This Satellite Sips Mocca: The APP And The Max Brenner Protests

IIt is necessary to pass a (belated) commentary upon the September 10 protests in Sydney outside the Max Brenner chocolate and coffee shop in Newtown. On one side, the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions movement) supported by certain pro Palestinian activists and members of the Sydney Left; on the other side, members of the Jewish community, Christian Zionists and the Australian Protectionist Party (APP).

What occurred there demonstrates (pardon our pun) the tangled nature of satellite politics and the almost contrived 'oppositions' on both sides throwing "Nazi" insults at each other. According to the Left it's a case of the APP being the Nazis and running Islamophobia (sic) in the same way they would have run anti-semitism if they didn't find Israel and Zionism to have an agenda they could live with. For the APP, anyone who criticises Israel and Zionism is pro Moslem and that the Left, being "socialists' with an anti Israel position, are said to akin to the anti-semitic German "National Socialists" of yesteryear.

Officially, establishment toads like Paul Howes, Michael Danby, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and Jana Wendt, have joined in a very public campaign that draws a line between the Brenner protests and fascist anti-semitism. Nonetheless, they condemned the protests and alluded to them as skirting a fine line. That's where the idiots on the street serve the 'cover function'. They steer the debate exactly back in that direction.

It's a loony bin - until we clean it out.

Scenario One: "Clever" APP Deceives The Zionists.

Somewhat recently, a senior member of the APP told us that this Newtown demonstration was one proof positive that the APP is deceiving the Zionists. I suppose that by saying this, I am a bastard yet again, undermining a perfectly good strategic or tactical ruse. In saying this, I have just dogged on the master plan in a very public place. However, I could ask: what sort of deception? Is it just that a fairly reasonable pack of patriots are telling a few white lies to ensure the Zionists don't give them the 'Nazi' treatment, that they're not neo-nazis anyway, yet misunderstandings could occur. and standing up for Israel ameliorates the situation? Or is it, as APP leader Mark Wilson put it some years ago, that it was ruthless strategic thinking overall and the APP was identical in spirit to Australia First, but it was cleverer and would fake at Zionophilia?

On this overall two pronged scenario: is the APP really deceiving anyone - except itself?

Let me be very frank. The Zionists aren't fooled. If there is a strategy in motion to generally acquire the support of Australia's organized Jewish community (which means the Zionist leadership) through the employment of action-based tactics in defence of Israel and against the pro Palestinian groups in Australia, then it must fail.

The Zionists endorse multiracialism and multiculturalism and eschew any form of 'patriotism' (except that so closely bonded to them by some sort of theological principle ie the Christian Zionists). To obtain any sympathy, even the most guarded, the APP's line otherwise would have to undergo substantial modification. The Zionists might allow some criticism of Moslem migration from a satellite dummy group (something which does not get them into strife wduring their inter-faith dialogues with the Moslem clerics), but they cannot endorse any critique of immigration generally. There lies part of the contradiction. For the APP as a 'nationalist' party to garner recruits it must also fake at anti immigration politics which it must then distort into chiefly an anti Moslem immigration position. But it must still muck about with rhetoric the Zionists could not remotely be seen to endorse. There are now definite signs that APP wishes to follow the line of Geert Wilders and others, that which equates "civilization" itself with the Zionist entity and "Judaeo-Christianity" and calling for an end to Moslem immigration, some repatriation and integration. Yet, even Wilders's line impacts on the APP's ability to recruit people critical generally of immigration because Wilders favours other immigration and the integration of these people into a colour-blind Holland.

It would seem that pretending that one can deceive the Zionists would demand considerable mental energy.

Scenario Two: APP To Follow Following Wilders To The Wilderness

We prefer to believe that there may be some would-be nationalists in the APP who really do believe they are playing a 'clever game'. They have our sympathy. However, they are not the dominant trend. We believe that the line of Darrin Hodges and Nicholas Hunter-Folkes is the dominant line.

These people are trying to build a different type of movement. They are marginally 'to the right' of the Christian Democratic Party (CDP). They occupy a 'space' where people can be Christian, be Zionophile to combat Islamism, can posture that they oppose rampant immigration mainly Moslem but on a strictly non-ethnic basis and scream that they are socially conservative and patriotic. They are starting to distance themselves from "nationalism", suggesting that it has been merged into a "socialist" movement courtesy of some of us at Australia First and no longer their cup of tea. Their movement is one of a more traditional flag waving patriotism, a civic patriotism in fact.

The dominant APP faction are activists and appreciate that they are deceiving no one but the public They are offering themselves as the opportunists they are. They consider that the CDP and similar groups are not hard enough to counter the Moslem threat and to head off their allies in the Left, and that a new party needs to be built from all those satellites of the Liberal Party which want more action. They dream they may eventually govern Australia as the junior partner of the Liberals. They hark back to the Liberal patriotism of yesteryear with which the Zionists were certainly comfortable. Hence their name 'protectionists', the original Protectionist Party being the forerunner of the Liberals.

They are as Wilders is. They are as the Austrian Freedom Party is (in coalition with the local equivalents of the Liberals), as the Danish Progress Party is (in a coalition like the Austrians) - and so on.

Such a party as the APP would represent in that scenario a useful tool for the Liberals and it could be something the Zionists could throw a bone. If their stand is to favour multi-racial immigration and simply critique multiculturalism, the Zionists might not feel they are beyond the pale. If they abandon "nationalism" as collectivist and socialist, then they are hard Liberals.

The Liberals Again

On September 15, David Clarke, Liberal parliamentarian and leader of its "conservative faction" in New South Wales, introduced motion in the Legislative Council to condemn the BDS movement as anti-semitic. Once again, we see the Liberals lining up their satellites. The APP may feel it has just participated in a great broad movement struggle to expose the BDS and a goddam commo, nazi, Muzzie plot - against democratic, liberal, Israel. The deception is complete.

We nationalists can only wonder how long the last file of nationalists will remain in APP playing what they think is a clever game when the real leadership has run off with the show. And we say: they still might find a place in Australia First.

Home: Defend Australian Nationalism