The One Nation Party and Pauline Hanson

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on November 12, 2015 at 15:28

The politics of the One Nation party are debatable, inasmuch as they focus on the issue of being white, as opposed to the issue of threats to democracy from a gang based on a political ideology, like Islam or Marxism.

But ignoring their politics, it is interesting to consider in the abstract, the way in which they are challenged organisationally, and compare that with what happened to EDL.

One Nation openly admits that it is an autocracy, with power ultimately vested in the top 3 people.  They do this so that they can kick out fascist or racist elements, and people who are simply disruptive or not 'with the program'.  Compare that with EDL.  EDL struggled for a long time with dissident factions who heaped endless abuse on Tommy.  In the end they forced him to reveal all his private financial info ... but note that that did not stop the abuse and attacks.  I remember one person in particular constantly demanding that his position be put open to a vote.  Imagine that, a vote, when you do not even have a defined membership, let alone a paid-up membership!  Why not just put it to a vote of all those in the UK, if they think Tommy should be the leader?

But I digress.  The point is that it is impossible to distinguish between a Leftist agent provocateur or infiltrator, and a genuine EDL believer who merely dissents from the current management structure.  Personally I think that most of those attacks on Tommy were orchestrated by outsiders or the police.  But either way, if I may fall back on my engineering background, we have to ask the question, does it work, does throwing the core of a political organisation to open and transparent democratic processes work?  And I think the answer has to be, whether you like it or not, no, it doesn't work.  Tommy suffered an unbelievable amount of stress and abuse, was unable to secure funding from paid membership, was unable to have the rock solid party structure like that of One Nation, was unable to field candidates into local elections, and ultimately had to leave a seriously weakened organisation.  

Consider also the 'concessions' demanded via the TV crew in this documentary, like that Pauline should stay as leader, but dismiss her 2 co-managers.  We all know where that leads.  After dismissing her 2 co-leaders, that were guarding her back, the next demand would be for Pauline to put her position up for election, then a lot of time and energy would be expended in in-fighting during the election, with the inevitable bust-ups and schisms to follow.  In other words, the concession demanded of Pauline would not get her any quid-pro-quo; it is actually not a concession, it is actually one step of a long line of erosion and disintegration, which ultimately leads to the side-lining of the party.  

Again, compare with EDL.  EDL is still a significant actor and I take my hat off to all the sterling work and effort put in by the current leaders, security and also the members that make it to the events.  But still, it is not as significant as it was before, and it has not grown.  So none of the concessions granted by EDL in a vain attempt to assuage the hounds baying for its blood, granted it any relief.  Each concession, far from being a softening of the message or approach, in exchange for a kinder treatment by the authorities and the media, merely caused further confusion in its message and a disintegration of its core identity.

Consider the famous Nazi flag burning episode by EDL.  I say famous, but that video might just as well have disappeared into a black hole.  And what did the media focus on?  The burning of the swastika?  No.  The high number of black faces there? No.  What they found objectionable was that the participants were masked.  

So, after concession number 1 didn't work - burning a swastika to prove they are not Nazis - Tommy went to concession number 2 and took off his balaclava.  Then the real attacks started.  In other words, the complaint about the face covering was just a sham.  With hindsight we now know that the response to those media challenges should have been:

Why are you focussing on the face covering and not on the swastika burning or our black members?  Obviously in your fascistic mindset, you will accuse us of things no matter what we say or do. You judge and convict us from pure personal hate, not from evidence.  In your racist mindset, you will ignore the multi-racial make up of our organisation, because you judge all coloured people who disagree with you as 'Uncle Toms'.  Like a true Nazi, you tolerate no dissent from your party line.

OK, we will remove our face covering, once it is clear that no Muslim women are walking around in the UK with a face covering, because it has been made illegal.  Or are you saying that, once again, there's one set of privileges for the superior race, and another set of rules for us?  So you believe we aren't all equal, you brazenly discriminate on the grounds of race and belief?

At the end of the video they contact a group of 3 former members that used to run a branch office.  The implication was that if One Nation could only be more conciliatory, they could have retained those 3 members instead of kicking them out.  This is an example of the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy.  Yes it is true that if they had been more conciliatory to those 3 members, they could have retained them.  But the weakness they would have shown, and the erosion of their principles, could have led far more than 3 other people to break away from the party and form a new organisation.  Once again, this was a syndrome that EDL suffered from before, with North East Infidels and various other groups breaking away.  Politics is a very tricky, slippery business, and a delicate balancing act has to be made between keeping people on message and allowing a certain, acceptable level of dissidence.  But absent a crystal ball, that decision and that balancing act is always going to be a judgement call, without any clear proof that the leader has made the correct play.  We should not fall into the trap of letting the media start to usurp the role and decision making authority of the leader!  Actually, Pauline Hanson was very good at blocking that.  Like all these naturally political people, she seems to have a built-in 6th sense for the correct political response, not based on some lengthy academic background or study.

In my humble opinion, I think any fledgling political party can only survive if it is modelled along the lines of One Nation, whether we like it or not.  

Permalink Reply by Philip Smeeton on November 12, 2015 at 18:35

It is about race but not in the negative manner that multiculturalist socialists describe it.  You do not have to be a racist in the sense that you hate and want to harm people of other races. It has to be admitted firstly that race exists and not just cultural differences, and that racial differences cause conflict or discomfort.

We have to be realistic about the issue and not impractically idealistic. Politics is about a practical physical world (reality) and the interactions of people, not just about ideas and wishful thinking.( how things could or ought to be).

If Australia or Britain ceases to be predominantly white then all sorts of ethnic, cultural and racial conflicts will arise that will produce separate nations within the nation, effectively destroying the nation without having replaced it with an actual functional and harmonious multicultural society.

It has to be said, every nation on this planet functions better when there is a common sense of purpose and identity. It is we, us our country nation and culture our laws and our way of life that we accept and agree upon.

Birds of a feather flock, together they really do, people thrive among their own kind. Every single human being on this planet has a right to a comfortable existence, free from conflict and idealists.