Australians pride themselves on something they call “Australian Values”. If called upon to spell out what these values are Australians, today would probably express it in similar terms as I and many other Australians would have done 40 years ago:
“We’re a classless, egalitarian society where everyone gets a ‘fair go’. Even a struggling ‘battler’ is respected because he’s ‘doing the right thing’”.
A preamble to the application form for intending migrants (See: ref 1) provides a more comprehensive “official statement” of these values.
Australian society is also united through the following shared values:
- respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual;
- freedom of religion;
- commitment to the rule of law;
- Parliamentary democracy;
- equality of men and women;
- a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good;
- equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background.
The preamble goes on, imperiously, condescendingly…
“This form contains a statement, that you must sign, that confirms you understand and will respect the values of Australian society (as explained in the booklet) and will obey the laws of Australia. This includes acknowledging what would be required if you later applied for Australian citizenship.”
Australians universally should be both offended and humiliated by this preamble which purports to claim as uniquely Australian, these universal values that people all over the world have fought for since long before the Magna Charta enshrined the law of Habeas Corpus, which Australians carelessly surrendered as an obsequious act of deference to their American “friend and allay”.
Europeans generally are far more politically astute and perceptive than their Australian and American brethren. Europeans encountering this document, perhaps as intending immigrants being expected to sign it will, if not immediately, then inevitably at some time in the future, come to recognise the presumptuousness and hypocrisy of these explicit and implicit claims in the face of the current reality.
While Australia’s mineral wealth creates new billionaires, funds international violence, banditry and belligerence, undermines the wider Australian economy and provides a largesse for governments to splash about in self-serving, incompetent schemes that serve no common good, young Australians despair for lack of education, opportunity and hope. Youth suicide rates remain an “unfathomable problem” in Australia and the nation exercises little concern other than to somehow profit from the exports that facilitate the world’s irresponsible lurch towards a biosphere catastrophe. Debauched revellers glow in the ballroom of the Titanic as she slices her way toward the iceberg; Australians are content to provide bar services.
Something Worth Preserving – US
On the 21st October 2010, Australia’s ABC Radio National program “Big Ideas” broadcast an “Intelligence Squared Debate” on the question of “whether Australia would be better off without our defence forces” (See: ref 2). This, of course is the straw man question that avoids asking whether Australia’s “defence” forces should be participating in the invasion and occupation of a country that is one of the poorest in the world and has neither the means nor the will to pose any threat to us.
The Australian annual defence budget is currently $25.7 billion; more than half the annual revenue from the sale of iron ore in the current mining boom. When “bust” arrives the defence spending will no doubt continue at cost to everything else.
In the course of that debate, retired army senior officer Jim Malden, in a speech laden with the usual self-aggrandising claims that Australia has “armed forces that money couldn’t buy” and that our military is “an honourable and law abiding institution” and generously laced with fear-mongering remarks about defence forces being “the ultimate insurance policy in a tough and unpredictable world” and that “our part of the world in particular remains dangerous” claimed that “the world in general would be worse off” without Australia’s “humanitarian interventions”. Well, East Timor was certainly worse off after Indonesia invaded in 1975, when Australia stood by, indifferent, while 100,000 of our former most loyal WW2 allies were slaughtered in Dili, even as four Australian journalists were murdered in the course of events.
But probably the most sickeningly ego-centric and conceited of remarks I have ever heard so brazenly stated was his contention that:
“Australian society, for all its faults and foibles, is probably the highest development of humanity in the post-Enlightenment period - that’s US! We are something worth preserving, for our own comfort and security of course, but also for the world, Australia is valuable”.
Yes, that’s right, word for word, he actually said that!
Yet such is the current state of Australian moral introspection that his words almost certainly were met with a solemn nodding of heads from an audience accustomed to the construction of good fortune as virtue, a self-infatuated illusion about what the world thinks of us and a pre-occupation with self-serving and self-defence as a supreme priority, all of which combines to overshadow justice and morality.
Tell Us What We Need To Hear
On the last day of May the Australian Defence Department announced it had had a “very bad day” in Afghanistan: two soldiers had died in separate incidents; one in a helicopter crash, the other shot by an Afghan soldier he was training. While Air Chief Marshal Houston called the Afghan a "rogue soldier", others declared savagely they would “hunt him down like a dog and kill him!” and Australians frown upon his “treachery and double dealing”. Given the aforementioned expression of barbaric intention it was utterly sickening to witness, on June 21st, a military spokesman stating, in the sanitised, smug language of the Murdoch enterprise, that the “rogue Afghan soldier” had been “engaged in a fire fight” and had “placed himself in such a position that he posed a threat to commandoes and was shot”; words vaguely reminiscent of those used to describe the alleged shooting of Osama Bin Laden’s wife with her unarmed husband.
Only a week before, on 24th May an Australian commando, Sergeant Brett Wood, was killed and two other soldiers were seriously wounded by an improvised explosive device, while three other soldiers were wounded in a separate incident. Air Chief Marshal Houston had of course, been effusive in his praises full of glorious imagery – “a magnificent soldier”, “highly professional”, “dedicated”, “decorated soldier”,
“absolutely the best of the best.", “a young man who had dedicated his life to the defence of this nation”, "an exceptionally nice guy", “a team leader”, “outstanding service”, “inspirational leader”, “a decorated warrior”, “highly respected”, “popular” with the mandatory references to “gallantry”, “bravery” and “honour “.
Sergeant Wood may have been an exceptional soldier worthy of all these accolades, however, the same extravagant praise and lavish language is trotted out by the senior military and politicians every time a soldier dies in Afghanistan. Indeed, one politician stated “I had only to hear the words ‘Australian soldier’ to know that he was honourable, courageous and a first class soldier”.
However, there is abundant cause for sober reflection when we consider that these “heroes” kill civilians at a 10:1 ratio to the poorly-armed enemy, or that the enemy’s ordinance consists primarily of unexploded coalition ordinance, which they recover at great risk and contrive to make their IEDs. They have no resource at their disposal to “call in air strikes”, no high-tech weaponry, no tanks or armoured vehicles and they have no heavily fortified bases to which they can retreat when the going gets tough (yet they are winning, perhaps have already won. Now THERE is heroism!).
Nevertheless, the nation is in supreme solemn mourning for the hallowed fallen heroes, and all are gushing sympathy for the family’s loss and of the families of the other 24 fallen heroes. Politicians and military men everywhere are in a sweaty lather all competing in the “ardent reverence” contest for “our troops” and the legendary “Australian Soldier” of ANZAC glory is rising like phoenix from the ashes, restored once again to superhuman status.
Yet all Australia is callously impervious to the reality that Afghans are fighting to defend their country against an occupying invasion force that has vast material and technological advantage. Almost all of the ragtag army of improvising Afghan soldiers are peasant farmers, most of whom, almost certainly this “rogue soldier” that has been recently hunted down and killed “like a dog”, have lost a friend, a relative, perhaps a child, father, wife or mother to the violence of an occupying force whose excuses for this violence have no connection with their lives.
During the week that passed between these two Australian tragedies another Afghan village was decimated by an air strike prompting the puppet governor Hamid Karzai to warn his masters to stop the killing of civilians or “risk being seen as an occupying force” (God forbid that Hamid Karzai, NATO and the US should be seen by the Afghan people as an occupying force!). In contrast to the gaudy coverage of an individual Australian soldier death the devastation of a whole village is summarily and tonelessly dismissed in administrative language in a news story that was primarily about “unfortunate, unintended consequences” and American “efforts to avoid civilian casualties”. Knowing that this “collateral damage” has gone on continuously throughout a decade of invasion and occupation doesn’t prevent a newsreader from relating the story without choking on the hypocrisy, nor does it hinder the masses of Australians who hold dear the shared value of “respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual” in their unquestioning support for their American “friend and allay” or the necessity of an Australian presence in Afghanistan to “face down terrorism”.
The sharp rise in the number of drone strikes and attendant civilian deaths in the months following the December 2009 deaths of 8 CIA operatives to a suicide bomber gives the lie to “careful attention to avoid civilian deaths” and points rather to the reality that the indiscriminate bombing of villages (and the civilians in them) is a form of collective punishment and intimidation that delivers the same perverse gratification as that of hunting down a rogue soldier like a dog and killing him.
Any Old Media Diversion Will Do
Shortly after this week of mourning and national self-pity over the deaths of a few more Australian soldiers the media was offering another opportunity for national emotional group therapy; this time it was foaming outrage over the ill-treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian slaughter yards; note the emphasis, not just any cattle, but Australian cattle. The media hype repeatedly made reference to “treatment of Australian cattle” and as the bubble of illusory national unity rose and swelled cattlemen rushed to absolve themselves by expressing shared outrage that “our cattle should be treated like this” – (You mean, you didn’t know?).
A reasonable observer could easily conclude that the Australian public has a compassion for Australian livestock that far and away exceeds what they feel for Afghan peasants dying under the regular drone attacks or indiscriminate revenge attacks by angry, irrational soldiers. Nor do they share the same compassion for the boatloads of middle-eastern refugees who routinely die terrifying deaths in their desperate efforts to reach our shores – fleeing their own lands in fragile boats on the waves emanating from our far-flung violence (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…).
Affluence and good fortune are readily transformed into virtues and in like fashion Australians are persuaded that these people are rushing to the light of our “freedom and democracy” in the land of noble “Australian Values”. Yet they come as they never have done before nor will do again after, if the experience of Vietnam is any indication. Australians are feeble-minded generally, but not so as to be unable to connect the dots between the boat people of Vietnam and the latter-day boat-people of the people smugglers. Yet it would seem to have escaped most Australians that the epicentre of the waves is always our own violence and the motivation is never the attraction of our glorious affluence and virtue, it’s always the fear of our violence. Such thoughts are easily overshadowed by news drama the like of this about ill-treatment of Australian livestock and the tennis is far more compelling.
Even Drug Dealers are More Worthy
As this unhappy train of exposures of reality unfolded another spell-binding news story kept re-emerging. The case of the “Bali Nine” made repeated reappearances as new events of their trial and sentencing for drug trafficking in Indonesia unfolded. Their story amounts to yet another tale of inequality of life – that of white Westerners over the bombable trash of the world.
The case bears remarkable similarities with that of Barlow and Chambers, which occurred in the 1980s when the Australian and British Prime Ministers (The overwhelmingly “compassionate” Thatcher and Australia’s “pragmatic” Hawke), the Queen and an Australian former Treasurer and would-have-been-should-have-been Prime Minister all made energetic pleas for mercy for two men who sought to make a fast buck in an enterprise that would ruin hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives - but got caught. True, they deserve our humanity, but influential compassion is a scarce resource and perhaps the angelic resources of Princess Dianna might not have been spread so thin had not these towering dispensers of influential mercy spared their precious bounty for more worthy causes. And what contemptuous ire these actions must evoke in the perceptive minds of our neighbours who routinely execute their own for lesser and greater crimes. As the Indonesian President said “We hang members of our own society who commit serious crimes, you cannot expect us to exempt foreigners who commit those same crimes”. No wonder they hate us! Surely they spit on our “freedom and democracy”.
But the similarities of these two cases go much deeper and point to another facet of the drugs trade. In both cases the Australian Federal Police tipped off their Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts, knew of the enterprise before it embarked from Australian shores and played a decisive role in who died and who did not after the arrests. The media gives us only a tiny glimpse at an intrigue that operates beneath the surface; and this revealed only because a father who had tipped off police in the hope they would prevent his son’s trip to Bali is taking them to court.
The organised criminals who operate the Australian drugs trade are able to guarantee a regular, reliable and ongoing supply of hundreds of kilograms of heroin each year to their Australian market, through a firewall of coastal surveillance and customs scrutiny that will viciously scorch an Asian visitor who thinks that a hermetically sealed chicken wing seems like an innocent enough transgression. The extreme antics of “Border Security” have become the fodder of reality TV, yet the drug supply flows freely. The fact that this net can occasionally catch a few small fish yet never extract the taproot of this cancer strongly suggests that the law is the ass that is simply being used to eliminate the amateurish competition. These are criminals with powerful allies whose power and influence suffices not only to preserve their own immunity and keep them permanently out of the net but also to ensnare and eliminate their enemies in it.
The British use of opium to lay waste to Chinese society and undermine its government illustrates, as a matter of historic record, how criminal use of social evils can be applied with effect to undermine the forces in society that would have as their priority the maintenance of health and well-being of the society and all of the individuals within it. In Australia today there is a $20 Million lobby at work to thwart the government’s efforts to restrict problem gamblers and there is an ample supply of compliant politicians carping loud in the parliament to the tune called by the lobby.
If one connects the dots globally in relation to the drugs trade it becomes evident that the political intrigue associated with it is much deeper and wider than merely corrupt policing. The nascent methods for raising “off-the-books” funds for the CIA in the 1950s involved couriering drugs while not aiding and abetting sabotage and other violence against the Chinese Communists (See Killing Hope – William Blum). CIA involvement in criminal activity (such as Iran-Contra in the late 1980s - See: ref 3) has a direct connection with the fall and restoration of the Afghan opium supply with the converse fortunes of the Taliban – re-established after invasion at a pace matched only by that of oil production after the fall of Iraq. Afghan opium was 90% of world share pre-Taliban; practically the foundation of organised crime.
For a coalition that allegedly is able to hunt down their enemies like dogs and kill them in any corner of the world one would think that a few drug barons on our own turf, or that of our compliant “allies”, should be easy picking but for the fact that they are “our sons-of-bitches”.
The Road Taken
Connecting these dots is surely far beyond the reach of most Australians, slumped as they are, at day’s end in front of their television sets and pelted with a slurry of psychologically invasive and sociopathic manipulations necessary to cultivate the attitudes of selfish, competitive materialism essential to a consumer society addicted to “economic growth”. They have been utterly convinced by the stealthy perception management of every episode of “The Untouchables” and “NYPD” to the unassailable conclusion that defeating organised crime is impossible and they have no interest in government involvement in activities that serve the health of society and the greater good, even if they could believe that government could be trusted.
The exercise of morality always comes at a cost; if it did not entail the application of morals and ethics to make a choice that involved a lesser personal benefit or material gain the moral question would not arise. In the 1970s Australia’s “egalitarian society of shared values” broke step into a selfish scramble; it collectively rejected notions of “equal opportunity”, free tertiary education and health care or “the Henderson Poverty Line” which would have set a minimum standard of living for all Australians. This was the critical point in Australian history when “Australian Values” were abandoned as a manifest quality of our society and became merely a fanciful notion of our now very conceited national self-image - as gaudily celebrated in the 2000 Olympics.
Australians have abandoned all genuine concern for social justice (a “fair go”) and egalitarianism in their pursuit of the self-interest-based society of the US model, which we increasingly come to mimic. The notions of equality of opportunity, a basic minimum standard of living, the dignity of individuals and a collective concern for the overall well-being of society have all been long-since eclipsed. When this process began the implications were never fully considered.
One’s quality of life in a society depends as much on the quality of the society at large as it does on one’s own, personal affluence. Quality exists in a society in which all individuals are sufficiently educated and share access to the means to personal dignity and self-esteem, such as to allow meaningful participation in the shaping and determination of society and the control and utilisation of the nation’s collective resources. In a healthy society all individuals have sufficient stake in society that they may strive with hope and confidence to improve themselves and keep pace with society at large without feeling hopelessly disadvantaged in a “rat-race”. A quality society can remain both open and secure because social pressure and a sense of genuine shared values provide the dominant force for maintaining social order and stability rather than police, courts and prisons with the secret services and military lurking in the background (R.J. Hawke - “Kerr might have called out the military”).
Quality is absent in a society characterised by steep inequality with a large segment of permanently and generationally-perpetuated poor and disadvantaged people excluded by their poverty, lack of education and the stigma of low self-esteem from the collectively defined and embraced “Values” of the society, particularly if those “Values” celebrate only material affluence, and particularly if there is a marked absence of opportunity to overcome disadvantage and exclusion. Such a society will be plagued by the cancer of resentment and despair – drug abuse, violence both public and domestic, vandalism and crime. Such a society can never act productively as a society because none of its participants can afford to risk diverting any of their mental, physical or economic energies from personal gain to the common good.
The road taken in the 1970s is clearly leading to a nation of protected privilege and affluence within gated communities increasingly dependent on the security industry for its safety rather than a sense of genuinely shared community “Values”. This situation must surely be no less ugly within the gates than it is without.
Another cost of holding a claim to “Values” is that associated with making a stand on principle. When a spectrum of practical considerations that impinge on a decision are overshadowed by some principle at stake in our choice; our material best interest on one hand, the principle on the other, honouring the principle comes at a cost.
Australians faced a collective choice of this nature in 1976. On the one hand Whitlam had pursued policies concurrent with Australian ideals, values and even material interests. On the other, many alleged he had pursued these goals with questionable competence and mismanaged the economy. Overshadowing these considerations stood the principle associated with the opposition’s disregard for the democratic choice of the electorate twice flouted in the Parliament and completely dismissed by the Governor General (See: ref 4) Australians, finally, abandoned Whitlam.
In 2001 Australians faced another collective choice that involved a matter of principle this time involving the government’s treatment of refugees and a scandalous dishonesty (See: ref 5) that went all the way to John Howard’s Prime Ministership and should have laid bare the moral bankruptcy of the government’s approach.
Australians turned a blind eye to this corruption and rewarded Howard with office.
There are obviously many more instances of national choice with a principle at stake before, after and between these two choice examples but these are of special significance; they reflect the cost of NOT upholding morality, applying to “Values” and standing on principle as a nation.
The first was a critical turning point. Whitlam had pursued policies of social reform that represented a long-overdue institutionalisation of “Australian Values”; competent or otherwise, they were at least pursued and clearly, absent Whitlam, they would never be pursued again, which was very clear. Abandoning Whitlam, whatever the nation’s estimation of him, represented an abandonment of those values, even setting aside the other imperative matters of principle pertaining to democratic rights.
A primary consequence of the 1976 choice was that it destroyed any notion of shared national concern for the welfare of the individual and unleashed the stampede of competitive self-interest that consumed the nation and triggered a widening of inequality that has not only become extreme but has also entrapped the vast majority of the population in a cycle of spiralling cost of living and declining living standards.
It has also endorsed the notion of “trial by media”, allowing media magnates to call the tune and permanently rendered governments beholden to a foreign-owned corporate-controlled, mainstream media before the will of the electorate.
A more profound implication was the abandonment of the principle of the primacy of the will of the electorate, thus allowing politicians, senior public servants, corporate executives and media magnates to play loose with public policy and ushering in an era of privatisation, regressive taxation, foreign ownership, oppressive Industrial Relations legislation, trade agreements that hamstring government and corporate lobbying that has rendered the population of Australia politically disenfranchised and economically at the mercy of international corporations and their few nominated, local billionaires. The press disparages resistance as the “politics of envy” but never mentions the “politics of greed” which is the prime mover of all national action.
The implications of the 2001 choice, however, were far more subtle and insidious. It represented a willingness of Australians to abandon the necessity even for basic honesty and integrity in the discussion of matters of principle on which the nation’s “Values” are at issue, signalled that there were no limits, no outrage the nation would not tolerate and sign-posted the nation’s moral decline. Australians nationally embraced all of the ignominious elements that the sordid episode entailed.
The primary consequence of re-election of John Howard in 2001 is that it set the nation up for all of the choices that have been made in the opening decade of this century, choices that have committed us as a toadying servant of the American Empire involved in the violent, barbaric resource wars plundering the Middle East, expanding and securing the US empire. We have become a nation of false pride and no principles.
In Australia today, adherence to a principle is regarded as “idealism” and idealism is unfashionable. To be idealistic in Australian estimation is to be foolish. Yet no-one would welcome pointing out of the inherent contradiction in a claim to “Values” in that having values requires adherence to principles. But that’s what it’s all about!
Living on Illusions
We’re a nation of stockmen from the Snowy Mountains, potential world class tennis players, alpha sportsmen and entrepreneurs with Steve Irwin hearts of gold.
Australia now survives on self-deception like an addict of drugs or gambling whose life is controlled by the habit. The collective Australian ego is too thick a plank to admit the penetration of a realisation that Australian soldiers are shedding blood to maintain privileged US access to these petro-dollars that are borrowed in vast sums at near-zero interest and used to buy our media, our economy, our land, our government and our dignity. With classic irony, these are the very same petro-dollars that Whitlam sought to borrow legitimately in 1974 in order to buy control of those same resources for the nation. Australia progresses daily closer to the status of Saudi Arabia where a few psychopaths own everything and the rest pay homage and do as they are told while the nation’s resources are squandered to the enrichment of a privileged few. Those who understand it are too morally bankrupt and bereft of any sense of shared community “Values” to care.
Australian news reports tell a fairy-tale of our progress in collaboration with the US in defeating terrorism, “liberating” nations from their dictators and bring “freedom and democracy” to the Middle East – theft of Middle Eastern oil wealth or the psychotic oppression of Palestinians by the state of Israel are never mentioned. But as Noam Chomsky recently stated in an interview “If Arab public opinion had any influence on policy, the US and Britain had been tossed out of the Middle East. That's why they are terrified of democracies in the region.”. This is just one of many statements of inescapable truth that lays bare the immorality of deliberate self-delusion about the wars of terror that pervades Australia – the deeper knowledge that the whole wastefully extravagant and violent western playground runs on Middle-Eastern oil and there is no fragile lie, however bald and glaring that is too difficult to embrace, so long as we all embrace it together; peril be to the one who dissents. No “media sensation” is too trivial a diversion to distract us from any serious discussion of the reality. Serious discussion is an anti-social act – un-Australian!
Yet it’s not hard to see that Australians are economically, politically, spiritually, psychologically and morally degraded. They feel that they have “succeeded” if they manage to steer their children away from drugs, crime and despair and into the yoke of collar-and-tie slavery of the work ethic and capitalist exploitation that drives the vicious circle of wasteful consumerism; a cycle that they secretly understand is destroying their “Values”, their spirit, their planet and all the hopes of their children and grandchildren. Australians no longer have the collective political clout they surrendered in 1976; neither party has meaningful policy pertaining to the things that really affect their lives, both parties serve international corporate capitalism at the direction of corporate media and none of their policy commitments are binding. Australians have also lost their economic heritage: the massive sell-off of exploitation rights to national resources, public assets, export industries and land has been conducted in a corrupt and treasonous process that has massively enriched a few and dispossessed the nation. The disposable income, real wages and opportunity for self-betterment for ordinary Australians has evaporated.
Dispossession of the Nation
The consequence of loss of political and economic power of the nation is that the nation’s youth are left without any prospect of finding a dignified life that gives meaningful fulfilment and a sense of purpose. Suicide statistics reflect this. Government statistics on suicide are based on a restrictive definition and data collection circumstances in which “If there is any doubt, it is probable that the verdict of suicide will not be given.”. Nevertheless, an ABS document produced in 1994 states that “Youth suicide rates in Australia are higher than in many other countries, and are increasing.” (ABS: See: ref 6). Youth suicide rates peaked at around 1997 and have since improved. However, a document produced in 2004 states that “Suicide continues to be a major public health issue”. Also, while the document states that “most suicide deaths occurred in males aged between 20 and 49 years”, which masks a sharp peak in the graph shown on the same page which shows rates for 20-year-olds being some 5% above all other groups in this age-range (ABS: See: ref 7). One should note that the age of 20 is the critical time when a young Australian has had some time to seek out their own way in the world and attempt to establish an independent life based on their own resources. It’s a time when a young Australian is likely to discover that Australia is not a place of “equal opportunity”, that material success is the only foundation of social respect, wealth accumulation the only game in town and that for most young people there is little or no hope of rising above the bottom rung.
The Cost of Moral Decline
The treacheries of Australian politicians, Corporate Elites, Media Magnates and Secret Services have squandered the nation’s independence by enlisting the support of a foreign power in maintaining their class supremacy over the broader population. They stand like ignorant tribal chiefs draped with baubles and coloured beads as uncomprehending spectators while the new owners establish their control.
The gullible Australian populace have betrayed themselves and their heritage by their abandonment of shared values and mutual solidarity in their selfish rush for individual advantage and personal gain that requires of them self-deception and wilful blindness to the moral outrages undertaken by the state in their name.
As the prospect of global economic meltdown looms ever-larger all sides of Australia’s talentless political leadership trumpet their schemes for making a buck out of the mining boom, in Australia’s Boom and Bust economy, none dare pause for reflection that this is the broken political system (beholden to the US Embassy and the Murdoch Media) that killed off the scheme of 36 years ago to borrow $4bn dollars from ARABS (shock horror in the Murdoch tabloids) to buy control of Australian mineral resources. With it was lost any possibility to exercise any independent voice in the nation’s internal and external affairs, to maintain a worthy international reputation and the trust and respect of our neighbours and leaving us entirely at the mercy of a psychotic superpower on a violent rampage of global destruction.
Morality and good values are maintained at a cost, but Australia has paid a much higher price for its abandonment of shared values and its moral decline.
- Preamble to the application form for intending migrants to Australia
- ABC Radio National program “Big Ideas” broadcast
an “Intelligence Squared Debate” on the question of “whether Australia would be better off without our defence forces” http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/3044322.htm.
- Iran-Contra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
- Dismissal of the Australian government of Gough Whitlam by the Governor General in 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitlam_dismissal
- In 2001 Australian Prime Minister John Howard and ministers of his government floated the lie that refugees on an Australian-bound ship had thrown their children overboard in order to have their ship rescued by the Australian Navy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_Affair
- Australian Bureau of Statistics
- Australian Bureau of Statistics
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
- Ivanka faces tough questions over Trump in Berlin
- Marwan Barghouti's health in serious decline: NGO
- China urges restraint in dealing with North Korea
- Refugee boat sinks between Greece and Turkey, 16 drown
- Turkey targets Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria
- Air strikes kill civilians fleeing Syria's Raqqa
|Allen L. Jasson|