Translate

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

For anyone with just the slightest Nationalist bent, not supporting Australia's two major political parties in the upcoming election (the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Liberal Party for our overseas readers) is of course an absolute given.

But for those who still think that One Nation is any sort of Nationalist alternative party, you really need to reconsider.  The party today bears absolutely no resemblance to what it was when it first arrived on the Australian political scene.  They have turned their backs on the core values that gave them their initial poltical success.  They have watered down their message completely to try and attract a broader voting base of people who would never vote for them,  no matter what they said. And in doing so they have completely alienated the people who once supported them.

From the Australia First Queensland web site:

One Nation Queensland Refuses To Preference Australia First And Calls Us A “Racist” Party

The Australia First Party Senate team led by Peter Schuback was more than pleased to have Jim Savage, One Nation Queensland tough man, denounce us as a “racist party” and decline to grant us Senate preferences.

We have waited a long while for One Nation to come out into the open.

One Nation likes to pretend things in front of the public and mislead as to its position but now it gets down to tick-tacks.

Australia First party had correspondence with One Nation and other words have passed between us and now these words have come from Mr. Savage. So we say to our supporters and voters, the following:

If it is “racist” to advocate an utter end to refugee migration, well and good.

One Nation, despite certain words, does not advocate a total end to refugee migration. They advocate “offshore processing” for “genuine” refugees.

If it is “racist” to demand that the refugee hordes that have entered Australia since say the time Mrs. Hanson went into Parliament, well and good.

One Nation has refused to say that it wants these people sent home, with our goodwill and assistance.

If it is “racist” to say that the Nation is a European one and that we oppose the ethnic cleansing of our people, well and good.

One Nation has been remarketing itself as a party of universal assimilation.

Whatever it was Pauline Hanson and One Nation were years ago – they certainly are not now.

This party is a sham.

Although we accept that many Australians do not know this and may not approve of our words, we have seen many former One Nation members move into Australia First precisely for that reason.

In this election and in the political struggles in the community and at the street level, Australia First will push One Nation off whatever common territory there may be between the two parties.

Thank you Jim Savage for ‘despising’ us (sic). If it is “racist” to put Australia and Australians first – and we suppose that can only mean “white” people first – then we are happy to leave One Nation far behind. 

Australia First Party Declines To Preference One Nation: What The ‘Mike Holt Affair’ Has Taught Us. 

Australia First Party Senate candidate Peter Schuback has advised that the party cannot direct preferences to One Nation.

The recent ‘Mike Holt affair’, where a One Nation candidate came to fame last week after he issued some stickers criticising Islam and claimed that a “Halal tax” operated on foodstuffs which would go to fund terrorism – was the catalyst for free-speaking on our part.

The sad Mike Holt inspired a Brisbane girl who placed the stickers upon food products in a supermarket; she was arrested for creating a food-safety panic. Naturally, Holt first abandoned her. But then, the party adopted her and made her a candidate (something she was unwise to accept) and then abandoned her again.

The whole issue ran deeper than some stickers about Islam.

The affair had useful fallout and has highlighted the crucial difference between Australia First Party and One Nation and why the parties are now struggling over actual political space, that gap which allows some sort of pro Australian party to claim the loyalty of voters and activists. It is not any matter of personalities, but one of fundamental ideas.

Peter Schuback said:

“One Nation is not a nationalist party; they are some type of conservative group. They voice people’s concerns but advance only open-ended slogans and have promised to side with the Liberal Party if elected. They are a safety valve, not a challenge to the system. Conservatism cannot win the fight for Australian independence, nor guarantee the actual ethnic survival of our Australian People in the emerging multi-racial mess. Indeed, conservatism isn’t designed to do that. In this election and afterwards, we will fight One Nation over the terrain and push them off. We will work harder to disintegrate One Nation, winning over any sincere people and consigning the leadership back to the LNP where they belong.”

Of course, One Nation’s playing on the danger of Islam is easy. Yes, Islam represents a crass challenge to Australian identity and lifestyle and Muslim activists and their culture are a visible issue. We are opposed to any presence of Islam on Australian soil. However, there are those who jump on the matter of Islam to hide their actual agenda on immigration.

Even so, Holt let the cat out by saying that there are good Moslems who can “assimilate” and “integrate”. Then, what is his real point? Is it pure cowardice that prevents One Nation from standing behind their words? If multiculturalism is bad, if Islam is a problem, that’s it. Clearly, it is not the coward Holt’s position. Holt said:

"We have welcomed all comers, including the latest surge of immigrants from Islamic countries. However, many Australians are beginning to regret accepting the Islamic influx.  The Muslim people in general are friendly and willing to integrate. Unfortunately, a small section of Islamic hard line radicals are spoiling that image for the majority.”

What is Holt’s gibberish? Essentially Holt welcomes Islamic migration. We are not concerned with “hardline radicals”. We are concerned with all of it.

Australia First Party says that the Australian People have not welcomed “all comers”, nor any “latest surge”.

When challenged that he was a “racist”, Holt told the media: “I am married to a Thai….. How could I be a racist?”

Indeed. There lies a major problem with One Nation.

If Australia First Party had the choice of accepting as members a thousand ‘racists’ or a thousand Mike Holts with their wives from Thailand – we’d take the racists every time. At least they’d have 95% of the story right. The Mike Holts seem to have a bizarre view that some type of sexual assimilation is the vision of the future. If that is so, then one wonders why they don’t join LNP? Mr. Holt is not alone in his special ‘choice’. The One Nation Senate candidate Jim Savage made the same choice.

Peter Schuback said “I question what sort of national identity for Australia is being espoused by this party. I ask where went the ’Australia is being swamped by Asians’ of Hanson’s parliamentary speech of 1996? It seems now each One Nation leader’s bed is a swamp and each has its Asian wife. Strange. I know what Rudyard Kipling said about certain true love matches on the way to Mandalay - but I don’t think One Nation fits the bill.”

Mr. Holt said: "We do believe in immigration and integration. If immigrants can't come here, fit in and become Australian citizens, we don't want them here.”

Which immigrants? European ones? Middle Eastern ones? Asian ones? Does One Nation advocate some sort of universal racial fusion program? If One Nation believes in immigration, can their commitment to any sort of restrictive program be accepted? Australia First asks One Nation to specify. What do you mean? In fact, we believe we know exactly what they mean. Yet, getting them to say it, other than in coded terms is very hard. Can they now just spell it out? It is an important question going to the heart of the debate on immigration, multiculturalism. One Nation tries to avoid our questions, but we are hard on their trail.

Many Australia First members were members of One Nation. They won’t be returning. Something changed in Hanson and in One Nation.

Australia now has a real nationalist party. People looking for the genuine article need look no further.

In the forthcoming election, there will be no Australia First Party ‘preferences’ for One Nation, just harsh criticism. Their game is over.



2 comments:

Vulture said...

I thought that Labor and the Katter's Australian Party would preference each other and today my thoughts were confirmed by the Prime Minister.

Australia First needs to differentiate its self from the other parties who are all civic nationalist.

Australia First is the only racial nationalist political party running candidates at this federal election.

They support assimilation of non-whites where as AF doesn't.

That's what separates Australia First from the others.

Whats good to see is that AF members especially the younger ones are making good use of social media to promote the Party during this election.

I my self am making good use of facebook and youtube.

A few days ago I made a video for youtube about my Australia First Senate candidacy.

If you guys could, could you please post this youtube video on your blog. It would be great if you could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7ww6MHhSwg

ScrewLoose said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Wot wood the Rabbi @nandy SchpunkFlien emanante ?

GumBalls ?

Butt what about the poor and underprilliveged and grammatically challenged masses ? who've not an icon of contact with the Chozen Masther Race ?...... 'cause the Chozen don'ts wants to live wid dem huddled masses. ?

Surely a more isolationist approach in the European will deny millions that which they cannot create for themselves ? Bring 'em all here.....Each and every won of dem...Bach.....Fight ! for four Vivaldian Season and nO MoRe......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

What about 'democracy', where demographic makeup is all and everything. ? in a fair and just society, where justice is administered on the concept of 'orffence' and 'hurt' as oppose to truth and intent. If we don't have a multiculchural country, then who'll torment the jews ?

If not the Wight Man ?

So for the rational thinker.....Why do the "jews" advocate for immigration with the shrillest of imperatives into established European derived communities...... if it is proven that it will in no way improve the life of other peoples, as a people ?

I would suggest that they do it because they can..... and that to destroy is far easier to create.

It's wot jews do..... as the themselves admit..... and appear to enjoy.

And because they find pleasure in deceiving others again because they can, and because it helps to subdue the host, to settle the host, so that they can feed quietly and undisturbed by movement and protestation....Hence the "Holocaust" and the edjumacation of innocents that suggests, "if you oppose my imposts then you must surely intend to hoit ME" says the Hymeean predatory tormentor of the Goyische tyke.

As Andrew Bolt says ...... Without Fear or Favour....Eh Andrew ?