Fanning the Flames: Politics of Hate and Division
Cory Bernardi (Australian liberal senator) and Jeremy Corbyn (British labor party leader) are both rallying the troops into divisive camps to support the upcoming campaign/s against those horrid opposition people who won't do as 'they' say.
Labor in Britain has recently gained (in a 48 hour window) as many as 155,000 'new members' to vote for the leader of 'their chosing' rather than allow the leader be elected by the existing labor party members. They want to have a say but the labor elites and labor politicians do not want them to, so have imposed a £25 tarriff onto the £3 membership requirements in order to vote. The payment psychology is clever in that it obliges ongoing commitment to the cause regardless of the outcome.
Similarly in Australia, Cory Bernardi has promoted this new conservative movement to rally support of the disaffected conservative to the liberal side.
By their fruits you will know them
Both movements' objective, (like the Pauline Hanson phenomenon in 1996), is to direct the political energy away from any effective outcome, but rather be controlled from above to come to naught. The strategy of the liberal/labor conniving and collusion is obvious as we have just seen again with this election and the preference deals between them to exclude all others.
Consider small is beautiful when you plan any political action.
In small groups you can 'set your own agenda and targets' and go for them.
Q & A
Finally got to watch the ABC programme Questions and Answers. Thought Senator-elect Pauline Hanson handled herself well against the barrage of venom targetted her way.
The derogatory words used against her stirred memories of the many times the ALoR has been the object of just such attacks.
On the Land Rights issue:
Land Rights Movement under Shadow of Lenin: In the 1980s the League was called a "racist sect", guilty of "racism and clandestine fascist activism". At the time we warned: “The term racist is hurled at anyone who argues that Australia cannot survive as an independent nation without a commonly shared language and commonly shared institutions.”
Senator–elect Hanson sought to defend the Australian people and their culture. What is wrong with that?
Remember the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, June 2015? Ian Wilson reported “The Committee chairman Ken Wyatt has been quoted as saying that all of the options would allow Aborigines to push for “sovereignty” or a “treaty”. So it is clear where all of this is leading to. (The Australian 28 October 2014, p.4)
The Evidence Well Confirmed: “The informative little booklet by Geoff Mc Donald, “The Evidence” (Veritas 1986) has been well confirmed. The Aboriginal land rights movement has arisen under the shadow of Lenin and : “The charge of racism is to provide the ‘evidence’ to rationalise a decision by the United Nations to support recognition of the land right areas as a separate nation”.
“McDonald observed back in the ’80s that, “The people under attack in Australia on a racial and colour basis are the white people. Australians of Anglo Saxon-Celtic background have been the subject of an enormous campaign of slander.” (p.7)”
As to accusing Mrs Hanson of being ‘divisive’; as ‘demonising’ and ‘isolating’ people of a different race and religion, just study the main political parties’ history and language over the last fifty years! If it has not been divisive I don’t know what words mean! They are experts at the game.
http://veritasbooks.com.au/red-over-black-behind-the-aboriginal-land-rights-g-mcdonald
http://veritasbooks.com.au/the-evidence-geoff-mcdonald
A word for Labor Senator Sam Dastyari
You were not given a ‘mandate’ by your voters. You, as a senator, are to represent the interests of all the electors and the state in which you reside. The Senate is a House of Review.
Australia's Malcolm Turnbull: the failure of success
by Binoy Kampmark Posted Wednesday, 20 July 2016
The term "mandate" has been sluicing through the Australian electoral system in its predictable wash-up. In that particular country, it never matters whether one wins by one vote or a hundred thousand: everyone has a "clear mandate" to do what they damn well wish they think they were encouraged to do.
It is worth remembering that the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, took his government, and the country, to an election, and tediously long eight-week campaign, after seeking a double dissolution (that is, of both chambers of Parliament).
That effort was meant to improve his numbers and obtain the proverbial mandate against those in the Senate considered all too obstructionist for his governing – democracy, in other words, is not a matter of all parties but only the majority.
What happened on election night was considerable bloodletting, a brutal display of voter vengeance that could only have been taken one way. It might have been deemed a massacre, and others with a mild acquaintance of their ancient history would have used the term Pyrrhic victory.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and blogs at Oz Moses.
Ref: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18388
Comments