Sunday, October 02, 2011

Constitutionally speaking...

From the APP's Website:

The APP Constitution
We promote a Protectionist philosophy, dedicated to protecting our people, our jobs, and our way of life. We believe that our nation must always operate as part of the world, with continuing interaction between peoples, economies, and cultures, but that this must be carried out in a sensible and rational way.
We believe that the our (sic) people have a right to survive, and that is why we oppose massive Third World immigration which is taking us down the road to a situation where the Australian People will end up as a miniscule minority in their own country.
We believe that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness are undermining our nation’s way of life and are destroying our national identity, and this is why we advocate the promotion and strengthening of the Australian national culture and identity.
We believe that open-slather global trade with cheap labour sources in Third World countries is destroying our nation’s industries and decimating our job opportunities, and that is why we believe in implementing a sensible system of tariff barriers to protect our local manufacturing jobs and industries.
This preamble to the Australian Proctologist Party’s Constitution, along with its inevitable grammatical errors, is as insipid and ‘harmless’ as Hodges’ receding chin. Boring, almost beyond belief and utterly lacking even the faintest spark of inspirational language or intellectual vigour it appears to have been designed primarily as a soporific to aid the chronic insomniac.
This ‘Australian national culture and identity’ that is mentioned is meaningless because they do not qualify it here, or in the attached constitution, with any explanation as to what that culture might be or who is qualified to BE an ‘Australian’. Who are ‘our people’? Can Eurasians, Mulattos qualify as ‘our people’ so long as they are Australian ‘Citizens’? What are the policies of the APP on repatriation of undesirables? What restrictions would they place on immigration based on Race as well as Religion?
The rest of it is pretty much a banal ‘motherhood’ statement that no sensible White Australian Citizen would argue with so where are the courageous statements which show the A.P.P. is any different or less compliant than any other mainstream political party to the Zionist controlled System under whose oppressive yoke we struggle?
Every one of the seven ‘Primary Policies’ named in part two (1. Protect our environment, 2. Protect our families, 3. Protect our freedoms, 4. Protect our jobs and industries, 5. Protect our people, 6. Protect our rural communities, 7. Protect our way of life) of their constitution are essentially generic to all major Political Parties in Australia. Even if the other parties do not explicitly name these intentions they are implied and they all vocally claim to advocate these values, even if we all know they are lying. It is noteworthy that this section, entitled ‘THE OBJECTS AND POLICIES OF THE PARTY’, is by far the smallest chapter in the document.
Section four, dealing with membership, offers no criteria by which members might be approved or rejected thereby leaving membership, apparently, open to anyone. IIt does not even specify that members must be Australian Citizens! In fact clause 4.7 states that ‘anyone’ who supports their seven principles may apply. Presumably Jeremy Jones might apply online? Robert Mugabe perhaps?
Remarkable perhaps, for the constitution of a political party claiming a national protectionist stance, the words and terms 'border protection', ‘citizen’, ‘citizenship’, ‘founding stock’, ‘heritage’, ‘nationalist’, ‘nationalism’, ‘patriot’, ‘patriotism’, ‘race’, ‘racism’, ‘religion’, ‘tradition(s)’, ‘white’, are not to be found anywhere in the document. In fact they are peculiarly conspicuous by their absence. It is as if the document were scoured by a team of lawyers to ensure that any words or terms of any actual substance or real meaning were expurgated, rendering it as inspiring a piece of work as Wayne Swan’s list of favourite things.
There is also no mention whatsoever of maintaining Citizen Taxpayers’ ultimate control and ownership over the States assets such as vital Infrastructure (Airports, Roads, Rail, Electrical Power, Water and other utilities) and the reestablishment of a fully Government (read: The People) controlled Reserve Bank. Instead, being Neo-Cons, they appear to support the continuation of Corporatisation, Privatisation and Globalism. And why would the A.P.P.’s constitution have any of these words anyway when their entire philosophy is based on this spurious (non existent) Neo-Con, Globalist and Corporate ‘Nationalism’ rather than a homogenous ethno-state of purely White European stock? The ‘Australia’ that Hodges and Co advocate is no better than our current football teams, a patchwork of utterly incompatible and inassimilable multi-racial entities to be hammered, Balkan style, into a confederation of ‘Australians’. Just place your hand on the U.N. conventions, swear allegiance to Israel and hatred for Islam and you’re in old son. It’s as easy as that.
In Hodges’ primitive World view there is no room for anything but the most swift and simplistic evaluations and equally speedy and basic conclusions. If, for instance, by discerning the fact that essentially Black is the opposite of White, then ipso facto, the opposite of ‘Nationalism’ (or his peculiar version of it) must be ‘Socialism’. It also follows, naturally, that anyone who disagrees with his special form of ‘Nationalism’ (Read: Neo-Con Globalism) must therefore be a ‘Socialist’ or fellow traveller of the ‘Left’ as he perceives it from his lofty perspective as the Fool on the Hill.
He has no conception whatsoever of the incontrovertible fact that when it comes to the ‘Identity’ of any distinct Ethnic Group, Geography or Geo-Political location (country) and classification are secondary to Genetic Integrity, Cultural solidarity, shared Traditions and Religious factors.

No comments: