The APP Formally Crosses The River Jordan To Zion: 'The Project Of Civilization' - Or Defence Of Australian Identity And Independence?

Jim Saleam February 13 2010

We have been recently appraised of an open ideological position taken by the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) on the matter of Israel. That party has come out in open support of Israel as part of a "project of civilisation" to which (they say) Australians are subject. The APP has moved on from obscuring its position and has had the courage to put it on the line. We are forced to review this line.

The matters of the Middle East question generally, of radical Islam, Zionism, Islamic immigration, the Zionist lobby in Australia, are integrated questions.

Some patriotic people say that this has nothing to do with our job, that they are 'neutral' on the whole business and wish to avoid it as an unnecessary complication in the building of a party that serves Australians.

In one sense, that position is utterly correct. However, every party in the Parliament has a position and it basically favours Israel; their respective positions involve committing Australian resources to supporting Israel and in defending its interests amidst a so-called 'war on terror' on far-off battlefields. The whole matter is obviously - very important to them. It is crucial to the families of the Australians asked to die or be injured in military service.

So, in some way the whole matter must be important to us. The nationalists are indeed neutral on the Middle East, but they do not ignore it, nor do they deny having a position.

To be ultimately neutral on the assorted Middle East conflicts, Australia as a state, would have not only to reverse Islamic immigration and suppress 'terror cells' and propagandists etc., but also be compelled to dismantle the Zionist apparatus here in somewhat the same manner. To be neutral as a movement, nationalists would necessarily have to proclaim the nature of that future state neutrality. And in that sense being neutral means offending both sides equally and both acting against them and not acting against them. It also means supporting diplomatically and otherwise the creation of Palestine, the removal of foreign troops from the region and so on - because peace ultimately kills the question.

Some people who were/are involved in the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) have said they too were 'neutral', but have castigated us for giving our definition of neutrality; they have condemned us because we have forthrightly stated that in practise neutrality would mean having an awareness of the rights of peoples such as the Palestinians to oppose Israel and even the Ba'athist insurgents in Iraq to fight their war - even if we stayed right out of the fighting and did not physically aid any side. The APP words of neutrality became part of the verbal gymnastics of a decided group of people who say they are Australian nationalists. They wanted to avoid any position that would give them unfavourable press or unwelcome attention. Perhaps, some were genuine in what they said. However, there were other people were/are not really neutral at all - because they side (one way or another) with Israel and they feigned neutrality for effect.

When they 'cleverly' said that the matter doesn't concern Australia, that nationalists should get on with our own job at building a new movement, that there are too many dead ends in the discussion, that the public doesn't get it, or even that they agree with the Palestinian cause in one way, but were too 'clever' to say it lest the media brand them as anti Israeli or anti Zionist or anti-semitic, thereby killing off political progress, then they were really either na´ve - or trying to pull a con job. We believe some are na´ve, but we also believe some were deliberately deceitful. They have long crossed the River Jordan to Zion. The rest of the screaming and so on was to destabilise the legitimate nationalist movement and obscure things until the time to state policy could be made.

And now, they have openly given their position. Recently, Darrin Hodges, a prime mover in the APP gave the position. We publish his words on a Forum operated by APP:

Hero Member
Karma: +77/-24
Posts: 2916
Re: The BNP and Israel
" Reply #5 on: January 20, 2010, 08:03:02 PM "

"My take on it is, we are a part of and support this project of civilisation."

"If we look to the middle-east to determine who would be included in this project of civilisation, it's obvious that Israel would qualify."

"Therefore we do not support Israel merely because it is Israel, in the same way we do not support the United States simply because it is the U.S of A."

"Israel is part of this project of civilisation, as is the United States or Great Britain and as a civilisation we can choose to hang together or hang separately in trying to defend it."

"Additionally Australia has a long history with Israel, even before its creation as a modern state."

"From the last great cavalry charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in October 1917, to Australian soldiers doing volunteer work in the kibbutzim during WWII, through to Australian political and diplomatic efforts that saw the creation and recognition of the modern state of Israel."

"Israel and Australia have more in common than most people realise."

"Both were the product of British colonialism (in one way or another), both were populated by people nobody else wanted and both defended their soil with their own blood."

"Our glorious dead lie at rest in war graves throughout Beersheba and Jerusalem, Israel was partly founded on Australian blood."

"I can say without hesitation that I am an Australian Nationalist first and last."

"However if we are to pass on anything of value at all to our children, then we must defend this great project of civilisation or damn our children to become slaves of Allah or worse."

"I'm not prepared to let some Nazi f***heads decide my children's future, are you?"

The ideological stance is vital to APP, because it underlies their political effort to enter the mainstream. The statement above places the APP on the side of the Liberal Party conservative faction, on the side of the Christian Democratic Party and the openly Christian Zionist organizations. They can approach those motivated by only an anti Islamist position with a consistent programme. The statement is one of an American "neo-con" (neo-conservative)) position, straight out of the writings of the most ardent Zionist supporters in the USA and worthy of the neo-cons Irving Kristol and Daniel Pipes.

It is possible to visualise why the political result of this ideological line is really a defeat in the making for the APP (and anyone else silly enough to get sucked in). False ideology: false politics.

It is the decided view of the nationalists that the consumer, free-market, constitutionalist, civic identity based civilisation of the Americano-Zionist condominium, is but a pox upon the traditional European Culture that Australia inherited as a birth-right. By defending it, the APP defends the regime itself, the 'thing' which is condemning European Race and Culture to death in a welter of globalisation.. By defending the NWO regime at the highest level of ideology, then what is the objection that the APP can have to this system? Will they simply quibble over some policy? Or make the incredible historical compromise whereby they whimpishly ask the regime to preserve our national identity if we can raise support for NWO wars and for Israel? As if the regime would!

The Australian nationalists reject as false the position put forward by Mr. Hodges. Why? Because it is not only wrong but it has come with a wrecking agenda.

We note first that when one sides with the reactionary groups named, there is a certain merging in practise. We doubt the APP knows how to operate the tactics of a united front; rather, it will do its best to accommodate the new herd. Whatever pretension the APP had to develop a nationalist policy on other issues (free trade, mass immigration, the ecology question etc) would be lost because this anti Islamist herd wants really - none of this. To follow the line of mainstreaming would mean scuttling just about every nationalist principle to reach the herd of supporters.

It is a fact that Mr. Hodges has posted material openly on Zionist websites (including that of the Jewish Task Force which sets out to use people it calls "white supremacists" in Israel's service). He has smeared nationalists who oppose Zionism as "Nazis" and is still doing it, sometimes with propaganda lines straight from the enemy publications. His acolytes have denounced nationalist politics as just sectarian nonsense and doomed to defeat.

Let us ask the APP few questions - that actually are straight forward. If Israel is really the barrier to Islamism (and Israeli PM Netanyahu also recently talked of Israel refusing entry to the Third World's immigrants) because it upholds civilisation, then why did the Zionist lobby never oppose Islamic migration to European societies - and basically still doesn't? If the Zionists in Israel block the borders, do the Zionists in America advocate the Mexican border be sealed? If the Zionists really want this new alliance, then what have they given by way of return payment? Are you prepared to support war for Israel? If those who criticise the Zionists in Australia are just "Nazi f###heads", then will you support their legal harassments of groups they describe this way?

Our project of civilisation is to ultimately defeat the NWO regime in favour of our traditional European cultures, for our Australian identity and our national independence. By opting out of the system, we guarantee that we have the chance generally in this world of population/food crisis, the rise of Chinese imperialism and so on - to survive.

We are not minded to embrace the globalising devil in the name of anti Islamism.

Readers will definitely want to read Anthony Wymer's article, "The Limits of 'Islamophobia,'" which was published in The Occidental Quarterly. The article is online at:

The line of the APP is not a nationalist line. Although there are nationalists in the APP, the party itself is not part of our broad Australianist movement because, as even hinted at by Mr. Hodges, there is some higher loyalty. He said: "I can say without hesitation that I am an Australian Nationalist first and last." "However if we are to pass on anything of value at all to our children, then we must defend this great project of civilisation..."

With us, there are no "howevers".

Home: Defend Australian Nationalism