And we got luckier with Mark Latham’s sell-out polly marriage to Hansonism

by Dr. Jim Saleam

‘As I wrote just a few days ago, One Nation in Western Australia is now an open party of immigration, and one now full of migrants from Red China and with its secretary also Chinese. We were ‘lucky’ in that their Western Australian leader, Paul Filing, provided the evidence.

Yet, even I was not prepared for the gusher from Mark Latham, New South Wales leader. It seems we have got even luckier in defining what this One Nation truly is.

Freely stated, Latham would promote a new version of forced assimilationism that would obliterate the Australian identity and he would have the Anti Discrimination Board enforce his all-inclusive anti racist poison – through force.

Yet, Latham uses a little deception. In his long document he refers to the present day situation where white male heterosexuals receive a less than fair outcome in media, employment and so forth. He detects a certain discrimination in motion.

That gets you in. Then the trickery begins.

(Latham the Naïve: set to follow Pauline’s junked candidates Brian Burston, Rod Culleton, Fraser Anning, Malcolm Roberts, Ian Nelson, Jim Savage, Jane Truscott, Shan Ju Lin, Andy Semple, Brian McRae, Dane Sorensen, Sandy Baraiolo, Dorothy Pratt, David Oldfield, Peter Rogers, Ian Hodge, Lyn Vickery, Mark Ellis, Bill Feldman, David Ettridge and Charles Rappolt)

I take from some of the juicier bits of the new Lathamism (Hood: ‘One Lathanism’). I do not quote out of context and I recommend all nationalist and patriotic people read his work to judge if that is so.

Let us begin…

Latham says:

“We are being ripped apart by divisive identity politics: judging people on the basis of race, gender and sexuality, instead of their individual needs and merit.”

We say:

This part truth contains a lie. Certainly, the globalist forces empower certain members of certain races, genders (sic) and sexualities ahead of need and merit. However, nationalists defend an identity (the Australian one based as it is upon European race and culture), gender polarity and a sexual traditionalism. So, we do judge outside of needs and merit (sic). How could we not? In our own defence?

Latham says:

“With the rise of anti-white racism, people of colour have been set against white people.”

We say:

True. But this person of white says that is actually part of the process of re-colonisation. They are set against white people to perform the necessary violence and cultural cleansing for the globalist state. It is not part of some rights agenda politics and to suggest so is to mislead Australians in what is in fact, an ethnic struggle.

Latham says:

“Like most Australians, One Nation deplores this new focus on something as meaningless and superficial as skin colour. Anti-white racism is a political sickness no different to earlier forms of racism such as apartheid and slavery.”

We say:

Race is not just skin colour and nor is race meaningless and superficial. It is irrelevant to our truth if many people find that such a difficult concept to handle, although it is relevant to the method of political mobilization if we may employ appropriate language to minimize their hostility while truth is injected into their mental process. Many anti white racists are certainly sick because they attack a group as part of the globalizing process. And they need to be challenged. They cannot be challenged if their essential idea ‘sameness’ is actually acceded to.

Latham says:

“It is also entrenching the evil of segregation: separating Australians away from each other on the basis of race, gender, sexuality and religion.”

We say:

But why is separation a bad thing if some people are totally alien to European culture? And who said these folk under description were “Australians” (sic)? Because they hold a passport or swore some bozo oath? Our goal is to uphold the Australian identity and its underlying social and cultural mores. Do we really wish to come together with the very social order which is cleansing us? The One Nation priorities here are the wrong ones. We wish to recover our country. And to take it further, if our culture is predicated upon gender, sexual and religious norms, why would we seek to merge our specific identities with identities (sic) conjured up in a university sociology department?

Latham says:

“We have been a land of opportunity for any ethnic group wanting to pursue its vocations of choice. In the 1950s and 60s, Australia had problems of discrimination against women, migrants and homosexuals. The White Australia policy was an obvious example ….”

We say:

The land of opportunity was established by Europeans. It was not established for “any ethnic group” but Europeans. It is very clear that Latham links together the White Australia Policy, in his view a sin, with “discrimination”. Yet Australia in the 1950s opened up to a new European settlement, a nation-building enterprise. Our country proudly advanced women in many areas. I will not endorse the feminist agenda that asserted oppression when it did not exist. It is Latham who accepts some sort of Left narrative which in other parts of his long document, he decries.

Latham says:

“In truth, the only fair way of running society is to judge people on their individual merit, regardless of race, gender, sexuality and religion. This is why we must fight bigotry and discrimination of any kind.”

We say:

The test of merit is made a mockery of by the settlement in Australia of wide sectors of the intelligentsia of Asia. Reasonably, these folk will rise by merit. Merit is no defence of anything. We nationalists judge in collective terms and our frame of reference is the preservation and advancement of the European ethnic group whose country it is. If there is bigotry and discrimination within the present society, we cannot rid ourselves of it by asserting ‘merit’ given Latham wants us to go on to fight “bigotry”. The latter means to the migrant masses the assertion of Australianity. Essentially, Latham wants us to give that up to achieve equality with the re-colonisers. We refuse that road.

Latham then goes on to present a short programme to create his ideal egalitarian country. I critique some of it.

Latham’s programme:

“We will broaden and modernise the role of the Anti-Discrimination Board.”

We say:

We would dissolve it and punish those who served in it.

Latham’s programme:

“Building social capital and promoting stronger communities in NSW, across racial, gender, sexuality and religious boundaries.”

We say:
This is little more than the programme of the present globalising regime glossed up by saying it’s okay to be white within this system, that it’s okay to be male within this system, it’s okay to be ‘straight’ within this system, it’s okay to be agnostic or Christian within this system. No thanks. We seek the overturn of the system.

Latham’s programme:

“Outlawing practices that prevent another person’s legitimate economic, political or community participation in society. This would include restrictions on freedom and any treatment of an individual other than on merit. It would also include words and/or actions that incite violence against others, irrespective of the motivation of those words and/or actions.”

We say:

It is clear that Latham’s system demands coercion, which is a real concession. If he is happy with using force against those who would assert an identity, then he cannot complain if we would ‘one day’ apply coercion against the likes of him? Latham echoes the system’s blather about nasty words and talk of incitement to violence, something usually preserved for discussion about matters of immigration and race.. His variation is that he wants to apply force against all identity based persons. What would he do with family people who object to transgenderism? Or Christians who object to the slow overtake of their faith by others? What about ‘whites’ who are not content with equality in the system but who assert Australianism and struggle to recover their country? Where has Latham ended up?

Latham’s programme:

“Creating a new criminal offence in NSW for any practice that segregates people away from each other in public places, according to the race, gender, sexuality and religion of participants (in a manner inconsistent with the values of Western civilisation).”

We say:

This is the policy of forced assimilationism particularly on matters of race. It is the globalist lunacy that would meld all people to grains of sand doing and praying and being whatever they want as long as they consume, obey and then die peacefully. If Latham wants to create a thought-police-state then he has come a long way from being some sort of democrat as One Nation would also claim to be. He is identical in application to the current Human Rights thought police except he wants some whites based upon merit, some straights and males and Christians and so forth, to share at the table of the system’s economic rewards.

Latham’s programme:

“Any form of racism, against any skin colour is wrong. The reformed ADB will ensure that laws and processes punishing racism also cover the recent, regrettable rise of anti-white racism. There is nothing worse in public debate than a fixation with race – on black, white or any other skin colour. Under our human rights framework, racism of all kinds will be treated harshly.”

Pauline swamped by James Ashbyism

We say:

The Australian nationalists are not ‘racists’, nor do we practise ‘hate’ (sic). Rather, we maintain that identity is real and worthy of defence. Of course, we are punished by the system not for ‘racism’ and hate and so on, but for our actual crime which is to oppose globalization and the destruction of our race and culture, nationality and identity in general. Latham would punish us also.

The reader should now see that One Nation and Australia First are on opposite sides. It is black and white, up and down, yin and yang. It is an unbridgeable gulf and One Nation betrays itself as a system tool to confuse the awakening patriotic people and send them up a poisoned path.’