Melbourne Age Smear Against Australia First - Our Reply
The Melbourne Age newspaper has published an important article about Australia First. The article, published on February 2 as "Rise Of Far-Right Risks Fueling Racist Fires", merits a special comment.
In saying this, I note that despite two hours of detailed interviewing of me by its reporter, Annabel Stafford, the newspaper has reverted to the 'usual' type of soft smear which as always, is designed to undermine the standing the party.
Ms. Staffford, attended at the Sydney office of Australia First on Australia Day, asked penetrating and detailed questions upon nationalist immigration policy and Aboriginal policy, free trade issues, the strategy and history of Australian nationalism, but then went on to essentially present the readers with out-of-context-chatter-quotes from a couple of persons in attendance - and her own selection of facts. The article becomes therefore - propagandistic blather. Why should we have expected anything less?
Having said this, the highpoint of the article was that it cited an academic who stated that Australia First had a percentage clientele, some popular appeal in New South Wales and could win Council seats in Sydney. We promise to live to such praise.
Long ago, Sam Goldwyn, the movie magnate said: "any publicity is good publicity." This oft-quoted quip is not right of course, but what we do see in modern Australian journalism is a consistent desire to misrepresent the nationalist movement. Whatever is said and done, the story comes out another way. In that sense, readers have to use their own interpretative skills to work out the truth. It's sort of like reading the official party newspaper in a formal dictatorship: the truth is relative to how much you can distil from the lies. In that sense too, the Australia First Party and other patriotic movements, exist in a truth-vacuum, a twilight of misrepresentation vital to the maintenance of the dominant globalist politics and ideology.
Our choices are limited. One can refuse interview (in some cases that may be the proper course) or accept interview in the knowledge that whatever said is distorted. In my function, I often take that course.
In this specific case I was amused by a very special psychological exercise around which we have opted to 'reply' to Ms. Stafford and the Melbourne Age. We say this regardless of whether the editorial regime at the newspaper altered her text, or whether she did it all by her own effort.
The article began by saying: "The gathering in the backyard-cum-carport in Sydney's south, resembled a clandestine party organised by blokes who find it hard to get a girlfriend".
Now the actual facts would be against Ms. Stafford and the newspaper. The audience at the meeting was itself 'selective', caused by the attendance of a SBS film crew anxious to film two speakers. Many people, rightly despairing of the honesty of the media and being concerned at the misuse of their images, opted not to attend this event - but decided to come later in the evening. Yet even so, all males in attendance (bar a couple of youth) were partnered, or were parents. Ms. Stafford could not have known that. Reasonably, her comment falls into a category of journalism fresh out of Psycho-politics 101. It set the tone of a soft-smear.
Imagine if we can, an article of reply written on the base method technique of the Melbourne Age, one which says:
"The reporter, Annabel Stafford, came to our meeting dressed in what could hardly be the new uniform of Age journalism. With her loose fitting shorts falling from her hips to expose black see-through underwear and her short-sleaved-shirt with a few buttons undone, such that more than a glimpse of bosom was to be had, the reporter set out to entice and beguile. We were not impressed and set out to spin a good yarn while enjoying the view."
Would this be an accurate characterisation of Ms. Stafford? Probably not. Would it be a suitable comment against the Age propaganda apparatus? Not really. For one, I think Ms. Stafford's choice of clothing was accidental and indicated a better human quality - informality. Maybe the Age bosses might chide her to dress more severely in the future, but I hardly think they thought I would reveal the party secrets in exchange for a free view of a writer's wares.
Is there a general point to be learned from the latest Melbourne Age blurb? Yes. Australian nationalists have increasingly come to see that, past a few things that they can do, basic image is something we cannot of ourselves create. That does not mean we are powerless either. There are a thousand tricks which may allow us to take the offensive. But the power to misrepresent rests in the hands of the capitalist media masters. Libel laws favour them absolutely. The power to mislead short of defamation is there to be used.
Sam Goldwyn might have been wrong. Yet the latest extravaganza has already brought some very useful enquiries. It has confirmed the pivotal role of Australia First in uniting the broad nationalist and patriotic movement into a single formation.
Sadly, by the time we get to that stage, the real smearing will have been really well and truly under way!!! Battle is joined and we are warned.