Now that ANZAC day is fast approaching what better way to honour the diggers of yesteryear than a good anti-Australian conspiracy rant from John Pilger via the ABC – paid for by tax-payers of course. Pilger’s article is full of strange anecdotes about people blowing their heads up and something about Australian troops being US mercenaries. Pilger’s first claim that can actually be subjected to some type of test is:
The assault on the Turkish Dardanelles was one of the essential crimes of imperial war…
Crime according to what law? Well we are not told. Pilger’s entire career is based on making points that rarely have any reference to evidence or are even elaborated with stylised facts. That does not seem to stop the ABC lapping Pilger up though. He goes on:
Anzac Day has become the preserve of those who manipulate the cult of state violence – militarism – in order to satisfy a psychopathic deference to foreign power and to pursue its aims. And the “legend” has no room for the only war fought on Australian soil: that of the Aboriginal people against the European invaders. In a land of cenotaphs, not one stands for them.
Evidence for this Aboriginal war? Well Pilger does not bother discussing any.
Australia’s military budget is A$32 billion a year, one of the highest in the world. Australian Cruise missiles will soon be aimed at Asia for the first time.
????? Anyone reading the above statement might think Australia some type of imperial power. I think it is a fair bet that China has a military budget much bigger than ours. Not a word though from Pilger. But guess whose fault it really is:
Rupert Murdoch controls 70 per cent of the capital city press and his “ethic” is widespread.
Oh boy….reach for the pills….. It gets crazier. Pilger claims the US was part of a plot or coup to get rid of Rudd. Gillard is apparently some type of US spy or something. Then some how Pilger starts writing about:
….a dozen horses of the Sydney Tramway Company also “answered the call” but expired during the long voyage.
Relevance??? Then Pilger ends with an anti-Israel rant and something about Nazis, of course.
TAX PAYERS HAVE PAID FOR THIS RUBBISH!!!!!!
From today’s weekend edition of the Australian:
….the conservative historian Robert Manne…
One could not find a more ‘un-conservative’ historian.
What is the comparison between human induced climate change and eugenics? Niall Ferguson has written a new book with a video series to go with it about the rise of western civilization. One of the key aspects of this rise was the invention of modern medicine. Ferguson outlines how eugenics became a diversion – a pseudoscience – from scientific research that would actually help people. The killer punch is his claim that the scientific commitment to eugenics 100 years ago was as strong as the scientific commitment today to human induced climate change. He does not say it, but the implications are the same. A study a couple of years ago by Joanne Nova found that the US government alone has spent $79 billion on climate change related projects from 1989 – 2009, while total climate change financial transactions in one year are worth about $130 billion. By contrast according to the Copenhagen Consensus if the world spent $1.2 billion per year on fighting malnutrition and hunger 12 million lives could be saved every year – essentially eradicating the worst of the problem within a few years.
James Delingpole over at the UK Telegraph has picked up on the same programme and issue. This is the actual quote from the TV series:
“The important point to note is that 100 years ago, work like Galton’s was at the cutting edge of scientific research. Racism wasn’t some backward-looking reactionary ideology: it was the state of the art and people then believed in it as readily as people today BUY the theory of man-made climate change.”
Howard is answering questions on Q&A tonight. At the same time the ABC is broadcasting personal abuse against Howard at the bottom of the screen from twitter account holders. Charming.
A pro-terrorist David Hicks and Saddam Hussein supporter threw his shoes at Howard when he didn’t like the answer he got about the Iraq War. It is hard to believe the ABC didn’t plan that by inviting such a feral into the auidence.
The left are asking the typical fact challenged questions about illegal immigration, ‘stolen’ generations and the Iraq War, usually preferenced about being ashamed to be Australian, etc…
The twitter respondents are raving mad that Howard has not changed his mind on the major issues of our time. The left just don’t realise conservatism is right because history is so clearly on our side. Why get blown about by the winds?
Newspoll has the Coalition ahead 52-48 tonight. This comes after the SMH poll showing the Coalition ahead 51-49 today. Apparently there has been a six point drop in the ALP primary vote outside of capital cities. Do you think the two independents are going to change their minds? Unlikely. They have made their bed with the devil and are completely burnt – like crusty fat at the bottom of a BBQ.
It is hard to believe that the ABC did not set John Howard up when one of the audience members threw his shoes at him during Q&A.
Peter Gray the shoe thrower, is basically a professional protester including having once jumped up and down on a police car.
The producers of Q&A placed Peter Gray front and centre of the audience in perfect firing line for throwing shoes at John Howard.
Gray started throwing his shows a minute after the ABC broadcasted a Twitter comment calling on someone to commence the shoe throwing.
When the throwing began security didn’t exactly rush in to stop him. In fact it appeared they waited until he had finished throwing both his shows before they bothered to do anything.
This has to be the lowest ebb of Q&A, a programme already notorious for ambushing conservatives.
Gillard is an atheist. Fine. Everyone is entitled to their own personal choices free of government interference. It’s called individual liberty, something the left do not always subscribed to, but something that should be respected. So it was no surprise that Gillard skipped out on the parliamentary church service to welcome in the new parliament today. Gillard also refused to swear an oath to God in becoming PM. That’s her business, no need for vain hollow acts.
However, in rejecting Christianity and in the customs that follow,why did Gillard (and Abbott!) endorse and attend the aboriginal ‘welcome ceremony’ for the new parliament today? The ‘welcome ceremony’ is a quasi-religious event that has nothing to do with the Constitution or Westminister custom. More to the point, ‘welcome ceremonies’ have nothing to do with Australia: the political idea of the world’s only unified, democratic and free continent-nation, a distinctively non-aboriginal concept. What type gall must a person have to think they can ‘welcome’ Australians to the country they and by implication their ancestors conceived of and built up?!?!
“On the occasion of this opening of the 43rd Parliament I welcome you,”
So said the chief witch doctor:
“With this welcome I express the hope of a united, reconciled nation, the oldest living culture joined with the many diverse cultures of a modern successful Australia.”
Apart from the fact that when Howard was PM no one from the left was calling for unity or political consensus, and also the habitually dubious claim that aboriginal culture is the oldest living today: what aspect of Aboriginal culture are we all meant to be reconciled with at this time?
Gee where to begin, ritual torture and abuse? Welfare and drug dependency? Don’t say happy unified families and communities. This is not an aboriginal idea more an aspirational ideal shared by most Australians.
Now we have Gillard via the GG pushing the ‘first Australian’ mantra.
….the need for constitutional reform to recognise the First Australians and local government were also of “great significance in this term.”
And of course the political elite don’t mean the first people to actually identify and call themselves Australians. The first recorded English usage of the name ‘Australia’ was by Matthew Flinders in 1814. Governor Macquarie began to use the name from 1817 and from then onwards British people born in Australia began to call themselves Australian. The first Australians, a geographic and then a demographic term.
As far as we know aboriginals had no coherent concept of a continent. Supposed mythical dreams and maps interpreted and ‘discovered’ by sympathetic academics are not a substitute for the former. Nor were Aboriginals unified as a common people who identified themselves as Australians or anything of the like.
Federation gave birth to a Australia as a political and economic concept. Aboriginals were by and large separate from the Federation process, and hence debate occurred as to if they were entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, etc…
In any of this how can the political elite claim that aboriginals of today, with all their genealogical and mitochondrial dna complexities, be the ‘first Australians’? It is a claim that simply says, a group of people today, who at times have a tenuous link to another group of people who lived 222 years ago, are the first Australians. If that was all one needed to do to be Australian – just turn up and have a genealogical link – then virtually anyone arriving at any of our international airports would qualify. It make very little historical sense and I’ve yet to see an explanation for it.
So who does the ABC turn to for an essay on ANZAC day? None other than a drunk and ALP hack Bob Ellis:
You know how it goes with the left. Pander to the loony crowd that work in the ABC. Their lives are miserable and it reflects on how they view the world. Ellis then makes this absurd suggestion:
…we would do as well to celebrate with marches and brass bands and bugles and flags the Myall Creek Massacre…
The fact that the perpetrators of the event were found guilt and hanged seems lost on Ellis. Maybe he does not know the details. Like most on the left, he is sloppy with his history so it would not surprise me.
The underlying issue seems to be that Ellis thinks that Australia’s participation in WWI was unnecessary. Australia was compelled to fight. Militaristic Germany possessed fortified harbours in the Pacific, threatened our supply routes and a loss for Britain would have placed Australia on the bargaining table. Further, even though Gallipoli was a defeat, in the context of the entire war it was a strategic victory. The best part of the Ottoman army was wiped out during the battle, destroying any hopes the Ottomans had of fending off the allied push through Palestine and into Syria.
Regardless, it does not take away from the sacrifice of others during the conflict. Something Ellis is determined to do. Just read some the ridiculous comments to the article. Ellis attracts flies.
Ellis then gives the typical kick in the head treatment to Christianity. Charming. I’d like my $1 back from the ABC.
Some of Bob’s mates?
VANDALS attacked a war memorial on the eve of Anzac Day, throwing rubbish around the site and snapping a flagpole.
Finally someone in the ALP fesses up to what they have known all along but been too insecure to admit:
Last night Mr Swan credited the Coalition with helping create a ”most remarkable run” in economic success. ”For those who may not know, who have somehow escaped being told several times already, we are now in the 19th year of uninterrupted economic expansion in Australia.
”Later this year we will begin the 20th year,” he told guests who included Mr Hawke, Mr Howard, Mr Keating and Mr Costello.
”This long run of prosperity … follows more than a quarter century of economic difficulty for Australians. The expansion of the world economy played a part, particularly the strength of the Asian regional economy.
”But decisions made in Canberra played a role too. I think of financial market deregulation, some of which began when John Howard was treasurer…
”We think of the continuation of financial sector reforms carried out by Peter Costello and John Howard when they were in office, in particular the prudential regulation that safeguarded our banking system during the global financial crisis. We honour John and Peter for that.”
Some though continue to be full of pride and just plain ignorance:
His words stand in contrast to those of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who last year described the Howard decade as ”indolent, perhaps not always opposing the great transformation reforms engineered by Labor during its 13 years in office but barely adding to that reform agenda”.
What a clown…
Keith Windschuttle is now accusing one of the chief proponents of the ‘stolen generations’ – Robert Manne – of distorting political history for contemporary political gain. Essentially the issue revolves around an attempt by Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory, Dr Cecil Cook, in the 1930s to institute racist Aboriginal policies across the Commonwealth. The attempts were rejected by the then Lyons government but it appears Manne – who is well known for championing left-wing pet causes – may have deliberately distorted the political record.
On September 19 1933, the Lyons Cabinet considered but failed to approve Cook’s proposal. It recommended an opinion be sought from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. At the time, the Secretary was not J. A. Carrodus, a departmental officer who Manne wrongly elevated in status to bolster his case, but Herbert Brown, who advised his Minister: “My own view is that half-castes who have been given certain rights and enjoy the franchise, should have the same privileges in respect to selecting their husbands or wives, as are enjoyed by other citizens of the Commonwealth.” Perkins agreed and based his August 1934 statement on this advice….
In failing to mention these three critical responses, while pretending the government gave “full endorsement” to the very opposite approach, Manne falsified Australian political history on an issue that he, more than almost any other academic commentator in the country, had the opportunity, the interest and the ability to investigate thoroughly and report honestly. If Manne can get away with behaviour of this kind, it would mean Australian universities no longer demand any standard of truthfulness from their academic staff.
I would think it highly unlikely that an academic inquiry be launched against Manne. It seems that the political left are pretty good at protecting their own, aka the Fabrication of Aboriginal History – Tasmania.
…so argues Keith Windschuttle in the Quadrant and his latest book: The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three, The Stolen Generations 1881–2008. By the strength of his Quadrant article, it seems the intellectual climate on the issue will begin to turn. Some observations made by KW.
- Not one Federal Court ruling has upheld the idea of a generation of Aboriginal children having been forcibly removed from their parents for the purpose of destroying the Aboriginal race,
- The High Court ruled in 1997 that there was no Aboriginal genocide,
- The figure of 50,000 children having been ‘stolen’, as argued by the PM and others, is a work of fiction. Archival evidence shows that just over 8,000 children were removed from their parents between 1910 to 1970 – some voluntarly – for a range of legitimate child welfare reasons, or reasons that were also given for removing white children from their parent(s) at the time.
- Very few infants were ever removed from their parents, the majority being teenagers who later returned to their parents after education and workplace training, while full blooded Aboriginals were mostly left alone by government officials,
Most children affected had been orphaned, abandoned, destitute, neglected or subject to various forms of domestic violence, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
- In other cases parents regularly accompanied their children to Aboriginal settlements or children were placed with Aboriginal foster parents,
- During the period of the so-called ‘genocide’ the Aboriginal population actually increased 68 per cent,
- The Joseph Lyons Commonwealth government in 1933 rejected proposals to regulate the marriage of Aboriginal half-castes,
- There is no evidence that Aboriginal activists thought there was an Aboriginal genocide during the 1960s and ’70s and…
A greater mystery is that some of the best-known of an earlier generation of Aboriginal activists had been in an even better position to see what was going on. In the 1940s and 1950s, William Ferguson, Walter Page and Pearl Gibbs actually served as directors of the Aborigines Welfare Board of New South Wales, one of the very organisations then committing the purported genocide. Yet they never realised what was happening. Of all people, they were the ones who should have identified it first. How could they possibly have missed it? If the Stolen Generations story was true, then at that very time, right across Australia, in all states and territories, scores of white welfare officials, backed by parliamentarians and senior public servants, were forcibly removing Aboriginal children to put an end to Aboriginality. How did these hundreds of white people, for a period of more than sixty years, maintain the discipline needed to keep the whole thing so quiet that Aboriginal activists like Ferguson, Page and Gibbs were oblivious to its existence? Why did no one leak the truth? A conspiracy on this scale must have been the best-kept secret in Australian history. On these grounds alone, the inherent implausibility of Read’s thesis should always have been self-evident.