Fraser Anning is gone, Reclaim Australia has checked out, all those conservative micro-parties such as Rise-Up Australia and the Yellow Vests are kaput. Bernadi is doffing his hat, and Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister.

The plan worked out just as it was supposed to with all the satellites dutifully performing their appointed tasks and then buggering off.

But we have Pauline Hanson for much longer, and as usual, she’s back to pandering to those on the disaffected-right who she temporarily lost to Anning.

Pauline’s now talking about ‘China’, which is significant, since it wasn’t on her ‘to-do’ list hitherto, not that anything really is. She’s talking about immigration and making all the right noises for those disaffected on the far-right. But really, she is only following Morrison’s lead. She will never learn her lesson where the Liberal Party is concerned, and either will the Australians who voted for her or them.

Preferences from One Nation helped put the Libs back in power; the same party of which the former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott had her jailed back in 2003 on trumped-up charges. But she forgave him.

Since then she has denied uttering those historic words upon which her popularity soared, “We are in danger of being swamped by Asians.” She welcomed Asians into the One Nation fold and any concern that she was a “racist” she worked to dispel by embracing all colours and creeds. She even encouraged moderate Muslims to join One Nation. Then along came Fraser Anning and much of Pauline’s rank-and-file support waned. Voters were suspecting that just maybe Pauline wasn’t being fair dinkum with them.

Hanson “lashed” Anning in March after he called for a ban on all Muslim and Black immigration.  

“People throw the word racist around too freely, they don’t know what they’re talking about, but when you actually target a person based on their skin colour, that is racist because that means you believe your race to be superior to them,” she said.

“That blacks should be banned — that in itself is a racist comment. What he says is extreme, it’s unacceptable… you will find people out there who might have that opinion, but it’s not my opinion and not something I’ve ever said or will ever support.

“I feel now he has nothing to lose, I think he’s trying to be controversial, to be another Pauline Hanson.”

By ‘being controversial’ as a means unto itself is definitely ‘Pauline Hanson’. Yet, she then went to jump on that very bandwagon by proposing an “It’s OK to be White” motion in the senate. It failed by two votes.

At the time, Hanson said, “I hope that the senate does the reasonable thing today by supporting this motion. Anyone who pays attention to the news or spends any time on social media has to acknowledge that there has been a rise in anti-white racism and a rise in attacks on the very ideals of west civilisation.”

Hanson herself was being ‘controversial’ and “trying to be another… Fraser Anning.” This was the same woman who posed with two picaninnies to proclaim “You don’t have to be White” to join One Nation. Presently, she’s on turf nationalists have occupied since the 1980s, the anti-China ground. As tensions hot-up in the region and a trade war between the US and China escalates, the seriousness of China’s influence in Australia has also become a subject being treated more seriously, since so many of those in government have compromised both themselves and our country by taking China’s payola.

While being interviewed on Channel Nine, Hanson was asked about whether she supported a US military presence in Australia. She said she did, stressing her concern is “not America, but it is China.

“One day they would love their hands on Australia. And they’re slowly taking it. Not by stealth, but by cunning. By our governments allowing them to buy up everything.

“The escalating population that they have, they’ll want somewhere else to move to. And I believe they’ve got their eyes on Australia.”

This is a very different Pauline Hanson from the one who, back in 2016, backed mining oligarch Gina Rinehart as she tried to soften up public opinion on her acquisition of the Kidman Cattle Empire. This was because she was buying it in conjunction with Shanghai CRED, a Chinese company. Hanson produced a video for her followers at the time addressing their concerns about the sale. She told of having met with one of Rinehart’s associates on the question of Shanghai CRED.

“I asked, is it going to be Communist China [she is partnering with]? She said no, it’s nothing to do with Communist China or the government. She also assured me that she wants Australian workers, not foreign workers.”

Poor old Pauline. Firstly, every Chinese company has something to do with China’s Communist rulers, or it doesn’t do business. Secondly, Gina was the one who condemned Australians for not being more like foreign workers who were willing to work for $2 a day. She went so far as to have a poem inscribed in a big rock in Western Australia praising the virtues of importing cheap foreign labour. No fooling. Hanson publicly praised Rinehart when the sale eventually proceeded.

Now, she wants to put her stamp on the nationalist China issue. The question becomes, just because the person may be saying the right thing for the wrong reasons, isn’t the important thing that these things are being said?

No, because while Hanson might make nationalist sounding noises, she misses the point altogether. She has admitted to choosing one superpower over the other but never once has she argued for an armed, but neutral Australia. In the thinking of these conservatives, Australia must always be beholden to a superpower suitor.

In the case of America, White Australia wouldn’t get a look-in if it took a million years. The New York international banking clique would never have a bar of it. Australia would be expected to continue as a globalist, multi-racial, consumer satellite. This is not what nationalists strive for.

But then Hanson wants to address “immigration” but never end it. In a vote that was heavily defeated she proposed a plebiscite on immigration levels — not on ending immigration, mind you, but on simply maintaining levels.

Since Hanson is nothing but a conservative, her use to disaffected Australians waking up to what’s happening to them is nil. All she exists for is to bolster the Liberal government one way or another. At times it’s hard to know whether Hanson is doing the hoodwinking, or is the one who is being hoodwinked.

She is artless and witless, but one thing is certain when you’re only in it for the money, you are not in it for the cause.


  1. Hanson and Anning’s positions both work on the assumption that there will always be more immigration to Australia.

    They might quibble about how many, or where they’re from, or what religion they are.. but they’ve accepted that immigration to Australia is a given.

    Why? There were times in our past when we needed a bigger workforce; for example when we were building Snowy Schemes and still manufactured things here. But that’s all gone now.

    Today, there is no good reason to have any permanent migration to Australia. On economic, social and environmental grounds there are very good reasons to end permanent migration right now.

    Those who support continued immigration don’t do so out of ‘compassion’. They show no compassion for future generations of Aussies when they erode the quality of life for people in our cities. They show no compassion for poorer Australians when they make housing unaffordable and grow the waiting lists for state housing by years. Zero compassion for people whose cultures and beliefs mean they’ll never be comfortable in Australian society. Nil compassion for developing countries when we take skilled migrants away from them, so they can ‘moderate wage pressure’ in Australia.

    No. Immigration boosters are motivated by greed and/or stupidity. Greed for economic growth that makes nobody except the 1% better off. Greed that wants cheap labour. Stupidity that says this is all somehow ‘progressive’.

    And Pauline and Fraser – instead of just saying No More – just tinker around the edges.

  2. Yes, and the sad part is, nobody can tell the difference. Anning is out of it now, but Hanson remains, and the trouble is, she is a brand now. People see her as a brand for something she’s not. However, she has been diminished by the Liberals she has supported. By the way, if you’re interested in contributing to this site just drop a message. You seem to get it. There aren’t many sites out there dedicated exclusively to Australian nationalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.