Features Australia

Aux bien pensants

9 September 2017

9:00 AM

9 September 2017

9:00 AM

Everything and anything to bring Australia down

Will our elites succeed in bringing Australia down, just as Argentina and especially Venezuela have been brought down? At federation, Australians and Argentineans were among the richest people in the world. Without incurring the heavy sacrifices Australia did in both world wars, Argentina is the only country to have fallen from the first to the third world. Now, Venezuela, with oil reserves greater than Saudi Arabia, has been reduced to appalling poverty.

The principal economic tool to achieve our destruction is the RET, officially a Renewable Energy Target but in truth, a burdensome and pointless Renewable Energy Tax. By 2030 this will have added an impossible $60 billion to our electricity costs, destroying industry and by depriving them of air-conditioning and especially heating, killing off the poor. With electricity prices now the highest in the world, we have already moved into the ‘realm of third world countries’, with residential power disconnections rising by as much as 140 per cent in six years and the average household paying more than double the amount it paid a decade ago for an increasingly unreliable supply. The disastrous effects on business and employment are only beginning to be seen, with the nation suffering the highest rate of underemployment, almost 20 per cent, in the OECD.

This folly is based on the increasingly challenged global warming theory which is only one of a range of fashionable new dogmas. China, India, the US, and with their increasing import of goods incorporating offshore emitted CO2, even the EU are no doubt surprised that we Australians actually allow our politicians to destroy our economy while they flaunt their truly gargantuan CO2 footprints. Our warmist politicians operate on this fundamental principle: never ever use Skype when you can access the world’s best airline seats, restaurants and hotels.

In the meantime, not only the socialists but also the LINOs (Liberals In Name Only ) believe Canberra can do anything better than the states or even the private sector. Take, for example, the Internet. Just look at what the Rudd-Turnbull NBN has achieved with only $49 billion – slower, less reliable and more expensive connections. And when a proper reading of the Constitution clearly indicates that education is a state matter, Canberra’s takeover has resulted in standards falling below those of third world countries. At the same time, our children are denied a teaching of our history as it actually occurred and instead are taught the perversities of gender fluidity and sharing by boys and girls of lavatories and change rooms.

And although our federation was created by the people of the several states, the elites seem determined to stoke a new secessionist movement in Western Australia. As well as stealing her offshore resources, they have imposed on WA an appalling socialist GST which gives that state little over 30 cents in each dollar collected but rewards the richest part of the country, the ACT, with almost $1.20 cents and the NT $4.66. (By a sleight of hand the federal government effectively transferred its responsibilities for its territories to the states, while claiming, with a straight face, that the GST is a state tax.)

Not content with the destruction of the economy, another alien ideology has been imported to break up the nation. This is multiculturalism, a dogma which Huntington saw as being anti-European civilisation. By the same token it is anti-Australian. We saw the application of this when Pauline Hanson courageously wore a burka into the Senate. On her way in and not knowing who she was, Greens Senator Whish-Wilson obsequiously put his hand out and said ‘Good on you’. When she revealed herself, the elites rushed to attack her and to defend the wearing of this primitive garment, the very symbol of the repression and subjugation of women. If all cultures are equal, must we approve not only the burka but the female repression it represents, the persecution of gay men (even throwing them off high buildings), polygamy, child marriages and female genital mutilation? If multiculturalism had meant no more than an interest in other cuisines and high culture and the proper treatment of immigrants, there would have been no need to introduce this term into Australia – we were already practising all this before any of us had heard of the word. But it doesn’t. Instead of multiculturalism, those who come to Australia must bear true allegiance, contribute and not be dependent, observe the law and accept the primacy of the Judeo-Christian values which are at the very heart of our civil society. This does not mean that immigrants have to convert; it means, for example, that polygamy should not be practised here, although the welfare system tacitly and improperly recognises it. The fact is that the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, is a fundamental institution of Australian society.

But now we are being asked to change this through a fake referendum, a postal plebiscite which if it is not unconstitutional as the High Court could well find it to be, it is certainly extra-constitutional. Were it a real referendum, as the Constitution requires, the consequences of our choice and what protections would be assured would be on the table before we vote. Under the postal plebiscite they will be sprung on us afterwards. And with a real referendum, we would have a genuine debate with the principal arguments on each side sent to each elector in a Yes/No booklet. The present unconstitutional and wholly undemocratic suppression of the No case could not occur, and the question would be decided both nationally and federally with support in at least four states.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments