Why the ALA Gets My Vote

IMAMI intend to put Kirralie Smith, representing the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA), first on the Senate ballot paper for NSW at the next election. I am doing that for four reasons.

First, I believe that Islam represents a dire threat to civilised values. Second, Mrs Smith seems to me, having read about her and heard her speak, an excellent candidate. Third, the ALA is a party of traditional values and small government. Fourth, the ALA supports increasing defence expenditure.

Bear in mind that I will vote for the ALA despite one of the Party’s policy apparatchiks, ex-National Ron Pike, explaining his grand scheme to take the dividends from the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which presently go to the NSW, Victorian and the federal Governments, and use them to pay interest on new borrowings to fund a massive program of hydro-electric dam building. I won’t go into more detail. Rex Connor came to mind.

I have nothing against dams. I like them. But it is self-evidently Mr Pike’s pet scheme and the ALA would have been wise to leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the price of fish – no pun intended. Mr Pike should set up his own party, perhaps.

Too much policy detail leaves a new party hostage to pet schemes of those who have had no success in pushing them within the established parties. It is best, in my view, simply to establish philosophical positions which will guide policy choices, rather than get among the weeds. The exception in this case is the ALA’s position on Islam, which is its raison d’être and the basis of its appeal for electoral support. Those who do vote for it won’t have dams on their minds.

I cemented my support for the ALA after attending a meeting held last Tuesday in Sydney. The ALA intends to field Senate candidates in all states at the next election. Three of them were speakers at the meeting: Debbie Robinson of WA, Bernard Gaynor of Queensland, and the aforementioned Mrs Smith. They were an impressive and articulate set of candidates. I don’t want to be unkind by mentioning some current members of the Senate but I would say that the average level of common sense among Senate members will soar if the ALA candidates succeed in being elected – as I hope and believe that they will.

The meeting was well attended. The large room was filled, by my rough count approaching the two-hundred mark. There was a decent age range from younger to older and I think about evenly split between men and women. Angry Anderson introduced the speakers with his usual style and it was two hours well spent (even with the damn dams).

As a registered attendee, I was informed of the venue only the evening before and security on the night was tight. Doesn’t that say it all? Doesn’t it also say it all that I not only formed a good impression of the competence of the candidates but admired them for their courage? This is Australia in 2016, when standing for a political party might put you under physical threat. Imagine Australia in 2026 and then in 2036 if we all sit back and do nothing. Imagination not required; the model is there in Europe in the guise, for example, of the security required to keep Geert Wilders safe from the barbarians in Holland.

Make no mistake. This is the time to vote for the ALA. We have no other defences. There is no Christian spirituality left to speak of within the Western world to combat Islamic supremacism. Christian church leaders are milksops waiting to be beheaded, who would no more quote Jesus in foreseeing false prophets, of whom Muhammad must be the doozy of them all, than they would refuse to visit a mosque or kiss the Koran, as did John Paul II. The gay and feminist lobbies are in the keeping of the Left, which makes common cause with a fascist Islamist ideology — after all they have much in common. The mainstream media constantly brushes up its anti-Islamophobia credentials. And, most career politicians would sell their mothers for a Muslim vote; for any vote for that matter.

Islam is blight on the values of tolerance and freedom which emerged out of Judeo-Christian civilisations. It cannot be tolerated. It must not be tolerated. There should be no taxpayer funding for anything which is associated with Islam. Sharia should be disallowed and its practice made illegal. Potential migrants who carry the Islamic faith in their baggage should no longer be let into the country. This has nothing to do with people who happen to be Muslim being good or bad people. There are plenty of good people who are Muslims and plenty of bad people who claim to be Christians. Notice the subtle change of language.

You cannot be a bad person and be a Christian. It is logically impossible. But it is perfectly possible to follow the tenets of Islam and be an extremely bad person. All you have to do is faithfully follow the very words of God and, e.g., “strike off their heads [disbelievers] and strike off every finger tip of them.” (Koran 8:12)

If you remain unconvinced, find just one imam or one devout Muslim who is willing to disavow any single word or phrase in the Koran. You will not find them. And yet the pathetic among us go around insisting that it is a matter of interpretation.

Much of the intolerant and violent parts of Islamic doctrine are so plain that it would need a very clever charlatan to make them appear benign to those of critical mind. Unfortunately, as it happens, a good majority of people appear to be gullible enough to fall for platitudes of Islamic charlatans of very meagre talent. That’s why the ALA needs supporting.

25 thoughts on “Why the ALA Gets My Vote

  • Mr Johnson says:

    Of course.

    When our Conservative leaders get all pink cheeked about gay marriage, and march in Mardi Gras. When they support a school program that dissuades teachers and kids from referring to each other as boys or girls as it is herteronormative (the horror!). When we walk way from changing 18c because we need the Muslim vote. When we are about to see a budget advocating more spending and more taxes (the ole progressive tax-n-spend), and when we see Climate Change still being treated as a issue that can only be solved with huge amounts of our cash, then yeah, these were the guys who were supposed to be the sensible ones on all these issues.

    And, sadly, they are not anymore. Time for someone else to get a go.

  • ianl says:

    > … the security required to keep Geert Wilders safe from the barbarians in Holland

    But not sufficient to keep him safe from his own Govt

    He’s been charged with variations of “race hate” – yet Muslims are not a race

    The West has long lost the plot

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    As it happens, Peter, I was among the first lot to join the ANA long before it was officially registered, for the simple reason that it is the only party to recognise and is prepared to squarely confront the deadly threat of Islam to western civilisation. Without that threat being fought and eliminated, nothing else matters and yet not a single Australian politician, never mind a political party, other than the ALA, dares to say or propose anything in the interest of that endeavour. They are a cowardly lot of imbeciles.

    Fellow readers might forgive me for repeating here some of a comment I posted earlier in the week in response to another Islam-related article.


    This statement is based on the indisputable fact that the “holy scriptures” of Islam constitute a set of manuals of committing crime against humanity, especially against its non-islamic constituent. Consequently, subscribing to the legitimacy of those scriptures, whether wholly or in part, amounts to being guilty of actively or passively conspiring against humanity. Ignorance, misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the contents of those scriptures does not serve as a mitigating factor to absolve either Muslims or Muslim apologists from the said guilt. The degree of the guilt varies between individuals but its substance and validity are constant.”

    Clear thinking people of good will have to develop and courageously maintain an attitude toward Islam that is based on reality. The most fundamental aspect of that attitude must be the uncompromising renunciation of appeasement and accommodation of Islam and any attempt at negotiating with it. It must also openly and loudly acknowledge the starkly obvious fact that the struggle between Islam and the rest of the world is already very much in progress and has been for some 1400 years. These harsh prerequisites are dictated by Islam on account of its uncompromising nature, allowing for no choice in the matter. Failure to fearlessly and resolutely resist the islamisation of non-muslim countries will inevitably result in Islam’s complete success in subjugating the whole world.

  • Jody says:

    Last night on “The Drum” a muslim ‘human rights activist’ was on the panel along with Bill Crews and one other. They were all discussing religion in schools and Crews said he didn’t think there should be exclusively single-faith based schools – that all religions should be taught. And the moderator asked “well, are there any like that”? Pregnant pause; silence, laughter and, OF COURSE, NO ANSWER WHATSOEVER. Muslim schools were completely and conveniently AIRBRUSHED out of the discussion.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      I didn’t see that program, but getting the youth to believe in the doctrines of any religion, let alone one as intellectually threadbare as Islam, requires those being inducted into it to be as far as possible isolated from the rest of the world. Islamic schools are a must if this dim-witted project is to get anywhere: and it helps in the ghettoisation of the Muslim community generally.
      I have not read any policy statement from the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) on education, but it will be wasting its time and energy if it does not get well and truly stuck into all single-faith schools. Which means THEM ALL: no exceptions.
      Richard Dawkins hit the nail on the head IMHO: all such religious indoctrination amounts to child abuse. If approached on that basis, then all religious schools have to become multi-faith and ideologically broad-spectrum. (Ironically, that would defeat the original purpose for which they were set up.)
      If the youth are exposed to the widest possible variety of faiths and ideologies and encouraged above all to think for themselves, then down the track a helluvalot of religious and communal violence can be avoided and EVERYONE will be better off, including the present generation of Muslims.
      But no religion can be singled out for special treatment of any kind. Remember the Australian Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of religious belief.

      • georgethomas@quadrant.org.au says:


        Could you tell me which part of the Constitution “guarantees absolute freedom of religious belief”?

        • ian.macdougall says:

          Check out Section 116, George.
          “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
          That ban on the enactment of any prohibition spells it out.

          • georgethomas@quadrant.org.au says:

            That’s under Commonwealth law. Section 116 doesn’t affect state and municipal laws, so it is not, and presumably was not intended to be, a blanket guarantee of religious freedom throughout Australia.

          • ian.macdougall says:


            That’s under Commonwealth law. Section 116 doesn’t affect state and municipal laws, so it is not, and presumably was not intended to be, a blanket guarantee of religious freedom throughout Australia.

            I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Constitution trumps everything every other state parliament or local council might come up with. That was the price all the states paid for federation. Local councils are not mentioned in the Federal Constitution and are actually run under departments of the state governments (eg the NSW Dept of Local Government.)
            So the Woop Woop Shire Council can’t ban mosques (say) in its shire.

      • Jody says:

        There’s a lot in your comments! Firstly, read Paul Kelly (“The Australian”) today on LGBTI and the “Safe Schools Program” which IS TO BE TAKEN by all schools in Australia. How will the muslims cope with that? Kelly is uncharacteristically partisan and combative over this issue and it makes for TRULY disturbing reading. He is right on the money and he said Daniel Andrews saying to the media “I am sick and tired of the Liberal government telling kids there’s something wrong with them when there isn’t” is one of the worst and most damaging comments made in living memory. I’m only hoping this has a massive blow-back come plebiscite time for SS marriage!!

        Meanwhile, Kelly spells out the program and says that personal pronouns “he” and “she” are to be removed from schools. I’m serious!

        I’ve just written to John Roskam at the IPA asking what they’re going to do about this; I’ve never seen anything so dictatorial or ugly in my over 60 years on this planet. At best we will end up with YET ANOTHER demographic of psychologically damaged, depressive young people.

        There’s a High Court challenge under “religious freedom” waiting to come out in all this garbage.

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    I will not support the left wing ALP or the Greens which leaves me with the Coalition. However I like Kirralie Smith and the ALA and want to vote for her but who to leave off the Coalition roster? The past week and the revelations in Nikki Savva’s hate filled book solved the problem. Senator Fierravanti-Wells having secured a recommendation for pre-selection from Tony Abbott deep sixes him to Savva the Abbott hater. Bye bye Concetta and hello Kirralie.

  • a.crooks@internode.on.net says:

    Sound logic. I’m voting for the ALA because of its policy on the media – the ABC in particular. Until that institution is brought back under Government control there can be no democratic debate on any of the important issues.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Once again Peter Smith has defined the issue. Mohammedanism is the major problem and only the Australian Liberty Alliance has the answer. That answer includes proposing to halt the immigration of those with an ideological mindset that would replace democracy with Shariah law as in Isil, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
    Allow a friendly word to Ian MacDougall who for reasons unsaid shows antipathy towards the Christian roots of his culture: please visit a Christian School and ask about the range of religions and cultures among the students. Usually you will find both Protestants and Catholics, and maybe Buddhists, Sikhs, and perhaps a Shintoist. No one is forced to follow the Christian religion but visit a Muslim school and look in vain for a female student not forced to wear the religious symbol, the headscarf.
    In Australia we have had it so good and the good times could continue if- – – – – – -!

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Bran Dee:
      I am in favour of an immigration quota: not ‘open borders’ as proposed by the Greens, although their original environmental and climate change stance I largely agree with. However, I would never vote for them in a Federal election because of ‘open borders’.
      BUT subjecting prospective immigrants to religious tests opens up a substantial can of worms. For a start, Muslims have Koranic clearance to lie if the lying advances the cause of Islam. So if they had to come in as Hindus, Buddhists, Copts or whatever, I am sure they would, and without hesitation. It would rapidly become the greatest game in town.
      I have no doubt also that Islamic schools would become as good as any at professing that ‘nobody is forced to follow the religion’ if it meant staying afloat. But I remain of the view that getting rid of all religious schools is the way forward, and for the reasons I have set out above on this thread. It would mean enormous changes to education, both state and private, but I can see no other way. A stock ‘what about your Christian heritage’ response just won’t do, and for reasons I have also set out above.
      Also you misjudge me. I have no antipathy towards “the Christian roots of my own culture” and can quote the Bible (particularly the Gospels) better than most, I dare say. I am now a freethinker, and no longer a Christian (yes and I know: I know the standard evangelical response to that.) But, having studied a bit of non-Abrahamic religious thought, I have reached the conclusion that while the Mediterranean-European Western civilisation route that we Anglophones have followed might have been the fast track to modernity and liberal democracy, I see no good reason why the others would not also have made it eventually. Even Islamic civilisation would have on its own found a way out of its endemic civil strife and warfare via a transition to liberal democracy, even though a helluva lot of Islamic doctrine would have to be chucked overboard on the way.

      • acarroll says:

        “I see no good reason why the others would not also have made it eventually. Even Islamic civilisation would have on its own found a way out of its endemic civil strife and warfare via a transition to liberal democracy, even though a helluva lot of Islamic doctrine would have to be chucked overboard on the way.”

        This statement completely ignores the glaringly obvious but politically incorrect realities of human biology.

        Not all nations are equally capable intellectually, creatively and psychologically. This has significant influence on the types of societies that nations produce.

        Liberal democracy is just the form of government to which Europeans converged. It’s not a pre-requisite for “success”.

        • ian.macdougall says:

          Not all nations are equally capable intellectually, creatively and psychologically. This has significant influence on the types of societies that nations produce.

          Where did you read that? Or did you just make it up?
          That perhaps would be OK if the ‘nations’ you refer to were isolated geographically. But they are not. And more importantly, they vary also over time, while more or less maintaining genetic constancy.
          Take for example the ancient Greeks. In the 5th C BC there was no higher civilisation. (Likewise the Minoans of Crete before them.)
          But their culture, science and art declined rapidly once they were conquered by the Romans. Later, under the oppressive Ottoman Turk occupation, it was even illegal to teach the Greek language to the successive rising generations. Their civilisation never really recovered. But through it all they remained genetically pretty much the same as ever. Go to Athens today and watch the people pass by in the street: so many faces you would swear that have been lifted straight off an Attic vase.
          And I suggest the converse is also true. Thus all ‘races’ (however defined) produce their outstanding thinkers. What some used to take as signs of ‘racial inferiority’ on the part of some race or other turn out to be cultural artifacts of racial history.
          Needless to add, in the European ‘Dark Age’ classical learning was nearly exterminated; kept alive only in tiny isolated communities, like those of the Irish monks.

          • acarroll says:

            Where did I read that?

            How many references do you want? Of course we can always refer to our own experiences as well, but perhaps you’ve been conditioned to not believe your “lying eyes”.

            Perhaps the use of the word nation in this sense is more of a proxy because the alternative — the word “race” — triggers Pavlovian conditioned (see political correctness) responses in people.

            This discussion has nothing to do with “racial superiority” because there are many orthogonal areas of human performance: any one geographically defined group may perform better than all others in one of these fields. Whether it is important depends on the environment in which that group has evolved. I agree that all races produce outstanding thinkers, but some races produce more, in fact way more than others.

            We however consider the ability to produce technological innovation, increased health outcomes, wealth and well being, safety etc to be important areas of comparison and performance. Clearly not all races are equal in this regard.

            Starting from the simplest of cases: Sub Sahara Africans and Australian Aborigines. Both peoples were sitting on immense resources and yet were never able to exploit them. Never able to create a high culture. Never able to invent even the wheel. Both peoples geographically isolated for evolutionary significant periods of time. Indeed, never did they achieve civilisations comparable in any way to ancient Europeans or East Asians. This is strongly supported by archaeological evidence.

            But then northern Europeans and East Asians were also isolated for significant periods of time geographically, and interbred with other archaic hominid species in the newly discovered territories in which they existed. Not to mention periods of physical isolation due to multiple Ice Ages lasting tens of thousands of years.

            To me it’s obvious that settled people in northern latitudes who had to contend with going long periods of time without food during the winter would necessarily evolve the psychological and cognitive abilities to plan ahead, adapt to the environment through technological innovation and cooperate efficiently. Over time the most effective groups were the best survivors and came to dominate.

            If one inspects the list nations in the top 10 of IQ globally, one observes that they all are in high latitudes or are populated with people who originated in high latitudes. They’re also nations that have consistently been the movers and shakers of history (and produced the greatest thinkers in quantity and stature) and all have amongst the highest GDP today.

            Are these cold-climate-evolved dispositions thus a pre-requisite for the birth of civilisation?

            Compare that to peoples who have lived for many thousands of years in warm or tropical climates where fruit and game are plentiful all year round. Indeed, so long as the population pressure was not great they could live quite easily by foraging for fruit and nuts without significant worries of seasonal shortages.

            So yes all nations have been spawned from isolation from other nations, both physically and culturally but very rarely completely.

            I suggest you read the literature about the positive correlation between IQ and GDP by authors like Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. For the genetics as a predictor of region of origin see e.g. Rosenberg, N. A., J. K. Pritchard, J. L. Weber, H. M. Cann, K. K. Kidd, L. A. Zhivotovsky, and M. W. Feldman. 2002. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298:2381-2385

            The discussion of all their findings is too large for this forum.

  • ArthurB says:

    Despite what so many contributors to Quadrant Online are saying, I still believe that a Liberal government under Turnbull is preferable to having the CFMEU’s puppet in the Lodge. However, I doubt whether the Liberals will do anything to oppose the creeping Islamisation of our nation, and for that reason I will be giving my Senate vote to the ALA. I am acquainted with one of the ALA candidates, and admire her for her courage in standing for Parliament. I only hope that she and the ALA will be able to withstand the hate campaign that the ABC will direct at them.

    • ian.macdougall says:


      If one inspects the list nations in the top 10 of IQ globally, one observes that they all are in high latitudes or are populated with people who originated in high latitudes.

      But the Minoans of Crete, who arguably ran the world’s highest civilisation down to 1500 BC, when it was blown away by the Santorini volcano, don’t exactly fit into that scheme of things.
      If the volcano had not blown when it did, the world today would be vastly different. No doubt about that.

  • en passant says:

    As Sherlock Holmes said: “When you have eliminated every other possibility that which remains, no matter how improbable is the solution.”

    Liberals – full of treacherous wastrels and infil-traitors, lead by an assassin with no policies. Happy to suck up to the Greens for support – SCRATCH AS UNTRUSTWORTHY


    Nationals – A solid hope, but seem to be happy to just bet there with whoever is in power. – A SECOND CHOICE AS THEY HAVE NO GUTS ON SHOW.



  • pgang says:

    I’m a little confused. How can you vote for a party that isn’t putting up any candidates? This looks to me like just another caper to over-ride democracy via senate control.

  • Warty says:

    With regards to Peter Smith’s article (above), it is well worth reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book ‘Heretic’, where she discusses confusions as to the interpretation of the Qur’an. She points out that the more philosophical understandings stem from the readings from Mohammed’s Mecca, or Makkah period. These are the readings apologists are thinking of when they refer to Islam being a ‘religion of peace’, and of course all politicians, both Labor, Greens and Liberal/Nats refer Islam as a religion of peace, that it is just the extremists that employ a distorted ‘interpretation’ of the Qur’an.
    Not so, says Ayaan: those extremist readings come from the Medina phase. This is the same prophet, receiving the revelations from the same Archangel Gabriel, who now tells him that beheading infidels is an excellent way to go. The prophet is then given carte blanche to go off on camel train raids, or massacring an entire Jewish tribe (after inspecting the men to see if they have pubic hair, to determine whether or behead them or sell them into slavery).
    The readings from this period reveal Islam to be the most intolerant religion on the face of the earth, matched only by the Christians of the Crusades, who, fortunately, have moved out of the 7th Century.

Leave a Reply