The Liberal Party 'Right' Faction Ready To Implode: No Mainstream Option For APP?
Jim Saleam February 13 2010.
The Sydney Morning Herald has been reporting continually since Feb 4, the good news.
The conservative 'right' or 'religious Right' faction of the NSW Liberal Party, may implode in argument and possibly disintegrate in utter turmoil.
For strictly personalist reasons, one group of 'modern' conservatives have moved to overthrow the faction's leader, David Clarke, deny him a place in the next NSW Parliament and blend the faction back into the ranks of the Liberal Party majority.
It is good news for the nationalists as we shall fully discuss, but all this is bad news for the Australian Protectionist Party (APP). Why? Because its strategy to enter the mainstream may be dead in its tracks!
The survival of Clarke is seen as crucial by Tony Abbott and the crisis has prompted his personal intervention. The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised on Feb. 9 in Clarke's defence. Alan Jones came out in his favour.
Note that the faction has been a key tool in the armoury of the Liberal Party. It asserted a conservative ethos - defined as family, God, free-but-conscience-laden-market-economics, conservative social mores. And a civic patriotism that proclaimed loyalty to the institutions and traditions of the 'British' heritage more important than any other definition of Australian Nationality. It would integrate migrants (especially non European but Christian ones) into an English-speaking country. There was also a significant tack-on. The faction said that in the world of chaos, support for Israel was a key conservative principle. Israel? We shall return to that.
The faction was brought into life by Abbott in August 1996, one month before the Hanson Maiden Speech and its arrangements were formalised a few months prior to the foundation of One Nation. The Liberals knew what was coming and the role of the faction was vital: it would serve as a anchor on Liberal supporters who might be tempted to stray into Hansonism ; it would serve to reel back into the Liberal Party those who had deserted for Hanson ; it would serve to attract mavericks and persuade them that their principles could be actualised within the Liberal Party ; it would remain in place just in case any new challenge arose that might cause Liberals to move elsewhere ; it would confuse the definition of patriotism and identity for Australians by making it a matter of civic loyalty and not ethnic inheritance.
These were high tasks - which some now consider unnecessary. With Clarke came additional baggage. In his wake has come the satellites, the smaller groups, like the Christian Democratic Party and the Australian Christian Nation Association (ACNA) which have embraced the cause of Israel scripturally and which push a rabid pro-Zionist foreign policy. These satellites add to the powers of the Liberal Party, but according to the new conservatives also weigh it down. We shall not buy into that discourse; rather, we shall simply observe the land as it lies!
It is no secret that the Liberal Party under Howard stoked the fires of anti Islamism. We nationalists viewed Islam as an immigration-cultural problem. For Howard and Co, it was a foreign policy matter, a threat to their beloved Israel and because of this foreign policy stance, it was noted that some Islamic people resident in Australia could take the terrorist road.
There was consequently a very small overlap between the interest of the nationalists and the interests of the State which Howard at that time - represented. How this matter was to be handled was the crucial question.
It was into this small overlap area, that a new trend in thought emerged and which now finds resonance in the APP.
The Logic Of The APP.
About three and a half years ago, a particular clique formed up inside the old Australia First Party Incorporated. Up and until that time, the established position of the Australian nationalists on the Middle East was one opposed to Zionism as much as it was opposed to radical Islam. The nationalists opposed Islamic migration and cultural intrusions into Australia and they opposed the activities of the Zionists in this country because Zionism sought to align Australian foreign policy with Israel. Our stand was a type of practical neutrality. The thing that choked the APP founders was that to win neutrality for Australia would mean opposing Zionism from this moment forth. That was 'too hard'. It meant confronting a certain section of 'Jewish' opinion and that meant the media would weigh in on their side; it meant that there were some who would wail that any criticism of anyone who might be Jewish - would be an act of Nazism.
This 'push' decided it would change this position. It would re-fashion the Australian movement as a Zionopatriotic one. It seemed to those who formed the APP that there was 'support' in many areas for Israel and against Islamism. There was a public awareness of the dangers inherent in radical Islam. This could supposedly be built on. It was a line of least resistance.
Among other things, the Zionopatriots who founded APP said that nationalists should bloc with the Christian Zionists of the Christian Democratic Party to build a united anti Moslem front ; they ran propaganda and meetings in 2007 where they opted to paint Moslem extremism (as Islam generally) as de facto Nazism, historically back to Hitler's day and in the present ; they ran meetings where they invited the Liberal Party 'right' and the South Lebanon Army and small Christian groups of a Christian Zionist disposition (ie. those who hold that modern Israel is a fulfillment of Christian prophesy) ; they held up Islamic immigration etc as the main danger ; they said that Israel was a normal nationalist state fighting the West's frontline battle against Islamic extremism ; they called anyone a fascist or an "Arab / Moslem lover" if he condemned Israel ; while being 'neutral' on the idea of the war in Iraq, they condemned the Iraqi resistance as Islamic terrorism; they said that the Australian nationalist movement could be modernised by being pro Zionist - and so on and on. Sometimes they pointed to the British National Party as their model for this sort of behaviour and said the Australian nationalist movement should be allied to the BNP and recast in its image.
This opportunist campaign has gone on in various ways ever since. And it necessarily meant breaking up the old Australia First Party Incorporated and maligning many individuals and groups. Its campaign became personal and nasty and has divided some people.
The False Alliances
The APP has styled itself as a proto mainstream movement. It has argued that by projecting itself as mainstream and by seeking out mainstream people to 'convert' etc., by building mainstream alliances - it would enter the mainstream.
This meant in practise repudiating anybody who, or anything which, might (allegedly) appear jarring to the mainstream mass.
The APP kept up its pattern of alliance building. In 2009, it received the support of Michael Darby, a long-time associate of Clarke and Liberal Party conservative 'faction warrior' who was at that moment - an official in the CDP. Darby also has worked for ACNA. Indeed, in 2008, Darby supportively attended a function which hosted Dr. Daniel Pipes, arch US neo-con and Zionist, who advocates an attack upon Iran. And make no mistake either: Darby is no supporter of Australian nationalism ; he is a an agent of Australian subservience to the world of money and to the American superpower
It is ironic that the APP would deal with Liberal people instrumental to the State attack upon Hansonism. But the road of opportunism is never noted for consistency. It is further very odd that the APP would laud the Christian Democrats (CDP) and seek alliances when the CDP favours high immigration and high refugee intakes. It is strange it would also seek a bond with the Australian Christian Nation Association - which is certainly Christian Zionist - but also multiracialist.
The idea is that these alliances legitimise the APP and achieve its mainstream status. The host of normal, Christian, Israel supporting masses, are suitable recruits for APP. It might even by thought by the leaders that the APP can replace the Liberal Party as the main 'sun' around which the satellites of anti Islamism will revolve.
The questions we have would be: is it that the APP is building alliances to allow its passage to the mainstream? ; or is it the Liberal Party, which acquires a new and useful (delusional) satellite structure which neuters nationalist activism on a promise?
The nationalists believe that the APP has deceived itself by allowing itself to become the de facto property of real 'operators'.
At a time when anti immigration sentiments are deepening, how useful it is to have a holding pen set up, where nationalists can bleat away, but never acquire independence. That may not be the intention of the main APP leaders - but it would be the result.
What Will Happen If The Faction Implodes?
The collapse of the Clarke faction would throw the APP strategy into chaos. In reality, it is the Clarke faction which is the hard sun that keeps its satellites circling in loyalty. If it goes, the satellites spin off into space.
We nationalists are not bitches who seek the discomforting of the APP. We are simply making the point.
Rather, the implosion of the 'conservative faction' in the Liberal Party offers the nationalists a clearer run. Why?
Let's run the film into reverse. It means that if a new nationalist party mobilises, the Liberals do not have a specialised mechanism to stalk us through time in the hope of drawing our supporters to them. It means that their 'patriotic' (sic) voices are not heard to confuse the sounds coming from the nationalist camp ; it means that issues like Islam can be put in their proper place and can no longer be used as a furphy to conceal a true immigration debate; it means that there will be no nationalist minded people stepping into the holding pen set up for them.
All that would serve nationalism.
What happens to the APP? Clearly, this door to the mainstream would shut. The APP would then have to reassess whether the whole scheme was ever worth it.
It is not for us to offer the APP leaders any advice, but we can offer the rank and file an opinion. We would ask: how did we know all this at the start? We knew, because the leadership cadre of nationalism has seen this sort of thing before. We make mistakes too, but not these sorts of fundamental life and death errors of ideological and political judgement. It is in the ranks of Australia First that the next step in the true fight can be taken. All genuine nationalists in the APP - are welcome in Australia First.
Home: Defend Australian Nationalism