The freedom of Australians to speak freely, particularly those of European/white heritage (the founders, builders, the people who comprised 98% of those who fought and died in two world wars, creators of the country that is so appealing it attracted thousands of migrants and currently still the majority demographic of ‘Australia’) is under threat, again, from Liberalism’s zeal to end any debate on multiculturalism in the name of ‘anti-racism’. A national debate is raging over a panels proposed change to the constitution, though one would hardly know it, as the public is taking very little part in the debate. The argument is about a 300 page report which contains proposed changes to the constitution to move racist sections and a recommendation to add a clause prohibiting racial discrimination.ⁱ

The report was delivered to Canberra by Melbourne lawyer, Mark Liebler, (former President of the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and apparently the National Chairman of lobby group: Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) ) ⁱⁱwho Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In a letter which was submitted to Parliament, Leibler writes

“When it was approved one hundred and twelve years ago, the Australian Constitution established the rules for governing one of the most prosperous, peaceful and democratic nations in the world. However, the Constitution understandably reflects the values and beliefs of the time it was drafted. The Founding Fathers deserve our gratitude and respect. But their perspectives – including those on race – were of the 19th Century, not the 21st.”

Mr Leibler doesn’t elucidate why perspectives have changed, very few Liberals ever do. It is merely to be taken for granted that 19^th Century views are to be discarded, and that the ‘view’ of the 21^st century conflicts with our nations constitution. This is a common line exploited by the left, the “It’s 2012, not 1812” argument, one hollow and meaningless. An argument which is supposed to impress upon the reader the modernity of their views in contract with their opponents archaic views, without ever having to explain why it is that the supposed modern views are to supplant the old ones.
Leibler and his story continue

“But racism casts a shadow over many lives, including my own. It was racism and its off-shoot Nazism that caused my parents to flee Belgium in 1939. It was racism that saw my maternal grandparents murdered in Auschwitz. Racism turns your life into a lottery. To stay or go becomes a matter of life or death. Racism reduces your ability to control your life’s destiny or make decisions for yourself.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Leibler puts the specific so called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime under the racist umbrella, an umbrella which now includes anyone who might oppose multiculturalism, high immigration or who might simply wish to preserve their racial and cultural heritage whilst reserving the right for all peoples around the globe to do the same. In doing so, Leibler downplays the specificity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime, and attributes this to broad racism. This is indeed incorrect, as the Nazi preoccupation with the Jewish question was disproportionately greater than their preoccupation with racial purity, and other ‘racist’ ideals.

Hypocrisy? What if modern day Jewish concerns about intermarriage and assimilation within the Jewish community were construed as racism? Many Rabbi’s and Jewish leaders around the world openly talk of the need of preserving Jewish identity, of preserving their race or culture or religion et al. For instance recently a Likud MP in Israel Danny Danon (Likud) put a proposal to Australian Jewish MP Michael Danby re sending African migrants from Israel to Australia. Danon was quoted in the 2011 Jerusalem Post article as saying

The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.” ^iv

One of the most hypocritical examples of double standards on issues of on the right of demographic survival of an ethnicity/nation is by Mark Liebler’s brother Isi Liebler. In a Herald Sun article titled “Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler”

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of…

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. “ ^v

Many in the Jewish community openly discuss that in order to preserve their identity, intermarriage with gentiles must be eschewed. In a 2010 article titled Jews in the Lucky Country by Isi Liebler which appears to be mainly aimed at a Jewish audience he promotes Australia as one of the better countries for Jews who live outside of Israel.

If there were more Jewish communities like Australia’s, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is now… Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities… it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forward looking Zionist community.” ^vi

The article lists what it considers positives such as Jewish dayschools and other institutions but also and notably the positive fact that intermarriage is currently relatively low

Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities…. Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears…

The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing… Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.” ^vii

Would Mark Leibler consider sentiment opposing intermarriage and multiculturalism amongst his own Jewish community and indeed his own brother Isi racist?

I doubt it.

But what if it were a White gentile (non jew), expressing the same concerns. What if it were, instead of an Israeli Jew expressing the desire of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, a White gentile expressing a desire to keep their nation White? Unfortunately, caring about our survival as a distinct people is considered racism and some in the Jewish community, who facing their own possible extinction through assimilation , who should understand and empathise with this sentiment the most, are most keen to denounce and portray this thought as racism.

What is racist is to deny the existence of race or ethnicity, to deny or hinder directly or indirectly the right of a race/ethnic group to survive as a distinct sovereign people living according to their own culture, values and beliefs as a majority in their own land who at the same time extend that right to all other peoples.

Further on the double standards – if so much of what Liebler has helped put forward for constitutional change in Australia helps the Aborigines then why is he not pushing for the same in Israel for the Palestinians? Liebler’s bio talks about him being involved deeply with Jewish issues and Israel related organizations so he must have the time.

Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about the ramifications of adding such a clause. Abbott says “We want this to be a unifying moment, like the 1967 constitutional change, and if something is put up which is going to end up substantially distorting the traditional rights and freedoms and protections that we’ve had in this country, well I think that could be a problem. I would want to look very carefully at the legal ramifications of putting anti-discrimination provisions into the Constitution.”

We at Nationalist Alternative are more than concerned. The Liberal party, while voicing ‘concern’ would never take a Politically Incorrect position, and defend the right of a race of people to speak in defence of themselves, their culture and their right to remain a majority in their own land with laws written by us for us to ensure our survival as a people. We at Nationalist Alternative however do defend these rights for Australians and for all the peoples of the globe.

Tony Abbot scratches the surface with his comment about the threat of these constitutional changes ‘distorting the traditional rights and freedoms’ Australians enjoy. Totalitarian liberalism and its proponents already attack and attempt to legislate away the freedom of association and speech rights of Westerners to discuss matters of ethnic/cultural survival handing them constitutional power to do so will simply usher in a Stalinist state. Recent domestic political history in Australia demonstrates this with the appalling media treatment of the grassroots political party One Nation. However a particular nasty incident occurred in July 1998 that was known by some as Lieblers List.

The Australia-Israel Review somehow obtained the membership list of the newly formed patriotic party One Nation, and published the names of 2,000 One Nation members and donors along with a provocative front cover that implied in our opinion that they were some sort of criminals saying “Gotcha! …. Thousands of members revealed”

Given the publicly known physical violence that has already been directed against One Nation supporters publication of the list could only have been seen as intimidation. This blatant act left ordinary mum and dads, elderly and humble Australians from all walks of life, many participating in politics for the first time, subject to potential threats, harassment and intimidation from multicultural left wing thugs who already attacked One Nation meetings.

The newspaper article titled ‘Anger as One Nation members named ‘had the following quote

Mr William May, of Ashfield, said he did not think his membership was anyone’s business.

“It is discrimination against people who have different political views to them and a lot of these people are elderly, like myself, who have worked all of their life and a lot of them have been in World War II,” he said.” ^viii

What is particularly chilling is that Mark Leibler was the chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the magazine’s publisher back in 1998 That’s right ! The same man who in 2011-12 has Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Change that this article discusses. Liebler was quoted in The Daily Telegraph 1998

the decision to publish the list of members and donors was in the interests of “political transparency”. ⁸

We wonder if he would have the same attitude to transparency if a group obtained and then published in full or in part the membership lists of various Jewish advocacy groups.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the astonishing news on July 9 1998 under an angry banner headline that shouted LEIBLER’ LIST. “The presentation associated with the list invites vilification” the newspaper editorialized and “The McCarthy-like imputation is that these people in some way transgressed, their beliefs — like those of communist sympathisers in the United States in the 1950s — are deemed to be a danger to the state.” ^ix Interestingly a cartoon in The Sydney Daily Telegraph compared what was named by some as ‘ Lieblers List’ with the Nazis of 1938. What is also notable, is how Leibler can sit idle and take part in harassment against people because of their political beliefs. Harassment which has led to physical violence, persecution and public ‘shaming’. The very activity that Leibler should know very well, doesn’t accord with a free and open society. Yet here he sides with those that would persecute and attack someone based on their beliefs. Irony or hypocrisy?

Anti-racism is anti-white and any modern form of ‘anti-racist’ action has an anti-white component to it that makes such actions abhorrent. The issue isn’t about Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders, but that reliably, without fail, anti-racist action always, always goes beyond ending direct racial discrimination and violence, to controlling thought and speech which may be construed by a hyper sensitive and paranoid individual as possibly being racist, or leading to racism. Even if the sentiment isn’t racist at all, all a white Australian has to do, all any White Anglo or European has to do, is discuss in a frank manner their belief that their race too like all others, has a right to self preservation, and every Liberal, every Politically Correct zealot will automatically construe that as ‘racist’, despite the lack of any racist sentiment. Every anti-racist anti white will take anything less that complete support and devotion to the multiracial experiment as an evil that must be stomped out.

Given the disregard for our right to be concerned about our future and McCarthy like tactics illustrated above along with the anti free speech legislation (vilification laws et al) already in place and growing. We ask the people of Australia to consider this carefully and to reject any changes to our constitution which could effectively outlaw any position against Liberalisms desire to create a melting pot in ALL and ONLY white countries. Not only is the potential for organisations to be deemed ‘illegal’, for advocating for and supporting our race/culture/ethnicity, just as other groups such as the Aboriginal and Jews are free to do, but it has the potential to make YOU criminally liable for what you say, even if you just said that immigration levels are too high.

i Deadline shifts on referendum.<Patricia KarvelasThe Australian January 21, 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/deadline-shifts-on-referendum/story-fn59niix-1226249860843

ii>http://www.abl.com.au/ablattach/leibler.pdf< or

http://www.jafi.org.il/NR/exeres/FA8BC582-E6DF-4FC8-9F07-A907FD618422

iii >Leibler Panel Calls for Constitution Change.January 20, 2012 by J-Wire Staff

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/leibler-co-chairs-panel-on-constition-change/21978

ivDanny Danon: Send African migrants to Australia. By Lahav Harkov
 06/30/2011. The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler. By John Masanauskas. Herald Sun.September 27, 2000
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm/a>

viJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viiJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia. By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viii Anger as One Nation members named. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 10 1998.
By Greg Roberts,Andrew Clennell And Nick Papadopoulus
Also here http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

ix The Daily Telegraph. London July 10 1998
Or

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

Anti-racism is anti-white, whichever way you cut it. Whether you are ‘tolerating’ sustained mass immigration, or wanting to ban any event which could be construed as ‘pro-white’. Political Correctness says white people must go, and anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong, but should be marginalized, fined, or even jailed.

It would seem the Independent member for Burnett, Rob Messenger agrees. He has launched an online petition to protest the Hammered Music Festival which is a supposedly neo-Nazi event. ⁱ You can see the flyer for the event here, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-wont-stop-nazi-morons/story-e6freoof-1226241239162 . Rob Messenger and those like him should ask the real questions, What is Racism, What is Neo Nazism? If investigated honestly they would quickly find they are mere labels designed to shut down any expression of appreciation and pride in ones ancestry and heritage. Something available to all people groups, except apparently those of European descent.

What is it about such a festival that stirs people so? The possibility that there may be neo-Nazi’s listening to music? That the ideas expressed might offend the delicate sensitivities of people who would never go anyway? That it might spill into a full blown riot, something which has never happened from similar previous held events. Rob Messenger’s petition may be nothing more that Liberal authoritarianism coming to the fore. Freedom of speech is necessary for functional and progressive society, and there is no impact on others by this event.

The real danger though, as if his proposal wasn’t already against the very fundamental principles that Western society was built on, is the scope of the potential new laws. His petition states “Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Premier of Queensland and the Opposition Leader to commit to supporting legislative change that will ensure our state has the toughest laws in Australia which enable the banning and punishment of ‘ Neo Nazis and other race hate proponents’ activities”.

The danger is in the words “other race hate proponents’ activities”. We already know that ANY pro-white speech, or ANY speech which might solely be talking about issues facing Whites in the Western world is often construed as ‘race hate’. We at Nationalist Alternative have to deal with this label, despite the complete and utter lack of any ‘race hate’ sentiment or material. Liberalism doesn’t define ‘race hate’ (for whites) as deliberate incitement of hatred against an identifiable group, but extends this further to include any discussion of racial issues in a non Politically Correct context. We are all aware, that simple saying “Australia is full”, is in itself considered racist, despite the fact it contains no directed hate at anyone. Rob Messenger’s proposal will give Political Correctness strong legal means by which to silence dissent and remove any threats to the current Liberal social experiment that is being undertaken at the expense of the West.

We call on people to discuss this issue, and let others know of the dangers involved. NO ethnic group should face punitive measures for discussing their own well being, survival and continuation. To deliberately deny any group of people the right to preserve their heritage is akin to a directed attack against them and lays the groundwork for genocide. To deny them the speech, language and right to discuss and hold these ideas, is an attack against that group. It is in essence, doing what the ‘ Nazi’s ‘ are accused of doing, in the name of ‘anti-Nazism’.

Anti-racism is anti-white. Mr Messenger may very well be trying to score Politically Correct brownie points by making the necessary visible propitiations to the PC priests and thereby prove himself as ‘progressive’. He may very well not be aware of the ramifications of his proposal, doing this only as brainless political opportunism, but people like us must make others aware of the dangers of this type of thinking and action. It isn’t just music that falls into the sights of such kneejerk reactions, but the rights of us all to speak.

This concert is a fairly insignificant even in the scheme of things. Most Australians would have never heard of it, and its impact on others is negligible. There are quite simply no real consequences to letting these people have their concert, as evidenced by the fact that they have been held before around Australia and nothing has happened as a result. The proposed laws which Mr Messenger is agitating for though, could have real consequences for Citizen rights to speak on issues and concerns that affect their families, nation and our collective future. Mr Messenger’s ideas in our opinion reek of Stalinist authoritarianism and are a dangerous threat to a free progressive society.

ihttp://www.robmessenger.com/anti-neo-nazi-petition

Debunking the debunking of Bob’s Mantra

Some who may have argued with ‘anti-racists’ may very well have discovered that anti-racism is not much more than anti-white sentiment wrapped up in a phoney morality. Some of us may have heard of, or used Bob’s Mantra. Robert Whitaker has a history of political involvement, having worked on Capitol Hill from 1977 to 1982 and being a published writer.

Bob Whitaker is now the coach of BUGS (Bob’s Underground Coaching Seminar), an online seminar style blog, where participants develop and use techniques to expose the underlying anti-white sentiment of so called liberal anti-racism. BUGS is also ACTIVE plastering this over the internet so it is heard, something just as critical. The Mantra is as follows.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

The mantra is self explanatory and simple. For people who argue with ideological opponents, this line of attack is invaluable. Too often people get sidetracked onto irrelevant issues such as colonialism, slavery, issues of supposed supremacy and such. Using the mantra exposes our opponents position for what it really is, and having used it personally I can vouch for its success. The mantra isn’t just an argument to use, its a debating strategy which forces you to stay on track, to avoid debating your opponent’s straw man arguments. It works because it is correct. Anti-racism IS anti-white. Debate with any anti-racist, and you should discover that they offer no solution to the race problem other than for white people to allow mass immigration into ALL and ONLY white nations and for whites to intermarry.

After some mention on BUGS about it supposedly being ‘debunked’, I was curious. How can simple statement, which are self evidently more or less true be debunked?

A ‘debunking’ exists on Jett and Jahn’s site ^{www.jettandjahn.com} written by Mike Jahn. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t debunk anything, in fact, it completely misses the point and in the end, doesn’t come close to even challenging the central premise of the mantra.

The first point the article makes is

The first problem with this is that Bob assumes that someone would want to be brought to a third world African country and then breed with n****s*. The second issue is that we can see that blacks  lack social stigmatisation against race mixing. *(racial epithets removed by author).

The first problem mentioned simply doesn’t matter. The point of the mantra isn’t what people living in African countries (many of which aren’t black) want, but the demands that PC liberals might place on these countries. The fact is they DON’T demand mass multiracial immigration in African countries. The second issue, which is questionable, again assumes that demands are based on what the host country wants. The mantra quite clearly is talking about the double standards that liberals have, where it is expected that a white nation opens up it borders, but no such expectation exists for other nations. Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Japan is too Japanese? Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Kenyans really need multiracial immigration and assimilation? But we have all heard of anti-racists complaining about whites.

Here are some examples.

“Neighbours TV Show too white”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/neighbours-tv-show-too-white/story-e6freuy9-1111116943998

Royal wedding of William and Kate was ‘disturbingly white’

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/royalwedding/she_the_sacrifice_at_altar_q3kAzkx3hN6ClhLol5X6aP

“Too many white people on French television”

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/07/too-many-white-people-on-french.html

“Dutch civic leadership too White “

http://www.islamineurope.net/2009/11/dutch-civic-leadership-too-white.html

There are plenty more examples. One doesn’t have to look far, in fact we would have all heard many times a liberal or ‘mummy professor’ type argue that this is the future. But you never see them say this about non-white countries.

Whether people will want to move there isn’t the point, because the mantra is dealing with the anti-white motives of those so called anti-racists who make these demands. The mantra exposes the motives by which anti-racist anti-whites operate on. By revealing the underlying motive, you expose their arguments for what they really are, not arguments based on a morality which eliminates racism, but arguments for denying white nations a continued existence as a white nation. This is a critical revelation. Using the mantra aggressively and with discipline, one’s opponent has no choice but to take up an anti-white position and advocate what amounts to genocide, because their ‘anti-racist’ ideology demands it.

The second point the article makes is

The mantra’s weak stance brings me to yet another lapse in ideology – a lot of people waste a lot of time and effort on white civil rights. Why do I say it is a waste ? One has to only study academic liberal literature to understand for himself . When one takes a conservative position on the race issue and says that Whites too deserve special rights (or an equaliser) , one assumes the  classical stance that minorities took up – one of the oppressed .

This is incorrect, as exposing PC liberalism as anti-white has nothing to do with civil rights, and that the mantra doesn’t make one take the position of ‘oppressed’ but puts the opponent in a position where they have to justify the unjustifiable. Besides, one either argues that Whites have the same right as everyone else to preserve their ethnic heritage, or they don’t, and we at Nationalist Alternative argue that they do. The argument that historically Whites have been colonialists therefore cannot claim moral superiority is again flawed. The anti-racists argue that ALL whites nations must open their borders, but not all white nations have engaged in colonialism. The demands are the same for Poland as with Britain, which held a formidable empire. Liberals may use colonialism and imperialism as justification for their position, but a nation which has not engaged in such activity is still nevertheless required to become multiracial. Again, the point of the mantra is to expose that the anti-racist doesn’t really in the end, care about levelling the score, but is using past colonialism and imperialism as an excuse where applicable.

The articles third point is that

As I write this I yet again imagine the retorts I shall get so I will also address the white Genocide videos that have popped up. Genocide by it’s very definition implies that when a population is being destroyed by another, the population being destroyed does not consent to being destroyed . White people are not being killed in any direct way , not at all , they are being outbred and not through rape but by their own free will.

This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is arguing that there is consent, which there isn’t. Having debated with anti-whites many times, none are able to point to any specific consent being given by the people to follow a policy of mass non-white immigration and of turning their nation into a melting pot. There was no consent given except after the dog had bolted. Consent was only given (with much ‘education’ (brainwashing), browbeating and propaganda) a posteriori and even then it is questionable whether it is given now. Most Australians STILL want more restrictive immigration.

Mike argues that it is ‘suicide’ which is sadly occurring, and to a degree it may appear this way. But it is technically not. Suicide is the killing of ones self. Taking others with you is murder. Blowing up a bus is murder and the fact that you took yourself down with the bus doesn’t change this fact. Likewise, as many anti’s argue that this is ‘suicide’, it completely ignores that fact that many people wilfully and knowingly put forward arguments and demands which they know are incompatible with the secured existence of a particular race. I argue that this is pretty much genocide, and whether one is deliberately doing this to another race, or their own is irrelevant. There is nowhere in the definition of genocide which makes an exception if you belong to the group you are targeting.

Suicide is also questionable if its not willingly done. Are there suicidal whites? You bet. But the fact that the system does everything it can to prevent points of views, discussion or dissent against PC liberal orthodoxy regarding multi racialism, it is a stretch to imply that its willingly done and voluntary. People who knowingly continue this are knowingly engaging in an activity which jeopardises the future of a race. Most anti-whites will admit that whites may not have a future, and many seem to even look forward to it. To argue that this is more suicide than genocide is plainly wrong. The fact that the anti-white is white themselves makes no difference to the end result.

If Australia was a true democracy and national policy truly reflected the will of the people, there is no doubt in our minds at Nationalist Alternative, that our liberal immigration policies would be much tighter.

The rest of the article makes valid points about against being weak and the importance of giving people a sense of belonging, though worrying states that we are by nature oppressors and that this is something that we should not be afraid to continue. The lesson of the past in the West is what goes around comes back around and the fleeting glories of imperialism pale in comparison to achievements at home. Mike Jahn underestimates the role that liberalism has played in bringing about the demise of Western nations, and its continued role at keeping the status quo. The current status quo relies on oppression, on the media constantly disavowing any nationalist groups, on ‘hate speech’ laws which really only exist to stifle speech and therefore stifle discussion and thought. The mantra, unlike many other arguments cuts to the chase and exposes the core of so called ‘anti-racism’.

There is no debunking which takes place here, only a misunderstanding of what Bob’s Mantra is saying, and a misunderstanding of the role that Liberalism is playing in the decline of the West. The Mantra, and the BUGS group isn’t ‘cultish’, only very disciplined, and discipline is vital to waging a political battle. Being disciplined means lots of necessary repetition and hard headedness. It means staying on target regardless of your enemies distractions and attempts to steer you away.

Nationalist Alternative @ the Internet Censorship Rally, Perth, WA

By James Smith

Members and supporters of Nationalist Alternative WA attended the stopthefilter.org, internet censorship protest held in Perth at Forrest Place on Saturday the 6^th of March 2010.

The rally was a public relations disaster for the assorted communist groups who were attempting to hijack a public censorship rally for themselves whilst censoring others.

This activist report also details the unsuccessful attempt by ‘Resistance’ and the Socialist Alliance to force opposing viewpoints from a rally held to represent all of our concerns. Our banner which was just one element of our attendance was displayed prominently for a decent period of time and new contacts were made whilst leafleting, gaining signatures and promoting the spirit of the rally.

Why did Nationalist Alternative attend? We like the majority of Australians do not wish for a nanny state to dictate what we can and can not view, read or experience online. Nor do we buy Kevin Rudd’s “thin edge of the wedge” excuses for why.

Nationalist Alternative attended the rally in good faith simply as one group opposed to censorship of the internet, we had our censorship article uploaded on our site, signed petitions, walked petition boards around the crowd to obtain signatures and handed them back to the organisers. If a rally is the sum of its disparate parts we like the individual members of the public and other groups with or without a political basis such as “Anonymous” or the Socialist Alliance were simply another participant.

We embrace true free speech which is the entire spectrum including those views we at Nationalist Alternative may vehemently disagree with. If a viewpoint or concept or vision is flawed then through debate and open discussion it will become obvious.

Those that seek to: outlaw, make illegal, introduce oppressive legislation with jail terms in the hope that they can scare their populace into restricting their thoughts, provide no platform, physically harass, alter history books and curriculum’s and censor the ideas of others onlydisplay their own intolerance. Ultimately it is a personal fear that their own agenda and beliefs are flawed and the public will realise so when presented with articulate opposing views.

One of the most hypocritical streams of pseudo ‘alternative’ opposition in Australia is the tired and bedraggled assortment of Trotskyist, anarchist and communist groups who are not ‘left’ at all but proponents of a future totalitarian system like George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare. Say goodbye to individual and national rights, environmental concerns, diversity, a balance of private enterprise and state ownership, private property rights etc. Their opposition to the current liberal democratic censorship courtesy of labour and liberal governments is purely selfish and deceptive so they themselves can gain ‘the upper hand’ and imprison Australia with their own nanny state and iron control.

Fortunately their delusions are limited to 1^st year arts students and a small bitter rump of older members too proud or dogmatic to admit they are wrong. Their complete failure in Australia over the decades to ever gain a significant foothold leads many to believe the state today continues to allow them to run a muck publicly as ‘useful fools’ which explains the low levels of arrest or police attention these often violent thugs and their organisations receive.

Why ‘useful fools” ? what better way to ensure the continuity of the corrupt liberal democratic internationalist system then to present to the public a delusional bunch of fellow internationalists the communist clowns, as their only opposition? Of course people will be happy to stick with what they consider the ‘lesser of two evils” – hence change never comes and the oppression continues.

With most public issues, socialists around Australia attempt to hijack and control them all and force people to view it through their sole prism of understanding. The socialist attempt to monopolise political speech and action, so as to be seen as the only alternative to the status quo. Whether it is gay rights, or the rights of indigenours peoples elsewhere, the socialists oppose and attach any other political stream which speaks up on these issues, even if they are in agreeance.

Evidence of the apathy these fools cause on the general public is illustrated below. What follows are a few quotes from members of the public commenting on forums after attending the rally.

“What a disappointing rally.

The majority of speakers talked more about socialist talking points than the internet filter. We were filmed at all times by a spook from resistance.org, and the organisers were the worst hypocrits ever.”

“I’ve seen large amounts of socialist propaganda everywhere lately, why don’t these people go and live in a socialist country to see what it’s like before trying to enforce this crap on us.”

“Those Socialist Alternative guys are really annoying. They are like the westboro baptist church of Australian politics. Whenever people try to organise to protest a genuine issue these idiots turn up and try to brand it as a “socialist” demonstration.

They are the worst at Uni.

Pro-tip for SA: If I actually wanted to talk to you I wouldn’t look the other way and avoid eye contact at all costs.”

What you see in the below video is these “useful fools”, in action. After obtaining signatures for the petition, listening to various speeches we decided to unfurl our own banner to add to the diversity of outlooks present at the rally. No different to the ‘Resistance’ group which had a huge red banner beside the stage proclaiming their name and slogans related to their own beliefs without any direct connection to the actual rally.

Within about 10 minutes a few rabid socialists ran up to the second level to DEMAND we withdraw our banner and presence from this public rally. Grabbing the fabric banner and trying to rip it unsuccessfully they resorted to holding on as tightly as possible in order to cause an assault charge by the waiting police on our members if we were to pry and twist their little fingers and arms from the fabric.

Readers will be amused by the deranged women in red whose foul language and death threats “kill these 3 kunts” is obvious. Note also the attempted headbutt of a NatAlt camera man which only left her forehead imprinted with a lens cover. Contrast this to the calm, stoic and non violent behaviour typical of NaAlt supporters who simply endured this all too common scenario whilst not falling into the violence trap.

The state was of course happy to allow this violence to occur, due to the already mentioned “useful idiots” concept. It is often the case the police intervene only when nationalists rightfully defend themselves. Such is the straitjacked situation of the average decent policeman who more often than not, privately acknowledge their support for uThe police or at least their political masters are clearly more interested in ‘defending the peace’, rather than ‘defending free speech’ and take the easy option of taking action against the few victims, rather than against the more numerous (for now) violent perpertrators.

Embarrassingly for the Socialist Alliance, during this banner scuffle the speaker on the stage looked up and noted

“it looks like there is some censorship occurring right before our eyes”

>

After their unsuccessful attempt, despite our members being outnumbered at forcing us from the rally we continued down to the groundlevel handing out our “political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets and conversing with the public. Many individuals in the crowd were disgusted at the attempt by the ‘socialists’ at censoring another group at a censorship rally of all things.

One of the excuses obtained by a roving citizen journalist after the banner incident from the lady in red was that

1. Our banner was unrelated to the protest.
2. Discussions on immigration and its effects on water, congestion, the environment and our culture was not something to be discussed anywhere.
3. They decide the spectrum of allowed free speech

To which we answer the following

1. What could be more in the spirit of a NO to censorship rally than the presence of various groups and individuals with different viewpoints who whilst united in opposition to censorship also present their various concerns!!  It is exactly ‘freedom of speech” in action at a rally calling for the same thing.
2. Why then did she not pull down the huge red ‘Resistance banner” next to the speakers stage you see above which also had zero direct connection to the stop-the-filter rally. This banner simply proclaimed their name and slogans related to their own beliefs.
3. Is it not a fact that Socialist Alliance members canvassed in large numbers the entire public attempting to sell their magazine, hand out their leaflets up and down the 100m line of people queuing up to sign the petition ??
4. Our good faith attendance is proven by the following
   1. Researching and uploading an article on internet censorship on our website and also advertising the rally
   2. Signing petitions and walking petition boards around the crowd for the organisers obtaining further petitions.
   3. Handing out our “Political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets which directly relate to censorship given that PC is the academic concept used by the government to justify many of their laws and proposals.
   4. Standing quietly and calmly not interjecting speakers nor accosting any other attendees at the event.

Editors Note

This is not the first time that the far left have hijacked an internet censorship rally to try and kickstart their own socialist revolution.  An internet censorship rally in Melbourne in 2008 saw other groups whose members were sporting nothing more than apparel with their logo being ejected simply for joining the rally.  Members from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation Australia had little choice to to accept this gross violation due to collaboration with the bullyboy Socialist groups.  Unfortunately, computer user groups and other digital rights groups are not aware as to how their cause is hijacked and manipulated for socialist ideals.

In another incident a group of ‘young liberals’ people Nationalist Alternative have core idealogical disagreements with, neo-conservatism being the first, setup a table at Latrobe University during the orientation week. Given it is a public asset this is an opportunity for ALL beliefs to represent their views in calm conversation and debate. The Socialist Alliance tore down on their table, spitting in females faces, pushing the table and leaflets over and physically hounding them off the campus.  If their were no Liberals on the day then the Labour table would have been next and if no labour presence then the greens. All people we have fundamental misgivings about but still maintain the right for them to join the public debates, counter protesting is one thing but outright censorship is another.

Nationalist Alternative call on organisations fighting for digital freedom and for free speech to carefully consider any ‘help’ from such groups and consider how events such as the one in the article not only make those who fight for free speech seem hypocritical but how it also hurts the cause.  Bad publicity (such as people being censored at such a rally) will set back the cause and portray important causes such as this in a more negative light.

It is highly likely most communist and socialist groups if in power would follow China in setting up a giant ‘intranet’ across Australia rather then an open internet.

Nationalist Alternative will continue to support freedom of speech both on the internet and in the public domain.

Stop the Filter Rally!

today, Saturday 6th of March, 12pm in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Nationalist Alternative reviews the Australian Government’s Internet Censorship Proposal.

By Stephen Wilson

After a one year internet “filter” trial, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on December 15, 2009, that

Australian ISP providers must block content which has been refused classification overseas. Legislation will be  introduced into Parliament in 2010 and once passed, the internet “filter” will take 12 months to implement. An  “independent body” will determine a list of Refused Classification (RC) blacklisted sites for Australian internet users.  Senator Conroy has made assurances that the filtering will be transparent, including notifying websites that they have been blocked, as well as measures to appeal blocked websites.

However one of the fundamental tenets of our society and the pillar and supposed cornerstone of Liberal Democracy, is  that of the free and robust exchange of ideas. A “marketplace of ideas” in which debate, free speech and criticism are welcome and tolerated. In fact, in a healthy “marketplace of ideas”, dissent is welcomed and those of different political/religious persuasions are permitted to engage in vigorous discourse.

Now imagine the Orwellian nightmare straight from the mind of the 1984 author George Orwell. Speech is suppressed, dissent is stifled and creativity and individualism are crushed.

In March 2002, Electronic Frontiers Australia undertook extensive research into the status of laws and  Government policy outside Australia. They were unable to find any indication that any other country broadly comparable  to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has introduced, or intends to introduce internet  censorship laws, particularly laws as restrictive as the existing Commonwealth legislation and proposed laws.

The internet has since its inception been utilised by persons of all persuasions for all manner of purposes. From on-line shopping, email, to communication and networking of like minded individuals. t has until recently been mostly self regulating and has on the whole, been of tremendous benefit to commerce, private and public companies and individuals. However the  Australian Governments recent attempts to impose mandatory internet filtering for “objectionable content” severely undermine one of the most fundamental rights of Man. To seek out information that may be unpopular, critical of  institutions or considered challenging. This in and of itself would be an unjust and reprehensible intrusion into a citizens  right to communicate with others and inform and entertain themselves. However given the fact that the Government is  maintaining a database that is inaccessible to outside scrutiny, is not able to be viewed by citizens and is COMPLETELY  SECRET!! The fact that this database is being maintained by the very same Government that refuses to cooperate with  freedom of information requests, harangues civil servants who leak information embarrassing to the Government and  shields itself deep within the cloak of bureaucratic invisibility, should only serve to arouse the deepest suspicions of all  freedom loving people wherever they may reside.

Indeed one would have thought that in conjunction with industry experts, interested parties and ISP’s that a series of concrete criteria and benchmarks would have been established to measure the efficacy of the blocking of “objectionable” material. On the contrary, the Department of Broadband,Communication and the Digital Economy (the department responsible for the administering of the trials) has actually stated that NO criteria were established in order to measure the effectiveness of the censorship trials. The whole process is  being shrouded in great secrecy with no-one permitted to question the motives of the Australian Government no matter how benign they may seem. The pretext that has been given for the internet censorship trials has (ostensibly) been  preventing persons from accessing “illegal” and “refused classification” material (see child pornography).

This argument is  fundamentally flawed on several different levels.

Firstly Child Pornography as reprehensible, disgusting, exploitative and incorrigible, will never be stamped out by the censorship of the internet. The reasons are complex and mostly outside the scope of this article. I n a nutshell however, the VAST majority of internet child pornography is through peer to peer networks. These are basically private file sharing networks that allow users to share content (music, files and more). However these networks are akin to an exclusive club, if you aren’t a member, you can’t gain access. These evil networks are a closed haven for like minded individuals and are generally speaking quite distrusting by nature. If you don’t know where to look, and you’re not a member, the files (pictures of children) are inaccessible. It’s an underground network beneath the internet. Secondly, most aspiring paedophiles are hardly stupid enough to type “Kiddy porn” into a search engine.

So if internet censorship will not have an impact on the very thing it has supposedly been created to  prevent, why on earth would the Australian Government insist upon this course of action? Why is the “blacklist” of  “illegal” sites kept secret? What is on this list and do you trust the Government to determine what YOU as a law abiding Citizen may view? I would suggest that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we look back some 6  months ago, a minor furore erupted when a copy of the blacklist was released on Wikileaks and other areas of the internet (Ironically the internet censorship blacklist was leaked on-the internet). The list of sites that were banned were rather innocuous. A Brisbane dentist was on the list as well as several Adult bookstores, a mechanics webpage and  several fetish sites which are 100% LEGAL to view as an Australian Citizen of the age of maturity. More disturbing is the  fact that because you cannot access the list, you have no way of knowing what is and what isn’t on it.

Given the fact that  only EIGHT small ISP’s and Optus (on a limited basis) agreed to participate in the trials, there can be no statistically  significant data to be gleaned from this totalitarian exercise of thought control and oppression. Not surprising iiNet  (Australia’s third largest ISP) withdrew from the Governments internet censorship trials in early 2009, saying it could not  “reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility”. Indeed all available data indicates that the  only effect that censorship will have on the internet is to turn it into an unwieldy (and slow) creature. Speeds will plummet, commerce and trade will suffer and costs will soar in order to pay for the ineffective filtering. Perhaps a more insidious force is at work, one that is attempting to stifle and suppress free speech, dissent and protest. When the Government is able to determine what sites you are able to visit, what you are able to post online and with whom you  associate in the digital realm, this really should ring alarm bells. Are you an anti war protester attempting to find a forum  with like minded individuals? A political activist trying to organise a meeting or simply a father sending an email to a child living overseas? How will you ever know you are restricted from accessing sites if they are simply omitted from your  search results. When “page not found” is displayed on your monitor, has the site been removed or blocked due to Government interference?

The fact that the results of the trial have been delayed and pushed back after repeated calls for  Senator Stephen Conroy to release the censorship trial data seem to be indicative of the difficulties the trial has  encountered. If things have been going swimmingly, why aren’t the results being vaunted and championed to the public  after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayers money?

Nationalist Alternative sincerely hope that the internet censorship plan dies a quiet death and slinks off into the night. A remnant of an era that should have died with the demise of the Soviet  Union and the KGB. If this plan is implemented the impact on the free exchange of ideas, political view and discourse of  all kinds will be severely impeded and crushed. I do not welcome the thought of an Australia where I fear a knock on the  door in the dead of night from the Peoples Secret Police for a blog entry or website search that aroused the suspicions of  those in power.