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.
Post a Comment