The One Nation party is to be revived in Queensland with a new leadership. The party wants to register for the next State election.
Since late last year, One Nation has been in the news. It has been reported for its opposition to the illegal refugee influx. Yet, it was noted by ourselves as early as last December that One Nation did not appear to absolutely oppose the just-as-toxic intake of the “legal” arrivals! Something was amiss. Thereafter came the attempt by former leader Pauline Hanson to enter parliament in New South Wales, vaulting the name ‘One Nation’ into full public view. The party set out to remodel itself.
But what a sad and compromised thing it is. Whatever One Nation was ten or so years ago, the current group seems to be pushing a product little different from the Liberal National Party (LNP). Essentially, One Nation is now all about multiracialism and conservatism.
Australia First makes its allegations very clear. First: One Nation advocates the assimilation of all migrants and any future migrants drawn from anywhere on earth (note: it excludes only Moslems), into an English-speaking civic culture. It would multiracialize Australia finally and completely and thereby destroy the Australian identity. Second: One Nation is cuddling up to the LNP offering limp-wristed ‘criticism’ over some policies, while still promising preferences for patronage.
What is happening? Are Queenslanders being deceived by the brand-name One Nation? However, has its guts been ripped out and has it turned into its opposite?
A Real ‘Stolen Generation’.
Australia First noted the rot had well set in during the last Federal election campaign. A curious policy statement appeared on the party website. One Nation was advocating foreign adoptions from the Third World, with the placing of these children into Aussie families since this was the best way to arrive at “assimilation”.
What?? This didn’t sound too much like our perception of the beliefs of One Nation members.
Last August, a representative of Australia First phoned the One Nation Senate candidate Ian Nelson, who expressed surprise that anyone would question such a policy Mr. Nelson pointed out that the State president, Jim Savage, had experience of the difficulties getting such Third World children into Australia – given his wife had had real problems obtaining visas for her nephew and niece from the Philippines.
Mr. Nelson was asked: “but isn’t that going to make a real sort of stolen generation, one where children are stolen and brought into an alien culture?” “No, it is the best way to assimilate them”, he said. “But maybe we Australians don’t want to assimilate them, maybe they should stay in the Third World”? Call ended.
In their policy statement, One Nation was advancing the proposition that the assimilation of another race into the Australian nation via the backdoor of some family-based ‘cultural assimilation’ of stolen children - was a credible policy goal. Why, why, would one want to preach that? Is there something going on in One Nation?
The Plot Thickens. The Moslem Red-Herring Again
Then the penny was dropped on us concerning Mr. Nelson. Penny? Try cement slab. An article appeared in the Queensland Times. Every patriotic Queenslander should read this article.
The article explains that Mr. Nelson who intends to campaign for One Nation in next year’s poll will be joined on the hustings by his Thai wife and their teenage daughter. It said that this was a new development for One Nation which had first made its name by being critical of Asian migration. Did not Pauline Hanson say that “Australia is being swamped by Asians”? In the article, Mr. Nelson made it very clear that his fury on immigration matters was only directed at the Moslem bogy man.
The article said - and we quote directly: Despite witnessing his wife's difficult adjustment to a new culture and country, Nelson has no sympathy at all for the most recent targets of multiculturalism's critics.
For him, the woman he affectionately calls "little one" is not like the other new Australians, particularly Muslims, at the heart of the current national debate.”
"It's the ones that don't [assimilate] and live in their little enclaves that's unacceptable in this country," he said.
Now let’s get this garbage right. Moslems don’t assimilate. Well, tick. And as the rest of the article makes very clear, Mr. Nelson equates Moslem migration with rapes, ghettos and crime. Well, tick. However, if you assimilate other Third Worlders, particularly by marrying them and having kids with them, that is okay? Yes? This is an odd policy, a sort of bedroom-driven plan for social engineering. It’s a wonder the Human Rights Commission didn’t think it up – and offer special baby bonuses to facilitate the outcome.
Do we ignore the other negatives of immigration? Do we ignore the sustainability question: that is, whether Australia should take any migrants at all? Do we ignore the realities of Chinese immigration where massive swathes of the big cities are subject to takeover by horde-like agents of a foreign state, a group whose members are far more insidious than an Arab or Moslem rape gang?
It seems Mr. Nelson has ignored all that. He might also have ignored, if ever he understood it, that the alien does not assimilate: we Australians assimilate to the alien. Moslems are just a small part of the massive demographic change now swamping our country. Why concentrate on just Moslems?
Australia First has this radical idea that, to a certain small extent, the powers-that-be don’t mind too much if a few points are scored against the Moslems. After all, Aussie soldiers are (sadly) doing a job for the oil companies and other alien interests by being in Moslem lands and whipping up a little amount of anti-Islamism here has a purpose in keeping support up for these useless wars. And, vaguely out there somewhere, Islamist nutter networks still might pull off a terrorist outrage in Australia. People have to be alert to that too. Of course, this anti-Islamism must never go too far and branch out in a general criticism of immigration, multiculturalism – and more sharply, never, ever, condemn multi racialism. It must stay within strict limits and so the major parties can manipulate the public.
So, very conveniently for establishment needs, along comes some group which wants to raise up the spectre of unassimilated Moslems. One Nation wants to scream at them, rant at them, get votes from people who realise they certainly don’t fit; then One Nation cam parade itself as an independent party standing up for us ordinary folks who are peeved with immigration.
Yet all the while we have the anti Moslem crusade in operation, One Nation’s leading male members use their penises to assimilate nice Asian brides. Is Sigmund Freud having a joke on us? Are they overcompensating for their personal conduct? Did any other One Nation members do the Asian sex tour? Are they the internal base of support for this new leadership?
Are we missing something here? Is it the case that there is some game being played aimed right at the heart of those Queenslanders who wish to take a nationalist road?
Of late, as One Nation makes noises about re-registering as a party, it has been chattering about doing preference deals with the Liberal National Party, even saying publicly that its preferences elected a LibNat in the recent Federal Senate poll and that the LibNats should reciprocate in the future, that they should make an end to the ‘preference One Nation last’ policy. They are saying that their preferences in the electorate of Ashgrove might even elect the next Queensland Premier. The offer is: throw us a bone and we’ll be there for you. Who knows, maybe they will? But the drift is that One Nation is now calling itself a “conservative party”, much to the internal criticism of many sincere One Nation members who think this puts them on the same continuum as the LibNats. In a sort of way – it does. It’s the slippery slope to nowhere.
In this delusional politics, the One Nation leadership steers the party with rhetoric about traditional family values; a little flag-waving is engaged in;, and a civic identity politics is pushed (ie. it defends the idea of a national identity based only upon symbols, promotes that aliens become English-speaking and everyone gives loyalty to the constitution and our ‘allies’). As a conservative party, One Nation members will be told that they are bringing conservative voters out of the establishment parties towards a new hard patriotism. In truth, it is the establishment LNP which is quite happy to harness disaffected patriotic Queenslanders to One Nation and its forlorn quest to enter the mainstream as the leading conservative voice. That is an old con. Smart. Slick. Effective.
Rudyard Kipling’s Road To Mandalay v Rodgered Couplings Way To Go Thaigirlinthehay
There was a great poem by Rudyard Kipling called the Road To Mandalay, a nineteenth century muse that suggested some sort of true-love unions occur between Europeans and Orientals in the mists of cultural abstraction up the Irrawaddy River – or something like that. Possibly, that has happened occasionally just as much as the true members of those races might have scorned it. However, we have our doubts that unions founded upon alcohol in Manila or Bangkok bars, sex-tour romps where rancid old Aussies indulge their fantasies, mail-order shopping for a good housekeeper and compliant bed-partner and so on - make for much along the lines of Kipling’s muse. The public displays of these Rodgered Couplings that their little ones are just marvellously assimilated, don’t wash with us.
We have said that Freudian sex psychology is a factor here. We should say that the whole affair is politically corrupting. Not simply psychic overcompensation is involved when we witness anti Moslem screaming in place of a sober critical sentiment about immigration. Policy could become perverted – and not just about the matter of overseas adoptions. A different model of Australianity is put up there. Intermarriage as assimilation becomes a goal of the ‘patriot’. In the latest policy turn of One Nation, we can see that defence of Australia’s European identity is just not what the party is about.
Either It’s One Big Melting Pot Or It’s The Australia First Position
The position of Australia First is one that sorts out the muddle of One Nation. One Nation, going back a very long way and right to the start in fact – was always equivocal on what it meant about immigration from the Third World. Did it want to end it? And reverse it? Or assimilate what was already here? Did it seek to preserve Australia’s European heritage, or not? Certainly at least, at the very least, Mrs. Hanson said that Australia was running the risk of being “swamped” by Asians. Sadly, she gave no answer.
The mix-up has become one big messy melting-pot muddle. Now One Nation will rant against Moslems (and refugees too), but stay criminally silent about the very future of the nation.
We say that nationality does have a biological component. None of that involves, or ever could, any hatreds of other peoples or odd thoughts about how ‘superior’ or ‘better’ we white Aussies may be in respect of other peoples. However, it certainly includes our right to exist as a people sovereign over our Continent. It is also very clear to us that our very survival is challenged by mass immigration and alien takeover and that we will have to defend ourselves, our heritage,l our identity. As a matter of necessity, one big melting pot is not for us. It is odd to Australia First that not only is the melting pot the official state view, but it is now the position taken by some so-called patriots. We say: no!
It is time for One Nation members to take back their party if they can. Yet, when they do, if they do, they will need to look at how this muddle was arrived at. One Nation members might even think better and consider it is time to join Australia First.