Destiny magazine, issue 9

Issue Nine includes:

• Free Trade Agreements — It can be done, but is it moral?
  Andrew Phillips looks at the impact of free trade agreements upon the future of the Australian fruit-growing industry.
• Quotes of note — Economic protectionism
• Aussies Forever!
  [verse composition]
• Quotes of note — Journalism and the media
• Dark days ahead
  Terrence Odgers considers the dark possibilities of internet censorship by governments.
• The destruction of our nationhood
  Chris Steele gives his opinion on the impact upon Australia of the mass immigration programmes implemented by Liberal and Labor governments from 1966 to the present.
• Working collaboratively to build a stronger nation
  An interview with Joshua Ferguson on issues facing Australia, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
• Our other Anzac Day
  Terrence Odgers tells of his Anzac Day trip to Villers-Bretonneux and makes the point that there are many times and places where our military forces fought that should be remembered.
• Neville the useless patriot
  A look at some of those who say they will be in the fight to save the nation, but who then create an easy way out for themselves or who are otherwise useless in the real fight.
• I wanna be a Neville!
  [Some verse by The Bandicoot]
• The Kimberley Column
  Gareth Kimberley gives his views on some of the issues that have been happening around the country.
• True Finns: More success for patriots in Europe
  [A look at the successes of the True Finns party in Finland and of various other patriotic parties overseas.]
• The democratic foundations of Australian nationalism
  Andrew Guild looks at the historical basis for the democratic impulse within the ethos of Australian nationalism and as part of the wider context of Western Civilisation.
• Letters to Destiny

Australia, land of sunshine, land where I first drew breath,
My love for you is woven into my heart till death;
The smell of gums and blackboy, the earth baked ’neath the sun –
The land seems like a part of me, our destinies are one.
~ Ray, from “Song of Australia”, 1945

Australia has reached a crisis point in its history whereby the very being of its existence is under threat, imperiling the future of both the Australian people and the Australian environment.

The Australian way of life is being destroyed, not only culturally and demographically, but also environmentally.

Some scientists, such as Tim Flannery, have estimated that Australia’s population, if it is to be environmentally sustainable, should consist of no more than approximately 6 to 12 million people.

The Optimum Population Trust has estimated that — at our current standard of living — the optimum sustainable population for Australia is 10 million, although it estimates that it could be 21 million if we accept a lower standard of living. Australia’s population is already well over 23 million.

At the very least, Australia’s immigration programme should be designed so that it does not increase our population levels.

A Zero-net Immigration Policy (ZIP) is the simplest way of achieving this goal. It is easily implemented, easily overseen, and would receive widespread support from the Australian nation.

Whilst the negative impacts of high immigration upon our environment, society and economy are often discussed, we must not forget that the real bottom line of these discussions is how immigration will affect our way of life, our health, our standard of living — for ourselves and for the generations to come.

After all, who wants to live in a society where most of the people live in high-rise high-capacity dog box apartments, where the roads, footpaths, parks and beaches are so full to capacity that its like living in a tin of sardines, social tensions are high, physical security is reduced, pollution levels are excessive, and the quality of life is low? Whilst some places overseas already live like that, this is not a future most Australians would want.

Impacts on our way of life

Current immigration policies are dramatically diminishing our quality of life in very real ways. Here is a brief look at the problems facing our nation, and why we need to get a Zero-net Immigration Policy instituted in Australia.

Overcrowding is happening in the major cities as well as in some regional areas: traffic jams and other traffic congestion, overcrowded public transport, along with more and more multi-storey apartment blocks.

Being packed into trains, squashed together like tins of sardines, is not an indicator of a quality way of life. Nor is being stuck in major traffic queues for long periods of time, waiting for cars to inch forward as they compete for space and movement with thousands of other cars on the same road. This is a real concern in terms of our quality of life, especially when it is extrapolated into all the other areas of our lives where overcrowding is now occurring — and it is likely to get worse in the future!

The quality of housing is worsening. The Australian dream of having a home on a standard quarter-acre block is beginning to disappear, as the immigration-driven population explosion has made it a standard practice to subdivide existing house blocks in order to build second houses in what were once family backyards.

Even worse, many developers (enabled by state law) are now squeezing several units onto the one block of land, drastically reducing the space for children to play in, for swimming pools for the summer, or for families to hold barbeques or parties; these activities may often still be done, but only to a lesser extent.

The slashing of the widespread enjoyment of living standards, that once existed, is just one cost of immigration that many Australians are paying.

Pollution is increasing, caused by the millions of more car exhausts that transport those extra millions of people every day, as well as from all those extra tens of thousands of trucks that are needed to service the huge population increases by the need to transport the ever-rising billions of tonnes of food and consumer goods.

Added to all this is the huge volume of increased pollution from the fumes and chemicals spewed out by all those factories and infrastructure installations that are needed to service the additional millions of consumers brought in via mass immigration.

All this pollution is not only causing health problems but also is negatively affecting the quality of life of many people, especially in the cities.

Health problems are caused by the importation of immigrants with severe and communicable diseases, especially from the Third World. These include TB (tuberculosis), hepatitis, and HIV/AIDS.

This not only costs the community economically for the treatment of the diseases, but also has high personal costs to the Australians who become infected, causing physical impairment (even death) and emotional distress to both the individuals and their families.

Further health problems are increasing, including from the effects of pollution caused by the population pressures resulting from the outrageously high immigration intake.

High-population cities like Los Angeles have dangerous levels of smog, with thousands of people being hospitalized and additional thousands dying early as a result of air pollution. Those with lung conditions, such as asthma, are particularly at risk from the pollution arising from the effects of high immigration levels. The Los Angeles Times reports that “Annually, California’s dirty air is estimated to cause 19,000 premature deaths, 9,400 hospitalizations and 300,000 respiratory illnesses”. We don’t want this for Australia.

Mental health problems are also caused or exacerbated by high immigration, by forcing people into living in high-population environments, living cheek-to-cheek with millions of others; squeezed together in trains and buses, with cars jammed en masse on the roads (or in gridlock), and with even our homes squeezed tighter together, let alone the problems of more and more people living in high-density high-rise apartment blocks.

Mass immigration, particularly from Third World countries, has the added effect of creating social discord, social disunity (cultural disruption), feelings of not belonging (ethnic displacement), feelings of being dispossessed from your own country (ethnic marginalization), and the anguish of facing the immigration-driven decimation of your people (genocide anxiety).

Adding to mental trauma directly caused by immigration, are the propagandistic machinations of multiculturalism (the pro-immigration ideology), with teachers telling students that their people are no good (pushing tales of white colonisation, slavery, etc.; whilst ignoring similar activities of other races), thus ideologically disconnecting them from their own people and creating a white guilt syndrome – no wonder youth suicide rates are so high.

Crime rates are rising, particularly in relation to specific sources areas of immigration. For example, the crime rates of immigrant populations from the Horn of Africa countries are enormously higher than the crime rate of the populations that have come here from England or Sweden.

Even though governments are aware that some ethnic crime rates are higher amongst migrant groups from particular countries, they continue such immigration intakes for political reasons; despite the immediate physical and mental health damage caused by immigration-driven crime rates.

Being mugged, bashed or raped are some of the worse health hazards of living with multiculturalism-designed immigration policies.

Water shortages have led to years of water restrictions and even to the situation where Australians are being fed water derived from sewerage. Although water shortages are being exacerbated by drought conditions (always an ever-present possibility in Australia’s harsh climate) and by inaction on the part of governments (also an ever-present possibility, funnily enough), a major underlying cause of our water shortages is over-population, brought about by an overly-high immigration intake.

Water shortages have necessitated the building of desalination plants to provide extra water for all the extra people, an enormously expensive process. All of these expenses relating to immigration will have to be paid for and this will impact further upon people’s standard of living.

Food security becomes threatened as the farming output fails to sustainably meet the demands of population expansion. Australia has now become a net importer of fruits and vegetables in order to meet the needs of our population; also, our wildlife provision of fish has been declining. With regards to farming, it should be noted that our arable land is only 6.15% of our land mass.

If we were to double our population, as has been suggested by politicians and money-hungry businessmen, and then experience a time of great drought or other food crisis, Australia would face real problems in feeding its people.

Economic impacts

The 2008 investigation into immigration by the UK House of Lords’ economic committee reported that “Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run”.

The economic impacts of immigration are not just about production and employment rates, but also need to take into account the economic effects of pollution, disease, crime, and social disunity upon the population. For Australia the situation would be even worse, once the environmental costs were factored in.

Unemployment is increased by governments using skilled immigration instead of training our own people. Also, many workers in low-skill, low-income jobs find themselves being displaced by immigrant workers, whilst large numbers of immigrant workers in the labour market can inhibit wage increases for low-income workers. Conversely, immigration of non-skilled workers from some ethnic groups with notoriously bad unemployment rates has added to the welfare burden placed upon taxpayers. So, Australians are losing out from both ends of the employment spectrum.

House prices are rising, as are the costs of renting, forced up by a higher level of demand, caused by a rapidly expanding population, mainly brought about by an immigration programme that is just too big.

The rise of housing costs is pricing young people out of the market, with the situation getting worse and worse as time goes on.

The continuing demise of housing affordability will also increase the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots”, leading to greater social problems.

Traffic congestion in Australia’s cities, according to a government estimates, cost $9.4 billion, with the potential for that to rise to $20 billion by 2020.

With continuing high immigration, traffic congestion will inevitably increase.

Social disunity not only has social costs for the population, but economic costs as well. All “race relations” and “human right” bodies have to be paid for, as does the work by governments (and their public servants) to create laws to stifle free speech and push “tolerance” forcibly upon unwilling recipients.

The so-called “human rights” programmes mandated in schools also have to be paid for, as do the university courses on such subjects.

There is also the health care costs and loss of working days resulting from fights and damage caused by inter-ethnic and inter-racial violence.

Added to this are the economic costs of disproportionate ethnic crime, in terms of damage to people and property, as well as to police staffing requirements.

Multiculturalism costs huge amounts of money. It has been estimated that the immigration-driven policy of multiculturalism costs Australia $7.5 billion or 5% of GDP per year. The advocates of multiculturalism have made sure that governments have, for decades, funded special programmes for ethnic groups. These programmes all have to be paid for, and are often in addition to ordinary social funding.

Having a high immigration intake of those who cannot speak English costs millions, with piles of government publications produced in other languages, special funding of non-English-speaking organizations, funding libraries to buy extra collections of foreign language books, as well as the costs incurred in the workplace caused by the inability of workers to read English or understand directions (let alone being the victim of workplace accidents due to lack of English).

The Office of Multicultural Affairs estimated in 1989 that workplace communication problems caused by workers with poor English language skills was costing Australia $3.2 billion each year.

It would be more logical to require people from non-English speaking backgrounds to learn a good level of English before migrating here; however, this has not been done, and so these language problems form part and parcel of the cost of immigration.

New infrastructure needs to be paid for to cope with high levels of immigration. Population increase necessitates all kinds of capital funding, for hospitals, schools, roads, train or tram lines, wider bridges, larger police stations, fire stations, waste management systems, power utilities, and so on.

What is often forgotten is that if an area has, for example, a 10% population increase, it is not so easy to build the corresponding infrastructure. For example, increasing a hospital’s services by 10% is not so easy; adding 10% more building area will not add 10% more space to all of the rooms and departments across a hospital. Let alone problems of adding 10% to professional staffing levels. To cope with a 10% population increase requires far higher infrastructure costs than just 10%.

Of course, in the meantime, all current services are stretched, often to breaking point; which is one of the reasons why so many people do not receive timely health care, some even dying whilst on hospital waiting lists.

Policies of mass immigration have real consequences for real people; it is not just about “numbers” and lifeless economics.

Environmental impacts

The environment of our country, already a fragile thing, is under mounting pressure from an ever-expanding population:

Destruction of endangered ecological areas to make way for more housing developments has already occurred. With immigration pressures upon land areas, yet more virgin bushland (and the wildlife therein) will fall victim to developers.

Extinction of species is occurring, due to human habitat destruction. With an expanding population, such destruction of wildlife habitats is likely to worsen. The continuing urban sprawl across our bush landscape will destroy the habitats of many native animals, leading to their decline, as will over-fishing to meet food targets for a bigger population. Even more bushland will need to be cleared to feed the growing population.

The spread of human populations is damaging Australia’s fragile environment. More than 60 native plant species are extinct already and approximately another are 1,180 under threat. A bigger population will exacerbate the problem.

Topsoil depletion is being caused by demand made upon farmers to supply an increasing population (as well as catering to overseas trade); this occurs when the soil is eroded or depleted of its original organic material. As an example, approximately half of the topsoil of the USA’s Great Plains is estimated to have disappeared in just over the last 120 years.

Topsoil has billions of beneficial microbes in each handful and it takes hundreds or even thousands of years to naturally build up the nutrient-rich organic topsoil that we need for food production, so a high topsoil depletion rate is alarming. John Reganold, an American soils scientist has said “Globally, it’s clear we are eroding soils at a rate much faster than they can form”.

Soil acidification is another problem, which can also lead to soil erosion. Topsoil loss and other excessive abuse of land can cause desertification, which then encroaches upon nearby land.

Dr. Barney Foran from the CSIRO’s Resource Futures Program has noted that “We’ve got this immense area of perhaps some of the worst soils in the world … only about three percent of the land area of Australia has soil types of any acceptable quality”.

The National Population Council has reported that “there is a serious mismatch between distributions of available water supply and the population, water supply is subject to high levels of seasonal and year to year variability, the land is severely degraded, the soils thin and vulnerable to depletion”. These problems are not helped by having high levels of immigration.

Soil salinity problems are exacerbated by increasing our population levels, due to the increase in farming needed to meet demands for food.

Australia already has massive areas of some of the worst soils in the world. Yet, despite this, we are exporting our best soil nutrients as part of our massive crop exports.

Land clearances and irrigation for farming can cause soil salinity. Salinity has affected 2.5 million hectares of agricultural land, with another 10 million hectares being regarded as “at risk”.

This salinity affects our river systems. Jenny Goldie, the National Director of Sustainable Population Australia, has said that “Many of the tributaries and rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin [Australia’s bread basket] will have exceeded World Health Organization guidelines on maximum levels of salinity for both drinking and irrigation within 50 years”. Facing such sustainability problems, it is ridiculous to be just blindly increasing our immigration intake.

Loss of good farming land is being caused by the spreading out of ever-growing suburbs from the major cities, building or paving over some of the most fertile lands in the country.

Whilst Australia has many areas of high rainfall and some areas of good topsoil, the places where those two elements combine to make good farming land are a small minority of our continent’s land mass, so the ruination of our soils — further driven by high immigration levels — is made much worse.

With increasing soil salinity, loss of good topsoil, and ruining of farming areas, it is just not sustainable for Australia to have a high population.

Social impacts

The Australian way of life is being destroyed, not only culturally and environmentally, but also demographically. Immigration is causing the social fabric of the Australian nation to be slowly torn apart.

The political ideology of Multiculturalism, funded by governments, and propagated by teachers and journalists who are opposed to homogeneity, is breaking down feelings of community and destroying social cohesion within our nation (it should be noted that Multiculturalism in Australia came about as a consequence of the large-scale immigration programme which began after the Second World War).

Some areas within Australian cities are now regarded as ethnic enclaves, fueled by high immigration and assisted by multiculturalism. Critics of large-scale immigration have pointed out that importing people from countries with a low cultural affinity to the Australian way of life is a recipe for social disaster.

Immigration of various Third World groups, enabled by multiculturalism-driven immigration programmes, has added an extra social problem to the lives of Australians.

The Muslim presence within Australia is growing apace, fueled by immigration from Africa and Asia, especially from the Middle East. It has been said that as the proportion of Muslims in a society grows, the higher the Islamic influence over that society will be, which makes logical sense — but it is not what the majority of Australians want.

The result of having even “small” Muslim populations has caused a certain curtailment of civil liberties in European countries, thus destroying freedoms that people took for granted, and adding to an ethnic-based “political correctness” which is changing their way of life forever.

The same can be expected in Australia as “political correctness” and the desire “not to offend” Muslims becomes a way of changing the lives and habits of ordinary people, whether it be through imposed laws or via bureaucratic rules in the workplace (often due to rules or guidelines from the so-called “human rights” industry); let alone the election of Muslims to parliament and the encroachment of Sharia Law into public practice.

The Asianisation of Australia, begun in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, is steadily increasing, with arrivals from Asia comprising over 42% to 50 % of the immigration intake (2000-2009). Rather than just being a distant spectre that haunted our forefathers, the “Yellow Peril” has now become a reality.

In the broader context of demographic colonisation, Third World immigration is approximately 56% to 63% (2000-2009) of the immigration intake.

The demographic colonisation of Australia by the Third World is ramping up, comprising not just the major element of Asianisation, but also including an influx of populations from Africa, the Pacific Islands, South America, and the Middle East.

Such immigration, if continued, will cause the end of the Australian People and change forever the Australian culture and our way of life.

Some multiculturalists may regard criticism of Islamification and Asianisation as “racist”, even though the desire to maintain one’s own ethnic identity is not “racist”, but simply the desire to exist. These multiculturalist machinations were forced upon the Australian people without their consent — going against their right to maintain their own ethnic and cultural identity. Such multiculturalists also ignore the negative impacts of these policies upon the Aboriginal population.

There are even multiculturalists who fear that giving support to limiting immigration will somehow be supporting “racism”. How bloody-minded would someone have to be, to want to create an over-population crisis just to indulge their own personal views on race?

It is time that environmentally-concerned multiculturalists join the chorus of Australians demanding an end to high immigration. Adherence to a shaky position that “somehow future technology will fix these problems” is ridiculous, as is the view that Australia can support an infinitely growing economy and population.

The argument that a growing population is needed to sustain our economy is an amazingly illogical notion. There is a limit to how many people Australia and the world can sustain.

If our economy is based upon population growth, then it could only end in tears; such a growth-based economic ideology requires infinite sustenance, but our land mass, our ecosystems and our natural resources are all finite, they are limited by realities. Basing economic and population policies upon an idea of infinite growth, whilst living in a finite world, is very much like having an unsustainable pyramid scheme — it will work for a while and then everything will become ruined.

An economy based upon a stable population is an achievable goal; world-wide, this is necessary if we intend not to decimate the ecology of our planet or ruin the future of mankind.

All of these factors need to be considered as we make a decision for the future of our nation. Even if people agree that just a few, if not all, of the afore-mentioned problems are a concern, then that is enough to start campaigning for a Zero-net Immigration Policy.

We need to set a population target for Australia and act upon it now. As any government committee set up to determine Australia’s optimum population is likely to take years of dithering to come up with a figure, all we need to do is accept the Optimum Population Trust’s estimate of 21 million and work towards that.

Immigration numbers are not an accident; the immigration programme is controlled at the federal level; both Liberal and Labor governments have deliberately chosen to have high immigration intakes into Australia, based upon ideological reasons rather than upon the desires of the Australian people.

Policies of high immigration are not designed for the benefit of ordinary Australians, but rather for the benefit of the elite currently in power — whether for the ideological interests of multiculturalists or the economic gains of big business.

Current immigration policies present a clear and present danger to the people of Australia and must be stopped. The problems are real and the dangers are real. Now all we need is for a government that will get real on the immigration crisis facing this land.

To achieve this, we must support those who would promote such a concept. People should push for political action by joining a lobby group like Sustainable Population Australia or by joining a political party like the Australian Protectionist Party.

People could write letters to their members of parliament; but they should not expect a politician to suddenly change his or her stance after years of being devoted to high immigration and/or multiculturalism.

Writing letters to newspapers can help spread the word, as can letterboxing your neighbourhood with leaflets promoting a Zero-net Immigration Policy – get as many people involved as possible!

On a more day-to-day scale, you could promote the idea of the ZIP concept by wearing a ZIP badge or even just pinning a small zip to your jacket or shirt (similar to wearing a pink ribbon to support the fight against breast cancer). Wearing a zip on your lapel or chest would arouse curiosity amongst others and enable a talking point to promote the ZIP idea. Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Australian Protectionism – a politically central position

With the rapid growth experienced by the Australian Protectionist Party over the last 12 months combined with the increased media attention paid to its spokesmen, there has naturally been a vigorous discussion as to where our Party stands on the political spectrum.

While many of us recognise the whole “left-right spectrum” as being outdated and misleading, it is unfortunately one with which we must continue to deal. A more honest approach to one’s position on the political spectrum would be to address the single question: “How much interference and regulation of a citizen’s life by government is acceptable?”

This single issue is the most appropriate gauge by which one can measure a nation’s level of freedom and respect for the rights of the individual coupled with the needs of the wider community and concern for the national interest.

With this question in mind, the spectrum takes on a whole new perspective. On one side you have those who desire no regulation, no rules and no responsibility to their fellow man save those made between individuals – a situation declared to be true freedom by those describing themselves as Anarchists.

At the opposing end you have those supporting the totalitarian position – a position where individual will is entirely subjugated to the dictates of government and where life is thoroughly regulated by a myriad of laws administered by an overwhelming web of government departments manned by a legion of bureaucrats with no concern for the effects of government decisions on the masses.

Rejecting the left-right dichotomy

Australian Protectionists reject both these extremes. Nevertheless, in today’s political climate we must continue to grapple with the traditional view that one’s organisation and views must be positioned on the left to right spectrum.

Those of us in the Australian Protectionist Party believe such a view stifles both creativity and individualism and indeed, threatens the very democratic ideals on which our nation supposedly prides itself.

How, in a democratic society, can elected members of parliament effectively represent their constituents if they are bound by a rigid political philosophy, whether it be the pursuit of international “democratic” socialism and the global village or championing the cause of economic rationalism?

Never free to think for themselves with one eye on their parliamentary superannuation and the other on the next seat on the front bench, our politicians consign themselves to parroting the accepted doctrine, never considering the possibility that someone else might actually have a good idea that might benefit their own constituents.

In order to consolidate their own positions in the seemingly endless cycle of government/opposition, the major parties continue to feed the traditional class war animosities, venturing out from their bunkers only to woo the vote of minority interests in the hope it will be enough to tip the balance of support their way.

Problems with the “left”

Despite Labor’s rhetoric of being there for “working families”, little has been done to defend the interests of traditional Australia. Programs of social engineering which undermine the foundations of our society continue, manufacturing plants which provided employment to Australians so they could feed and house their families continue to close due to cheap imports, the health sector continues to struggle, and education standards continue to slide. Not much there for working class Australians hoping for a better future for their children.

When one considers the billions added to the national debt so Labor could waste money on the failed roofing insulation scheme, handouts so Australians could buy imported Asian electrical goods, the poor control of finances in the school buildings programs, the misleading advertising assuring us the government is training more nurses for our health sector while importing hundreds of Chinese 3rd year nurses, and the proposed mining sector super tax which appears to be little more than an Emissions Trading Scheme by stealth – it becomes clear that the Labor government is far from governing in the national interest.

Problems with the “right”

However, Australians are not only betrayed by the avowed champions of the working class. The barely socially conservative, economically rationalist obsessed Liberals do little to ensure our future either. They talk tough on issues such as Big Government, fiscal responsibility, border protection, and the defence of small business and farmers – but once in government most of these good intentions seem to fall by the wayside.

Liberal politicians slither around the issues of a reintroduced “work-choices”, climate change, State’s rights, and a myriad of other issues which affect the lives of Australians with a flexibility that would put an eel to shame.

Australian Protectionists shun the tired old notions of “class enmity” – and rightly so. As Australians we have a responsibility to have concern for our fellow citizens and their quality of life. In a society such as ours, what affects and threatens one, threatens all.

A new alternative – one single principle

For too long, the major parties have comfortably ridden on traditional loyalties. Labor continues to assume they will have the support of the working class and the union movement which supposedly represents their interests, while the Liberals assume it is their God-given right to demand support from small businesses, regional Australians and primary producers – all the while both parties have betrayed our entire society and the national interest, never to be held to account.

As a party of the political centre, Protectionists examine all policy positions based on one single principle – is it the best course of action for our nation? Unlike other organisations, the party refuses to be bound by political dogma which would force us to ignore the needs of various sections of our community.

We ask the representatives of the major parties, who gladly capitalise on the tired and age-old class enmities:

Why shouldn’t a factory worker be concerned about the needs of our farmers and the threats faced by cheap imports?

Why shouldn’t young families in the mortgage belt be concerned about the problems faced by struggling small businesses?

For what reason are they not permitted to support the ideals of the traditional family, the very cornerstone of a healthy and cohesive society, and are instead expected to support the social engineering policies espoused by their supposed representatives in the Labor Party who push for acceptance of alternative lifestyles and a demographic change of our entire national identity through unfettered immigration and refugee policies due to some perverse psychological obligation to a United Nations treaty?

Furthermore, for what reason is a traditional conservative looked upon as a political heretic for expressing concern for the job security of a blue collar worker on the production line?

Why can’t a conservative support the ideals of the old age pension, unemployment benefits for those genuinely unable to work, or subsidised health care?

Such is the mindset not understood and therefore rejected by those who can’t see past the divisive notions of class enmity pushed by unscrupulous and self-serving politicians who owe more loyalty to divisive ideologies and overseas interests than the concerns and future of their own people.

The foundation of the Australian Protectionist Party, an organisation supporting traditional socially conservative values yet also fundamentally concerned for the welfare of all sections of Australian society, gives voters from all walks of life the opportunity to be represented in the political arena. APP is a new group that is prepared to make the hard decisions to protect our borders and national future, whilst also protecting our democracy and the individual’s right to free speech and private property.

This is supported by examining the support base of our party – former members of Labor, Liberal, National, Christian Democrat and One Nation parties have joined our ranks, recognising for the first time the creation of an organisation that is there for Australians and Australians alone, regardless of their social or economic background.

Primary producers, businessmen, factory workers – members from diverse backgrounds – have come together, recognising the need to reject the divisive politics of the major parties in favour of accepting policy positions based on the single principle – is it in the interest of the Australian nation?

Australian Protectionists are not insular in their approach to policy issues. The rights and protection for which we call in the interests of our primary producers we would never deny to others in our region. We reject the proposed agreements such as “PACER Plus”* which plan to open up the economies of the Pacific region, economies hopelessly outmatched by more advanced economies.

These nations’ producers will fold under the pressure of imports, traditional societies will collapse, and a host of social problems and increased national debt will be the reward for their acceptance of globalisation.

There is no such thing as a level playing field.

Clearly, the time has come for Australians to place the future of their children first and reject the globalist dogma pushed by both Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition.

What is needed now, more than ever before, is a Party whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of Australians above anything else – a moderate Party of the centre.

That party is the Australian Protectionist Party.

* PACER [Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations] Plus is the proposed free trade agreement between the PICTA (Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement) nations and Australia and New Zealand.

Destiny magazine, issue 8

Issue Eight includes:

• Rise up Australia
  [Some verse by Barry Dunn]
• Wake up Australia!
  Terrence Odgers looks at the dangers of cultural pluralism to Australian society and exposes some of the myths underlying the political ideology of multiculturalism.
• How egalitarians are leading us into a new dark age of dogmatism and ignorance
  Darrin Hodges writes about egalitarians, political correctness and modern-day heretics.
• The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
  Jim Price puts forward his views on important issues facing Australia, as well as outlining his time in the Australian Army during the Second World War. This continues our series of interviews, giving readers new information from different political viewpoints.
• Anzac Day
  [Some verse by Mr. J. John (Royal Navy, 1939-1945)]
• Australian Protectionism — A politically central position
  Andrew Phillips considers the issues of Left-Right politics and places sensible nationalism in the centre of the political spectrum.
• A comparison of political differences
  A brief look at some Left-wing and Right-wing policies, compared with Centrist policies.
• Quotes of note — Left and Right politics
• It’s time to ZIP up the borders!
  Andrew Guild presents the argument for a Zero-net Immigration Policy to protect Australia’s future and save our nation’s way of life.
• Policing issues, part three
  Terrence Odgers gives us the third and final instalment of his series of articles on policing issues, looking at issues of morale, political correctness, trust and respect.
• The banking system and credit creation
  George Price puts forward his views on some of the problems of the credit-based underpinnings of our banking and monetary system.
• Quotes of note — Banking
• Letters to Destiny

More rotten grew each government that smirched Australia’s name;
They hounded true Australians down and sunk the flag in shame —
I dreamed it twenty years ago — a dream of destiny —
The pictures from a future grand flashed back at night to me
And is it our fate that we’ll wake too late to the truth that we were blind?
With a foreign foe at our harbour gate and a blazing drought behind!
~ Henry Lawson, The Ministry of Men; In the Storm That is to Come

“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard … freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” ~ the US Supreme Court, decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 14 June 1943

“If there were a modern Spanish Inquisition in America today, it wouldn’t be Bob Jones rounding up Catholics. It would be liberals rounding up right-wingers and putting them on trial for hate crimes. The liberal Torquemadas would be smug and angry and self-righteous. And when they were done, they would proudly announce they had finally banished intolerance.” ~ Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal lies about the American Right, 2002

“The greatest threat to democracy is the unbridled power of the state over its citizens.” ~ Mandy Hampton (played by Moira Kelly) in The West Wing (series 1, episode 7, The State Dinner), 10 November 1999

“Modern liberalism has strong totalitarian tendencies” ~ Archbishop George Pell (of Sydney, New South Wales), in a speech at Oxford University, 6 March 2009

“Another of the Communist Party functionaries … gave a report outlining the Party’s case against me, and I then had to give a self-criticism and to acknowledge that the Party was right: to admit that my differences were due to egotism, economism, anarchism and so on … I had to admit things I did not consider to be true” ~ Geoff McDonald, discussing his time in the Communist Party, Australia at Stake, 1977, p.71

“the constant practice of criticism and self-criticism, whose power to bring about complete conformity to the line and to the discipline of the Party can never be appreciated fully by the non-Communist. At the Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, held in October, 1952, rules were adopted which re-emphasized that criticism and self-criticism are duties of Party members, constituting one of the main tasks of all Party organizations.” ~ Louis Francis Budenz, an ex-communist revealing how the communist parties operated, The Techniques of Communism, 1954, p.106

“It should be obvious by now, to anyone who cares, that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in the West. Either by straightforward ditching, or — more subtly — by redefining it in ways designed to legitimise the prohibition of ideologically incorrect viewpoints … If you want free speech, you have to be willing to stand up for people whose views you don’t like, and regardless of whether you think the people are “nice”. Once it starts to depend on the views (or the individuals expressing them) being sufficiently inoffensive, you can basically kiss free speech goodbye.” ~ Fabian Tassano, “Surviving in a mediocracy (part 3)”, 7 March 2007

“Political correctness is a clandestine version of suppression and censorship, which will invariably lead to oppression and tyranny by those that enforce the law. Freedom of speech is one of the foundational liberties of a functional democracy, without which we have barely a leg to stand on. In implementing the ‘perceived’ high moral standard of avoiding offending anyone (as though not being offended is some sort of inherent right) we march head long into an ideological blunder of massive proportions. … This is the type of path that we tread, a precursor to the types of tyrannical ideologies which embrace the absurdly dangerous idea of legislating based solely on avoiding offence.” ~ Tyga (contributor to the Australian Identity Forum), 2 September 2009

Yet another so-called “Human Rights” organisation has struck again, attacking the rights of Australians to express their opinion.

As freedom of speech is the foundation stone of Australia’s democracy, this is a direct attack upon our democratic way of life, something that is becoming all too common in countries under the rule of “politically correct” regimes.

Ron Owen, victim of Political Correctness

Ron Owen, a former (now retired) councilor in the Cooloola Shire (now the Gympie Regional Council) in Queensland, has been accused of having a vehicle with an anti-homosexual sticker on its bumper bar.

The bumper sticker in question said “Gay rights? Under God’s law the only “rights” gays have is the right to die (Lev. 20:13)”, based upon an Old Testament passage from the Bible which states:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13).

Some lesbians took a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, claiming that they were “offended” by the sticker, although only one of them had actually seen it – despite which, two of the lesbians were awarded $5000 by the tribunal, and a third lesbian was awarded $2500.

It was also ruled that Mr. Owen should take out an advertisement in the Gympie Times newspaper acknowledging that he caused “offence”, which in itself is equivalent to imposing a further fine of several thousand dollars.

According to Mr. Owen, he did not own the vehicle, did not drive the vehicle, and was not even a passenger in the vehicle (he traveled to the council offices in a different vehicle on the day of the so-called “offence”) and, at that point in time, had not even been driving for six months due to a medical incapacity. The vehicle with the sticker on it was one that merely looked like a vehicle used by Mr. Owen.

Mr. Owen has appealed the decision, taking it to the Supreme Court. At the time of writing, the case is yet to be heard.

It should be noted that the case heard before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was not actually held before a tribunal (a panel of three judges), but was heard only by one tribunal member, one Darryl Rangiah, who has never been a judge in a proper court of law.

Mr Rangiah is a lawyer of Asian heritage who was previously in the public eye for representing the Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef (detained on suspicion of terror-related activities, but released), Labor Party politician Steve Kilburn (defending his election from a legal challenge), and the Al-Saadi family (refugees from Iraq who are suing the Australian government for injuries received in their home country).

Interviewed for this article, Ron Owen made several complaints against Rangiah and the sub-standard way that the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal operated: that Rangiah accepted a newspaper report as evidence that Mr. Owen had use of the vehicle (that is, there were no actual eyewitnesses to substantiate such a charge), and that the ADT did not have rules of discovery like a proper court – so an accused could have no way of knowing what accusations would be made against him (which means that an accused cannot bring along documentation in order to reply to unforeseen claims being made against him, unlike in a proper court).

Ron Owen stated that “They want to have a one-sided debate, to only have comments from their side – and they have the law enforcing that”.

Mr. Owen says that the “offended” lesbians took him to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal three times; when their complaint failed the first time because they had their facts wrong, (claiming he said certain things in council, which was proven wrong), they complained a second time which failed (because this complaint was put in by them as a group but was thrown out because their organization was not formed until after the event), and so they laid a third complaint, which worked in having the ADT rule in their favour.

So apparently activists can take cases to government “anti-discrimination” bodies and lay charges against unsuspecting Australians as many times as they like. Such a tactic is against the basic notions of justice and is more like something to be expected whilst living under a totalitarian regime.

Ron Owen has made the point that, unlike proper judges, the people that run the “anti-discrimination” bodies are not permanent but only temporary political appointments made by Cabinet, who can dispense with their services when they decide. Unlike judges with security of tenure, concerns can be readily raised as to whether there may be political pressures brought to bear upon appointees to anti-discrimination bodies.

It is a reasonable inference to draw from the ideological basis underlying the “human rights” industry that its adjudicators are likely to be biased against the traditional views of ordinary Australians, especially considering that most of the people employed there are multiculturalists, migrants and leftists.

Therefore it is a major concern that the Multiculturalism Laws give such people direct power over their ideological opponents, in a situation where they are clearly unlikely to be neutral, raising a reasonable expectation that traditional Australians will acted against in a biased manner.

Mr. Owen said that “Government power is increasing all the time over the individual, we will have a different country living in to what we expected. If people can’t speak out, then the government can cover anything up. People are becoming too scared to say or do anything.”

The ruling of Darryl Rangiah for the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal is that Mr. Owen should be fined because it was determined (with little or no evidence) that he was a passenger in the vehicle which carried the sticker.

Putting aside that in this particular case Mr. Owen had never used the vehicle, this means that anyone is legally liable for any signage on any vehicle in which they are a passenger.

So, under a Politically Correct regime, if a citizen gets a lift in a car from someone who has a sticker or sign on it that someone from a “politically protected minority” finds “offensive”, that passenger can be taken to court, without a jury being present, and be fined tens of thousands of dollars.

If this story was in a novel, it would be laughed at for being so ridiculously improbable, yet this is an actual legal ruling in modern Australia, under the new world order of political correctness.

It is obvious that, with the advent of the “human rights industry”, the taint of communist-style laws and kangaroo courts has permeated our land and assaulted our democratic traditions.

Political laws against free speech

“Anti Discrimination” laws were originally introduced with communist rule in the Soviet Union. This distasteful origin is compounded by the fact that so-called “human rights” and “anti-discrimination” bodies are actually organisations full of government-paid activists who are pushing a left-wing social agenda.

The ordering of “public self-criticism” is a feature of how communist parties operate; therefore it is not surprising to see this tactic being used as a standard punishment in the rulings of “human rights” judgments, where they rule – in true communist style – that “offenders” must pay for newspaper advertisements to publicly acknowledge their “guilt”. [See “Quotes of note — forced self-criticism” in this issue.]

The view expressed on the sticker may be viewed as distasteful by some people – but that is what freedom of speech is all about, the ability to express opinions even if they are opposed by others. Unlike some other bumper stickers, this one does not contain swear words – this sticker was deemed effectively illegal because it offended the sensibilities of the establishment’s culture of political correctness.

Bumper stickers

Many people in society are able to be offended by various bumper stickers (some of which have sexual references), especially people who are socially conservative or even prudish. However, these people are not given a government tribunal to complain to if they see a sticker that offends them. Why not? Because they are not part of a leftist social agenda.

There are people in society who are vilified or discriminated against because they are short, tall, blonde, red-headed, fat, skinny, bald, long-haired, bearded, or mothers-in-law, amongst other things.

However, these people do not get access to government-funded legal bodies like homosexuals, Muslims and various racial minorities do. Why not? Because they are not a “politically protected species” – they are not part of a leftist social agenda.

No jury trials

A major factor in these “anti-discrimination” cases is that they are conducted without a jury being present. Juries are the cornerstone of a fair and equitable legal system, and thus form an integral part of a proper democracy, yet they are barred from Multiculturalist political trials being held in these “anti-discrimination” star chambers.

Under Multiculturalist regimes, such as in Australia, a new class of laws has been made up, to enforce a culture of fear upon the common people of publicly speaking their mind against aspects of Multiculturalism and Third World immigration and the resulting street-level realities and social problems caused by them. These laws are used to bully ordinary Australians into silence and to delegitimise views of traditional Australian society.

A spin-off of these Multiculturalism Laws has been to include other leftist causes within their scope. However, as the common people do not share the political ideology of the Multiculturalist regime, juries are excluded from these “anti-discrimination” political trials as they would be likely to recognize the anti-Australian nature of the trials and thus acquit the poor victims of Multiculturalist persecution.

Whilst the lack of juries is a problem in everyday court cases (in New South Wales, less than 0.5% of criminal proceedings involve a jury), it is especially problematic when it comes to politically-motivated prosecutions, where people are prosecuted under the new breed of Multiculturalism Laws.

The use of “anti-discrimination” bodies to enforce political ideology (in this case, Political Correctness) is a totalitarian nightmare that could just as easily have come out of a George Orwell novel.

The advocates of Political Correctness write their own laws to suit themselves, enforce those laws in their own manner, and then pass judgment according to those laws. At least one so-called “human rights” body has described itself as a “law enforcement agency”, heralding an ominous anti-democratic trend in Australia.

Politically Correct fascism has little regard for democracy, free speech, and the traditions of Western justice. The advent of Political Correctness is part of the decline of Western Civilisation and is assisting in the destruction of a way of life that our forebears took centuries to build.

The fact is that so-called “anti-discrimination” laws are bogus political laws designed to impose the rule of a “do-gooder” ideology over traditional Australian society and to victimise any Australians who voice “politically incorrect” opinions or who speak out against the problems caused by Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, and the Cultural War being waged against traditional values.

The case of Ron Owen demonstrates that Australia needs to enable a wider right to jury trials for all citizens and to properly enshrine freedom of speech into our nation’s Constitution.

To send a message of support to Ron Owen, or to offer assistance, he can be contacted at P.O. Box 872, Gympie, Qld. 4570 or by phone (work hours) on (07) 5482-4099 or (07) 5482-5070.

This item was written as a reply to a comment in this issue’s Letters section. However, due to its length, it has been included here as an article. Part Three of Mr. Odger’s commentary on policing issues is now scheduled to appear in issue 8 of Destiny.

This short essay is a response to a comment received from Peter Ivanoff who is the Acting Senior Lecturer at the Goulburn Police College. He has presented some criticism regarding my personal opinion in an article, Policing Issues, which has appeared in previous issues of Destiny magazine. In his comment, Mr. Ivanoff took some exception to my ‘continued lambasting of the efforts of those who work and teach in the NSW Police College’.

Mr Ivanoff’s main complaint seems to be the lambasting of the efforts (personal?) of the staff at the college. My criticism by referring to an ‘airy fairy attitude’, is more to do with the curriculum at the college and its agenda, rather than any personal ‘lambasting’. To provide a detailed response to his concerns and to what I consider is the indoctrination into liberal progressive ideology, which is required learning for a pass at the college, would require a lengthy essay on my part.

I have instead chosen to simply present in a very narrow way, an opinion based on my perceptions while training there in 1997. I also rely on comments made to me by those probationary constables that I consider it a privilege to have mentored over the years, and whose thoughts about training at the college were made known to me. In short, my article has been based on what I have garnered from various police officers over time and from personal experience.

It has been 12 years since I attended the then NSW Police Academy (I wonder why it was changed to College?) so it would be presumptuous of me to know exactly what is now being taught within a university-type institution. However, having said that, I am also under no illusion as to how the liberal progressives have taken control of all of our teaching institutions, including the police college.

While I am vaguely aware of the subjects students are now being indoctrinated with, I am nevertheless acutely aware of the core contents. Moral Equivalency, Relativism and Pluralism are at the core of education today and pushing a leftist point of view is now the only guarantee of getting that diploma.

This kind of ‘one way street education’ has no place in a ‘modern’ police force as it has a tendency to blind those it indoctrinates into discarding their common sense values and accepting blatantly false principles based on ‘airy fairy’ theories.

Those moral principles which have enabled Western Civilization to become a leading light of the world are now being sacrificed on the altar of Globalization, Multiculturalism and ‘Human Rights’.

These are theories, I might add, which are only practiced by Western cultures and are paid little attention to by the rest of the world. Theories by which practice, are rapidly leading us to our own decline as nation states within Western Civilisation.

Under Multicultural guises and ‘Human Rights’ issues, policing today has become a minefield of how not to treat different cultures, and to appreciate the various cultural views of policing in general. This is stupidity on a grand scale!

How is a host society to the many and varied cultures now living here, expected to maintain an overall social cohesion if it is incumbent on the host society to treat individual ethnic groups differently?

How do the police maintain any semblance of order and respect when those cultures that are treated differently are then deemed to be favored above the host society such as the followers of the ‘religion of peace’?

We now have living here as ‘immigrants’, along with an ever increasing number of ‘asylum seekers’, people from those cultures that follow Islam. Anyone who has actually studied Islam with any impartiality cannot fail to appreciate that this so-called ‘religion’ is in fact a very regressive and militant ideology.

Islam is an ideology that is inherently dangerous to those nations, as history repeatedly shows, that have allowed large numbers of its followers to settle amongst them, and in this regard modern Lebanon may be considered as a prime example! Muslims make bad neighbors with those who do not share their beliefs, and anyone in authority charged with maintaining the general peace of society should be fully aware of the aggressive antecedents of Islam that have continued to be practiced throughout history and into modern times.

Generally speaking, these are not people that have been ‘indoctrinated’ into Western ways of thinking. These are people who practice and live by the Islamic code, which has never had a reformation or gone through an ‘enlightenment’, and are stuck firmly in the seventh century way of thinking. These people only ever respond to violence and deem those civilizations that pander to their every whim as weak, effeminate and not worthy to exist. Police are now told to turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with Muslims, so which culture do you think, per head of population, is now dominant in crime within this country?

We now find ourselves in an absurd situation which is a recipe for civil unrest, and if not adequately addressed will continue to fester, eventually erupting into a future cultural clash akin to civil war! We have already begun to see the signs of civil unrest with an outburst at Cronulla in 2005 going by the misnomer of ‘The Cronulla Riot’.

This incident was perpetrated mainly by young white Australians and was a backlash against authorities who had refused to counter the intimidation tactics from young Muslim males which had been going on at beaches up and down the coast for years.

While the authorities quickly sidestepped their responsibility to the young Australian citizens, by saddling those who protested as being ‘racists’, they were also criminally negligent in their responsibility to protect the general public by not curtailing ‘payback’ raids, which were orchestrated from the Lakemba Mosque over the following three nights. The damage done to private and public property, and those victims unlucky enough to be caught out in the open by young men from the ‘religion of peace,’ was into the millions of dollars, and — for violence and sheer savagery — far outweighed anything done by the protestors at the so called ‘Cronulla Riot’!

Where were the police to curb the young Muslims’ behaviour? Were the police putting into practice their cultural sensitivity training, in letting them run amok? Or maybe it was a combination of sensitivity training, incompetence by senior police officers, and politicians, who were more interested in soothing Muslim sensitivity while maintaining their vote, the police commanders having been promoted into positions for which they were clearly out of their depth for such a crisis?

I would suggest to anyone interested in just where our Western cultures are heading and have access to the internet, to start surfing the many thousands of websites in Europe and Britain devoted to exposing the ‘colonization’ of their nations through mass Third World immigration. What is most compelling about these sites is that they present a harbinger for Australia’s future. What is occurring over there right now is also occurring here, albeit on a smaller scale.

Multicultural and progressive ideology which has permeated our educational institutions, and indoctrinated those who received an ‘education’ after 1975, is an ideological disease that needs to be excised from society and educational places generally. This ideology should never have been allowed to infiltrate our police forces.

Mr. Ivanoff has suggested that I was born 100 years too late if I believe that shooting and fighting should make up the bulk of police policy. When I joined the NSW Police I was issued with a six shot revolver and a set of handcuffs, equipment which was considered at the time to be adequate in maintaining my personal safety. Tell me Mr. Ivanoff, why is it that ‘modern’ police now have to rely on Oleoresin Spray (pepper), semi-automatic pistols, Tasers and extendable batons?

Until the early 1990s when leftist progressive policies really started to bite into our culture, a gun and a pair of handcuffs were all that the police officer needed, but not now! This was also a time when the police forces around the country were emasculated, and in the process lost general respect, particularly from the criminal/ethnic element who were then deemed to have ‘Human Rights’ and could no longer be ‘roughed up’ by over-zealous police. Police used to keep the criminal element in check through a certain level of fear, and — being society’s protectors — police were also seen as the corporal punishers of a society that valued its cohesion and moral values.

Criminals today appear to have more rights than the victims they accost, and in some cases they do, especially if there is a slight chance that their ‘human rights’ may be violated! After the Wood Royal Commission of 1996/97 police lost the streets to the criminals, and have never been in control of them since.

Successive state and federal governments have mitigated their responsibilities to provide a moral and cohesive society by emasculating their police forces through educational indoctrination and some very poorly thought out legislation.

The rule today for police is to ‘softly softly’ enforce the law, become part-time psychologists for the mentally disturbed, part-time hand wringers for the ills of society, and part-time criminal counselors, more concerned with the well-being of the criminal than in the criminals victims.

This turnaround from the usual norms of policing, often referred to as the ‘human face’ of policing, sends a message of weakness to that element on the street which chooses to push back violently at the perceived police ineffectiveness, and has resulted in a spectacular rise in assaults on police officers over the past decade.

The effective nobbling of police — by those in authority who would rather live by their ideals than their God given common sense — in how they now go about their duties, has produced a society that has well and truly lost its own sense of identity and propriety!

Is it any wonder that when young Aussies who now protest at what they perceive to be happening to their country wrap themselves in the Aussie Flag?! Why do you think they do this? Is it because they are truly racist, as those who pander to our cultural destruction sing out? Or is it really more to do with the slow moral collapse and disintegration of our society?

Policing a society should be about enforcing the law and society’s values and nothing else! There is too much politically correct baggage loaded onto the over-worked street cop today and is it really any wonder why police forces around the nation now have trouble retaining their police officers?

According to current Multicultural philosophy, I am guilty of ‘hate speech’ in telling those ‘rookie police’, who confided in me what they had been taught while at the ‘college of knowledge’, to ‘forget all that garbage’ as the real lessons were about to begin on the street. I am pleased to say that common sense still prevails in some parts of the police force as the first thing my young relative, who graduated the college in 2007, was told on arrival at the police station he was posted to, was to forget all that ‘airy-fairy stuff’ as his REAL education would then start!

According to this young officer, everyone from the college that he had maintained contact with was also told similar things on arrival at their stations. I had a conversation with my young relative soon after he had settled into his policing role. I asked for his opinion on the education standard received at the ‘college of knowledge’ the response from him being, ‘some of it was good but a lot of it was crap’. The subjects considered by him to be crap were those dealing with cultural diversity and other related issues under multi-cultural guises. I would also add to this, that what this young person told me is similar to the comments made by other probationers. No amount of ‘one way street education’ will kill basic common sense in some and, in my opinion, there is still a general attitude within the police force against indoctrination on how they should perceive other cultures and one which I hope continues.

The general opinion that I picked up on, is that any one who settles here should abide by our laws and not receive special consideration. In other words, when in Rome do as the Romans do, which is exactly what was expected of Australia’s immigrants prior to the mid 1970s. After having partaken in some essays as required to further my own police career, I can certainly agree with my young relative’s assessment.

I would suggest that Mr. Ivanoff do his own investigation into my opinions, if he believes I am mistaken in what I have written about. Maybe he could hitch a ride with a car crew from his local police station. He could then see for himself what police now have to deal with on the streets while being ‘hog tied’ with legislation that hinders rather than facilitates policing; legislation, which prevents police from going about their jobs more effectively than they must be able to do. And while he is observing the ineffectiveness of the NSW police, he may also wish to hear from the ‘horse’s mouth’ exactly how the ‘college of knowledge’ is perceived, that is if the officers questioned are guaranteed their opinions will not be punitively acted upon by their over-officious bosses, some of whom seem more intent on ladder climbing over others’ mistakes, rather than be the bosses they are paid to be!

Tell me, Mr. Ivanoff, is corruption still such a huge issue within the force these days that ‘educating’ young people to ‘dob in’ their workmates, whom they may have perceived to have been over-zealous in applying restraint techniques, or some other minor trivial offence, is seen as a method of curtailing unwanted behaviour? Is this a form of ‘modern policing’ for a ‘modern society’. I call it for what it is, CRAP, and indoctrination into communistic ideals! If a cop is corrupt let internal affairs deal with him, that is, after all, an I.A. job!

Is this form of ‘modern policing’ where an officer ‘dobs in’ his/her partner, worth tarnishing an entire police force to correct the actions of some individuals? Is it worth the loss of Esprit de Corps which also lowers morale? Is the noticeable lack of trust amongst police in general, particularly from the police hierarchy, worth the introspection which is so evident within the force these days? Why is it only the police who are so heavily over sighted by a myriad of independent bodies? Why are the government and the judiciary not under the same microscope?

You mention policing a ‘modern society’, what about our law makers and law keepers who consistently fail to adequately provide to us ordinary citizens a moral and safe environment in which to go about our daily activities? The same authorities who consider personal corruption — as the many scandals that have erupted over the years, and continue to do so, out of the present New South Wales government testifies — as par the course? Why is any mention of a Royal Commission into our forms of government and judiciary sidelined? Who is really corrupt here Mr Ivanoff and just what are they hiding?

Police often give advice, via the media, to not resist when threatened by a robber, whether armed or not, and to give over whatever that robber demands rather than face the prospect of personal injury. Is this our ‘modern’ police in action, now giving out advice to retreat from danger, or a threat, and to not resist or defend oneself? Is this leftist philosophy of retreat and cowardice also responsible for the rise of bullying in our schools? If I was in the vicinity of an officer handing out this advice I would call him/her to question. I would say to them. “If you are giving advice like that then you are in the wrong job!”

If what you own is worth protecting and you are able to, then I say fight for it, don’t just hand it over to someone who makes a living as a parasite on society. On that logic of not resisting and just handing over our property, then shouldn’t we all be leaving open our doors and widows so that who ever deems to steal from us does so in the knowledge that there will be no resistance, therefore no-one will be harmed?

When society’s protectors mitigate their responsibilities by telling the citizens they are employed to protect, to hand over their property to those who demand it, then we have failed in our responsibilities to protect our own law abiding citizens. And if we are not prepared to protect our own law abiding citizens, or allow them to protect themselves from those opportunists who would prey on them, then with what moral values are we expected to protect our own culture and way of life?

We are currently witnessing the symptoms, within Western nations, of a wider malaise that has been caused by policies originating from the United Nations. This is now an organisation that devalues the importance of Western civilization and all that its technology and moral guidance has provided to the world.

Instead of upholding those principles which has made the West the guiding light of freedom, the U.N. now promotes a sense of disdain for the West through its poorly thought out ‘Human Rights’ policies, and infers that capitalism is the root of all evil and is the main cause of the world’s woes, that moral equivalency is the new mantra, when it is so blatantly obvious that not all cultures share our moral obligations or ‘human rights’ concerns.

This same kind of destructive philosophy has now filtered down into our police forces and is enforced by some very draconian and Marxist-like legislation. Unless we can reverse this stupidity we will be doomed to no longer be the guiding light of the world that we still are; then again, maybe that is the goal!

Mr. Ivanoff, I hope you will take the time to read the third and last installment of my opinion of policing issues in the next issue of Destiny magazine as I believe it to be the most relevant to the issues of ‘modern’ policing.

The release of the current federal government’s budget created quite a stir in the media as the opposition hammered the level of spending and the government tries to defend it. In effect, both arguments are complete nonsense. The level of federal government spending is in no way financially constrained.

Fiat Currency

Fiat Currency by definition is money printed as a medium of exchange. Its value is not linked to that of gold or any finite resource. Essentially modern money in Australia is a tool used to exchange goods and services. The value of money therefore is directly related to the value of real economic transactions.

The federal government is the sole supplier of Australian currency, which it must release to the private sector before it can be taxed. If the government sector must first spend money in the private sector to give the private sector the tool it needs to pay tax then by pure logic the government is not reliant on taxpayers for funding.

We only pay taxation at a federal level to ensure the fiat money tool works! If you don’t pay your taxes in Australian dollars you are fined or imprisoned. This threat enforces compliance so all business and individuals in Australia demand payment in Australian dollars so they can meet their tax obligations. The fiat currency tool now works as everyone needs to trade in Australian dollars.

If you look at Russia following the break-up of the Soviet Union you can see that poor tax policy led to the ruble even sometimes being replaced by vodka as the accepted medium of exchange.

Looking at the simple concept of money we can see the arguments around the “government budget” are complete nonsense. If we, like the government, could print our own money we would certainly not worry about our private budgets. The government budget is purely an accounting record with no real economic significance.

Fiat money is a tool. Think of the ancient Egyptians building a pyramid. If workers only receive one pick for every two workers the building of the pyramid will be slower than if every worker received a pick. If eventually every worker was given two picks when they could only use one, the usefulness of the picks and its value decreases. Thus money supply should be increased until the real economy reaches full employment.

The fact that our government is not financially constrained and that there is legislation on open market operations (the interaction of bonds and reserves between the central and private sector banks) that regulates interest rates (the price of money) completely destroys the myth of government spending and associated debt.

By understanding this we can see that when a government runs a budget surplus it essentially removes money that belongs to the private sector for economic transactions and simply throws it in the trash. Federal governments, both Labor and Liberal, have done this for years to the detriment of Australia. Yet we are told they are responsible economic managers on their portrayal of the system as something similar to a private sector account.

We can see the results. Massive personal levels of debt and massive levels of underemployment continue to increase. The government fiddles the definition of unemployment to produce politically favourable statistics. A person who works one hour a week but who could work thirty eight is not fully employed in an economic sense even if statistically they are.

The basis of both parties acting irresponsibly is neo-liberal economic policy, particularly on its concepts of inflations. An exposé on neo-liberalism economics will be done in another paper.

Australian jobs should be protected by running a sensible fiscal policy with a focus on full employment rather than on neo-liberal policies.

References:

William Mitchell and Randy Wray. Modern monetary macroeconomics, The Centre of Full Employment and Equity, The University of Newcastle

Joseph Albright. “In cash-starved Russia, vodka is ‘liquid currency’”, Baltimore Sun, 30 Dec. 1991

Further reading:

For further reading on this matter please visit the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (known as CofFEE) at http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/. It is Australia’s leading full employment policy centre.

The leading publication for those interested in significant detail is “Full Employment Abandoned – Shifting Sands and Policy Failures” by William Mitchell and Joan Muysken. Just Google the title to obtain vendors nearest you.