The Fight For Sydney

Dr. Jim Saleam

This pamphlet was not an official AFP publication and appeared in 2004. It contains historical and other data of a factual quality to encourage a rethinking of the nationalist strategy and tactics in Sydney. It was a no-holds-barred look at the history of Sydney nationalism and patriotism. The material is now dated by events, but developments appear to conform to predictions here. The One Nation (NSW) has disappeared. One Nation has new leadership and has taken the nationalist road. Unity is now the task of the hour. The reader can examine the past to understand the present.


A pamphlet that has as its aim the conversion of people from one course of action to another, still has to start somewhere. Events are moving rapidly. It is true to say that one whole era in the development of Australian nationalist, patriotic and freedom struggle is coming to an end - and another is beginning.

We wish to participate in shaping the future. We don't wish to be hopeless and helpless witnesses to events - but to serve as activist players.

Let us commence with a convenient point: the March 2003 State elections held in New South Wales. Pauline Hanson failed to make it into the Legislative Council. Indeed, Mrs. Hanson maintained then that her 'career' in politics - was over. Of course, she might reconsider now in the wake of her imprisonment, but that is yet, uncertain. The 'One Nation - NSW' of David Oldfield didn't make it into parliament either, and even worse, has started on the slippery slope to nowhere, amidst internal squabblings and dissent..His poor showing in the Hanson imprisonment affair makes his fade-out even more likely. The Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) party found its votes slashed dramatically; the party, which has been silent for a long period, is silent - again.

These three 'entities', the official One Nation, the other One Nation, the AAFI, were all groups that offer candidates in elections. All put great emphasis on this recent election as a defining moment. All have done badly. They were all 'right' in one way. It was a defining moment. It showed that much of what has been the political approach of patriotic parties isn't worth doing. And even when faced with the existence of big-party chicanery and secret-state games in the Hanson imprisonment affair, the ON is merely planning its 'usual' search for candidates for the 2004 Federal Poll! It is planning to fight the electoral game where it has lost out previously. Whatever the 'sympathy' vote for Hanson and ON might be, we reiterate, there is much that isn't worth doing.

But what do we mean by that?

By starting our inquiry with an election process, our readers might assume we're about to go off down the track with a discussion into 'maximising voter impact', or 'rebuilding policy to get into tune with the electorate'.

Nothing could be further away from the discussion you are about to examine.

Indeed, as the reader will soon discover, the leaders of the patriotic parties are accused of peddling the electoral road as an 'ism', their answer to everything and the very reason for their political being. As will become apparent, and as the story here unfolds, these leaders have no right to be considered leaders at all, if only because they have led us up this political 'garden-path'.

Electoralism is a road that cannot serve us. The patriotic-party leaders have tailored policy and even ideology to a useless and near-hopeless quest for votes at all costs. They are politically lost because they cannot devise any plan to build a new political force except by participating in elections. Indeed, they decided that a party was an organization with only one aim: to contest elections. They forgot that a party is a structure which does a lot more than simple electoral work. These leaders have lowered organization to an exercise in electorate-branches whose purpose is to prepare only for 'the next election'. People by the droves became tired of this - and quit. They know it's wrong, even if they can't say why. Most importantly, none of this effort has attracted young people, and young people are the future. Indeed, it repels them.

There is a weakness in ideology. Indeed, there is with the erstwhile patriots - no ideological development at all. Who needs an ideology (a systematised set of philosophical beliefs and historical principles, structured and elucidated) when a few policy leaflets will move the Australian masses? Haven't you gone in to a 'patriotic party' meeting and looked at the literature tables? What do you see? What don't you see? There is nothing to tell you what it's all about. Further, in the patriotic-parties there is an absence of a genuine 'politics' ('politics' being the process which applies the fundamental belief-system, or ideology, to circumstances, which decides who is friend or foe, ally or neutral). Who needs 'politics' (a strategy!) when 'telling the truth to the people' is all that's necessary? The organization that takes the movement out of the public eye, out of confrontation, out of the actual struggle at 'street/factory/office/university/school/media level, and shunts it off to a type of club circle, alive only 'every few years', is not an organization but a mis-organization. But who needs public action when a group that stays alive only to serve its candidate at the next poll, is all that's needed?

How did we get to the point where this claptrap parades as the content of patriotic or even 'nationalist' politics?

The leaders must take the blame both for what they've done and what they've failed to do.

Where should we be now? This is a question every nationalist, every true patriot, every member of the assorted movements and parties of nationalism and patriotism, is asking. Obviously, the simple answer is: a lot further advanced than we are now! But such an answer begs that we describe our present circumstances and argue about why we are deficient and what the alternative should have been - and must now be.

This pamphlet is about the Sydney situation. But of course, it runs deeper. The movements at issue are invariably, in one way or another, 'national' structures and their leaderships may not reside here. The reader can apply the points elsewhere and receive this benefit.

This pamphlet is written to 'renew' the cause in one place. And what cause is that? It is the true cause of Australia's Identity, Independence and Freedom. We are going to discuss our problems by specific examples and reason from there. A lot of people will not like this pamphlet, if only because it will call idiots - idiots! It will indict those who deserve to be indicted for playing games with a cause when their attitude towards its organizational vehicles, should have been, at all times, super-personal. It is the position that the cause has been ill-served for a long time by persons who have proved incapable of understanding much at all. It is time to break ideologically, politically and organizationally with failure.

I write as a supporter of the positions taken over time by the Australia First Party (AFP), but also as a nationalist with other experiences in the struggle. These personalisms will be brought to bear on the subject matter. Of course, there will be those who, in their fervent desire to kill the message, will try to character-assassinate all of us who are the messengers! That is par for the course. And there will be those who assail the political vehicle called AFP with any number of petty insinuations. Again, par for the course.

Bluntly, if we cannot plan our way forward from here, the 'game' should be abandoned andwe should resign ourselves, not to the shibboleth of 'bad politicians' ruling us, but to the control of the Nation by an anti-Australian, and non-Australian, state power. The city of Sydney, the place where our Australia began, is wide open to a new style of nationalist politics. We can try something new or repeat the old ways that have led to our present marginalisation.

I will look first at the groups casting about for your support, then go back into time to explain how we ended up in the present crisis - and finally discuss the way forwards.

Section One:
The Oldfield Circus a.k.a. One Nation (New South Wales)

David Oldfield, member of the Legislative Council, split his 'party' from the parent One Nation in 2001. Rather than invent a party name of his own, he pinched the name of One Nation, and just tacked on "New South Wales" for product differentiation. He took advantage of the electoral laws, and the confusion over 'registered parties' and other parties, and set himself up for business. If he set up an "IBM" in opposition to the multinational "IBM", he'd be done under the corporations' law. In politics, he got away with it. Thief? Then, if we accept he stole someone else's intellectual property, we must ask: what sort of a character does that? I note that he's never really bothered to explain himself either.

An examination of the policy documents of the Oldfield party, when taken in comparison with the official 'federal' One Nation, reveal no real difference of ideology. So what's the issue? Personalities. Rather than a clear statement of purpose to justify the break, the Oldfield stable has, as a rule, only ever protested against the regime of Hanson and those judged to have been her toadies in the official party. Big deal.

The recent imprisonment of Hanson has brought the Oldfield lie to a head. In the months before the Hanson imprisonment, and in the period leading up to the March poll, the Oldfield party was riven with division. The Burston brothers, angered over their leader's attempt to get his wife number one place on the Legislative Council list, wracked the party with legal disputes. They said they had been promised places one and two on the party list. They have carried on their legal manouverings.Consequently, the Oldfield party split in recent months. Again, there was no real matter of ideology involved in any of this. It was a clique fight originating over the position on a party list. Squalid!

In the public media, rival Brian Burston says that Oldfield ordered him to "dig up dirt" on Hanson. Oldfield denied it. Whatever the truth in these disputes, Hanson was a victim of a political trial. To be seen undermining Hanson can only make Oldfield - smell. Indeed, we would say that the Hanson imprisonment has killed off Oldfield's ambitions. Oldfield has denied his guilt in the public media, but has equally indicated that he assisted police. His party has refused to defend Hanson or genuinely assist her in practical terms. This is rotten politics. Again, whatever the truth on the legal matters, the public might easily conclude that this is a man who'd sell Hanson down the river, just to survive his time in parliament.

It is understood that the Oldfield group could yet be the subject of further convulsions. Rumours circulate that a group inside the declining party has talked about pursuing nationalist politics. If that is true, we wish them luck. However, such politics are not the politics of the majority of the leftover party. The ruling clique would split it again rather than concede to nationalism. The disastrous electoral collapse of the group in the March 2003 poll might encourage opportunist mouthings, but at the end of the day One Nation (New South Wales) is what it is. It is a pseudo-popular-conservative party and is designed to be nothing else. It will end its days as a 'support circle' to Oldfield who, once he leaves parliament in 2007, will return to his beloved Manly - and eventually, Liberal Party membership. If the party still exists, it will then dissolve quietly.

Interestingly too, and no one has hitherto picked it, Oldfield's group is restricted to New South Wales in more ways than the obvious. So what is he 'offering' the rest of the Australian people? Nothing. His point is that he's a local politician with a limited vista set by the nature of his electoral perspective. Few people would feel any enthusiasm for such a political 'strategy' (sic).

In politics, there are many who mouth off about this or that idea. Oldfield's pretense is that he is a 'leader'. We are entitled to ask: what have you written, where do we locate your views? Other than the useless and shallow Blue Book of 'policy', some press releases and parliamentary speeches, we are pressed to understand what it is that Oldfield believes. Given he will tell anyone anything to get their immediate support, we must probe deeply indeed.

The truth may have been distilled in newspaper interviews around the time of the Hanson imprisonment. In one, Oldfield says that he helped formed the original One Nation with the idea in mind of pushing Australia "to the Right". In other words, he was not seeking power, or to build a nationalist people's movement, but to achieve some result inside the system. This could only mean in practise that he wanted to push the Liberal Party to act more 'conservatively'. No doubt the Liberal Party was willing to play this game, and given the mealy-mouthed ON positions on asylum-seeking and immigration, it was game easily played. The real question is: what is Oldfield's relationship with the Liberal Party? I am not asserting a conspiracy existed and he was involved in it. Rather, I am arguing psychology. This man is at heart - a Liberal. He believes in the institutions of the state and he merely believes in rolling back the video-camera of history to a point where Australia was a little safer, a little cleaner and a little more secure.

This is all rhetoric without substance. His answer to Sydney's (and Australia's) ethnic ghettoisation is multiracial assimilation - a fancy term that means doing the thing Arthur Calwell called 'national suicide', bluntly the creation of a "coffee coloured Australia". He just doesn't like multiculturalism; he wants 'one nation', and is willing to acquiesce in a brown one - that speaks English. We regard that solution as anti-Australian racism. Oldfield's policies on industry, unemployment and freedom fail to question the domination of Australia by multinational capitalism. He seeks only to negotiate a fairer place in the order. None of this is nationalist politics, but because he occupies a place on the landscape which some people think is really patriotic politics, Oldfield presents a problem. He is a block along the way to the mobilisation of a real nationalist movement.

While nationalists will work with the rank and file of One Nation (New South Wales) on any matter of public concern, they will struggle against the leadership (sic) of the group. As I will explain shortly, we advocate a patriotic united front from below, ie. unity on urgent campaigns arrived at by the activists themselves. We have liitle doubt that the Oldfield clique will struggle might and main to keep their dwindling band of supporters out of any such arrangement. Other corrupt and twisted elments in the group will also reject unity from below. In redefining nationalism and patriotism in Sydney, no 'unity' with Oldfield is possible. Let the movement swirl past him!

Section Two:
The Official One Nation. End Game?

It has been put to this writer by a confidential source (a committed member of ON, a genuine nationalist), that his party occupies the political space which any nationalist party would necessarily have to occupy. It was then suggested that this was a major obstacle to the formation of Australia First. He said the ON party has its faults, but that many of the members do struggle towards nationalist perspectives. He said that the leadership in New South Wales was hopeless, inept, adrift. It was also "clique controlled" and unaware of, or unwilling to confront, serious political questions, like New World Order imperialism, the fake 'war on terror', immigration. After all, these things don't look like vote-winners for a small party (or appeal to small minds who don't see they are the very things that drive Establishment politics). This was sound analysis. Even more intruigingly, my source said that a weak ON was of use to the state power, because it continued to exist, draining money, votes and activists into a stagnant pool, denying them to the nationalist mobilisation which was truly necessary. My friend's solution was to try to change ON from within; our solution is to build a new movement.

There is no doubt that ON exists in Sydney, holds meetings, has branches and intends to contest the federal poll in 2004. Since this is the position, it must be taken into account. The nationalists say without equivocation that they would 'vote' for ONP candidates and even suggest people do so; however, this sort of passive support is just a reflection of the fact that their candidates at least express some alternative to state politics. Yet, our position is not an endorsement of ONP politics.

What is decisive of the ONP position has been its slow decline in formal membership over the last year (despite a small flurry now over Hanson's imprisonment). The party still has other 'friends' who may assist it at election time, but the emotive quality of the past has dissipated.The official party is increasingly a 'rump' party. Much of the leadership has a sycophantic attitude towards Pauline Hanson, something which suggests to us that they are people of narrow political understanding and may refuse to evolve with changing times. They hope she will return to lead them; she will continue to inspire them, and otherwise they will invoke her name as their source of ideology and politics. There are cooler heads, but they are in the minority and we doubt they can come to the fore. Again, we wish them luck and will work with them, but that is it.

The public also holds the final key to the ONP's survival. The public has registered deep disquiet over the political imprisonment of Hanson. However, ONP has not capitalized on this issue. To move beyond being a "registered party" under the Electoral Act, a group which has as its objective merely the contesting of elections, towards being a protest movement around the political imprisonment issue, has seemingly proved almost impossible. The Sydney area has the main concentration of ONP members and friends in New South Wales, but there has been no action. In effect, the ONP has abandoned public outrage as a political weapon! The question now is: will the last reservoirs of voter support also evaporate? Of course, this is our prediction, but it is our prediction not because we wish it, but because the ONP fails to understand that even to have ballot box success, it is necessary to be more than an electoral movement. It is, like the Labor Party of yesteryear (just for the sake of example), necessary to rely on a social movement structure, a mass movement structure, a structure for the dissemination of ideas and culture.

The ONP does however, presently show any fundamental awareness of its political position. If it did, it would review its strategy/tactics those it has rehashed over and over since 1997. From conversations with many branch leaders, the impression is given that they merely await future public support because they say what the public 'thinks' and 'feels'. This is naive in the extreme! If the ONP was to examine its rise and fall, it would see that it was fighting a battle with the Establishment parties, with parties that are state parties (the alternate 'government' faces of the actual arrangements of state power ), on territory controlled by these enemies. Elections are held on days chosen by the enemy; the Electoral Act imposes restrictions that serve the enemy; the issues are those put forward by the enemy; the media is monopolised by the enemy; the initiative lies with the enemy. Need I go on? And what does ONP counterpose to this? It has 'the truth', 'Pauline', and its array of thoughts and feelings which supposedly most people 'agree' with. Sadly, most people don't vote ONP!

The ONP came on the scene in this city (as I shall discuss below) at the end of a period where activist politics was drained away into ballot boxes! As the tail-end of a political disaster period (the degeneration of actual political thinking into electoralist wishful thinking), the ONP represents distilled political foolishness. None of that means of course that they were/are not good people, a pool of voters or resources, it just means leadership was not present because there were no leaders with understanding of politics! By that I do not mean an understanding of the formalities of politics (the electoral illusion), but rather an appreciation for the actual nature of state power in Australia. There were no end of people with knowledge of how to register parties, man polling booths, print how-to-vote cards and send in electoral returns. There was just no real leader about to tell the party that even if this party was to win fifty-one per cent of the votes in fifty-one per cent of seats, the state would not permit the ONP government to govern!

What????? And that bland, bald, horror statement, would be just one of many a nationalist leader would say to the ONP members and officials. The fact is that the Australian state has no intention whatsoever of deglobalising, ending immigration, abandoning wars on terror and all the rest of their New World Order program. And the state power has no intention of freely allowing any party to stop them either. We are not fighting other parties with crook programmes, rather we are fighting a criminal state. That means different strategy, different tactics.

The problem with ONP, which denied the party this sort of understanding, was firstly - ideological. Where do we locate the ideology of the party? Hanson quickly repudiated Pauline Hanson: The Truth. She never issued any manifesto, nor did she author any structured material. Other than ONP policy statements and so forth (including a significant immigration document in fact authored by Robyn Spencer - then edited, then repudiated!), we are hard pressed to locate any corpus of material. But then, ONP was never equiped with any theory of the Australian state and society, without a coherent world-view, without a policy-think-tank of educated persons, without a journal for political development. It was just a party of resentments, proper ones to be sure, but resentments nonetheless. If ONP had been equipped with a real political cadre, it would have known that its tactics were useless.

Yet, once we see all this, we can decide that One Nation was never really a nationalist party at all. Rather, it was a party lashed together from different source pools. There were some working class protest votes, people who looked towards a popular anti-globalisation movement. There were farmers angered by rural decline. There were large numbers of older, retired people, with little political experience. There were people who had been the more conservative voters of the Liberal and National parties. But rather than these people adhere to a fiery definition of the Australian Heritage, there was a 'civic patriotism', a mushy feeling for the flag, the 'better days' (of the 1950's), for a little industrial regulation and 'orderly marketing' of rural produce, law and order a la Bjelke-Petersen, a few restrictions on immigration, but a thoroughly assimilationist policy for non-European migrants - in other words it was the Country Party, vintage 1971. It might be a patriotic party, and it might be that many of the people within it could move forward to nationalism, but it was not a nationalist party.

How shall we deal with the ONP is Sydney? We first appreciate that the Endgame has begun. Our objective is to inherit the best members and officials who are currently still in the party, allowing that experience teaches and these persons are raising themselves to nationalist consciousness. That does not mean we are 'poachers'. Quite the contrary. We can and we must bloc with decent patriotic people, particularly on matters like Hanson's imprisonment. We will work with these people until the moment comes when they know they must move ship. We shall make ourselves known to them, publicly by our actions and through a united front on key matters, proving that we have a plan and represent the only place from whence the struggle can be continued.

Politics is a hard business. In the final analysis, ideas count, awareness of how these ideas can serve politics is a necessity and a way to build an organization to serve these things must be found. The ONP has crushed the hopes of many a sincere patriot. It is up to Australia First to build a nationalist consciousness in these fighters and lead the coming struggle in this city.

Section Three:
Anti-Immigration Politics Needs Renewal: The AAFI Question

The current Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) party, is the New South Wales registered party, a sister structure in fact, of a federally registered political party - Reclaim Australia Reduce Immigration (RARI). The leadership is exercised by Mr. Edwin Woodger. It is a matter of record that these groups were formed from a split in the federal AAFI structure, as led in 1996 by Dr. Rod Spencer and Mrs. Robyn Spencer. The split was also 'led' by Mr. Woodger. It is a matter of record that the 'leadership', just like in the case of Oldfield, took advantage of the electoral laws to detach a 'party' from the parent trunk. In this case, the AAFI as a federally registered party was the victim of State laws and could not overturn the State Electoral Office decision to recognise the Woodger group in New South Wales as a 'State party'.

The current AAFI group does not have an Internet site, does not issue recruitment propaganda, does not organize public functions, nor issue regular newsletters. What has it done in recent times? The AAFI seems to appear in public only at election times, running candidates in the 1999 and 2003 State polls. The recent result showed about a forty per cent decline on the former result - if we measure efficacy by the number of votes. By all reports, the membership has been maintained by virtue of the party's 'name' attracting people prepared to be 'members', and it 'advertises' amongst them for candidates.

The purpose of the party cannot be determined. By that I mean that it has presented no documents on strategy and tactics, no new programme documents, no statement other than its campaign leaflets and so forth - which limit the purpose to providing voters with a way of registering their disquiet at the levels of immigration and its social impact. The leadership of the 'party' seems not to be particularly interested in explaining itself to other patriotic people. It operates in isolation. While there is no suggestion of any personal impropriety, we note that the leadership of the party is in the hands of a single family group. So, what are we to conclude?

In this regard, we must look at the origins of the AAFI/RARI group. The split in the federal AAFI in 1996 came about with some political issues at its core. The Spencer leadership was saying that the party required a thrust with (at least) two inter-related elements. First: the party would indeed contest elections, but would do so to populrise itself and deepen its connections with people. Second: the party would have to 'contest' the ideology of the Australian state - liberalism. It would do this by developing an in-depth body of work that would not only explain the need for a new nationalism, but why liberalism was a faulted idea. It was revealed to the author that the AAFI leadership in Melbourne also considered building a street level (if not too confrontational) activism with demonstrations, posters, meetings. In reply, the Woodger group preferred to build an electoral party appealing to ordinary people on ordinary issues, with ideological development limited and the street movement function ignored as not-too-respectable. In our view Spencer was right and Woodger wrong. It is to be noted that much of the rhetoric of the Woodger group focused on its right to run the group in one State as it wished without "Federal interference". It sounded like a pale version of an ALP dispute! There were also persons who (as I discuss below) incited the division. On balance, the Spencer faction made the most sense; it was arguing that a long-haul strategy was necessary as opposed to short-sighted electoral effort.

The AAFI of the Spencer period was moving towards a type of populist-natonalism. It sought to unite Australians of all backgrounds on a platform to defend the quality of life and culture. It was able to unite with other patriotic people in united efforts. Under Woodger, the group became isolated and by failing to offer anything other than a name to vote for at election time, made no progress. It has however demonstrated one thing. At the last State poll and in a later by election it outpolled the name 'One Nation'. Obviously, there is in Sydney, a definite anti-immigration impulse there to be exploited.

Because AAFI is an electoral group only, we are in a position to represent the anti-immigration movement - on the ground. If we represent that anti-immigration consciousnes at street level, we can benefit organizationally. We have no interest in offering any electoral effort which will cause the AAFI group to react regatively towards us; however, we are of the view that the rank and file of this organization belong as supporters of an actual - fighting - party. Their passivity serves little purpose. It is our duty to win these people into Australia First.

Section Four:
The Disappearance Of The Sydney Street Movement 1989-91. A Faultline Opens

We must now go back in time. In the period 1989-91, the state, through its political police agencies, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the New South Wales Police Special Branch, broke up the nationalist party, Australian National Action (ANA) in Sydney. This was achieved because it was perceived that the organization was a threat to trade and investment from Asia, and to the small 'l' liberal groups who were the main propagandists for the open-borders ideology. The state campaign against the ANA was carried out with violence, perjury and criminal conspiracy, all the essential stock-in-trade of the political police.

The ANA had a deliberate policy of tailoring its politics towards working class and younger people. This created an organization with a degree of punch. With it off the scene, no group followed in its footsteps and tried to approach, in particular, young people. And when working people were located by the new groups, they were not directed into activist politics, but increasingly into electoral politics.

A member of the former AAFI committee informed the author, that in the period 1995-6, it was already noticeable in his party the membership had become older. There was no policy of, or plan to, attract Australian youth. The electoralist strategy and the actual electoral policies themselves had no direct appeal to youth.

When the AAFI passed into One Nation, this process was finalised. The branch life, and the electoralist purposes of One Nation, guaranteed youth had no place. This was brought home to the author in 2003 when he tried to explain to an ONP official the campaign being directed by AFP at high school youth; the man listened very politely to me detail the activities of the Trotskyite 'Resistance' group and why we had to oppose them, and then he replied: "yes, but school kids don't vote; it's a bit of a waste of time, isn't it?" In that answer lay the problem, but the youth question has been a pressing one since 1991.

The street movement idea, of course, goes deeper than just the youth question. The Australian National Action only counted for 200 or so members in the metropolitan area; but there was an additional network of friends and sympathizers. Because it was a 'young' movement, it was able to energetically impose itself upon the media and the public consciousness. One Trotskyite group, which in fact advocated violence against the ANA, 'praised' it by implication, stating openly that its activism might achieve "the racist contamination of the working class." That was indeed (the phrase 'racism' aside) the situation. It was about counter-culture, changing public awareness, building new ideas to challenge Establishment liberal-capitalism.It was not until advent of the alliance of the AAFI with Graeme Campbell was it again possible to say that this function could have been re-duplicated. But that depended on the conscious and deliberate construction of the physical movement. When hundreds of thousands of Australians rallied on the gun question, it showed the power of the street. It frightened and intimidated the Establishment and its political police. This movement was de-railed by the fake Ted Drane 'Reform Party' nonsense. Even so, there were people ready to advocate direct politics. The One Nation party mobilization de-railed that. Historically, that party must accept this blame!

The street movement concept involved in the past, and still involves now, an appearance of 'being everywhere'. In order to do that, the nationalist party is obliged to paste bills and post adhesives, pass out leaflets, run street stalls, contest student and union elections, be present in factories, workplaces, schools and universities, organise demonstrations and appear in the media. It follows - inevitably - that there will be some physical confrontation. The street movement was part of all successful Australian political strategies of the past. We need only think of the Labour (Labor) Party of the period 1891 - 1940. We need only recall the strong influences of Australian communism. We are amazed - and appalled - that the so-called patriotic leaderships do not even consider it. Is it they don't know? Or is it they cannot see? Or they do know and turn elsewhere? Whatever we conclude, it is a strategic failing of the first order. We state openly that we intend to re-build this option. We will do it consciously and with application. If the reactionary conservatives in the One Nation electoral camp don't like it, then they will be taught in public that there is a new player in town, with new methods and ideas, ready to break their moulds in the service of the Australian People and Nation.

Section Five:
The Day Of The Wrecker And Provocateur: Let's End It!

The troubles of nationalism and patriotism in Sydney involve the actions of wreckers and provocateurs. Interestingly, these types have been very active. I shall name some.

Wrecking and provocateur activity was demonstrated openly in the Terry Sharples / One Nation affair. Here we saw - what this writer believes is - the tip of an iceberg. We note a former New South Wales Liberal Party leader (Coleman), who had links to Intelligence agencies, businessmen and shadowy shysters and big sums of cash, brought influence to play upon a crank on his personal crusade. But, are we entitled to ask if this 'technique' has not been around for years? Is what we saw with Sharples only one aspect of the dirty-tricks apparatus employed against us?

The obvious provocateurs in Sydney were, and still are, the small group of 'neo-nazis' ('nutzis') grouped around David Palmer. This group (currently numbering about fifteen persons) emerged in 1988-9 and has continued to harass various nationalist and patriotic groups. It began with a campaign against Australian National Action, then against AAFI, then One Nation and subsequently various individuals. Its violent rhetoric was a lure for certain alienated youth and a small number have indeed passed through the ranks. The group has functioned with a core of former mental patients and out and out degenerates and remains a useful weapon of the political police. Despite the publicly available 'exposure literature' of neo-nazi activities, it continues to operate. It has, of late, focused its attentions upon Australia First. Thankfully, most of its members and hangers on have been identified by name and address, but this circle's danger lies in its intelligence gathering capacities and media provocations. Despite repeated exposures, the media continues to advance them as the 'shock-horror-gasp' neo-nazi, racist, hugely endowed, invisible empire of right-wing political violence. The nutzi circle has often pretended to 'befriend' various patriotic leaders and groups (in secret) offering 'information' on opponents or enemies. Once 'contact' is made, the microbe moves into the target's life, blackmailing him for compliance and other rewards. If the target struggles to push them away, further harassments are instituted. This pattern has been repeated over and over. Some persons have even been warned against them, but allowed the relationship to develop - to their cost. The nutzis may still pursue that course.

However, many other wreckers made themselves known. When the AAFI emerged as the premier nationalist party in Sydney, a veritable army of informers, wreckers, provocateurs and general trouble-makers (the latter making themselves 'available' to the others) descended upon the party. Although it had over 500 members in the metropolitan area, the party after 1994, found itself under siege from within. Does anyone remember faction warriors like Wayne Robinson who waged incessant letter campaigns? And who used the fax of a 'mate' in the Australian Federal Police to send out some of his disruptive documents. Or a sly ex-policeman who 'billed' the executive for certain (disputed) services at a rate where, had the committee taken him to court, each side was still obliged to pay its own costs - with the result money was extorted from the party? What of the Reynolds family who stymied the party's relationship with Graeme Campbell at every turn? And the literal screaming at AAFI committee meetings between Mr. Reynolds and another member each accusing the other of personal sexual faults? And there were assorted meteors who blazed across the sky, full of plans and energy, wasting the party's time - and who simply roared away into oblivion?

The Australia First Party was also visited early on in Sydney by wreckers. For reasons unknown, the party accepted the membership of Victor Shen, a Chinese gentleman who asserted that he 'agreed' in a restrictive immigration policy for Australia and that he would defuse Chinese criticism of Australia First. It was humbug, but a device which divided the organization and wasted its time and energy. Eventually, Shen decamped, joining the so-called 'monarchist campaign' of 1999 and to enjoy the company of pro-immigration 'conservative' Liberals like Lyenko Urbanchich.

The One Nation Party has had its share of such people too. What of the divisive Lex Stewart, a gentleman who turned up after a career in the Fred Nile party and the Liberal Party as an 'advisor', and who then caused divided counsels in the One Nation executive? And not just that: he turned up in The Great Australians party - and divided that too! What was the motive in all that? We cannot say, other than to note that no great ideological principle was involved; rather there was a lot about 'democratic' membership arrangements, constitutions and rules. If this case shows anything, it shows that much of the divisionism centres on people who write elaborate legalistic documents for the regulation of the parties - and who invariably succeed on dividing groups neatly around the legal forms they have divised.

The One Nation groups have no intrinsic unity as they are not based upon ideological unity. As organizations which supposedly 'say it like people feel it', they admit anyone to membership and elect anyone to leadership. The formation of cliques and cabals is inevitable. The potential then for wreckers and provocateurs to make inroads - is very high.

Although the Sharples affair showed us a network of professional wreckers was in operation, we have to contend with all-round attacks upon our activities. The political police are active, recruiting, spying and disinforming within the ranks of the patriotic groups. In conjunction with the media, they can 'promote' or 'discredit' people, channeling activity up dead-ends. Some of the patriotic groups have become dimly aware of this business, but have done nothing about it. There are no briefings on it, no comment on it, no mechanisms in place to combat it. We can expect therefore the political police to continue to enjoy operational success over their targets. Indeed, the wishy washy politics of One Nation serves their purpose. As we noted above, it exists to frustrate the development of a genuine - combative - nationalist movement.

In our view, the success of the provocateurs and wreckers and the political police program of containment, both carried out directly and with the intervention of the informal network that produced Sharples etc., is a fact of life. This occurred because there was no real nationalist ideology, politics or organization. And this must change. The era of containment must be ended.

To do this, we will proceed against any 'agents' we find and alert other patriotic groups to their existence. We will stand with any group targetted by these lice. We are now obliged to establish our own 'intelligence section', which can evaluate methods employed against our cause and determine appropriate responses - and we would happily assist other groups to do likewise. The struggle against political policing in our country has never been more important and those who refrain from this fight commit the gravest crime against the movement of Australian freedom. As the ASIO bosses have said again and again (we thank them for their openness), their enemy lies in the ranks of "nationalism", the "racist Right" and so forth. Such statements have been made regularly since 1989. We should take them at their collective word

In ernest, we shall raise the struggle against the political police into an urgent political question for all nationalists and other patriots.There shall be no shirking from this struggle which will be carried on in ernest (it already operates on the other side!); it must be followed through until our political victory and the dissolution of these repressive agencies, the opening of their files and the necessary imprisonment of their leading cadres.

Section Six:
What Do These 'Patriots' Believe.
The Day Of The Liar And Big Uncertainty On Immigration,
National Independence And The Freedom Of Our Country

All things to all men: now that's a game! In the world of the pseudo-politicians who we've known in the Sydney scene, programme, like ideology, has suffered in the wash. Essentially, we nationalists believe in a formula which we have expressed in a slogan: Identity, Independence, Freedom. When we test our patriots like those in One Nation (both varieties), and some others too, we find some very unpleasant things. Their programmatic statements alert us to the fact that we are really talking very different politics. I'll come to that.

Identity involves immigration, multiculturalism and the 'racial question'. If we look at the usual blather from the One Nation camp (both versions), there's a number of statements, The Blue Book, leaflets and so forth. There's even Hanson's Maiden Speech, which is often held up as holy writ. The material is very shallow. An immigration policy was written for the party in 1998 by Robyn Spencer - before she was expelled. But it was tailored to the ON audience and later dumped. The whole thing is at this moment - a confused babble. It's 2003 now and we must go by what's in front of us. Now there's a lot about 'restricting immigration' until unemployment is fixed, stopping asylum seekers and having a referendum about anything that might see too great an amount of change in the ethnic mix. There's the numbers game (what a good level of immigration might be) and talk of ethnic gangs, the cost of multiculturalism and so on. There's some references to greater 'balance' in the intake. What does it all mean?

At no point do the One Nation groups say they are opposed to multi-racialism. It is easy to criticise multi-culturalism. We agree. But what of a society which, to use the word of Arthur Calwell, is polyglot? At this point, we see the lying, twisting, worm-wriggling of One Nation. The formula sees to be 'they must become Australians'. But how do Chinese, or Afghans, or Somalis - become Australians? Is it now impossible, even if it was desirable, because of sheer numbers?

One Nation has the view that what defines the Australian is a civic culture: the flag, 'loyalty', speaking English, 'assimilating'. These institutions and conventions are what it's about, in the eyes of these so-called patriots. To us, the institutions or conventions of the civic culture are nothing without the people who are meant to uphold them. No, we are not haters, bigots, race-superiority nuts. Quite the contrary. However, we respect and understand that difference is fundamental to the nature of, and progress for, entire humanity. We believe that peoples and nations have the rights to territory and separate identity. We believe the world would be better as a globe of sovereign peoples. In general therefore, multiracialism is wrong and assimilation of groups (cultural and biological 'mixing') into any host is the genocide of both. That is most assuredly not the position of the One Nation 'patriots'.

And there's the rub, the break, whatever you want to call it. We don't want certain groups to 'assimilate'! We wish to maintain our European race and culture. Not in hate or violence or rancour against anyone, but in the tradition of the heroes of the national past - Lang, Curtin, Calwell and the rest! Once we reject 'assimilation', then the policy of the One Nation patriots is wrong. Compromise is impossible. One Nation would destroy the national identity to preserve the institutions to which they're loyal.

When the mist is cleared away on this vital question where semantics rule, we can look clearly at the remainder of the One Nation patriotic rhetoric. When they talk about protecting Australian industry against globalist forces, do they mean a policy which breaks Australia from the system of the multinationals and global banks? They rail about the New World Order on the one hand, and then they officially follow (with the me-too chatter about Moslem fanatics and other telling silences on the war itself) the all-the-way-with-the-USA-line on the Middle East madness. And that means that when they're pressed they stand with, not against, the globalisers. Do they intend to form a different sort of economic system to the capitalist one, one oriented to national development and the achievement of social justice for all? It seems they are not clear or consistent. When they stand up for Australian jobs and Australian farmers, do they mean that they wish to form a worker-farmer alliance and create a national economic-social order? When they speak of better interest rates, do they mean they wish to, as the great Ben Chifley intended - to nationalize the credit institutions? Somehow, we think they're just playing 'popular' with a grab-bag of policies which are meant to tinker with, but not replace, the present order. Perhaps that's why they're big on new taxation systems? Basically, there's no independence for Australia!

When One Nation says it wants democracy, don't they intend to keep parliament, with the additive of Citizens' Initiated Referendum? Doesn't everything just stay as it is with no real reform of the political order? What of the now-useless Constitution? When they address the political imprisonment of Hanson, how do they intend to deal with the Intelligence apparatus? the legal system itself? the two-state-party dictatorship? Simply, there's no recipe for freedom!

When we get down to it, given the nationalists and these civic patriots are talking two very different political languages, people who talk about unity (without ideological and political unity) are missing the point. Certainly, we will cooperate with anyone on any issue where a pro-Australian position can be distilled, but it may prove impossible to get agreement with the organizations themselves, about very much at all. Because we are obliged therefore to development a different method, we must come up with something that works. We are obliged to 'compete' and therefore - we must take new ground.

Section Seven:
Australia First Will Take The Three Tier Approach Which Defines 'Nationalism' In Practise

The Australia First Party (AFP) appeared in Sydney in 1997. It was quickly 'infiltrated' by persons with alien agendas and its effect limited. The branch dissolved in 2000. It was reformed in 2002. The AFP firstly looks to the regroupment of cadres and activists, men and women who have passed through various parties and movements of patriotism and nationalism, but who wish now to continue the struggle in new, and effective, ways. The new leadership has necessarily looked at a new approach. Essentially, this method may be called the 'three tier approach'.

This method is very simple to grasp.

First: the party does engage in appropriate electoral work. In particular, it should contest local government elections where it can render national issues 'local' and build a new basis for national resistance. But it should also be present in State and Federal polls, not as 'electoralists' (as described above) but as stategists, building support amongst people, advertising new ideas, winning publicity.

Second: the party must rebuild street movement structures, as described. Activists must be present where people are and mobilise themselves to motivate people into action and to wage the necessary struggle for 'hearts and minds', for resources and political place.

Third: the party must wage two inter-related struggles: (i) the cultural struggle which sees the party champion the practical defence of every aspect of the Australian cultural inheritance; be defending this and integrating people into it, we serve to inculcate Australian values in a new generation and raise a new crop of nationalist activists (ii) the ideological struggle which sees the party create around itself new ideas and policies, new perspectives and initiatives, bot only derived of the cultural struggle but from Australian national requirements; by attending to this, we motivate and sustain the new activists who fight in Australia's service. Special structures can be created to achieve these aims.

If someone was to say to me that this three-tier model of conduct is a little bit akin to the ways and means of the one-time Communist Party of Australia, I'd say: "yes, you're most observant". The fact of the matter is that we must prepare for the long haul, against an enemy stronger than ourselves in every conceivable way. We are not going to move him off his turf with 'popular policies' pushed by a group of bozos organized around electorate boundaries and whose perspective of politics is - "getting our views into parliament" (as one 'programme' document so brilliantly puts it). Parliamentarism, as an 'ism', once repudiated, liberates nationalists from narrow-minded vision of idiots who restrain our work. The party can thus develop a broader and deeper concept of the struggle free of the pernicious influence of these blowflies..

Let us locate issues upon which agitation can be built and let us make our propaganda provocative and striking! Immigration is a key question. Economic takeover and property purchase is another. Environment questions are pressing on Sydney with transport, water and sanitarian systems cracking.. The matter of the New World Order war on terror (sic). Democratic liberties and the rights of working people are questions affecting the lives of ordinary people.. All these issues are issues which can build a movement in Sydney. They are mentioned here in their general nature. It is up to the party to develop areas of agitation and points of 'policy' which can attract people.

We advocate the 'united front from below'. This means unity with all patriotic people, and even on occasions, unity with any group of people who perceive and act on a public matter in a way that serves the interest of the Australian people. This type of united front does not depend on 'agreements' with the peak bodies of any association. It is made with the activists where it counts - at the base level.

The issues for agitation are such that the street movement can be focused. It is possible too, to see that the cultural and ideological struggles can also play a part here. Special events of cultural celebration or ideological discussion to serve the resistance forces can be organized.

The three-tier method is, in the final sense, an all-embracing one. It has been part of our political culture in the past and there is no reason why it can't be so again. If it is wrong, then ask the leaders of the One Nation groups or the AAFI to tell you why it's wrong. The answers might prove it to you! They can't make out a case for it being wrong - because it's right and it makes sense. But if these organizations won't change, there is no sense sinking with them. It's time to move on.

Section Eight:
The Political Landscape: Understanding Sydney To Build A Nationalist Party

Now that we've explained the situation of the nationalist and patriotic forces, let's look again at Sydney. The nationalist party must break forever with the idea that it is some sort of support group (of one type or another) for 'candidates' for parliament. If it does so, a new vista opens up. If the party views itself as a type of 'staff' employing its members and supporters in activist campaigns, it can be a fury in the politics of Sydney.

What does this mean in simple terms? Party sections need to know their geographic or other social area. If they are a geographic section (eg. a branch centred on a district of Sydney like 'Parramatta-Blacktown), they need to know the topography well. Where are the schools, social security offices, main shopping centres? Where are the railway stations, bus stops, housing areas? All this means the party can find the best ways of approaching people with leaflets and posters etc. We need to know what are the local newspapers, who are our local opponents and which organizations can be expected to campaign against us. We must learn the council boundaries and the local issues - and yes, take the area politicians into account. It is all about sinking roots amongst the people. It is not about 'candidates'. If the party sections are in a social setting (eg. in a university), the organizers must know the campus lay-out and how to best paste posters and hand out flyers. We would need to know the organizations that oppose us and which associations and fraternities to quietly 'infiltrate'. A careful study of suitable literature would be done and students approached, keeping their connections with the party concealed from the enemy groups on campus. Issues would develop for the student union elections. Most importantly, we would appear as a new movement of intellectual opinion - as the marxists were in an earlier opoch.

By behaving in a new way, we can change the public consciousness. By learning the features of the geographic or social topography, we are in a position to wage the struggle. Our organization cannot really be based upon 'electorate boundaries', but rather, people boundaries! And while it must encourage participation, it must come to terms with the fact that too much internal democracy becomes near-anarchism in practise. There must be discipline in the organization. Again, we are not a party like 'other parties'. Our purpose is not to discipline people so we can get the best candidates, or even provide an opportunity for bad eggs to claw their way up as candidates, but rather to wage a political struggle. That is the very purpose of a 'party'. In that sense a party is also a movement and each function should not exist without the other.

In our pamphlet Community Action Politics Explained: Why Should Nationalists Contest Council Elections, it was said:

Our plan implies that branches of the party no longer conceive of themselves as utilities in the service of vote-gathering, but rather as 'agitational' structures. We must be familiar with our area and locate issues (a factory closure, an environment question, a development matter, a crime problem, ethnic ghettoisation and anti-Australian racism .... the list is endless) and research those issues. From that research must emerge a local propaganda. The questions are of course 'national' matters, but we must identify them as subjects directly in front of, and affecting, the citizen. We point out that our party must possess a general policy for local government and a changing issue-politics; in other words, we have core principles and related material taken up as occasion permits and as in accordance with our core purposes.

This local propaganda must be directed to obtain local media exposure and to 'harass' local officials, councillors and politicians. Most of all, it must intensify and develop local organization. The aim of the party is not simply to acquire more members on paper, but to assemble larger networks of friends and sympathizers who agree with this or that campaign or policy and who may be prepared to assist the party on this basis. On occasion, this agitation may affect the odd decision of local government or even intensify the 'division' over some local question. This is together, the very definition of Community Action politics.

The reader will see that the old way was the dumbing down of our politics. The new way is 'trading up'. It is obvious to the reader that our members and supporters can, indeed should, act as information-gatherers. This means that, by attuning themselves to their local area or social setting, they start to see things, observe people, issues, potentials. Everyone can now participate in the struggle. Anyone, from the oldest member to the youngest, from the ordinary person to the professional, can report to his party committee on these things. And everyone can thence be employed to do something to change the way things are. This method would unleash huge quantums of energy, energy now wasted in the monthly meeting that discusses the next election!

Section Nine:
Ten Point Special Action Program For The Re-Building Of Nationalism In Sydney

I strongly recomment to the reader at this point two other documents. The pamphlet on Council polls (quoted above) should be consulted closely. The pamphlet by Lachlan Walters-Black, The Winning Edge: Reclaiming Our Freedom Through Effective Political Action, is a must-read for local organizers and is available from The Rallying Point Information Service. The points that follow here are based upon the logic of these documents and in accordance with what you have read here:

(i) The party as an organization and the members and supporters as individuals, must put emphasis on the public distribution of advertising material, with weight being put on visual items. The public might hear of One Nation and others, but must see Australia First.

(ii) The party shall act so as to re-group all committed nationalist and patriotic cadres and activists into the new organization, practising as a necessary part of that process the building of the united front from below.This implies the honest and fearless conversing with such people to win them and build new contacts.

(iii) The party shall organize public actions and other functions so as to establish the primacy of the Australia First presence and 'position' over erstwhile organizational competitors.

(iv) The party shall commit itself to organizing sections and units, not based upon electorate boundaries, but upon people-boundaries, occasionally geographic, sometimes social, so as to effectively initiate political work. These units shall be engaged directly in activities amongst the people at the best points likely to achieve political results.

(v) The party shall ensure that it begins to amass human and physical resources, particularly resources which have practical application (printing equipment, computer equipment, banners etc). It is necessary to plan for the long haul and ensure that sections of the organization are suitably equipped. The application of older people, usually not employed by the 'patriotic' groups effectively enough, shall be enforced so as to create administrative structure.

(vi) The party must place dedicated effort into the war of ideas, improving its information services (Internet site, pamphlet production and sources, video/audio tapes etc) and its participation in useful forums and ideological discussion events, aiming therefore to produce in its leaders informed persons able to apply their knowledge to action.

(vii) The party shall cultivate in its members the idea of service to the Australian nation and people as its reason for existence, eschewing pseudo-careerists, would-be politicians and part-time adventurers. It shall insist on a certain standard.

(viii) The party will support and encourage activism amongst Australian youth as a high priority, supporting independent patriotic youth groups or any useful structure which popularises nationalism in that 'market'.

(ix) The party shall secure its integrity by the application of its rules to discipline and by developing an informal section whose duty it must (sadly) be to combat the machinations of the political police against it. As far as can be managed, the divisionist tactics of the political police must be resisted, such an approach assisted by the creation of a 'legal' section to protect the party's interest.

(x) The party shall create a new leadership for nationalism, one which is responsive to political developments and which does not have about it the pseudo-parliamentarist passions of the failed patriotic groups. This leadership must be renewable and accountable, but at the same time responsible for the development of the nationalist struggle.


The Australia First Party is not saying that its leaders are men and women of all-knowing-wisdom. Quite the contrary. But this is a movement which has learned from the general defeats of itself and others. The AFP has not achieved magical electoral breakthroughs. There have been setbacks at the polls and at base level, with resignations, desertions and other problems. The AFP's problems in Sydney pale beside those of One Nation and AAFI, but they were no less real. Even so, the AFP has slowly become the essential rallying point for those cadres and activists who wish to continue the nationalist political struggle in Australia. That is now clearly the case in New South Wales.

We are predicting the decline of the One Nation party. We are predicting the slow withering-away of this party. It follows that the Oldfield group will not benefit either; it too will decline - and die. We are similarly predicting the disappearance of the AAFI before the 2007 New South Wales State Election. The evidence for this crystal-ball commentary is before us. We hardly wish for the loss of people, good people, just to prove some 'point'? No, it is a sad fact. It is sad because the Australian patriotic cause cannot afford to lose men and women of good character at this critical juncture.

We have set out a new way forward. The old leaderships have failed and are best 'retired' from the scene. Because they won't go freely, it is up to the members of the patriotic groups to quit or start working with us now at the base level! That process will occur slowly as the new nationalists demonstrate that we can achieve successes.

Sydney is Australia's hub. It is a 'new Australian city', based on multi-racial multiculturalism, open markets, commercial inter-action with the Asia-Pacific region. It offers tolerance of any perversion or any indulgence as long as its 'values' are not questioned. It offers survival at the meanest level as long as labour stays compliant. This official Sydney is the utter denial of historic Sydney as well it must be. Yet it is here that Australian nationalists have chosen to fight, to reclaim Sydney for Australia! This fight has begun; it will be fought without let up intil Australia's identity, independence and freedom is secured.

You must now consider your choices.