The greatest grump of my life is the changes brought to Australia by the election of the Whitlam labor government in 1972. I believe that it is a sad thing that the Australian labor party allowed themselves to be taken over by the world socialist movement.
This government brought about a social revolution that Australia still suffers from.
Although they introduced social reforms that Australia needed they ‘threw the baby out with the bath water’.(threw out the good with the bad).
For example when much needed social changes for the recognition of women as equal partners to men laws were made to try to enforce equality but these laws were un-necessarily discriminatory in favour of women and therefore against men and have served to empower women to exploit the system if they so desire and many do.
There are many examples but one really obvious one is the way Russian women have been marrying vulnerable Australian men, divorcing them after a year (or two depending on the current law), taking half of their life time accumulated wealth and returning to Russia wealthy women by their standards. An obvious premeditated robbery and our law empowers these women to do it.
Every law should treat every person equally and not discriminate. Affirmative action is discrimination.
And the new order was supposed to give women more choices when in fact they simply changed the choices. Women who now want to be home makers and stay at home mums find that choice difficult because of the social and economic pressures to not take that choice. Now only strong independent women have the courage to be ‘stay at home mums’.
There is nothing more ugly than aggressive, arrogant and domineering women which characteristics grow from ignorance and incompetence. This statement equally applies to men but some women think that by being like men makes them equal to men. Equality is not about being ‘the same as.’
The high priestess of this was Germaine Greer. I have seen on television a section of one of her early public meetings held in the early seventies and often repeated. She addressed a hall full of women with about five men scattered throughout. One man asked the question “Could you tell us what it is that you actually want’ you have spoken at length about what you think is wrong with society in regard to women but said nothing about what you want. If we knew what it is that you want we could help you achieve it”
Ms. Greer’s condescending reply was “Don’t you worry sir, it is nothing that you have”.
I thought “What an arrogant, condescending bully of a woman.”
The audience actually applauded her answer.
They had obviously been bemused by her motivating speech and she had won them to ‘her side’ just like Hitler had won the crowds by his ravings.
Then really stupid politicians in power at the time made laws that discriminate in favour of women and the funny thing is that these politicians were all men. How moronic can politicions get.
The same mistakes were made in relation to anti discrimination towards aboriginals, migrants, employees and the disabled. Laws should treat them all as equals and not discriminate in favour of them.
Arguments about women being discriminated against between evangelistic socialists and myself were always based on comparing “apples with pairs’. Whenever I say that there is nothing unfair about a women doing the housework, cooking and minding the kids it is in the context of the woman not going to work and the man going to work and providing the income for the family. A situation economically difficult in today’s economy. The socialists always assume that the woman is going to work as well as doing all of the household chores in which case I totally agree is not fair to the woman..
.
The only real answer to all of these social problems is a good rounded real factual education for all.
But since the 1970’s socialist political agendas have to be first excised from our education agendas.
The huge mistake that Australian politicians made in the early part of the twentieth century was to make laws to protect unions. This was done because un-ethical bosses were sacking or not employing workers because they had joined a union. The mistake was to make laws that gave unions a privileged position in the eyes of the law which enabled unions to grow very powerful until it reached a stage where no government could do anything unless the unions agreed. For some strange reason some unions set about destroying their own industries, they obviously had a secret agenda not related to protecting their members jobs because they actually did destroy their members jobs????. And sometimes still do.
Unions actually destroyed the great Vestey’s Meat Works in Darwin which was at the time the biggest industry in the Northern Territory. What help was that to their members???. At the moment, although the unions’ absolute power has at last been modified, they still cause some of our major industries to be uncompetitive with international equivalents through their insistence on stupidly pedantic “trade demarcation” rules which does not give any benefits to their members but increases costs to us, the consumers, which includes their workers. For example, public transport in Australia is far too expensive to run and consequently loses money because it is an area where unions still dominate.
Trade demarcation in the public transport sector brings advantages to no one but disadvantages to everyone. It means that at least five time more than necessary employees have to be paid to run the systems. Most employees have only about two hours of work to do every day and so they are bored out of their minds.
The laws they made to protect unions should not have discriminated in favour of unions and should have just put them on an equal footing with every other organization. Closed workshops (where you could not work in an industry unless you belonged to the union) controlled all of the main industries in Australia by the 1950’s. This was in effect compulsory unionism. No other aspect of Australian society was allowed by law to hold such a total controlling monopoly. Some of the big and strong unions were actually organized crime equivalent to the mafia organization. Prime Minister Bob Hawk, a past union leader, brought some sense into some of the unions but it wasn’t until the Howard Liberal government made compulsory unionism unlawful that gave workers freedom of choice and broke the monopolies.
Succeeding Liberal governments have not repealed the laws introduced by the Whitlam labor government and following labor governments that discriminate against the people who actually produce the national wealth. For example they have still not repealed the ‘unfair dismissal laws’ and the ‘anti discrimination laws’ that discriminate although they tried to get around the problem these laws cause, with their ‘work choices’ ideas which was too little too late.
Now Employers are discriminated against.
An employer has to work for the taxation department for nothing and will be heavily fined or gaoled if he (or one of his staff) makes a mistake while working for the Taxation department for no pay. They have to, for the tax department, deduct from their employees’ wages the tax that his employees have to pay, pay it to the taxation department and keep the records. Now they also have to pay into an employees’ superannuation fund to try to provide for their employees future. Redundancy payments can bankrupt a small business.
It was in about 1944 that the Australian labor government made it compulsory for employers to pay their employees tax for them. They called it ‘pay as you earn’ but failed to point out that it actually makes slaves of employers.
I see this as being patronizing towards the employees.
Now they are talking about making employers pay women while they stay home and have babies. The reason women no longer want to be ‘stay at home’ mums is because of the social changes brought about by the Whitlam labor government. These measures make people into subjects of ‘The State’ which reduces freedom every time such measures are introduced..
Employees should be responsible for paying their own tax and for providing for their own future. If they are not capable of doing that then our education system has failed.
It is the responsibility of the taxation department to collect taxes so if employers are doing it for them they should be compensated. If a small business has more than about ten employees then they need to employ an extra person to do the work that the taxation department require of them. If a small business has less than about ten employees then the owner of the business usually has to work at night or during weekends to do the work that the taxation department requires.
My generation was already living by more progressive social standards, like equal pay for equal work, and only the idiots of the community were not. Social changes that were important and not destructive were already happening and I believe Australia would have developed into the most progressive and genuinely wealthy country in the world had the Whitlam lead labor party not won that election in 1972.
The level of un-employment after eleven years of liberal government, although close now in 2007, has never been lower since the 1950’s and 60’s.
Strange how unemployment is always higher under labor governments who are supposed to be supportive of “workers”
Instead our economy was destroyed as were the good parts of our social structure including education and consequently un-employment has been high since. Social un-rule, drug taking, dysfunctional families and dysfunctional individuals and the number of suicides have greatly increased.
In fact suicides have probably increased by a much greater rate than we are currently aware because they are now not allowed to be reported in the news.
The Whitlam labor government by introducing laws to ‘get at’ big and exploiting companies made laws that did not affect these big companies but destroyed ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND small businesses in the first two years of their rule. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy.
Inflation caused by the Whitlam Labor government was horrendous and caused a great deal of bankruptcies and un-employment that followed.
I was building a ‘state of the art’ hotel for a dynamic new Australian company, called ‘Highway Motels’. They were building a chain of motels and hotels around Australia when the cost of building increased by over forty per cent in one year. This outrageous cost increase sent the company bankrupt. There has to be some way of making a government that causes this sort of disaster accountable.
When Whitlam held a lunch meeting with some Alice Springs business men (to which I was invited) he held it in the dining room of the new ‘Highways Hotel’ that I had completed less than a year previous and I wondered if he knew that he had destroyed the Australian company that had built it.
My input to this meeting was a concern about the rapidly rising rate of inflation causing everyone to stop building because no-one knew what the end cost of their building would be. Whitlam seemed to consider that this remark was of no consequence and made no comment.
I had been arguing myself hoarse with all of the local socialists because it was the official stance of the labor government that ‘increases in wages does not cause inflation’. My argument was that “there is no other cost on anything other than wages”, steel is free until you pay someone to dig up iron and pay someone to convert it to steel then pay someone to transport it” so an increase in wages has a multiplying effect on the cost of everything.
I found out much later that the logic behind the socialist claim that increases in wages does not cause inflation was because they had in their tiny minds redefined ‘inflation’ which of course does not alter the facts. Their new definition was “Although increases in wages does drive prices up because wages have increased the worker’s buying power does not decrease therefore their has been no inflation’????.
It was not until the Keating labor government that labor finally admitted that big inflation was a bad thing.
The socialist theory of economics is not based on fact and that is why every labor government, state or federal, has always gone ‘bankrupt’. The academic ‘socialists’ believe that “if you buy a shirt you are depriving someone else of a shirt”. By that logic they tell me that it is because we in Australia have such a high standard of living Africans are starving ??. I say it is because the Africans have got it wrong.
When the Whitlam labor government was running their election campaign Whitlam promised that he would close down Pine Gap, the American – Australian Joint Space Research Facility near Alice Springs, as soon as he was elected. Soon after he won that election he visited Pine Gap and nothing more was said by any labor politician about closing it down and the interesting thing is that the media also totally dropped the subject of Pine Gap.
Another idiot thing the Whitlam labor government did soon after their election in 1972 was to do away with the ‘Administrator of the Northern Territory’ because they did not want this ‘royalist type’ of government. This move meant that every thing in the Territory came to a stop because the whole of the Northern Territory system of government was based on the ‘Administrator’ having to give ascent to everything before it could happen. The labor government had to appoint a new administrator so the Territory could function. This demonstrates how totally ignorant they were.
Basically this socialist revolution empowered the “bloody idiots” of our communities who now appear to have all the advantages of a prejudiced legal and justice system. Decisions are now made on egotistical and 'politically correct' bases instead of for logical factual reasons. The definition of “FAIR’ has been changed to mean ‘in favour of the underprivileged’. THE LAW MAKERS HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EMPLOYERS ARE PEOPLE TOO.
Beginning with the Whitlam labor government disabled and other previously underprivileged people have been elevated to be discriminated in favour above ordinary people at the cost to ordinary people.
I agree that these people should not be discriminated against but they should not be elevated to be considered above others for many reasons one of which is ‘that it is patronising to do so.
And the attitude of the ‘ordinary Australian has changed for the worse.
Before 1972 the ruling philosophy of the ordinary Australian was to ‘give everyone a fair go’ but now it is acceptable and common to :
* Kick someone when they are down, quite often until they are dead.
(I recently saw on TV an interview with a Brisbane surgeon who was greatly concerned at the large increase in the number of young men having to have serious facial bone reconstruction.) (It used to be unacceptable for an Australian to kick someone when they are down, any one who did would have been “excommunicated’ from their group. And be called "a dingo").
* Beat a woman
* Beat a child to death
* Drink until they are sick or unconscious.
Take drugs and or alcohol that cause them to be dysfunctional and need medical treatment at the taxpayers’ expense
* Rob your neighbour.
* Steal cars
* Be a burden on others.
* Resolve disputes by a punch in the face. TV soapies show even young women doing this.
* And generally have the attitude that ‘society owes me’.
The low standard of people that we now call Australians is also evident in the type of persons that you get as tenants when you rent out a house or a flat.
Part of my retirement plan was to have a mix of sources of income, like two or three flats from which I could get rent and some money earning interest. Over the past twelve years I have had three flats, one in a holiday resort and two ordinary units. The one in a resort I sold some five years ago because the body corporate and management fees became so expensive that the return on my investment was under four percent. The other two flats have had tenants for at least half of the twelve years that were so bad that both have gone from being fully furnished to unfurnished because the tenants have destroyed the furniture. Getting the rent paid was always a continuous struggle. The filth and damage they left behind you would not believe.
I have just, after a long procedure required by law, got rid of a tenant in my unit 10, 3 Morning Close, Port Douglas who continually neglected to pay her rent and by the time she left I am owed $3,460.
The law relating to tenant and landlord agreements in Queensland (which the government claims to be fair!!!) says that if the landlord does not comply with the agreement the government will prosecute them but if the tenant does not comply, the landlord may prosecute the tenant. Fair, bullshit???
It would cost me about $30,000 in legal fees to attempt to get my $3,460 back.
So I have put my unit on the market.
On the TV news you hear all sorts of experts’ reasons why there is now a serious shortage of rental properties but none mentions the real reasons because it is not politically correct to blame the tenants.
The predominant attitude of young adults of Australia and many western countries is that landlords, business persons and bosses are unfeeling, unfair and exploiting bastards. I think they teach that at schools. There are a few like that but the majority are fair, trustworthy and definitely do not exploit their customers. It is much more common that tenants, shop attendants and workers exploit their bosses.
There are quite a lot of young Australians who are very decent and lovely people who work and run good and ethical businesses. It is they who create the national wealth that allows governments to get plenty of tax to foster the activities of the despots. Unfortunately the number of indecent Australians is increasing and they now outnumber the decent ones. The national social budget has gone from 15% of GNP pre 1972 to over 35%. in 2007. And no one was worse off before 1972.
You can now be proud to be a useless drug dependant despot, it makes you a good ozzie bloke.
I know that the socialist political parties have convinced the younger generation that these things are not worse than they were before the socialist revolution and that it was all just as bad before. “It is just that it wasn’t reported as widely so people didn’t know” they claim
Well I know how it was then and the population was smaller, news still got around and in fact we knew more detail of what was happening than anyone does now. For example there was no suppressing of politically inconvenient news like suicides as there is now.
Basically Australians have lost all dignity.
In my opinion the book called ‘Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond is totally on the wrong track. It is dedicated to the ‘politically correct’ concept that all peoples are equal and it has been only due to the accident that, in the beginning, domesticatable animals were available to the few who have advanced to the current standard of knowledge, the ability to dominate natural constraints build machines to work for us and to kill many thousands of people in a day.
Although I don’t disagree with the concept that there is no difference between Races of people in basic intelligence it is my opinion that the concept touted in this book is total crap. The main reason that this or that society has stagnated is due to their social systems (including religion) that restrain any individual from doing anything slightly different.
If anyone stepped outside of the ‘square’ they were killed.
Take the Australian Aborigine who has been exposed to our domestic animals for over two hundred years. They could easily have by now taken advantage of horses, donkeys, goats and camels to lighten their load (there are plenty available) and they could have used cows and goats to help with a more reliable source of food (especially for their children) but they have not. The American Indian soon made use of horses that white men took to their country. No, it is their culture that stops them from progressing.
I recently saw on television on the aboriginal program called ‘Message Stick’ a tribal aboriginal say “The white man is silly (which I agreed with in relation to aboriginals), he is always changing his law, Law can not be changed, the Law is unchangeable by man, the Law is the Law, how can we respect white man's law when they are always changing it.”
That is a good description of a stagnant society. We probably do change our laws too easily especially in relation to aboriginal affairs but to have a society in which Law can never change is stagnation. There are many aspects of aboriginal Law that has to change if their “life” is to improve. For example it is aboriginal Law that twins have to be killed soon after birth. City dwelling ‘do-gooders’ do not believe that aboriginals do that sort of thing but they do and their Law also discriminates against women and children.
Now Aboriginals have a choice, if they want to progress they go to white mans schools and usually live in white man’s society, and some have, but it means breaking away from the constraints of their traditional society which is very difficult for an individual to do. Their entire culture needs to change.
It is generally now believed that all white men in our past persecuted and murdered aboriginals but in fact most tried to help them improve their standard of life. The few instances of violence against aboriginals have been blown out of proportion and instances of violence by aboriginals against white settlers has been minimised and ignored. The official position of English and later Australian authorities has been to protect and help aboriginals.
Governor Macquarie opened the first schools in New South Wales including one for aboriginal children and set up the Native Institution in 1814 for the protection and advancement of aboriginals.
He also tried to teach aboriginal people how to grow their own food but they were not interested and there are still people trying to teach them how to grow their own food but without success. It is no longer viable to survive by just grazing. Eating just what nature provides.
There have been many periods when our ‘western’ society has regressed and stagnated due to, usually religious or social constraints and currently by ‘political constraints’.
Before Christianity, general knowledge of engineering, the universe, human sicknesses and how to treat them were more advanced than in our western society right up until about the eighteenth century.
I believe that our society lost about fifteen hundred years because it was dominated by a stagnate controlling religion, (which by the way had little to do with the teachings of Christ.).
Many pre-Christian civilizations had greater knowledge than did the ‘dark ages’ society of Europe.
Before Christianity some societies knew basic facts about the universe:
The Aztecs, the Moans and the Egyptians to name a few, knew that the Earth is a sphere and that it orbited around the sun. Probably the Druids of England also knew.
During the first 1500 years of Christianity they believed that the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited around the Earth and anyone who thought otherwise was killed for heresy.
They squashed true knowledge and ingenuity.
If it hadn’t been for King Henry the eighth and Martin Luther providing some competition and choice for people in religion our medics would still ( in the year 2007) be bleeding us for most illnesses including loss of blood!!! as they did for about six hundred years. And it is only quite recent, like the last 50 years or so, that people in our society had a choice of having ‘no religion at all’.
(For those who might have forgotten, King Henry the eighth broke away from the Roman Catholic religion that controlled most of the western world and was mighty powerful and in what is known as the ‘dark ages’ .They killed any one who tried to understand the workings of the human body or who tried to invent a machine or anyone who stepped outside of their square.) Before King Henry the eighth when the world was controlled by the pope you were hanged for eating meat on a Friday.
Not that the early protestants were nice people, they were just as bad with their burning of witches and cutting off hands if you worked on Sunday, but because people had a choice, all religions had to become more reasonable in order to get their share of the market.
When you get such a powerful controlling organization history shows that they always cause a lack of creative endeavour. The individual is totally repressed and ingenuity is stifled and stagnation is the result.
Communism is the latest attempt at that and evidence of its failure.
I believe that religions now provide a service to their congregation but it was not always so and they were forced to modify their behaviour because people had a choice. It is difficult to understand why people are still sucked in by religion. Looking at history, both ancient and modern, religion has always been wrong and so how can anyone assume that they are not wrong today.
The medical profession still seems to suffer from a stagnant dogmatism that makes new discoveries difficult to introduce. I was appalled at the difficulty that Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren had in having their discovery of the Helicobacter Pi-Lorrie bacteria that causes peptic ulcers accepted by the medical profession. You can see the bloody things with a simple optic microscope. And I wonder why it took so long to discover. I can imagine an astute medical student looking at a peptic ulcer in the lab. “Sir, look, there seems to be a strange bacteria type organism in this ulcer”. Without looking the professor says “don’t be stupid, haven’t you learnt that bacteria can not survive the acid environment of the stomach”!.
Another book of which I am slightly critical is ‘THE FUTURE EATERS by Tim Flannery. I think this is the most important book to be written in the twentieth century and should be studied in schools but in my opinion some of his historic assumptions are not correct. Not that they detract from the important message of this book but they do change history to be “politically correct.” He does change the concept of what our people did in Australia by reinterpreting their actions in light of current political correct attitudes.
One area where I was pleased that the author had the courage to depart from being ‘politically correct’ was his mention that the aborigines might have been responsible for the destruction by fire of the original flora and fauna of central Australia.
Even although it is politically incorrect to say so it is my opinion that they continue to destroy the environment of Australia. I saw a group of aboriginals in 1975 deliberately start a fire that burnt from some twenty kilometres South of Tennant Creek on an increasing front until it was about 100 kilometres wide and didn’t stop until it reached the hills of Queensland West of Cairns. I flew over that fire twice a month on my trips to and from Cairns.
The ‘politically correct’ belief now touted by everyone, especially authors and journalists is that the aboriginals managed the ecology of Australia for thousands of years but when you see them in their tribal situation they have no concept of thinking about the future. They will destroy a whole tree (which are now very scarce in central Australia) just to get a witchetty grub when they could have just cut out part of it. They still cut down a whole tree and take a small part of the tree to make a boomerang.
They didn’t conceive that they could possibly destroy the ‘bush’ just as white man couldn’t conceive of ever destroying the entire natural forests when they first arrived.
The whole of the soil in central Australia is grossly deficient in humus because the aboriginals have for thousands of years been burning all of the grass. The whole of Australia will eventually be the same if we keep burning every year on the pretence that it makes for smaller bush fires when they do occur.
In about 1980 Heather and I drove from Alive Springs to Darwin stopping at places of interest on the way. We stopped at Mataranka Springs and spent half a day in the thermal pool.
We drove into Edith Falls. Edith Falls was quite a long distance from the highway on a dirt road but the really sad thing was that the authorities had just done their annual burn-off and we drove through a burnt landscape all of the way. The mature trees were alive but the ground was just black ash and there was not a young tree to be seen anywhere. Obviously when these mature trees die of old age there will not be any young ones to take their place and the whole area will be desert with no humus in the soil. Even fire dependant species need about five years between fires for the young trees to survive.
When we arrived at Edith Falls all we could see was a burnt hill which we climbed and were amazed to find a valley with lush tropical growth and a rocky creek tumbling down the centre. It was a hidden paradise where we had fun allowing ourselves to be washed down the creek from one rock water hole to the next. I wondered if this rainforest would spread beyond this valley if the land was not persistently burnt.
I know that the fuel levels (mulch on the ground) has to be controlled in fire dependant forests but not so in rain forests. Because of the amount of rain that falls in the tropics the ‘fuel’ on the ground mulches into the soil and provides nutrients to the forest. Australians have been encouraged since about 1960 to grow native Australian plant gardens around their houses most of which are highly flammable. This idea was to save water but it makes whole streets and entire suburbs at risk of being destroyed by fire.
When aboriginal activists say they want reconciliation with white Australians they actually mean they want retribution.
Funny thing is that most activists are more than seventy percent white so it must have been their ancestors, not mine, who raped the aboriginal women. That is an unfair generalization. Some aboriginals are the product of a genuine love relationship between a white person and an aboriginal.
I am pleased to see Noel Pearson on TV making some very sensible statements about what aboriginals have to do to improve their life. Not always ‘what whites have to do to improve the life of aboriginals’.
Nothing positive can happen unless the aboriginals are party to the process.
These facts have to be acknowledged before we Australians can progress.
South of Alice Springs there is a place called ‘Ooramina Rocks’. These rocks have a lot of rock carvings mostly of concentric circular patterns. There used to be a notice put there by the then ‘Northern Territory Reserves Board’ which advised tourists that “These carvings were done by people, named as ‘Ulotrichi, ’ who occupied Australia before the current aboriginals (Cymotrichi) arrived about seven thousand years ago. These same people still occupy Tasmania where the current aboriginals never reached.”
The politically correct version is now that these carvings were done by the current race of aboriginals (Cymotrichi).
The pre Whitlam government version was established by early anthropologists the main one to my knowledge was professor Strehlow. Professor Strehlow was born at Hermannsburg, a German mission station that is older than Alice Springs, and is an aboriginal (Cymotrichi ) tribal area. He grew up there, played with aboriginal kids and spoke their language like a native and understood and wrote about their culture. I know who I would rather believe, Professor Strehlow rather than the authors motivated by political correctness who now spout the current politically correct version that the current race of aboriginals (Cymotrichi ) have been in Australia for 40 thousand years.
But the main point is that it does not matter whether the current race of aboriginals have been in Australia for seven thousand years or for forty thousand years. It makes no difference to their conceived entitlements or status.
The fact that activists are aggressively promoting lies about the history of themselves to me diminishes their status and credibility as a people.
There are a lot more of these carvings in a rocky valley, near Ross River Station, East of Alice Springs.
One of my friends in Alice Springs, who spent a couple of years working in an aboriginal community, wrote a book about his experiences and observations. Aboriginal activists got the book banned (because it told the truth but was in their opinion politically incorrect).
I saw the letter written to him by the court that ordered it to be banned.
It was like something you would expect to receive from a German Nazi:
You shall destroy all copies of this book
You shall not allow anyone to see this book
You shall retrieve any copies that have been distributed. Etc.
It is difficult to understand how he was to achieve this.
And the penalty was something like ten years gaol if you did not comply. My friend was so traumatized by this letter that he even refused to let me see one of the books before he destroyed them.
This sort of thing can not happen in my Australia. This is the new puritanical (fundamentalist) compulsory religion called ‘socialism’ and it is not only in Australia.
I see the world socialist movement as being the new controlling social system that will stifle human development in the future. A new age of ‘Puritanism’ has already started. Scientists findings have to be politically correct or they are ignored.
The ‘bishop’ (or head priest) of Australia in this new dogmatism is Philip Adams. I am tired of hearing his followers regurgitating his latest politically correct and anti liberal government and pro left-wing propaganda on ABC radio and as it appears in the Weekend Australian news-paper magazine.
I read somewhere "According to Philip Adams he is the son of a Christian bishop and he rebelled against the established church because he saw, as I did as a kid, many bad aspects of their actual practices and inhumanity to people they did not approve of and so he joined the communist party." He now says that he has not been a member of the communist party for many years. However long after he became a millionaire, until about 2005, he always wore a communist hat. Since the Berlin wall came down he can no longer say that “it is just western propaganda” when anyone states the fact that ‘communism was actually worse than Nazism’.
In my oppinion all he has done (whether a communist or a socialist) is to exchange one religion for another because communism and socialism are just another religion. A belief in a philosophy that is not true.
But he is very good and convincing to listen to.
The Condescending and patronising attitude of these new world socialists towards the ‘working classes’ (their definition) amuses me.
If you have to discriminate in favour of the so called “working class” then they are not being treated as equal human beings.
If we stop applying our ingenuity to create a sustainable future we will destroy the planet earth. Dogmatic religious beliefs stifle ingenuity. Socialism is a dogmatic cultural belief.
Labor governments have introduced legislation that discriminates in favour of persons or groups of people in our community they consider have been discriminated against in the past. They call it ‘affirmative action’, but discrimination by any other name smells. It will lead to problems in the future. The current labor government wants to include the principles of affirmative action into the Australian Constitution which would be a disaster for our society. It would ‘build in’ discrimination
The year is 2007 and the labor party has just won the federal election which means we now have a labor government in every state as well as federal. This is a good opportunity for labor to introduce ‘Death Duties’ again. So having worked all your life and been sensible with your wealth you will not be able to leave your lifetime accumulated wealth to your descendants because the government will steal it from you so they can support the ‘fuck wits of our community who have contributed nothing for the whole of their life.
One hope is that the labor treasurers have at last learnt that the government’s income has to exceed their out goings otherwise they go broke as every labor government has done in my life time. Also Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says that he is not ruled by caucus but I don’t know how he can do that, surely they will just replace him if he doesn’t do as he is told. The Labor caucus is ruled by the ‘socialist’ unions.
Finishing their term of office with a huge deficit is ’going bankrupt.
This labor government is going to ‘roll back’ ‘work choices’, an attempt made by the John Howard government to allow employers and employees to reach an employment agreement between themselves thus giving workers a choice.
Because one of the world’s biggest idiots, ‘that tunnel visioned fuckwit, Karl Marx, said “that to employ someone is to degrade them”, the agenda of the socialist movement is to take retribution against employers on behalf of their workers. Without work choices an employer cannot choose who he will employ and under what conditions.
This socialist definition of employer to employee relationship is total crap.
If you start a business or practice and you are successful then you say to someone you know, who can do the work, “if you work with me to help me get all this work done I will pay you so many dollars per week”, and the employee agrees, that is a personal agreement and no government should be able to interfere with it and that is not degrading someone.
If you advertise for an employee and a man and a woman applies for the job and you give that job to the man and then the woman claims she was discriminated against then the government will fine you, make you sack the man and employ the woman. There is no onerous on the woman to prove discrimination. The same applies to all minority groups and yet it is the employer who has to take responsibility for the action of their employees and to pay their wages and their tax and their superannuation.
Similarly if you decide that a particular employee is not performing it is almost impossible to get rid of them. If I am paying their wages and their holiday pay and their long service leave and contributing to their super fund then I say who I employ and when they go otherwise I simply do not employ anyone and have not for the above reasons since 1984.
Many people say that there is little difference between the Australian labor party and the liberal party but there is a fundamental difference.
The labor party’s fundamental belief is that poor people are caused by rich people by not giving them a fair go or by exploiting them. All of their policies are based on the answer to be ‘redistribution of wealth’ which is stealing from those who have created wealth and giving it to the poor. ‘The Robin Hood Syndrome’. I call it. History demonstrates that no matter how much you give to the desperately poor they will be poor again is a short space of time. Poverty in my opinion is a state of mind.
The liberal party’s philosophy is to educate the poor so that they can get themselves out of and stay out of the poverty trap.
Like the old saying ‘give a person a fish and you feed them for a day, teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.’
Then there are the politicians with their own religious beliefs that they try to force on to us all like MP Kevin Andrews, who rescinded the law made in the Northern Territory about being able to take your own life when because of a terminal illness it was not worth living. What right do these people have to force their beliefs onto the rest of us. And then the fuckwits that tried to stop ‘stem cell research’ that can have far reaching benefits for mankind. It was people like them that had medical science stuck in an ignorant past for 1500 years.
How dare they, because of their mental defects caused by mental conditioning while children, force everyone to conform to their stupid superstitions.
I don’t want to stop them from wallowing in their primitive beliefs but it is outrageous that they think they can force everyone to conform.
Some people need a religion so they know what values in life to comply with and if that’s what it takes for them then they should have it. Problems arise when they force their beliefs onto others, even onto their children. Most religions develop petty little un-necessary rules that they enforce onto everyone.
I have met a few young Australians who say they have discovered what a wonderful religion is Buddhism and on the surface it appears to be humane.
But, I belong to Rotary (some might call that a religion) and one of Rotary’s programs is sending surgeons to developing Asian countries to do a series of operations that will greatly enhance the patients’ life.
These teams of surgeons keep coming across religious based difficulties such as ‘a Muslim father who will not let them perform a simple operation that will restore sight to his totally blind twelve year old daughter’.
His reason is ‘god made her blind so we must not go against the will of god!’
I particularly hate the concept of original sin. Poor little innocent babies have to be christened to excise so called original sin. I believe that the process of christening is the start of corruption which will continue to be forced onto an otherwise naturally perfect human being. I like the bit of philosophy attributed to an American Indian which goes:-
An American Indian man is instructing his son –
“My son, everyone has two wolves in them, fighting for supremacy. One wolf is bad, he does not consider others, he steals, he lies and cheats and is cruel etc.
The other wolf is considerate of others, he is good to all, he loves his parents , his wife and children, he helps others and is fair and kind to all.”
“Which one will win” asked the son.
“The one that you feed” replied the father.
Or as I gleaned from John J. Ratey MD, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School from his book called ‘The Users Guide to the Brain’:-
“The brain cells that get stimulated grow and the ones that do not get stimulated die.”
So stimulate the ‘bad’ tendencies of a child and they will be ‘bad’ people, stimulate the ‘good’ tendencies and they will be ‘good’. Of course there are widely ranging concepts of good and bad but the main principal to follow is to not squash natural instincts but to direct them to positive ends. All religions and social systems to date have endeavoured to squash natural instincts.
A child will basically develop into a better individual if allowed to be themselves.
The Elephant in the Room that no one has the courage to mention :-
I recently watched on TV a conference of experts held in America which was about ‘why the American private health system was failing’. They discussed everything except ‘The Elephant in the Room’ which in this case was “Why in America does health services cost around ten times more than in other western developed countries like Australia and the UK?”. In America an operation they discussed was exactly the same as one I had, the removal of half of the colon, ( a hemi-colonectomy) costs $30,000 American dollars when the same operation in Australia costs $3,000 Australian dollars. Obviously in America as in Australia they need a lot more doctors. Politicians are too gutless to take on the ‘College of Surgeons” who control the numbers of doctors that are produced keeping them in short supply and so creating a situation where they can charge as much as they like and get away with it. Politicians are afraid that when they need a doctor they may not receive the best treatment if they criticize that profession.
The huge ‘Elephant in the Room’ at the “Global Warming World Conferences” which is never mentioned at the conference or in the media is the root cause of “Global Warming” which is “Over Population of the planet”.
For centuries missionaries of all kinds have been teaching less developed peoples how to improve their standard of health which is ‘how to control the rate of death’ but never teaching at the same time ‘how to control the rate of birth’. This has been a grossly neglected problem as has been the excessive production of carbon by industrial countries. As long ago as the eighteenth century Thomas Malthus, 1766 – 1834, predicted that there will be a global population explosion and in the 1960’s some brave scientists were predicting a “World population Explosion” which seems to be forgotten over the last forty years. Although the disaster Malthus predicted did not happen by his calculated dates, due to improved methods of food production, the principle remains true. The development of more efficient methods for food production only delays the inevitable consequences of over population.
The “Flies in the Ointment’ on this issue is the Pope who will not approve of Catholics using birth control.
It may not seem a problem in the main western developed countries because most of the Catholics in them ignore the Pope and practice birth control. But in mainly Catholic countries like the Philippines and most of South America, where they will not practice birth control unless their priest permits, it is a problem.
This in my opinion makes the Pope the planet’s enemy number one.
The other is the Islamic nations which are also rapidly becoming over populated especially since they have become rich due to the Western dependence on their oil. So we have, so to speak, an Arms Race between Catholic and Islam countries, each trying to out populate the other.
Even if we get atmosphere pollution and excessive waste of natural resources under control if population growth is not also controlled the solutions will be temporary and greater problems will be our heritage.
The Catholic religion is an efficient world organization and I would not want to see it destroyed but I would like to see it become less medieval and more progressive. If the Pope would just approve of “the pill’ the population explosion problem could be addressed. . I believe that a really good thing to do right now would be to limit every family on earth to two children. People could accept a two children limit but not a one child policy as they have tried inChina
They can and do determine which government will be elected. When they get bored with a particular government they simply portray them (usually concentrating on the prime minister) in a bad way.
For example when they were sick of John Howard they interpreted his attempts to make Australia safe from terrorist attacks by accusing him of making people afraid.
The example that stands out for me to be so obvious was the way they portrayed Malcolm Frazer when the media decided he had to go. Every time he was shown on television or a picture was published they portrayed him looking up his nose. People everywhere soon said “but he is sooo snooty or arrogant”.
It is called ‘sub-liminal influence’ which is illegal but the legal definition of ‘sub-liminal influence’ does not include such graphic tricks.
The worst example, in my experience, of media manipulation of the public was the way they reported the Lindy Chamberlain murder case.
When magistrate Barrett of the first enquiry into the disappearance of her baby brought down the finding that “Lindy said that a dingo did take her baby and there is no reason to not believe her”. The media put across that it was an outrageous finding and convinced the public that Lindy Chamberlain was lying. The name Dingo Barrett was bandied around.
When she was eventually tried for murder and found guilty the media then did a total back flip, changed their attack to be against the Northern Territory government and said in effect that it was ridiculous to find her guilty of murdering her baby.
It appeared to me that the public in general were convinced that a dingo could not take a baby. People in Alice Springs were wearing tee-shirts printed with ‘THE DINGO IS INOCENT’.
It has since been exposed that evidence of previous attacks by dingoes at Ayres Rock on small children was withheld from the court. I had heard of previous reports of aboriginal babies being taken by dingos which also was never brought forward during Lindy’s trial..
Although the media can not be blamed for the confusion and vitriolic attacks against Sir John Kerr in 1975 (the then Governor General) for the dismissal of Geoff Whitlam, the Prime Minister, they could have given more informed advice to the public.
The Governor General, sir John Kerr, using his ‘reserve power’ under the constitution sacked the Whitlam government in order to force an election which would allow the people to decide what should happen.
An election takes some time to prepare and to happen so the Governor General asked Malcolm Frazer to form a caretaker government so Australia would not be without a government during that time.
When the election came the Australian people elected the Liberal party with a large majority lead by Malcolm Frazer to govern Australia.
If the people of Australia had disagreed with what the Governor General did they would have re-elected the labor government.
The media made a huge fuss about it and confused every body which demonstrated without doubt that the labor party owns the minds and hearts of the media in Australia (including the TV news writers/presenters).
On TV Whitlam said stupid things like; “We may well say ‘God save the Queen’ because NOTHING will save the governor General” and “ Maintain your rage against the Governor General”
The Governor General who was a labor man died some years later He was hounded, in my opinion, to death by labor followers who maintained a vitriolic attack against his person which must have cut him deeply because he believed so strongly in the labor movement.
Professional people now make decisions and diagnosis based on a ‘general rule’. Any university student in my student days (1950’s and 60’s) who made a decision based on a ‘general rule’ would be ridiculed.
For example my niece, Jeanette, might not have died from bowel cancer at the age of 20 if her doctor had not been influenced by the ‘general rule’ “young women do not get bowel cancer” Had he investigated the possibility that she might have bowel cancer because her symptoms were exactly those of bowel cancer she would have been diagnosed at least twelve months earlier and therefore would have had a good chance of survival. Every doctor I have seen over the last thirty years has at some time totally discounted certain diagnosis because of a general rule like that. I think that this attitude is not good enough for professional consultants. No one should make an important decision based on a general rule. General rules are useful for general guidance but further information should be sort to confirm a particular case. I have found that a lot of engineers and architects now make too many decisions based on ‘general rules’.
Discrimination is based on using a ‘general rule’ to classify people. Because someone hears about say, Vietnamese people involved in crime, they might say “He is Vietnamese therefore he is a criminal” which is discriminating against some individual because of applying a ‘general rule’
Restrictions placed on scientific studies are also a disease of socialist Australia (and even the world). Whenever some incident is to be studied by scientists or other experts they are forced to do it according to a ‘Terms of Reference’ which restricts what aspects of the case they are permitted to study so that no politically sensitive issues will be uncovered. The case where in an ABC office in Toowong Queensland “every woman who worked at a certain desk got breast cancer” was an excellent opportunity to discover at least one aspect of the cause of breast cancer. I do not know what the ‘Terms of Reference’ was for that study but judging by the report given by the scientist who did the study it must have been ‘to look for Radiation’ because his report said “No radiation was found”.
The building has now been demolished. What a great opportunity has been lost to possibly make a breakthrough discovery.
They should have looked for every minute difference between this desk and other desks including the space around it. They should have kept the building and made it a place to study. Was it a material used in the construction of the desk??? Did they study magnetic fields, was the UPS for their computers under or near this desk and etc.????. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people who spend a lot of time near electrical transformers get cancer. A UPS has a transformer in it. The current general rule used to explain away a cluster of incidence like the above breast cancer is “Clusters do occur in random incidents”.
I believe that the science of psychology has very badly let down humanity.
By now psychologists should be able to take, for example, habitual criminals and cure them so that they become a healthy component of our community. Instead criminals are still just ‘warehoused’ until their prison term is served and go back into the community with unchanged attitudes until they are caught again. I wonder why the current level of psychology is so impotent. Is it because this science is also restricted by political constraints?????. I believe it is.
Other examples are Obesity, depression, anorexia, bulimia and drug dependency which have to be psychological problems which psychologists are failing to cure. And I believe that poverty is a psychological disease at least in the Western World.
Too many Psychologists are just treating the symptoms with drugs. Drugs are alright to bring the patient temporarily to a condition where they can be psychologically treated and eventually cured but drugs are not a cure. I do not mean that they should take draconian primitive measures like shock treatment or lobotomies’.
I particularly hate people who try to build themselves up by putting others down. They think that by making someone feel small they are making themselves big which is false. The concerning thing is that most people can not tell the difference. Most lawyers and politicians fit this category.
Now that I have said that I have to defend myself because the media and most people would interpret that to mean 'all lawyers and politicians' fit this category but I said 'most' not 'all'. I can name some who don't fit that category. For example my nephew, Chris Hanna, is both a lawyer and a politician but is not the least like that. Then there is Paul Everingham also both a lawyer and politician who is fair, treats everyone equally and is truthful and that is why he did not survive as a politician.
I forget which past American president (and no one I know remembers) said “You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”. Well, I think today, all of the people are being fooled all of the time.
Grump, grump, grump.
Occasionally we see something good happening.
I quote from the Reader’s Digest (Australia) October 2008:
‘Guerrilla gardening grows in city streets.’
Apparently people living in cities are growing gardens in any piece of earth they can find, traffic islands, sides of footpaths, median strips and alongside rail way lines.
What nice people they must be.
Life is good though. But the only real ‘fair’ society allows anyone from any background by their efforts to make their own life as good as they are able but it has to be without depriving or hurting others.
GRUMPY OLD MAN
While hanging around when shopping with Jill in early December, looking around at all of the Christmas
Decoration I said “I wish Father Christmas wasn’t true”.
This government brought about a social revolution that Australia still suffers from.
Although they introduced social reforms that Australia needed they ‘threw the baby out with the bath water’.(threw out the good with the bad).
For example when much needed social changes for the recognition of women as equal partners to men laws were made to try to enforce equality but these laws were un-necessarily discriminatory in favour of women and therefore against men and have served to empower women to exploit the system if they so desire and many do.
There are many examples but one really obvious one is the way Russian women have been marrying vulnerable Australian men, divorcing them after a year (or two depending on the current law), taking half of their life time accumulated wealth and returning to Russia wealthy women by their standards. An obvious premeditated robbery and our law empowers these women to do it.
Every law should treat every person equally and not discriminate. Affirmative action is discrimination.
And the new order was supposed to give women more choices when in fact they simply changed the choices. Women who now want to be home makers and stay at home mums find that choice difficult because of the social and economic pressures to not take that choice. Now only strong independent women have the courage to be ‘stay at home mums’.
There is nothing more ugly than aggressive, arrogant and domineering women which characteristics grow from ignorance and incompetence. This statement equally applies to men but some women think that by being like men makes them equal to men. Equality is not about being ‘the same as.’
The high priestess of this was Germaine Greer. I have seen on television a section of one of her early public meetings held in the early seventies and often repeated. She addressed a hall full of women with about five men scattered throughout. One man asked the question “Could you tell us what it is that you actually want’ you have spoken at length about what you think is wrong with society in regard to women but said nothing about what you want. If we knew what it is that you want we could help you achieve it”
Ms. Greer’s condescending reply was “Don’t you worry sir, it is nothing that you have”.
I thought “What an arrogant, condescending bully of a woman.”
The audience actually applauded her answer.
They had obviously been bemused by her motivating speech and she had won them to ‘her side’ just like Hitler had won the crowds by his ravings.
Then really stupid politicians in power at the time made laws that discriminate in favour of women and the funny thing is that these politicians were all men. How moronic can politicions get.
The same mistakes were made in relation to anti discrimination towards aboriginals, migrants, employees and the disabled. Laws should treat them all as equals and not discriminate in favour of them.
Arguments about women being discriminated against between evangelistic socialists and myself were always based on comparing “apples with pairs’. Whenever I say that there is nothing unfair about a women doing the housework, cooking and minding the kids it is in the context of the woman not going to work and the man going to work and providing the income for the family. A situation economically difficult in today’s economy. The socialists always assume that the woman is going to work as well as doing all of the household chores in which case I totally agree is not fair to the woman..
.
The only real answer to all of these social problems is a good rounded real factual education for all.
But since the 1970’s socialist political agendas have to be first excised from our education agendas.
The huge mistake that Australian politicians made in the early part of the twentieth century was to make laws to protect unions. This was done because un-ethical bosses were sacking or not employing workers because they had joined a union. The mistake was to make laws that gave unions a privileged position in the eyes of the law which enabled unions to grow very powerful until it reached a stage where no government could do anything unless the unions agreed. For some strange reason some unions set about destroying their own industries, they obviously had a secret agenda not related to protecting their members jobs because they actually did destroy their members jobs????. And sometimes still do.
Unions actually destroyed the great Vestey’s Meat Works in Darwin which was at the time the biggest industry in the Northern Territory. What help was that to their members???. At the moment, although the unions’ absolute power has at last been modified, they still cause some of our major industries to be uncompetitive with international equivalents through their insistence on stupidly pedantic “trade demarcation” rules which does not give any benefits to their members but increases costs to us, the consumers, which includes their workers. For example, public transport in Australia is far too expensive to run and consequently loses money because it is an area where unions still dominate.
Trade demarcation in the public transport sector brings advantages to no one but disadvantages to everyone. It means that at least five time more than necessary employees have to be paid to run the systems. Most employees have only about two hours of work to do every day and so they are bored out of their minds.
The laws they made to protect unions should not have discriminated in favour of unions and should have just put them on an equal footing with every other organization. Closed workshops (where you could not work in an industry unless you belonged to the union) controlled all of the main industries in Australia by the 1950’s. This was in effect compulsory unionism. No other aspect of Australian society was allowed by law to hold such a total controlling monopoly. Some of the big and strong unions were actually organized crime equivalent to the mafia organization. Prime Minister Bob Hawk, a past union leader, brought some sense into some of the unions but it wasn’t until the Howard Liberal government made compulsory unionism unlawful that gave workers freedom of choice and broke the monopolies.
Succeeding Liberal governments have not repealed the laws introduced by the Whitlam labor government and following labor governments that discriminate against the people who actually produce the national wealth. For example they have still not repealed the ‘unfair dismissal laws’ and the ‘anti discrimination laws’ that discriminate although they tried to get around the problem these laws cause, with their ‘work choices’ ideas which was too little too late.
Now Employers are discriminated against.
An employer has to work for the taxation department for nothing and will be heavily fined or gaoled if he (or one of his staff) makes a mistake while working for the Taxation department for no pay. They have to, for the tax department, deduct from their employees’ wages the tax that his employees have to pay, pay it to the taxation department and keep the records. Now they also have to pay into an employees’ superannuation fund to try to provide for their employees future. Redundancy payments can bankrupt a small business.
It was in about 1944 that the Australian labor government made it compulsory for employers to pay their employees tax for them. They called it ‘pay as you earn’ but failed to point out that it actually makes slaves of employers.
I see this as being patronizing towards the employees.
Now they are talking about making employers pay women while they stay home and have babies. The reason women no longer want to be ‘stay at home’ mums is because of the social changes brought about by the Whitlam labor government. These measures make people into subjects of ‘The State’ which reduces freedom every time such measures are introduced..
Employees should be responsible for paying their own tax and for providing for their own future. If they are not capable of doing that then our education system has failed.
It is the responsibility of the taxation department to collect taxes so if employers are doing it for them they should be compensated. If a small business has more than about ten employees then they need to employ an extra person to do the work that the taxation department require of them. If a small business has less than about ten employees then the owner of the business usually has to work at night or during weekends to do the work that the taxation department requires.
My generation was already living by more progressive social standards, like equal pay for equal work, and only the idiots of the community were not. Social changes that were important and not destructive were already happening and I believe Australia would have developed into the most progressive and genuinely wealthy country in the world had the Whitlam lead labor party not won that election in 1972.
The level of un-employment after eleven years of liberal government, although close now in 2007, has never been lower since the 1950’s and 60’s.
Strange how unemployment is always higher under labor governments who are supposed to be supportive of “workers”
Instead our economy was destroyed as were the good parts of our social structure including education and consequently un-employment has been high since. Social un-rule, drug taking, dysfunctional families and dysfunctional individuals and the number of suicides have greatly increased.
In fact suicides have probably increased by a much greater rate than we are currently aware because they are now not allowed to be reported in the news.
The Whitlam labor government by introducing laws to ‘get at’ big and exploiting companies made laws that did not affect these big companies but destroyed ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND small businesses in the first two years of their rule. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy.
Inflation caused by the Whitlam Labor government was horrendous and caused a great deal of bankruptcies and un-employment that followed.
I was building a ‘state of the art’ hotel for a dynamic new Australian company, called ‘Highway Motels’. They were building a chain of motels and hotels around Australia when the cost of building increased by over forty per cent in one year. This outrageous cost increase sent the company bankrupt. There has to be some way of making a government that causes this sort of disaster accountable.
When Whitlam held a lunch meeting with some Alice Springs business men (to which I was invited) he held it in the dining room of the new ‘Highways Hotel’ that I had completed less than a year previous and I wondered if he knew that he had destroyed the Australian company that had built it.
My input to this meeting was a concern about the rapidly rising rate of inflation causing everyone to stop building because no-one knew what the end cost of their building would be. Whitlam seemed to consider that this remark was of no consequence and made no comment.
I had been arguing myself hoarse with all of the local socialists because it was the official stance of the labor government that ‘increases in wages does not cause inflation’. My argument was that “there is no other cost on anything other than wages”, steel is free until you pay someone to dig up iron and pay someone to convert it to steel then pay someone to transport it” so an increase in wages has a multiplying effect on the cost of everything.
I found out much later that the logic behind the socialist claim that increases in wages does not cause inflation was because they had in their tiny minds redefined ‘inflation’ which of course does not alter the facts. Their new definition was “Although increases in wages does drive prices up because wages have increased the worker’s buying power does not decrease therefore their has been no inflation’????.
It was not until the Keating labor government that labor finally admitted that big inflation was a bad thing.
The socialist theory of economics is not based on fact and that is why every labor government, state or federal, has always gone ‘bankrupt’. The academic ‘socialists’ believe that “if you buy a shirt you are depriving someone else of a shirt”. By that logic they tell me that it is because we in Australia have such a high standard of living Africans are starving ??. I say it is because the Africans have got it wrong.
When the Whitlam labor government was running their election campaign Whitlam promised that he would close down Pine Gap, the American – Australian Joint Space Research Facility near Alice Springs, as soon as he was elected. Soon after he won that election he visited Pine Gap and nothing more was said by any labor politician about closing it down and the interesting thing is that the media also totally dropped the subject of Pine Gap.
Another idiot thing the Whitlam labor government did soon after their election in 1972 was to do away with the ‘Administrator of the Northern Territory’ because they did not want this ‘royalist type’ of government. This move meant that every thing in the Territory came to a stop because the whole of the Northern Territory system of government was based on the ‘Administrator’ having to give ascent to everything before it could happen. The labor government had to appoint a new administrator so the Territory could function. This demonstrates how totally ignorant they were.
Basically this socialist revolution empowered the “bloody idiots” of our communities who now appear to have all the advantages of a prejudiced legal and justice system. Decisions are now made on egotistical and 'politically correct' bases instead of for logical factual reasons. The definition of “FAIR’ has been changed to mean ‘in favour of the underprivileged’. THE LAW MAKERS HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT EMPLOYERS ARE PEOPLE TOO.
Beginning with the Whitlam labor government disabled and other previously underprivileged people have been elevated to be discriminated in favour above ordinary people at the cost to ordinary people.
I agree that these people should not be discriminated against but they should not be elevated to be considered above others for many reasons one of which is ‘that it is patronising to do so.
And the attitude of the ‘ordinary Australian has changed for the worse.
Before 1972 the ruling philosophy of the ordinary Australian was to ‘give everyone a fair go’ but now it is acceptable and common to :
* Kick someone when they are down, quite often until they are dead.
(I recently saw on TV an interview with a Brisbane surgeon who was greatly concerned at the large increase in the number of young men having to have serious facial bone reconstruction.) (It used to be unacceptable for an Australian to kick someone when they are down, any one who did would have been “excommunicated’ from their group. And be called "a dingo").
* Beat a woman
* Beat a child to death
* Drink until they are sick or unconscious.
Take drugs and or alcohol that cause them to be dysfunctional and need medical treatment at the taxpayers’ expense
* Rob your neighbour.
* Steal cars
* Be a burden on others.
* Resolve disputes by a punch in the face. TV soapies show even young women doing this.
* And generally have the attitude that ‘society owes me’.
The low standard of people that we now call Australians is also evident in the type of persons that you get as tenants when you rent out a house or a flat.
Part of my retirement plan was to have a mix of sources of income, like two or three flats from which I could get rent and some money earning interest. Over the past twelve years I have had three flats, one in a holiday resort and two ordinary units. The one in a resort I sold some five years ago because the body corporate and management fees became so expensive that the return on my investment was under four percent. The other two flats have had tenants for at least half of the twelve years that were so bad that both have gone from being fully furnished to unfurnished because the tenants have destroyed the furniture. Getting the rent paid was always a continuous struggle. The filth and damage they left behind you would not believe.
I have just, after a long procedure required by law, got rid of a tenant in my unit 10, 3 Morning Close, Port Douglas who continually neglected to pay her rent and by the time she left I am owed $3,460.
The law relating to tenant and landlord agreements in Queensland (which the government claims to be fair!!!) says that if the landlord does not comply with the agreement the government will prosecute them but if the tenant does not comply, the landlord may prosecute the tenant. Fair, bullshit???
It would cost me about $30,000 in legal fees to attempt to get my $3,460 back.
So I have put my unit on the market.
On the TV news you hear all sorts of experts’ reasons why there is now a serious shortage of rental properties but none mentions the real reasons because it is not politically correct to blame the tenants.
The predominant attitude of young adults of Australia and many western countries is that landlords, business persons and bosses are unfeeling, unfair and exploiting bastards. I think they teach that at schools. There are a few like that but the majority are fair, trustworthy and definitely do not exploit their customers. It is much more common that tenants, shop attendants and workers exploit their bosses.
There are quite a lot of young Australians who are very decent and lovely people who work and run good and ethical businesses. It is they who create the national wealth that allows governments to get plenty of tax to foster the activities of the despots. Unfortunately the number of indecent Australians is increasing and they now outnumber the decent ones. The national social budget has gone from 15% of GNP pre 1972 to over 35%. in 2007. And no one was worse off before 1972.
You can now be proud to be a useless drug dependant despot, it makes you a good ozzie bloke.
I know that the socialist political parties have convinced the younger generation that these things are not worse than they were before the socialist revolution and that it was all just as bad before. “It is just that it wasn’t reported as widely so people didn’t know” they claim
Well I know how it was then and the population was smaller, news still got around and in fact we knew more detail of what was happening than anyone does now. For example there was no suppressing of politically inconvenient news like suicides as there is now.
Basically Australians have lost all dignity.
In my opinion the book called ‘Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond is totally on the wrong track. It is dedicated to the ‘politically correct’ concept that all peoples are equal and it has been only due to the accident that, in the beginning, domesticatable animals were available to the few who have advanced to the current standard of knowledge, the ability to dominate natural constraints build machines to work for us and to kill many thousands of people in a day.
Although I don’t disagree with the concept that there is no difference between Races of people in basic intelligence it is my opinion that the concept touted in this book is total crap. The main reason that this or that society has stagnated is due to their social systems (including religion) that restrain any individual from doing anything slightly different.
If anyone stepped outside of the ‘square’ they were killed.
Take the Australian Aborigine who has been exposed to our domestic animals for over two hundred years. They could easily have by now taken advantage of horses, donkeys, goats and camels to lighten their load (there are plenty available) and they could have used cows and goats to help with a more reliable source of food (especially for their children) but they have not. The American Indian soon made use of horses that white men took to their country. No, it is their culture that stops them from progressing.
I recently saw on television on the aboriginal program called ‘Message Stick’ a tribal aboriginal say “The white man is silly (which I agreed with in relation to aboriginals), he is always changing his law, Law can not be changed, the Law is unchangeable by man, the Law is the Law, how can we respect white man's law when they are always changing it.”
That is a good description of a stagnant society. We probably do change our laws too easily especially in relation to aboriginal affairs but to have a society in which Law can never change is stagnation. There are many aspects of aboriginal Law that has to change if their “life” is to improve. For example it is aboriginal Law that twins have to be killed soon after birth. City dwelling ‘do-gooders’ do not believe that aboriginals do that sort of thing but they do and their Law also discriminates against women and children.
Now Aboriginals have a choice, if they want to progress they go to white mans schools and usually live in white man’s society, and some have, but it means breaking away from the constraints of their traditional society which is very difficult for an individual to do. Their entire culture needs to change.
It is generally now believed that all white men in our past persecuted and murdered aboriginals but in fact most tried to help them improve their standard of life. The few instances of violence against aboriginals have been blown out of proportion and instances of violence by aboriginals against white settlers has been minimised and ignored. The official position of English and later Australian authorities has been to protect and help aboriginals.
Governor Macquarie opened the first schools in New South Wales including one for aboriginal children and set up the Native Institution in 1814 for the protection and advancement of aboriginals.
He also tried to teach aboriginal people how to grow their own food but they were not interested and there are still people trying to teach them how to grow their own food but without success. It is no longer viable to survive by just grazing. Eating just what nature provides.
There have been many periods when our ‘western’ society has regressed and stagnated due to, usually religious or social constraints and currently by ‘political constraints’.
Before Christianity, general knowledge of engineering, the universe, human sicknesses and how to treat them were more advanced than in our western society right up until about the eighteenth century.
I believe that our society lost about fifteen hundred years because it was dominated by a stagnate controlling religion, (which by the way had little to do with the teachings of Christ.).
Many pre-Christian civilizations had greater knowledge than did the ‘dark ages’ society of Europe.
Before Christianity some societies knew basic facts about the universe:
The Aztecs, the Moans and the Egyptians to name a few, knew that the Earth is a sphere and that it orbited around the sun. Probably the Druids of England also knew.
During the first 1500 years of Christianity they believed that the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited around the Earth and anyone who thought otherwise was killed for heresy.
They squashed true knowledge and ingenuity.
If it hadn’t been for King Henry the eighth and Martin Luther providing some competition and choice for people in religion our medics would still ( in the year 2007) be bleeding us for most illnesses including loss of blood!!! as they did for about six hundred years. And it is only quite recent, like the last 50 years or so, that people in our society had a choice of having ‘no religion at all’.
(For those who might have forgotten, King Henry the eighth broke away from the Roman Catholic religion that controlled most of the western world and was mighty powerful and in what is known as the ‘dark ages’ .They killed any one who tried to understand the workings of the human body or who tried to invent a machine or anyone who stepped outside of their square.) Before King Henry the eighth when the world was controlled by the pope you were hanged for eating meat on a Friday.
Not that the early protestants were nice people, they were just as bad with their burning of witches and cutting off hands if you worked on Sunday, but because people had a choice, all religions had to become more reasonable in order to get their share of the market.
When you get such a powerful controlling organization history shows that they always cause a lack of creative endeavour. The individual is totally repressed and ingenuity is stifled and stagnation is the result.
Communism is the latest attempt at that and evidence of its failure.
I believe that religions now provide a service to their congregation but it was not always so and they were forced to modify their behaviour because people had a choice. It is difficult to understand why people are still sucked in by religion. Looking at history, both ancient and modern, religion has always been wrong and so how can anyone assume that they are not wrong today.
The medical profession still seems to suffer from a stagnant dogmatism that makes new discoveries difficult to introduce. I was appalled at the difficulty that Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren had in having their discovery of the Helicobacter Pi-Lorrie bacteria that causes peptic ulcers accepted by the medical profession. You can see the bloody things with a simple optic microscope. And I wonder why it took so long to discover. I can imagine an astute medical student looking at a peptic ulcer in the lab. “Sir, look, there seems to be a strange bacteria type organism in this ulcer”. Without looking the professor says “don’t be stupid, haven’t you learnt that bacteria can not survive the acid environment of the stomach”!.
Another book of which I am slightly critical is ‘THE FUTURE EATERS by Tim Flannery. I think this is the most important book to be written in the twentieth century and should be studied in schools but in my opinion some of his historic assumptions are not correct. Not that they detract from the important message of this book but they do change history to be “politically correct.” He does change the concept of what our people did in Australia by reinterpreting their actions in light of current political correct attitudes.
One area where I was pleased that the author had the courage to depart from being ‘politically correct’ was his mention that the aborigines might have been responsible for the destruction by fire of the original flora and fauna of central Australia.
Even although it is politically incorrect to say so it is my opinion that they continue to destroy the environment of Australia. I saw a group of aboriginals in 1975 deliberately start a fire that burnt from some twenty kilometres South of Tennant Creek on an increasing front until it was about 100 kilometres wide and didn’t stop until it reached the hills of Queensland West of Cairns. I flew over that fire twice a month on my trips to and from Cairns.
The ‘politically correct’ belief now touted by everyone, especially authors and journalists is that the aboriginals managed the ecology of Australia for thousands of years but when you see them in their tribal situation they have no concept of thinking about the future. They will destroy a whole tree (which are now very scarce in central Australia) just to get a witchetty grub when they could have just cut out part of it. They still cut down a whole tree and take a small part of the tree to make a boomerang.
They didn’t conceive that they could possibly destroy the ‘bush’ just as white man couldn’t conceive of ever destroying the entire natural forests when they first arrived.
The whole of the soil in central Australia is grossly deficient in humus because the aboriginals have for thousands of years been burning all of the grass. The whole of Australia will eventually be the same if we keep burning every year on the pretence that it makes for smaller bush fires when they do occur.
In about 1980 Heather and I drove from Alive Springs to Darwin stopping at places of interest on the way. We stopped at Mataranka Springs and spent half a day in the thermal pool.
We drove into Edith Falls. Edith Falls was quite a long distance from the highway on a dirt road but the really sad thing was that the authorities had just done their annual burn-off and we drove through a burnt landscape all of the way. The mature trees were alive but the ground was just black ash and there was not a young tree to be seen anywhere. Obviously when these mature trees die of old age there will not be any young ones to take their place and the whole area will be desert with no humus in the soil. Even fire dependant species need about five years between fires for the young trees to survive.
When we arrived at Edith Falls all we could see was a burnt hill which we climbed and were amazed to find a valley with lush tropical growth and a rocky creek tumbling down the centre. It was a hidden paradise where we had fun allowing ourselves to be washed down the creek from one rock water hole to the next. I wondered if this rainforest would spread beyond this valley if the land was not persistently burnt.
I know that the fuel levels (mulch on the ground) has to be controlled in fire dependant forests but not so in rain forests. Because of the amount of rain that falls in the tropics the ‘fuel’ on the ground mulches into the soil and provides nutrients to the forest. Australians have been encouraged since about 1960 to grow native Australian plant gardens around their houses most of which are highly flammable. This idea was to save water but it makes whole streets and entire suburbs at risk of being destroyed by fire.
When aboriginal activists say they want reconciliation with white Australians they actually mean they want retribution.
Funny thing is that most activists are more than seventy percent white so it must have been their ancestors, not mine, who raped the aboriginal women. That is an unfair generalization. Some aboriginals are the product of a genuine love relationship between a white person and an aboriginal.
I am pleased to see Noel Pearson on TV making some very sensible statements about what aboriginals have to do to improve their life. Not always ‘what whites have to do to improve the life of aboriginals’.
Nothing positive can happen unless the aboriginals are party to the process.
These facts have to be acknowledged before we Australians can progress.
South of Alice Springs there is a place called ‘Ooramina Rocks’. These rocks have a lot of rock carvings mostly of concentric circular patterns. There used to be a notice put there by the then ‘Northern Territory Reserves Board’ which advised tourists that “These carvings were done by people, named as ‘Ulotrichi, ’ who occupied Australia before the current aboriginals (Cymotrichi) arrived about seven thousand years ago. These same people still occupy Tasmania where the current aboriginals never reached.”
The politically correct version is now that these carvings were done by the current race of aboriginals (Cymotrichi).
The pre Whitlam government version was established by early anthropologists the main one to my knowledge was professor Strehlow. Professor Strehlow was born at Hermannsburg, a German mission station that is older than Alice Springs, and is an aboriginal (Cymotrichi ) tribal area. He grew up there, played with aboriginal kids and spoke their language like a native and understood and wrote about their culture. I know who I would rather believe, Professor Strehlow rather than the authors motivated by political correctness who now spout the current politically correct version that the current race of aboriginals (Cymotrichi ) have been in Australia for 40 thousand years.
But the main point is that it does not matter whether the current race of aboriginals have been in Australia for seven thousand years or for forty thousand years. It makes no difference to their conceived entitlements or status.
The fact that activists are aggressively promoting lies about the history of themselves to me diminishes their status and credibility as a people.
There are a lot more of these carvings in a rocky valley, near Ross River Station, East of Alice Springs.
One of my friends in Alice Springs, who spent a couple of years working in an aboriginal community, wrote a book about his experiences and observations. Aboriginal activists got the book banned (because it told the truth but was in their opinion politically incorrect).
I saw the letter written to him by the court that ordered it to be banned.
It was like something you would expect to receive from a German Nazi:
You shall destroy all copies of this book
You shall not allow anyone to see this book
You shall retrieve any copies that have been distributed. Etc.
It is difficult to understand how he was to achieve this.
And the penalty was something like ten years gaol if you did not comply. My friend was so traumatized by this letter that he even refused to let me see one of the books before he destroyed them.
This sort of thing can not happen in my Australia. This is the new puritanical (fundamentalist) compulsory religion called ‘socialism’ and it is not only in Australia.
I see the world socialist movement as being the new controlling social system that will stifle human development in the future. A new age of ‘Puritanism’ has already started. Scientists findings have to be politically correct or they are ignored.
The ‘bishop’ (or head priest) of Australia in this new dogmatism is Philip Adams. I am tired of hearing his followers regurgitating his latest politically correct and anti liberal government and pro left-wing propaganda on ABC radio and as it appears in the Weekend Australian news-paper magazine.
I read somewhere "According to Philip Adams he is the son of a Christian bishop and he rebelled against the established church because he saw, as I did as a kid, many bad aspects of their actual practices and inhumanity to people they did not approve of and so he joined the communist party." He now says that he has not been a member of the communist party for many years. However long after he became a millionaire, until about 2005, he always wore a communist hat. Since the Berlin wall came down he can no longer say that “it is just western propaganda” when anyone states the fact that ‘communism was actually worse than Nazism’.
In my oppinion all he has done (whether a communist or a socialist) is to exchange one religion for another because communism and socialism are just another religion. A belief in a philosophy that is not true.
But he is very good and convincing to listen to.
The Condescending and patronising attitude of these new world socialists towards the ‘working classes’ (their definition) amuses me.
If you have to discriminate in favour of the so called “working class” then they are not being treated as equal human beings.
If we stop applying our ingenuity to create a sustainable future we will destroy the planet earth. Dogmatic religious beliefs stifle ingenuity. Socialism is a dogmatic cultural belief.
Labor governments have introduced legislation that discriminates in favour of persons or groups of people in our community they consider have been discriminated against in the past. They call it ‘affirmative action’, but discrimination by any other name smells. It will lead to problems in the future. The current labor government wants to include the principles of affirmative action into the Australian Constitution which would be a disaster for our society. It would ‘build in’ discrimination
The year is 2007 and the labor party has just won the federal election which means we now have a labor government in every state as well as federal. This is a good opportunity for labor to introduce ‘Death Duties’ again. So having worked all your life and been sensible with your wealth you will not be able to leave your lifetime accumulated wealth to your descendants because the government will steal it from you so they can support the ‘fuck wits of our community who have contributed nothing for the whole of their life.
One hope is that the labor treasurers have at last learnt that the government’s income has to exceed their out goings otherwise they go broke as every labor government has done in my life time. Also Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says that he is not ruled by caucus but I don’t know how he can do that, surely they will just replace him if he doesn’t do as he is told. The Labor caucus is ruled by the ‘socialist’ unions.
Finishing their term of office with a huge deficit is ’going bankrupt.
This labor government is going to ‘roll back’ ‘work choices’, an attempt made by the John Howard government to allow employers and employees to reach an employment agreement between themselves thus giving workers a choice.
Because one of the world’s biggest idiots, ‘that tunnel visioned fuckwit, Karl Marx, said “that to employ someone is to degrade them”, the agenda of the socialist movement is to take retribution against employers on behalf of their workers. Without work choices an employer cannot choose who he will employ and under what conditions.
This socialist definition of employer to employee relationship is total crap.
If you start a business or practice and you are successful then you say to someone you know, who can do the work, “if you work with me to help me get all this work done I will pay you so many dollars per week”, and the employee agrees, that is a personal agreement and no government should be able to interfere with it and that is not degrading someone.
If you advertise for an employee and a man and a woman applies for the job and you give that job to the man and then the woman claims she was discriminated against then the government will fine you, make you sack the man and employ the woman. There is no onerous on the woman to prove discrimination. The same applies to all minority groups and yet it is the employer who has to take responsibility for the action of their employees and to pay their wages and their tax and their superannuation.
Similarly if you decide that a particular employee is not performing it is almost impossible to get rid of them. If I am paying their wages and their holiday pay and their long service leave and contributing to their super fund then I say who I employ and when they go otherwise I simply do not employ anyone and have not for the above reasons since 1984.
Many people say that there is little difference between the Australian labor party and the liberal party but there is a fundamental difference.
The labor party’s fundamental belief is that poor people are caused by rich people by not giving them a fair go or by exploiting them. All of their policies are based on the answer to be ‘redistribution of wealth’ which is stealing from those who have created wealth and giving it to the poor. ‘The Robin Hood Syndrome’. I call it. History demonstrates that no matter how much you give to the desperately poor they will be poor again is a short space of time. Poverty in my opinion is a state of mind.
The liberal party’s philosophy is to educate the poor so that they can get themselves out of and stay out of the poverty trap.
Like the old saying ‘give a person a fish and you feed them for a day, teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.’
Then there are the politicians with their own religious beliefs that they try to force on to us all like MP Kevin Andrews, who rescinded the law made in the Northern Territory about being able to take your own life when because of a terminal illness it was not worth living. What right do these people have to force their beliefs onto the rest of us. And then the fuckwits that tried to stop ‘stem cell research’ that can have far reaching benefits for mankind. It was people like them that had medical science stuck in an ignorant past for 1500 years.
How dare they, because of their mental defects caused by mental conditioning while children, force everyone to conform to their stupid superstitions.
I don’t want to stop them from wallowing in their primitive beliefs but it is outrageous that they think they can force everyone to conform.
Some people need a religion so they know what values in life to comply with and if that’s what it takes for them then they should have it. Problems arise when they force their beliefs onto others, even onto their children. Most religions develop petty little un-necessary rules that they enforce onto everyone.
I have met a few young Australians who say they have discovered what a wonderful religion is Buddhism and on the surface it appears to be humane.
But, I belong to Rotary (some might call that a religion) and one of Rotary’s programs is sending surgeons to developing Asian countries to do a series of operations that will greatly enhance the patients’ life.
These teams of surgeons keep coming across religious based difficulties such as ‘a Muslim father who will not let them perform a simple operation that will restore sight to his totally blind twelve year old daughter’.
His reason is ‘god made her blind so we must not go against the will of god!’
I particularly hate the concept of original sin. Poor little innocent babies have to be christened to excise so called original sin. I believe that the process of christening is the start of corruption which will continue to be forced onto an otherwise naturally perfect human being. I like the bit of philosophy attributed to an American Indian which goes:-
An American Indian man is instructing his son –
“My son, everyone has two wolves in them, fighting for supremacy. One wolf is bad, he does not consider others, he steals, he lies and cheats and is cruel etc.
The other wolf is considerate of others, he is good to all, he loves his parents , his wife and children, he helps others and is fair and kind to all.”
“Which one will win” asked the son.
“The one that you feed” replied the father.
Or as I gleaned from John J. Ratey MD, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School from his book called ‘The Users Guide to the Brain’:-
“The brain cells that get stimulated grow and the ones that do not get stimulated die.”
So stimulate the ‘bad’ tendencies of a child and they will be ‘bad’ people, stimulate the ‘good’ tendencies and they will be ‘good’. Of course there are widely ranging concepts of good and bad but the main principal to follow is to not squash natural instincts but to direct them to positive ends. All religions and social systems to date have endeavoured to squash natural instincts.
A child will basically develop into a better individual if allowed to be themselves.
The Elephant in the Room that no one has the courage to mention :-
I recently watched on TV a conference of experts held in America which was about ‘why the American private health system was failing’. They discussed everything except ‘The Elephant in the Room’ which in this case was “Why in America does health services cost around ten times more than in other western developed countries like Australia and the UK?”. In America an operation they discussed was exactly the same as one I had, the removal of half of the colon, ( a hemi-colonectomy) costs $30,000 American dollars when the same operation in Australia costs $3,000 Australian dollars. Obviously in America as in Australia they need a lot more doctors. Politicians are too gutless to take on the ‘College of Surgeons” who control the numbers of doctors that are produced keeping them in short supply and so creating a situation where they can charge as much as they like and get away with it. Politicians are afraid that when they need a doctor they may not receive the best treatment if they criticize that profession.
The huge ‘Elephant in the Room’ at the “Global Warming World Conferences” which is never mentioned at the conference or in the media is the root cause of “Global Warming” which is “Over Population of the planet”.
For centuries missionaries of all kinds have been teaching less developed peoples how to improve their standard of health which is ‘how to control the rate of death’ but never teaching at the same time ‘how to control the rate of birth’. This has been a grossly neglected problem as has been the excessive production of carbon by industrial countries. As long ago as the eighteenth century Thomas Malthus, 1766 – 1834, predicted that there will be a global population explosion and in the 1960’s some brave scientists were predicting a “World population Explosion” which seems to be forgotten over the last forty years. Although the disaster Malthus predicted did not happen by his calculated dates, due to improved methods of food production, the principle remains true. The development of more efficient methods for food production only delays the inevitable consequences of over population.
The “Flies in the Ointment’ on this issue is the Pope who will not approve of Catholics using birth control.
It may not seem a problem in the main western developed countries because most of the Catholics in them ignore the Pope and practice birth control. But in mainly Catholic countries like the Philippines and most of South America, where they will not practice birth control unless their priest permits, it is a problem.
This in my opinion makes the Pope the planet’s enemy number one.
The other is the Islamic nations which are also rapidly becoming over populated especially since they have become rich due to the Western dependence on their oil. So we have, so to speak, an Arms Race between Catholic and Islam countries, each trying to out populate the other.
Even if we get atmosphere pollution and excessive waste of natural resources under control if population growth is not also controlled the solutions will be temporary and greater problems will be our heritage.
The Catholic religion is an efficient world organization and I would not want to see it destroyed but I would like to see it become less medieval and more progressive. If the Pope would just approve of “the pill’ the population explosion problem could be addressed. . I believe that a really good thing to do right now would be to limit every family on earth to two children. People could accept a two children limit but not a one child policy as they have tried in
. I believe that a really good thing to do
right now would be to limit every family on earth to two children. People could trade the right with others who wanted no chi;dren with people who wanted four.
The media really annoys me the way they manipulate public opinion.They can and do determine which government will be elected. When they get bored with a particular government they simply portray them (usually concentrating on the prime minister) in a bad way.
For example when they were sick of John Howard they interpreted his attempts to make Australia safe from terrorist attacks by accusing him of making people afraid.
The example that stands out for me to be so obvious was the way they portrayed Malcolm Frazer when the media decided he had to go. Every time he was shown on television or a picture was published they portrayed him looking up his nose. People everywhere soon said “but he is sooo snooty or arrogant”.
It is called ‘sub-liminal influence’ which is illegal but the legal definition of ‘sub-liminal influence’ does not include such graphic tricks.
The worst example, in my experience, of media manipulation of the public was the way they reported the Lindy Chamberlain murder case.
When magistrate Barrett of the first enquiry into the disappearance of her baby brought down the finding that “Lindy said that a dingo did take her baby and there is no reason to not believe her”. The media put across that it was an outrageous finding and convinced the public that Lindy Chamberlain was lying. The name Dingo Barrett was bandied around.
When she was eventually tried for murder and found guilty the media then did a total back flip, changed their attack to be against the Northern Territory government and said in effect that it was ridiculous to find her guilty of murdering her baby.
It appeared to me that the public in general were convinced that a dingo could not take a baby. People in Alice Springs were wearing tee-shirts printed with ‘THE DINGO IS INOCENT’.
It has since been exposed that evidence of previous attacks by dingoes at Ayres Rock on small children was withheld from the court. I had heard of previous reports of aboriginal babies being taken by dingos which also was never brought forward during Lindy’s trial..
Although the media can not be blamed for the confusion and vitriolic attacks against Sir John Kerr in 1975 (the then Governor General) for the dismissal of Geoff Whitlam, the Prime Minister, they could have given more informed advice to the public.
The Governor General, sir John Kerr, using his ‘reserve power’ under the constitution sacked the Whitlam government in order to force an election which would allow the people to decide what should happen.
An election takes some time to prepare and to happen so the Governor General asked Malcolm Frazer to form a caretaker government so Australia would not be without a government during that time.
When the election came the Australian people elected the Liberal party with a large majority lead by Malcolm Frazer to govern Australia.
If the people of Australia had disagreed with what the Governor General did they would have re-elected the labor government.
The media made a huge fuss about it and confused every body which demonstrated without doubt that the labor party owns the minds and hearts of the media in Australia (including the TV news writers/presenters).
On TV Whitlam said stupid things like; “We may well say ‘God save the Queen’ because NOTHING will save the governor General” and “ Maintain your rage against the Governor General”
The Governor General who was a labor man died some years later He was hounded, in my opinion, to death by labor followers who maintained a vitriolic attack against his person which must have cut him deeply because he believed so strongly in the labor movement.
Professional people now make decisions and diagnosis based on a ‘general rule’. Any university student in my student days (1950’s and 60’s) who made a decision based on a ‘general rule’ would be ridiculed.
For example my niece, Jeanette, might not have died from bowel cancer at the age of 20 if her doctor had not been influenced by the ‘general rule’ “young women do not get bowel cancer” Had he investigated the possibility that she might have bowel cancer because her symptoms were exactly those of bowel cancer she would have been diagnosed at least twelve months earlier and therefore would have had a good chance of survival. Every doctor I have seen over the last thirty years has at some time totally discounted certain diagnosis because of a general rule like that. I think that this attitude is not good enough for professional consultants. No one should make an important decision based on a general rule. General rules are useful for general guidance but further information should be sort to confirm a particular case. I have found that a lot of engineers and architects now make too many decisions based on ‘general rules’.
Discrimination is based on using a ‘general rule’ to classify people. Because someone hears about say, Vietnamese people involved in crime, they might say “He is Vietnamese therefore he is a criminal” which is discriminating against some individual because of applying a ‘general rule’
Restrictions placed on scientific studies are also a disease of socialist Australia (and even the world). Whenever some incident is to be studied by scientists or other experts they are forced to do it according to a ‘Terms of Reference’ which restricts what aspects of the case they are permitted to study so that no politically sensitive issues will be uncovered. The case where in an ABC office in Toowong Queensland “every woman who worked at a certain desk got breast cancer” was an excellent opportunity to discover at least one aspect of the cause of breast cancer. I do not know what the ‘Terms of Reference’ was for that study but judging by the report given by the scientist who did the study it must have been ‘to look for Radiation’ because his report said “No radiation was found”.
The building has now been demolished. What a great opportunity has been lost to possibly make a breakthrough discovery.
They should have looked for every minute difference between this desk and other desks including the space around it. They should have kept the building and made it a place to study. Was it a material used in the construction of the desk??? Did they study magnetic fields, was the UPS for their computers under or near this desk and etc.????. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people who spend a lot of time near electrical transformers get cancer. A UPS has a transformer in it. The current general rule used to explain away a cluster of incidence like the above breast cancer is “Clusters do occur in random incidents”.
I believe that the science of psychology has very badly let down humanity.
By now psychologists should be able to take, for example, habitual criminals and cure them so that they become a healthy component of our community. Instead criminals are still just ‘warehoused’ until their prison term is served and go back into the community with unchanged attitudes until they are caught again. I wonder why the current level of psychology is so impotent. Is it because this science is also restricted by political constraints?????. I believe it is.
Other examples are Obesity, depression, anorexia, bulimia and drug dependency which have to be psychological problems which psychologists are failing to cure. And I believe that poverty is a psychological disease at least in the Western World.
Too many Psychologists are just treating the symptoms with drugs. Drugs are alright to bring the patient temporarily to a condition where they can be psychologically treated and eventually cured but drugs are not a cure. I do not mean that they should take draconian primitive measures like shock treatment or lobotomies’.
I particularly hate people who try to build themselves up by putting others down. They think that by making someone feel small they are making themselves big which is false. The concerning thing is that most people can not tell the difference. Most lawyers and politicians fit this category.
Now that I have said that I have to defend myself because the media and most people would interpret that to mean 'all lawyers and politicians' fit this category but I said 'most' not 'all'. I can name some who don't fit that category. For example my nephew, Chris Hanna, is both a lawyer and a politician but is not the least like that. Then there is Paul Everingham also both a lawyer and politician who is fair, treats everyone equally and is truthful and that is why he did not survive as a politician.
I forget which past American president (and no one I know remembers) said “You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”. Well, I think today, all of the people are being fooled all of the time.
Grump, grump, grump.
So, Communities of the world, I say to you –:
STOP
WRONG WAY
BUT DO NOT GO BACK
GO FORWARD
WITHOUT POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
Occasionally we see something good happening.
I quote from the Reader’s Digest (Australia) October 2008:
‘Guerrilla gardening grows in city streets.’
Apparently people living in cities are growing gardens in any piece of earth they can find, traffic islands, sides of footpaths, median strips and alongside rail way lines.
What nice people they must be.
Life is good though. But the only real ‘fair’ society allows anyone from any background by their efforts to make their own life as good as they are able but it has to be without depriving or hurting others.
While hanging around when shopping with Jill in early December, looking around at all of the Christmas
Decoration I said “I wish Father Christmas wasn’t true”.
No comments:
Post a Comment