Australian Protectionist Party, Australia First Party, and the future of White nationalism

    Theme song for this post:

The minor outbursts of youthful over-exuberance on Australia/Invasion/Survival Day has elicited concern on the part of many, but also excitement on the part of local White nationalists.

The two principal, party-political protagonists of White nationalism in Australia are the Australia First Party (NSW), under the leadership of Dr. James Saleam, and the Australian Protectionist Party, under the nominal leadership of Andrew Phillip (its National Chairman), but having as its chief spokesperson Darrin Hodges (NSW state chairman, and a former member of AF).

At present, while AF is registered in NSW, neither party has Federal registration; both have launched campaigns to obtain it. Whether one or both succeed is open to question. Thus AF was initially registered in 1996 by former ALP hack Graeme Campbell; it was de-registered in 2004. Saleam has declared the goal of 500 members within reach on a number of occasions, most recently in December 2008. The real level of support for the party — which is really a measure of support for Saleam himself — is at this stage perhaps no more than a few hundred, mostly in NSW, principally in Sydney, but also in Newcastle, where real estate agent Nathan Clarke does his best to keep the town a Jew-free zone.

Outside of NSW, the party has a tiny presence in Queensland — where its two chief spokesmen are a neo-Nazi from Toowoomba named Jim Perren, and a tennis-playing bachelor called John Drew in Brisbane (who also doubles as the Patriotic Youth League: “I may be too old to be a youth but I am very fit and an excellent tennis player”) — and also some support from a phone box in Croydon (Victoria).

As for APP, it appears to have fared a good deal better following the split in AF that produced the party (September 2007), although it has yet to reach the dizzying heights of popularity among the far right that AF has. In an attempt to hurry along the process of registration, on Invasion Day the party offered “free membership (no tabouli)”. How many accept the offer remains to be seen; certainly, there is some small degree of excitement on Stormfront Down Under.

“Why should patriots help APP? The Protectionist Party is the ONLY patriotic party to have an official policy of offering financial incentives to encourage Third World migrants to return home. Without this, Australia will become overwhelmingly an Asian country” quotes ‘Aussie13’. TrueDiversity1488 (14 = the 14 words of dead neo-Nazi David Lane, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” / 88 = HH = Heil Hitler) and ‘AryanQueen2000’, “a member of APP since the beginning” are also excited.

    At the time of his death, Lane (November 2, 1938 – May 28, 2007) was serving consecutive sentences totalling 190 years for racketeering (20 years), conspiracy (20 years) and violation of the civil rights of radio talk show host Alan Berg on June 18, 1984 (150 years). Berg was shot and killed in the driveway of his Denver home by three members of The Order.

Less excited is ‘Hobbit’, a supporter of AF. Unfortunately for Hobbit, and other critics of APP, while Saleam’s rants about the Jewish-sponsored ASIO campaign against AF are tolerated, criticisms of APP are considered to be strictly verboten by Perth-based moderator Paul Innes, and hence removed from public circulation. The same applies to criticism of Volksfront Australia, a new project being spearheaded by Douglas Schott (of neo-Nazi reich ‘n’ roll band Blood Red Eagle) in Newcastle and Welf Herfurth in Sydney. Poodle38, a supporter of the rival bonehead gangs Blood & Honour and the (Southern Cross) Hammerskins, whinged online about the new group, accusing Douglas of being a short-arsed loudmouth and Welf of loving “slopes” and cheating on his wife. Naturally, the moderator had to yank Poodle38’s chain, and little has been heard from him since he returned to his kennel.

Welf himself has his fingers in a number of different racist and fascist pies. Having previously been a member of the NPD, the Democrats, and One Nation, in addition to Volksfront, Welf is currently the leader of both the New Right (Australia and er, New Zealand), the National Anarchists, and is a close comrade of James Saleam, the terrible twosome overseeing the running of the annual Sydney Forum. This close association, and Welf’s more general dalliances with nutzis, did not prevent NSW state chairman of APP, Darrin Hodges, from joining the fascist ‘black bloc’ in Sydney in September 2007, where he and a few dozen like-minded unidentified flying racists gathered behind the banner of the New Right and the ‘national anarchists’.

Like Volksfront Australia, the fascists claiming to be anarchists have been criticised by their fellow racists, typically on the basis of their political incoherency (see: The New Right, “national anarchism”, and A White Australia, Monday, April 21, 2008). This may explain why, at this stage, Welf has only managed to recruit a handful of racist teenage refugees from Stormfront. Certainly, Darrin has not chosen to flog his very special brand of anarchism while promoting the APP.

In the final analysis, there is little doubt that Saleam will be remembered — along with his good mate Jack Van Tongeren — as being one of the hardest-working non-Whites to espouse a return to White Australia. Two of his most recent hare-brained schemes include protesting at the Coroner’s inquest into Tyler Cassidy’s death and pledging his support for any teens charged by Manly police for their racist shenanigans on January 26. In this context, Herr Doktor also asks: “What’s next: will some political time server Superintendent ‘do a Tyler Cassidy‘ and allow Australian youth to be unlawfully killed?”

Possibly. Or possibly Jim should treat himself to A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down.

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. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Australian Protectionist Party, Australia First Party, and the future of White nationalism

  1. vents says:

    Fucking hell now I am going to have nightmares about the Exorcist, thanks a lot.

  2. Zionist Trotskyite says:


    http://www .

    and Zionists

    http://whitelawtowers .

    are everywhere!

  3. Run to Paradise says:

    I just want to hear more about John Drew’s very fit and excellent tennis skillz.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    Life must be pretty uncomfortable with that steel rod continually up your ass, @ndy.

    Have you checked under your bed for Nazis tonight?

    Fucking take some time out and smell the roses.

  5. @ndy says:


    You sound upset. May I suggest you suck on some chocolate salty balls?

  6. Jamie R says:

    Back again. You may be more anarchy, but without some weekend elixirs I’m more apathetic.

    on Australia/Invasion/Survival Day

    You know, I’m gonna have to side with the nationalists on this one, I don’t want to be under a foreign conqueror like Stalinist North Korea, give me the Brits! Treat me like a redheaded stepchild you f***ing bobby!

    I think I was gonna say something else smart and charming and funny, but I think I’ll just hit the drink cause it’s fucking hot. Oh shit I forgot, ‘f***ing hot’, yeah I need to censor myself. F**k Sydney and Brisbane. Melbourne and Adelaide is where it’s at, except now.

  7. @ndy says:

    I don’t want to be under a foreign conqueror. Or a native ruler. Full stop. Go anarchy. Exclamation mark.

  8. Whitemore says:

    “I don’t want to be under a foreign conqueror. Or a native ruler. Full stop. Go anarchy. Exclamation mark.”

    I want to learn about Anarchism, can you reference me to any books.

  9. @ndy says:

    Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction
    Colin Ward
    Oxford University Press
    126 pages


    What do anarchists want? It seems easier to classify them by what they don’t want, namely, the organizations of the State, and to identify them with rioting and protest rather than with any coherent ideology. But with demonstrations like those against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund being blamed on anarchists, it is clear that an explanation of what they do stand for is long overdue.

    Colin Ward provides answers to these questions by considering anarchism from a variety of perspectives: theoretical, historical, and international, and by exploring key anarchist thinkers, from Kropotkin through to Chomsky. He looks critically at anarchism by evaluating key ideas within it, such as its blanket opposition to incarceration, and policy of ‘no compromise’ with the apparatus of political decision-making. Can anarchy ever function effectively as a political force? Is it more ‘organized’ and ‘reasonable’ than is currently perceived? Whatever the politics of the reader, Ward’s argument ensures that anarchism will be much better understood after experiencing this book.

    Colin Ward is former editor of Anarchy. He has published many books, articles, and pamphlets, including Child in the City, Anarchy in Action, and Goodnight Campers.

  10. Winston Dickhead Smith says:

    Blah blah blah.

  11. Aussie Bonehead says:

    Ha Andrew, I guess you would be scared now that the National Bolsheviks and National Anarchists are now in Australia?

  12. weez says:

    @ndy’s scared of grey old balding nazis semi-anonymised in black bloc garb like most people are afraid of air.


    fuck yeah, Australia doesn’t have enough comedians. Bring ’em on. 😆

    Srsly, who on earth do Welf & Drew-boy think they’re fooling? Is this some way of padding out the numbers? Any reason why you don’t see nazis and ‘National (whatevers)’ in the same place?

  13. Hobbit says:

    Andy get your facts right,i am not a supporter of the half breed leb and his party.

  14. Zionist Trotskyite says:

    Whitemore, I also recommend you study the 1936 Spanish civil war to learn about the practical application of anarchy in real life situations:

    “The most ferocious and least defensible elements on the Republican side (to the extent they were on anybody’s side) were the anarchists. They were chiefly responsible for the wave of murder and arson that moved the Right to revolt in the first place, and they maintained a reign of terror in the areas they controlled until their suppression by other elements on the Left.”

    Between the anarchists and the socialists, they murdered just under 7,000 priests and nuns because of their religious beliefs and in most cases tortured their victims in an attempt to make them recant their Christianity. Strange now that socialists and anarchists side up with Islam these days. Perhaps it’s the totalitarian nature of Islam that attracts them?

  15. @ndy says:


    Thank you for the correction. How goes the KKK these daze?

    Zionist Trotskyite,

    Sighting sauces is always advisable. The quote is from a book review by John J. Reilly, which originally appeared in the September 1997 issue of Culture Wars magazine. The book reviewed is The Last Crusade by Warren H. Carroll (Christendom Press, 1996).

    Moar l8r.

  16. @ndy says:

    Carroll is an apologist for Franco. I’m aware that anarchist militias and other ‘irregulars’ burnt Churches, as well as shot some priests, I’m also aware that the involvement of the Church in fascist politics went well beyond a few bishops being photographed giving fascist salutes. Some, for example, were photographed carrying rifles. Others even used them. To shoot workers and peasants. One day I’ll get around to reading Julio de la Cueva, ‘Religious Persecution, Anticlerical Tradition and Revolution: On Atrocities against the Clergy during the Spanish Civil War’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 355-369. According to this source, there was a death toll of 13 bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarists, 2,364 monks and friars and 283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 victims… although how many of these deaths may reasonably be attributed to anarchists is another matter. Political atrocities of all varieties are routinely attributed to anarchists, both then and now.

    One of the best, and briefest, accounts of anarchist achievement in Spain remains Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship by Noam Chomsky.

  17. john drew says:

    In reply to Run To Paradise my training regime is to mix up weight training, plyometrics and stretching. Stretching is a combination of Yoga sessions devised by Baron Baptiste called “Journey into Power” plus abdominal stretches drawn from “The Abs Diet” by David Zinczenko.

    By sure to work your arms and shoulders really at least every second day. Be sure also to do the plyometric exercises every second day.

  18. john drew says:

    Tennis practice is a combination of solo serving practice and a hitting session where we work on our weaker strokes. I put a lot of effort into sideways movements and hitting the ball in a forward moving manner.

  19. @ndy says:

    G’day john,

    Again, fascinating stuff. I now have two questions for you:

    Aren’t you a little old to be a youth?
    Does Jim Perren join you in your Yoga sessions?

  20. Monkey Chops says:

    Sighting Sauces? Is this an anarchist culinary site?

  21. Monkey Chops says:

    Surely a good educated Anarchist would have said “citing sources” or are you just dumbing it down for your leftie comrades?

  22. @ndy says:

    I’m glad someone’s paying attention.

  23. Hobbit says:

    The Klan are doing well Andy.Thank you for asking,how’s yourself?

  24. @ndy says:

    Not too bad. I just rescued a mouse from my cat. I am, however, sorely lacking in the white bed-sheet department.

    Speaking of which, teh gay and lesbian-hatin’lovin’ ex-KKK Johnny Lee Clary reckons NZ is about to go apeshit over the hooded menace — I assume he’s planning a tour? Or has the ex-Kiwi on SFDU left a big mob of bed-sheet-wearing racists behind her?

    “Yes we must preach a positive love of Christ as well as forgiveness of our sins, but how are homosexuals, lesbians, pro-abortionist baby killers, Muslims, Buddhists, Feminists, Witches, and New Agers supposed to know that they need Jesus if we do not tell them that their lifestyles and beliefs is in direct disobedience to God and that they will end up burning in Hell for death is the wages of sin?”

    Excellent question Johnny.

  25. Monkey Chops says:

    Only paying enough attention to laugh at your lame arse attempts to appear an educated leader of “us dumb poor proletariats”.

    If you’re the best we can do, we’re all stuffed!

  26. @ndy says:

    You’re thick.

    For enlightenment, check out the @ Sauces on the sidebar.

  27. john drew says:

    If you met me you would be surprised how fit and healthy I am for a 58 year old.

    I also enjoy mixing and relating to young people especially fit and virile chaps.

  28. @ndy says:

    G’day john,

    Again, fascinating stuff. I now have two questions for you:

    Despite being fit and healthy… aren’t you a little old to be a youth?
    Does Jim Perren join you in your Yoga sessions?

    I’m especially concerned over the second issue as, while I’m sure that, like yourself, Jim Perren very much enjoys the company of young people — especially fit and virile chaps — and no doubt agrees that the patriotic youth of Australia sorely need the firm hand of leadership that only you two — and, perhaps, that Lebanese fella — can exert, there appears to be a failure to communicate between AF Brisbane (your own fit self) and AF QLD (Jim).

    May I suggest that the two of you engage in a tennis tournament — followed by an invigorating shower, a massage, and perhaps some Yoga — and then settle down to discuss how patriotic youth might come together under your tender caresses?

  29. Aussie Bonehead says:

    Andrew, you are so mentally ill. You anarchists hate me because I am of the third position. But basically, you and your friends are sick in the head. John Drew is a dedicated man fighting for what he believes in.

  30. @ndy says:


    I’ve no idea who you are, nor do I care. Your politics are stoopid. Stop trolling, write something sensible, or piss off.

  31. Monkey Chops says:

    If you don’t like being “trolled” you little arse slapping full time uni student, don’t waste net space with your poorly researched wannabe intahleckshool crap.

    Fuck, even Sparta [Sparts?] appear more intelligent than you and that’s saying something!

    Grow some balls, join the Labor Party and make some real changes, or are you just piss and wind-too gutless to be professional?

  32. @ndy says:

    I think someone needs a hug.

  33. Aussie Bonehead says:

    Andrew, you do know me. I’ve been on your web site before. I’m well known to both the left and right as a third positionist. Remember, I’m an ex-communist. I’ve been active on the interest [internet] for nearly three years now.

  34. @ndy says:

    K. So you’re Peter Watson. I live in Melbourne. You live in Queensland. We’ve never met. We never will. And I’m old enough to be your father.

  35. Aussie Bonehead says:

    NO, I’m not Peter Watson. I’ve [sic] live in Coburg Victoria. My last name is Oates. I’m a member of the SLA. My mother posted here two years ago. Turst [sic] me, the League is active in Victoria. We have about ten members in the state. We’ve been watching you, Andrew M.

  36. @ndy says:

    Thank you.

    And good bye.

  37. Kadet says:

    haha don’t lie to us watson you little twerp. Your mind is so warped it’s surprising your school nurse didn’t refer you to a psychiatric ward. But alas, she’s in league with the punks. hippies, goths and non conformists that make up the anti normal persons’ league out to overthrow the great Stalin isn’t she? Just like your science teacher eh?
    National Bolshevik my ass… Grow the fuck up you piece of shit.

  38. Monkey Chops says:

    How come you get all the attention from the “Third Position”?

    I’m stuffed if I know why the hell everyone tries to think up a new philosophy that will never get anywhere when in reality the only position that will gain acceptance by the majority of the population (thereby offering at least some hope of change) is that of Social Democracy.

    Why the hell do you think the people turned to Labor in the first place? They don’t want radicals, lefty extremists, right wing extremists, anarchy or some bizarre Third Position (is that in the Karma Sutra?) — they just want gradual reform without social upheaval.

    Oh, thanks for the offer of a hug, but it sounds kinda creepy…

  39. john drew says:

    Coming up on my personal web site at will be a series of photographs of me doing yoga poses. @ndy, who I suspect is a closet queen, might get all excited when he sees me from behind doing the forward straddle bend.

  40. @ndy says:


    Well, you know what they say… “Anarchy is a fag”.


    The “Third Position” = a teenager from regional QLD called Peter Watson. I get his attention — that is, am treated to his trolling — because he’s screaming for absolutely anyone to pay attention to him. If he persists in this behaviour into adulthood, it’s likely that he’ll get himself into some serious trouble. That is, someone might take him seriously.

    It’s an Internet thang.

    I don’t believe it’s all that difficult to understand why people think of new philosophies or new ideas: people have brains, and they use them. In any case, ‘Third Position’ is not new, and the term has been used to describe a range of views. For example, in the early twentieth century, anarchism was described as an alternative to capitalism and communism; more recently, social democratic thinkers (for example, Anthony Giddens and his Australian epigone Mark Latham) have proposed a ‘Third Way’.

    To understand why “people” (men) turned to Labour in the first place requires an understanding of Australian society and politics in the late nineteenth century, and the extension of the franchise to adult males. Obviously, a great deal has been written about the ALP, its origins and history, but in a nutshell: ‘Labourism’ is largely restricted to the Anglosphere, and is strongest in the UK / Australia / NZ (while having a presence in almost all former British colonies). For most of its history, its political program in Australia has consisted of racism (White Australia), ‘protectionism’ (a form of nationalism), and a more (but sometimes less) extensive commitment to some form of Keynesianism. In the foreign policy domain, the ALP was first committed to British and then — post-WWII — US empire.

    In terms of popularity, the ALP’s is declining, a fact reflected in its membership levels. What’s known as ‘social democracy’, on the other hand, dominates, alongside Toryism, the political landscape. It too, however, is facing difficulties, partly of its own making, but more generally corresponding to changes to the global economy. Again, a complex issue. In the pursuit of political alternatives, the collapse of Communism in the late ’80s and early ’90s — including both the implosion of the Russian Empire, but also the rapid incorporation of China and other Communist satellites into global capitalism — has had a profound impact.

  41. Monkey Chops says:

    Well, thanks for the clarification on both points here. Is so called Labourism such a bad thing just because it’s prevalent in the “Anglosphere”? Is it not internationalist enough for those on the far left?

    Let’s face it, social democrats will arise in many parts of the world and they will differ based on the cultural background from which they arise. I don’t think you can base the success of “social democracy” on the paid up membership of the Labor Party. That would be like saying just because Union membership is falling, the vast majority of the population want to do away with the 8 hour day and send their children back to the coalmines.

    People just don’t seem keen to join movements anymore, yet they will have strong opinions on what a Party or movement stand for (as can be witnessed by Labor’s success at the polling booth).

    Just as an aside, exactly what is the purpose of this blog Andy? Is it a political discussion site? Just wondering as I see a whole lot of varying opinions here, most of which seem to cop your derision, some apparently gay bloke who seems fixated upon you, a supposedly mentally ill young bloke and a couple of “far right” writers….

    Hell, I just stumbled upon your blog coz I wanted to check out info on these new parties (thinking about asking the head of APP over here to address our sub branch meeting and put his case forward, seems like a mixture of old Country Party and grass roots Labour), but your site seems like herding cats, points of view all over the place?

  42. @ndy says:

    Is so called Labourism such a bad thing just because it’s prevalent in the “Anglosphere”? Is it not internationalist enough for those on the far left?

    Whether or not ‘Labourism’ is a ‘bad’ thing obviously depends on your political perspective. The ‘far left’ — which is antithetical to ‘Labourism’ — has produced numerous critiques of this ideology; generally speaking, one of the main criticisms is that Labourism does not represent the real interests of the working class, which lie in the overthrow of capitalism, not its reform.

    Lenin on Australia (June, 1913):

    A general election recently took place in Australia [May, 1913]. The Labour Party, which had a majority in the Lower House—44 seats out of 75—was defeated. It now has only 36 seats out of 75. The majority has passed to the Liberals, but this majority is a very unstable one, because 30 of the 36 seats in the Upper House are held by Labour.

    What sort of peculiar capitalist country is this, in which the workers’ representatives, predominate in the Upper house and, till recently, did so in the Lower House as well, and yet the capitalist system is in no danger?

    An English correspondent of the German labour press recently explained the situation, which is very often misrepresented by bourgeois writers.

    The Australian Labour Party does not even call itself a socialist party. Actually it is a liberal-bourgeois party, while the so-called Liberals in Australia are really Conservatives.

    This strange and incorrect use of terms in naming parties is not unique. In America, for example, the slave-owners of yesterday are called Democrats, and in France, enemies of socialism, petty bourgeois, are called Radical Socialists! In order to understand the real significance of parties, one must examine not their signboards but their class character and the historical conditions of each individual country.

    Australia is a young British colony.

    Capitalism in Australia is still quite youthful. The country is only just taking shape as an independent state. The workers are for the most part emigrants from Britain. They left the country at the time when the liberal-labour policy held almost undivided sway there, when the masses of the British workers were Liberals. Even now the majority of the skilled factory workers in Britain are Liberals or semi-Liberals. This is the results of the exceptionally favourable, monopolist position enjoyed by Britain in the second half of the last century. Only now are the masses of the workers in Britain turning (but turning slowly) towards socialism.

    And while in Britain the so-called Labour Party is an alliance between the non-socialist trade unions and the extremely opportunist Independent Labour Party, in Australia the Labour Party is the unalloyed representative of the non-socialist workers’ trade unions.

    The leaders of the Australian Labour Party are trade union officials, everywhere the most moderate and “capital serving” element, and in Australia, altogether peaceable, purely liberal.

    The ties binding the separate states into a united Australia are still very weak. The Labour Party has had to concern itself with developing and strengthening these ties, and with establishing central government.

    In Australia the Labour Party has done what in other countries was done by the Liberals, namely, introduced a uniform tariff for the whole country, a uniform educational law, a uniform land tax and uniform factory legislation.

    Naturally, when Australia is finally developed and consolidated as an independent capitalist state, the condition of the workers will change, as also will the liberal Labour Party, which will make way for a socialist workers’ party. Australia is an illustration of the conditions under which exceptions to the rule are possible. The rule is: a socialist workers’ party in a capitalist country. The exception is: a liberal Labour Party which arises only for a short time by virtue of specific conditions that are abnormal for capitalism in general.

    Those Liberals in Europe and in Russia who try to “teach” the people that class struggle is unnecessary by citing the example of Australia, only deceive themselves and others. It is ridiculous to think of transplanting Australian conditions (an undeveloped, young colony, populated by liberal British workers) to countries where the state is long established and capitalism well developed.

    Vlad the Impaler got it wrong, obviously, but the characterisation of the ALP as a ‘liberal-bourgeois’ or ‘bourgeois workers’ party is still popular among the Marxist left.

    In terms of ‘internationalism’, the ALP is actually a formal member of the Socialist International, but this has zero bearing on its politics.

    Moar l8r…

  43. @ndy says:

    Let’s face it, social democrats will arise in many parts of the world and they will differ based on the cultural background from which they arise.

    ‘Social democracy’ was, originally, a revolutionary doctrine. It was so named as a result of the desire to extend the notion of democracy (rule by the people) from the purely ‘political’ (participation in governmental elections/representative democracy) to society as a whole (the social). Lenin, for example, belonged to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, or RSDLP (Russian Росси́йская Социа́л-Демократи́ческая Рабо́чая Па́ртия = РСДРП), aka the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party aka the Russian Social-Democratic Party, formed in 1898. Many other socialists, anarchists, and other radicals described themselves as ‘social democrats’ during this period (late 19th Century). The German Social Democrats proclaimed Marxism as their official ideology at this time, but the tensions between reformist and revolutionary elements — and reformist and revolutionary interpretations of Marxist doctrine — eventually provoked a split, and ‘social democracy’ came to be identified with a gradualist, non-revolutionary approach to the establishment of socialism. This commitment to socialism — as an alternative to capitalism — has long since been abandoned.

    Insofar as ‘social democracy’ refers to an attempt to ameliorate the excesses of unbridled capitalism, especially in the name of workers (and, occasionally, peasants), or by way of reference to ‘working families’ (KRudd’s ALP), it will indeed emerge wherever political opportunities present themselves. The situation is complicated, and naturally attention must be paid to the particular circumstances in which such doctrines and parties arise. One of the peculiarities of Anglo-American societies is the absence of ‘socialist’ or even ‘communist’ rivals (in addition to faith or religious-based parties). The US is even more unusual in the sense that no such party has ever emerged, and ‘politics’ is dominated by Democrats and Republicans, neither of which are labour parties.

    Moar l8r…

  44. Monkey Chops says:

    Overthrow of capitalism is in the worker’s best interests? To be replaced with what exactly?

    I have no real love for the bosses, but lets face it, without the sucker I’d have no employment through which to earn money to care for my family. So long as The Man gives me good conditions and a fair pay in return for my labour, we’ll get along just fine.

    What do we replace it with? A completely controlled economy as we witnessed in Comecon Bloc? Another alternative, some untried economic situation under anarchy — unless one views Zimbabwe as a fine example of anarchy controlling an economy…

    I have seen no successful alternative in operation to capitalism. This being the case, what is wrong with taking the “best situation” and having a socially responsible movement to “ameliorate it’s excesses”? Give me the current situation where I have one eye on the occasional unscrupulous boss rather than having to line up for hours hoping to buy something needed produced by the dictates of a central planning committee…

    Furthermore, what’s with this “Krudd” crap? The man has done more to further international co operation by this country than any other PM.

    He brought Australia to recognise its responsibility regarding global warming, started to address the inequity in the treatment of homosexuals, reformed the treatment of so called illegals (expediting the processing of cases and releasing the new arrivals into our community), recognised the guilt held by white invaders of this continent, has worked to bring the excesses of the banking system under control, redistributed wealth to help those struggling under the current economic crisis (a result of the excesses of capitalism you mentioned) and proposed closer ties with our region by suggesting a regional union similar to the EU – further cementing our relationship with the Asia Pacific region.

    This being the case, why the hell do the extreme left continue to bag him when Labor is pursuing a similar social program to that which you desire, only in a socially responsible way?

    Rioting on the streets, civil disruption and pulling the system apart will not get the social reforms you seem to desire. It will only alienate you from the society you want to reform.

  45. Monkey Chops says:

    Andy, what happened to my last post? Thought it made some valid points on the success of Labor and the validity of our position, yet it’s not here?

    A taste of the One Party State or what?!

  46. talan says:

    @MC: he also runs an Internet forum. You should ask there. Can’t find it in my bookmarks though, sorry.

  47. @ndy says:

    “Andy, what happened to my last post? Thought it made some valid points on the success of Labor and the validity of our position, yet it’s not here?

    A taste of the One Party State or what?!”

    What happened to your post is what happens to all posts (unless they are considered spam by the spamfilter): they await my approval. I went to the beach this weekend, and approved it when I got back. If going to the beach on a disastrously hot weekend is indeed a “taste of the One Party State” (or what), I think the One Party State probably ain’t so bad after all.

    Regarding your thoughts on capitalism and its alternatives, it’s obvious you know very little about anarchism. I suggest you acquaint yourself with this philosophy before you again proceed to mistake it for some other form of state tyranny in some other part of the world.

  48. Lumpen says:

    Overthrow of capitalism is in the worker’s best interests? To be replaced with what exactly?

    Something nicer.

  49. @ndy says:

    On KRudd:

    According to Monkey Chops, he has:

      1. brought Australia to recognise its responsibility regarding global warming;
      2. started to address the inequity in the treatment of homosexuals;
      3. reformed the treatment of so called illegals (expediting the processing of cases and releasing the new arrivals into our community);
      4. recognised the guilt held by white invaders of this continent;
      5. has worked to bring the excesses of the banking system under control, redistributed wealth to help those struggling under the current economic crisis (a result of the excesses of capitalism you mentioned) and;
      6. proposed closer ties with our region by suggesting a regional union similar to the EU – further cementing our relationship with the Asia Pacific region.

    In response:

    1. Not so. A wide range of people and organisations have argued that ‘global warming’ is a serious issue, and long before KRudd ever did. Rather, what KRudd’s government has done is commission a report — The Garnaut Climate Change Review. In his final report, Professor Garnaut recommends that Australia should immediately express it’s willingness to reduce carbon pollution by 25% by the year 2020. The Government’s own position is outlined in its White Paper, which “commits to a medium-term national target to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by the end [of] 2020”. Garnaut’s own target is inadequate (see ‘An open letter to Professor Ross Garnaut from 49 climate action and environment advocacy groups’, September 18, 2008); KRudd’s commitment even more so.

    The Greens comment:

    Rudd raises white flag of surrender on climate change
    Senator Bob Brown
    Senator Christine Milne
    December 15, 2008

    The Australian Greens will campaign for a 40 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.

    “Prime Minister Rudd’s 5% target is a global embarrassment and a recipe for global catastrophe,” Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

    “The Rudd target of 5 per cent will anger voters. It is exactly where John Howard would have placed Australia in 2009 – a spoiler as the Copenhagen conference on climate change reaches for a much higher goal,” Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

    “Kevin Rudd has made climate change the big parliamentary challenge of 2009. The Greens will initiate a Senate inquiry. If the Opposition remains coal-captured the question is: will the government accept the Greens’ amendments to improve its climate change legislation?” Senator Brown asked.

    Greens Deputy Leader and Climate Change spokesperson Christine Milne said today said [sic], “Kevin Rudd’s White Paper has raised the white flag of surrender on climate change.”

    “Scientists agree that developed countries need to reduce their emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Australia’s high per capita emissions and our relatively cheap emissions reduction potential means we need to be at the top of that range, not doing less than everyone else.

    “Only three per cent of funds will actually go to reducing emissions. Half of all the money raised by auctioning permits will go to big polluters. Not a single cent will be spent on helping householders reduce their energy use and emissions.

    “If polluters aren’t paying somebody else has to; Kevin Rudd has ensured that the Australian people will foot the bill for the big polluters,” Senator Milne said.

    “Kevin Rudd has put the coal industry ahead of Australia’s children and grandchildren. It will be much more expensive to rectify this historic mistake in the decades ahead. The 2010 federal election is shaping up as a referendum on tackling climate change,” Senator Milne said.

    2. Again, a vast array of groups and individuals have been campaigning against homophobia, and for decades. Krudd’s government actually intervened to block the introduction of same-sex marriages in the ACT (presumably in order to keep folks like Steve Fielding happy; incidentally, a right-winger the right-wing-dominated Victorian ALP ensured was elected in 2004). What has been accomplished is the removal of discriminatory clauses from approximately 100 pieces of legislation.

    3. Yes: in May 2008, the ALP, after introducing the policy of mandatory detention in 1992, introduced some reforms. See: Closing concentration camps makes GSL cry and Boundless plains to share… Perhaps some credit for these changes — like those referred to above — might be shared by individuals other than KRudd? An extraordinary proposal, I know, but one worth pondering.

    4. Dunno ’bout this one. Presumably, you’re referring to Krudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations in a speech in February 2008? If so, yes, he did speechify. And, especially given HoWARd’s position, this represents a significant shift in government rhetoric. On the other hand, he has also declared that his government will not alter the date for Australia Day, despite being formally committed to doing so. He also, naturally, is uninterested in pursuing a treaty with indigenous peoples (something the Silver Bodgie promised in 1988).

    5. That’s one interpretation. Another is that KRudd’s government has acted to stabilise Australia’s banking system (in order to protect it from a global financial crisis), and economic system more broadly (ditto). This has very little to do with and does not proceed from a commitment to enriching the poor. Indeed, KRudd’s government has signalled its support for wage cuts to save jobs.

    Deepening global crisis shatters consensus over Australian stimulus package, Mike Head,, February 7, 2009:

    …The Labor government’s $42 billion package has nothing to do with assisting the millions of working people whose jobs and lives are about to be shattered. There was not a cent for the jobless, whose numbers the government admits will double to nearly a million by next year, in spite of the package.

    Like the pre-Christmas $10 billion package, the latest one contains a slew of one-off cash payments, which the government hopes will be spent quickly and resuscitate consumer demand. But the $950 handouts are more likely to be spent by cash-strapped families on lowering the historically unprecedented levels of home mortgage and personal credit card debt.

    The other main element of the package—infrastructure funding, mainly for schools, community facilities, roads and housing—is primarily designed to prevent a looming collapse of the construction industry. The Housing Industry Association is warning that companies will crash and 85,000 jobs will be destroyed if the package is not passed.

    At the same time, by distributing money to families and schools, the government is seeking to head off growing discontent over its allocation, since October 2008, of billions of dollars to underwrite or subsidise the big banks, property developers and major auto companies.

    Many business groups—notably those whose members face oblivion—have backed the government, calling for the package to be implemented as soon as possible. Representing manufacturers, Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout told the Australian Financial Review that “aggressively targeting consumer spending is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects”. Peter Anderson, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which covers large and medium-sized businesses, said the government had “ticked the boxes business has advocated as a response to the economic downturn”.

    Others throwing their weight behind the government included Westfield shopping empire boss Frank Lowy, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Australian Trucking Industry. Economists at Westpac, one of the country’s four big banks, warned that without the immediate cash handouts, the economy would contract by 0.7 percent this year. The government also claimed the backing of the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Even the Liberals’ only state premier, Colin Barnett of Western Australia, praised the package as “fantastic” and generally well-targeted…

    6. Uh-huh… ever heard of West Papua?

  50. Monkey Chops says:

    Irian Jaya? What of it? Closer political and economic ties through our Asia Pacific Union will enable a more constructive dialogue with other member states.

    Indonesia will be required to listen to other states regarding the treatment of its citizens, then true progress will be possible-not this ridiculous nationalist-ethnic violence I assume you seem to hint at supporting…

    Come on-do you support a borderless international community or not? Or is it only acceptable without the existence of an authority governing the actions of global citizens?

    Yes Andy I admit to being ignorant about the “reality” of anarchy. I admit to not understanding the whole concept, as every proponent of anarchy seems to have a different explanation.

    Humanity needs to be controlled, needs structure and order for society to continue and to be productive, to protect the weak and disadvantaged. I honestly feel if you had an anarchistic society you wouldn’t like the reality of it.

    However, I’m prepared to be educated-if you can suggest some publications which will explain the whole “anarchy philosophy”, one to which most self confessed anarchists would subscribe, then I will attempt to find them and read them…

    Still can’t say I’d agree with it-all sounds like bullshit from what I’ve heard…

Leave a Reply

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