upon the ‘validity’ of violent confrontation.
To say that Maltby is just a would-be thug underestimates the fellow and those he sails with. The Maoists were not unintelligent. He has reviewed the political landscape and - using my name to make the point - tells his readers:
…. Kevvie’s ALP, with the Breakfast Creek mob providing invaluable support 'in the rear' - but beware, the collapse of the ALP could give the likes of Saleam rallying points around which to gather votes …..
If Saleam et al ever get anywhere west of Parramatta in Sydney, watch out! And what will the likes of the Greens do then? Hit them with banana leaves, or try to reason with them? No, they'll just 'peacefully protest' as all democratic institutions are torn apart. Only one answer and it's still Socialism Comrades - it would be a very different form of Socialism - perhaps the Anarcho-Syndicalists do have something, other than books to sell! Cheers, The Captain.
In one regard, Mr. Maltby is dead right. Australia First intends to campaign to gather the support of working people – and Western Sydney holds many disgruntled unionists and self-employed people under the gun of big business and now too hosts a legion of young unemployed. This social pattern is duplicated in every metropolis.
Maltby proposed a new alliance to stop us from realising our objective – an alliance of the anarchist movement and leftover activist Maoism. Interesting. Now that anti-fascism is in the street, we now see the forces of our opposition meld together. We are warned and must become prepared.
Forward! ….
The opposition, which Australia First Party and the entire patriotic movement faces, will gather in pace and in intensity. This cannot be avoided and is a reflex to our growth. How we handle it will be a major test of our courage, resources and professional acumen. Needless to say, whatever plans we may have cannot be discussed in the open on a website or in an e-mail newsletter.
Certainly, we will stand our ground and extend our reach. We intend to develop a party with popular roots and to do so over the next twelve months. Swatting the blowflies of Antifa is simply ensuring that we reach those Australians we need that we may move to higher stages in building our mass work.
This article might be difficult territory for some. It is a minor labyrinth of detail. Even those amongst us with no particular interest in political ‘detective work’ and an esoteric discussion about a lot of funny persons from the political twilight, might spare a moment for reflection. Why?
Essentially, it has become obvious that Australia First (and anyone else pushing a pro Australian barrow for that matter) is now on the receiving end of electronic and paper smears and incitements and at long last – confrontation.
This was shown when the Sydney Forum was picketed on September 25. A small number of demonstrators arrived to shout ‘fascist’ at Forum guests and try to obstruct entry to the RSL venue. The Police ultimately moved them on. These people called themselves ‘Antifa’ (or anti fascists as the term means) and were drawn largely from the anarchist inner-city sub-culture. A couple of websites have tried to fuel this world of marginal people with the hype to take on the nationalists physically and, although there is some sort of tension between the anarchists and the scribblers at these sites, they finally took their cue.
Some weeks prior in Melbourne, the Antifa opted to damage the shop of a man involved in organising a younger persons’ music gig. Reason: Antifa considered the gig “fascist” and “racist”. Needless to say, this may have led to other incidents and the anarchists complain of – a certain direct response.
Let us be very clear and precise. Anti-fascism is usually a game operated by deluded people at the behest of others who play from behind the scenes. A group is found that the establishment dislikes and fears. Australia First Party, the nationalist movement generally, is that target. The media reacts and smears the challenger in any number of ways. Lately, figures from the major parties and other liberal commentators have criticised our movement as a dangerous and evil thing, but our challenge grows and has raised itself to a national profile. We are still a small force, but we are taking on organizational flesh.
So it occurs that we must now receive a dual attack: an entity (ie. Antifa) is brought to bear, one that stalks the new movement physically whilst also stigmatizing it propagandistically in the terms the establishment would have it labelled. In other words: through confrontation and harassment, we may be restricted; by calling us names in public and via reporting of the new group’s actions, some people who may be available to us as voters and activists, could turn away in confusion. Just as screaming at a bloke “wife beater, wife beater” might cause some to think he is one, so calling patriotic ordinary Australian working people “fascists”, could cause some members of the public to think it’s true – and they would decline support.
This anti-fascism is as much psycho-politics as physical politics. It is designed to vex, confuse and disorient. Having someone scream that the party is something it is not, to risk arrest and carry out assaults in the name of a false position, is bizarre. Yet, that is the point. To mobilize people against us, the operators of Antifa must spoon feed something to the troops to keep up their activism. “I get it”, said one old World War Two veteran, who had just been called a “Nazi” as he entered the Sydney Forum venue; “he needed a straw man to knock down, some idea in his head to keep him fighting.” True.
The anti-fascists in the street are genuine fools. They really believe that the Australian nationalists would impose fascist rule if we could, will cause no end of social turmoils and hatreds on our path to power and they really imagine that we are inspired by historical fascism. As anarchists or Trotskyites or Maoists, they are impelled to act. For sure, it is all a delusion. In fact, we intend to impose (sic) a radical democracy upon Australia! Yet, knowing this impulse to act against us exists, the shadowy players who need a confrontational Antifa to do the dirty work can move more easily to mobilize it. Hence, we observed websites like ‘Fight Dem Back’ and ‘Slackbastard’ tried to organize the protest movement, but they had establishment connections with the Labor Party and Zionist groups and so on; this was just too brazen and the Antifa was hesitant. Reasonably, pseudo revolutionaries don’t like the establishment either. So other less obvious agents are undoubtedly employed such that the new Antifa structure can be promoted into street politics and given a certain media sanction - as long as it does its job.
Good Intel ….
A month or so ago, the staff at the inveterate pro Australian ‘intelligence Blog’ ‘Whitelaw Towers’, put it out there that in Sydney at least, a peculiar clique of people based on the leadership of the former Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (BLF) in New South Wales and a network that was connected to it and formerly instrumental in the old Maoist-style Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), had been sniffing about, setting up small structures to push odd communist type agendas.
The members of this grouping have freed themselves of much of the ideological baggage of Maoism, but have retained their taste for a radical communist solution. In that regard, these people were not beyond embracing some of the arguments and methods of the anarchists if this leads to ‘direct action’.
After yet another ‘anti-fascist’ action on October 2 in Sydney, this time aimed at a speaking event in inner-city Chippendale, the interest of the ex Maoist group in anti-fascism, was revealed. Such a small world politics can be when bad eggs return to the fray.
A certain writer appeared on the Indymedia website, someone whose suggestions are pregnant with the future. This writer, who I quickly understood to be one C. Maltby, recorded how he and his friends once turned over a literature table of a student nationalist organisation at the University of New South Wales and directly confronted the group. That was 1979. I was there. Maltby naturally omitted that he had positioned himself behind Mr. F.K. Salter chairman of our group and struck him to the head with a (thankfully smooth) rock. Although Salter sustained no real injury, it was a dangerous assault. Maltby was alluding to old, perhaps to his mind, happy memories. His article counselled further and aggressive action based upon the ‘validity’ of violent confrontation.
To say that Maltby is just a would-be thug underestimates the fellow and those he sails with. The Maoists were not unintelligent. He has reviewed the political landscape and - using my name to make the point - tells his readers:
…. Kevvie’s ALP, with the Breakfast Creek mob providing invaluable support 'in the rear' - but beware, the collapse of the ALP could give the likes of Saleam rallying points around which to gather votes …..
If Saleam et al ever get anywhere west of Parramatta in Sydney, watch out! And what will the likes of the Greens do then? Hit them with banana leaves, or try to reason with them? No, they'll just 'peacefully protest' as all democratic institutions are torn apart. Only one answer and it's still Socialism Comrades - it would be a very different form of Socialism - perhaps the Anarcho-Syndicalists do have something, other than books to sell! Cheers, The Captain.
In one regard, Mr. Maltby is dead right. Australia First intends to campaign to gather the support of working people – and Western Sydney holds many disgruntled unionists and self-employed people under the gun of big business and now too hosts a legion of young unemployed. This social pattern is duplicated in every metropolis.
Maltby proposed a new alliance to stop us from realising our objective – an alliance of the anarchist movement and leftover activist Maoism. Interesting. Now that anti-fascism is in the street, we now see the forces of our opposition meld together. We are warned and must become prepared.
Forward! ….
The opposition, which Australia First Party and the entire patriotic movement faces, will gather in pace and in intensity. This cannot be avoided and is a reflex to our growth. How we handle it will be a major test of our courage, resources and professional acumen. Needless to say, whatever plans we may have cannot be discussed in the open on a website or in an e-mail newsletter.
Certainly, we will stand our ground and extend our reach. We intend to develop a party with popular roots and to do so over the next twelve months. Swatting the blowflies of Antifa is simply ensuring that we reach those Australians we need that we may move to higher stages in building our mass work.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Australia First calls for Strident Community Resistance
Hunter Area: Australia First Looks To Develop An Election Campaign For 2010.
The Australia First Party is planning to offer a candidate either in the electorates of Hunter or Newcastle in next year’s Federal poll.
The party calls upon all nationalist minded people, including former members of One Nation, to rally behind our electoral and community effort.
Residents in the Greater Hunter may expect to start receiving party material in their letterboxes very soon.
An announcement on a candidate will be made as soon as practicable.
The Australia First Party is planning to offer a candidate either in the electorates of Hunter or Newcastle in next year’s Federal poll.
The party calls upon all nationalist minded people, including former members of One Nation, to rally behind our electoral and community effort.
Residents in the Greater Hunter may expect to start receiving party material in their letterboxes very soon.
An announcement on a candidate will be made as soon as practicable.
Hunter Valley: A Population Explosion Is Planned!
The Hunter Valley is on the hit list for a planned population explosion. It is intended by the New South Wales government that some 160,000 extra persons are to be added by 2025.
The Hunter Valley, famous for its smaller industrial towns, its vineyards and its Australian lifestyle is to be culture-busted by immigrants drawn from new source pools and ‘refugees’ drawn from Third World conflict zones.
Ultimately, the planners have envisaged one huge population concentration stretching from Singleton and Port Stephens in the North, through Sydney and to Nowra in the South, encompassing up to possibly 15,000,000 people by 2050. Essentially, parts of this huge area (like the Central Coast) may become unliveable under the infrastructure stresses sure to be caused.
Of late, Labor Party corruption has stymied a few growth projects set for the northern parts of the Central Coast and in the Hunter. But the pressure is on to redraw all zone restrictions and start on the expansion.
From 2004 on in Newcastle, Mayor Tate was a strong advocate of remarketing his city as a place for overseas students, refugees and residential expansion. These changes are now well and truly under way.
The populate for prosperity theory of Australian immigration has now gripped Australian politicians like never before. Immigration targets have been expanded under the KRudd government. Over 200,000 people will enter the country this year.
Only one party is resolved that a “big Australia” will never pass. Only one party says that it is a populate and bust policy now being imposed upon the nation.
The Hunter Valley, famous for its smaller industrial towns, its vineyards and its Australian lifestyle is to be culture-busted by immigrants drawn from new source pools and ‘refugees’ drawn from Third World conflict zones.
Ultimately, the planners have envisaged one huge population concentration stretching from Singleton and Port Stephens in the North, through Sydney and to Nowra in the South, encompassing up to possibly 15,000,000 people by 2050. Essentially, parts of this huge area (like the Central Coast) may become unliveable under the infrastructure stresses sure to be caused.
Of late, Labor Party corruption has stymied a few growth projects set for the northern parts of the Central Coast and in the Hunter. But the pressure is on to redraw all zone restrictions and start on the expansion.
From 2004 on in Newcastle, Mayor Tate was a strong advocate of remarketing his city as a place for overseas students, refugees and residential expansion. These changes are now well and truly under way.
The populate for prosperity theory of Australian immigration has now gripped Australian politicians like never before. Immigration targets have been expanded under the KRudd government. Over 200,000 people will enter the country this year.
Only one party is resolved that a “big Australia” will never pass. Only one party says that it is a populate and bust policy now being imposed upon the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
