The freedom of Australians to speak freely, particularly those of European/white heritage (the founders, builders, the people who comprised 98% of those who fought and died in two world wars, creators of the country that is so appealing it attracted thousands of migrants and currently still the majority demographic of ‘Australia’) is under threat, again, from Liberalism’s zeal to end any debate on multiculturalism in the name of ‘anti-racism’. A national debate is raging over a panels proposed change to the constitution, though one would hardly know it, as the public is taking very little part in the debate. The argument is about a 300 page report which contains proposed changes to the constitution to move racist sections and a recommendation to add a clause prohibiting racial discrimination.ⁱ

The report was delivered to Canberra by Melbourne lawyer, Mark Liebler, (former President of the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and apparently the National Chairman of lobby group: Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) ) ⁱⁱwho Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In a letter which was submitted to Parliament, Leibler writes

“When it was approved one hundred and twelve years ago, the Australian Constitution established the rules for governing one of the most prosperous, peaceful and democratic nations in the world. However, the Constitution understandably reflects the values and beliefs of the time it was drafted. The Founding Fathers deserve our gratitude and respect. But their perspectives – including those on race – were of the 19th Century, not the 21st.”

Mr Leibler doesn’t elucidate why perspectives have changed, very few Liberals ever do. It is merely to be taken for granted that 19^th Century views are to be discarded, and that the ‘view’ of the 21^st century conflicts with our nations constitution. This is a common line exploited by the left, the “It’s 2012, not 1812” argument, one hollow and meaningless. An argument which is supposed to impress upon the reader the modernity of their views in contract with their opponents archaic views, without ever having to explain why it is that the supposed modern views are to supplant the old ones.
Leibler and his story continue

“But racism casts a shadow over many lives, including my own. It was racism and its off-shoot Nazism that caused my parents to flee Belgium in 1939. It was racism that saw my maternal grandparents murdered in Auschwitz. Racism turns your life into a lottery. To stay or go becomes a matter of life or death. Racism reduces your ability to control your life’s destiny or make decisions for yourself.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Leibler puts the specific so called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime under the racist umbrella, an umbrella which now includes anyone who might oppose multiculturalism, high immigration or who might simply wish to preserve their racial and cultural heritage whilst reserving the right for all peoples around the globe to do the same. In doing so, Leibler downplays the specificity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime, and attributes this to broad racism. This is indeed incorrect, as the Nazi preoccupation with the Jewish question was disproportionately greater than their preoccupation with racial purity, and other ‘racist’ ideals.

Hypocrisy? What if modern day Jewish concerns about intermarriage and assimilation within the Jewish community were construed as racism? Many Rabbi’s and Jewish leaders around the world openly talk of the need of preserving Jewish identity, of preserving their race or culture or religion et al. For instance recently a Likud MP in Israel Danny Danon (Likud) put a proposal to Australian Jewish MP Michael Danby re sending African migrants from Israel to Australia. Danon was quoted in the 2011 Jerusalem Post article as saying

The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.” ^iv

One of the most hypocritical examples of double standards on issues of on the right of demographic survival of an ethnicity/nation is by Mark Liebler’s brother Isi Liebler. In a Herald Sun article titled “Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler”

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of…

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. “ ^v

Many in the Jewish community openly discuss that in order to preserve their identity, intermarriage with gentiles must be eschewed. In a 2010 article titled Jews in the Lucky Country by Isi Liebler which appears to be mainly aimed at a Jewish audience he promotes Australia as one of the better countries for Jews who live outside of Israel.

If there were more Jewish communities like Australia’s, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is now… Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities… it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forward looking Zionist community.” ^vi

The article lists what it considers positives such as Jewish dayschools and other institutions but also and notably the positive fact that intermarriage is currently relatively low

Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities…. Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears…

The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing… Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.” ^vii

Would Mark Leibler consider sentiment opposing intermarriage and multiculturalism amongst his own Jewish community and indeed his own brother Isi racist?

I doubt it.

But what if it were a White gentile (non jew), expressing the same concerns. What if it were, instead of an Israeli Jew expressing the desire of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, a White gentile expressing a desire to keep their nation White? Unfortunately, caring about our survival as a distinct people is considered racism and some in the Jewish community, who facing their own possible extinction through assimilation , who should understand and empathise with this sentiment the most, are most keen to denounce and portray this thought as racism.

What is racist is to deny the existence of race or ethnicity, to deny or hinder directly or indirectly the right of a race/ethnic group to survive as a distinct sovereign people living according to their own culture, values and beliefs as a majority in their own land who at the same time extend that right to all other peoples.

Further on the double standards – if so much of what Liebler has helped put forward for constitutional change in Australia helps the Aborigines then why is he not pushing for the same in Israel for the Palestinians? Liebler’s bio talks about him being involved deeply with Jewish issues and Israel related organizations so he must have the time.

Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about the ramifications of adding such a clause. Abbott says “We want this to be a unifying moment, like the 1967 constitutional change, and if something is put up which is going to end up substantially distorting the traditional rights and freedoms and protections that we’ve had in this country, well I think that could be a problem. I would want to look very carefully at the legal ramifications of putting anti-discrimination provisions into the Constitution.”

We at Nationalist Alternative are more than concerned. The Liberal party, while voicing ‘concern’ would never take a Politically Incorrect position, and defend the right of a race of people to speak in defence of themselves, their culture and their right to remain a majority in their own land with laws written by us for us to ensure our survival as a people. We at Nationalist Alternative however do defend these rights for Australians and for all the peoples of the globe.

Tony Abbot scratches the surface with his comment about the threat of these constitutional changes ‘distorting the traditional rights and freedoms’ Australians enjoy. Totalitarian liberalism and its proponents already attack and attempt to legislate away the freedom of association and speech rights of Westerners to discuss matters of ethnic/cultural survival handing them constitutional power to do so will simply usher in a Stalinist state. Recent domestic political history in Australia demonstrates this with the appalling media treatment of the grassroots political party One Nation. However a particular nasty incident occurred in July 1998 that was known by some as Lieblers List.

The Australia-Israel Review somehow obtained the membership list of the newly formed patriotic party One Nation, and published the names of 2,000 One Nation members and donors along with a provocative front cover that implied in our opinion that they were some sort of criminals saying “Gotcha! …. Thousands of members revealed”

Given the publicly known physical violence that has already been directed against One Nation supporters publication of the list could only have been seen as intimidation. This blatant act left ordinary mum and dads, elderly and humble Australians from all walks of life, many participating in politics for the first time, subject to potential threats, harassment and intimidation from multicultural left wing thugs who already attacked One Nation meetings.

The newspaper article titled ‘Anger as One Nation members named ‘had the following quote

Mr William May, of Ashfield, said he did not think his membership was anyone’s business.

“It is discrimination against people who have different political views to them and a lot of these people are elderly, like myself, who have worked all of their life and a lot of them have been in World War II,” he said.” ^viii

What is particularly chilling is that Mark Leibler was the chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the magazine’s publisher back in 1998 That’s right ! The same man who in 2011-12 has Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Change that this article discusses. Liebler was quoted in The Daily Telegraph 1998

the decision to publish the list of members and donors was in the interests of “political transparency”. ⁸

We wonder if he would have the same attitude to transparency if a group obtained and then published in full or in part the membership lists of various Jewish advocacy groups.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the astonishing news on July 9 1998 under an angry banner headline that shouted LEIBLER’ LIST. “The presentation associated with the list invites vilification” the newspaper editorialized and “The McCarthy-like imputation is that these people in some way transgressed, their beliefs — like those of communist sympathisers in the United States in the 1950s — are deemed to be a danger to the state.” ^ix Interestingly a cartoon in The Sydney Daily Telegraph compared what was named by some as ‘ Lieblers List’ with the Nazis of 1938. What is also notable, is how Leibler can sit idle and take part in harassment against people because of their political beliefs. Harassment which has led to physical violence, persecution and public ‘shaming’. The very activity that Leibler should know very well, doesn’t accord with a free and open society. Yet here he sides with those that would persecute and attack someone based on their beliefs. Irony or hypocrisy?

Anti-racism is anti-white and any modern form of ‘anti-racist’ action has an anti-white component to it that makes such actions abhorrent. The issue isn’t about Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders, but that reliably, without fail, anti-racist action always, always goes beyond ending direct racial discrimination and violence, to controlling thought and speech which may be construed by a hyper sensitive and paranoid individual as possibly being racist, or leading to racism. Even if the sentiment isn’t racist at all, all a white Australian has to do, all any White Anglo or European has to do, is discuss in a frank manner their belief that their race too like all others, has a right to self preservation, and every Liberal, every Politically Correct zealot will automatically construe that as ‘racist’, despite the lack of any racist sentiment. Every anti-racist anti white will take anything less that complete support and devotion to the multiracial experiment as an evil that must be stomped out.

Given the disregard for our right to be concerned about our future and McCarthy like tactics illustrated above along with the anti free speech legislation (vilification laws et al) already in place and growing. We ask the people of Australia to consider this carefully and to reject any changes to our constitution which could effectively outlaw any position against Liberalisms desire to create a melting pot in ALL and ONLY white countries. Not only is the potential for organisations to be deemed ‘illegal’, for advocating for and supporting our race/culture/ethnicity, just as other groups such as the Aboriginal and Jews are free to do, but it has the potential to make YOU criminally liable for what you say, even if you just said that immigration levels are too high.

i Deadline shifts on referendum.<Patricia KarvelasThe Australian January 21, 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/deadline-shifts-on-referendum/story-fn59niix-1226249860843

ii>http://www.abl.com.au/ablattach/leibler.pdf< or

http://www.jafi.org.il/NR/exeres/FA8BC582-E6DF-4FC8-9F07-A907FD618422

iii >Leibler Panel Calls for Constitution Change.January 20, 2012 by J-Wire Staff

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/leibler-co-chairs-panel-on-constition-change/21978

ivDanny Danon: Send African migrants to Australia. By Lahav Harkov
 06/30/2011. The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler. By John Masanauskas. Herald Sun.September 27, 2000
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm/a>

viJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viiJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia. By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viii Anger as One Nation members named. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 10 1998.
By Greg Roberts,Andrew Clennell And Nick Papadopoulus
Also here http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

ix The Daily Telegraph. London July 10 1998
Or

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

The world is stagnating after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.  The cowboy bandits of Wall Street, the architects of the GFC, perhaps the only accomplishment outside of growing their own portfolio, got off basically scott free.  Many are expecting Global Financial Crisis Mark II.  As every cloud comes with a proverbial silver lining, the silver lining around the clouds of the financial storm is the increased awareness of people that something is wrong, and something needs to be done.  Discussion about the flaws of our financial system are propelled by the sense of urgency and despair.  The “Occupy” movement is gaining traction and gaining support.  They may not understand the issues and have much of an idea of the cause of financial catastrophes, and some may be there purely to try and promote an even worse alternative, but they at least understand that morality has a place in economics.  That’s a start, a good start.

The mood has certainly shifted.  Misplaced optimism about a never ending housing bubble is all but gone and something else is happening which is even more foreboding.  The media is now openly stating that the boom is finished, and that things may well be on their way down.

An article in The Age¹ by the economics writer for the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Top Bosses’ riches are undeserved”1 doesn’t just call into question whether our top CEO’s are overpaid, but openly states they aren’t.  A bold move, for a mainstream publication.

Her argument is that in Australia, we have many Oligopolies, and that making a profit in an Oligopoly isn’t that hard.  Corner the market, and you have your customers hostage.

Our greatest period of economic growth and prosperity, a period when the standard of living was on the increase, rather than the current trend downwards, was during a period when high incomes were taxed quite thoroughly, and where CEO remuneration where closer to that of average worker than today.  Arguments that we NEED to pay our CEO’s exorbitant ransoms fall flat as soon as one realises that our current economy is in a miserable state.  The large quantities of money that CEO’s rake in and pull from our economy seems inversely proportional to the health of our economy.  Given the sick state of Western economies, we are clearly paying big amounts for nothing, yet CEO’s, like snotty school children stamp their feet down and demand more and more, lest they leave.

They know where the door is.

The arguments that they, Free Market ideologues, ‘too much Ayn Rand’ Capitalists and their assorted lick spittles put forward as justifications are nonsensical at best.

One argument is risk.  CEO’s deserve a Kings ransom because of risk.  Given that they shed jobs at an astounding rate, it can be hardly argued that they get paid because they ‘risk’ losing our jobs.  If the share price of the stock of the company can increase through out sourcing, off to India those jobs go. Also, during a bull market, making a profit and increasing your share price is a given, no risk there. The only personal risk is their career, their job.  But when the WORST case scenario is that you leave with hundreds of thousands, or more likely, millions of dollars, it can hardly be considered a risk. Many Australians would jump at the chance to take a risk, where the losing position is making enough money to be set for life.  Risk, hardly.  A CEO can run a company into the ground, lose hundreds or thousands of jobs and even commit fraud, and come out better off.  Ralph Norris has little to worry about.  A $16 million per-annum pay packet, and a taxpayer guarantee to back up the banks in case they fail.  He has risk, but it is the government which ultimately is stopping the banks from failing, through regulating them, and underwriting them with tax payers money.

Another popular argument is the importance of their job.  Well, when neurosurgeons, ambulance drivers and pilots get paid millions, I’ll take this argument seriously.

The fact is, our corporations, our businesses have been hijacked by a boys club, an inner circle of parasites who are merely using the economic instruments that others have built as a vehicle for bleeding our country dry.  We don’t live in an ideal free market economy, or even a Capitalist one.  We live in a plutocracy, where corporate interests have bought our politicians, and our supposed “free market” has been usurped for the benefit of a few crony sociopaths who masquerade as entrepreneurs and have suckered many others into believing that they are anything other than socialist crooks.

To go against this excess greed is not advocating socialism, or a desire to be like North Korea.  In fact, if anything, our corporations are replicating that philosophy here.  It is highly unlikely that North Korea’s leaders choose to be paid marginally more than their workers.  They no doubt do well for themselves, because they too, of course, deserve it, or so they would argue.  North Korea’s boys club is just as busy convincing their populace that their austere lifestyle is necessary, while they horde the excess for ourselves.  Sound familiar?  Profits are privatised and losses are socialised.

Why are there huge remunerations, and why aren’t ordinary Australians, who are supposedly now Howards “mum and dad” shareholders simply exercising their right to vote against this excess in companies they part own?  All working people are supposedly shareholders through their superannuation, and we are constantly reminded that we must have a strong share market and not interfere with super profits as it is in our interests.  But why don’t we do anything about it?  When you look at who actually owns the shares of these companies, it is generally large financial companies.  You may own parts of Australian businesses through your super, but it is your super fund which votes.   Quite simply, because shares are owned by similar large companies, they are the ones who exercise power, and they would benefit from voting for larger and larger remunerations, as it sets the industry standard which will apply to them.  If you are a high level executive of CEO of a company which owns shares in other companies, then voting for a pay increase in the companies you own, means an increase for you as well.

There are people who are worthy of being wealthy.  People who are truly entrepreneurs, who actually create a business and enhance the nation.  Australians are not succumbing to “tall poppy syndrome”, but are rightfully outraged at what is essentially hoarding through unproductive means wealth.  They are outraged that our nation, our livelihoods and futures are being stripped so someone who knows where their next thousand hot meals are coming from, and has already a lifestyle better than pretty much any human who ever lived, can get even more.

True entrepreneurs are people like Dick Smith, who has added to our business sphere, who has supported the nation which game him such opportunity.  Even now Dick Smith is still supporting the nation, arguing against our unsustainable population growth and supporting Australian made products by offering Australian made and owned varieties of popular foreign owned goods. Dick Smith is an example of the type of wealthy person we could use more of, people who’s personal wealth represents the wealth that that person adds to our nation.

1http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/top-bosses-riches-are-undeserved-20111101-1mttj.html?comments=302#comments

Image created by sixninepixels.

By Michael Kennedy

One thing that can be said about the mainstream media, is that concerning real issues, they are often behind the times. “White flight”, a phenomenon which has been around for centuries elsewhere in the world, for quite a few years now in Australia, finally gets a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald.

An article titled “Fears over ‘white flight’ from selective schools” ¹ examined the shrinking diversity in elite, selective schools. Dr Christina Ho of the University of Technology Sydney found that what is essentially racial segregation by voluntary means occurring in elite private schools (and no doubt occurring in public schools as well, though the article didn’t touch this). As the article lacks further detail aside from pointing out the obvious, the article itself is not really worth further comment. What is interesting though, is the comments from the readers. If the Internet has done one good thing for news, it’s to allow readers to comment thereby opening up a window to the thoughts of the public on what is being discussed currently. One can learn far more about what’s happening around them, from readers comments than from journalists.

Many of the comment writers make the point that Asians study hard, have strong academic discipline, and as a result are more likely to achieve entry into elite schools by acing the exams. There is little doubt that this is true, and many of the comments go on to say this.

Commenter “Plus one anything you say” writes

I think “observer” is on the money. It doesn’t take much to see how much of a stronger work and study ethic immigrants have, compared to Australian-born. The hours and hard work Asian students put in has so many rewards – awards like the Young Australians of the Year, contributing to our strong academic reputation worldwide. If “white” (fairly inflammatory work there, sub-editor) kids aren’t going to work hard, they miss out.

It’s questionable whether Asians add to our ‘strong academic reputation’. It’s questionable whether Australia has a strong academic reputation at all. What’s left out, is that Asian nations don’t have a strong academic reputation, as evidenced by the simple fact that people do not go to these nations to study, but come to White, Western nations to be educated. Everyone assumes that hard work in trying to succeed in exams is the only path to intellectual creativity and innovation, but the results speak otherwise.

Another commenter called “Teacher” writes this quite succinct Orwellian comment, summing up Political Correctness’s desire to restrict freedom of speech. With teachers like this teaching Australians, it’s no wonder academic standards are failing. “Teacher” writes…

Australia should stop asking questions about race because race questions lead to race statistics, statistics lead to racist theories and racist theories lead to divisive and offensive articles like this, and to racist policies.

Commenter “Bourkie” writes…

f they were born in Australia then they are Australian; they all have Australian accents. The racist ‘White Australia’ policy based on false supremacy of europeans (implying inferiority of asians and indians) has been proven wrong. These stats only prove one thing, and one thing alone – tall poppy much?

So if “inferiority” of Asians has been proven wrong, then is this commenter implying they are superior? Besides, the ‘White Australia’ policy was not based on simple ideas of supremacy, but rather the idea that this nation was created by and belonged to whites. Discriminatory immigration practices have much more to do with ensuring the prosperity of the people who take part in the nation, than in some notion that others are simply inferior. It is Politically Incorrect to view the “White Australia” policy as anything other than simple minded. “Teacher” says so.

Other comments are from parents, who shed light on why ‘white flight’ may be occurring.

Commenter “Nero” writes

Does the ethnic mix add up to a good thing? A friends child enrolled in the school and left after a year: she reported being one of two anglo Australians in her class and of being ostracised by the others – at lunch the chinese australians spoke chinese and the indian australians spoke indian and did not mix. When there were group assignments they were labelled the ‘dumb’ group, presumably based on ethnic grounds given she was previously a school captain of her primary school and maintained an A average. This report may not be indicative of all the classes, indeed I doubt it is, but it has certainly coloured the view of families that know this fine young woman.

Here is the problem though with anecdotal reports – they give perception and not fact.

“Blaubaer” writes

Well, contrary to the political correct comments, I have a daughter coming up to Year 9 and I would like her to go to MacRob, however, I do have reservations about sending her to a school where 93% of the school population are Indian or Chinese.

Finally “labour out” writes

What a surprise. Melbourne has already become a city of tribes in so many ways.

It is true that Asians (and Indians) in Australia, the USA and other Western nations place great emphasis on study, in achieving good results and in gaining position. This may not just be a modern phenomenon, but an indicator of a deeper cultural difference, a difference in perspective between East and West, as to what education is for, and what the goals of education are.

In Australia, the parents have power over the teachers, the parents dictate terms to the and demand results. In East Asians nations, it is the teacher who is respected, and the idea that a parent could chastise the teacher for not doing a good enough job would seem strange in an East Asian community.

Whats behind cultural differences in study habits?

A study which appeared in the “International Education Journal” ² authored by Joseph Kee-Kuok Wong looked at the differences in perception between the two cultural groups. Joseph writes…

“Kirkbride and Tang (cited in Chan, 1999) stated that Chinese students preferred didactic and teacher centred style of teaching and would show great respect for the wisdom and knowledge of their teachers. The fear of loss of face, shame and over modesty made the Western participative style of learning less acceptable to them. However, Biggs (1996, p.59) believed that “Chinese students were more active in one-to-one interaction with the teacher as well as engaging in peer discussion outside the class”. ³

He then goes on further to discuss the difference in learning styles between Chinese and Australians.

Chan (1999) believed that the style of Chinese learning was still very much influenced by Confucianism that is dominated by rote learning and the application of examples. However, Biggs and Moore (cited in Biggs, 1996, p.54) highlighted that there was a distinction between rote and repetitive learning. According to them rote learning was generally described as learning without understanding, whereas repetitive learning has the intention to understand its meaning. They believed that the influence of tradition and the demands of the assessment system had affected Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) students’ choice of using a repetitive strategy in learning. The Western student’s learning strategies starts with exploration followed by the development of skills.

Loyalty is emphasized on Confucianism, as it was the only way a young scholar could make has way into the civil service of the ruler. During China’s communist revolution, Western ideas about education were purged and textbooks and exams were controlled by the ruling party. Confucian ideals were reintroduced. In Communism, the one party dictates education standards and outcomes, and one can only ascend by meeting the requirements of the party. As it has always been part of the Chinese way of life, Communist ideals survived longer in the East than in the West where they were rejected as soon as the population was free to. In Communist China, one cannot make their own destiny through free enterprise or personal inventiveness, but must attain a position by satisfying someone else s requirements, regardless of whether those requirements provide anything valuable or not. This is a situation which may sound familiar to wage slaves here in Australia!

Joseph writes…

The Chinese authoritarian education system, which demanded conformity, might not be conducive to the development of creative and analytical thinking. Furthermore, Chan (1999) claimed that Chinese students were being assessed mainly by examination with little emphasis on solving practical problems. Smith (cited in Couchman, 1997) believed that the Taiwanese students’ learning styles stressed reproduction of written work, and factual knowledge with little or no emphasis on critical thinking. Ballard and Clanchy (cited in Kirby et al, 1996, p.142) agreed that the Asian culture and education system stressed the conservation and reproduction of knowledge whereas the Western education system tended to value a speculative and questioning approach.

The differences in approach to education, and therefore education outcomes have a deep cultural basis. Societies in which conformity, position and successfully meeting the criteria set by a hierarchy for entry to positions of prestige (in particular where such positions are highly valued) will produce a culture among its people whereby they can most successfully meet these requirements. While there may be an innate talent towards rote learning and academic discipline, which is perhaps why these traits have become culturally valued, the question raised by the initial article about ‘white flight’ isn’t a simple matter of superiority.

International students bring with them a lot of money, and educational institutes are no doubt going to gear themselves towards making as much as they can. As Asian institutions are heavily exam based, exams being a test of how a student meets a set criteria prescribed by an authority and a test of rote learning, much of the study involved is geared towards simply passing the exam. Joseph writes, quoting experience of Asian students from their own home country.

The assessment system for Asian higher learning institution is generally more examination based. The style of teaching and learning is aimed at helping the students to pass the examination.

Two experiences from the home country in Asia….

Yes, this is what most of the students do. It is very exam based. They only look for the information that they get then can pass. It is very exam based, they only teach you to pass the exam. Probably also the students want it that way. [8]

and another

Before I came here…teacher will tell you everything and then you just read, memorize, and then go to the exam, that is all. Most of the students do not need to express our own opinion. [9]

This is quite the Western or Anglo-Saxon style, which tends towards group discussion.

Joseph writes

Asian students seldom did assignments in their home countries like here, so they are not familiar with the requirements of an assignment. They are unsure how to produce a good assignment, where to look for the relevant information, how much is enough and the format of the report. In the university here students no longer just reproduced what they had learnt.

Elite schools in Australia are quite exam based, entry is after all based upon an examination. There may even be a shift towards exam based assessment in order to appeal towards the Australian educators fastest growing market. Some of the comments in the Sydney Morning Herald article were bemoaning the decline of a broad based curriculum in these selective schools, where music and sport were being sidelined for raw, pressure cooker style tuition.

The simplistic comments that many may make, that we are simply inferior academically don’t really hold any weight. There are deeper cultural differences. Being a school drop out isn’t as shameful as it is in Asia. Bill Gates, Sir Alan Michael Sugar, Henry Ford, George Bernard Shaw and Vincent Van Gogh are just some examples of school drop outs who achieved success and respect. There are many, many more examples. Thomas Edison didn’t even go to school. In the West, one can attain wealth, respect and success without formal eduction, by self education. It isn’t necessary to be bestowed a position by meeting the criteria of an authority, which was principally how in the East, one advanced themselves.

Unfortunately here in the West, we are moving towards a mentality where authorities and a few select people in power decide the criteria, and one must meet the criteria to go anywhere or achieve recognition for success. Our education system, partly from the demands of parents, is moving more and more towards simply providing the skills a hiring manager would seek, rather than to provide a well rounded, educated and thinking member of society. More and more focus is put on children to ‘compete’, do better in exams and attain skills which look good in resumes. That is to say, we are heading towards the Eastern model.

The criteria that one must meet to achieve some success defines what it is that people will become skilled in. If in order to achieve success, one must do well in exams, than the end result will be to produce people who are primarily are skilled in completing exams. If in order to succeed, we create an environment where being a good self-salesperson is most important in getting a good job, then we will produce people who’s primary skill is in selling themselves.

The role of education in society.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves as a nation what we want people to be, how we want them to develop and find a place in our society. Do we want people in our society to be educated, well rounded, worldly and capable of critical though? Do we want people who are narrow minded and skilled only at rote tasks? Do we want innovators or fakers? Do we want creators and innovators, or parasitic middle men? What we demand from students will be what they produce. How our socioeconomic system rewards people and what it rewards people for, will determine what our strengths and skills will eventually become. If becoming a scientist or engineer isn’t rewarded well, then we will see fewer of them.

The fact of the matter is, that despite the over representation of Indian and East Asian students in Western elite schools, they still home here from abroad to study. White people do not go to the mother countries of these International students to get a good education. Most of the subjects were primarily created and developed in the West. If competitive cramming and pressure cooker style really did produce better results, then why is it that there is are many more Chinese and Indians who want to move here, rather than vice versa? Why is it that most of the technical and medical innovation still occurs in the West? There may be many Indians who work in the IT industry, but someone else had to make the industry, develop the technology and create the field of computer science in the first place. This act of creation is becoming less and less valued, as we seek more and more for our educated people to do mere rote work.

Education should be about producing people who are capable of creating a high quality of life for their society. If what we want to produce in our society is the best quality of life possible, then our education system should be geared towards producing that result. As it is, despite the eagerness of many people who want want to argue against Australian nationalism and why we need the East, the fact is that the people of the world are voting with their feet, and the ‘lazy’ Australians are producing a more sought after society and quality of life. There is nothing to be gained by trying to match the competitiveness that exists in other nations, in fact, we may lose overall. That is, if we are sane and value quality of life over abstract academic results. Many “anti-racists” will argue that Europe desperately needs workers from the third world, yet those from the third world have consistently failed to create a society they themselves want to live in, and Europe, despite its economic troubles is still preferred. Likewise in Australia, where according to some, are unable to function without importing the rest of the world, have managed to create a prosperous country without this supposed requirement.

Some Australians seem to understand this. The issue regarding ‘white flight’ in schools isn’t just one of whether white people are competitive enough, or smart enough. It’s one of what type of society do we want to produce.

Commenter “bleebs” writes

I believe that as a result of the so-called white flight, selective schools are increasingly forced to be too narrowly focused on knowledge instead of nurturing the many intelligences and creating a *whole* person, which is why I, for one, won’t be sending my children to one, even though I can. Happiness and life satisfaction brings its own success and wealth.

“Michaelc58” writes

Whether ‘pressure cooker’ and ‘arms race’ education produces better people and is desirable and fair to those who want a balanced childhood is, of course, another question.

“Rob” writes

Sure, your kids can keep up. Simply emulate the imported practices designed, in essense, to trick the system (that is, get a normal kid into a school for exceptional kids by way of rote learning).

But do future children in this country no longer deserve the childhood you can so fondly remember simply because your political persuasion encouraged the importation of a far more competitive brand of human being?

Seems like a race to the bottom of the ‘quality of life’ index. Study, work, die.

There was a deep shift in Western consciousness, away from a strong, inwards looking purpose and sense of destiny and real progress towards a more modern, aimless, purposeless attitude, where things are done just for the sake of being done, and if they can be done better, then so be it. It is because of this, that people no longer see the consequences of this world view. For some who put ‘anti-racism’ above everything else, above even common sense, they argue that this is just xenophobia, sour grapes and laziness.

But whether it’s competing with someone who is willing to work extra hours for less pay and less conditions, or someone who is willing to give up any extra-curricular study and activities that make one a well rounded citizen in order to do well in exams, it’s not just a matter of not wanting to compete. It’s a matter of deciding what type of society we want to create. There is no point losing your rights, your quality of life and time to engage in human relationships and hobbies, for extra productivity for no other purpose than extra productivity. There is no point becoming an intellectual robot for the purpose of just doing well in exams and getting placement positions in institutions. In both these scenarios, these conditions come about because someone is arbitrarily setting criteria, criteria which may be of profit to them, but not for the rest of us, or for society in general. We educate ourselves precisely in order to not have to toil and to constantly have to work harder for diminishing returns.

If people don’t want to return to Victorian era industrial squalor, then we have to be able to understand that the austerity that is being demanded of us by plutocrats isn’t a natural inevitability, but because of decisions made by those who hire and control our industries to allow this to happen. If we become a society where children have no other purpose than rote study for exams, then it will only happen because we have allowed educators to set these criteria. If we choose prosperity, elevating the human condition and betterment of the quality of life, then we have to demand from people, and teach people the qualities which bring this about. This can only come about by questioning authority, by having the intellectual courage to challenge the statements made by those who shape our society. By not accepting the premise that we have to compete in a race to the bottom, and demanding that those who choose for us to compete so they can profit, to restrain themselves for the sake of our society and the well being of the next generation.

The Western attitude towards education and work has historically paid off very well, producing without a doubt, among the most, or what was once among the most enviable societies on the planet. “White Flight” may be partly driven by feelings of alienation, partly by a lack of a desire to compete with the offspring of “Tiger Mums” and partly, and perhaps most importantly, a realization that the practices and attitudes that we are importing are from places less desirable than ours, and their adoption here may very well make our own society a less desirable, less humane place to live.

We are certainly on the way down that path, as we are being asked to give up our Western ideals, even our very own racial existence, for the benefit of a few greedy autocrats and for social experimentation of the misguided Marxist left. The self guilt and self hatred that has been pushed onto us has made us devalue the ideals which created a society the second and third world want to flock to, and made us discard them out of guilt, self punishment and undeserved feelings of inferiority. Quality of life, making life itself worth living is no longer the goal and ideal it was once, and we are adopting more and more an ideal where life is something to be ‘endured’, and one where the harder done by you are, the better you are.

By Michael Kennedy

The Labor government has shown that it is morally spineless by failing to make compulsory, pre slaughter stunning which would save the animals that we profit from, from the misery of appalling and barbaric slaughter techniques that exist elsewhere in the world. If we are to be honest, poor treatment of animals happens here in Australia as well, that cruel slaughter methods are used. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie stated that he would still move on a private bill to make stunning prior to slaughter compulsory. Despite the failure of the government to act on issues of moral importance, such as live export, the housing affordability crisis and the continued social engineering policies against Australians, we can’t forget there is still a small minority of politicians who have a moral compass more in line with the needs of the country, and who haven’t sold themselves out.

The fact that this issue is even considered debatable show how far we have to go in regards to animal rights. Some people still haven’t moved on and discarded Descartes damaging philosophy that animals are merely machines, unconscious and unaware of their surroundings and unable to feel pain. Others, who are probably even more callous, acknowledge that animals can experience suffering, but simply prefer to disregard it, and dismiss it as a necessary step to obtain meat, eggs, dairy product and profit. While it can be argued that meat isn’t necessary, and that humans could live without eating any animal derived food, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that suffering is necessary if we choose to use these products. Animals can be treated humanely and their deaths don’t have to be painful, prolonged and drawn out, but it costs money. Eggs from free range chickens simply cost more than eggs from chickens de-beaked and kept in cages without room to move or turn. Given the choice, some people will still choose the caged eggs. Given the choice, some people would say that caged eggs are better than no eggs.

Are people just callous then? Some yes, but for many others, it is the distance between them as a shopper and the animal which makes such a decision easy. Place an example of a battery hen, a real live hen in front of the ‘caged eggs’ and a free rage hen next to the ‘free range’ eggs, and some people may change their minds. If someone wanted meat and they had to kill the animal themselves, there would be many people rethinking whether they really want ham in their sandwich, or chicken nuggets with their chips and vegetables. An “animal rights” equivalent of graphic cigarette packets. Nothing would make people vegetarian faster than forcing them to slaughter their own animals. Not even mad cow disease could turn people off meat that quick.

But this isn’t likely to happen, and allowing customers to choose just isn’t good enough. When people don’t have to THINK before they buy, and the food industry makes sure they don’t think the wrong things, the government has to prevent this excessive suffering.

We do hope that live animal export laws are drastically altered in Australia, even if it means that Nationalist Alternative have to be the ones to do it. The issue extends beyond the export of live animals, we must examine our practices here and not tolerate any slaughter practice or treatment of animals which is less than the most human treatment we can offer. Callousness towards animals is an indicator of callousness towards people. Profit and the economy cannot continue to be reasons to be callous towards living things. After all, I’m sure that the prohibition of slavery economically disadvantaged hard working entrepreneurs, but the benefits, which cannot be measured economically outweigh any cost. We are better people because of it. A greater regard towards animal welfare would undoubtedly make us better people, but being better people isn’t something our current government (or for that matter, the major opposition party) is interested in.

But in some ways, we treat each other like animals, living things to be exploited for profit, whether employees in debt slavery, parents gouged by high housing costs or young single people trying to make their way in early adulthood. Everyone’s focus seems to be on how productive we are, how much profit we can make, how much we are willing to let our standard of living slip to compete with foreign workers, how much we ‘cost’ to society because we get old and sick. Farmers, who are already struggling, and already gouged by big business in Australia, have little recourse but to simply oppose any further prohibition in live exports. A country with a greater degree of innovation and ability to adapt and change could offer transitional plans that won’t see farmers go to the wall, but again, it’s simply not a price people are willing to pay. They will simply not win the support of those who respect animals, by making it an argument of economy.</p>

Debunking the debunking of Bob’s Mantra

Some who may have argued with ‘anti-racists’ may very well have discovered that anti-racism is not much more than anti-white sentiment wrapped up in a phoney morality. Some of us may have heard of, or used Bob’s Mantra. Robert Whitaker has a history of political involvement, having worked on Capitol Hill from 1977 to 1982 and being a published writer.

Bob Whitaker is now the coach of BUGS (Bob’s Underground Coaching Seminar), an online seminar style blog, where participants develop and use techniques to expose the underlying anti-white sentiment of so called liberal anti-racism. BUGS is also ACTIVE plastering this over the internet so it is heard, something just as critical. The Mantra is as follows.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realise I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

The mantra is self explanatory and simple. For people who argue with ideological opponents, this line of attack is invaluable. Too often people get sidetracked onto irrelevant issues such as colonialism, slavery, issues of supposed supremacy and such. Using the mantra exposes our opponents position for what it really is, and having used it personally I can vouch for its success. The mantra isn’t just an argument to use, its a debating strategy which forces you to stay on track, to avoid debating your opponent’s straw man arguments. It works because it is correct. Anti-racism IS anti-white. Debate with any anti-racist, and you should discover that they offer no solution to the race problem other than for white people to allow mass immigration into ALL and ONLY white nations and for whites to intermarry.

After some mention on BUGS about it supposedly being ‘debunked’, I was curious. How can simple statement, which are self evidently more or less true be debunked?

A ‘debunking’ exists on Jett and Jahn’s site ^{www.jettandjahn.com} written by Mike Jahn. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t debunk anything, in fact, it completely misses the point and in the end, doesn’t come close to even challenging the central premise of the mantra.

The first point the article makes is

The first problem with this is that Bob assumes that someone would want to be brought to a third world African country and then breed with n****s*. The second issue is that we can see that blacks  lack social stigmatisation against race mixing. *(racial epithets removed by author).

The first problem mentioned simply doesn’t matter. The point of the mantra isn’t what people living in African countries (many of which aren’t black) want, but the demands that PC liberals might place on these countries. The fact is they DON’T demand mass multiracial immigration in African countries. The second issue, which is questionable, again assumes that demands are based on what the host country wants. The mantra quite clearly is talking about the double standards that liberals have, where it is expected that a white nation opens up it borders, but no such expectation exists for other nations. Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Japan is too Japanese? Have you ever heard a white liberal say that Kenyans really need multiracial immigration and assimilation? But we have all heard of anti-racists complaining about whites.

Here are some examples.

“Neighbours TV Show too white”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/neighbours-tv-show-too-white/story-e6freuy9-1111116943998

Royal wedding of William and Kate was ‘disturbingly white’

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/royalwedding/she_the_sacrifice_at_altar_q3kAzkx3hN6ClhLol5X6aP

“Too many white people on French television”

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2011/07/too-many-white-people-on-french.html

“Dutch civic leadership too White “

http://www.islamineurope.net/2009/11/dutch-civic-leadership-too-white.html

There are plenty more examples. One doesn’t have to look far, in fact we would have all heard many times a liberal or ‘mummy professor’ type argue that this is the future. But you never see them say this about non-white countries.

Whether people will want to move there isn’t the point, because the mantra is dealing with the anti-white motives of those so called anti-racists who make these demands. The mantra exposes the motives by which anti-racist anti-whites operate on. By revealing the underlying motive, you expose their arguments for what they really are, not arguments based on a morality which eliminates racism, but arguments for denying white nations a continued existence as a white nation. This is a critical revelation. Using the mantra aggressively and with discipline, one’s opponent has no choice but to take up an anti-white position and advocate what amounts to genocide, because their ‘anti-racist’ ideology demands it.

The second point the article makes is

The mantra’s weak stance brings me to yet another lapse in ideology – a lot of people waste a lot of time and effort on white civil rights. Why do I say it is a waste ? One has to only study academic liberal literature to understand for himself . When one takes a conservative position on the race issue and says that Whites too deserve special rights (or an equaliser) , one assumes the  classical stance that minorities took up – one of the oppressed .

This is incorrect, as exposing PC liberalism as anti-white has nothing to do with civil rights, and that the mantra doesn’t make one take the position of ‘oppressed’ but puts the opponent in a position where they have to justify the unjustifiable. Besides, one either argues that Whites have the same right as everyone else to preserve their ethnic heritage, or they don’t, and we at Nationalist Alternative argue that they do. The argument that historically Whites have been colonialists therefore cannot claim moral superiority is again flawed. The anti-racists argue that ALL whites nations must open their borders, but not all white nations have engaged in colonialism. The demands are the same for Poland as with Britain, which held a formidable empire. Liberals may use colonialism and imperialism as justification for their position, but a nation which has not engaged in such activity is still nevertheless required to become multiracial. Again, the point of the mantra is to expose that the anti-racist doesn’t really in the end, care about levelling the score, but is using past colonialism and imperialism as an excuse where applicable.

The articles third point is that

As I write this I yet again imagine the retorts I shall get so I will also address the white Genocide videos that have popped up. Genocide by it’s very definition implies that when a population is being destroyed by another, the population being destroyed does not consent to being destroyed . White people are not being killed in any direct way , not at all , they are being outbred and not through rape but by their own free will.

This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is arguing that there is consent, which there isn’t. Having debated with anti-whites many times, none are able to point to any specific consent being given by the people to follow a policy of mass non-white immigration and of turning their nation into a melting pot. There was no consent given except after the dog had bolted. Consent was only given (with much ‘education’ (brainwashing), browbeating and propaganda) a posteriori and even then it is questionable whether it is given now. Most Australians STILL want more restrictive immigration.

Mike argues that it is ‘suicide’ which is sadly occurring, and to a degree it may appear this way. But it is technically not. Suicide is the killing of ones self. Taking others with you is murder. Blowing up a bus is murder and the fact that you took yourself down with the bus doesn’t change this fact. Likewise, as many anti’s argue that this is ‘suicide’, it completely ignores that fact that many people wilfully and knowingly put forward arguments and demands which they know are incompatible with the secured existence of a particular race. I argue that this is pretty much genocide, and whether one is deliberately doing this to another race, or their own is irrelevant. There is nowhere in the definition of genocide which makes an exception if you belong to the group you are targeting.

Suicide is also questionable if its not willingly done. Are there suicidal whites? You bet. But the fact that the system does everything it can to prevent points of views, discussion or dissent against PC liberal orthodoxy regarding multi racialism, it is a stretch to imply that its willingly done and voluntary. People who knowingly continue this are knowingly engaging in an activity which jeopardises the future of a race. Most anti-whites will admit that whites may not have a future, and many seem to even look forward to it. To argue that this is more suicide than genocide is plainly wrong. The fact that the anti-white is white themselves makes no difference to the end result.

If Australia was a true democracy and national policy truly reflected the will of the people, there is no doubt in our minds at Nationalist Alternative, that our liberal immigration policies would be much tighter.

The rest of the article makes valid points about against being weak and the importance of giving people a sense of belonging, though worrying states that we are by nature oppressors and that this is something that we should not be afraid to continue. The lesson of the past in the West is what goes around comes back around and the fleeting glories of imperialism pale in comparison to achievements at home. Mike Jahn underestimates the role that liberalism has played in bringing about the demise of Western nations, and its continued role at keeping the status quo. The current status quo relies on oppression, on the media constantly disavowing any nationalist groups, on ‘hate speech’ laws which really only exist to stifle speech and therefore stifle discussion and thought. The mantra, unlike many other arguments cuts to the chase and exposes the core of so called ‘anti-racism’.

There is no debunking which takes place here, only a misunderstanding of what Bob’s Mantra is saying, and a misunderstanding of the role that Liberalism is playing in the decline of the West. The Mantra, and the BUGS group isn’t ‘cultish’, only very disciplined, and discipline is vital to waging a political battle. Being disciplined means lots of necessary repetition and hard headedness. It means staying on target regardless of your enemies distractions and attempts to steer you away.

The nuclear debate has arisen once more, not that it ever left. With the continuing tragedy in Japan from the earthquake and subsequent tsunami, focus has been on the nuclear power plants damaged by the Earth’s rumblings. The Fukishima plant has had three explosions since the quake less than a week ago and an exclusion zone tens of kilometres wide enforced. 200,000 people have been evacuated. Radioactive materials have escaped and have been detected around the vicinity of the plant. There is no denying that this is a disaster, though it has not reached meltdown proportions, despite the fear-mongering that the media has engaged in, a media which has jumped on board the numerous disasters which have occurred in the past few months and milked them and resold the gravitas of the situation in consumable units.

To put the nuclear disaster in perspective, zero people have died (yet) from it. Chernobyl killed 43. Mining of coal, to fuel coal power plants among other uses has resulted in up to 100,000 deaths¹. Coal also potentially threatens to change a climate which humanity has become accustomed to, a climate we have become reliant on to sustain the existing population. Tens of thousands are dead from the quake and tsunami itself, but this event has nevertheless reignited debate and given ammunition to the anti-nuclear movement.

It should be clearly stated that nuclear power is the best of a bad lot, with emphasis put on the fact that it is part of a bad lot. Even long term supporters of nuclear power would have to admit, that is is far from perfect (though those with a direct financial interest in the industry may disagree). It is difficult and costly to build a plant that is safe, in a safe location, it is difficult to decommission safely, something that there is no good procedure for yet and worst of all, leaves behind dangerous waste which must be kept away from people, from living things and from entering the ecosystem, water or air cycle, for tens of thousands of years. The fact that after a magnitude 9 quake, and 10 metre tidal wave the plant has held up reasonably well is a testament that the immediate dangers of a well build plant are often overstated.

Nuclears long lasting legacy.

The issue with nuclear power lies in the waste it created. Waste that remains long after the water which was boiled to create the electricity has cooled, long after the electricity has been consumed, long after the individual who used the power has died, long after the device which was used has been discarded, quite likely even long after the civilisation that used the power to drive its economy and sustain itself has ceased to exist. To believe that it is possible to take care of this waste for this period of time is frankly laughable. For a society which cannot plan more than a few years in advance, taking on the responsibility of ensuring that spent fuel from a nuclear reactor remains tightly locked away and trapped, is not a responsibility that we should be taking with, or even remotely capable of handling.

While nuclear power may provide ample energy, it creates a debt, a long lasting debt. Future generations will be burdened with the cost of dealing with the waste, with potential issues from it leaking, with potential deaths, cancers and mutations from the leak, for something they didn’t use. What if King Ur-Nammu from the Ur civilisation 4000 years ago, in order to power an entertainment device left behind a toxic package which the current inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the modern day Iraqi’s still had to concern themselves about, and contend with? Is it morally justifiable to create such a long lasting debt to satisfy contemporary needs? This is, in this authors opinion, the one aspect of nuclear power which turns it from a ‘bad, but definitely usable for now’ source of power to a ‘definitely powerful, but just wrong’ one. Is it foolish to forgo the use of nuclear power for the moral purpose of saving future generations of this debt? It’s a complex issue. It could be argued that future generations would inherit indirectly benefits gained from the use of nuclear power today in the form of technical and medical advancements, and this is indeed a good argument, but the lifetime of the waste means that these benefits must last many times longer than any civilisation has lasted for. Also, what benefit do they gain from modern day squandering and reckless use of power? From using power to run larger and larger TV’s, home theaters, unnecessary street lighting, production of goods purely to sustain a decadent, consumerist lifestyle and to sustain an obsolete economic model which only a few really benefit from?

This raises another issue, which is at the real heart of the nuclear debate. From those who vehemently oppose it, to its supporters, it has to be realised by all who engage in debate, that nuclear is only good compared to other bad and insufficiently powerful sources of power. Even some environmentalists are accepting that nuclear power may be necessary, as it is less evil than coal. Renewable energies, while inarguably much cleaner and better, aren’t reliable enough and don’t provide the quantity of energy that modern civilisation seeks to consume. The issue is how did we reach a state where considering such options become a necessity?

Is it a necessity?

It appears necessary to find sources of power which can meet current consumption levels because it is assumed that the consumption of power is necessary. But quick observation shows this isn’t true. Quite easily, power consumption can be cut by simply eliminating the most wasteful behaviours. Leaving lights on in rooms when not in use, something commercial establishments commonly due. Removing unnecessary street lighting and ‘decorative’ lighting which only exists to cast light for visual effect. Planning shopping trips better to eliminate frequent drives to pick up a few items and so on. Household devices have also become more energy hungry. TV’s of old used to have a definitely on/off button, whereas now all appliances have a ‘standby’ mode, of little use, but a mode where the appliance still draws power. TV’s are becoming larger and much more power hungry. Computer monitors larger and the computers themselves draw more and more power as they run faster processors and more powerful graphics cards. Add to that, the increasing list of devices, the DVD player, the PVR, the set top box, the modem router, the home theater and its easy to see why household energy usage is increasing, and for what?

But looking further out, we see vast amounts of energy being used to manufacture consumable and quickly replaced electronic items, marketed to have a short shelf life, designed to become quickly obsoleted by the next product. Then there is the energy used to produces a cornucopia of goods which no one really needs, energy used to market it, and energy used by people to have a job to earn the money to buy these goods.

Everywhere you look, you see a society built upon the assumption that energy is limitless. The city of Melbourne is geographically speaking, one of the largest in the world. New suburbs are built around the car. There is a lack of corner stores, as all stores are centralised into shopping centres. No public transport and few nearby working opportunities. The preoccupation with growth is creating suburbs up to 40km and more away from the CBD, which require people to use more and more fuel in order to go to work and back to earn a living. Our economic and social system, as we currently maintain it, require growth, require consumption and the production of surplus goods and services, all energy consuming activities.

But what if a change in the economic and social order could result in a state of existence by which a good standard of living was maintained, but with far less extraneous energy use? This certainly is possible but whether it would remove the need to consider nuclear is unlikely.

How did we reach this state?

This begs a deeper question. How did we reach a state where in order to maintain our current system of civilisation, we must choose between the horrendous pollution of fossil fuels, and the morally repugnant nuclear, which as the potential for quite severe accidents?

Humanity and civilisation has quite simply grown faster than the means to support it sustainably have. There is no escaping the fact that we have not restrained our growth and demand for resources and chose not to wait till a demand for power and resources could be satiated sustainably before creating the demand. Restraint is a much needed but lacking quality in modern civilisation. Had we, upon the discovery of the use of fossil fuels, been able to think ahead, to take into account their finiteness, carefully planned our growth so as to be within the limits of these resources, this debate perhaps won’t be occurring. While it may not be reasonable to have known about climate change, or how quickly these fossil fuels may be exhausted, the industrial system marched on without any restraint or planning.

The crisis isn’t simply about where to get power next, it goes much deeper than that. The nuclear debate, a debate about which of the two evils we will choose is the result of a population and industrial system which was allowed to grow to a size beyond its own capacity to support itself sustainably. Renewable energies could be viable if civilisation as a whole has the will and capacity to restrict its size and consumption within that which nature can support, but such a change of perspective is unlikely to come about with leaders who are beholden to commercial interested, to big business and who, because of the democratic political system, would have extreme difficulty in enacting unpopular, but necessary changes.

While some political schools of thought try to resist any challenge to the current status quo, it is necessary to look deeper than the nuclear/no nuclear dichotomy and challenge the assumptions about the necessity to use the quantity of energy we use now and to challenge the automatic assumption that further growth must be accommodated as is inevitable.

Our societies approach to the energy supply problems that we face have always been to force change in the source of energy, but perhaps we should look at both sides of the equation. Perhaps the issue of finding the resources isn’t simply to force more resources, but to also adapt ourselves and accept the limitations of what the planet can provide and adjust ourselves, our own practices and assumptions and social morals in order to make our lifestyle more compatible the resources our planet can provide. This requires changes which most people would immediately dismiss as a pipe dream, as impossible, but unfortunately we are left with little choice.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_to_miners

The Free Market. The ideological pinnacle of neo-liberalism, the idea which will give wealth to all, eliminate poverty, create every kind of good and service imaginable, cure disease, make the trains run on time, save the environment and bring unicorns back from extinction. It is touted as the economical panacea, the cure all for any social or economic woe which may come up. Supposedly, if we are to take its supporters at face value, the free market is the only moral way for people to earn wealth, the only successful financial ideology which can exist. Everything else is just godless socialism. Neo-liberalism, an ideology which puts the market above all, puts the market as the arbitrator of morality, as the determining factor of the future of society. It is essentially left wing liberalism or anarchism applied to money.

In 1776, Adam Smith, a Scottish economist published “The Wealth of Nations”, a book advocating the abolishment of government interference in matters of economic importance and advocated commerce and trade without barriers and without limitations (much in the same way the Liberals advocate movement of people without barriers of limitations). This ‘free market’ was to be controlled by the ‘invisible hand’, market forces which would keep unfettered trade, production and consumption in check. The ‘invisible hand’ would play the role which the government would have played in regulating the free market. Simply put, it supposedly works like this. Rather than have the government intervene on behalf of employees, setting minimum wages, minimum conditions and such, the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market would provide the same safety net. Supposedly, if there were no regulations regarding employment and employees were also as free in choosing where to work and negotiating conditions, then employers who offered sub-optimal conditions would find themselves unable to hire people, as people would be choosing to work with companies who offered better conditions. So the competition for labour between employers would see those who offered the poorest conditions unable to compete, and thereby having to raise the standard of their wage and benefits to attract the employees they desire. This is the ‘invisible hand’, an example of the mechanism by which neo-liberals believe their free markets would work. This is supposedly the force which will lift the 3^rd world out of poverty, as jobs go overseas offering these unfortunate peasants jobs which may pay $2 an hour instead of $1. Capitalists regard this as the free market improving the condition of life for these people, completely overlooking the fact that a slightly less evil form of exploitation is still nevertheless exploitation.

Another example which they put forward might run like this. A company which produces products at a great cost to the environment, would lose custom due to people boycotting those product due to the environmental damage their production entails. If customers who had freedom to choose between competitors, then people who value the environment would not purchase their goods. This comes at a financial cost to the company, and they may find themselves in a position where spending extra for ‘greener’ production would result in greater profits from greater sales. Under neo-liberalism, a company would be free to buy pristine old growth forest, and raze it to the ground for profits. Their solution to those who argue that the environment should be protected, is that citizens who value that forest are also free (should be free) to pool their money to purchase it and protect it. Don’t like the fact that a refinery is going up next door and going to drop toxins next to the school? Just get the parents to pool their money together to buy the land! Neo-liberals actually put forward these exact arguments without any sense of irony, sarcasm or shame.

Neo-liberalism also advocates abolition of government sponsored programs, programs such as social security and public health care which are tax payer funded. Again, they advocate that market forces can produce all that is needed. Jobs abound (there is no need to be unemployed) and people would find capitalistic ventures by which they can make a business selling help to those who need it. The education system need not be public and tax payer funded, but those who desire to educate themselves or their children should pay, and those who don’t make use of those services shouldn’t have to. It is to many an appealing argument. Why should someone who doesn’t have a car, pay for roads? Why should someone who doesn’t have a child, pay for primary schools? I work hard, why should the fruits of my efforts, the money I earn, be taken and given those who don’t? Neo-liberalism pushes personal responsibility head of social welfare. Only personal responsibility exists, and according to neo-liberalism, one only goes without because of their failures, and any tax dollars used to help them is theft from the hard working and creative. It’s a seductive train of though which appeals to peoples sense of entitlement, to their perceived superiority and self righteousness. Like Liberalisms obsession with social rights which must be absolute, neo-liberalism takes the same attitude towards economic rights. The liberal catch cry “take your hands off my body” (in regards to abortion) could just as well be a neo-liberal catch cry of “take your hands off my wallet”.

The free market, the idea that an economy and society can work with no regulation and provide optimal results is the fundamental principle which drives neo-liberalism, a dominant ideology in today’s world. Free-marketism is based on a number of assumptions which as we will soon find out, are simply not true. We are given simply examples of two stone age people trading food for manufactured tools as the archetypal form of free trade, with the insinuation that free markets today work with similar simplicity.

This hypothetical example is easily debunked. One of the fundamental assumptions is that people trade on equal terms. As two people reach a deal, advocates of neo-liberal free markets say that both people would reach a consensus which maximises the individual advantage of the trade for both as far as is possible. For two children trading collector cards, this may be true, but is it true for all cases? Is the employee just as free to negotiate as the employer? Practical experience which we are all familiar with shows that this scenario is just a day dream, a non-existent hypothetical example that we are given as what is supposedly the norm. For someone who’s job has been lost, who has a mortgage and children who need to eat, the negotiation of a contract for a new term of employment is less than equal. Does the prospective employee have the freedom to argue against the clauses in the contract which not only demand “reasonable overtime” where required, but also states that it will be unpaid? For the job candidate, its take it or leave it. It’s take the job or foreclosure. It’s accept the conditions grudgingly, or walk away without means to feed the family and watch a solution to the supposed skills shortage take it instead, because they have lower standards. The fundamental principle which supposedly guides the ‘invisible hand’ from employers having to accept lower and lower standards is greatly flawed. Unequal trade abounds and it is only through the pressure of trade unions or government laws, that one party doesn’t have the opportunity to completely and utterly subjugate another through the leverage they find in being owners of property and means of income.

Another example is a young person competing against a baby boomer investor buying a house. Is there equality here? The boomer has had the advantage of free education, relatively higher wages and having sold another investment property which they subdivided at great profit. They can easily outbid the younger person because of different histories, different economic conditions and different periods of time they experienced them. They were paid more for perhaps doing the same job, due to different environmental conditions. They had less competition for work, less expenses to remain socially competitive. Even the simple fact that someone has had more time to save up money creates and inequality. The point is that two people putting equal work mentally and physically do not end up with the same financial earnings. Chance and environment play a role, but does this mean the person who ended up with less is less deserving of the same property? It’s hard to justify an answer of ‘yes’, but this is the reality of our society. It can be argued, that the younger person should just settle for less, but anyone with even basic knowledge of our housing market knows that even ‘entry level’ properties are out of their range. Does government restriction on the release of land make the issue worse? To a degree yes, and perhaps by ‘freeing’ the release of land according to free market ideals might solve this issue, but land developers would simply create the artificial shortage themselves, instead of the government, as it is profitable to do so, and that is exactly what they would do.

Economic interactions and the factors which influence the means by which people can acquire capital through their efforts are complex, seemingly random and never exactly repeatable. Free market economics simply doesn’t take this into account, and instead, neo-liberalism blames the individual for any shortfall, rather than recognising the complex external environment, technological and social shifts which can greatly influence peoples financial outcomes despite the same input. Seemingly simply properties, like ones history, date of birth and location can give them great leverage or disadvantage over others when trading goods or labour on the market. To ignore this fact is to turn a blind eye to the chaotic events which prevent fair trade to occur. Events beyond peoples control leads to some having the ability to exploit others, and neo-liberalism provides no means of recourse to those who are economically exploited or powerless, as it assumes that their fate is their own responsibility, and that it is within their means and within the means of the free market to lift them out.

The fallacy of the informed consumer.

Earlier we mentioned the example of the customer who chose to boycott or avoid a product based on the environmental practices of the company. It may be employment standards that a customer is concerned in, or something more directly related to the product, such as their quality control and for the example of companies which produce food, hygiene and cleaning standards. A customer may be able to make an informed choice, if all operations relating to the creation of the product were transparent and all information available. With the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico from offshore oil drilling, someone may wish to use ‘market forces’ and their purchasing power to avoid buying fuel obtained from oil extracted from risky offshore drilling. Now, is the customer who is about to purchase petrol really able to determine which processing plant the fuel came from, from which shipment of oil? Is the customer seriously able to trace back the supply chain all the way back to the rig the crude oil was extracted from? A customer buying a sandwich is able to get the best deal, if they are able to compare every sandwich available for sale in the world. These might be extreme examples, but lets take more common examples. In a completely deregulated pharmaceutical market, how can you determine whether the paracetamol you are giving to your child was produced with quality high enough to avoid potentially harmful contamination? Are you as a customer, able to make this determination for yourself? For the invisible hand to guide companies towards social responsibility and sustainability, for the invisible hand to stop people from literally killing others and the earth for profits, not only must the population of ‘consumers’ be aware enough to realise what monetary value must be placed, but they must also know the complex web of interactions and processes which end up creating the product. Potentially possible but infeasible. People would end up spending their whole lives in research, in order to try and avoid business with those who could potentially harm or kill, or cause great social and environmental harm.

Witness the ‘cheap’ products from Chinese manufacture. The free market has led to manufacturing going offshore, but these goods can only be produced cheaply due to human exploitation and disregard for the environment. Practices which exist there would not be legal here in Australia, nor tolerated, but the distance of China, the lack of knowledge and information available of the true cost of manufacture means buyers here can’t make informed choices.

There is no complete freedom anyway.

Lastly, the rich corporate oligarchs who push neo-liberalism do not operate and CAN NOT OPERATE in a completely free, deregulated world. Corporations exists because of government law. Some form of state apparatus must exist for property rights, the very cornerstone of capitalism, to exist. Some form of law against theft must exist, and laws against fraud. Copyright law, which allows large record companies to operate cannot exist without state intervention and market regulation. In a true free market, an artist would not be able to ensure that they are the recipient of commercial sales of their work, but it is only because of government intervention that a music artist can ensure that the revenue stream from the sale of their art goes to them.

Without government intervention, the legal apparatus which enables trade to even exist, wouldn’t, and would leave behind a state of anarchy. Neo-liberalism never demands the removal of government, only the extraction of the state from affairs which affect the earnings of the wealthy, of those who have influence, of capitalists. When a government uses its power and funds to make a nation more appealing to investors, no free marketeer objects. When the government of the U.S. bailed out Wall Street due to their own mismanagement of an over financialised money market, neo-liberals did not object. Working class Libertarians who are also pro free market did, but quickly ditched the cause in favour of more dubious ones, such as rallying against science. Perhaps led to these causes by the very businesses which have hijacked the Tea Party and usurped the concern of Americans for the future of their country for their own purposes.

Complete government de-regulation would not allow neo-liberalism to exist. Bill Gates would be poor if not for government spending which developed computer technology or for government enforced copyright and patent law. How else can Microsoft make their money, without having monopoly over the sale of their own products? Hedge fund managers would be nothing if not for the legal structure which allows the financial entities that they trade to be recognised universally. Property developers need state sanctioned ownership of land to develop. So given that no neo-liberal truly argues zero government interference, from where do they draw the line where government regulation should stop? Why is government enforcement of property rights acceptable, but taxation not? On what moral basis?

The basis by which free markets have been portrayed has moral are flawed and do not seem to have originated as the conclusion from an objective study of humanity. Assumptions that parties can trade on equal terms, that the non monetary value of aspects of life such as clean air can be effectively factored in to consumption by consumers are simply absurd. Free market ideology suffers from the same fundamental form as anarchism. Without organised structure, the strong simply overpower the weak and there are no checks and balances on their actions. Nations and people exist or die on the whims of the oligarchs, the commons disappears and base human emotions such as fear and greed become primary social drivers. Look at our current economy as an example of what happens when fear and greed are its prime movers.

Opposing neo-liberalism doesn’t necessarily mean supporting a centrally controlled economy or extreme economic egalitarianism where everyone is equal, as many neo-liberals suggest. It is merely a recognition that existence is a constant compromise between freedom and co-operation. A prosperous society, which by definition encapsulates the ‘group’ category beyond the individual or his sole family, requires a balance between free enterprise, free trade, and state regulation and government projects. History has shown that the most prosperous period of the 20th century was not when neo-liberalism become dominant in the 1980′s, but when free enterprise and economic freedom was living alongside large government funded projects and regulation.

One doesn’t have to have unfettered free markets for a just and prosperous society. Economic dogmatism has caused much misery in the 20^th century, and with the 2^nd decade of the 21^st century starting in the economic train wreck that is the remains of the Global Financial Crisis, a crisis which may be nothing more than the prelude, the welcoming fanfare to a larger economic catastrophe. Th economy and the social and legal structures which a nation create to put economic theory into practice must exist to serve the people, rather than being a structure, a God which the people must serve, worship and sacrifice for. The neo-liberal experiment cannot solve issues such as environmental degradation and the decline of the west and its catastrophic demographic shifts. Its solution to global warming is a carbon trading scheme, a scheme which is designed to simply create another commodity which can be used to create another asset bubble and traded for profit. A strong nation needs a strong economy, but an economy can only serve its purpose by being a servant to the people, which means that the people must retain mastery over it, an ideal at odds with neo-liberalism, where the people relinquish all control over it.

]]> http://www.natalt.org/2010/11/30/free-market-fallacy/feed/ 0 http://www.natalt.org/2010/09/30/home-sweet-hell-how-australians-are-being-priced-out-of-their-own-nation/ http://www.natalt.org/2010/09/30/home-sweet-hell-how-australians-are-being-priced-out-of-their-own-nation/#comments Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:45:31 +0000 mkennedy http://oneilgraphics.com/natalt/?p=567

by Michael Kennedy

Anyone with a worldly outlook and an independent mind would be acutely aware of how the media play a pivotal role in determining for other people what is to be considered an issue and what isn’t. The media set the tone of discussion. If the media brings something up, it must be an issue. If they don’t, it mustn’t be important. So some obscure issue which has always been around suddenly becomes ‘water cooler’ discussion because of its appearance on the front page. Yet a slowly unfolding revolution is considered worthy of being ignored, because the media choose not to focus on it. We take the view that it’s not what newspapers, television or mainstream press which dictates what important, which problems we must tackle, but it’s our own judgement and position.

One issue which has been glossed over, mentioned but never explored in the depth it deserves is the housing crisis. While the global financial crisis gets in depth coverage and the ‘crisis’ with Lindsey Lohan gets valuable airtime, this crisis is perhaps felt far more keenly by Australians is only time to time mentioned with no one seeming to even consider that it is a problem that we as Australians should consider resolving. The state of housing affordability in Australia has truly become a crisis. A financial crisis because of vast amounts of credits pumped into an unsustainable asset bubble which will cause economic problems when it pops, and a social crisis, as young Australians seeking to start a family and construct the very social fabric of the future of this nation find they are unable to do so.

Historically house prices have always oscillated but have always, with the exception of periods of economic recession and depression, been affordable to the working class. Yet in the 21^st century, we saw housing reach new levels of unaffordability, during an economic BOOM. During a period of time when working hours were increasing, when the economy was growing rapidly, market forces were conspiring not to give Australians the opportunity to use their hard earned wealth to secure a residence, but to use property as a vehicle for profiteering.

The Generational War

The housing market as it is now, is generationally skewed, with the older baby boomer’s standing the most to gain from overinflated prices, and the most to lose from housing becoming affordable. For many younger “Generation X” and “Generation Y” Aussies, there is a clear sense of anger over the fact that they cannot achieve the Australian dream that their parents could. For many Australians who had working class parents, who paid off the ¼ acre block in the suburbs, they grew up and studied and worked hard to be able to afford the same. Now with many having gone through the education system, worked the entry level jobs they find that these very same houses, which were paid off by brickies, labourers and office clerks are not out of reach to young professionals. The houses which sold for $10,000 many decades ago, or even those which sold at $150,000 only two decades ago are now well over half a million. The property owners, who would still profit from selling the house at half its current ‘market value’ refuse to take anything less than the overinflated and grossly unfair market value. For these baby boomer’s using property to fund their retirement, they are borrowing, and that’s putting it nicely, money from a future generation. To put it more aptly, they are utilising the fact that housing is a basic necessity to set sale terms which are completely unreasonable.

The baby boomer generation claims that ‘hard work’ gave them their status, when in reality it is nothing more than the sheer luck of being born at a time when housing which was suitable for family life could be afforded on one wage. These conditions simply do not exist now, and younger Australians are being blamed for this inequity. It is supposedly the reluctance of “Gen X” and “Gen Y” to work hard or start small, according to these self righteous children of the hippie era, which is to blame for their predicament. But the truth is vastly different. The current generational inequity is the result of nothing more than the timing of economic and social change, with the older generation finding itself on the favourable line of the divide, and the younger ones drawing the short straw. Canberra University’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling showed that during the financial boom of the 2000′s, the one which most people missed out on, the divide between rich and poor grew further, with this divide having a generational angle too.

People over 65 increased their home equity by an average of $80,000 in the 10-year period – four times as much as for people aged 15 to 34. ⁱ

How has the government sought to address this, to ensure that hard working Australians are able to secure basic shelter? By giving home owners grants which did nothing apart from line the pockets of real estate agents, property speculators and investors. This divide is turning into anger between generations, turning children against parents, parents against children and reinforcing the worst form of individualistic, me, me, me trains of thought. Unfortunately, the growing anger baby boomer’s and the older generation is justified, as while they have profited immensely, obscenely, they are showing no regard at all as a collective demographic for the plight of the younger Australians who are doomed to worked well past 65 in order to fund the baby boomer retirement.

The Population War

Another contributing factor is the insane, reckless and poorly though out mass immigration policy. Hard as it is for new infrastructure and public transport to be put in place, as full as our roads, trains, hospitals and schools are, as competitive as the job and housing market are, the government nevertheless ramped up immigration, doubling and trebling it in the past decade or two. In a big ‘up yours’ to the Australian people, it completely ignored these concerns and opened up the country to ‘skilled workers’, without even mentioning how they would look after those who were here. The population grew immensely and Australia experienced the fastest population growth. Yet no plans were made to house these people, and no mention of how Australians would be ensured space and opportunity to make a workable life in this country. The government just didn’t care, and many Australians are finding life less and less workable. Aaron Gadiel from Urban Taskforce Australia says that local councils are indifferent to the plight of home buyers and that

“Every credible independent report on the housing shortfall has found that the planning system and the restrictions imposed by local councils are front and centre to blame for the current situation we find ourselves in.” ⁱⁱ

The Speculators War

The third aspect is property speculation. Financial opportunists using property to further enlarge their asset base have pushed Australians out the market even further. People who already own a house, in a act which is nothing more than pure greed, buying up other properties for the sole purpose of profiteering. Buying an already overpriced quarter acre block in the suburbs for $550K, only to tear the house down, erect 3 units and sell the units at $400K each. People who are up in arms over a few cents per litre extra on the price of petrol and demand the blood of oil companies become silent and overlook this vastly more insidious gouging. The economic divide is growing, as people who already own multiple properties and obtain income through rent and subdividing the land, use this leverage to obtain even more properties, to drive up the price and push out first home buyers. It really is just greed and avarice which compels people who own multiple properties, who are aware of the housing unaffordability crisis to continue with this socially destructive practice for the pursuit of filthy lucre. The Liberals, in their true style helped kick off the speculative bubble, with Peter Costello in 1999 saying

“Work for a living and we’ll tax you at close to 50 cents in the dollar; speculate and we’ll only take 25 cents. Not only that but, as a special deal – while stocks last – we’ll pay half your speculating costs.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Halving the capital gains tax rate and negative gearing has been a boon to those who least need to enter the so called property market, those who already own a property. Meanwhile, first home buyers were given a first home buyers grant, which only served to allow buyers to leverage themselves even more applying for easy credit, and bidding up prices and succumbing to the spruiking of the only “profession” that doesn’t require an education, the Real Estate Industry.

Yet such greed is rewarded through tax benefits such as negative gearing and lauded in economic circles. Financial analysts perversely call unaffordable housing a “strong market” and celebrate its further “growth”. From a nationalist viewpoint, any economic condition which weakens the social make up of the nation, which undermines the ability of people to secure a future for themselves is to be avoided, regardless of how profitable it is to the already rich, already well off social class.

What has the government done about this? It opened up property investment to the foreign market and we saw real estate agencies spring up whose sole purpose was to sell properties to Chinese nationals.

Nationalist Alternatives war against the housing crisis

We are unashamedly against greed and profiteering. Every other party treats this issue with kid gloves. The Liberals wouldn’t dare upset cashed up investors and the boomer’s, and besides, they champion market forces and value them over the welfare of the nation. Labor has been completely inept and uncommitted, showing that they care not one iota for the many Australians struggling to afford just an extra bedroom for a child, or those facing the prospect of never being able to afford to live in a house which doesn’t belong to someone else. The Greens have said nothing, but while they might fight on behalf of Australians against speculators, they wouldn’t dare fight on behalf of Australians for population control. Without addressing the immigration issue, any effort made is worthless. Socialists just don’t care as the issue doesn’t affect trans-gendered lesbian indigenous people in Africa fighting against imperialism.

We at Nationalist Alternative are wholly committed to affordable housing. It IS a right, just as clothing, food, medicine and education are a right. It is just as detestable in our opinion to use the market to price a vital product such as housing out of peoples reach for profit, as it is to auction food to the highest bidder for profit and leave others hungry. There is quite simply no excuse, nor any good reason for such a crisis to occur. The free market has failed, free markets being an abstract ideology that in real life is unworkable. Australia needs a government which as the courage to do its job and govern for the welfare of the nation.

Quite simply, housing should be MADE affordable. That’s not to say that the government should pay for peoples housing, but the cost of constructing a house is still affordable and within reach. It is the price of land which has lost all control. As land costs nothing to produce, it is entirely reasonable to expect Australians to pay fairly for construction costs. Such a demand even today would not be unreasonable, but it is not reasonable to expect one to pay $800K for an empty block in a traditionally working class suburb by Altona.

Nationalist Alternative is committed to ensuring that our economy serves US. There is no room in our society for practices which destroy our social conditions, even if they are of benefit to the few. Australians have fought and died to protect their nation, worked hard to pay taxes to their country, worked hard to build it up from arid sands into one of the best countries on earth. This work should not be in vain. Those who work to secure a future should not see their efforts destroyed.

by Michael Kennedy

A Fresh Political Alternative

For many Australians, it strikes them as odd, and constricting, as to how a supposedly democratic system at election time, really only offers two possible choices. Come election time, its a choice between Labor or Liberal, with minor parties vying for protest votes. Most Australians are aware that this duopoly doesn’t really offer much choice. Many Australians are wanting an alternative, not just a protest party, but a real alternative. Many have been asking for a party to emerge which will take seriously issues concerning unsustainable population growth and immigration, the seemingly out of control way our society is changing, our privacy and right to be free from government censorship and monitoring. The blind rush for direction-less growth has led to housing becoming unaffordable, poorly planned sterile urban slums, devoid of public transport, adequate roads and facilities, chocked with traffic yet still growing uncontrollably to satisfy developers urges. While Australians are gridlocked daily held up by heavy traffic and roadworks designed to alleviate the strain, any benefit that may have been gained is lost with the record high intake of people. People are struggling to even fit on public transport in the mornings, yet those who say we are full are called racist!

Nationalist Alternative provides a fresh political alternative. Nationalist Alternative is for Australians who feel that the government is no longer acting in their interests. Nationalist Alternative is for Australians who want a greater say in the future of their country, and not have it left to CEO’s and Executives of major corporations decide what becomes of Australia.

Other Parties

The Greens have grown in popularity, thanks largely to the disillusionment that voters have with the two major parties. The Greens have also committed themselves to opposing Labor’s internet censorship policies, something that the Liberals have been suspiciously silent on. The Greens also (at least appear to) take environmental problems seriously. But there is nevertheless well deserved disdain and suspicion of the Greens. The Greens push a leftist ‘progressive’ social ideology, a policy which the last few decades have shown to be detrimental to Australia, yet they persist. While the Greens have (rightfully) called on Australia to take better care of its environment, to curb emission’s and our environmental impact, they call for no immigration restraint. The left side of politics has been very vocal in denouncing those who call for greater control of our population growth, yet population growth is one of the major factors which multiply and increase our environmental impact. While Australians are urged to use less water, to cut power usage, to cut carbon emission’s, environmental groups which unfortunately tied protection of the environment with ‘progressive’ liberal ideals don’t see the paradox. Any party which can’t see how a policy of reducing environmental damage contradicts one which doesn’t allow regulation of population growth is either in denial or just plain foolish. While Australia’s dams are running low, desalination plants, which consume large amounts of energy, provided by the very fossil fuels who’s use we should be reducing, are built to accommodate this growth. That is one of the major reasons why we at Nationalist Alternative believe that we need to cut immigration levels to help save water here in Australia.

Meanwhile, Socialist parties who use ‘socialism’ as a cover for what really is a communist party, operate their parties the way they would operate this country. A centrally controlled, undemocratic bureaucracy, where marginal groups are used as political pawns. Communist/Trotskyite groups merely use irrelevant issues like Gay Marriage rights and helping to “free” the refugees to promote their own insidious agenda which is to destroy Australia.

“Be the change you want to be “ – Gandhi

While we all realise that Ghandi was obviously NOT an Australian, he nevertheless, did believe in Nationalism for his own country. We at Nationalist Alternative run our party the way we want our country to be run. Nationalist Alternative is not a ‘do as we say and think as we want you to think’ type of party. Our members and supporters are not just political cannon fodder, but take an active part in the parties activities. We believe that Australia is OUR country, its YOUR country, and Nationalist Alternative is OUR party and its YOUR party. Nationalist Alternative exists to give those who more or less support our basic platform a voice, a voice that many Australians have been asking for.

Nationalist Alternative supports protecting our environmental heritage, without the hypocrisy of also supporting policies which lead to the uncontrolled growth that’s destroying it. We oppose completely proposed internet censorship and monitoring, without the hypocrisy of being a party which also supports crushing political speech it doesn’t agree with, and actively using intimidation and threats of violence to stop other parties from promoting their platform as socialist groups have done.

Why Nationalism

Nationalism is often classed as ‘outdated’, ‘backwards’ but with never any real reason. Yet when we look at the attempts at pluralistic diverse societies in the UK, Europe and America one fact remains clear, its a policy failure. While people in these countries still promote the virtues of increased democracy, those same people move away from it! While other people have yet to catch up to this important fact, we have realised it. Australia isn’t just a resource which people move into. The people who built Australia didn’t immigrate into already existing cities, infrastructure, hospitals and social groups, these were built by the people for the people. This is the heart of what a nation is. A family is simply a small nation. A family household is run for the family. The house, the family budget, the car and furniture as well as rules exist to serve the family. The nation is somewhat similar. It is the creation of people who more or less share a common cultural and ethnic/racial  heritage, who more or less are in a situation together and share a common future. Just as it would be utterly ridiculous for a mother to exchange her children, simply to make the family budget better, we consider it utterly ridiculous that people within a nation can just be changed for economic gain. For Nationalists, the economy, the government, the institutions and infrastructure exist to serve the people. For Nationalist Alternative, our funds, our website, our party name and image exist to serve who take part.

Why Nationalist Alternative

Nationalist Alternative encourages those who want a greater say in the future of their country to engage in political activity. We are not just interested solely in money or foot soldiers for staged protests, but for Australians who share our ideals and vision to take an active part. Joining Nationalist Alternative isn’t just becoming a member of a party, its becoming part of a movement, having a real voice, a real say.

]]> http://www.natalt.org/2010/08/25/why-support-nationalist-alternative/feed/ 0 http://www.natalt.org/2010/07/23/using-refugees-to-belittle-the-immigration-debate/ http://www.natalt.org/2010/07/23/using-refugees-to-belittle-the-immigration-debate/#comments Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:14:15 +0000 mkennedy http://oneilgraphics.com/natalt/?p=534 By Michael Kennedy

“Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Boat People are used as a way to release pressure from the real immigration debate”.

It seems that recently Australia has  rediscovered its obsession with asylum seekers.  News stories now abound of how more boats are on the way, of how asylum seekers (always by boat, not by plane) are given first class treatment, shacked up in luxury accommodation while “working families” struggle to pay the mortgage.  One only has to load up the website of Victoria’s most popular rag, the Herald Sun, and sure enough the issue is mentioned, as it is pretty much every day in the more neo-conservative publications.  “Now I’ll fix the boats: Gillard “1 says the headline.  Since when has Labor taken a strong stance against boat people?  Since it’s been a popular vote grab.  The “Tampa” election showed that its a hot button issue, even bigger than environmental degradation through salinity, emissions, the housing affordability crisis and unsustainable population growth.  

When Howard was elected in 1996 he cut the planned immigrant intake to 68,000, but by last financial year he’d more than doubled it. His planned intake for next financial year is almost 153,000 – plus 13,000 under the humanitarian program. To that you can add about 24,000 New Zealanders – who don’t need visas and will be arriving to join the 470,000 of their fellow country-persons who are here.  Last calendar year was the eighth straight year of net immigration (that is, net of permanent departures) in excess of 100,000.The media slyly links ,not explicitly, but implicitly, illegal refugees with a sense of being inundated with hordes of people.  From the opinion of many of the Australian public, that seems to be working.  Many Australians seem to believe that the country will be flooded by boat people alone, and make statements about how our infrastructure is already at capacity.  Nothing clears up the air like a bit of perspective, and nothing better brings about a sense of perspective than factual data.

In 2009, 5,000 asylum claims were lodged in Australia 2.  USA & Canada have over 80,000 claims and Europe close to 300,000.  That figure of 5,000 might seem high, but in reality, it is not.  Legal immigration exceeds this every fortnight.  This is half the number of assisted immigrants than arrived at the start of the 20th century, when Australia had a much smaller population.  According to Wikipedia, “Net overseas migration increased from 30,042 in 1992-93 to 177,600 in 2006-07. This is the highest level on record.”  In two decades, that’s a 500% increase, one largely brought about by the ‘conservative’ Howard government. Howard was an expert at making his Battlers believe he shares their dislike and distrust of foreign dominance, via sole opposition to boat people. Yet in the background on behalf of big business he ran the biggest immigration program Australia had ever seen including one where the proportion coming from non European sources is now greater than 50%.

Asylum claims therefore account for less than 3% of our immigration intake, a fairly unremarkable proportion.  Yet if you were to follow the popular press, this tiny percentage is going to inundate the country, that we don’t have room for that few percent, that if the government would just crack down and secure our borders against this few percent, we’d be a lot better.  It seems a silly position, one bereft of logic and proportion, but why are Australians so worked up about boat people?  Why did Tampa demand so much attention for the handful of people on it, when the population was increasing by thousands each week from planes flying overhead?  Why is it OK to suggest that refugees be blasted out of the water, with even the opposition minister Tony Abbott stating he’ll do “whatever it takes”.  “Whatever it takes” does not exclude some form of violent action. And why is there a strange paradox in the media, where it is permissible for paid commentators like Andrew Bolt to make all sorts of grandiose statements against them, when even suggesting that legal immigration be scaled back gets one branded a racist?

How is it that Nationalist Alternative is lambasted simply for advocating a political policy where the government would assist a greatly reduced level of international students and economic refugees (i.e. The huge ‘skilled intake’), a policy which hardly is inhumane, but the same media silently and selectively allows far more vigorous comments by neo-conservatives levelled against the small intake stream comprising boat people/asylum seekers/refugees.

You will note that none of these neo-conservative commentators speaks of removing Australia from the overarching United Nations dictates (1951 Refugee Convention) that impairs national sovereignty in the first place? They simply are not serious and only wish to defer public sentiment away from the real issues.

Surely comments about blasting women and children out of the water, who many consider could quite well be in ‘desperate need of refuge’ are indicate of a less ‘humane attitude’ by liberal standards, than comments about taking in less people to study and live here from overseas, people who are generally quite well off anyway (they have money) and are coming from countries which have a reasonable to high standard of living.

This state of affairs most likely exists because of one simple factor. Money.  Economic immigrants are skilled (at least some) and have money, or the capacity to earn money.  They will buy consumer goods.  They will put deposits on houses with over inflated prices to fund the baby boomer’s retirement and therefore keep that asset bubble inflated.  They provide labour to big business, and quite often, cheaper, that is, more ‘cost effective’ labour, as an increase in the supply of labour will drive down its cost, as there are more competitors in the race to the bottom.  Make no mistake about it, big business, the Real Estate industry and even smaller business love immigration.  The ‘ruling class’ in modern western society isn’t aristocrats, dictators, feudal lords, emperors, kings or seeming not even a democratically elected government.  It is big business, the corporations.  Anyone who’s been following the events regarding the Resource Super Profits Tax would only be too keenly aware of the clout that big business and corporations have in modern society.

The Institute for Public Affairs have states that Western Australia needs more people to prosper.  A sentiment echoed by the mining industry. They IPA states  ?We are now in the largest boom in the State’s history. The challenge for the State is to make the most of the boom and getting more people to the State is the key to doing so.?  What can be gleaned from this, isn’t that population levels are crippling the state, but there is the potential for greater growth and greater economic gain (presumably only for those who are already well off), but that there simply is the opportunity for greater profits, if there were more people.

The IPA is a centre right think tank which advocates free market politics, trade liberalisation, climate change scepticism and limited government.  The attitude isn’t one of bringing in more people to fill a need, but a lamentation that there are potential further profits which could be gained if it weren’t for Australia’s restrictive immigration policy.  It is an attitude which suggests a lack of any form of restraint.  The last sentence states ?While more people will bring challenges, such as ensuring that there is adequate land for housing, schools, hospital beds and roads, it is the key to our future prosperity.?.  All that is written about how hundreds of thousands of Australians are going to cope with real and pressing issues they face each day, is mentioned in a throw away line at the end.  It’s pretty obvious that many who are calling for an increase in the intake of people, consider the trouble it causes for many Australia a negligible externalities.  Other companies benefit from skilled immigration.  Wages can be depressed by increased competition for jobs and bottom lines can be increased through finding cheaper sources of labour, and by lowering working standards and conditions.

What does this have to do with refugees?  Probably due to the fact that asylum seekers generally don’t have skills and don’t have as much money by the time they arrive onto the taxpayer’s payroll after sometimes exhausting thousands of dollars on people smugglers. An Afghan refugee isn’t soon going to be in a position to put a deposit on a house, or apply for a position in the IT industry.  In other words, they are less useful to big business.  Another big business, the media, relies on selling a product just like any other business.  The product that news media sells is not just news stories and information, but a guiding hand, a sense of representation for the average person.

It is no secret that most Australians think immigration rates are too high.  Many are concerned about how sustainable intake levels of 200,000 per annum are, how we can do this while water is becoming more scarce, infrastructure such as transport and health are bursting at the seams and competition for housing is high, with astronomical prices denying hard working young Australians the opportunity to own even a modest home

to raise a small family in.  Sentiment against misguided government policy, largely fuelled by a religious belief in ?growth? and rapacious and insatiable business who seems to resent any restraint is high.  This spills out into resentment against the immigrants themselves, though for the rates and social issues that have arisen as a result, Australians with their generous natures have been very accommodating and tolerant.  The sentiment is still there, and the media knows this and knows that it is a marketable product.  This leaves the media with a paradox.  They cannot steer Australians towards wanting lower levels of legal immigration because the media is itself big business.  Rupert Murdoch is not likely to kill off the inflow of people which is the golden goose for other plutocrats.  The Australian and the Herald Sun are not going to turn against the Real Estate industry and the mining industry, who buy valuable advertising space and milk Australia’s frustration at the unsustainable and rapid growth and change occurring.  How to use this sentiment, while at the same time maintaining the status quo?  The answer is simple.  Redirect the sentiment, which appears at face value to be exactly what the popular mainstream media has been doing.  With Australians concerned about growth, about the future of the nation and bewildered at the government constantly increasing the rate of population growth when most people believe the opposite is necessary based on their personal experiences, they want a media outlet which shares their concern.

The mainstream media has been doing this, by directing the ire, the resentment and frustration towards the most helpless and economically least advantageous immigrants.  Asylum seekers, refugees and boat people.  It’s always boat people too, as it conjures up images of dishevelled, dodgy looking opportunists scrambling ashore.   Asylum seekers who arrive by plane don’t look like they are doing anything illegal or dodgy, nor is there a stand off in mid air, so they are rarely if ever mentioned.  The spectacle with them just isn’t there.  With the mainstream media turning a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment and never bothering to call the so called ‘racist’ dog whistle, they kill two birds with one stone.

Firstly, the papers sell.  Hyperbolic headlines with barely a scratch of truth about how refugees are arriving in vast numbers of boats and given luxury accommodation fuel the sentiment, and direct attention.  The attention is taken away from the vast number of people who use student visas as a back door, away from the large number of ‘economic’ migrants, and towards a relatively small, insignificant numbers of refugees.  The claims about luxury treatment, about harbouring terroristsand disease only serve to inflame passions, sell papers and sway government policy.  The government then sees asylum seekers as THE pressing immigration issue, and will act on that, rather than on population growth in general.  The other outcome is that the discussion moves towards the few percent of arrivals only, and not the bigger picture in general. The flow of labour and capital which serves big industry is no longer considered as part of the equation, and therefore is no longer threatened by discussion about immigration.  The immigration debate then is purely about stopping boats.  It has been effectively neutered.  The papers sell.  The Australian population think their concerns about growth are being attended to.  Growth continues unabated.

Australians deserve honest debate on pressing issues such as the environment, population growth through government policy, industrial relations and social programs.  But this debate is degraded and dragged into the gutter as a small proportion of the population twist the debate, and mislead the population, leading them to incorrect  conclusions and given them skewed perspectives.  Young Australians who may have only had one opportunity to vote in a federal election, or no opportunity deserve a better quality of discussion from the general public and the media.  This can only be done holding an accurate perspective, being honest about what is happening and not being led by hysteria.

In short, Australia cannot have any meaningful public debate about how immigration policy will shape the future of our nation if there is stage managed ‘contained hysteria’ about boat people. The media, which usually is so quick to hyperbole about parties who call for lowered immigration, turns a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment , while grilling those who suggest that local students should be considered over cashed up foreign students or that the ‘legal’ migrant intake is way too high.  This is an absurd situation and one that Australia currently finds itself in.

There are of course legitimate questions and issues concerning asylum seekers, issues about processing, about controlling borders and how to differentiate between legitimate refugees (on Australia’s definition not the UNs..) from opportunists, but the hysteria is out of proportion to the problem.  If it is held to be humane to give refuge to someone fleeing persecution and possible death then it is by no means inhumane not to offer someone who has an education and a job, the opportunity to study here as a hair stylist to gain permanent residency so as to bring the rest of the family, simply because there is more space here, or more money to be made.

Australians deserve a better quality of discourse on this issue, especially younger Australians who will MOST be affected by these policies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

1 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-pm-julia-gillard-vows-to-address-issue-of-asylum-seekers/story-e6frf7jo-1225887320708