16 December 2009

Tony Abbott Belongs In Prison: Not In Parliament!

"Tony Abbott" Belongs In Prison: Not In Parliament!

Jim Saleam / Brendan Gidley

The elevation of Tony Abbott to lead the Liberal Party represents the workings of our political system at its most intricate and at its most dirty.

Most Australians consider that Australia has a ‘two party democracy’, two main parties, surrounded by other ‘minor’ parties which favour in one way or another one or the other of the central two machines, but which offer variations on each and ensure political honesty. The two main parties ‘argue’ - and these arguments are taken as real.

In truth, Australia has a one single regime party with two faces. Occasionally, as amongst any leadership, a division of opinion may result and a brawl ensues. We see that over so-called climate change, but we do not see anything other than ‘bipartisanship’ over all else that really counts. We may see the minor parties bicker too, but all roads lead back to keeping the main parties in the saddle.

The class which owns the Australian state (we can call it the ‘regime’ if we like) wants the opening of borders to the free movement of capital and labour, wishes to facilitate the rise of China to superpower status, supports multiculturalism, follows the US superpower into Middle Eastern wars for oil and Israel, agrees with increases in Third World immigration and refugees, and supports internal repressive laws and structures to impose these policies.

The two main parties follow these policies absolutely because they are owned and managed by the same class of people, a veritable traitor class that serves the foreign interest and in which many politicians themselves can also find membership. The rewards are great.

As circumstances change, the colouring of one or the other of these parties is more suited to carry out the governance of Australia to ensure the traitor class line is implemented.

At present the Labor face is in the ascendant. This means the soft face says there is inclusion for all and welfare for hard times, reliance on the chattering classes to explain policy and the liberal media - and increasing immigration for growth because it is our future to become a larger country of diversity and wonder.

However, like with a fine tune dial on a TV set, we can tune in the Liberal face which is the secondary one at this time. It is there to ensure the continued system loyalty of its voters and followers and the minor parties and groups which ‘lean conservative.’ Out of government it may be, but that part of the Liberal game goes on. If people get annoyed with the Labor face, this one promises a ‘change’ back to conservative principles and family values and some flag waving.

Nothing systemic will change here. However, we are to be told increasingly that some struggle exists between the faces of the regime. Why tell us this? Unless the traitor class that owns the state itself is fearful of a new challenge. Challenge from whom? From the nationalists like Australia First and other patriotic forces. So, enter Tony Abbott to fight that challenge.

Dirty and dirtier……

We have to consider the dirty side of politics. Traitor class politics is spiritual dirt paraded about as mainstream cleanliness. Mainstream? Sewer stream!

So Abbott has conspired in the past to serve his fellows. The ‘mad monk’, the Catholic conservative who almost baulked at sex before marriage and preaches for the family, has a real-life side, a dirty side, which is there to serve the traitor class.

Some years ago, through the "Australians For Honest Government", he laboured to bring down popular figure, Pauline Hanson. This shadowy body run by Peter Coleman, father in law of Tim Costello and one-time NSW Opposition Leader, raised funds to sponsor a legal case against Mrs. Hanson. It offered to pay off a low dog called Terry Sharples who filed a civil suit against Hanson over electoral entitlements. The evidence produced became the basis of a flawed prosecution which saw Hanson falsely imprisoned. Yet, her release from prison served as the cover-up for a full investigation into Abbott’s role in the operations of these ‘Honest’ men. The successful appeal case meant no commission of inquiry would ever investigate the ‘Honest’ ones; and we can be certain that the regime of KRudds and Abbotts will make sure that never happens. The ‘Honest’ men stay in the shadows.

The ‘Honest’ men infiltrate parties, undermine political rivals, spy for the Liberal Party (mainly) and spread rumour and falsehood against their targets. Their staff and their agents privatise the aims of Australia’s even ‘more secret’ political police agencies – which do admit to working against Australian patriots and nationalists. We could, if we wished, name innumerable persons formerly of One Nation and other parties who have served as disruptors for the ‘Honest’ men (and for the political police).

Tony Abbott knows much and says nought. He knows how politics really works and it’s not the fairy-land of free elections where bits of pencilled paper in ballot boxes determine who governs. That determines only which face of the traitor class is presented to us; it does not determine whether we, the people, govern.

Essentially, Abbott is just another grub in a long line of grubs. He is part of a machine. When he faced off the One Nation challenge, he did so with more than pimps and court cases. He even reconstructed the Liberal Party, dredging up some old leaders from an old 1980’s faction and he relaunched them (mainly in New South Wales) to keep the conservative faithful in the ranks long enough for him to disintegrate Hansonism. It was masterly muck, done at Howard’s request. It has a certain gutter style and is to be respected for its diabolically anti democratic quality! Bravo, grub!

Yet, Abbott shows a propensity to undertake destabilizing pursuits on a much larger scale, when in 2003, in his position as a Howard Liberal Party Cabinet Minister he supported the war against Iraq. The Liberal inner circle employed a litany of deceit to inflict war against the people of Iraq – for oil and for Israel – all the while telling us outright lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam’s “links with Al Qaeda”. The resultant carnage, suffering and environmental devastation - is the first great war crime of the twenty first century.

So we stand in the presence of a determined traitor class fighter from whom we should expect little mercy or regard now that we are organizing ourselves as a party. Nor should we give the slightest concession to the pseudo-patriotism the Liberal Party will surely invoke. Not the slightest wink at ‘border control’ chatter, ‘tough’ lines on asylum seeker invaders, flag waving. We have seen it all before. And to use Abbott’s favourite word: it’s bullshit.

Prison not parliament ……

For his role in the Hanson affair and for the Iraq war, Tony Abbott belongs in prison and not in parliament. He takes risks to do his job. So must we – to rid ourselves of creatures like this..

The Australian people demand from their party determined advocacy of their rights – to employment without contracts, to a tertiary education without overseas students, to run a business without bureaucracy, to preserve their heritage and their identity as a people. So the Liberal Party under its new boss will receive from us what it deserves – contempt and trenchant opposition. Forward Australia First!

07 December 2009

Darling Downs Protest.

Members and friends of Australia First. A public protest is being organized for the Toowoomba Region in the coming weeks. In response to requests from Australian workers who are fed up with seeing local jobs going to foreign workers, Australia First QLD will demonstrate on their behalf.

If you are interested in joining fellow patriots on this protest please contact AF Queensland via afpqld@hotmail.com

02 December 2009

Has the Right returned to Australian Politics?

Under the new Liberal leadership of Tony Abbott, should we expect a change in political thinking in Australia?

As we write this the media and the Left are gearing up for a campaign against the Climate Deniers within the Federal Coalition. The accusations of Right Wing Extremists and conspiracy theorists have started to seep out on to Australia Talk-Back radio.

It is fair to say that many voters would be relieved that the Lib/Nat's are showing signs many in their ranks have had enough of being the Right Wing Arm of the ALP. But 'Right Wing' they are not. Many here will remember the role Tony Abbott and his Chinese friends played in the Down Fall of One Nation.

Action against One Nation Party

In 1998, Abbott established a trust fund called "Australians for Honest Politics Trust" to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation Party and its leader Pauline Hanson.[32] Prime Minister John Howard denied any knowledge of existence of such a fund.[33] Abbott was also accused of offering funds to One Nation dissident Terry Sharples to support his court battle against the party. However, Prime Minister Howard defended the honesty of Abbott in this matter.[34]

It was Sharples' legal action that laid the basis for the prosecution of the One Nation founders, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge, which ultimately resulted in Hanson being imprisoned.[35]

Opposition MP Craig Emerson demanded to know where the money for the trust, reportedly $100,000, had come from, saying that taxpayers had a right to know.[36] Treasurer Peter Costello said of Abbott's actions, "I don't think that the way to resolve political disputes is through the courts. I think the way to resolve it is at the ballot box."[37]

The conviction against Hanson was ultimately overturned, leading to criticism of a range of politicians for political interference by the adjudicating justice. Abbott conceded that the political threat One Nation posed to the Howard Government was "a very big factor" in his decision to pursue the legal attack, but he also claimed to be acting "in Australia's national interest". Mr Howard also defended Abbott's actions saying "It's the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties - there's nothing wrong with that."[35]

Australia should applaud the move by the coalition in blocking the ETS. But be warned they are no friends of ours. We welcome the Lib/Nats to the Deniers, Conspiracy and Extremists club. Interesting times ahead.

Hoax of the Century?

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.


17 November 2009

Drop The Charges Against Brendon O’Connell

A Perth man, Brendon O’Connell was raided yesterday (again!) by the Western Australian police ‘State Security Investigation Group’. He has been charged again under Western Australia’s odious racial vilification laws. He now faces two lots of 14 years imprisonment.

Why? Because he has criticised Israel and its Zionist ideology. This has been falsely labelled as vilification of Jews.

When Brendon O'Connell, 38, was charged last May for the thought crime offence of condemning Israel, its false and brutal terror against the Palestinians and the ideology that encourages all this (Zionism), Australia First Party condemned the arrest as the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation, that sort of political arrest liberal-democratic free speech advocates would once criticise. Because Mr. O'Connell was a fearless campaigner for truth, his ‘crime’ is to be punished as a warning. Given that the so-called democratic Australian government supports Israeli state crime and offers up the lives of Australian soldiers, not even to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to defend the big-picture Zionist interest in the Middle East, we interpreted this arrest as one of the most significant political free speech challenges of modern times in Australia. It struck at the right of the Australian people to work out their own independent line on the Middle East and Islamic extremism, free of the lie that Israel is any sort of friend of Australia.

And now, Mr. O’Connell finds himself charged yet again.

As on the first occasion, the State Security Investigation Group arrested Mr. O'Connell and charged him with "conduct with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment". In other words, a political police agency has direct powers of arrest against a citizen for the exercise of his free speech. Mr. O'Connell now faces 14 years imprisonment. Certainly, this time around, the political police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were concerned that Mr. O’Connell worked in a very public way to expose the false nature of the charge. Crooks never like exposure!

How did this affair come into being?

Mr. O'Connell had published some videos on U-Tube. He is seen on film in front of Perth's Bell Tower and at a South Perth supermarket. The political police accuse him of making anti-Semitic comments to a couple of Jewish men. The allegation of anti semitism is one big furphy. Mr. O'Connell is a Christian and he is entitled to criticise Judaism, just as followers of that religion may - and do - criticise Christianity or Islam in the most strident terms. At the level of religious debate, strong language is to be expected and allowed. Indeed, it is constitutionally protected. What is really at issue is Mr. O’Connell’s criticism of the Zionist ideology and the state crime of Israel.

All Australians observe today the false and hopeless war in Afghanistan and whilst maintaining their awareness of the serious question of Islamic extremism internationally and locally, are beginning to see Israeli state crime and the Zionist ideology as prime causes of this very problem. In the midst of this, a political police agency harasses a critic of Zionist policy

Last May, it was Western Australian Opposition Multicultural Interests spokesman Labor MP John Hyde, who served as the fingerman, alerting police, Jewish community leaders and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA about the videos. He had praised WA Police for using the anti-vilification laws to lay the charges. He was quoted as saying: "Members of the multicultural community can take comfort in the knowledge that this alleged race hate crime will now go before the courts.'' Indeed, and the multicultural industry may well now look for more targets!

Mr. Hyde has undoubtedly allowed himself to be used by Zionists and other so-called 'anti-racists' who front for them. There is no race hate crime in this affair. But there is an implied attack upon religious freedom and an attack upon political freedom. The Australia First Party will now campaign directly against Mr. Hyde. The party will campaign to expose Mr. Hyde before his electorate as a snivelling opponent of genuine free speech.

Now that Mr. O’Connell, who has campaigned publically since his arrest against the first charge, has been charged again, his right to any sort of fair process is even further undermined. Mr. O’Connell sent out an urgent plea of his own today. We publish an edited version of it:

“Hello. Brendon O'Connell here. I was raided by the state security unit led by detective timothy Richard Paini. He was IN THE HOUSE before the other police came through the side gate. I confronted him - he stated he had come through the side gate also - that is a lie. He was in the house "DOING" something. I went OFF. I stated he was attempting to frame me and plant something. Their behaviour was DESPERATE!I have been charged AGAIN with "Conduct Intended To Incite Racial Vilification". I was also charged with "obstructing police". I refused to acknowledge THEM or their BULLSHIT warrant. Paini is CORRUPT. He is NOT acting as he should. He appears desperate. The D.P.P is desperate…... I RANG Paini at 10 am Monday morning to complain important files (including raw video footage of the I.G.A confrontation) were missing. 7 hours later I was RAIDED! Please get the word out. ALL my communications … cut. Computers gone. Mobile gone. Passport taken. COURT DOCUMENTS taken. UNBELIEVABLE! I am scared because they appear absolutely DESPERATE. ……. contact me on...brendonoconnellencrypted2@gmail.com I screamed at Paini that he and his friends had deleted e-mails that morning and been hacking my computer. He SMIRKED! I said I'd wipe the smirk OFF HIS FACE. I will ALWAYS have time for the Uniformed coppers, but my days of co-operating with detectives are O-V-E-R.I will represent myself. It was said to me by Rod Keely (Barrister) that they had NO CASE from the beginning. Regards, Brendon O'Connell”

This is the cry of a true advocate of democratic liberty and it must not go unheeded.

The Australia First Party calls on all patriots and advocates of freedom of speech to support Mr. O'Connell as best they can and in accordance with his wishes. Mr. O’Connell has created a blogsite:


Donations can be made.
PO Box 5188, Central Queensland Mail Centre, Queensland 4702.

Australia First Party demands the repeal of the 'anti vilification' laws in Western Australia as falsely crafted thought crime legislation whose real nature is finally revealed

Australia First Party demands that the charges against Brendon O’Connell be dropped.

Australia First Party demands an open commission of inquiry into treatment meted out to Brendon O’Connell and to establish who initiated these charges and why.

04 November 2009

Queensland not for sale campaign!

What you can do? We urge all Queensland members of Australia First and our friends to support the Queensland Not For Sale Campaign. We urge you all to visit the site and have your say against the QLD Labor Government's Fire Sale of the PEOPLES ASSETS.

Sign up to stay informed on upcoming demonstrations and join them if you can. If you are prepared to make a stand organize at a local level with other Australia First members and colleagues and take part. Join the campaign. Its our state lets keep it that way.

No Government has the right to sell off our children s future!

Queensland not for sale web site HERE

Contact your local MP HERE

also visit the ETU web site HERE

03 November 2009

Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot


SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?

With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.

Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.

Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.

Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.

So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”

Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”

Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.

Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.

The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.

How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.

Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.

Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.

Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?

And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?

At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”

Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.

Australia First Registration Applicants Uphold The Ideals Of Australianism

Australia First Party has applied for registration as a party with the Australian Electoral Commission. The application was made on October 2 and will take some months to be processed.

Our party aims to consolidate those Australians who are prepared – right now – to stand up in the cause of Australian Identity, Independence and Freedom.

Some eleven members were obliged by law to co-sign the party registration application.

We are pleased to provide political biography on these members precisely because our party certainly aims to consolidate into one party those activists and shapers from earlier movements of nationalist resistance to the globalisation of our country. Our party has drawn together those who wish to pursue the struggle in an activist way. We have united people with long experience and we want other activists still involved elsewhere to appreciate that fact. In simple truth, Australia First Party represents a veritable tradition in Australian political life stretching back over decades. We aim to become the common vehicle that will achieve success.

1. Tony Pettitt

Tony will serve as Registered Officer. He entered nationalist politics in the late 1980’s as an independent candidate and then worked through Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation when he was a candidate several times and worked in an organizational capacity. He joined the new Australia First in 2008.

2. Jim Saleam

Jim participated in the rebirth of the new Australian Nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action which he led until 1991. He has written extensively on Australian identity. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2001 and the new Australia First in 2007. He will serve as National Secretary.

3. Nick Maine

As an ‘old warrior’ in the patriotic struggle, Nick is 87 years and served in the Australian Army in New Guinea. He both founded, and was a member of, several organisations, which arose after the betrayal of the White Australia Policy in 1966, to warn Australians of the dangers of liberal immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 1996 and the new Australia First in 2007.

4. Brendan Gidley

Brendan entered the nationalist struggle in 1984 as a member of National Action until 1991 and was involved thereafter in Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation as an organizer He has co-operated some nationalist websites and publishing services. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new party in 2007.

5. Neil Baird

Neil entered the nationalist struggle in 1992 as a member of Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined One Nation in 1997 and served the party as a candidate and in several administrative functions. He is a regular speaker for nationalist forums and joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new party in 2007.

6. Alex Norwick

Alex participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action; he also worked in the 1980’s with other patriotic groups. In the 1990’s he worked with Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He has written on Australian labour history. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

7. Perry Jewell

Perry migrated to Australia from South Africa in 1972 and in 1990 co-founded Australia’s first mass nationalist-minded party – Confederate Action Party. He worked subsequently through other groups in Queensland and founded in 2007 a movement to combat drug addiction in Australia. As a man of considerable political and other talent, he joined the new Australia First in 2009.

8. Rob Fraser

Rob entered the nationalist arena in 1988, being an editor of the magazine, Bunyip Bulletin. He later participated in Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

9. Nathan Clarke

Nathan is a younger nationalist activist who entered the movement in 2005. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new Australia First in 2007. He was a lead Council candidate for the new Australia First in Newcastle in 2008.

10. Terry Cooksley

Terry joined Australian National Alliance (1979-80) and was a co-founder of National Action with which he remained until 1991. He was candidate in the 1990’s for Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

11. Darrell Wallbridge

Darrell founded a local nationalist party in his native Coffs Harbour (1981) and passed into National Action (1982-91) and was a candidate for Confederate Action Party. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

02 November 2009

The Greater Significance Of The Australian Light Horse Charge at Beersheba

A photograph of the charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade at Beersheba.

The following is a speech given by Jim Saleam to a special commemorative meeting for the 92nd anniversary of the great Light Horse Charge at Beersheba.

The meeting, hosted by the Friends Of Henry Lawson, featured speakers from cultural groups and readings from Australian military history.

The speech has been very slightly edited.

I am not talking of the history of the event we are here to honour. Rather, I am talking about impressions of that event. I suppose that's about building culture myths. Mythology doesn't just mean those wild Greek tales - or fairy-stories peoples sometimes tell. I can tell you as a student of Australian culture history that the Myth is actually about the setting of images in people's minds, an idea, a standard, a set of moral ideals and so a collective unconscious emerges that unites a people together. We go on to fashion ourselves and our lives around it. Myth is a powerful thing. And to use the Greek sounding term palingenesis - rebirth - we could say that the eternal return of the central Myths of a people presses people into its service in a new time.Weighty stuff. So, now you get it. What did Beersheba mean for Australians? Then? Later? Now?

Let's Make It Personal

The first thing I ever heard about the charge at Beersheba was a little bit of adult chatter, somewhere, sometime. Maybe I was 6 years of age. It became real a few years after that, when our primary school was blessed with an elderly gent who was brought along one day about 1965 to tell the tale.

Let's be honest. Some bloke about 70 looked like a bloke about 100 when you're ten. So, he was revered on that account alone.

But he told a bloody good story. The only bit I remember was something about the Turks being bad shots 'cos they hadn't adjusted their gun sights. He was here and that was the proof of that.

That's the Myth in action folks. The storyteller from the golden age, telling you a great tale from when he was young, when he could have died, but for luck. Something that did all proud. It was your history. No one else's. The truth belonged to you if you too dared to live it. And there was the promise that if ever you were tested you could do just as well.

Our school was blessed by such a speaker. Indeed, we often had speakers about important events in the national history or we saw great icons of that history like the Eureka Flag.

The day our Beersheba veteran spoke, the school showed the classic film, Forty Thousand Horsemen.

Forty Thousand Horsemen

Released in 1940, the film's nationalistic sentiment and dramatisation of Australian success in battle touched a strong chord with a new generation then at war. The story follows three larrikin Light Horsemen and their role in the desert campaigns. The three leads, played by Grant Taylor, Chips Rafferty and Pat Toohill, are introduced to us playing two-up in a market place and indulging in tom foolery, including taking a wild donkey ride through town and into a cabaret club
(the same themes used in Mel Gibson's Gallipoli). The celebrated climax of the story plays out the famous charge at Beersheba. The film broke national box office records and also had considerable success on the international market.

We all loved it as 1960's kids.For one, I have shown the film at various meetings since in my adult life.

This film renders sacred too the sand dunes at Kurnell, but a few kilometres from where Captain Cook proclaimed that modern civilisation had come to the oldest Continent. White fellas history all that, but just as meaningful to us as black fellas' Dreamings.

In other words, in fact, film about the charge at Beersheba sanctified our native ground in the reliving of it.

A Legend Born

The charge at Beersheba soon entered the Australian consciousness. The realist paintings of Lambert, the exhibitions collected for the National War Museum, the ANZAC Day commemerations that began in the 1920's, at the RSSAILA Clubs and so on - were all signs of that. Side by side with ANZAC Cove, it illustrated the right of the new nation to be taken seriously by others. At the Versailles Treaty conference in 1919, Australia spoke for herself. One could say that the desert war gave more of a right to this than the meat-grinder trench warfare in France. It is proper to

And Today?

Of late, as part of our own Culture Wars in Australia, publicity has been given to an incident where some Light Horse committed what was, in modern politically-correct-speak, a war crime in shooting some people in a local village.

It is one thing to record the truth, whatever it might be. I wonder whether the publicity given to this minor affair serves a darker purpose? To undermine the national myth perhaps?

Interesting too that we can also draw a point about Australian service in war. Some people say that this service has always been at the behest of big players who misused our manhood. Sad to say, but there is truth in that. A young country can be swallowed up in the misdeeds of others. But the Australians in Palestine had another side too. We know that the British and the French betrayed the Arabs who rose against the Turks. Yet, young Australia believed as Colonel Lawrence believed, that a free Arab world was in the interest of the Allied Powers and that the Ottomon Empire be consigned to history.

It is sad that some people get that wrong today. I saw a newspaper last year issued by some Christian folks around Fred Nile - and they say that the Charge at Beersheba was all about making Israel and they praised up the Israeli government for allowing certain remembrance ceremonies on the site. Bad religion and bad history. If the Aussie charge had anything to do with the birth of that state, it was because of the betrayal of the Arab Rising by the British and the French - and not of an action born of our will.

Yet, history plays tricks on that - and the Australians are still recalled in Palestine and Syria as men who came to set those countries free to make a better world. The Arabs might rail against the others, but not against the Australians.

If it had been up to the Australians alone, I can see that this would have been precisely what they would have done.

We may say that freedom, the freedom for all peoples, rode with the Light Horse. Let us remember that as we try to set our own country free.

The Legend of the Light Horse lives in all of us. Celebrate it.

01 November 2009

Bob Hawke Grubs Up To China Free Trade Pact

There is something miserable about Bob Hawke, former Prime Minister and Labor Party wise-man. Complete with his $190,000,000 nest egg all 'made' after he left office, this solid member of the traitor class long abandoned the working Australian to his fate. So it was demonstrated (again) this week.

On October 29, after hearing a Sydney speech on free trade by Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang , Hawke was in rapture and ready to attack the ordinary working Australian who is aware he is going to be out of a job under the new free trade arrangements.

Hawke said: .."Stupid unintelligent rednecks who play the racist card .." "don't' represent ""... "Australian thinking" on free trade!

Indeed, we don't represent official 'Australian thinking'. It is the traitor class which likes to believe it is intelligent and rational and can do our thinking for us. As 'rednecks' we aren't meant to make it in the new economic rationalist utopia.

We are hated for our presumption that we mean anything at all other than as labour for those who know better! Hawke's utter contempt for the working person may show his role in the trade union movement and the so-called Labor Party was a cover for the real agenda.

Interesting too, how Hawke's brain works. In June 1989, he wept on national television over Chinese tanks running over protesting students in Beijing. That was a convenient excuse to allow 40,000 Chinese students to stay in Australia. That grand exercise in culture busting the Australian community and establishing on our own soil a new investment and trading group, was just a prelude to closer integration with China's economy thereafter. Step by step, China has taken control over vast tracts of Australian land and Australian resources.

The new Free Trade agreement between China and Australia will be opposed by hundreds of thousands of Australian workers in their unions. That means nothing to the Labor Party other than a problem to be managed while they get on with the job of enmeshing our country in China's rise to superpower status. This betrayal presents Australian nationalists with an opportunity to reach out to wider sections of Australia's working people.

Australia First Party intends to take up that opportunity.

27 October 2009

New Zealand Flag Day Rally Unites Kiwi And Australian Nationalists

Flag Day in New Zealand has once again deepened the ANZAC bonds between Australian and New Zealand nationalists.

All up, some 50 activists were present in Wellington on Saturday, October 24, to mark the sixth annual Flag Day. Flag Day was also celebrated in Christchurch, where some 20 (mainly) young New Zealand nationalists demonstrated in the city centre.

Three Australians participated in the Flag Day march and demonstration in Wellington. As in 2008, an Australian nationalist also addressed the marchers and the crowd.

Flag Day has been held since 2004 to remind Kiwis of their heritage now under full challenge by mass immigration and multiculturalism. Flag Day was initiated in 2004 at a significant moment when Chinese imperialism began raising its ugly Dragon-head over New Zealand’s economy and politics. It has now become a fixture and the day that unites many patriots who travel from across the country to attend. They show the Kiwi spirit is far from defeated and that the struggle for New Zealand freedom will only grow.

A day of successful action ….

The main event was organised by the redoubtable Wellington branch of the National Front (NF). The NF provided the organizational effort that made the day possible.

The demonstration assembled at the Cenotaph in central Wellington. Here the group honoured New Zealand’s sacred dead. From there, the participants marched to the Seddon Statue outside the National Parliament where up to 20 New Zealand Flags were held aloft. The first national flag of New Zealand from the years 1834-40 was also carried for the first time at Flag Day. This red, white and blue flag is also called the United Tribes Flag, since British officials proposed it to the Maori chiefs who warmly embraced it and to this day, some Maoris still revere it. The Australians, to mark their ANZAC links with the Kiwi patriots, flew the Australian National Flag and the Eureka Flag.

Speeches were given which noted the history of the National Flag, the first flag of New Zealand too and the need for the retention of the ANZAC link. It was noted by speakers that this year’s Flag Day was not opposed by the usual anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ rabble, who traditionally turn out to taunt marchers, or try to assault them - and abuse the police. Although they informed media they opted to boycott the Day so as “not to give publicity” to the nationalists, the truth was different. The Wellington anarcho-underground is torn apart by the realisation that their leadership (sic) has duped them to be a street gang against the nationalists, whilst they maintain links with the Labour Party and other establishment forces. The shattering of Wellington’s so-called anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ movements is a gain for all. Indeed, Vince Stephens, Wellington NF organiser quipped:

“I feel totally let down by the opposition for not supporting our Flag Day – by turning up and acting as they do.”

From the Seddon Statue, a march then took place into the busier parts of the city where a further rally was conducted. Hundreds of leaflets were handed out to minimal objection and considerable interest.

Discussions to build unity …

The marchers returned to the Wellington railway station where they took a special charter-bus, back to a meeting area.

Here various discussions were held amongst and between the National Front, the Right-Wing Resistance (which provided many of the marchers) and certain youth groups. Kiwi leaders such as Col Ansell, Kyle Chapman, Steve Larsen and Vince Stephens talked over the issues in building the New Zealand nationalist movement.

At a meeting later in the day, all present resolved that the National Front will be the political party name that activists will strive to register for electoral purposes. The goal is to have the 500 members enrolled by the next Flag Day. The privileges of a registered party can only benefit the entire New Zealand movement.


What did the participants in Flag Day perceive they had achieved? One male activist said that it was a matter of demonstrating that there was “a future for our children’. A young woman said: “it is my first Flag Day; I just want to say who I am”. For another it was “about access to the people, not just a confrontation with those who oppose us, a real victory for Flag Day.”

The activists had come from Christchurch, Palmerston North, Hamilton, Auckland and Wanganui and other places; they were members of different groups, but all were New Zealanders. Their next task is to create a stronger nationalist movement in New Zealand.

Flag Day 2010…

Flag Day 2010 in Wellington promises to be a larger event. It will receive a delegation from the Australia First Party to the march and to a united meeting with speakers who will endorse the new phase of New Zealand nationalism which will be opened by the application to register National Front as a party. It may be the case too that Flag Day, held on Labour Weekend, will be advertised as a Day of Labour, a call for the ordinary Kiwi working person to achieve better than the false promises of globalisation.

As is clear, the Kiwi nationalists do not rest on their laurels. And the Australian nationalists will be there in support.

20 October 2009

Zionist Leadership Attacks Freedoms of Assembly And Association For Australia First

Two prominent figures in Australia’s Jewish community, both of whom are committed to Zionism and who speak for major structures inside that community, have attacked traditional Australian freedoms of assembly and association and directed this attack against the Australia First Party.

In the Australia Jewish News (October 9), we read a disturbing report that should inspire all Australian democrats and upholders of civil liberty, to condemn the Zionist fraction of Australian Jewry as thugs who employ twisted words to serve an alien and un Australian agenda.

The report said:

NSW Board of Deputies president, Robin Margo, said all Australians need to be on guard against the bigotry that Australia First exploits “under the guise of patriotism and nationalism” and to take care “they do not unwittingly lend it assistance by provision of venues, finance or otherwise.”

“Australia First is trying to gather support ahead of the next election. There should be no place in modern Australian politics for anyone promoting a form of ‘white Australia’ or racism of any kind and Australia First has a bad record in that regard”, he said.

B’nai B’rith Anti Defamation Commission executive director Deborah Stone, said all vendors have the right to decide on applicants seeking to rent space on their sites. But she also issued a warning.

“We and many other Australians have very strong concerns of the danger the far-right represents”, she said. “We would encourage people who are considering renting premises or providing services to them to consider seriously whether they really want to be supporting that kind of challenge to the cohesion of Australian society”.

Such comments are open threats upon democratic liberty. This latest attempt to bully clubs, councils and other owners from renting us halls or space and then to hold up to contempt and abuse any person who deals or trades with us (printers etc), shows these people will resort to foul means to restrict a political opponent .

What will the Zionists precisely do? We could anticipate lists of suspect (sic) names / groups issued to clubs etc. with a call to ban them from holding meetings. There could be phone calls and threats of unfavourable publicity if certain meetings went ahead. We can perceive threats to businesses (whether direct or through ‘demonstrators’ who can be conjured up) that they will lose money because their trade with Australia First Party will be ‘revealed’ in the media, or through open trade boycotts they may commercially suffer. Once this overall program gets going it becomes a virus.

It is all part of an old technique of the Zionists which has been used in Australia before. In 1998, a magazine called the Australia Israel Review, published the names of some 1700 members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and vilified Hanson in various ways as a descendant of Nazism. This publication effectively encouraged people to violently confront Hanson and set out to poison the political debate to compel people to turn away from dealings with that party. Why?

The Hanson party had never even criticised Zionism, let alone spoke against Jews as Jews, something which is called ‘anti-semitism’. A clue might be found in the incredible statement of Isi Leibler, an Australian Zionist who went on to live in Israel as “President” of the World Jewish Congress, that “multiculturalism was right for Australia”, but ‘not for Israel”. Is multiculturalism a policy that the Zionits can hide behind?

Certainly, the Australia First Party has criticised the Zionists. We have said that the Zionists seek to involve Australia in foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve Israel’s Middle Eastern politics, that they would involve Australia in an attack upon Iran and that they misuse Australia’s diplomatic support to endorse Israel’s violence against Palestinians and indeed, the theft of Palestine itself. No wonder there is Moslem terror! More and more Australians understand all this. The Australia First Party has also noted the link between the Zionists and the policy of multiculturalism and their support for continued immigration. However, the Australia First Party has never criticised Jews as Jews. Rather, it is because we have told the truth about the Zionists that we are vilified by them and targeted to have our democratic right to organize curtailed by pressure upon all who deal with us.

Masking themselves behind a murky rhetoric about protecting Jews from ‘threats’ (where are these threats?), the Zionists, will lash out at freedom itself.

No one should be fooled by the Zionists talking about “cohesion” and “far right” dangers. We note that the Anti Defamation Commission (ADC) is a private spy agency that collects data upon Australians and which briefs (sic) politicians and media operatives with smear against critics of Israel and Zionism. It was these very Zionists in the ADC who sponsored in the 1990's Australia’s Federal thought-policing laws that can criminalize criticism of immigration policy and multiculturalism under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’. With the Zionists everything serves some agenda best known to them and nothing is ever as it appears.

Freedom of assembly and association are important things to Australia First. These freedoms have been defended by Australian soldiers with their lives. We refuse to be intimidated. Australia First will stand up for the rights of all Australians to be heard at meetings, at elections, in print and on the Internet.

15 October 2009

The Nationalist And Patriotic Movement In Western Australia: Which Way Forward?

Source Australia First Western Australia.

Interview with Dr. Jim Saleam and Brendan Gidley, October 12 2009

The Western Australian patriotic and nationalist movement seems to be in flux at the moment and we considered this overview from a position in the Eastern states might be of assistance in defining issues and groups. Jim and Brendan speak as participants in the struggle and as members of the Australia First Party national management committee. Their frankness is noted.

AF (WA): Where do you see us Westralian nationalists and patriots placed at this point in time?

Reply: There are big and available issues that could be used to mobilize a new force in Western Australia. Your State has problems with over-population, the degradation of soils and water shortage in the South-East, the political corruption, the free-trade driven mining ‘boom’ which benefits the multinationals and their contract labour – and Chinese imperialism lurking to seize resources. There is a combative unionist rank and file which might just, with the current Labor betrayal of the true national interest, decide to fight on against “work place reform”, foreign takeover and cheap labour. There is increasing youth unemployment and the utterly odious overseas student program which is robbing youth of an education. There is the multinational and big company attack upon Australian truck owners and drivers. Therefore, clearly, there is a substantial political base to be organized.

Sadly right now, activist nationalist forces are weak on the ground. One Nation has a residual structure left over from the splits and troubles of the past and there are loose people about. Australia First has members, but little structure as yet. We are moving on that. There may be other circles of youth and people meeting informally in Perth to discuss issues and there is the odd independent Web Site. We hear too that Graeme Campbell is still active. However, there is no decisive leadership in your State that can ‘rally the forces’ so to speak. We must build that.

There are signs of a turnaround. Yet, we suspect the real change won’t occur until some groups exhaust their current line and embrace the Australia First position. We predict a radicalisation of the One Nation rank and file but only after the electoralist line runs its course and while Australia First members forge a more interventionist force, one which goes beyond electioneering towards community action, grassroots action in schools, factories, universities and at street level – a genuine, organized, political structure which truly offers a pole of attraction for these other patriots.

The problem with some people is – electoralism. They don’t get it. Electoral participation should be just one part of the overall strategy of action. They will tailor policy and activity, organization and finance, to this one thing. Yet, experience teaches and the next Federal election will (we hate to say it) see much of ‘our side’ restricted to the 3% range (that’s the academic definition of a fringe party), but at least we will notice a base exists and be able to move on later. We will be able to take on these people and lead them in struggle.

Our problems in Western Australia derive of the ups and downs of a broad scene. We inherit from that. Australia First will liquidate this past and create a new future for our nationalist cause.

AF (WA): So, is our difficulty one that derives from history? And if so, how far back should we look to get at the problems?

Reply: A bit of history may be in order. We need to take the long view.

The earliest nationalists in WA got together around the issue of immigration. There were many efforts in the period from 1968 until 1982. In that year, National Action appeared in Perth as a summation of these efforts. The old League Of Rights was still active and often had a lot of good things to say. However in 1985, Jack van Tongeren, founded the rather misnamed ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. He ultimately soured the field first with his violence campaign in the period 1988-89 and then with his trial 1989-90. The State government relied on that to pass draconian laws against freedom of speech on immigration matters and to stigmatize oppositional groups, particularly on the immigration question, as either crypto-terrorists, or neo-nazis, or just beyond the pale of polite discussion. That has lingered long and just a few years back these political laws were given tougher penalties. Recently, a Christian man was seized at his home for making a video supporting the Palestinian cause; he was ‘charged’ with racism!! KGB? Gestapo? That vile law must be campaigned against.

We recall the next real initiatives came with weak sections of Confederate Action Party and the Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) in the years 1991-95. Then Graeme Campbell founded Australia First from his base in Kalgoorlie in 1996. There was the emergence of a new cadre of people. That was a real step forward. And then, crisis, the rise and fall of One Nation and the massive loss of members and resources after a good start. etc. The party with no plan, no strategy, went for the mainstream with untrained leaders.. Disaster.

That’s the potted history. But we have to know it. We can learn.

What are the problems? Well, there is a stifling atmosphere of failure. Mainly electoral failure, but also organizational failure. Graeme lost his Kalgoorlie Federal seat in 1998, thanks to One Nation’s then-bosses David Oldfield and Pauline Hanson. The other two One Nation upper house reps went out years back. They were credible players, but their electoral base was gone. No one group has managed to gain hegemony over the scene since. Graeme went into One Nation in 2001 and was finally pushed out. It was all a sad waste of time.

There remains a weakness of ideology. Graeme Campbell put up the best synthesis which combined some enviro-nationalist ideas from AAFI (immigration is an environmental disaster!), with the old Labour style (the unity of the producers against corporate capitalism), with an awareness of the need for a new take of issues like free trade, open-borders and the defence of democratic freedom. That is the true meaning of the word ‘populism’; a nationalist populism was forming up. That synthesis is still the best one to get people into action. However, it also requires a strong set of core nationalist principles inspiring an activist cadre of people, who put these ideas into campaigns and policies.

At the deeper level, we need to ensure the whole movement is firmly grounded in Australian history and traditions. It must answer the questions of national identity and heritage, affirm the native-soil European heritage as the essential heritage. In the former movements of Australian nationalism we locate our tasks: to win national independence, to create a society that establishes fairness and true social-equality and a state that gives personal freedom. To us, this is the vision splendid that old-Labour a century ago attempted and which we must finally win. We have a historical mission. Groups like the One Nation do not. We say it is the mission that inspires the will to act, to win victories – and to take defeats.

AF (WA): Can the patriotic forces be united? How?

Reply: The first thing is amnesty for all decent people against the inevitable ‘sleights’ that have gone on in any organisation from the past. We must put aside all pettiness. If too in the past, there were cutting ideological or political questions at the core of earlier disunion, we need to look again at how these things worked and see how important it all was and how it impacts on getting unity now. People should meet and talk.

The aim must be to consolidate a nationalist party on the ground with a structure and a presence. That does not mean unity with just anyone. It means uniting the best, the positive people.

This can be done over the next twelve months. Australia First can be built ideologically, politically and organizationally to be the new command centre of national resistance. This coming election – as noted - will kill off a section of the past. Hansonism without Hanson will be gone and the temptation to see politics as a contest to provide folks with an electoral alternative – put aside. Australia First will thus – fill the gap.

AF (WA) : Obviously, you propose a different model of behaviour?

Reply: Very much so. This model is hardly novel to us, but for many it is ‘new’ and may be daunting to some.

It is called the ‘three tier model’. It simply means that an organization (‘party’) is three things simultaneously: a machine to contest elections, including local government elections to win publicity and to meet and organize new people ; a staff that organizes campaigns and activism in the street, factory, school, university or association ; it is a school that trains people in their cultural identity and political faith, whilst arguing these ideas in various ways and defending the Australian historical creation. Such a party integrates its ideology with a politics which defines who can be mobilised for change into a structure which is inspired culturally and ‘ideologically’ to act in the Australian people’s service.

In the next few weeks two crucial new Australia First pamphlets will argue this case. We intend that the party adopts these statements of general principle and acts on them in a united way.

The three tier model cures the nationalist movement of all illusions as to its purpose and promotes clear thinking. It preserves the movement which is more important ultimately than any electoral contest. Indeed, it transforms elections into a method to build the movement.

Has the three tier model ever been applied in Australia? In the past, the once great nationalist Labour Party did that. It integrated 100 years ago a political league, unions, education and cultural societies into one entity. Some minor groups (like today’s Greens who have an utterly non Australian ideology) still adapt the general framework of this method, although they apply it to their own goals. It works.

AF (WA): Possibly the WA patriotic scene has its share of odd birds. How does one deal with fractious people?

Reply: It is never easy. Sometimes it’s better not to try to integrate some people into the one party. Their interests and yours might be better served by staying separate. Indeed, in the case of educational and similar ideological forces, that is more positive because in that case the people are positive but are simply taking another road.. As for truly fractious people, one needs to utterly avoid them. If they join you, get them out. Our side has paid a heavy price for the presence of this type. It is time to become professional in the area of ‘human resources’.

AF (WA): Do you think in terms of laying down the law to all patriotic groups and people?

Reply: No. Not all groups are political in character. As noted, some are cultural, or sub-cultural, or educational and so forth. It is imperative to have a friendly attitude towards all organisations and groups that have any sort of a pro Australian perspective. We have to work on that in some cases, but it is worth it, absolutely.

The riot act need only ever be read to obviously disruptive individuals or to organisations which refuse to deal reasonably with ourselves. And to anyone, who knowingly continues to open doors to them. Thankfully, there won’t be much of that in short term, but it may occur again.

AF (WA): What role for Australia First?

Reply: There must be a small organizational core of people who devote a sizeable portion of their lives to the struggle. In other words, we favour the support of a semi-professional core of permanent activists. With younger leaders and a couple of older staff, this core could be assembled. We need to be able not only to perform the very necessary bureaucratic functions of organization, but to be able to respond to public events and otherwise so as to rally supporters to activist campaigns.

As time goes on we will surely prove our worth in Western Australia. We call on all nationalists to get behind the party. The future is now in your hands.

Thankyou, Jim and Brendan.

03 October 2009

Comment By Peter Schuback On The Economic Crisis

We publish a comment by a Queensland Nationalist AF member and truckies’ activist on the economic crisis and why it may deepen.

Once again we see a (Labor) government that is out of control. SPEND SPEND SPEND is all they know! Stimulus packages that are going to do near to nothing to stimulate the Australian economy . Every cent of any package that is put in place to stimulate the economy should have been put into infrastructure and job creating projects that would have increased the value of infrastructure in Australia (REAL INFRASTRUCTURE CREATES REAL WEALTH). Firstly we need to improve our roads in every state in Australia to bring them up to a safe and serviceable standard.

We should be putting money into rail infrastructure. Rail infrastructure would include a rail line from Melbourne to Toowoomba with an integrated transport hub transferring freight from Toowoomba to Brisbane and on to North Queensland and Darwin. We also should be putting money into water transfer schemes like the Bradford scheme; with the transferring of water from high rain-fall areas to areas such as the Murray Darling basin to drought proof every state in Australia.

Industries should also be encouraged to move to areas that have a supply of services and infrastructure that is currently under-utilized. Population caps should be introduced on cities that are now running at above infrastructure capacities, with incentives being paid in the form of tax rebates to companies that move to those areas that have the capacity to supply the required services and products. (COUNTRY AND REGIONAL AREAS)

02 October 2009

Australia First Party Setting the Stage for the Fight Back for our Country. The Paper work is in!

At long last the people of Australia will have a choice. The paper work for the registration of the Australia First Party was submitted today personally by the National Secretary Jim Saleam at the nation's capital. In other words Australia First will be contesting the next Federal Election.

Australia First Queensland would like to thank everyone for a job well done. A special thanks to the National Secretary Dr Jim Saleam for all his hard work. The fight back begins here fellow members.

The job is far from over. The real battle begins today.

01 October 2009

The Voice - White Nationalism and Women

The Voice – Raped by China

The Voice - Owned by China

The Voice - Welcome to the Dole Queue

The Voice - Spend, Spend, Spend

The Voice - Censorship

The Eight Core Policies Of Australia First

The eight core policies of Australia First are the basis of association for the party. They are (with explanations and the implied ninth point) as follows:

1 Ensure Australia Retains Full Independence

Protect our sovereignty (national, constitutional and personal) and maintain an adequate defence, whilst being reasonable and fair in our nation's international dealings.

2 Rebuild Australian Manufacturing Industries

This is the only way we can be self sufficient. It will provide jobs for our children, help buy back the farms and allow Australia to be free of foreign debts. Our infrastructure has been run down over many years. It must be rebuilt. We must improve the practicality and relevance of our educational systems, and target government support to empower industry to diversify, innovate, perform and expand. We recognise that small business is fundamental to this policy. A satisfactory financial environment is also urgent and essential.

3 Control Foreign Ownership

Bring foreign ownership and investment back under control.

4 Reduce and Limit Immigration

Immigration mistakes can be big long term mistakes. Immigration policy must take into account social cohesion, employment opportunities, urbanisation and environmental issues.

5 Abolish Multiculturalism

End the divisive, government funded and institutionalised policy of multiculturalism.

6 Introduce Citizens' Initiated Referenda

Amend the Australian Constitution such that the people can initiate a Constitutional Referendum which, if approved by the Australian people, will amend the Australian Constitution. This simple step will confirm the political authority of voters and make legislators aware that they are the servants of the Australian People, not their masters. The people directly should also possess the sovereign right and the power to initiate other legislation.

7. Strengthen the family

Promote policies that strengthen and protect the traditional family.

8 Strive to Rebuild A United Australia

Promote policies that recognise the interdependence of city and country.

9 Democratise Other Policy Issues

The party's core policies also imply a point nine.

All other policies (non-core policies) are matters of free conscience and are not binding upon Australia First’s future parliamentarians or councillors who are to represent their electorates.

Issues of public interest on which Australia First needs to formulate policy will be canvassed with the party membership and plebiscites conducted where deemed appropriate by the party’s National Council. The party also permits branches to formulate specific electoral policies or community policies not inconsistent with the Eight Core Policies.

From time to time, the party will issue material that provides interpretation of the core policies. This interpretative material would reflect the spirit of the party.

The organizational purpose for this statement of policy and system for policy creation is simple: Australia First does not require weighty tomes, which change from month to month, as do the programmes of the Establishment parties and those who ape them. It requires a focus for action and for unity within the party.

Australia First is to build a new national movement. Practicality is method.