Australia New Zealand Nationalist Protectionist Alliance First Party (Democrats)

The good citizens of NSW go to the polls on Saturday September 13 to elect worthy representatives to their local councils.

Boring?

Yes of course. But not entirely. Or at least, not as boring as the Logies anyway.

In the Sutherland Shire, in the ding-dong battle for last place, the ‘nationalist’ parties are — divided. On the one hand, protecting Australia, is p0rn salesman Darrin Hodges; on the other hand, putting Australia first, is Doctor of Philosophy James Saleam. Hodges is the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, having for a short period been a member of Australia First and Saleam’s loyal sidekick. Unfortunately, Hodges was kicked to the curb by Saleam, for reasons which remain a little obscure but which appear to have something to do with Hodges’ being a little too independent-minded.

For his part, while losing some support to the Australian Protectionists (and the rump of the party in rural Victoria), Saleam has sent a coo-ee over the seas, and formed a Trans-Tasman Alliance with a handful of fascist veterans from Aotearoa/New Zealand. (This momentous event was actually announced several months ago, but being a slack bastard, I hadn’t noticed ’til now.)

Achtung!

The ANZAC Declaration: Australia First Party And New Zealand Nationalist Alliance: Declaration Of Common Interests And Future Relations
April 25, 2008

Australian and New Zealand nationalists have opted to address common issues and deepen their association.

The publication of this Declaration will be followed by face to face discussions in Sydney to set the terms of this new bond.

The nationalists recognise that there is a long historical link between the two countries. This connection has had a face in war (the shared ANZAC legacy) and a basis in common origins.

Today, Australia and New Zealand have both different and similar current internal problems to resolve, but they certainly face common threats, extant and future – from the New World Order regime based in America and its globalisation measures and wars, the international Zionist apparatus and its warmongering and other manipulations, climate changes, refugees, the crisis of Third World population and immigration and the rise of the Chinese superpower and its imperialist activities in the South Pacific. These dangers unite the two countries in a common destiny. To survive our time, a new arrangement of common defence and alliance must be forged.

Of late, Australian nationalists have reinvigorated the Australia First Party. This party grows stronger, ideologically, politically and organizationally. After failed attempts by reactionary elements to deflect the party towards pseudo mainstream (sic) politics and the continuing crisis of the patriotic forces generally, this party advances a programme, a strategy and viable tactics for success.

The Australia First Party intends to – and shall manage to – unite all genuine patriotic people into a united nationalist party.

Of late, New Zealand nationalists have worked to overcome a period of disunion caused by unfavourable external political factors and fractious individuals. The present trend towards unity is inexorable. New Right New Zealand, the National Democrats and the National Front have created a common co-operative structure in the Nationalist Alliance.

Ultimately, one nationalist party shall emerge, uniting the best people in the broad New Zealand movement.

The Australian and New Zealand nationalists are resolved to exchange ideas and information, to campaign jointly whenever possible and to build a firm association for the future.

For Australia: Brendan Gidley, Jim Saleam, Neil Baird
For New Zealand: Kyle Chapman, Anton Foljambe, Kerry Bolton

For fuck’s sake

The usual suspects, in other words. Not included as signatories to the above statement but apparently supportive are two other Kiwi fascists, Collin Ansell and Steve Larsen.

“For Australia”, Jim Saleam and Neil Baird are reasonably well-known; Brendan Gidley is a little more obscure. In 1993, Gidley stood for a seat in the Victorian Senate along with Brian Buckley, a serial candidate (Gidley got 48 votes). At around this time, Gidley was associated with what one source describes as being “the tiny, anti-immigrant National Republican Movement”, the address for which was given as being a PO Box in Kew; Gidley was also a One Nation activist in the Ringwood (Melbourne) branch. Norm Dixon (who has denounced yours truly for being a right-winger) asserts that Gidley was expelled from ONP once his membership of the NRM was made public (Neo-Nazi thugs offer their services to Hanson, Green Left Weekly, August 19, 1998).

Another Victorian with a radical past who has hitched his star to Pauline’s wagon is Brendan Gidley, a One Nation branch committee member in the Melbourne suburb of Ringwood. Gidley stood for a Victorian Senate seat in 1993 for the Republican Party of Australia. He is also the founder of the tiny National Republican Movement, an anti-immigrant group that was active in the early 1990s, and which modelled itself on National Action. The NRM issued posters using artwork from the US-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. One of its stickers read: “Mass Third World immigration: Enriching our culture by TB, syphilis, AIDS, hepatitis, rabies, leprosy.” The NRM is still active, and is listed on a new far-right website as a supplier of “nationalist literature” written by former National Action and National Socialist (Nazi) Party leader Jim Saleam. The address given is Gidley’s PO Box in the Melbourne suburb of Kew.

For New Zealand:

Colin (King-)Ansell (c.1947–): A veteran neo-Nazi, King-Ansell was once der Führer of the New Zealand National Socialist (Nazi) Party, served 18 months in jail for committing arson on a synagogue, and attempted to organise a gang of boneheads called ‘Unit88′; it ended badly.
Kerry Bolton (1956–): Another former NZ Nazi Party member, Bolton is a highly-entertaining fascist bozo, having been a member of numerous other political formations: the National Front (1978), Church of Odin (1980), New Force (1981), Nationalist Workers Party (1983), Fascist Union (1998), Workers’ Front (1999), and others. Most recently, Bolton — who is also some kinda Satanist — helped form the New Zealand New Right (not to be confused with Welf Herfurth’s New Right Australia & New Zealand).
Kyle Chapman (1971–): Popularly known as ‘The Pieman’ on account of his fondness for pies, Chapman, like Ansell, has an aversion to Maori culture, and is a former Führer of the New Zealand National Front (NZNF), currently led by a Squid called Sid (Wilson). Upon leaving the NZNF, Chapman helped form the National Democrats, which died not long after its birth.
Anton Foljambe (1972–): Foljambe, like the other members of the Nationalist Alliance, has been a member of a number of previous fascist groupuscules, in his case including the Conservative Front, National Front and — along with Chapman and Bolton — the National Democrats.
Steve Larsen (?): A bonehead, and formerly the ‘intelligence’ officer for the NZNF, a role which he continued in the New Right.

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2014 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anti-fascism, State / Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Australia New Zealand Nationalist Protectionist Alliance First Party (Democrats)

  1. THR says:

    I’ve seen some clowns on the blogs extolling the virtues of an ‘Australian Protectionist Party’. I presume they are the same party as that featured in this post.

    Still, I look forward to the next AC Nielsen poll, which proudly announces that the reason for Nelson’s unpopularity is his inability to deal with the international Zionist apparatus. That and alcopops.

  2. Darrin Hodges says:

    That would be ” Hodges’ “, not ” Hodge’s “. And I will be running in a different ward to whoever Saleam cons into standing. As for the “Illiteratie Alliance”, Kyle reports that his “delicates” were “dismayed” at how many “alians” had taken over Australia and professed undying devotion to Jimbo -

    http : // www . stormfront . org / forum / showthread . php / we-support-jim-afp-498774 . html

    “We in NZ have things to learn from Jim.”

    I’m sure Col and Jimbo can swap arson notes…

  3. Darrin Hodges says:

    Should be “Illiterati”, damn “Alians”. Btw, the Protectionists have nothing to do with the loons on either side of the Tasman, therefore the title of this post is somewhat misleading.

  4. @ndy says:

    I think “nothing” may be a slight exaggeration.

  5. Darrin Hodges says:

    Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In any event, I’m looking forward to an interesting campaign, which incidentally, I have already started – darrinhodges.com.

  6. @ndy says:

    APP formed as a split from the AF; until last year, the Adelaide contact for the APP was the Adelaide contact for AF; so too, the ACT. The Melbourne APP address — and Destiny zine — was formerly that of the AF as well. Beyond these (former) organisational affiliations, AF and APP pursue almost identical policies and programs. Equally obviously, the Kiwi mob has lined up behind Saleam and AF — although it’s hard to imagine this making much difference to those within the local ‘nationalist’ milieu. I do wonder, however, which way your kamerad Welf Herfurth will jump…

  7. Darrin Hodges says:

    The formation of APP had been in the works for some months before the “split”; it was not so much as a split as a complete break from the lunatic political fringe. Adelaide and Melbourne simply broke away from AFP at the appropriate time.

    It’s a pretty weak argument to suggest because two separate groups have similar agendas that they are therefore “working together”. Saleam is a socialist and has nothing in common with APP. The only reason Saleam has formed his “Illiterati alliance” with the Kiwis is out of sheer desperation.

  8. Andrew says:

    To imply that because two groups have similar views on a few policies makes them identical in motivation and aim is like implying all Labor Party members molest little children and all Greens members are poofs…

    The separation of these two groups would have been due to much deeper reasons. If THR was really interested in developments on the nationalist side of politics, minor research (which would not have been too taxing) would have revealed that Jim Saleam’s oddly named alliance clearly has nothing to do with APP and is clearly not the same party.

    Then again, it’s probably much easier to light up a bong and close your eyes after reading the first five words…

    Oh, keep up the great work here Andy!!! Where’s my mate from the Stalinist High Command?

  9. @ndy says:

    Andrew,

    Both AF and the APP are Australian political parties, located on the far right, and dedicated to (restoring) a White Australia. A number of members of the APP were members of AF and, as detailed above, there are a number of other organisational and historical links between the two. The two parties also pursue almost identical policies and programs; if there are any substantial differences, I’m unaware of them. The principal figure in both parties is Doctor James Saleam, and it’s about his person, and his cronies, that the distinction between the two would appear to turn.

  10. Darrin Hodges says:

    The difference is @ndy, we are not them. Additionally, Saleam has never had anything to do with APP and is not its ‘principle’ figure. I do not know where you get that from, but never mind, never let the facts get in front of a good story.

  11. Darrin Hodges says:

    And there is most certainly no “alliance”, nor will there ever be.

  12. @ndy says:

    Sheesh.

    I’m well aware of the fact that AF and AP are separate parties; when I write “The principal figure in both parties is Doctor James Saleam, and it’s about his person, and his cronies, that the distinction between the two would appear to turn” I mean “The principal figure in terms of the history of both parties is Doctor James Saleam, and it’s about his person, and his cronies, that the distinction between the two would appear to turn”.

    Read for context. In other words:

    The two parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of policy and program. What separates them is the figure of Saleam; it was as a result of discontent with his leadership that AF split in September of last year. Minus Saleam, there is little to separate AF from AP.

    Whether or not there’s a future “alliance” I’ve no idea. In the short term, given the bad blood between the two, this would appear to be unlikely. In the longer term, who knows? Saleam is a veteran of the far right, and is going nowhere fast. As such, his grip on AF is unlikely to be loosened any time soon, and the party will likely remain under his control until either a) it no longer serves any useful purpose for him or b) he dies. As for AP, again, who knows? Like the far left, the modern history of the far right is littered with numerous tiny groupuscules, none of which — with the possible, and only partial, exception of Pauline Hanson’s One Notion — have made any significant or lasting impact on the political life of the country. As such, it’s extremely unlikely AP will be in any way an exception to this rule.

    As always, for the far right, the smart money is on the Tories. (Cf. Alex Hawke.)

  13. Darrin Hodges says:

    Sadly for you @ndy, you really don’t know the half of it.

  14. Clarifying factual inaccuracies:

    1) The NZ Nationalist Alliance (National Democrats, New Right, NF) has no connection with the Australian Protectionist Party.

    2) Kerry Bolton is not connected with any occult organizations.

    3) The sociopath Sid Wilson has no connection with the NF.

    Other than that, reasonably accurate.

  15. Andrew says:

    Aren’t you a little behind the times throwing around the old “left right” cliches?

    The reality of the political spectrum, if you wish to use a left right view, is the fact government involvement in the lives of the citizens is the only thing one can use to measure a political position.

    On one end of the spectrum you have totalitarian control (Nazism, Communism) on the other end is total anarchy…

    This being a fact, that places parties such as APP in the centre…

    As for Australia First or the NZ Alliance, you’ll have to ask them (assuming you can contact either Dr.Saleam or Ms.Teasdale).

  16. dj says:

    Jedi mind tricks don’t work on the Internet.

  17. @ndy says:

    The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ have their origins in the French Revolution, and have been subjected to various forms of contention since then (1789). Such contention is not peculiar to these terms, but characterises political debate more generally, including in reference to other common terms such as Nazism, Communism, liberalism, conservatism, democracy, freedom, rights, and so on and so forth. When I use the term ‘far right’ to describe the politics of AF and AP, I use it in accordance with a fairly standard definition. Much more could be said, and perhaps will.

  18. Andrew says:

    Thanks for at least stating your position on this Andy-even though I don’t agree with the outdated use of the terms which I now feel to be entirely irrelevant considering most left/right organisations appear to be two sides of the same coin pursuing the same objectives.

    Your reply at least contributed something a bit more in depth than the glib superficial reply from the spotty Star Wars geek (it must be hard to see clearly when you’re on the Dark side, huh dj?).

  19. @ndy says:

    Darrin Hodges, Feb 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    …Can you detail how I’m “extreme right wing” or not? It’s all very well to sling such phrases around, yet nobody wants to provide any sort of backing for them.

    @ndy, Feb 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    The term ‘right-wing’ is usually used to denote political conservatism; that is, the desire for society to remain largely as it is. (The left/right distinction derives from the French Revolution and the position of members in the Legislative Assembly. Left in the case of republicans, right in the case of monarchists.) Further, to term someone an ‘extremist’ or a ‘moderate’ is to place them on a spectrum of political opinion, whether nominally ‘left’, ‘right’, or according to some other measurement. The more ‘extreme’, the more deeply-held and broader-based the opinion. It’s also the case that the position an individual or group occupies on such a spectrum is measured across a range of different issues, and is usually understood as being a reflection of the individual or group’s position in general, rather than with regards each and every possible political position they may adopt.

    In the context of contemporary Australian politics, a racial conservative is someone who wishes to retain a White Australia. This, clearly, is your considered opinion. You express hostility towards homosexuality. This is partly a function of your support for the bourgeois family unit (mother, father, children) as constituting one of, if not the, cornerstones of Australian, or indeed perhaps any decent society. It is also, I think, the product of a much more visceral reaction to non-heterosexual expressions of sexuality in general, and a certain conception of the right and proper place of men and women in society. In other words, it is in part an expression of a conservative conception of gender politics. You express hostility to Islam, because you believe it to be hostile to the maintenance of a White (mono-racial), Christian (mono-religious), mono-cultural and mono-ethnic Australia. This is partly why you are member of a political party that has adopted the name ‘Protectionist’.

    In terms of political economy, you express hostility to ’socialism’, trade unions and ‘globalisation’, and wish the Australian state to play a more interventionist role in maintaining its racial and ethnic identity, as well as (re-)stablishing a manufacturing base, and imposing tariffs on imported goods and manufactures in order to ‘protect’ Australian manufacturing and rural industries.

    In all the above respects, your politics are in accord with an Australian political tradition, one which has usually been termed ‘conservatism’.

  20. Andrew says:

    By and large not too bad a response here from someone with what you would supposedly call left wing views.

    One query though about your claims regarding APP philosophy- from where do you get your view that we are anti union? Many of our members are union members by choice and I have yet to meet any APP members who are of the opinion there is no place in Australian workplaces for the existence and operation of the union movement.

    Is the re establishment of Australian manufacturing a hallmark of conservative politics? Immigration control? In our nation’s history these were in fact the foundation principles of Labor governments…

    Hostility to Islam? Personally I don’t give a rat’s if someone wishes to follow Islam, that is their choice, however upon reading the attitudes expressed by Mohammed towards non Moslems (Kfar), the desire by his followers to lower the marital age for girls to between 6-9 years of age to copy his exulted example of purity, I can’t help but feel the place for such a religion is in their own lands-until such time as the general population start to question the tenets of their own Faith and line up their Mullahs against the wall. Until then, their faith, their culture and standards are their business in their lands.

    Yes, the revulsion we hold towards those dirty old men wanting to have sex with 9 year olds might be bourgeois, but hell we make no apology for it.

    All in all, interesting post Andy.

  21. @ndy says:

    “Where do you get your view that we are anti union?”

    Where would someone get the view that the Communists, or the Nazis or the Fascists or other fascist political formations, were ‘anti-union’? Across the political spectrum, with very few exceptions, there’s a general recognition of the utility of some form of trade union organisation. Thus unions, of one sort or another, have existed under all sorts of different political regimes, including those referred to above. So, when I wrote ‘anti-union’, I mean ‘anti-union’ in the sense that there are strong, though necessarily implied, restrictions upon union activity in the AP’s vision, a vision which is considered as being the embodiment of some notion of the ‘national interest’ — one to which trade unions, and the labour movement generally, is to be strictly subordinated. In this sense, AP is ‘anti-union’, especially insofar as unions may be considered as expressions of independent, working-class activity, and not national organisations (cf. Mussolini on corporatism). In terms of policy, while AP blathers on about the nation and its cornerstone the bourgeois family, there’s no reference to unions at all. Finally, two things. One, the remarks I’ve quoted were directed specifically at Darrin; two, that a number of members of the AP are also members of unions is hardly sufficient grounds to determine the AP’s general perspective on this question.

    “Is the re establishment of Australian manufacturing a hallmark of conservative politics? Immigration control? In our nation’s history these were in fact the foundation principles of Labor governments…”

    Yes and no. The answers to these questions obviously depends on the definitions one employs; secondly, these change over time. The contemporary ‘Liberal’ Party, for example, is anything but liberal. And the reasons for its being named Liberal rather than Conservative have a good deal more to do with Pig Iron Bob’s not unreasonable assumption that ‘conservatism’ was somewhat discredited in the aftermath of WWII…

    That said, the attempt to revitalise secondary industry in Australia is ‘conservative’ in the sense that it harks back to what the journalist Paul Kelly (The End of Certainty, 1991) describes as the ‘Australian Settlement’, consisting of the five pillars of: 1) White Australia, 2) Trade Protection, 3) Wage Arbitration, 4) State Paternalism and 5) Imperial Benevolence. He dates its final disintegration from the 1980s. I think that the AP can be placed within this tradition, also sometimes referred to, in an earlier epoch, as ‘nativism’. That these ‘principles’ were embraced by various Labor parties and Governments is not especially remarkable; from an anarchist, left-wing or progressive perspective, Laborism has invariably been viewed as being essentially ‘conservative’ in the sense that it seeks to conserve bourgeois privilege. (Cf. Vere Gordon Childe, How Labour Governs (1923); V.I. Lenin, ‘In Australia’ (1913), et cetera.)

    On AP and Islam: the AP demands “End Third World immigration and Muslim immigration, and offer economic assistance to those who wish to be reunited with their people’s homeland”. In other words, as I wrote, the party expresses ‘hostility to Islam’. Not unexpectedly, the AP believes this hostility to have a rational basis — but that’s another matter.

  22. Andrew says:

    While I don’t agree entirely with your view at least you’re attempting to think the situation through (albeit coloured by your own distinctive prejudices, but who am I to deny another a right I claim for myself?).

    Interesting in regards to Islam, all you do is quote a tract from an APP leaflet, yet refuse to address the points I have made in regards to the social incompatibility of Islamic standards with ours (however bourgeois those standards might be in your opinion). If I wanted to hit your sister because she didn’t behave in a manner I considered suitable or wanted to have sex with your 9 year old daughter, would you be defending my right to do so in the name of egalitarianism? On what basis would you have the right to deny me under your open minded point of view?

    You can’t continue to sweep such issues under the carpet just because it’s an inconvenient truth that threatens your self perceived image of being inclusive and a defender of the global oppressed.

    These situations worldwide, a clash of culture, exist and you will have to deal with them. Unless of course you intend to do away with culture, religion etc altogether?

    Sounds somewhat imperialistic to me.

  23. @ndy says:

    Again with the Islam:

    1) I didn’t quote from an APP leaflet, but the APP site, and the document outlining its ‘Primary Policies’, of which there are seven. The fifth is titled ‘Protect our people’ and reads:

    Implement a zero-net immigration policy, on a “one in, one out” basis. To have sensible immigration programmes that will be geared towards accepting into our country only those people who will readily fit into our society, primarily from traditional sources such as Europe and Britain. To seek a homogeneous society where we can all live in harmony, free from the ethnic and racial strife caused by social-engineering experiments. End Third World immigration and Muslim immigration, and offer economic assistance to those who wish to be reunited with their people’s homeland.

    2) I haven’t ‘refused’ to address your opinion on Islam; I’ve answered your objection that APP may be considered right-wing. As for APP policy, it’s abundantly clear that the party is resolutely hostile to, and seeks, ideally, to eradicate Islam from Australia. Previously on Hodges’ Street Blues:

    “Australia was a beautiful place once, before it was flooded with third-world sewerage from African [sic] and Asia.” February 26

    “The hide of foreign students demanding our secular universities re-arrange everything just to suit the[ir] filthy religion…” February 25

    (On why Darrin supports Aboriginal land rights) “Kosovo belongs to Serbia, not the Mohammaden hordes who with the help of the United States, have stolen the land.” February 17

    (On the Stolen Generations apology) “…Rudd has re-written Australian history today and condemned an entire generation of Australians to a fate worse then [sic] death, he has condemned a people to extinction…” February 13

    “How stupid do they think we are? The whole Habib family should be deported, they are a blight on this country.” February 9

    “They are traitors just by the very fact they are Muslim…” February 5

    3) You haven’t established any facts, merely made assertions. You’ve also contradicted yourself: on the hand, claiming to be indifferent to the question of Islam; on the other hand, being a leading spokesperson for a tiny, far right party which demands the expulsion of Muslims as a matter of urgency, and on the basis of Islam’s pernicious effects upon the health of the body politic.

    Beyond this, I find central elements of both Christianity and Islam objectionable. But that’s one thing; what matters is the political expression of Islam in Australia. Elements that advocate lowering the marital age for girls to between 6-9 years of age are tiny, and inconsequential.

    On the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis:

    On patriotism:

  24. Andrew says:

    I do not “lead” any organisation, “far right” or otherwise. I certainly hold no fuehrer aspirations and for what it is worth, still do not see how you can cling to your right/left labels just because it makes it easier to pigeon hole those with whom you disagree.

    I guess being a self declared (?) anarchist you view yourself as being outside the political spectrum and do not view yourself as “left wing”, despite espousing a global village, support for those indulging in unnatural sexual practices and the whole gamut of twisted views held by those outside of normal society (the hallmark of left wing extremists)?

    However, I’m getting sidetracked. You mention what matters is the “political expression” of Islam…

    Not quite sure to what you are referring here. Are you saying you don’t mind mosques springing up all over the world provided they keep their wailing private and do not attempt to transfer their personal beliefs into a political movement, thereby forcing all of us to live under Sharia law?

    Or are you saying Islamic beliefs are ok provided they are “tempered” by a political zeal, for example such as that expressed by Libya’s Gaddaffi and his bizarre self styled “Islamic/Socialist” Republic, funding guerilla warfare against your much hated and intolerant bastions of Western Capitalism?

    I haven’t stated facts, merely made assertions? It’s a fact that Moslems are urged to copy the Prophet in every way possible as being the supreme example of the servant of Allah. This includes wedding 9 year old girls, butchering opponents of Islam who will not either: convert, pay tribute or submit to Islamic Law, the execution of homosexuals…

    If I stood up waving the Old Testament and demanded such things – the extreme left, poofs in the pulpit and media would crucify me, yet you’re happy to defend the “right” of such people who espouse such things to live in this country.

    Contradictions? You people should clean out your own side of politics before attempting to go to war on us.

    That said – I do enjoy this. It’s been some time since I had contact with a real live lefty (there’s so few around – oh for the days of the Socialist Youth Alliance, Hail the Fourth International! Sigh…)

  25. dj says:

    Homosexuality is hardly unnatural as it can be found in hundreds of species.

    Anarchists have consistently opposed radical Islam whether it be in places with historically large Muslim populations (as in Turkey or Indonesia) or in places such as Britain or France. Their obsession with policing the sexual acts between consenting adults and extremely narrow readings of acceptable public behaviours has always been one of the major reasons for anarchists and other libertarian socialists/communists to oppose them and other religious authoritarians of all types.

  26. @ndy says:

    I do not “lead” any organisation, “far right” or otherwise. I certainly hold no fuehrer aspirations and for what it is worth, still do not see how you can cling to your right/left labels just because it makes it easier to pigeon hole those with whom you disagree.

    I mistakenly assumed that ‘Andrew’ is in fact Andrew Phillips, the National Chairman (‘fuehrer’) of APP. I use the term ‘far right’ to describe the APP because I believe it’s accurate (and for reasons which I’ve already explained). Others are obviously free to form their own opinions.

    I guess being a self declared (?) anarchist you view yourself as being outside the political spectrum and do not view yourself as “left wing”, despite espousing a global village, support for those indulging in unnatural sexual practices and the whole gamut of twisted views held by those outside of normal society (the hallmark of left wing extremists)?

    First, I’m happy to be called an anarchist, but otherwise belong to what is sometimes referred to as the libertarian left. For further illustration, see, for example, the political compass developed by Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer in Floodgates of Anarchy (1970). Secondly, I suppose that, in some sense, I espouse support for a ‘global village’ — if by that one means global social revolution. Regarding support for those indulging in unnatural sexual practices, again, that’s kinda true, although with the obvious provisos: 1) those sexual practices typically deemed ‘unnatural’ — for example, homosexual intercourse — are ‘natural’ in the sense that they occur across all human cultures, times and places and; 2) if you go against nature, that’s part of nature too (cf. the naturalistic fallacy). Regarding the gamut of views you believe to be twisted and unconventional, no: merely because an opinion is perverse or unconventional, I don’t necessarily endorse it. Finally, the relationship between left-wing thought and human sexuality is a lot more complex than you suppose. For much of its history, ‘the left’ has viewed homosexuality, for example, in much the same manner as the right. That is, as being a form of moral corruption.

    You mention what matters is the “political expression” of Islam…

    Not quite sure to what you are referring here. Are you saying you don’t mind mosques springing up all over the world provided they keep their wailing private and do not attempt to transfer their personal beliefs into a political movement, thereby forcing all of us to live under Sharia law?

    Or are you saying Islamic beliefs are ok provided they are “tempered” by a political zeal, for example such as that expressed by Libya’s Gaddaffi and his bizarre self styled “Islamic/Socialist” Republic, funding guerilla warfare against your much hated and intolerant bastions of Western Capitalism?

    What I’m referring to by the term ‘political expression of Islam’ is fairly straightforward; that is, how do contemporary Australian Muslim communities, groups and individuals organise and express themselves politically? The APP expresses the view that Islam and Muslims should be eradicated from Australia, on the basis, according to you, of such things as their purported attempts “to lower the marital age for girls to between 6-9 years of age”. You provide no evidence for this view, and it hardly seems fair — to put it mildly — to characterise the political views of Australians Muslims as revolving around realising this desire. In fact, it’s lunacy.

    On religion, I think Marx was on to something:

      Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. ~ Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
  27. @ndy says:

    The APP is to Political Philosophy as Batman & Robin is to Film.

  28. Andrew says:

    Aired on LBC TV (Lebanon) – June 19, 2008 – 00:03:08 :

    Dr. Ahmad Al-Mub’i, a Saudi Marriage Officiant: It Is Allowed to Marry a Girl at the Age of One, If Sex Is postponed. The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married ‘Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine :

    Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008:

    Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi: Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage – having sex with the wife for the first time – is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father’s opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife… But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries, they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen.

    [...]

    The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took ‘Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.

    Interviewer: When she was six…

    Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model.

  29. @ndy says:

    God Hates Fags
    God Hates The World
    Priests Rape Boys

    You Are The Picture Of Rebellion And Perversion, Doomed america: Nodding And Goofy-Grinning To The Fags As They Slobber On Each Other, While Turning Your Didactic Ire On Us Unashamed Proclaimers Of God’s Clear Standards

    Translation: You’re An Idiot.

  30. Andrew says:

    Hmm, what a shame. Can’t win your point so you turn to an insult?

    There was me thinking you actually had some degree of intelligence despite the bizarre political philosophy.

    Can’t win them all.

  31. @ndy says:

    Andrew,

    When I write that you’re an idiot, I mean it, just as I mean it when I describe the APP as belonging to the far right. Citing the opinion of a ‘Saudi Marriage Officiant’ named Dr. Ahmad Al-Mub’i — as if this somehow constituted conclusive proof regarding the political opinions of the approximately 340,000 Muslims residing in Australia — is idiotic (ĭd’ē-ŏt’ĭk):

    adj.

    1. Showing foolishness or stupidity.
    2. Exhibiting idiocy.

    idiotically id’i·ot’i·cal·ly adv.

  32. dj says:

    Oh come on Andy, I saw Waleed Aly demanding the exact same thing on Salam Cafe the other night! (O_o)

  33. @ndy says:

    First, a half-hour program on SBS; next, your six-year old daughter!

    Read between the lines people!

  34. Andrew says:

    Uh huh, and if some so called “right winger” came on t.v demanding all ethnic minorities be gassed, he’d be speaking for ASIO’s estimated 210,000 active “right wingers” in Australia right?

    You can’t have it both ways – you’re happy to have a blanket opinion of your much despised “right wingers”, yet you attempt to ridicule others using the same pigeon hole methods?

    Hypocrite!

    Yeah, read between the lines people.

  35. @ndy says:

    LOL!

    As I said: idiot.

    If some “right winger” — that is, racist lunatic — came on Australian TV and demanded all ethnic minorities be gassed, I’d wonder how much longer it would be before Patrick O’Sullivan once again found himself behind bars.

    Obviously, ‘right wing’ does not necessarily equal ‘racist’, and nowhere have I claimed otherwise. Regarding the supposed fact that ASIO estimates that there are 210,000 active “right wingers” in Australia, that’s the first I’ve heard. If you have a source, feel free to provide it. But whether true or not, this supposed fact bears no relation to anything I’ve written — one of the main characteristics, in addition to idiocy, of your remarks thus far.

    “You can’t have it both ways – you’re happy to have a blanket opinion of your much despised “right wingers”, yet you attempt to ridicule others using the same pigeon hole methods?”

    You’re arguing with an imaginary opponent Andrew; perhaps one of the teenage members of the ‘Socialist Youth Alliance’ you encountered in the early 1980s, I really don’t know.

    What I’ve written above is quite straightforward. Among other things, I’ve:

    1) Located the APP on the far right;
    2) Provided a definition of the term ‘right’, and explained why I believe the term applies to the APP (paying particular attention to Australian political history);
    3) Made note of the APP’s commitment to a White Australia and the complete removal of Muslims;
    4) Disputed the idea that the statement of a Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia on the subject of Islam and the age at which girls may marry, may be used to describe the (diverse) political opinions of Australia’s Muslim peoples, and therefore constitutes a very poor basis upon which to argue for their mass expulsion, and finally;
    5) Declared you to be an idiot.

    Have fun honing your debating skills while arguing with all the other pigeons in Adelaide Andrew.

  36. Andrew says:

    Oooh, you’re so nasty…

    I live in Adelaide? Another example of your superior intellect you [sexy] unemployed, dope smoking knob jockey piece of shit!

    Have fun taking ya AIDS medication you [sexy] Che loving deadshit!

    Tosser.

  37. juancastro says:

    Met my first national anarchist at the climate change protest today. Was saying something about culture… what the fuck was wrong with this guy; I couldn’t tell if he was a confused lefty or a self-hating nazi.

  38. Darrin Hodges says:

    What the hell is a “climate change protest”?

  39. @ndy says:

    “Met my first national anarchist at the climate change protest today. Was saying something about culture… what the fuck was wrong with this guy; I couldn’t tell if he was a confused lefty or a self-hating nazi.”

    Fascists in anarchist drag tend to get all itchy.

  40. Lumpen says:

    What the hell is a “climate change protest”?

    Presumably something intended to influence government policy on things that hasten human-induced climatic change.

    And I’ll take “self hating-nazi” for ten dollars, thanks Juan.

  41. A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY

    WHY WE CONTINUE THE FIGHT

    Graeme Campbell and others paid a big price to establish the “Australia First Party”, and the “Eight Core Policies” are an important expression of the aspirations and values of the Australian people and our culture.

    We believe “Australia First” is needed to keep current issues in the Media, and to provide information to educate the people. Our Party is needed to give an alternative for those who care about the future and are concerned about giving into the Globalists who are intent on destroying our Australian culture and way of life.

    We do not need to be a registered political party to be effective. In fact, we do not need to be in Parliament to have an influence. Members acting within their own communities can make an enormous contribution to the knowledge and motivation of people on important issues. Organisations are still needed to inform and unite genuine Australians. This will be particularly important for people to be able to communicate their concerns when the push for a republic is re-ignited and with so many other issues that worry us such as -

    Water – Its shortage and availability to grow clean and green Australian food, and the future cost of our water and food to us as consumers. Fluoridation of our water – There are risks to our medium and long-term health. G.M.O.’s – Genetically modified organisms. Health – Codex and availability of vitamins. Foreign doctors’ standards – Access to Hospital beds. Immigration – 457 Visas – Sharia Law – Housing affordability. Free Trade Agreements – Unlimited business immigration – Fire Blight – the list goes on…

    Our recent and ongoing battle with the terminated members of “Australia First” is an attempt by them to undermine our credibility by sending out literature pretending to represent our Party. They have organised their own membership forms and kept the money and donations, which have been misdirected away from us under false pretences. This unfortunately has resulted in the depletion of our financial base, which has temporarily affected services to you, our members, but we continue to be active on a local level.

    This infiltration of our Party was slow and methodical and while we were cautious, after having been alerted to their background, we thought we had all bases covered. We didn’t count on them totally ignoring all the rules and the Constitution of our Party, and bulldozing members with lies, false membership forms, and the misappropriation of membership money and donations.

    It has been very disturbing to receive documents sent to our genuine members of Australia First by people who have had their memberships cancelled by the National Council – under the false pretence that they represent our Party. Using the name “Australia First” shows the level of deceit they have used to discredit the genuine Australia First Party. When we refused to cooperate with their push to register with the A.E.C. using “five dollar feral members” and to hand over the database, members of the National Council were threatened.

    By using and discrediting our name, they attempt to make it difficult for us to be affective and retain credibility.

    Interestingly their methods are similar to those used by the famous “Abbott and Costello’s father-in-law” – “Campaign for Honest Politicians”. It is probably being directed and financed from the same high places. We may never establish where the initiative is coming from, as these people do not have the ability, support, or money, to have orchestrated this on their own. They now have two separate groups. Some are committed Republicans and some are passionate about the historical significance of the name “Australia First”. It seems this commitment to control the name was the original aim of this political group.

    Not being great in number, it has been said that “they could have a full meeting in a telephone box”. These people prefer to attack on the colour of an immigrant’s skin rather than the Government policy that allows the excessive and inappropriate immigration opposed by “Australia First” policy. The important issue of preserving our Constitution, our unique culture, and the support and protection of our families, businesses and farmers is ignored. Race-based issues dominate their agenda and they continue to run inflammatory campaigns that are at odds with the law. Interestingly they appear to be a protected species and have not been prosecuted.

    AUSTRALIA FIRST (COUNCIL PARTY) N.S.W.
    Despite the fact that we objected to the N.S.W. Electoral Commission, and also the fact our name “Australia First Party” was registered with ASIC, it became obvious that these two Statutory Government Bodies offer no security to genuine political parties. These people were able to register “Australia First (Council Party) NSW”, deceiving our members in NSW by giving the impression that they were operating under the authority of the National Council. In fact, their cunning, and the cooperation of the NSW Electoral Commission, who even helped by backdating their approval – saw them override the Australia First Party Constitution and rules after we discovered and objected to their plan to register in N.S.W. without the authority of the National Council.

    It is our understanding that they are currently attempting to deceive enough people to join their pseudo “Australia First Party” to enable them to register the party name Federally with the Australian Electoral Commission.

    If we allow schemers like these to destroy the name of “Australia First” and the credibility we have all helped to develop, their warped ideology will go down in Australian history as a representation of our Party. We are concerned that we have wasted a lot of valuable time and resources to establish what was happening behind the scenes and have not been able to continue to build on the credible work that we have all done in the past.

    It is not the Australian way to sit back and allow people like this to destroy our Party that has been built to support and protect our unique culture and save Australia from Globalism and a Multicultural takeover.

    PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE ONLY VALID ADDRESS FOR THE PARTY IS P.O. BOX 6358, SHEPPARTON. 3632

    http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au

    THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE RUBBISH WRITTEN BY THE PSEUDO PARTY BASED IN SYDNEY
    “Of late, Australian nationalists have reinvigorated the Australia First Party. This party grows stronger, ideologically, politically and organizationally. After failed attempts by reactionary elements to deflect the party towards pseudo mainstream (sic) politics and the continuing crisis of the patriotic forces generally, this party advances a programme, a strategy and viable tactics for success.”

    THE QUESTION THAT WE ASK IS “WHO CONTINUES TO FINANCE THESE PEOPLE?”

Leave a Reply