You are here

A Livable Pension for Fair-Dinkum Australians and the Club of 3000

We've been publicising political alternatives in Australia, notably parties which promise to fight population growth, because we don't believe that the mainstream political parties are taking the adverse impacts of population growth seriously. Another party that wants a sustainable population is The Australia First Party (not to be confused with the New Australia Party). It also wants to abolish multiculturalism. Australia First cops a lot of flack, but it also attracts the people in our society who carry the biggest loads and cop the worst treatment. Here is an article about fronting up to the dole office. Anyone who has had to do this in the past few years will understand the sentiments.

Aussie Senior Citizens

Aussie Senior Citizens are now experiencing the effects of the collapsing Globalist economic system, which has been imposed upon Australians over recent decades by Liberal and Labor politicians dutifully implementing the Big Business agenda.

Seniors who have worked productively over a life time, have contributed to society with family and community activity, put some money aside, have paid taxation of 1/3 plus of income, and were duped into superannuation schemes, are now seeing their savings evaporate as this Globalist ideology crashes.

The wholesale sell out of our Australian manufacturing and productive capacity to foreign interests, and the deregulation of our financial sector, to create a subservient cog in the Global economic order as a “trinket” type raw materials supplier, and an immigrant dumping ground - is the root cause of the crisis likely to now descend upon Australians. [Members of the 3000 Club excepted].

Compulsory superannuation monies, instead of being allocated for Australian owned productive development, have been used to stoke the Stock Exchanges, and for other usage in speculative exploitation. It was all inherently prone to collapse as per the contradictions of capitalism.

A rude awakening is now descending on increasing numbers of Seniors as they are forced to undertake the “Centrelink Run” - coming to grips with a pension system programmed to comply with the IMF/ Internationalist/ Globalist agenda to minimise Social Security payments.

The Centrelink Run

Step I: You front to the local office, and can experience first hand the Liberal/Labor/Green politicians’
immigration/ guest workers/ refugee rackets, but you fall into the queue for you still believe you count for something as a productive citizen, and your years of paying taxation had a purpose. You have your turn for the bureaucrat - and the near 100 question application form to see if the paltry $230 a week is to come your way. A number is allotted to you for the “system”. [No Members of the 3000 Club sighted].

Step 2: You bare your soul in the multitude of questions - any thought of the Aussie tradition that your
affairs are your business soon dissipates. Who are you? Prove it! How much cash have you under the bed? Have you been overseas and how much money did you take? Did you give any money away? What are your bank accounts? Any rooms rented out? Who has your super fund and how much is it? Prove it! What property do you own/got a beach shack/what’s it worth? How much for your house contents? What jewellery have you got? Can you cash in any life assurance?

It starts to dawn on you that this might all be about ensuring you get as little pension entitlement as possible.

But you are enticed by the idea that you might qualify for a health card for medical benefits, and reduced rates and government charges. How good is that!

When finished, you look at your arm to see if by chance a tattoo of the allotted system number has appeared, as you are starting to think that as an Aussie you no longer rate for much.

Step 3: You front before the bureaucrat, forms [and cap] in hand to be scrutinised. You are reminded
again about the Pension Bonus of $30k, available to you if you will slave on in full time work for another five years. [3000 Club Members get that in 10 weeks].

Your getting a bit edgy, aware that all your personal information is now going onto Big Brother’s database and available virtually to any Government department, and who knows who else.

You are informed that on your details, that after 45 years of work and paying taxes, your in for a part pension - $85 a week, as is your spouse - yes, a pension of $170 a week between you for the good life. And, you must also report in each month on any extra income you may generate so your pension would be reduced. [Still no 3000 Club Members sighted].

The penny finally drops that in the Australia of today Aussie seniors count for nothing!

What can be done.

As a group of citizens, the reality is that Seniors are past “use by date” to the Liberal/Labor politicians who have inflicted the Globalist agenda upon Australia.

Protesting Pensioners can “bare their bras” for the systems’ media, or petition these same politicians, but it is pointless. Genuine Seniors may find this difficult to accept, but it is this very same political ilk down the decades who have restricted, and devalued pension entitlements to the current poverty line level, and who continue to parrot that a liveable pension cannot be afforded. [But not for 3000 Club Members].

Petitioning Globalist politicians that have overseen our productive enterprises and natural wealth taken by foreigners, connived for near zero tax for multinational corporations, and other schemes of tax avoidance, squandered untold $billions on alien immigration and anti Australian multiculturalism, AND, stealing the 7% taxation surcharge [passed by referendum in 1947] to fund all Aussies a pension, is a total waste of Seniors time.

The facts are that “Regime Change” - a change of attitude, psychology, economic and cultural direction through the complete and utter rejection of the present traitor political caste and their Big Business masters, is essential to now attain social justice for Aussie Seniors.

The Australia First Core Policy of Citizens Initiated Referenda [CIR] and Parliamentary Recall can ensure this change - CIR remakes the political landscape - no ifs - no buts, for the citizen is again in charge of our society and values, not vested interest politicians.

The Australia First Party program is for all Aussie seniors at retirement age to have a liveable pension, related to the average wage, and secured on supply of appropriate identity to the relevant government administration. Nothing else is needed!

Australia First will take back our productive and natural wealth; we want Aussie control, direction, and ownership of our Australian economy, free of all Globalist dictates, and with equitable payment of taxation to provide pension funding. And, no Globalist political parrots like the 3000 Club Members.

If you don't fight, you lose. Join the Australia First Party for the change for a livable pension.

The 3000 Club

Members on this easy street ride include Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Meg Lees, Jeff Kennett, John Howard, Gareth Evans, Tim Fisher, Joan Kirner, John Cain, Alexander Downer, Steve Bracks, Paul Keating, Nick Greiner, etc, etc, all feeding off the taxpayer with their $3000 a week pensions. You won’t see this lot on the Centrelink run!

Australia First Policy Page
Australia First has some good policies for those who wish to stop population growth and globalisation. It was founded by West Australian, Graeme Campbell, years ago, after he was drummed out of the ALP for speaking out against high immigration (at a time when immigration was perhaps less than one quarter of what it is now).

Membership Application for Australia First

I wish to become a member of the Australia First Party and the Australia First Party [NSW] Incorporated, and agree to abide by the Constitution and Rules. Seniors Membership $10. Donations gratefully accepted.

Name: Phone:
Address: DOB:
Signed Date Email

Reply post to Australia First Party P O Box 223 Croydon 3136. Telephone: 0408 554542

Voting for other than Australia First is now largely just a waste of time

Image icon fronting-the-dole.jpg10.51 KB
Image icon Oz-id-card.jpg25.33 KB
Image icon fronting-the-dole-tiny.jpg5.5 KB


I can attest to the inadequacy of the Australian Government's treatment of unemployed people via Centrelink. The forms are longer and more invasive than a tax return. The processing took eight weeks after which I was rejected because my partner was working part-time.

Eventually I got back into work off my own bat, but the experience was humiliating, a waste of time and has turned me vehemently against government.

So many Australians are vulnerable to losing their job and don't have sufficient financial reserves to get back on their feet, let alone meet bill payments when there is no income. When this happens it comes as a shock that the presumption of a safety net does not exist. One must be in abject poverty to be eligible for government support so one can get back on their feet. To men in particular, the loss of esteem as a failed breadwinner can tip many to depression and worse. Many in rural Australia and on the land are isolated and are particularly vulnerable.

Both Labor and Liberal argue that many rort the system and so have respectively made the claim hurdles so high so as to eliminate most who go through the Centrelink system. The unemployment benefit of $220 a week if it is paid is so low as to be below most weekly rents and for those with a mortgage, to force one down a path of bank repossession. It is a steep slippery slope for many.

Many workers now work on contract terms, like me without leave entitlements, with no unions, with no rights. When the contract ends there is nothing and sometimes those contracts end at a whim with a tap on the shoulder at 5pm on a Friday.

And it is not just unemployment that has many Australians placed in dire circumstances - those with a disability, widows, veterans, older people who have been thrown on the scrap heap, those with mental health issues, the homeless and those simply having found themselves in poverty and in broken homes. Many Australians do not realise how close they are to joining the growing underclass.

Labor and Liberal have lost touch with ordinary Australians who fall from being able to fend for themselves. The Greens as the main alternative seem to be stuck in some ideological utopia pressing for 'green' issues that prioritise environment and climate change over basic human needs.

Meanwhile Australia's growing underclass is undermining the health and cohesiveness of our society.
It wouldn't take much for a new alternative party focusing on life's fundamentals to get up.

I think that the real rorters, who really cost society, are our members of parliament who transfer all our taxes to the corporate sector via works in the service of unwanted, unwarranted and undemocratic population growth. I would be happy to keep every member of the Property Council of Australia and every member of parliament on the dole, as long as they stopped meddling with Australian affairs and allowed us to get started again with a democratic parliament and transparent processes, with the public sector doing all land-use planning and development, with NO fees for service; just public service salaries.

This would represent a real saving - both economic and financial.

The cost of a few people on the dole is nothing compared to the money that goes to developers, bankers and parasitic parliamentarians, with very few exceptions.

John Marlowe and Sheila Newman are, of course, correct.

I have gone through two periods in my life which, after I lost my livelhood through no fault of my own, I found myself unable to make myself jump through the hoops required by the Social Welfare and that is clearly their intention.

During one period in which I did receive unemployment benefits, a person who taught one of the pointless courses in applying for jobs and writing resumés back in 2004 freely acknowledged to me that the purpose of requiring unemployment benefit recipients to attend these courses was to drive them away from Centrelink rather than to actually help them.

That taxpayers money is thus wasted to harass unemployed people instead of providing them with useful training is a scandal and reveals the malevolent mindset of those who design these systems.

They should be abolished.

When jobs are provided which match the skills of those seeking work, skills in applying for jobs or wrting resumes will not be anywhere as nearly valued by decent employers as actual vocational skills.

Sadly, even when today's unemployed jump through the necessary hoops required by Centrelink, the amount of money received will be far less than what anyone will need to live with any dignity, thanks to the fact the our Governments have consciously set about to drive up the cost of a basic necessity of housing for the benefit of society's true bludgers.

I have decided to join Australia First.

I shall give them a go since I support their values.
I see no reason to support Labor, Liberals, Greens or Nationals, based on their lack of performance.
Over the years, I have voted for all of them at one time or another, kidding myself they will bring change.
I have had a gut full.

If another party presents itself with fresh ideas I will consider that too.


Earlier this month Campbelltown residents were outraged after racist leaflets were delivered in their area. The material contained claims such as:

Sub-Saharan African males on the most part possess low IQs and high testosterone levels/sex drives, characteristics which make them potential weapons of mass destruction to everyday Australians going about their daily lives

The leaflets appear to have originated from the ultra right-wing Australia First Party. The leader (or "fuhrer" as some claim) of the AFP, Jim Saleam denys his party had anything to do with the distribution of the material.

It could have been a deliberate attack on Australia First Party to discredit those seeking to limit immigration numbers. Racism and anti-immigration are two different topics, two different issues. They are being deliberately blurred so to use the taboo against racism to be included in the immigration debate. A clever tool, but we should not be deceived by it.
Anti-immigration could be racially motivated, but the topic of population size, in Australia, has gone beyond this level. We are facing so many global and local threats, due to overpopulation and climate change, that most people's concerns about population are actually genuine.
It is only "white" people who are racists. Being disadvantaged by high immigration levels and multi-ethnic groups, and thus unemployment, shortages in public services and housing, is also silenced by PC.

Re: Above comment by Scott of 20th Nov 2010 'Australia First Party accused of inciting hatred'.

Well who produced and authorised such slanderous leaflets? Not AFP!

Obviously some unscrupulous political extremist group with a clear grievance.

So Scott, provide an example of this slanderous trash. Substantiate your information source. Prove your slanderous claims.

Else accept culpability for disseminating slander! Only the gullible or mischievous circulate slanderous rumours. It signals desperation.

What is Scott's unsubstantiated political motive for perpetuating such slander? Is Scott a member of a political party charged to slur other parties?
Why Scott?

Scott may recall the racist brochure circulated around the federal seat of Lindsay in NSW during the 2007 federal election. [Read: Lindsay Pamphlet Scandal]

'The Lindsay pamphlet scandal was an Australian electoral scandal in which Liberal Party volunteers distributed fake election pamphlets, claiming to be from an Islamic organisation that was later found not to exist, that claimed the Labor Party candidate would support clemency for convicted terrorists and the construction of a mosque in the local area. The incident made national and even international headlines on November 21, 2007, four days before the 2007 Australian Federal election.'

Such slur serves no positive purpose.

Rather than propagating such trash, Scott may wish to reconcile for the readers the inconsistency or otherwise of such slanderous leaflets with what the website of that of the targeted political party. Scott may learn something by having a read of the Australia First platform: Australia First Party website.

Scott may also like to research how consistently in particular the Labor Party has a record of deliberate underhanded slurs against other political parties that dare to contest their electoral turf. Yet despite Labor's immorality and reckless spending and failure of promises, somehow people still vote Labor.

One could name slang Gillard or Abbott or Brown any names under the sun, but it would be wrong because Australian moral standards demand mutual respect for other Australians.

I support political parties that respect Australian values and that includes Australia First Party. Bring on more parties to challenge the selfish irrelevant ones we have currently.

[The above comments are those of John Marlowe and do not seek to represent any political party or the views of this website].

I think we should be careful not rush to judgement about the Australia First Party on the one hand or any of its detractors on the the other.

Whilst I agree that nationalism has been unfairly maligned by much accepted conventional wisdom, there have been variants of it in the 20th and 21st centuries that have been truly ghastly and actually far more harmful the Quisling-style anti-nationalism that has become a mainstream political orthodoxy in countries like Australia. (My fear is that the latter may even turn out to make the former look civilised by comparison, but, thankfully, that has yet to be realised.)

John Marlowe complained of Scott's claim of distribution of racist material earlier this month, which "appear[ed] to have originated from the ... Australia First Party":

So Scott, provide an example of this slanderous trash. Substantiate your information source. Prove your slanderous claims.

Else accept culpability for disseminating slander! Only the gullible or mischievous circulate slanderous rumours. It signals desperation.

What is Scott's unsubstantiated political motive for perpetuating such slander? Is Scott a member of a political party charged to slur other parties?

Why Scott?

A careful reading of Scott's comment shows that he didn't directly claim that the Australia First Party printed the material.

The leaflets appear to have originated from the ultra right-wing Australia First Party. The leader (or "fuhrer" as some claim) of the AFP, Jim Saleam denies his party had anything to do with the distribution of the material.

Of course, I would be interested to know why Scott thought that the material "appear[ed] to have originated from the ... Australia First Party". Nevertheless, I think it could be drawing a long bow to call it a "slanderous claim". In any case, if the Australia First Party did not print and distribute the material that Scott says seems to have originated from them, then, I would be interested to hear them publicly deny it.

Furthermore, I would be interested to know where the Australia First Party stands on the racist statements that Scott has quoted from that leaflet:

Sub-Saharan African males on the most part possess low IQs and high testosterone levels/sex drives, characteristics which make them potential weapons of mass destruction to everyday Australians going about their daily lives.

Does the Australia First Party agree that this is an unsubstantiated racist slander of black African males?

One thing that makes Scott's claim seem not altogether improbable is the past history of Jim Saleam, the current Chairman of the Australia First Party. He was, according to his Wikipedia biography, "a former member of the short-lived National Socialist Party of Australia in the early 1970s."

Whilst a person's past should not always be held against him/her indefinitely, I think we are still entitled, from Jim Saleam and his current organisation, the Australia First Party, a frank disclosure of his past and if, when and why Jim Saleam repudiated that past.

As ugly and dangerous to us as Australia's current Quisling-style, anti-nationalist orthodoxy has become, there are past historical movements that, at least to date, are far more terrible, bloody and dark than that.

The principle of these movements is the seeming opposite of anti-nationalism, that is, racist, fascist nationalism has been most awfully exemplified by Hitler's Nazi (National Socialist) Party which started the Second World War in which the order of 55 million died between 1939 and 1945. Amongst the dead were 6,000,000 jews. mostly murdered in the Nazi gas chambers are Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, etc. Other victims of the Nazi death camps were Gypsies, Poles. socialists, communists, anarchists and homosexuals. In addition, millions more died fighting to defend their countries against invasion, or in fighting to expel the Nazi invaders from their soil. The most horrific death toll, in absolute terms (if not in proportional terms), was that suffered by the Soviet Union. The most widely accepted figure of Soviet deaths is 20 million and, as horrific as that number is, even that is not the highest estimate.

Unless Jim Saleam is prepared to repudiate his past of participation in the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of Australia, an organisation which justifies the abovementioned crimes of the German Nazis, and of which he was a member in the 1970's and explain if, when and why he repudiated Nazism, then naturally, it will be harder to dispel suspicions that he remains a Nazi and that the Australia First Party is no more than a new vehicle to promote Nazism.

Furthermore, if the Australia First Party were to publicly repudiate the racist material quoted by Scott, it would be easier to dispel those suspicions. It would also help the Australia First Party to dispel rumours of its racism if they were to take a public stance against unjust wars which Australia has waged against other countries, in particular the Vietnam War, which, incidentally, members of the Australian Nazi Party actively supported by beating up anti-Vietnam war protestors. They would further help dispel that suspicion by speaking up against the lie used to justify the current war against Afghanistan and (indirectly) the war against Iraq, that is that Islamist extremists, based in Afghanistan, committed the terrorist atrocity of September 11 against the United States in 2001.

Subject was: "warmongering leaflets copy"

This anonymous post, presumably by a supporter of the Australia First Party includes a leaflet, originally published on the web-site of the Australia First Party. It can also be found on this page. Iraq was invaded in 2003 under the fraudulent pretext that Iraq (and not the united States) was a threat to other countries, because of claims, known to be false, that Iraq had massive hidden stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction". The fact that the Australia First Party has taken this public stance against this immoral war stands contrary to allegations that Australia First is a racist party. It would further help if the Australia First Party would add it voice to those who are demanding the truth be told about the September 11 atrocity. - Editor



TO:- The Members of the High Court of Australia; the Honorable Chief Justice Murray Gleeson AC, the Honorable Justice William Gummow AC, the Honorable Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, the Honorable Justice Kenneth Hayne AC, the Honorable Ian Callinan AC, the Honorable Justice Dyson Heyden AC, the Honorable Justice Susan Maree Crennan.

We the undersigned Citizens, entitled to vote in elections, and being MEMBERS OF THE ELECTOR’S PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA, THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN OUR NATIVE LAND, Petition and Authorise the said Justices to:-

I] Constitute and undertake a Judicial Enquiry into the knowledge, conduct, and actions of the former Howard/Vaile Liberal/National Party Government, its Ministers and Parliamentary Members, and to include such Public Servants as they find involved, excepting and excluding all members of the Australian Defence Forces, which has contributed and led to the Act of War by Australia on the Sovereign Nation of Iraq, to establish any illegality, breaches of Public Duty and or Trust owed towards the Australian People.
II] We further Petition and Authorise the said Justices, should such illegality, breaches of Public Duty and or Trust, be prima facie established:-
a] To engage and request the Governor General of Australia, to pursue the Public Prosecutors Office to institute criminal charges against the same, as are appropriate under the Crimes Act, or other legislation in accord with the Australian Constitution.
b] To forthwith request the Governor General, as Commander of the Australian Defence Forces, to proceed with the orderly disengagement of Australian Military Personnel from continuing war on the Iraqi People, and for their safe return to Australia.
c] To establish a tribunal or authority as necessary to consider redressing the damage, and the suffering thus caused to the People of Iraq.

Name Address Signature

It would appear that the distribution of the offending leaflet has been a "problem" for the Australia First Party on several occasions this year.

In February this year, Saleam denied the AFP was involved in the leaflet appearing in letterboxes in Wagga and this was followed by the material turning up in the Riverina region in April.

In July the leaflets once again turned up in several areas including Western Sydney.

I have looked over the Australia First Party website and have to confess that I agree with a lot of their core policy such as reducing immigration, rebuilding Australian manufacturing, controlling foreignn ownership etc etc. I did notice however that they have a section devoted to their leaflets which contains no disclaimer in regards to the offending material that has supposedly been a thorn in their side all year. Surely this would be an opportunity to distance themselves from such offensive literature and perhaps fend off the critics who believe they are simply recruiting more people who will believe such rubbish.

Couldn't help but notice the closing quote on the site:

"Australia must remain predominantly white" -- Ouch!!

I omitted, in my previous comment, in part, because of the lateness of the hour, to acknowledge that the Australia First Party has a lot of good policies that candobetter supports. I thank Scott and John Marlowe for making this known to our readers.

All the same, we have to seriously address any possibility that organisations that candobetter as a whole promotes, or that contributors promote, could be accused of racism or worse.

It is reassuring to know that Jim Saleam has denied distributing the racist leaflet referred to by Scott and has repudiated its content (See ABC news story of 29 July this year Racist leaflets not ours: Australia First linked to by Scott). Still, Jim Saleam has a past history that will inevitably cause many people to question his motives and the true goals of an organisation in which he plays such a prominent role in. As I wrote above, I think that the best way to deal with this is for Jim Saleam, if he has not already done so, to frankly disclose his past and explain why, as a youth, he joined the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and when, how and why he repudiated that organisation.

As a member of AFP, I have passed on this discussion to AFP to allow them to directly respond. I am not a representative voice of AFP, just support most of their policies.

Slander is about making defamatory comments about someone that are not true.
Scott has made statements about AFP and a member of that party that cast dispersions on the reputation of both. Then in the same comment Scott has stated that the accusations are likely untrue. But the damage has been done. The innocent victim must prove innocence, which is unjust.

So I question Scott's method and consider his slur unfair. An ulterior motive appears confirmed in his subsequent comment above.

Having said that, I defend Scott's right to question and criticise the policies of a political party like AFP. I agree with the need for clarity in policy and platform by AFP and any political party seeking election. People have a right to know what a party stands for and on sensitive issues where it stands if in deed it has a position at all. Why didn't Scott just ask this as a comment instead of perpetuating an unsubstantiated slur?

But I am not a voice for AFP, so I cannot justify or defend AFP.

I am opposed to racial vilification and to bias against any racial group. I support AFP policies, yet there are some issues I don't agree with. And then frankly, what Party has members that agree with everything that the Party says and does?

I do have an issue with the 'predominantly white' quote. At the same time, I would feel uncomfortable if for some reason Australia invited 10 million Africans to Australia and the African culture became the dominant culture in Australia. Equally I would feel uncomfortable if 10 million Americans or Brits rocked up, irrespective of their skin colour. I think the colour thing is irrelevant. It is more an issue of preserving traditional culture (of any country), and on this point I empathise with Aboriginal Australians and what they have endured. This is a complex issue.


As for Wikipedia as a frequent source of 'truth', on AFP and its chairman Jim Saleam, it too is slanderous and has been rejected by both. Yet Wikipedia continues to publish slander, false statements and untruths. Wiki has been approached to have the content removed, yet continues to allow it to be published.

I point out that the authors of the are a extreme left wing group with a bent on defaming and destroying AFP and its chairman.

If you go to the site and click on 'View History', you will see that a select group of authors have built the Wiki site. They belong to an extreme political group base in Sydney called 'SlackBastard' - check their website: and another group also Sydney based called 'Fight Dem Back' - check their website:

So evaluate the 'truth' of the Wiki now!

You will also notice if you scroll down the Wiki 'View History' that yours truly has contributed to deleting the Wiki material, but each time the material is deleted, Wiki has a automated email update in place and these authors quickly restore the slanderous content. These authors know that people will first check Wikipedia to find out about AFP and its chairman, so these character saboteurs with Wikipedia complicity effectively hold the truth captive.

Imagine if this same slur was on a Wiki for Julia Gillard or Scott or the editors of CanDoBetter. This is a dangerous development in undermining privacy and reputation.

If one types one's name on Google these days ( long it is not as ubiquitous as John Smith) if one has ever posted comments online, the data may still be there for all to see, including potential employers doing background checks. People have been sacked and murdered from what they write on Facebook.

Irrespective of the merits of AFP, online character assassination is scary development, despite all the Australian Government's fan fair motherhood Internet Policing and Privacy Rules.

So my message is be careful what you read and what you write on line - we are each personally vulnerable!

Obviously as John Marlowe has pointed out Wikipedia can be and has been used as a vehicle for slander (whether or not that is what its creators had intended). However, one fact about Jim Saleam which can't be disputed is that in the 1970's he was a member of the National Socialist Party of Australia in the early 1970's. Images, such as those included below, which have been emblazoned in my memory and the memories of many Australian political activists for decades, prove this beyond doubt

Of course, we can't hold a person's past indefinitely against him. As an example, Ross ("the Skull") May, in the second image,

has come out and publicly repudiated the Big Lie of September 11. Whilst, I can't be absolutely certain of May's motives, this nevertheless gives me hope that even people who, in their youth have promoted such clearly evil causes as Nazism, can, over years, develop compassion for their fellow humans and become forces for good. All the same, I think a frank disclosure by Jim Saleam of this dark mark against his past is necessary for members of the public to have confidence that the true goals of the Australia First Party are its stated goals.

Media dirt digging is why so few enter politics. Digging up someone's past is mass media sport, especially that of the paparazzi. Dare anyone have an unsavoury past, they shall be condemned to purgatory.

Here, slur as been perpetuated, denying any right of reply by the targeted subject.

I know no-one who does not have some part of their past they do not regret, but is it another's right to publicly condemn them for it in perpetuity?

I wager many a politician, if their past were investigated and made public, would have unsavoury skeletons in the closet - traffic convictions, public drunkenness, AWOL from the Army, unwanted pregnancy, dishonest conduct, shoplifting, mixing with the wrong company. Perhaps I am guilty of all these. I am not a religious person (as some may have gathered) but one Biblical quote here is apt: "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

John Marlowe,

(By the way, just to clarify, the comment, "Not everything said of Jim Saleam by Wikipedia is untrue," was originally published in my name by Editor James Sinnamon by accident. It was his comment but he selected the wrong author name when he published it. This mistake has been corrected. No big deal.)

Firstly, freedom to express political views is a core tenet of which is "a website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy." I would think that most of our readers would be very interested in authentic responses to the questions raised about AFP.

I have read with interest your own responses today. I can see why you feel it would have been better if Scott had posed a simple question about the Party's ownership of the material he raised questions about, although, I don't think that what he did would qualify legally as slander. It is obvious that he feels strongly about the issue of racism. He is also a writer on this blog and wants to make it clear to readers that he has no sympathy for racism and was obviously worried that might be endorsing a particular political party. For instance, as you say, the statement by the AFP that they want Australia to remain predominantly white can be read as racist or can be justified in terms of wanting to maintain political control within the contemporary majority. By the same token, it is obvious that you feel strongly that new ethnic dominances may pose a threat to rights informally established by the contemporary majority. I have never noticed in your work any tendency to attribute particular values to particular inherited physical characteristics of populations, such as 'race'.

Australia First, Jim Saleam, and anyone else all are welcome to respond in this discussion and to put their points of view, so it isn't true to say that the subject or party of which the politics have been queried has no right of reply.

I also agree that it is wrong to condemn people to perpetuity for dubious activities in the past. The public does, however, have the right to ask questions and be reassured and to pose questions anew if new doubts arise.

The public should also be reminded that the ALP and the Coalition have recent political antecedents who held racist positions and promoted war, immigration, aboriginal and other policies based on these. Sir Robert Menzies, for instance, and Sir Arthur Calwell. As far as I know none has recently endorsed death camp policies, although Calwell was for deporting many Malayan, Indochinese and Chinese wartime refugees, some of whom had married Australian citizens and started families in Australia. Generations of school children were educated to such norms and men were sent to war to die for them. People in the areas of Australia with large rural components were carefully inured to the dispossession and ill-treatment of aborigines through public policies. Such policies effectively created a situation where changes to immigration laws to promote multiculturalism would have created alarm signals. A range of reactions could then have been predicted, including endorsement of Nazi policies, unfortunately. This was probably a particular risk in States with rural areas where aboriginal health was atrocious and actual massacres had occurred and murders had recently been glossed over by our justice system.


I welcome your frank comments here and discussion on every aspect of this.
I do not know the truth myself, but I feel that John Marlowe should be able to express his views within the limits of the law.

Jim Salem of the Australia First Party has been accused of a few things in his time. I see that he denies that the AF Party had anything to do with this. Why do people think that it was the AFP?

Apart from this, I would say that the ALP and the Liberals have both incited hatred towards the aged, have behaved hatefully towards citizens' rights and wishes by catering to corporate interests, and have used and abused the notion of racism to suppress legitimate comment. We are heading towards a dictatorship that can only end in bloodshed if the two/three party system manages to prevail. I am therefore in favour of every new party, prospect and independent. Let them stand on their merits and let be a place where they stand or fall, but may express themselves.

That said, I think it is absolutely necessary to avoid a flame-war. You should not be insulted for your questions here.

Let us think deeply and honorably about all questions, and fight to open up democratic debate.

By the way, I have not read subsequent comments to this one I am answering, yet - just was urged to respond with what I had already drafted.

(As for the stuff on sub-saharan males ... I find that it isn't worth getting into. It's too stupid. If anyone wants to get into it, they need to be very careful of racial vilification laws and also of gross generalisations and also of dignifying the silly I.Q. test, which is about as useful as the GDP for measuring intelligence.)

Sheila N

Having finished my uni' degree and having been looking for jobs I could do, I've yes, been on Newstart this year, so far! My experience with the Job Employment Network agency or organization Centrelink refer me to has been similar to that of one of the replies on here. It's actually quite un-user friendly when going there, to use the facilities... Stationary has to be requested each time and nothings just there for people to job search on their own. Ok there are two computers available for clients to just sit down on and a phone to call out for jobs, with a photocopier and printer. But the main room for job searching is normally for groups and sessions, not just walk-ins. I'm currently being 'weaned' off my Newstart payments and found employment all on my own, no thanks to the so-called professionals. Even with a Reduced Work Capacity for jobs and job seeking, there was no 'extra' assistance to find an appropriate job. My personal job-seeking and working experience has been done by my own efforts, and none of someone else or a group! I'd really hesitate before going to an Agency of any kind really; there're suss things that interviewers really want out of candidates for the sake of their clients.