A New Ideology Of Anti-Islamism Could Be The New Anti-Communism For Fools
Opinion; Posted on: 2007-04-25 00:12:50 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
The following is an interview conducted April 18 2007 between The NSW Chairman of Australia First Dr Jim Saleam and a correspondant of Patriotic Alliance Downunder from Sydney.
We conducted this interview after a remark arose in a conversation between the Patriotic Alliance Downunder editor and Dr. Jim Saleam (pictured). He referred to "a special ideology of anti Islamism that could be the new anti communism for fools". Where was this discussion going?
PAD: Okay, that was a radical remark. Let me ask first, lay out the basis of your general perspective on Islam and communism. I want to put this in full context.
Saleam: Obviously, Islam, either in its traditional guise or its radical guise, its mystical aspect or its jihadi aspect, has no place in Australia. It has no place in any European country. It is alien to our complementary, if also distinct, traditions of Christianity and secular ethical-philosophy. It is alien also to our current overlay of Western consumer liberalism, but then we traditionalists are alien to that too, although the Islamists of our time seldom differentiate the two types of 'Westerner' who may stand before them!
Even so, there are Moslem lands where Islam holds sway and since we aren’t going to make Europeans of them, let alone convert them to Greco-Roman philosophy or Christianity, we are obliged ultimately (whatever the current problems are) to live and let live. I can’t say the history of our interrelationship was always good, or will be perfect in the future, but I would imagine that after 1500 years fault lines appear that divide one world off from the other. It is a matter of respecting that these lines exist.
As for communism, it is a dead ideology of class hate with a rather appalling failure rate in delivering nirvana. I do observe the survival of some other forms of communism – Trotskyism and similar forces. But it’s all going nowhere. Of course, that was not the position once and that was what my remark to you was about.
I am saying that anti Islamism and anti communism are actually ideologies of a sort. One may be in any party or association or espouse any set of principles, but if one adopted these things as yardsticks for behaviour and conduct, you subordinate your other beliefs to this lowest common denominator. One could still be “anti-Islamic” (sic) or “anti-communist” (sic) as part of an overall programme without adopting these things as ideologies. Once we go down that full-on road, we are ripe for exploitation by other forces because we have already lost our original belief systems.
PAD: Tell us first, what are your overall perspectives on Islamist ideology overseas and in Australia?
Saleam: Chiefly, you mean the new radical Islam which has dominated public thinking and the planning of opinion makers and politicians. It exists and it must be criticised. From my perspective I see that Islamism is a reaction to the mismanagement of those Moslem societies and population increase and poverty. In this medievalist construct, they find security of mind. If they are immigrants to European societies, Islam becomes the crucible for hate.
However, invading Moslem countries is not the way forward to resolve these questions, but then it’s not framed that way by our masters either. We know their schemes are based on a lot of lies. Bin Laden was funded once by the CIA during the anti communist crusade. How did the deal change? The CIA supported Moslem extremists in Chechnya against Russia and Islamic nuts in Bosnia against Serbia. After creating bedlam in Iraq, they now say they have to stay to stop the threat of terrorism getting worse. The hypocrisy suggests there’s a hidden agenda..
I say that suicide bombers and whacko ideologues are no danger to Australia if they can’t migrate here. In Moslem countries, they can do as they choose and cannot harm us. So why are we there, attacking them? In some ways, they might harm some Australian economic interests because they have a revolutionary component, but I can’t see that it’s a necessary reason to contemplate warfare against their host societies.
PAD: What is the government’s line on Islam designed to achieve?
Saleam: It’s got many aspects. The government is aware that people out there are wary of Islamic migration, so they give you a little opportunity to blow off steam. If you’re a Christian you can say that Allah isn’t God, if you’re a military nut you can plan the invasion of the Arabic world on paper. And if you’re Alan Jones you can get out of a public toilet long enough to berate Muslims for not integrating into Australian society. Essentially, all this is fire-cracker stuff. At no point of time do they want a genuine analysis of the incompatibility of Islam with Australian society to blow over into a full discussion into immigration and multiculturalism. But then there’s the darker aim. All roads must lead back to the establishment parties. This sort of dissent can be easily represented by John Howard pulling a “refugees overboard affair”, or Peter Costello talking about Aussie values, or a privatised Liberal like Fred Nile saying that he wants to ban Muslim migration until the war against terror crisis is over. So from our patriotic point of view, we want to maintain our independence and initiative. We don’t want that to be lost in shadow-boxing.
PAD: There seems to be a growing anti Islamic awareness though, new groups springing up, a lot of talk about why Islam is not Australian. What do you say this all means?
Saleam: We have to realise that there are forces in this stew with all sorts of different agendas. Take the Christian Democratic Party. Their idea is that Moslem migration should be curtailed because it isn’t Christian. Obvious! I suppose a few drops of holy water turns any Middle Eastern or Indonesian migrant into a suitable migrant. However, the Christian Democratic Party gives voice to a lot of people and corrals their votes. What some patriotic people don’t see is that Fred Nile supports refugee immigration, especially “Christian refugees”.
Take for argument’s sake a new group of Christians who are euphemistically called the Christian Zionists. Now I don’t think they’re very Christian, because their interpretation of the Bible leads them to support the state of Israel as God’s will. And it is Israel which is a big cause of, indeed the only legitimate cause for, Moslem extremism. The Christian Zionists attack Islam because it is anti-Israeli and seek to invade churches and parties to impose this view. The Zionist lobby in Australia must regard them as usable idiots.
There are so-called right-wing Liberals in the Liberal Party in NSW who sign up as members people from the ‘Christian’ South Lebanon Army, utter scum and murderers who compete with any Moslem extremist for brutality. But they do it to bolster their anti Islam image.
There are even so-called Australian patriots who are using the awareness of Islam to posit a pro-American foreign policy, which includes support for Israel.
In my view this is all wrong. If there are sincere people concerned about Islam in Australia we need to be able to approach these people and warn them against false messages. Indeed, by approaching people properly and showing how they might be misled, we can we establish good credentials to lead them on. You don’t feign agreement with those who harbour anti-Australian views. That isn’t true unity and struggle. We have to provide proper leadership. And if there’s a fraud going on, we have to expose it.
PAD: So what is your idea on the immigration threat to Australia?
Saleam: Look, Australia runs the risk of Asianization not Islamicization. Of course, if Indonesia is eventually involved in attacking Australia, it’s a Moslem country; but we may more rightly speak of it as Asian. And of course, they’ll attack with the support of Chinese imperialism. I agree with the League of Rights and others who said last year that the focus of many people on Islamic immigration is a little misplaced. It’s a problem and we should cynically thank certain Islamic migrants for waking many Australians up to the problem of multiculturalism, but we need perspective. We need to campaign about it but keep balance. There are also threats from other types of immigration implicit in contract labour and climate change. This problem is not Middle Eastern really - and not Moslem to a great extent either. I note some so-called Aussie patriots mouth off about Islam to cover over the fact they are advocates of the multiracial society, that is they really want to assimilate all and sundry into Australia if they’ll just accept Aussie values. That’s the genocide of the Australian people and identity. It is the line of least resistance to target only Islamic migration; the government won’t shut you down. This type won’t speak out on the other immigration dangers. But I won’t name names.
PAD: Let’s come back to anti communism. How could this parallel the officially sanctioned anti Islamist agitation?
Saleam: Go back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and up to the victory of Fraser in the 1975 election, there was a community based opposition movement to communism. This movement took many forms. From the state’s position, this movement was very useful. It was not formally linked to the Liberal and National parties. It brought out a lot of independent activists, it organised votes and money for the big parties. This privatisation of the state’s goals was very clever, particularly if violence was employed against left-wing groups. You could always deny having anything to do with it and rely upon its existence as proof of community outrage. This movement bolstered support for the losing war in Vietnam and therefore the foreign policy goals of the United States. So therefore every fool out on crusade was actually part of a much wider process. And they missed the fundamental point. If they were really Australian patriots and so concerned about the activities of Russia and China in Australia, then why were they prepared to give their country over to the United States? Oh, sorry, that was our ally against the commies! The fact of the matter was their patriotism had limitations and the Australian state was quite happy with that. That’s the direct parallel with the current situation over Islam.
PAD: What actions did you witness from the anti communists? Were people wrong to be in this movement?
Saleam: Well, the media and other ‘anti-racist’ detractors of mine have a lot to say about what beliefs I held when I was a youth. Whatever, but the simple fact was that I was never an actual member of any right-wing organization at the time. Much more importantly however, I associated in one way or another with just about every one of them and carried on a wide correspondence from late 1970 til 1975 and subscribed to just about everything. I was at Christian anti-communist gatherings. I met the leaders and activists of the ‘Nazi party’. I was at League of Rights meetings and Captive Nations street parades. I was about in Melbourne and Sydney, but mainly in Brisbane. I saw and I heard of the links between all of these forces and the Liberal and National parties and in some cases, the close connections between each of them and the Special Branch political police. This seemed odd to me and in some cases outright bizarre; and on occasion I literally went and saw illegal things done in the name of anti communism. I was not exactly ‘meant’ to see this stuff, but I looked like a harmless kid, so these fools let me see it all. It was not that this world was ’exciting’, because I found it mentally intimidating, but I was determined to understand it. I got hooked on trying to work out what was going on. I can’t say I was always trusted and in the end I was not, because I started to ask open questions of the participants. Eventually the Queensland Special Branch realised I didn’t agree at all.
Unfortunately, what I didn’t see at that time was a lot of people on the ground who wanted to create an independent Australian nationalist movement. Indeed, the few people I knew who talked about that were often denounced as being soft on communism. It’s always difficult to have an independent line when the state wants to force everything down to ‘us’ or ‘the threat’. Question them and they say you are part of the threat.
PAD: I assume you left this movement? What happened to it?
Saleam: Yes, I left but I didn’t tell anyone! I eased in other directions. What I mean is that by late 1973 I fully understood that it was a state-sponsored arrangement which certainly did not allow any independence for any type of Australian nationalist idea. Worse, the players didn’t care and whatever pathetic attempts I’d made to change people were going to yield nothing. They wanted the US alliance, Bjelke-Petersen, big business to rule. In 1975, all of these anti-communist groups from (I am sad to say) the League of Rights, to People Against Communism, to the Capital Nations people, all lined up behind Malcolm Fraser. For me as a person critical of immigration, I would bemoan the fact that even the old Immigration Control Association was co-ordinated into this on the basis that Malcolm Fraser was supposedly going to virtually restore the White Australia Policy. Who told them that? None other than David Clarke, current upper-house MP in NSW, leader of the ‘right-wing’ faction, who is currently signing up those South Lebanon Army members as good Liberals! He also supported the Vietnamese refugee immigration after 1975. After 1975 this movement basically disintegrated. It had done its job and communism was no longer really the driving mobilising force of the conservative parties. They would get on with the job of internationalising Australia. So the anti-communists were simply useful idiots. Some just signed up to the establishment parties. They always belonged there.
PAD: Right, let’s go full circle. Is it your argument that history sort of repeats itself?
Saleam: Yes. The Australian state has always done it that way. From the 1930s when conservative secret armies were organised against nationalist Labor politicians, to after the Second World War when many conservative associations were organised to fight bank nationalisation, to the ‘60s and ‘70s with the anti communist movement, the state has always employed a veritable army of auxiliaries to do their job. I suppose it’s cleverer than too much direct confrontation. As is always the case, there is some genuine cause or point lurking about, but they want to take twist it and you into the realm of exploiting your good sentiments for advantage. So we have turned full circle to Islam. The Australian regime needs allies in the fake war on terror. They don’t want people to question immigration itself or the Zionist lobby in Australia, how it has been a driving force in immigration and multiculturalism and the fake war on terror. So, they favour people making a lot of frothy noise about Islamic extremism. It’s a good cover.
We can also remember that this technique of using ideologically driven tools to frustrate a genuine impulse was done to Pauline Hanson too, except on this occasion it was supposed left-wing people who were brought out to shut down democracy. They considered themselves good anti-racists, good leftists who hated Howard too. But in the end they were just dupes who did a good job in marginalising One Nation. Examples of the method abound.
If I fight anyone, I want to know it’s my fight. I don’t want to do someone else’s dirty deeds. I can think of a lot of good reasons to restrict Islamist activity in Australia, but supporting Israel and Christian Zionism aren’t part of it! Let’s get real.
PAD: What line would you advocate for Aussie nationalists on the Middle East?
Saleam: Obviously, nationalist and patriotic Australian political parties are not likely to wage elections on this issue. However, and it is a very big however, the question can often be internal glue with holds an organization to its principles. It can also be the fuel for other, non-electoral campaigns, that build profile and support. For argument’s sake, an attempt to introduce Christian Zionist perspectives into One Nation has led to severe internal argument, and those who are trying to do so just so happen to have a weaker position on immigration generally. Funny that. But it has led to a nationalist reaction.
A genuine Australian nationalist would follow on the line of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the German National Democrats, Roberto Fiore and others, which is to oppose military adventures in Moslem countries and to support cooperative economic development, precisely because they will one day need to treat with these states to achieve a repatriation policy for immigrants. In our case, it’s simple trade. Further, support for Israel is support for perpetual war. How could we support a war against Iran to make Israel safe? I suppose in the end, the right view is to advance the idea that Israel should be dismantled into a single democratic secular Palestine. That hits right to the heart of our own Zionist lobby. Similarly, I’d have to say that all Australian troops should be withdrawn from Middle Eastern countries. We can and should oppose Islamic immigration on cultural and ethnic grounds – just as those European nationalists do, but keep it relevant to a central task of opposing immigration generally.
This overall position of putting Australia’s interests first runs foul of the fake patriots, who continue to see Australia as part of international alliance systems. I am reminded of those American neo-conservatives who boasted that after busting fascism, then busting communism, the last barrier to the free market heaven was to bust the Moslems too – and maybe throw in for geopolitical advantage a Greater Israel to boot. This sort of ideological warfare is the ultimate justification for the American regime’s system of multinational and financial capitalism. It seems that while we have no interest in pretending that Islam is anything other than what it is, we have no interest in imposing this Yankee system anywhere. So therefore any so-called patriotism which does not identify the American regime as the ultimate political enemy of Australian independence, is not a patriotism at all.
I suppose I would have to agree with one propagandist from the Soviet era who said that it is irrelevant whether the American dog wags the Israeli tail, or the Israeli tail wags the American dog. It is all the same beast in the end. If radical Islam is a problem, this ‘running dog’ is a problem too.
PAD: Can we create an independent pro-Aussie approach to the Islamic question?
Saleam: Undoubtedly. However, we have to get smarter. We can and must point out that there is an appalling contradiction between the state’s line on attacking Moslem countries and wanting to build a Mosque in every suburb where ‘nice’ Moslems form just another church. My flesh creeps. You can’t have it both ways. Sooner or later the explosion (literally!) will come. We have to point out that there are not just two players in the international duel ‘the West’ and ‘Islam’, but three players – include world Zionism and Israel, ,please. We have to ask fundamental questions: like what the “neo-conservative” ideology is really all about and whether some of the anti Islamists in Australia are really part of that movement.
We have an enormous opportunity. We can intersect with people who have woken up to part of a problem. There are Christians, traditionalists, patriots and activists of all types. Our task should be to attend their meetings, ask the right questions, deepen the movement, get it out into the street, but to criticise publicly false ideas and false leaders. I counsel that always we maintain our independence and initiative. Our aim is not to build a ‘Christian jihadist’ (sic) movement in Australia but a cultural movement that guarantees the survival of our people and culture. Our purpose is not to get involved in foreign adventures but to serve Australia only.
The next twelve months are vital and it’s up to all movement activists and leaders to do the right thing.
PAD: Thankyou, Jim.
Australia First Party
News Source: Patriotic Alliance Downunder