One Nation: where to from here?

A Message to Current and Former One Nation Members: 

This statement is intended as a positive, constructive message to the One Nation party, addressed in good faith to all members of One Nation --  and particularly to those members who still want to make a difference and who are now, or soon will be, considering their options. 

It is not in any way an attack on One Nation or the many good people who joined that party for a variety of worthy reasons.

Nor is it an exercise in "triumphalism".

Rather it is an earnest attempt to get to grips with a simple matter of fact –that the One Nation Party is now in terminal decline– and to ask, constructively, the obvious question: what options are now available to members of One Nation who still wish to be active, to be part of a change for the better, to confront and overcome the corrupt globalist system that we all, on the nationalist side of politics, must and do oppose?

The options are, as we hope you will see it :
1) attempt to resurrect One Nation
2) give up and admit defeat

3) do something else.

It is option one that brings us straight to the crux of the matter.

One Nation was a lightning rod for an angry, disillusioned and mobilised population.  But those days of early triumph and the One Nation juggernaut have long since gone.

One Nation's current leadership has allowed the party to drift away from its original purpose to expose and attack the various forces at work in the sell-off and sell-out of traditional Australia.  Under the specific direction of certain individuals, there has in particular been a complete retreat from one of the core complaints that defined the early One Nation party: namely, the Asianisation of Australia.  One Nation once clearly opposed this attack on our national identity.  It is now equally clear that this is not longer the case.

Pauline Hanson has vanished from Australia's political scene.  There is no indication that she will ever be back.  Nor has any individual emerged with her qualities who might plausibly revive the populism that underpinned the One Nation phenomenon.

As things stand, One Nation is facing an imminent crisis.  The party likely faces Federal de-registration very soon.  Some State branches are in sufficiently good shape to withstand similar moves in their own State electoral systems for perhaps some time to come, but the process nevertheless is very much a one-way ride to nowhere.

All in all, the picture would seem grim if we were to suppose that the continued survival of the One Nation party structure and its "brand" were somehow essential to the work that One Nation and its members set out to do.

Fortunately this is not the case.

That said, if One Nation as an entity cannot survive, what are its members to do?

The second option is to do nothing: give up and retire from active work.

While we do not support this option, we note it because the human spirit has its limits and --sadly-- a great many people have been, and will continue to be, burnt out by the long slumber and slow destruction of One Nation.  Further, we mention this option because, if a suitable opportunity for real activism is not made apparent to One Nation members and soon, many more may take this path.

So we must look to the third option: find some other way to "fight the fight".  Here there is a choice to be made.

There is the Katter party, of course.  We have concerns about the Katter party, in particular its insistence on increasing our population no matter what the cost.  We quote from their website: "Australia needs to increase its population to achieve acceptable levels of economic, scientific, strategic and personal development. Government must develop immigration and birth rate policies consistent with these principles. In addition, the population growth needs to be distributed widely throughout Australia and especially into northern Australia."   Reference: Point 21 of the Australian Party's Values and Principles -- see http://www.ausparty.org.au/who-we-are/values-and-principles.html

The implications of this policy are clear: mass immigration into Australia's north.

Nevertheless we acknowledge that some One Nation people will get on board with Bob Katter on the grounds that he is (they will say) a patriot, a populist and a strong new force in the political scene.  We will see what transpires, but note that the Katter phenomenon looks very much like a new variation on the Hanson phenomenon.  Yes, there are points of difference, but overall we see a similar strategy, with electoral work being the only focus of the organisation, as well as similar structures -- the "strong" leadership figure and a support base of disillusioned people, but once again no attempt to unite the party around a single, consistent view of the national question. 

If the Katter group turns into another One Nation, the danger is that yet again many good people will be first directed into what we feel to be futile vote-chasing efforts, probably for a number of years, and then, when it is all over, a large number of those people will leave yet another organisation disillusioned, worn out and ready to quit the fight for good.

There has to be a better option.

It is the view of Australia First that this better option is to break free from the obsession with vote-chasing and adopt a broader strategy in which electoral work is combined with -- and at times very much subordinate to -- community campaigns and educational work of all sorts.

We have outlined this strategy before:
"The Australia First Party is an incorporation registered as a Federal party. That does not mean that its function is only to contest elections. The party operates to the ‘three tier method’. This means that the party contests elections, wages community campaigns of all sorts to build links with fellow Australians and to unite all Australians - and develops its ideas and principles into an Australianist ideology that also carries on a cultural defence of Australianity against globalisation. The three tiers operate as a unity." ( http://afpwa.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/for-patriotic-united-front.html )

We suggest to One Nation members that this kind of approach is the one to which they too should turn their attention and efforts.  We make this recommendation to all activists and would-be activists, regardless whether they remain for a time within what is left of the One Nation structure, leave the party and operate on their own for a time, join the Katter party, or eventually come over to Australia First, by whatever circuitous route they may take.  We are not out to exclude or vilify good people.  We do however point out that this three-tier approach to activism was largely absent in One Nation, despite the best efforts of some members to change this fact.  One Nation, as a whole, sought only to engage with ordinary Australians as "ballot-box fodder".  We hope the Katter party will be different, but fear that it too is caught up in the hypnotic dance of the electoral cycle and will likely remain so until its eventual demise.

Only in the Australia First party is such a broad and dynamic strategy front and centre, supported and nurtured by the organisation at every level.  Therefore we say to One Nation members: consider your situation.  You are a great asset to our nation's cause, if only you will keep up the fight.  We have suggested the only option we believe will allow you to do so.  When you are ready, we will welcome you.

Immigration Gumballs

We, as nationalists, are of course concerned about the problem of immigration: the stresses caused by excessive immigration on our environment and society, as well as the particular threat to our culture and identity posed by allowing migrants from non-European societies.

But sometimes the raw figures are just too abstract to get a handle on.

So the next time someone tries to argue with you that immigration is a win-win, helping our society to grow and helping the third world to alleviate their over-population problem, get that person to watch the inconic video presentation Immigration Gumballs. This video offers a simple, powerful and striking visual demonstration of just what kind of numbers we are really looking at when immigration and population statistics are involved. The reality presented here is truly staggering.

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

Patriotism and Prejudice

An interesting piece published recently on Alternative Right:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/patriotism-and-prejudice-in-oz/

Australia: For Sale

More on the continuing sale of Australian farm land to China:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/12763636/buying-up-australia

Chinese corporations are buying land in Australia at an alarming rate and fears continue to mount that this will lead to a situation where China owns large tracts of Australian land, employs Chinese labourers to work that land and the sends the products back to China, cutting Australians completely out of the loop in a process that creates no profit or wealth for Australia whatsover.  As anyone with an eye to the bigger picture knows, the world is rapidly heading for a future in which the demand for food and water will be increasingly difficult to meet.  For a long time, we have shrugged off such concerns here in Australia, content that we can feed ourselves and profit by feeding the rest of the world too.  But not if someone else owns the means by which this food will be produced! 

So what is our government doing about it?  According to the linked article, the only action our "leaders" in Canberra have taken is to increase the allowable threshold below which foreign takeovers will not be investigated.  In other words, their only response is to help these Chinese corporations avoid any annoying red tape that might hold up their plans.  (Imagine if they did things like that for Australian businesses!)

We must wake up to the ramifications of this before it is too late.  Australians must reject the parties of the system and support genuine nationalists if our nation is to have a future.

Published Letter: Peter Watson

Readers might be aware of recent events surrounding the disendorsement of Labor candidate Peter Watson.

For those who are not, see this background item:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/alp-replaces-southern-downs-candidate-axed-for-homophobic-rant/story-fnbt5t29-1226281037563

The following letter by Stanthorpe resident Jay Nauss was published in The Stanthorpe Border Post on 28 February and demonstrates that it is always worthwhile making the effort to "be heard".

The letter follows:

Peter Watson hit the political BIG time when he got the sack as the ALP candidate for Southern Downs. And to boot he was kicked out of the ALP.

His crime was stating on Facebook, about five years ago, that he disapproved of homosexuals and linked them to pedophilia. Anyone who criticizes “gays” and their life style will face scandalous persecution. There are some things in this country that one must never question and the “gay” life style is one of them. When it comes to free speech on this issue, it doesn’t exist.

Interestingly, sitting member Springborg waded into the debate and backed up Anna in her scathing attack on young Watson. What ever happened to: “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.”

Once again the LNP and ALP have demonstrated that they are operating on the same side of the fence.

The young Watson will have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for speaking his mind in an otherwise politically correct world.

Jay Nauss

Giving aid to China

Nice to see little old Australia doing its bit to build the economy of the 21st century's next superpower, China.

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/china/aid.cfm

Image via Wikipedia

The AusAID site states:

The Australian Government, through the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), has provided almost 30 years of development assistance to China.

Isn't that re-assuring! 

Perhaps, thought, it might just be time for our politicians to accept the obvious fact -- that giving aid to China is simply not in our long-term, geo-political interests.  Far from it: the new China represents a growing threat to Australia's security, independence and identity, one that we should hardly be financing.

For those who care to think beyond the rhetoric and short-term decision-making, this is yet more evidence that we are ruled by a traitor class that has no regard for identity or sovereignty, but simply rules in the interest of high finance and globalist ideology.

A Book Review: 'On the Brink,' by Hank Paulson

Received from a member in Rockhampton: 

Your reviewer must own up to the darkest suspicious about the American political system.

His faith was first shaken when Jimmy Carter became president, which is probably too long ago for young nationalists of today to remember. Would military officers, this then-young scribbler asked himself, really take orders from such an obvious twit? Never mind the voters: they have to pick one of two, and how the choice is presented to them may leave them feeling they have no choice at all. But some reasonably mature men seem to take part in the process that refines the choice down to that final two. How does a Jimmy Carter get to be one of them?

Then there was George Bush II. He wasn't exactly another Jimmy Carter, but it was still a bit hard to believe that responsible adults would let him into the room while serious decisions were being taken.

And there were even doubts about politicians that your reviewer kind of liked, such as President Ronald Reagan. Ron might say all the right things, and we didn't really care if a script-writer wrote them for him - we knew that was happening. But would a responsible military officer really give an old man like that "the button," the mechanism by which the President of the United States supposedly ordered an atomic strike on the Soviet Union? What if he had a mini-stroke and started a nuclear war because he was confused and thought the Russian missiles were already on their way?

So your reviewer doesn't know what to believe about the American system. He keeps looking for evidence that someone who knows what he is doing is really in charge. And this led him to read Henry Paulson's book.

Henry Paulson was George Bush II's second Treasury Secretary. A Treasury Secretary in the U.S.A. is like a Federal Treasurer in Anustralia, but he isn't quite as high up the pecking order. An Australian Treasurer is always the second man in the government, and he often believes he should be the first man. There is a long tradition of Australian Treasurers kicking out their Prime Ministers and taking over, or at least having a go at it. In America the Treasury Secretaryship is not usually a starring role: the stars are the President, the Secretary of State (Minister for Foreign Affairs), and the Secretary of Defence. But in the financial crisis of 2008, Henry Paulson found himself at the centre of things.

Your reviewer remembers when H.P. was appointed. George Bush's now-long-forgotten first Treasury Secretary was sacked because he couldn't remember to keep saying the things that the boys in the President's office told him to say - he couldn't stay "on message," and apparently he couldn't decide anything either.

The 'Australian Financial Review,' Australian businesses' newspaper of record, informed its readers that Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs was taking the job, and he was taking it on the condition that he was actually going to be in charge. Nobody was going to be telling him to stay "on message." Coming from Goldman Sachs, he would expect to outrank the boys in the President's office, and probably outrank the President too.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 struck, and Henry Paulson was suddenly the man in the hot seat. The Administration's policy on financial matters was suddenly the government policy that everyone wanted to know about, and President George wasn't really up to explaining it, or knowing what it was either. Henry had to do it, and he took to the crisis like a duck to water. He convened meetings. He negotiated with some people and gave orders to others. He accompanied his boss, George, to meet other terrifically important people such as President Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Merkel (a girl) of Germany, and assorted Chinese. He talked a lot on the telephone with Ben (Bernanke) and Tim (Geithner), and had lots of conference calls and late-night and weekend work, and so had his staff (he had lots of staff). He gave Sheila (Bair) a friendly shoulder to cry on.

He thought they were all good fellows most of the time, and he said a prayer to the Christian Scientist god (don't ask me - I don't know) once in a while, and occasionally had to rush out of a meeting to hide in a corner and have some "dry heaves." Your reviewer usually gets hay fever in those sorts of situations. Dry heaves might at least be over more quickly. Wet ones would be nasty though.

The President, great man that he was, occasionally came in with wise words of the sort usually attributed to sports coaches. You know the sort of thing: "Hang in there, tiger."

Your reviewer has now decided, on the basis of this book, that if anyone is really in charge in the United States, he or they don't bother to look down as far as the Department of the Treasury. If Henry knows anything about economic history, about the many times all this has happened before, he never mentions it. Does he know about the Fuggers of Antwerp, who financed kings, and whose collapse "shook the world"? Does he know about the Knights Templar, whose banking operations came to an abrupt end when they were all tortured and executed? Does he know about the Medici, who did better than the Templars, rising to provide the world with two popes (Leo X and Clement VII) and two Queens of France (Catherine de Medici and Marie de Medici) on the strength of their family's financial skills?

Your reviewer wouldn't expect every young Australian nationalist to know about all those things. But someone who is one of the top dozen or so men in the world, in terms of financial management, and whose whole speciality and career is in financial management, should know something of what has gone before. He should know about the 1890s depression and the inflation that occurred in Europe after the Spanish discovery of gold in South America, and what the consequences were. He should know about the Mississippi Bubble and John Law's paper money fiasco in France. Your reviewer knows at least something about those things, and he would want to be very careful about repeating the mistakes that led to the worst disasters. But Henry is from Goldman Sachs and he found himself in charge of American financial policy at a time of crisis, and he apparently believes that history began with World War II, and that all he needs to know is the law and how to bend it.

While all this was going on, like a good American novelist, he apparently still managed to notice the weather: "It was an overcast day in Washington." Your reviewer wouldn't have noticed a medium-level earthquake if he had been in that position.

There was another Marie (not de Medici) who was Queen of France once - Marie Antoinette to be exact. She had undue influence on her husband and the government, and she believed that a Minister of Finance should be a nice boy, never mind whether he knew anything about finance. Eventually the French cut her head off. Henry's boss, George Bush II, should be grateful the same thing didn't happen to him.