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.
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.
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.
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.