The Zionophiles At APP Resort To Historical Falsification: Now They Challenge My Anti Zionist Credentials
It is a pleasure indeed to speak openly about untruth and distortion. I noted the story-telling of March 13 ff. by the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) would-be 'attack dog', Darrin Hodges, on his (misnamed) Australian Identity Forum. In the latest gusher, the readers are told that I was not, till very late in the piece, an anti Zionist, that I converted to this position for tactical reasons - to recruit particular (I assume, unsavoury) people for Australia First. Good yarn.
Mr. Hodges writes in front of the enemy with clear intent. The enemy is invited to pick up his stories and use them. Further, he writes for the part-informed or the non-informed, who may choose to believe him.
The main point is not whether I may, or may not be, a recent convert to anti Zionism (I am long-standing opponent of Zionism, as we shall soon see), but rather, what the position of the APP is on any matter and why this little personalist line is run. The APP's line on the Middle East, on Islam, on Zionism, has revealed itself as pro Israel By the APP's logic, this advances it towards the mainstream where people will consider it part of the ordinary discourse and where Zionists and their friends will no longer harass it as "fascist". It also lets them cuddle up to the British National Party (BNP), which has a similar line, and to which they are subservient. More and more people on the Australian scene are becoming aware of the APP's line and the destructive course it follows in trying to impose it. The latest rubbish is a device largely to take the heat off APP.
But first, the history.
What An APP Leader Used To Say And Do
The main force in APP, Mr. Mark Wilson, put it so well to me in the years I associated with him (1996-2005), that there were two fundamental things he would demand of any Australian nationalist officer: they had to support the White Australia Policy and they had to be aware of, and oppose, Zionism. He considered these things as litmus tests. I agreed with those sentiments. I still do. Mark does not. Reasonably, going by the latest APP line, if I was a later convert to anti Zionism, then was it in 1996 under Mark's tutelage, that I became so????
At the time I met Mark Wilson, the issue of Zionism was a key one for me. I had already written a major piece at Sydney University on anti racial vilification legislation (1995), one which named Australian (sic) Zionists as one of the main instigators of this attack upon freedom. This work was later published on the Net (2000). So: did I convert to anti Zionism in 1995??
In 2002, Mark was a co-signatory of a document denouncing any war against Iraq and the role of Zionism in any such planned aggression. I also signed along with many other nationalist and patriotic people. Indeed, I drafted the document. Thereafter, Mark purchased the works of David Duke, advocated that patriotic people read these works and spoke often against the war in Iraq and praised the nationalist (of course, not the Islamist) insurgency in Iraq. I also spoke at the Sydney Forum twice on the Middle East (2002 and 2006) where I condemned the New World Order wars and Zionism, whilst correctly (I hope) criticising the Islamist nuttery of our times.
We know that Mark changed his position after some point late in 2005, when he adopted the evolved line of the BNP. We need not discuss that here other than to say, as Australia First members know personally, that to some people Mark will still say that he is an anti Zionist but too clever to say it - unlike the fools and poseurs over there at Australia First.
So, it seems at least, that I have advocated anti Zionism since 1995?
The Gulf War.
In 1990 - 1990, at the time of the First Gulf War against Iraq, I co-directed Australian National Action (NA). In several documents, the party condemned the war, Zionism, the New World Order, Islamists in Australia and the local Zionist lobby. The party also noted that multiculturalism had "crashed" over the issue of the first American war against Iraq.
I understand that Mr. Hodges has some of these documents.
So, I converted to anti Zionism in 1990???
National Action, The British National Front And The Third Way
In the years, 1986-89, I was closely associated with a series of parties and movements that had embraced the Third Position. I exchanged correspondence regularly with the British National Front (NF). Nick Griffin now of the BNP was then in the anti Zionist NF - for what that's worth!
I recall signing a declaration of Third Way parties in 1988 that included material on Palestine.This declaration appeared under the auspices of Jean-Gilles Malliarakis, then of the French party Troisieme Voie (Third Way).
Inside the National Action, the matter of Zionism was known of and discussed. The British NF forwarded us their newspapers and other publications and they were regular reading at our offices.The NF papers contained much anti Zionist material.
National Action distributed specific anti Zionist material and occasionally commented upon Palestine..
So, I converted to anti Zionism in 1986????
The Dispute With Van Tongeren, Neo-Nazism And National Action 1984-5
Mr. Hodges makes a little of controversy between myself and Jack van Tongeren, between his neo-nazi Australian Nationalist Movement (ANM) and NA. I quoted an interchange with Jack in my doctoral thesis:
"Meantime, attracted by the physical propaganda of National Action, van Tongeren brought his group into the Perth organization and acquired control. Van Tongeren and his confidant, Serb anti-semite Alexander Mladenovich, saw NA as a vehicle:
… [We] decided to team up with them, with certain reservations … they were too narrowly anti-Asian … they always wished to avoid taking on the main problem in Australia and … the world – Zionism and Freemasonry …"
What was that all about? Well, without re-opening old history about a much-wronged man, the debate between the two of us covered Jack's readings of conspiracy-theory. In particular, Jack held to particular beliefs about Jews and their "power" in the Soviet Union, whereas I had told him that Jewish-bolshevism died with the Stalinist purges. In Jack's book, this amounted to not understanding the power of Zionism - and of Freemasonry as well. And there was, from the start, my assertion to Jack that Australian neo-nazism had had a political police connerction and at least one one occasion - a clear link with a Zionist operative in Melbourne. I know Jack did not like these ideas and he took them as an attack upon his faith. His friend Mladenovich maintained this proved National Action was a communist front (sic)!
Simultaneously, National Action also published Alec Saunders's The Social Revolutionary Nature Of Australian Nationalism, which certainly discussed and exposed international Zionism on several fronts.
So the truth is rather different to that given by Mr. Hodges.
So, did I convert to anti-Zionism in 1984????
The Days Of Australian National Alliance
Australian National Alliance was founded in 1978. I wrote the article in Audacity No. 7 on the USSR and its evolution towards a type of conservative nationalism. I referred to the overturn of the Jewish component of Bolshevism. In the internal discussions in this party, this question was important to understanding the Zionist campaign against the Soviet Union and the inter-relationship of Zionism to anti communism.
So, did I convert to anti Zionism in 1978????
Getting Towards The Truth
The recent smear job from Australian Identity Forum was clearly one to cover APP's position by the use of the proverbial smoke and mirrors. The APP also wishes to recruit anyone it can and anti Zionists may do if they are told of the 'clever line' of not talking about the subject in public or of running a line that appeases the Zionist lobby. They can also be told that the anti Zionists are a load of hum bug etc. I have met at least three APP members who have affirmed the 'clever line'. However, I believe the affair goes deeper.
The line taken by Mr. Hodges is just an attack upon the history of the nationalist struggle. When one has no history prior 2005, it is necessary to confuse the past. That magnifies one's own importance. However, the APP itself generally also dismisses history. That has shown in the insistence of its members that they are somehow renewing the entire Australian and overseas movements with the new mainstreamism. They are a new 'alpha' on the way to a great 'omega'.
It is unfortunate that this crime against history has too many witnesses. Hence the endless turmoil engendered by the tiny APP. There are campaigns to break up groups and personal bonds, smears etc. The aim must be to delegitimise the witnesses, whilst obscruring the past. For those interested, I maintain the National Action and Australian National Alliance files.
The witnesses also know the personal evolution of the players. It was they as a collective, who long ago established in the Australian case, that Zionism was part of the Western (and Australian) establishment, that Zionism's ideals and historical ideas was part of its liberal mythology. The two were intertwined. It was long held that Israel was no friend of any Euro-society. It was always the case that wild anti-semitic theories were dismissed (it seems that there are many odd things written about the Jews) and a constructive discourse dealing with dealing with Zionism - enforced. Sometimes these positions were stated forcefully and other occasions they were background hum. It depended on the issues of the day and the path of nationalism at any point. It was second nature to be aware of the facts. Until the Zionophile APP emerged, no one who was said to be a nationalist, ever challenged the facts - or disputed the impact of these facts.
It is said that every generation re-confronts history anew. Yet, we need to build from the facts, from the history. In the current world crisis, any number of discussions may occur to reinterpret the history. If there are responsible members in the APP who merely wish to freely argue about the facts and where they may lead us, we will happily argue and present the details necessary. We are not dogmatists who merely repeat old data. Rather, we see in the present, the confirmation of this data. But members of the APP need to look again at those who speak in their name, at those who operate an agenda to deny the truth.