July 2, 2022

PAULINE HANSON GOES BACK ON THE GAME

The Federal election is upon us. And we have Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) fielding 149 candidates in the 151 House of Representatives seats, along with tickets everywhere for the Senate.

If the opinion polls are right, enough Aussies will give them a vote which will earn PHON some four-five million dollars in public funding money.

Some Australians will cast a vote for One Nation as a protest vote (as they will for United Australia Party). Others will do so because they believe the party represents some defence of Australia’s heritage and identity and its economic independence.

But as ever to those in the know (which excludes most ordinary punters), the signs are there that PHON is PHONy!

Background to a new beginning

It is just a sad fact that the long coronavirus sleep of 2020 – 2021 injured all the small parties which depend upon activism to survive and grow. Then, in August 2021 as part of the lead-up to the Federal poll, the Lib-Lab electoral dictatorship changed the Electoral Act as a coup against the minor parties. By changing membership requirements and imposing a compliance period made deliberately short, many failed to re-register. Australia First was one of these parties.

But all that left One Nation, a party that has no community organization, in the electoral contest for 2022. Certainly, it must soak up a large slice of the major-party-sceptical voters.

If that was one result of the purge of the minor parties, we might suspiciously ask whether it was a desire for those who run and own the system to have a reliable (sic) protest party like PHONy in the field?

Specifically, the Liberal and National parties (LNP) are in trouble on the electoral front, but also too on the broader political front. Yet, they wish to lead Australia in a period of global confrontation among the three superpowers. They are talking up the threats from various quarters. They wish to impose a more ‘disciplined’ democracy (sic) upon us, one that would subordinate our country to the requirements of the US superpower. The LNP must shore up the ‘conservative’ vote sector and the community support for conservative ideas and if that means setting in place an anchor which stops these folks from drifting away entirely, they are happy to do it.

Enter the game – again

After all, that is how Hansonism began – more than twenty-five years ago. Back then, John Howard had just won an election, but he was aware of considerable tension in the community on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism. When Hanson made certain noises about it, Howard in a stroke of political intelligence, let the running-dog – run. Ultimately, Pauline Hanson reached the end of the tether, did not break free, and saw her party reined back in. Howard was able to use PHONy to run policy ideas in the community, assess them and adopt or adapt ideas to taste. Ultimately, Hanson was broken by false imprisonment and the party imploded along the way. It had done its job. The Liberals reoccupied the political space.

Now the game is back on and in a new and dangerous international environment. Will Hansonism beat the drum that China is a threat (and indeed it is!), but offer the ‘solutionas more US bases and a deeper commitment to US foreign policy? More submarines and ASIO spending? Will it run about as an ultra patriot movement crying aloud for political subservience to the US??

A fake ‘anti-China’ patriotism could hence be organized without the LNP taking direct responsibility for it. But it would feed upon it.

Perhaps Hansonism might also broaden the appeal and call for restrictions on the sale of Australian property to foreigners? That one is easy because foreigners can always buy ‘just’ 49% of something! Or demand a tough stand on migrant crime? That is easy because crooks are crooks. It can say just about anything to keep the clientele happy while PHONy votes in the Senate with the LNP and builds a tough-guy-conservatism at the community level – which serves the LNP in or out of government.

There is a term for all this fakery: satellite politics.

The Long View: what is a satellite party?

What is a satellite party? It is a party that serves one or the other of the major parties. It is self-organized and motivated.  For an LNP satellite, it means no field for manoeuvre, with general electoral loyalty to the LNP in parliament, dependence on and devotion to, the symbols and legal arrangements of the State. A satellite must represent the privatized defence of conservatism; as an outer defence guard (auxiliaries) it serves to politically harass agreed targets that might challenge politically and sustain conservative ideological values. Hence, Pauline’s folksy popular flavour would attract a special bevy of conservative activists not strictly bound by major party rules. They suffer the delusion they are the people’s voice and they act as if they are genuine. They can ‘get out and fight’. Useful idiots?

John Howard’s lesson is clear enough. Satellites work. When Hanson came back into the Senate in 2016, there was no real trepidation in the globalist media or on the far-left. She was tame. She would not raise themes that could engender disorder, at least without permission. Her voting record in the Senate shows she is part of team-LNP. She even ‘forgave’ Tony Abbott for running the campaign on her which had her locked up twenty years ago. She has truly done her time and can be trusted by LNP with the new mission.

Pauline plays smoke and mirrors

However, the public has to be deceived into believing the game is real, that Hanson “speaks her mind,” and stands up for people.

One paper recently wrote:

“One Nation threw a curveball …., announcing that it would preference Labor over the LNP in a string of inner-city seats in Sydney and Melbourne – where moderate Coalition MPs are under threat from the so-called “teal” independent candidates. This was payback for the Coalition preferencing Jacqui Lambie’s candidates over One Nation in Tasmania. But how many One Nation voters live in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne?”

Indeed, the right question. This smelt like a scam. Because in every seat in Queensland the State where Labor has electoral hopes, PHONy preferences the LNP. Mark Ludlow of the Australian Financial Review said last week:  “Anthony Albanese’s quest to pick up seats in the must-win state of Queensland in the May 21 election has just been made harder, thanks to Pauline Hanson. But the news on Saturday that Hanson’s One Nation party has decided to preference the Liberal National Party ahead of Labor in 30 federal seats in Queensland has raised the bar for Albanese.”

Pretty much in every other State too, PHONy preferences go to the LNP. But in the Senate, it appears (operative word: appears) another story, whereby Pauline has ordered preferences to go elsewhere, as she then collects them in return from various minor parties, including the United Australia Party (UAP), in return. She therefore marshalls certain mini groups’ votes behind her and keeps them in line. This is an indirect service in the satellite arrangement.

But the big giveaway in terms of who pimps for whom is in Queensland, where the LNP Senate ticket gives the ‘2’ to PHONy. Quite simply, the LNP wants Pauline Hanson in the Senate. If she was any sort of problem for them, they wouldn’t recommend that outcome. Indeed, they also give preferences in other States to the United Australia Party and get them back in return. If the town-crier of ‘freedom’ (Clive Palmer) was such a threat to them, they wouldn’t do that either. Each satellite party shows up the fraud and together the case is made out! For those who still think Hanson speaks for them, the LNP is likely to elect PHONy in Queensland. How much clearer does it get?

No matter where you come from

The signature ideological belief of the satellite is best witnessed when it comes to the ultimate question at street level in Australia – just who is an Australian? The big ideological convergence between satellite conservatism and official conservatism is on the subject of race, immigration and identity. In the new Australia being ‘united’ as ‘one nation’ against the chosen external enemies of conservatism, it does not matter where you come from (sic). That is the LNP line as it is the line of every colour-blind conservative.

Although Pauline Hanson is best remembered for a comment made in 1996, “Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians”, those who have embraced that as an article of their faith in her, either forget or don’t know of her 2016 statement: “You don’t have to be white to be an Australian.” Since then, her (and the party’s) embrace of multiracialism has grown stronger. To the point where Mark Latham, PHONy leader in New South Wales, wanted multiracialism enforced as a principle by the Racial Discrimination Board!

A good example of PHONy multiracialism was Hanson’s choice of three Indian PHONy candidates this time around: Raj Guruswamy (number two on the Senate ticket in Queensland), Rajan Vaid (South Australian seat of Makin), formerly a Fraser Anning candidate in 2019, and Amit Batish (NSW seat of Chifley) described by the party as “a first-generation migrant Australian with proud Indian heritage”.

Now that PHON has a herd of Indians on board, we can expect its quality (sic) to continue to diversify (sic). Those Australians looking to it to defend their heritage will find no salvation there. Yet many will be deceived in the short term.

In the one nation of diversity, the conservatives have found nirvana via Punjab.

A hayride through 2022

Whether the LNP wins or Labor wins, the role of PHONy is set. And its well-funded apparatus will come out of this election ready to do battle with all enemies of conservatism. Who are those ‘enemies’?

The ‘enemies’ of conservatism are a growing army. Those who would define Australian in an ethnic European way. Those who do not wish to allow our country to be a part of a superpower war. Those who want our national wealth in our hands and not under the control of those who own the system – like Hanson’s very good friend Gina Reinhart who owns 51% of Cubby Station while the Chinese own ‘just’ 49%

Independent  nationalist politics

The politics of Australia First is independent: it is neither Left nor Right; it is neither conservative nor social-democratic. It is anti-system and it sees the parliamentary game as just that – essentially a cover for an undemocratic system that requires citizens have the illusion of participation. When we ‘participate’ (sic) again in electoral work, we will do so knowing that our purpose is just to mobilize patriotic dissent. We do not participate in a system we do not own. We act within it to oppose it.

Pauline Hanson has gone back onto the only game she knows, serving the LNP as a reliable satellite. Australia First politics means that the Hansonite game will be confronted and combated at every turn.

 

 

error: