Australia First ~versus~ Australian Protectionist Party (March 2010)

For those of you coming in late, the Australia First Party (AF) and Australian Protectionist Party (APP) are currently fighting a ding-dong battle for the hearts and minds of White nationalists in Australia. Both parties — neither of which, it should be noted, are as yet registered with the AEC — oppose non-White immigration and ‘multiculturalism’ and, as part of a broader-ranging nationalism, wish to see a return to a White Australia policy on the part of government. Sadly, they part ways over the question of who and/or what constitutes the greatest threat to White Australia. For AF, it is New World Order liberal-globalist-capitalism and the ‘traitor class’ — heavily-indebted to the Zionist lobby nudge nudge wink wink — which is responsible for our current malaise. APP, on the other hand, like the BNP, claims not to be anti-Semitic, and views Islamisation (and Asianisation) as being matters of the most pressing concern.

Beyond any political differences, acrimony between the parties is also fuelled by the fact that the APP emerged as a reaction to the perceived failings of AF’s current leadership, and the poor character of Dr James Saleam (dubbed ‘The Mad Arab’ by right-wing critics on account of his Lebanese ancestry and personal style). For its part, AF accuses APP of going soft on The Jewish Question, and of being far too close to the far right within the Liberal Party (Darrin Hodges, chief spokesperson for APP in NSW, is a former member) in both its organisation and its political perspectives. Further, while AF looks to Germany and the NPD for its inspiration, APP models itself upon the more ‘moderate’ British National Party (which AF has denounced in favour of the National Front).

Given the collapse of such groups as Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI), and the continuing disintegration of the One Nation Party (ONP) in its various forms, it’s possible that, in the longer term (and barring the emergence of another right-wing demagogue such as Pauline Hanson), either or both AF and APP will become the leading racist, right-wing fringe party. Given that’s the case, how are they faring? Some recent developments are outlined below.

See also : Deep veins: Australia and race (February 6, 2010).

Those Pesky Protectionists

APP member Nicholas (Hunter) Folkes *s in a report by Kate Carr in a Sydney local newspaper concerning his supposed candidacy for the seat of Sydney at the next Federal election.

Folkes is a rather funny fellow. In previous remarks on my blog, he’s accused me of being a “racist wanker”, a “Marxist Nazi turd” and an “anti-Semite”, described Greens leader Bob Brown as an “anarchist homo” and a “poof” who will be killed by Muslims if they’re given the opportunity (a point also made by APP NSW chairperson Darrin Hodges during the course of his brief appearance on an episode of Q&A), and who believes that “Nazis, Pinkos and Greens” are “all part of the same divisive mob”.

Elsewhere, Nicholas treats readers to the following words of wisdom (January 10, 2009):

You are mentally challenged… just read your crap comment regarding muslim school at camden. That psycho nutter is you and all your muslim rapist friends. Australia was wealthier and better off when it was ‘whiter’. Now that all the foreign trash has arrived, isn’t it amazing that our standard of living has dropped?

In August 2009 Folkes, a rabid supporter of the British National Party (BNP), denounced Filipinos on the BNP Facebook page in the following terms:

Filipinos are gold diggers, they’d marry your grandfather and clear out all the silver and kick dysfunctional idiots like you onto the street. Britain does not need foreign labour in good times or bad. Cheap foreign labour reduces wages, increases house and rental costs, increase [sic] welfare costs, increases crime and anti-social behaviour. Remember toad, Britian [sic] is first world and the Phillipines [sic] is third world, do you get my drift. Import these blowflies and you will go down to their level.
August 26, 2009 at 5:36am

Paula, the Filipinos will build shanty towns like Smokey Mountain in Britain. We have plenty of these free loaders in Australia, do not let them into Britain. Their qualifications are not the same standard as Britians [sic]. The more foreign rubbish you let in the weaker the British economy will be. Vote BNP for a return to common sense and British first policies.
August 26, 2009 at 5:42am

Paul – you are a dickhead. Filipino women like you because you are a ticket out of their third world hellhole. About being good in bed, they told me that you are shit in bed[.]
August 27, 2009 at 5:03am

Typically, Folkes denies the allegation of racism; that honour, apparently, belongs to myself. Similarly, Folkes attacks Islam for its homophobia, but is himself hardly enamoured of “anarchist homos” or “poofs” such as Bob Brown. In other words, Folkes is a garden variety bigot who lacks the intelligence to properly disguise his bigotry by way of coding his language.

Inner west residents infuriated by the Australian Protectionist Party
Kate Carr
Inner West Courier
March 17, 2010

HE thinks Pauline Hanson was misunderstood and that Australia should accept migrants primarily from Europe and Britain, but ask the Australian Protectionist Party’s (APP) Nick Folkes if he is racist and you will get a resounding “no”.

The APP has been infuriating residents in the Inner West by distributing leaflets which call for an end to “African crime”, and blame migrants for everything from unemployment and the housing crisis to climate change.

According to Mr Folkes the party was just talking about “the facts and the reality of what is going on”.

“We call for an end to high numbers of migrants,” Mr Folkes said.

A Rozelle resident for 17 years, Mr Folkes denied his party was on the fringe of politics. “We are here [to] dispel the myth that nationalists are Nazis,” he said. “We are rightwing but not extreme.”

Mr Folkes said he was aware his party would struggle in the left-leaning Inner West but he was still going to run in the seat of Sydney in the next federal election.

“As we get more multicultural and diverse we are just having more problems,” Mr Folkes said.

The APP is particularly focused on Islam and has three flyers on its website addressing the issue of extremism.

Mr Folkes said he was concerned at the treatment of women and gay people by Islam, however his own party opposed adoption rights for same-sex parents and government funding of “homosexual groups”.

The party’s leaflets have prompted several residents to contact the Courier

Complaints regarding allegedly racist leaflets have also occurred in the nearby suburb of Chippendale, on that occasion being produced and distributed by fascist groupuscule Nationalist Alternative (NA). NA most recently came to attention by way of staging an abortive Nuremberg Rally in Perth earlier this month, attempting to promote er, water conservation and opposition to immigration at a rally against the Federal Government’s plans to introduce a web filter.

Chippendale is, of course, one of the suburbs in Tanya Pilbersek’s electorate — the (very) safe seat of Sydney; it is also the location of Humanist House. Humanist House is a property owned by the Humanist Society of NSW, at which local racists have been meeting for the last eight years. The Humanist Society itself contains dozens of racists and fascists in its ranks and, according to another local newspaper report, last month even had one of these fascists, Mark Pavic, elected its Vice-President (see : John August ~versus~ slackbastard, March 19, 2010).

Australia First : Keep On Truckin’

Australia First declared this week (Eureka!, No.219, March 17, 2010) that it will be standing two candidates in western Sydney at the next Federal election: Tony Pettitt, a 55-year-old truckie, in the seat of Greenway and Mick Saunders, a 52-year-old truckie, in the seat of Lindsay. (See also : The Idealistic Faces Of “Australianism”, November 28, 2009). Party Führer Dr James Saleam says: “The party is running on a programme which will focus on the refugee invasion, contract labour and the globalist attack upon Australian small business and workers. We are concerned with the need for direct democracy to deliver Australians from the party dictatorship.”

The latest date given for the registration of the party is now May 1, almost one year since it announced (July 2009) it had obtained the requisite numbers to do so.

AF has also declared that it will be throwing its puny weight behind cockie Peter Spencer who, before coming to fame for sitting up a pole and not eating, was renowned for his love of chopping down trees. Thus:

Australia First (Toowoomba) is sponsoring and co-organising a meeting with Peter Spencer, hero of the pole protest hunger strike. The meeting is [Saturday, March 27]. Peter will be warning Queenslanders of the property grab policies that governments can enforce against landowners. It is expected that hundreds of Darling Downs residents will attend. More details are on the Queensland website.

Nicole Hanley, a neo-Nazi and co-organiser of AF’s annual Sydney Forum, attended a protest rally held in support of Spencer in Canberra on February 2, providing a breathless account of the event for the benefit of readers of Stormfront, the world’s leading source of news and views on all thing White, and host to members of both AF and APP.

Finally, AF is also currently raffling a copy of Imperium by good fascist Francis Parker Yockey. If you really want to secure a copy of Yockey’s magnum opus, however, local neo-Nazi distro 9 percent productions has Imperium for sale for the measly sum of $35.

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 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anti-fascism, State / Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Australia First ~versus~ Australian Protectionist Party (March 2010)

  1. Peaces N' Dreams says:

    You know, change a few things around and you could get a job as their scribe.

    What is worse to you?

    Racist or Rapist? (I got money of the first : P )

  2. White Racialist says:

    The APP is nothing to worry about for you “anti racists”. One notes the fact that the APP is mostly made up of Liberal Party rejects. Darrin Hodges, as you noted a former Liberal Party member, has claimed to be many things in the past half decade. It will be interesting to see how long Darrin’s new party lasts for. Personally, I don’t consider the APP to be a real serious nationalist party. It is more than likely that the APP is a front for the Coalition. Remember One Nation? The Protectionist Party is more of a middle class group who up hold bourgeois ideas of what they think nationalism is about. They, under Darrin Hodges, have rejected the working class movement. They have rejected the policies of Old Labor in favour of the policies of the contemporary Coalition Parties.

    Australia First, on the other hand, is a serious nationalist party based on White Australian nationalism. It is working class orientated and its economic/financial policies are based on Old (traditional) Labor Party policies that were betrayed by the post 1972 Labor Prime Ministers. It has been stated by many White Australian nationalists who are members of Australia First that Australian National Socialism has more in common with traditional Labor Party policies then with the policies of Hitler’s NS. So, it would be wrong to call Australia First members “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis”. It is easy for one to see the differences between the Protectionist Party and the Australia First Party. I congratulate Doctor Jim Saleam for up holding Old Labor Party values and policies.

  3. @ndy says:

    White Racialist,

    Both AF and APP are racist parties insofar as they reject ‘multiculturalism’ and — crucially — wish for a return to a White Australia policy on the part of government. Whether either or both is anything to ‘worry’ about is, of course, another question: I don’t ‘worry’ about them so much as monitor their development.

    Regarding the supposed fact that “the APP is mostly made up of Liberal Party rejects” — maybe, but I doubt it. That is, APP, like AF, claims to have secured over 500 members: I seriously doubt that a majority of these are former Liberal Party members; I have no way of verifying this claim in any case. Regarding the handful of individuals who have spoken publicly on behalf of the Party, yes, Hodges is a former Liberal, as is Nicholas (Hunter) Folkes, and this is significant insofar as it could be argued that, whatever the composition of the party in general, its leadership “are mostly made up of Liberal Party rejects”. But is Andrew Phillips, or Mark Wilson? I dunno. In summary, given the paucity of information available, I’m unsure if your claim is correct.

    Beyond this, I do think there is a strong degree of overlap between the views espoused by APP and the far right within the Liberal Party, at least (or especially) in regards to immigration, multiculturalism, gender, sexual and family relations, and so on. I believe these flow from a more general commitment to a mean-spirited authoritarianism (frequently referred to as ‘social conservatism’). In other words, in general, in terms of both domestic and foreign policy, APP aligns itself with the ‘conservative’ wing of the Liberals. The one, partial exception to this rule is in the economic realm. Well, potential exception: the political tradition in which APP locates itself assigns a much stronger role for the state in economic affairs than does the so-called neo-liberal wing of the contemporary Liberal Party. Finally, a comparative analysis of the program and policies of the two parties is rather difficult given the microscopic reach, tiny membership, fringe status and extremely brief history of APP relative to the Liberals.

    Will APP last? Who knows? The odds are certainly against it. Micro-parties come and go, it claims no prominent or especially experienced or knowledgeable members, has few resources, and otherwise faces all the difficulties any other micro-party does. Regarding its middle class status: maybe. In terms of ideology, as well as social composition, I think petit-bourgeois is probably more accurate. Have they rejected the working class movement? Again, maybe — it depends on what you mean by that term. In general, their focus is on religion, race, ethnicity and nation, not class.

    As for AF, I’d tend to agree that it has more ‘intellectual’ weight than APP, and might therefore be regarded as being, in this sense, more ‘serious’. Thus, while Saleam may be a fascist schmuck, he’s not stupid, and is certainly politically literate in a way that no member of APP seems to be (with the possible exception of Andrew Phillips). He’s also vastly more experienced, and almost certainly more cunning. But again, neither party is especially sophisticated politically, or features terribly many ‘thinkers’ — which, of course, is not necessarily a problem: their appeal, such as it is, lies elsewhere in any case.

    Regarding AF’s policy positions: yes, more-or-less; it could be argued to have adopted the form of labourism which characterised the ALP from its inception through to the late 1960s and early 1970s. That is, a form of racialist, social democratic politics. There are differences, however, the exact nature of which I’ll leave aside for the moment, but which are closely related to your invocation of the concept of ‘National Socialism’. On which subject, again, more later, perhaps, but in the interim: with rare exceptions, I don’t call anything or anyone ‘Nazi’ unless it bears direct relation to the German party/regime; the term ‘neo-Nazi’ can be applied to AF, but — apart from being a term rejected by the party — doing so has both advantages and disadvantages in terms of understanding its actual nature and functioning as a political force on the far right of Australian politics…

  4. White Racialist says:

    @ndy, the reason why I said that the APP was bourgeois was because of it’s middle class nature and outlook. Political labels are hard to use and often one can make mistakes when applying them to political parties and individuals. Like, what is the definition of capitalist and National Socialism these days? In the time of Karl Marx and Lenin, a “capitalist” was a man “who owned the means of production, distribution and exchange. He also paid another man for the man’s labour”. Is that the correct definition for capitalist in the 21st century? The reason why I think the definition of capitalist has changed is because capitalism has changed. Working class people now own shares in companies. Does that make them capitalists? Because, after all, they are owners of means of production, distribution and exchange. But yet they also sell their labour for a wage!

    As for National Socialism, what is NS is in the 21st century? Is it correct to [label] all people who believe in NS [are] “neo-Nazis”? National Socialism has been around for 130 years now. The policies of National Socialism are a mixture of corporatism, socialism (Marxism, Social Democracy and even Fabianism), capitalism and other economic/political ideologies. One could claim that any one is a “neo-Nazi”. You could claim that the founders of the labour movement were “neo-Nazis”. Personally, I believe that the words “Nazi” and “neo-Nazi” should be abandoned as a relic of a dead era.

    Since the fall of communism, political activists and others have claimed that terms like “left”, “right”, “centre”, “far left” and “far right” are obsolete. Are they correct? I think so because communism and to a certain extent capitalism have been debunked and have been abandoned. No country is purely capitalist or communist. Each economic system is a mixture of different ideologies.

    So, how can one claim that Australia First or the Protectionist Party are “far right” or “right wing”? What is right wing or far right?

    Labeling political parties and individuals is necessary to understand them. But one risks over generalising groups of people and political parties. Calling a party or a man “racist” does not win an argument. One must have a reason for giving a party or an individual a label. Who determines if racism is wrong? Isn’t that just playing god?

    The reason why I think the APP is mostly made up of former Liberal Party members is because the Australian Protectionist Party is mainly attracting Liberal Party supporters with its policies. Basically, Darrin Hodges is using civic patriotism/nationalism to attract so called nationalists who support the Coalition parties. Pauline Hanson did the same thing. Civic patriotism is not a threat to the establishment. White Nationalism, National Socialism and White Australian Nationalism are a threat to the establishment because they are serious about their policies. Their policies are a threat to the interests of the economic and political establishment. Just look at Australia First’s policies. They are aimed at limiting and controlling the activities of the traitor class. The Australian Protectionist Party, like One Nation, has no intention of confronting the traitor class. Thus, the civil patriotic parties are no threat to the establishment.

    @ndy, you are right in thinking that there is a overlap in the policies of the Protectionist Party and of the far right of the coalition parties. Now why is that? Could it be, like One Nation, that the Liberal Party is secretly involved in the running of the Australian Protectionist Party? It has happened before. Remember David Oldfield?

  5. Darrin Hodges says:


    Oh! My favourite desert!

  6. Darrin Hodges says:

    Yes “White Racialist”, I report to David Clarke every Thursday.

  7. @ndy says:

    Darrin Hodges,

    You predilection for French cuisine is one no doubt shared by your political masters on William Street.

    White Racialist,

    ‘National Socialism’, by any standard definition, is Nazism, the ideology of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) led by Adolf Hitler… you know, the dead foreign incestuous coprophiliac fascist dictator? Neo-Nazism is one of many, later derivatives. What distinguishes these ideologies from others has been usefully discussed by many scholars: Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton provide pithy summaries of Nazism and other forms of fascism. Generally, most nominate a fascist ‘ideal’, which attempts to capture the essence of fascism (or in this case Nazism) while acknowledging deviations from it. The relationship between Nazism/National Socialism and other ideologies (Marxism, Social Democracy, Fabianism) is also articulated in these (and other) writings.

    I don’t believe that the founders (sic) of the (sic) labour movement were “neo-Nazis”: this claim is absurd.

    Speaking of nutzis:

    Sandra Bullock homewrecker a ‘neo-Nazi’
    Lachlan Cartwright, Jeane MacIntosh and Dan Mangan
    March 21, 2010

    THE tattooed woman who wrecked Sandra Bullock’s marriage is a huge fan of Hitler, the New York Post reports.

    Michelle McGee last year posed for a photo shoot licking a long dagger, sporting a Nazi swastika armband and wearing the “Death’s Head” hat of the SS.

    Ms McGee claims to have had an affair with Bullock’s husband, Jesse James.

    Her ex-husband, tattooist Shane Modica, said in legal papers that she had “recently tattooed a huge swastika on her stomach,” and spelled out the words “white power” in alphabet magnets on her refrigerator.

    Mr Modica, who has a five-year-old son, Avery, with Ms McGee, said in court papers, “Her other son, Elijah, is Jewish, and she thinks it’s funny that she makes the Nazi salute.”

    Ms McGee also has the initials WP – reportedly for “white power” – tattooed across the backs of her knees.

    And she is the official model for a clothing line called Angry White Girl.

    Mr Modica showed up in a San Diego court Friday seeking temporary full custody of Avery.

    Ms McGee said she met Bullock’s husband, a motorcycle designer and reality TV star, in his bike shop in Long Beach, California.

    She claimed that she had an 11-month affair with Mr James, who two weeks ago was by Bullock’s side as she snared the Best Actress Oscar for her role in The Blind Side.

    “If she sees Avery, she will bring these curiosity seekers and glory hounds down on herself and Avery, totally confusing him and frankly scaring him,” Mr Modica said in legal papers.

    His bid was rejected, at least for now. The judge said that Ms McGee, who did not show up in court, was not given enough time to respond to the request.

    Mr Modica has previously accused Ms McGee of abusing pills and booze, performing in porn sessions webcast from her home and failing to take medication for a bipolar disorder.

    A pal of Modica told Radar Online that McGee taunted her husband with her affair with James.

    Last week Bullock, 45, moved out of the Long Beach house she shared with her husband.

    Mr James has issued an apology for the “pain and embarrassment” he caused her and his three kids.

    Much has changed since the nineteenth century (“the time of Karl Marx and Lenin”), but the term ‘capitalist’ continues to refer to both a social role and a system of social relations.

    Working class people now own shares in companies. Does that make them capitalists? Because, after all, they are owners of means of production, distribution and exchange. But yet they also sell their labour for a wage!

    Yes — in Australia and elsewhere, some working class people own shares in publicly-listed companies, either as individuals or, primarily, by way of their superannuation funds. But insofar as an individual’s class position is determined by way of their relationship to the ‘means of production’ (etc.), ‘working class’ refers to the fact that a person must work (labour) in order to survive, which remains the position of the great majority. Two further, complicating factors are a) the existence of something termed ‘the welfare state’ which, inter alia, provides to the unemployed (and other categories of persons deemed worthy of such munificence) an income adequate to their continued survival, and b) the status of the ‘middle’ class. Beyond this, there is a large body of literature dealing with questions concerning class and class society, both contemporary and historical… almost none of which relates to AF or APP.

    On left and right as political terms, I’ve previously written (and in direct reference to APP as a right-wing party):

    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’.

    A few more points:

    ‘Capitalism’ describes a form of social relations which has as its core the institutions of private property, the market, and the state;
    Yes White Racialist, there is such a thing as neo-Nazism;
    The meaning of the left/right distinction has been contested since it emerged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries;
    Who determines if racism is ‘wrong’ is you, and you appear to think it, or something like it, to be reasonable/morally defensible;
    Employing reason and articulating an opinion is not an Act of God;
    Nationalism assumes many different forms, and is not necessarily tied to racialism;
    If “White Nationalism, National Socialism and White Australian Nationalism are a threat to the establishment” it’s not because — unlike ‘civic patriotism’ — they’re “serious”, it’s because they’re significant — they’re not.

  8. Darrin Hodges says:

    “The latest date given for the registration of the party is now May 1, almost one year since it announced (July 2009) it had obtained the requisite numbers to do so.”

    Interesting that nothing has been gazetted as yet…

  9. White Racialist says:

    I don’t think National Socialism is “Nazism”. “Nazism” and “neo-Nazism” have connotations with the Third Reich. To say that National Socialism started with the NSDAP and ended in 1945 is wrong. Hitler’s NS was a variation of the National Socialism of the 1880s. Now, wouldn’t that make Hitler a “neo-Nazi”? Post-1945 National Socialism is not a variation of Hitler’s ideology. Because the post war National Socialist ideologies are variations of the original movement in the 19th century. All the variations of National Socialism are related to each other by common characteristics.

    In the case of the Australia First Party, it has had no history of National Socialism. Some members of Australia First are self declared National Socialists (e.g. Derrick MacThomas and Jim Perren) but [the] vast majority of the Party’s members are not National Socialists and have no NS characteristics.

    Jim Saleam has never been a NS and his policies throughout his 30 years in the movement have never been National Socialistic. Photographs of him dressed up with swastikas are [not?] proof of his political beliefs.

    Interestingly, Darrin Hodges has stated before that he is a National Socialist of the Hitler kind. Whitelaw Towers has published a number of articles dealing with this issue of Darrin’s political ideological beliefs.

    National Socialism and fascism are two very different ideologies. Fascism has more to do with the nation state whereas NS is focused around race. One could say that the “essence” of fascism and of National Socialism are kind of the same because they do share some common ideas. But the case remains that one can be a National Socialist but not a fascist. I believe that it is better to use the terms “National Socialist” and “fascist” rather then use the terms “neo-Nazi” or “Nazi”.

    So you don’t think that the founders of the labour movement were “neo-Nazis”? The founders of the labour movement believed in a White Australia and in a certain amount of state control over the banking and financial sectors. They believed in putting Australia first. They wanted to control immigration and to avoid mass immigration wherever possible. They wanted to maintain Australia’s European White culture and identity. Jim Saleam and Australia First believe in these same policies but yet you call Saleam and Australia First “neo-Nazis”. Isn’t that kind of bigoted?

    You can’t really be left wing or right wing. The reason is very simple. To be left wing or right wing you must believe in a certain set of ideas. Now, the problem is is that people believe in a combination of ideas. For example, one could believe in state control/ownership over the financial/banking sector but yet support private ownership and limited government control over the rest of the Australian economy. One could believe in social conservatism but support abortion and women’s rights. Basically, the terms left and right are just a bad attempt at trying to label people. Trying to generalise stuff doesn’t always work, @ndy.

  10. @ndy says:

    White Racialist,

    I don’t care what you think, and you’re free to define terms such as ‘Nazi’ and ‘neo-Nazi’ in whatever fashion you desire; I’m simply employing quite standard definitions, and I’m not interested in playing word games. As for Saleam, he has a history of involvement in the far right dating back to his teens; he is a former member of the National Socialist Party of Australia, a neo-Nazi grouping; his views are, in general, in accord with neo-Nazism. Notably, he stopped literally wearing a swastika on his sleeve many years ago, but his ideas have not shifted radically. Instead, the task he has chosen to undertake for the last few decades has been to articulate a ‘national socialist’ or fascist vision of Australia which is not sullied by his own past, or that of the shadow cast by Nazi Germany. Unfortunately for him, in addition to being a former member of a neo-Nazi grouping, he is also a convicted criminal, having been imprisoned for fraud and for organising a shotgun assault upon the home of Eddie Funde. Further, his decades-long involvement in far right political activism means that he has been at the centre of a number of other violent incidents. Thus as well as being his home and AF HQ, his bunker in Tempe is the site of a murder: the shooting to death of one National Action member by another.

    You might learn something from Saleam’s experience — in many respects, it’s the cautionary tale of an alienated boy with a conflicted identity seeking a resolution, of sorts, in phantasies of White supremacy — but whatever has driven you to embrace first Stalinism and now Nazism is likely too strong an urge for you to overcome, and almost certainly one you yourself do not understand.

    I wasn’t aware that Derrick MacThomas/Carl D. Thompson was a member of AF, but it doesn’t (or wouldn’t) surprise me. That he and Jim Perren — who is a member — are both neo-Nazis is plain. Other members of AF have a variety of past political associations, which run the gamut of racist, right-wing groups (Australian National Alliance, Australians Against Further Immigration, Confederate Action Party, National Action, National Republican Movement, National Resistance, One Nation et al).

    Thanks for playing.

  11. lumpnboy says:

    “…whatever has driven you to embrace first Stalinism and now Nazism…”

    Does this mean “White Racialist” is who I think he is?

  12. Nemesis says:

    Hello Andy, as you will be aware I am a new visitor to your site. I am also a paid up member of the APP and have just read the interaction between yourself and White Racialist. I guess you can take a que from the fact that being an APP member I hold certain political ideals, otherwise, I would not have entertained the prospect of becoming a member.

    Likewise, you obviously hold certain political views on various subjects which your well written responses tend to denigrate into the realm of extremism. Our successive federal governments, since the Whitlam era, have sold this country to the United Nations and adopted policies such as Multiculturalism and Human Rights, which I may add, are policies only committed to by Western nations, completely bypassing our Constitution without any public reference or assent through referenda. Does this not bother you?

    We have already seen the results of Multicultural diversity in action with the so called Cronulla Riot of December, 2005. This was a backlash against the Lebanese Muslim who really has no place in our society, for the many years of bullying and taunting by them against Australian beachgoers. Do you believe otherwise?

    All Western nations, including Australia, are now being subjected to forced third world immigration in ever increasing numbers. What are your thoughts on this?

    The rule of law, which must be maintained if we are to have a cohesive society, has been steadily eroded by too much liberal thinking over the past forty years. What are your thoughts on that?

    Socialist ideology has now permeated our educational institutions and is steadily indoctrinating young minds with its less than ideal teaching methods. Do you have an opinion on this?

    I joined the APP because I am concerned at all the above. Does that then also make me an extremist?

    I will be back for your reply, that is if you wish to give it.

  13. @ndy says:

    …you obviously hold certain political views on various subjects which your well written responses tend to denigrate into the realm of extremism. Our successive federal governments, since the Whitlam era, have sold this country to the United Nations and adopted policies such as Multiculturalism and Human Rights, which I may add, are policies only committed to by Western nations, completely bypassing our Constitution without any public reference or assent through referenda. Does this not bother you?

    Australia joined the UN at the time of its formation in the late 1940s; that is, 30 years prior to Whitlam. Further, the UN Declaration on Human Rights dates from this earlier period (1948). Multiculturalism, on the other hand, developed as a replacement for the White Australia policy; its emergence was gradual and, while dissent was expressed by some within the mainstream parties, it enjoyed broad, bi-partisan support, and only sporadic popular opposition. As far as I’m aware, this evolution in Government policy — particularly in relation to immigration — provoked no Constitutional crisis. To suggest that ‘multiculturalism’ therefore somehow ‘bypassed’ the Constitution is a non sequitur. Finally, while the meaning of ‘multiculturalism’ varies, insofar as it refers to some notion that a number of different ‘cultures’ may co-exist within the one political sphere (generally: the nation-state), it is not unique to ‘the West’. By the same token, while human rights are generally considered to be universal, nor are appeals to human rights confined to ‘the West’. As for what bothers me, obviously, no — my concerns are of a quite different order.

    We have already seen the results of Multicultural diversity in action with the so called Cronulla Riot of December, 2005. This was a backlash against the Lebanese Muslim who really has no place in our society, for the many years of bullying and taunting by them against Australian beachgoers. Do you believe otherwise?

    I don’t agree that what happened in Cronulla in December 2005 is the result of ‘multicultural diversity in action’, or at least not in the terms in which you present this concept. Beyond this, I’ve referred to what happened on several previous occasions on my blog. So, although I haven’t paid particular attention to reportage or scholarship on the subject since then, I think that the report (which draws on the police report) is useful, as is Liz Jackson’s report for 4 Corners.

    All Western nations, including Australia, are now being subjected to forced third world immigration in ever increasing numbers. What are your thoughts on this?

    My thoughts on this subject are two-fold. First, it’s a matter of empirical inquiry. That is: what is the immigration policy of contemporary Western governments? Secondly, in terms of the claim that such policy is ‘forced’: this raises other questions, which have to do with the notion of democratic governance. In other words, it evokes issues which have nothing to do with immigration policy in particular, but rather: to what extent do the various forms of Western government allow for democratic participation?

    The rule of law, which must be maintained if we are to have a cohesive society, has been steadily eroded by too much liberal thinking over the past forty years. What are your thoughts on that?

    I think this is a very weak argument. Otherwise, I’d note two things. First, it’s an exceptionally general proposition, and as such difficult to respond to in any substantive fashion. Secondly, the notion of Western political degeneration / decadence is a perennial feature of modern political thought.

    Socialist ideology has now permeated our educational institutions and is steadily indoctrinating young minds with its less than ideal teaching methods. Do you have an opinion on this?

    Yes: it’s a factually incorrect proposition. Of course, much depends on what you mean by ‘socialist ideology’.

    I joined the APP because I am concerned at all the above. Does that then also make me an extremist?

    That depends on one’s perspective, understanding of the nature of the APP, and the meaning given to the term ‘extremist’. I think a reasonable case can be made for the affirmative.

  14. Nemesis says:

    Thank you for the reply. It probably won’t surprise you that I do not consider myself an extremist, only someone who is concerned for his children on where this nation is headed. Do you have children?

    If the rule of law is not to be maintained in any society how do you propose to maintain order?

    Without going into detail at this time – I have written several articles that can justify my thinking, if you would like to look at those articles then please email me – I can confidently tell you that our society has taken the proverbial nose dive over the last thirty years.

    Socialism is a product of Progressive innovation, and over the past 100 years has been proven not to work in those countries that are not ingrained with a collectivist/peasant upbringing, such as Vietnam, China, North Korea. Do you dispute this?

    I guess you base your political views on the fact that most humans tend to be sheeple and will adhere to simple requirements for survival throughout their lives. While I understand that mentality, I am also cognizant of its limitations, as surely you must be. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    While I note on some of your posts that you believe yourself to favor anarchistic values I don’t think you fully appreciate the full ramifications of a lawless society, even outlaw motorcycle gangs have club rules (laws) in which to live by.

    Please respond.

  15. @ndy says:

    I identify as an anarchist. There are numerous online texts which serve as an introduction to anarchist thought, including anarchist conceptions of social order. Briefly, anarchists maintain that social order is possible in the absence of the state. Further, that it’s possible to create dynamic systems of social co-operation by way of abolishing capitalism and the state and radically re-shaping society on an egalitarian basis.

    I’m not especially interested in learning why you believe that “our society has taken the proverbial nose dive over the last thirty years”.

    As I understand it, ‘socialism’ is a modern political philosophy, one which has assumed various forms over the last century. For example, many argue that anarchism is a form of socialism, or ‘libertarian socialism’; on the other hand, the Nazis developed a radically different conception of German, national, socialism. So: precisely what is meant by the phrase “Socialism is a product of Progressive innovation” I dunno, but socialism of one sort or another has emerged the world over. On the relative success or failure of socialism in agrarian societies such as Vietnam, China or (North) Korea, briefly, the forms of Marxian socialism which have instituted themselves in these countries, as well as, crucially, Russia, I think can be viewed as transitional systems of political rule which have functioned largely in order to bring about the forced transition from a feudal to an industrial society. Fredy Perlman’s ‘The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism’ (1984) touches on this question: “Nationalism is the opposite of imperialism only in the realm of definitions. In practice, nationalism was a methodology for conducting the empire of capital”. I think most ‘socialisms’, including the Vietnamese, Chinese and (North) Korean, can be placed in this category (although things are obviously not this simple).

    I don’t base my political views on the supposed fact that “most humans tend to be sheeple” / will “adhere to simple requirements for survival throughout their lives”, although again, precisely what is meant here I’m not entirely sure; it seems to imply a division of humanity into a thoughtful elite capable of cultural aspirations, on the one hand, and a mass of largely unthinking, instinctual creatures, on the other.

    Finally, I don’t think you understand anarchism.

  16. Mike Courtman says:

    One of the reasons these nationalistic right wing parties fail to get off the ground is that they lack a long-term vision for their country.

    This is most obvious with immigration. If you ask the average white Australian voter if they want to stop non-white immigration for example, they will say that is extreme or unreasonable, nothing wrong with some non-whites in the population. However, if you then asked them would you be happy if Australia was majority Muslim or Asian they would likely say no way. Therefore these minor parties on the right need to set specific and reasonable-sounding long-terms goal like: ‘keeping Australia majority white’, or failing that ‘ensuring that Australians of European [descent] remain the largest single dominant group in the country in the interests of stability and prosperity’.

    Unlike many on the nationalist or traditionalist right I don’t think the current situation is actually that bad for whites in western countries (yet) and nor do most whites, that’s why they are currently so politically apathetic. Sure some whites have been victims of minority crime, hate speech laws or affirmative action, but so far they are only a small minority. The danger is what is going [to happen] over the next few decades as Asian economic competition intensifies, and the percentage of the population that is made up non-white minorities, who have [been] told by liberals that white people are their oppressors, start to become a majority.

  17. naomi says:

    The term “invasion by 3rd world countries” is a very crude and harsh remark , internationals or immigrants abide by the foreign countries’ rules and regulations before entering the nation . It is highly unacceptable to make such a remark , especially when the invitation was made across the world , in order to increase the economy of Australia or other European countries. The immigrants who do arrive , not only pay large amounts , but grow to respect the new land and its people. So what if whites and non whites mingle ? What do you exactly aim to achieve by maintaining a higher population of whites ? And to be honest , if that is the aim to be maintained , the population of this nation would be very less . Immigrants are serving the nation by paying taxes , by doing their job. The people who make such comments lack a broader vision , they lack the insight that a mix of immigrants and locals has helped the country to raise its standards , economy , appear on the global platform on levels of education as immigrants have given that status to them . If whites were so self sufficient , why did they open the gates to 3rd world countries in the first place ? Why is labour being outsourced to 3rd world countries ? In fact , some locals go to work in overseas offices of 3rd world countries . This fosters an exchange of ideas , a chance for both parties to mutually benefit from one another. Its only narrow minded viewers or nationalists , who think the only way they can protect their people is by eliminating the rights of others . And anyways , there are differences such as international students don’t get concession , no entry into graduate or internship programs etc. Most immigrants just want to be able to live and pay for their family and work hard for it , no one’s oppressing any white. The racial discriminations that do occur just reflect the uneducated population , that do not see things in a healthy light.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.