Part 6 of a 6-part series.
Part 5 closed by posing 3 questions:
- Has anyone wondered why Australian politicians repeatedly assert multiculturalism as the most successful example of integration of divergent races and cultures in the world?
- Has anyone considered that the “success” part refers to the actual deculturation of Australia and the systematic erosion of all aspects of Australian society?
- Does the current multicultural composition of Australia define the essence of its identity?
This is the sixth instalment in a series of essays aimed at questioning the motives behind the covert forces that have reshaped and distorted the lives of millions of Australians over recent decades. Globally the same forces are rapidly taking every western country towards the inexorable disintegration of their two thousand year old democratic heritage. Before commencing this sixth instalment, if not done so already, it is recommended that the reader acquaint themselves with the fifth essay in this series. See: http://www.theindigoessays.net.au/have-voters-been-checkmated/
Evil Forces Still Exist – Just Not How We Imagine
Over the course of the 20th century, the true nature of religion (in general) became common knowledge and irrelevance gradually replaced absolute loyalty and unquestioned belief in the church. More recently, the revelations of child abuse and the accompanying hypocritical stance of denial of wrongdoing has accelerated the loss of belief and loosened the scales of blind support, thereby relegating institutionalised religion to a distasteful sense of disappointment and disillusionment for many of the former faithful.
A loss of faith in religion simultaneously paved the way for a decline in the belief of evil and to a lesser extent, a desire to openly pursue and practice the principles of good. Prior to the decline, the common belief was to equate the principles of good and evil with the concepts of god and the devil. Conspiring silently in the background, Marxist influenced, post-modernist thinking had removed all distinction in that it advocated the non-existence of good and evil and therefore, the viewpoint that humans are capable of neither. In other words, no-one is to be deemed as good or evil regardless of their words and deeds.
As an aside, it is interesting that the addition of an extra ‘o’ to god forms the word ‘good’. Similarly, take the ‘d’ away from devil and the word evil remains. Thus, whether by accident or otherwise, it is possible to extrapolate that God = good and the devil = evil.
This essay submits that evil as traditionally represented by the devil or satan and related fictional manifestations symbolised by zombies, werewolves, vampires, Harry Potter, and Dr Evils, are simply a source of trivial entertainment and expedient distraction. The real evils are a deceptively silent albeit maturing influence that are disproportionally significant in the way they are distorting and devaluing everything that were once held worthy and as a consequence, rapidly destroying the little that is good in western societies.
In a sense, it is argued that the historic icons of evil personified through satan or lucifer, promulgated through acts of devil worship accompanied by symbols such as pentagrams and goats heads, Faustian contracts, and images of hell, have transmuted from supernatural ethereal malevolent influences into an unrecognisable, cancerous psychological destructiveness that is as subtle as it is overt in its application and intent to destroy all that remains of value embedded within the core beliefs of the western world.
Two destructive evils are in play – multiculturalism and political correction
What is Multiculturalism?
Several complications arise in determining a suitable description for the term ‘multiculturalism’ and what it means in general terms. What stands out is that there is no single description or definition. A search online reveals that there are as many definitions as there are countries, organisations, governments, interest groups, and individuals. It varies from generation to generation, country to country, province to province, and government to government.
The people who migrated to Australia from the turn of the 20th century up until the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, did not travel here to re-establish the country they had left behind. They learned to communicate in English, accepted Australian laws and observed the prevailing (cultural) norms. Many eventually swore allegiance to Australia and its sovereignty. In short, they assimilated many aspects of the existent Australian society and accepted it as a new way of life worthy of aspiration. In return and over time, they willingly supported and assisted to build a unique Australian culture based on commonly held values, beliefs, and goals. The result was a natural integration that led to significant benefits for all.
From the perspective of those already living in the country, it was not considered unreasonable to presume that immigrants will integrate and become productive citizens. The immigrants were expected to obey the established rules and laws, respect the prevailing culture and traditions, and live peacefully without seeking to undermine any part of what made up the accepted norms.
None of this precluded the right for new arrivals to continue to observe their own cultural and religious norms. They were free to practice their preferred religions or traditions or observances, but not free to force their ways onto the general population. This included at the very least an acceptance of all Australian holidays and traditions.
The obvious incongruity here is that the preceding presumptions and expectations are no longer voiced. We rarely see our politicians promote or support the preservation and celebration of an Australian culture. More often we hear about what is ‘unaustralian’ – what does this actually mean?
It can be credibly argued that at times multiculturalism can lead to genuine benefits for all societies. The preceding paragraphs attest to this fact. No culture is perfect and not devoid of a need for improvement in some aspect of its traditions and practices. However, although multiculturalism may be regarded as a well-intended benefit for all, it is an illusory claim if it neglects the value and need for a core culture, language, and identification to facilitate stable and productive integration. This can lead to an inexorable decline in the strengths of the original culture to the point where it no longer holds influence or even relevance.
As history shows, there have been countless times when another culture is forced upon an unsuspecting populace through brute force or without consent, the impact of which can be outright destructive to the point of eliminating the subverted culture. History is replete with such examples.
More repugnant is the imposition of a culture upon another as a deliberate intent orchestrated through social engineering policy that is promoted and justified under the guise of a ‘positive thing for the society and its economy’. In reality, such policies are purposefully planned with a fixed goal to undermine and destroy the social fabric of an unwary populace. At this point, it is unquestionably an act of ‘evil’ both in intent and consequence. It is this type of multiculturalism that is the primary concern in this essay.
Whilst many would instinctively disagree, principally through an absence of knowledge or exposure to the facts, others through tacit support, Australia has been subjected to the latter.
[The reader is again reminded that the following sections will make better sense if the previous essay in this series is read]
A Planned Multiculturalism Policy- What happened?
During the 1970s, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia. In the lead-up to the issue of a reference paper titled “A multi-cultural society for the future” by the then Minister for Immigration in 1973 (under the Whitlam Government) Al Grassby, and the subsequent establishment of the Federal Department of Labour and Immigration in 1974, and the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Bill of 1975, it is now possible to see (through the writings of Keith Windshuttle and of course the benefit of hindsight), something of what was going on in locked rooms and secret meetings. As Windshuttle explained (references in  are available in the source article):
The sixties generation supported a version of multiculturalism that sought to use immigration to change the host society itself. By advocating the preservation of their cultures intact, radical multiculturalists encouraged immigrants to withhold loyalties and affiliations to the host nation. They also aimed to destabilise Australian traditions, values and institutions by censuring the nation’s original character. Although they advocated the relativist doctrine that all cultures are equal, and none could be judged better than others, only different, their position was always hypocritical. The one culture that was not regarded to be equal was that of traditional Australia. In the version of history advanced by the multiculturalists over the last thirty years, Australia is deeply and shamefully tainted by racism towards non-European immigrants and its indigenous people. [xix]
In the final report produced by the Committee on Community Relations in 1975, it was recommended that Australian government social policy in the future be based on four key elements:
- The task for political leaders is to promote understanding and respect for difference and our common humanity
- Legislation is required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission. Government services would need to be culturally sensitive and provided in community languages.
- Schools to teach students to respect the culture of others, provide knowledge of traditions, history, literature and geography of the countries of the major immigrant groups.
- The mass media to be responsible for furthering the understanding of cultures and to provide meaningful communication between the various groups that constituted Australian society.[xiv]
In 2016, Jack London described in a brief commentary the relationship that binds multiculturalism to cultural relativism and how the latter brought about the demise of the Australian culture. In his words (see http://morningmail.org/australian-culture/):
“Stripped to its core belief, cultural relativism and its best mate, multiculturalism, airily theorise that no civilization, no moral code, no way of living, is better than another.”
London emphasised that multiculturalists find little or no fault in almost every other culture, except the Australian culture, which is “portrayed as oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, bigoted, and nationalistic with few redeeming qualities.” Cultural relativism takes these views much further and “holds that not only is each culture of equal value, but that someone else’s culture should not be judged from your cultural perspectives.” To do so he writes, would be “racist,” “bigoted,” or at the very least, “culturally superior”. In keeping with the same doctrine, making a “value judgement” based on our own culture is the “wrong” thing to do and “politically incorrect”. Consider this contemporary gem extracted straight out of a 2017 website comment:
…if you don’t understand White Supremacy (which is the only form of functional Racism that exists among the people of the known universe), everything else that you do try to understand will only confuse you…
On the eve of the 21st of March 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proudly announced that “Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world.” He went on to say: “The glue that holds us together is mutual respect – a deep recognition that each of us is entitled to the same respect, the same dignity, the same opportunities.”
An unrelated article dated the 19th of June 2017 boldly titled “Speak Arabic Brother, This Is Lakemba!” reported on an Arab man who overheard and exhorted the writer for speaking in Urdu at the time of the encounter. The author quite correctly points out in his concluding comments “it is imperative to understand that racism exists, even in the pocketed corners of our society, whether this may be a Turkish corner or an Arab corner, a white man or a Vietnamese woman.” To this, the author of this essay adds the countless acts of racism he has been subjected to over the years from aboriginal people.
Typical of many comments added to the end of web articles on multiculturalism is the following submitted this year (it would be very easy to fill countless pages with such comments):
There should be a name for this social change; ‘suburb creep’ or similar. One year it’s an Aussie suburb with people from many countries, all speaking English, all co-existing. A few years later, the shopping precinct becomes predominantly Arabic or Hindi speaking and the only indication of being in Australia is the existence of a Coles, Woolies or CBA bank. This is the experience of many people in Western Sydney over the past two decades.
I worked in such a suburb from 2001. Initially, the suburb was the shining example of many cultures assimilating. The shopping centre consisted of businesses run by Greeks, Poles, Egyptians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, and Anglos. The lingua franca was, of course, English. It worked. I ran a business from an office above one of the shops. The camaraderie on the main street was palpable. No culture was dominant over the others. We were all in business on the same block.
Years later I went back. Apart from the Commonwealth Bank, Woolies and the post office, I could have been in India. It was great, if you wanted to be in India, but it was no longer the vibrant multi-ethnic community that it had once been.
By all means have a Chinatown, a Little Italy and other cultural villages, but when suburbs become ‘no go zones’ as Sydney’s Lakemba and Auburn have become, it’s time to reconsider the wisdom of so-called ‘multiculturalism’.
Thinking back on the doctrine of cultural relativism, and then taking it through to its logical conclusion, the following extract (from the previously referenced Occidental Observer article) provides a conclusive counter argument:
If races and cultures really are as equal as multiculturalists sanctimoniously claim, then there would be no justification to change the White Australian society and culture by introducing other races and cultures. That they routinely degrade White Australia and its traditional culture utterly belies their argument that all races and cultures are equal. Of course, the reality is that it is the very European-derived people (so loathed by the Jewish-dominated intellectual elite) which made Australia and other Western nations successful in the first place. And it is precisely these people and their culture that the promoters of multiculturalism seek to destroy.
If one looks hard enough, there are voices of dissent on the systematic exclusion of an Australian culture. Hirst for example, (Sense and Nonsense in Australian History, 2006) argued that multiculturalism is perilous concept on which to found national policy in that it denies the existence of a host Australian culture:
“Insofar as multiculturalism makes what it calls ‘Anglo-Celts’ the equivalent of Italians and Turks, it denies the very notion of a host. [Multiculturalists assert] we are all immigrants of many cultures, contributing to a multicultural society. This may serve the needs of ethnic politics. As a serious historical or sociological analysis it is nonsense. To found policy on it may be perilous.”
In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Salter (2011) details the flaws that are apparent in the current model of multiculturalism in that Australia has become a country where the founding Anglo-Celtic population is headed for minority status. In other words, Australia’s historic Anglo-Celtic majority is no longer a legitimate interest group. To emphasise the significance of the problem, he surveyed social science departments in Australian universities over a period of ten years and could not find one teaching position dedicated to researching or teaching Anglo-Celtic or white interests. This he writes as is “as clear an example of institutional capture as one could imagine within an ostensibly plural liberal democracy”.
The strategy applied over the past six decades or so to achieving the goal of denigrating and eventually decimating the Australian culture is arguably the most insidious deception perpetrated in Australia’s brief history, which in turn was forged by the corrosive catalysts of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The Synergistic Fusion of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism
Paradoxically, as touched on above, two of Australia’s most contentious subjects to surface over past years are immigration and its divisive derivative, the ever amorphous concept of multiculturalism. Neither of the two major Australian political parties (as well as the Greens) officially recognises there are cultures that have not and do not show signs of wanting to assimilate or accept or even participate in Australian traditions. None can perceive (or at least acknowledge) that cultural differences should not to be forced upon other cultures. As noted, history repeatedly reminds us that to do so results in greater division and at times civil unrest or worse, violence. The March 2016 riots in Melbourne and the Cronulla riots in 2005 starkly attest to this fact.
Whether multiculturalism gave rise to political correctness or vice versa in Australia is difficult to determine. There is argument that political correctness has been in use in various forms since World War 1. Writers such as Lind (2000) contend that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”. More specifically he qualifies this assertion: it is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms that in the United States extends back to as early as the 1930s . He exhorts the reader to compare the basic tenets of political correctness with classical Marxism and asserts the parallels are obvious.
For contemporary Australian society, political correctness did not take hold until the introduction of multiculturalism and as of 2017, is well and truly entrenched as a means of psychological and emotional abuse and control. Certainly, many authors think the relationship between the two doctrines is not accidental. There is a sound basis to posit that political correctness was and is the means to establish multiculturalism.
Read the pages of any newspaper or login into any social media website and we constantly witness double standards and hypocrisy from the self-appointed all-knowing, infallible, left-wing elite (hereafter referred to as the ‘quasi-elite’), who arrogantly presume an automatic right to utilise political correctness as a means of coercion and control. Modern day Christians display identical attributes albeit deceptively disguised as piousness and self-righteousness as a means of judging and condemning non-believers to suffering an eternal hell. These same elites do not hesitate to subject anyone who contradicts, opposes, or even questions their ideologues to stereotyped and cruel labels such as racists, sexists, misogynists, environmental vandals (“climate deniers”), homophobes, and even at times, neo-Nazis.
To the self-appointed ‘quasi-elite’, those whom they deem to be of inferior stature (the proletariats) can never attain the heights of intellectualism and sophistication and worldliness they have assumed for themselves. The irony is that the same elite, comprised of highly vocal, self-aggrandising, attention seeking individuals and groups generally neglect to acknowledge their marxist roots, instead preferring to believe that their worldview is progressive, tolerant, and empathetic. By direct implication, the ‘proletariats’ possess the exact opposite attributes.
The unstated assumption is that anyone who does not share such ‘enlightened’ ideals and qualities is naturally inferior. In other words, the covert or even oblivious marxist advocates who so promptly point their politically correct weapons against those they perceive to be ‘less informed’, anti-progressive, and intellectually deficient, forget to mention that their (nameless) ideology also gave rise to a subsidiary school of thought designed specifically to undermine and eventually destroy western culture.
By these statements, I refer to the list of 11 recommendations that have been variously attributed to what is referred to as the Frankfurt School. The claim is that the recommendations were calculated to undermine the foundations of western society and to collectively create the chaos and dystopia that is so readily discernible today:
- The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws.
- Continual change to create confusion (e.g., in school curricula).
- Sexual gratification programmes in schools, combined with the homosexualisation of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom.
- The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority.
- Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars.
- The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs.
- The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society.
- An unreliable legal system that fails to support the victims of crime.
- Dependency on state benefits.
- Control and dumbing down of media. (Six companies now control 96 percent of the world’s media).
- The attack on fathers and encouraging the breakdown of the family.
To this list, and in light of the plethora of news reports and articles on these issues, four more goals can be added:
- The creation of trauma through injustice
- Destruction of the monetary system
- Political Correctness
Australians are not aware that the Frankfurt School spawned what many university courses refer to as Critical Theory. It sets out the principles upon which the destructive criticism of Western Culture can be conducted, including Christianity, Capitalism, Authority, The Family, Patriarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethno-centrism, Conservatism.
Critical Theory repeatedly espouses a mantra of alleged Western evils: racism, sexism, colonialism, nationalism, homophobia, fascism, xenophobia, imperialism, and of course, religious bigotry (which conveniently applies only to Christians). As we all know, the current derogatory term for belittling and abuse of religion is islamophobia.
It is to be noted that a concerted attempt by this author to attribute the 11 recommendations to the publications produced by the Frankfurt school was unsuccessful. It was simply not possible to confirm that the school produced these recommendations. A web search reveals two opposing areas of thought. Either the 11 recommendations are the cause of the myriad of problems that prevail in Western societies today, or that the recommendations were promoted as part of a right-wing conspiracy.
However, apply any one the 15 recommendations as a keyword search and it is soon apparent that there are countless examples to confirm the realisation of each and every one.
Despite an abundance of evidence, the proponents of left-wing thinking and political correctness deny the existence of the Frankfurt school and its connection to the destructive criticisms of Western Culture. Are such ideas simply coincidence?
Can it be assumed (as consistently claimed) that the parallels have arisen by accident? Examine the examples carefully and it can be seen that they are certainly not without malevolent consequences. Perhaps there is a politician (past or present) who is willing to enlighten Australians on why all these ideas are now part of everyday reality?
For readers who may think the above points are signs the author has succumbed to paranoia or is attempting to validate conspiracy theories, I urge you to read a highly illuminating account of the academic responsible for establishing the Safe Schools Coalition in Victoria (SSCV) program, which was expanded to become the federally funded Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA). See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18033 and (on a slightly lighter note, albeit to illustrate a number of salient points):
A Sample of Global Disruption
In 2015, Credit Suisse conducted an analysis of wealth growth and inequality from which it produced the “The Global Wealth Report”. Globally, in Europe the middle class share of the total wealth was down from 47.2 percent to 40.6 percent, in North America from 23.8 percent to 21 percent, and in Asia from 50.4 percent to 41.6 percent.
A McKinsey Global Institute paper titled “Poorer than their Parents: Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies”, reported that the trend in stagnating or declining incomes for middle class workers is not only confined to the United States, but is a global phenomenon affecting workers across all middle class groups. The study tracked income brackets, not individual households, from 2005 to 2014. The Institute found that as much as 70% of the households in 25 advanced economies experienced a drop in earnings over the past decade. That compares to just 2% of households that saw declining incomes in the previous 12 years. The authors estimated this means that “while fewer than ten million people were affected [by flat or falling incomes] in the 1993-2005 period, that figure exploded to between 540 million and 580 million people in 2005-2014.”
A 2016 OECD issues paper titled “The squeezed middle class in OECD and emerging countries –myth and reality” stated that on average in the OECD during the 1980’s, the middle-income group (those with incomes between 0.75 and 2 times the median) collectively had incomes six times the level of the collective incomes of the top income group (i.e. those with incomes that exceeded twice the level of median income). This ratio fell to 5 to 1 in the 1990s and to 4 to 1 since the 2000s.
In OECD countries, over indebtedness (defined as having a debt-to-asset ratio of over 75 percent) peaks in middle income households, affecting more than one in ten. Similarly, in emerging economies a considerable proportion of the “new global middle class” has been able to raise their living standards only through credit and is particularly exposed and vulnerable to shifts in interest rates, life events, and the economic cycle.
Credit Suisse further noted that since 2009, incomes in Europe have fallen in Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Increasingly, parents worry about their children’s prospects. In France, 86 percent think the younger generation will be worse off than them; in the UK the figure is 72 percent and in Greece, and the US it is 65 percent.
In the US, Donald trump became President by tapping into a wave of anger that was directed at establishment politicians who typically attempted to caution voters against what they labelled as radical solutions. Although something of an enigma, at the very least Trump exposed not only how far out of touch the political elites have become, but also how insular the public are as a result of listening to and believing the media elite. Alongside these disconcerting revelations, the US Department of Labor pointed out that workers’ share of relative wealth dropped from 65.4 per cent in 1947 to 57.9 per cent in 2015, the lowest level since the Second World War. As Bloomberg financial news analysts reported:
“Inequality, immigration, and the establishment’s perceived indifference are firing up electorates in a way that has rarely been seen before. The forces shaping the disruption of global politics have been building for years and are not about to diminish.”
A 2015 Pew Research analysis report emphasised that as the upper class has grown in size, America’s aggregate income has shifted away from the middle class. In 1970, the middle class held 62% of America’s aggregate household income and the upper class held 29%. In 2014, the middle class held 43%, while the upper class held 49%. The percentage of middle class Americans has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage living in the upper-income tier rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. The upper class median household income has increased by $56,008 since 1970, while the middle class median household income has increased by $18,710 in the same period.
The report further affirmed that lower and upper-income U.S households now outnumber the middle for the first time in decades. Despite financial gains, the middle class has lost their majority income share to the upper classes and “the share of American adults living in middle-income households have fallen 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015”. However, as we have seen, the US is not an isolated case.
In the UK for example, Britain’s middle class is “being swiftly eroded by a new and disturbing economic reality” with nearly 60% “defining themselves as working class” (McLaren, 2013). Italy has experienced a severe economic contraction in the recession after the 2008 financial crisis and has since experienced a very weak recovery. Real market incomes were flat or falling for virtually the entire population. At the other extreme is Sweden, where 20 percent of the population had flat or falling market incomes. In each of the four other focus countries – France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States – the proportion of segments whose market incomes did not advance was in the 60 to 80 percent range.
Even Germany is not immune this trend. The German Institute for Economic Research reports that the number of Germans counted as belonging to the middle classes dropped by six percent between 1991 and 2013.
Contrary to popular belief, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently cast doubt on how long Australia will remain an exception. They showed the income share of Australia’s middle class shrank between 2012 and 2014 while the split going to richest families increased. The proportion of all national income accruing to the highest quintile of households (the richest 20 per cent) rose from 39.5 per cent in 2011-12 to 40.8 per cent in 2013-14. That well-to-do quintile was the only group to increase its share. At the other end of the pay scale, the share of the poorest 20 per cent remained steady at 7.5 per cent of all income. The stability of income for this population group is most likely due to Australia’s highly targeted welfare system. But the income share of the middle 60 per cent of households saw its share of national income fall from 52.9 per cent to 51.6 per cent.
Are Australian Governments Playing a Dangerous Game (What is the agenda?)
Piers Ackerman (2015) once observed: “This unrelenting pressure from those in our society who could justifiably be labelled useful idiots, to use Stalin’s description of the well-meaning idiots who put a gloss on communism’s worst atrocities, means the freedoms consistent with liberal democracy are being whittled away by those entrusted to protect them”.
Pilger (2015) places an even starker perspective on the problems: These are dark times, in which the propaganda of deceit touches all our lives. It is as if political reality has been privatised and illusion legitimised. The information age is a media age. We have politics by media; censorship by media; war by media; retribution by media; diversion by media – a surreal assembly line of clichés and false assumptions.
“…As voters we lost our democracy by ceding sovereignty to politicians through apathy, complacency and disengagement. We left a vacuum and that vacuum was willingly taken up by politicians and other interests.
Australians no longer have a palpable sense of their true identity and culture. Opinions have become so divided that the arguments shift aimlessly from: there is no culture – there never has been; to what we had was shameful and embarrassing; to multiculturalism has finally given us a true culture. Because we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated and divided; separated through consumerism, overburdened through unbridled debt, insular greed, planned ignorance, and low quality education, all of which has been subliminally encouraged through the malevolent use of advertising and public relation programmes, and overtly supported by MSM and social media, Australians have lost a united, shared sense of who and what they are, their values, and as a consequence, no longer hold a common vision for their country. It is no wonder that as a nation, we are unable to assert any semblance of a vision either to the world or even to ourselves.
The country once dubbed the “lucky country”, “a sunburnt country”, “the land of the fair go and mateship”, has now given way to a system that unashamedly favours minority interests and is run by career politicians who display no allegiance to the electorate and repeatedly favour the demands of their chosen political party. Corporations operate in the same manner, with allegiance directed to the shareholder (and CEOs). Although the very essence of “fair go” was in fact an attempt to practice the principles of democracy in its truest form, under the present system it is no longer possible to identify who or what is accountable for all that disrupts and unsettles so much of everyday life.
The Australian populace is now so deeply inundated by deceptions, lies, and misinformation that it is impossible to find, let alone know even a sliver of truth anymore. Decades of mediocre politicians have caused so much harm to the country for so long that it’s almost as if we need to start over. Australians need pioneering people to break down the established economic, politic, judicial, and legal systems and reset the goals so that the way the country functions may be rebuilt.
Even politicians such as Scott Morrison acknowledge these truths. He recently declared that voters have stopped listening to politicians and increasingly see partisan conflict as completely irrelevant to their interests. Today’s forgotten people, the voters, have chosen to dismiss the political class, thereby making it much harder for politicians to reach them and gain their attention. In Morrison’s own words, “Australians had collectively reached for the remote and turned down the volume on Canberra’s noise, tuning out from politics and from media coverage of politics.”
Collectively, Australians know that as more policies are released and new promises are made, nothing will improve, only grow worse. They know that whenever politicians, particularly those of the socialist ilk, talk about business, that is small business, most of them have no idea where to start. In fact, their anachronistic, corrupt dogmas have caused more businesses to close or move offshore than most other factors.
Few politicians understand what it is like to take the kind of risks inherent in starting and growing a small business: the business loan; mortgaging the family home; the principle and interest payments; ASIC, the ATO, the auditors, accountants (and everyone else with their hand out); compliance; insurances; marketing; skills acquisition; finding decent staff and paying them first; BASs, stocktakes, and all else that demands their time, usually involving long, laborious hours with no shortage of worry and responsibility. Such personal qualities ripple across the general population and are transferable to many situations. This is because the attributes described here highlight the type of people Australia desperately needs, as they possess the capacity to innovate, create, build businesses, and employ people.
They also understand what it takes to oppose corruption and resist negative influences, and quickly recognise the parasitic, deceptive left-leaning types who do nothing positive to build wealth and products for the wellbeing of all. They are not the kind of people who take what they have not earned through self- appointed privilege and self-serving arrogance, while ensuring nothing remains to give back to those who produced the wealth in the first place. Most definitely, these people are not socialists, academics, politicians, corporate CEOs, financial advisors, bankers, and incompetent fraudsters, all of whom have infiltrated and now occupy every strategic aspect of the western world.
If the reader thinks back to the 15 goals outlined beforehand, it should be apparent that I have barely managed to illustrate a small portion of the goals are now in place. The essay could easily become a book if I were to continue to provide examples for all 15 goals. However, I believe there should be sufficient examples in these few pages to make the point that although conspiratorial in origin, the examples that clearly abound throughout the western world today can no longer be passed off as mere conjecture.
Finally, for those who doubt the evil insidiousness of political correctness, consider what Lind warned in a speech he delivered in 2000:
America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off.
At the very least, the 6 essays presented to date have provided very brief insights into the matters that most affect Australians and highlight the needs and issues that politicians need to address. There are no more excuses as to what is required to reignite the incentive and inspiration that Australians desperately need to get back on board and work toward returning the country to its former, long defunct “lucky country” status.