Sunday 31st January 1999


This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Web Site]
HAVE YOU ORDERED:
[MURDER BY MEDIA, DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA]

from an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Ron Holten a 63 year old Aborigine is standing for the central coast seat of Wyong in the upcoming New South Wales elections.

Holten's nomination by  One Nation who the unethical Australian mainstream media label "racist" knocks their blatherings right on the head.

Holton agrees with One Nation about issues like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) calling for the abolition of special funding for indigenous people.

He says that One Nation and the teachings of Aboriginal elders have several parallels:

"They both teach community responsibility and faith. I was taught, at a young age, respect and how to be part of a community."

Holten is a member of the Darkinjung Land Council which oversees the Wyong area "I hope I set an example that if you want something you can go out and achieve it," he said. "No one gave me anything and I worked and paid for my land.

"I would like to see everyone in this country treated on a needs basis. I hope that, as time goes by, I'll be able to talk to people and rectify the misconceptions and let them know what Aborigines are about."

Holten said that Pauline Hanson had been victimised by the media.

The Sun Herald's Alex Mitchell is up to his trashy reporting again... predictable one might say.

In today's paper he talks about David Oldfield's secretary allegedly "being caught out" on talkback radio when singing  the praises of One Nation.

He says, "I have a One Nation memo circulated before the October 3 Federal election telling supporters: "As you are aware, talkback radio is one of our best arenas for gathering support. On Friday evening you should have a small dedicated group getting themselves onto every talkback program in your state.

"If you at all have the capacity, you should fill the airwaves with talk about One Nation all day and into the night. If you cannot do the day, at least do the night.

"Be sure you use people who are clear, can stick to the subject and have the ability to conduct themselves without announcing to all and sundry that they are working for One Nation.

"Use these themes - Liberal, Labor and national cannot be trusted and the Democrats are no better - One Nation seems to be the only ones saying it like it is - The Democrats are going to negotiate with the Liberals to support the GST - the Liberals are giving their preferences to Labor - I'm a Liberal and i don't like it so I'm going to vote for Pauline and One Nation - Labor are giving their preferences to the Liberals - I always vote labor, but not this time - I won't let the bloody Liberals get my vote - I'll give Pauline Hanson a go - I'm really sick of all of them, it's like there is a deal done between them, they're just in it for themselves - Pauline is the only one you can trust."

Alex's Mitchell closing gambit? "Have you a better reason to put the appalling Oldfield last when you vote for the Upper House on March 27?

Of course Mitchell fails to mention that the only ethical media left in this country today is talkback radio - the trashy mainstream media just push the Trojan Horse line (media barons and their mates in the major political parties). The chasm between the haves and have nots is no longer a chasm it is an endless sea of distrust and infamy with wannabees like Mitchell pushing its barrow.

With the launch of Murder by Media, Death of Democracy just a week ago I can now report that not one word has been printed about the book in the mainstream media. This is polarised media censorship at its best. At the other end of the scale I have been invited onto several talkback programmes to chat about the book. Real Aussies concerned about Australia's future - 2GB's Brian Wilshire; 5DN Darren Hinch; 6PR with Howard Sattler at 10am tomorrow Perth time...

Thank god for talkback radio and let the Internet continue to provide a growing voice against the intellectual prostitutes working for the Murdoch and Packer families.

New World Order

Dear Scott,

The following quotations end an article on Mind Control Slavery and the new World Order found in this months edition of Nexus magazine. It is certainly worth a read...........

Therapist Dr M. Scott Peck, author of The People of the Lie, writes: "...at one point I defined evil as 'the exercise of political power that is the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion in order to avoid...spiritual growth'".

Psychologist Erich From, author of The Heart of Man, defines this struggle between Good and Evil as biophilia (the love of life) vs necrophilia (the love of death). "The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically as if all living persons were things," he writes. "The necrophilous person can relate to an object - a flower or a person - only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a threat to himself... He loves control and in the act of controlling he kills life... 'Law and order' for them are idols..."

All the best
Steve Milson

and on a less serious subject... (or so it is portrayed) How to check if your cow has "Mad Cow's Disease".

The Age

Hi Scott,

I've received a reply from Hugh Mackay (reply to my original letter that you placed in ANOTD on Sunday 3rd January 1999) and sent another email to him (both seen below). Feel free to add these to ANOTD.
Regards Jeremy

Subject: Re: Letter to Hugh Mackay
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:36:21 +1100
From: "Elizabeth Cincotta" ecincotta@theage.fairfax.com.au
To: jbeck@netspace.net.au

Dear Jeremy

Thank you for your e-mail of 3 January, which was sent to me from The Age by fax. I am pleased to know that you are a regular reader of my Saturday column and that you often find my material interesting and refreshing.

On the subject of One Nation, however, I think you might be being a trifle over-sensitive. When I referred to 'our retreat into prejudice' and 'our uncharitable attitude towards single mothers, our lack of interest in Aboriginal reconciliation...' I was commenting broadly on the mood of contemporary Australia (as revealed through my own continuing program of social research).

I was not intending to draw attention to One Nation, nor was I implying that One Nation supporters are any more prejudiced, uncharitable, or uninterested in reconciliation than many other members of the Australian community.

I would not, for one moment, want to class you - or anyone else - as 'simplistic, racist, ignorant and uneducated' unless, on the evidence, those labels were actually justified. (Even so, I am reluctant to make personal judgements of that kind).

It is true, as you have discerned from other things I have written, that I am politically remote from One Nation, and I believe that many of the proposals put forward or endorsed by Pauline Hanson would be socially, culturally and economically disastrous for Australia. Nevertheless, I appreciate that there are many One Nation supporters who are similarly sceptical about some specific Hanson proposals: the experience from my own research suggests that there is a vast number of Australians who are attracted to One Nation (after all, almost a million voters gave One Nation their primary vote at the 1998 Federal Election), but that many of these are connected to One Nation via a single thread of policy, rather than by broad agreement with the whole range of One Nation policies.

I also have to say that One Nation has served a very useful purpose in the community in stimulating discussion about the kind of Australia we really want (particularly in terms of our ethnic diversity), and that, if nohing else, Pauline Hanson has drawn attention to the profound sense of disenchantment which voters feel with the so-called mainstream parties.

Finally, I should perhaps just declare my own position regarding Aboriginal welfare/reconciliation, etc: while I would, of course, endorse the idea that 'we are all Australians', I think it is both absurd and irresponsible to deny that Aborigines are a particular case. The history of the last 200 years surely means that we have a long way to go before we can claim that it is appropriate to treat Aborigines in the same way as we treat anyone else in this society. I have no doubt that there is corruption in Aboriginal politics - as there is corruption in almost every human society and endeavour - but I still think that our European culture has a great deal to answer for .... and a lot of ground to make up!

You call on me to present a balanced opinion to The Age. In fact, as a social researcher, I see it as my primary responsibility to report opinions and attitudes as I find them. Occasionally, I inject my own opinion (as I am entitled to do), but I am primarily an analyst and interpreter of public opinion.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely,
HUGH MACKAY
C/- Liz Cincotta

Subject: Reply to Hugh Mackay
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:09:23 +1100
Reply-To: jbeck@netspace.net.au
To: opinion@theage.fairfax.com.au

Dear Hugh,

Thankyou for taking the time in making your reply.

I don't for one minute believe I'm "a trifle over-sensitive". Maybe you would feel differently after a little more reading. I recommend Scott Balson's book just released on Friday 22nd January, "Murder by Media Death of Democracy in Australia" which is available at Dymocks book stores. I've also just read another excellent book by Graeme Strachan B.Sc.,LLB., "Globalisation: The demise of the Australian Nation", which can be ordered from the internet at or for fast service call (07) 5546 9210 and use your credit card. Given your stance on economic rationalism, I believe you would share most of Graeme's concerns, but would have the opportunity to consider the damaging effects of economic power from a socially conservative perspective.

I have no problem with you injecting your own opinion. However, societies values and attitudes today are a strong function of media comment. Your opinion pieces therefore play a part in moulding the opinions you are trying to analyse; thus we begin to see a feedback loop. This would be all very well if a diversity of opinions were posed in our media. Although some diversity is present, many issues are clearly suppressed in our largely Murdoch/Packer controlled media. Take the minimal coverage of the MAI for instance. Most Australian's I've encountered are completely oblivious of this agreement and yet its impact on our society would far outweigh many of the other news items put together.

I find it puzzling when you tell me you weren't intending to draw attention to One Nation or imply that One Nation supporters were more uncharitable, considering your comments from "The Age" on Saturday 23rd January on contradictions in Australia.

I read with interest that you suggest Hanson's policies would be economically disastrous for Australia. Let me clear up a few issues; One Nation are promoting Australian ownership, but certainly don't oppose foreign ownership. They oppose foreign and transnational company (TNC) control. These policies may indeed backfire, with TNC's pulling out of Australia, having being forced to pay their fair share of tax and comply with Australian Constitutional Law. However, it is my belief that we must take a principled stance while not giving into bully tactics of large TNC's. To give in as we have been since the Hawke government's economic rationalists commenced, would be to drive further down the road of social decline, leading us into an extended period of economic feudalism that may be looked upon by future historians as "The Second Dark Age", spanning over multiple centuries. It is a near impossible task for a nation to fight the force of global economic rationalism or economic imperialism and so it would seem that many governments have compromised their sovereignty, capitulating to economic bullying and bribery.

It is now an opportune moment to take a stance against globalisation and economic rationalism, as it is blatantly obvious it's not working. Anti economic rationalist organisations throughout the world are displaying a glimmer of hope. The Canadian Reform Party as an example has performed exceptionally well. With a coordinated world approach the TNC's will be forced to play a fair game. If we leave it much longer, any form of a globally coordinated approach would be stifled, with single countries economically squashed upon displaying resistance.

We need to take a genuine stance against globalisation and economic rationalism - not the election winning attempt that Beazley made with his talk of "humble pie". If the Labor Party was genuinely interested in preventing social decline induced by TNC greed, why weren't they prepared to expose the MAI? Australians have seen election winning utterances before, such as Liberals strong criticism of the Hawke/Keating government's foreign debt. Once in office, the Liberal Party massively increased our debt and we hear absurd notion that debt can now be good for Australia, giving us economic levering potential! And we all know how sincere the Labor party was with their LAW law!

It seems to me, many differing political organisations confine themselves to their own ideological vacuum, while slandering any opposing group purely for political advantage, regardless of logical reasoning. The case of One Nation's economic policies is an illustration in point, where left wing commentators proclaim the "disastrous" effect of One Nation's economics, while actually sharing the same economic ideology. I find it a shame that people like yourself are circulating this myth, while the cunning economic rationalist financier who probably dreamt it up is having the last laugh. I have here below a quote from a socially conservative economic rationalist, Gerard Jackson, and although I reject his anti-Hanson argument, he certainly does an excellent job in exposing the hypocrisy present within the left wing:

"Coming back to journalists brings us to Mike Steketee, national affairs editor for Murdoch's The Australian. Though Steketee lacks McGregor's vicious approach to market economics (sneeringly called economic rationalism) he certainly shares his loathing for market processes and is not shy in employing the double standard when it suits him. Almost immediately after Hanson's Queensland success we had Steketee telling his readers that "the consequences of implementing them [Hanson's tariff policies etc] in the Australia of the 1990s would be disastrous." Quite so. But is this not the same Steketee who attacked proposals for tariff cuts (The Australian 23/5/97), arguing that adjustment costs caused by tariff cuts would lower national income, the same Steketee who attacked labor market reforms, who accused free markets (rational economics) of cutting real wages and creating poverty wages. You bet it's the same Steketee. Yet his own anti-market rantings are actually more culpable than Hanson's. Some are naive enough to expect more from The Australian's national affairs editor Ñ I'm not one of 'em."

I'm surprised that your research indicates many One Nation voters are attracted "via a single thread of policy". This is not the first time I've heard this statement. Every One Nation voter I've met is in agreement with all of One Nation's primary objectives; namely: opposition to economic rationalism, privatisation, multiculturalism, affirmative action, excessive immigration and Native Title. Of course we won't all agree on every other policy, but this is true of all political parties. The major policy directions above may be grouped into two broad categories: economic protectionism and social conservatism. Immigration sits out on its own where the Democrats share a similar policy direction to One Nation. Considering the other three major parties position with respect to One Nation's six major policy directions, it becomes evident that those attracted to "a single thread of policy" would come from some strange demographic. For example, I've yet to meet someone accepting economic rationalism, privatisation, affirmative action, high levels of immigration and Native Title, but strongly opposing multiculturalism, enough to swing their vote to One Nation.

I find it amusing for anyone to suggest One Nation's policies would be socially and culturally disastrous for Australia. One Nation has been accused of desiring the culture of the 1950's. Although it may be argued the 1950's were culturally bland, at least in general society was united with their culture and felt comfortable with it. We certainly didn't have high levels of youth suicide that we see today from our culturally disillusioned young. One Nation policy of cultural assimilation wouldn't diminish the culture Australians have embraced from migrants, but would give us the freedom to choose our national identity rather than tolerating ALL cultures, because we are told the more cultures, the better off we'll be.

As for Aboriginal reconciliation, I can see one can argue Aborigines should be treated as a special case in some circumstances, given the consent of their people. An example would be a One Nation member's suggestion to ban alcohol for selected Aboriginal communities, given the consent of their people. However, the special case that we are now witnessing is clearly not benefiting grass roots Aborigines. Much of the literally billions of dollars flows to lawyers, wealthy Aboriginal activists, administration and white Australians jumping on the "black arm band" bandwagon.

Many Aboriginal activists are encouraging their people to carry a chip on their shoulder. Aboriginal tribes have Internet pages telling us the smell of the white man is killing us, which goes unnoticed by the mainstream media, while Pauline Hanson's comment taken out of context of us being swamped by Asians has been repeated more times than I have hairs on my head.

Let's consider the protests over Australia Day on 26th January. No true Australian is celebrating the conquering of Aborigines or any massacres that took place. We are marvelling at the courage of those brave sailors, enduring a journey of months at sea. We must remember to look at history's events in the context of their time. Many Australian's have Anglo Saxon descendants who were also treated with abhorrent cruelty, but we don't call for Australia day to be changed. Convicts were sent to Australia for seven years in chain gangs after steeling a loaf of bread merely for survival. Lashings were issued for minor offences, but we still don't call for Australia day to be changed. History shows most societies and cultures to be burdened with many brutal events. Anzac day is an example where thousands of soldiers died in ghastly circumstances in a war that arguably had no winners. No one's calling to remove Anzac Day, because we celebrate the mateship that took place that bonded the men to endure those though times. Likewise, the convicts, settlers, explorers and Aboriginal stockmen bonded, working long and hard hours setting the foundation for the country of which fruits we now consume.

Thankyou for taking the time to read my opinion.

Yours sincerely,
Jeremy

Paff's Gaff

In his press release Jack Paff said: "and no fact or truth will shift them [the media] from repeating a pre-determined dirge to denigrated myself and One Nation. "

The word 'dirge' means a funeral hymn, nothing more. The word Paff was looking for was 'diatribe' meaning a bitter and malicious criticism.

Would he please consult a dictionary if he is unsure of the meaning of words? Would One Nation staffers please consult a dictionary if they are unsure of the meaning of words?

The moral is, don't use words if you don't know what they mean because you will only look stupid. This is not a trivial matter, because such easily avoidable mistakes reflect badly on everybody and this is not fair to the more careful and intelligent One Nation supporters. The whole party is brought into disrepute by such sloppiness.

Antonia

CPI

Hi Scott,

Hi Del Nickols, re your query on the cost of living which I think you'll find is calculated from the consumer price index or CPI as generally would be the rate of inflation / deflation.

The question you are asking and I note that Alan Jones asked also is one I have often raised myself because it seems food and essential services always go up! I cant tell you Del just what items our all-knowing-elites have deemed worthy to be a statistic for the CPI, but take a supposing for a moment.

Suppose our Government decides an inflation rate of 2% would suit their schedule for a given period. Let's say last year. Now lets suppose that a basic commodity like butter cost about $1.50 12 months ago and today costs nearer $2.50. Off the top of my head I'd say that sounds like an annual inflation rate on butter of around 66%! Bread has risen still more steeply. Now you can't get much more basic than bread and butter.

Now suppose this time last year a Pentium 2 @ 233mhz with the standard configuration costs about $3000. What does such a system cost today. Well in Perth if you can still find a P2 that slow you'll buy it better configured for about $1200. Now that sounds like a massive deflation rate to me.

Hang on, wonder if the CPI indexs I.T. products and food?

Wouldn't this leave us in a situation where our government could lie to our poorest people (labouring under continually rising staple commodity prices) that the inflation rate really is 2%! Honest.

Never mind I am sure our so called "Liberals" will soon be assuring us that we are all equal under the law since "Both rich and poor alike are banned from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread"

Have a good day.
David Morgan.

MAI

The theft of Australian financial sovereignity via the MAI will lead eventually to bloodshed as the Australian people fight to take back what is being so slyly taken from them without their knowledge. Just because the Australian people are unaware a crime is being committed against them does not mean they will remain passive when the crime is revealed. God help those who incurr the wrath of the Australians!

Mark Graham Castle
Sydney, Australia.

Cause and effect

The Hon. Attorney-General & Minister for Justice,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Dear Minister(s),

Australia's Prime Minister has, it seems to those of our Principals who have instructed us to write, in just one move, ensured a truly massive increase in Criminal activity throughout the nation.

The decision to with-hold unemployment benefits from those (voting age) citizens who do NOT measure up, in terms of literacy and numeracy, to the standards set by the "experts", seems certain to result in a substantial lift in the extent of laceny and other crimes as those denied support are forced to resort to such measures to exist.

Perhaps the Federal government should be congratulated on this action as it will assuredly create significant employment for police, the courts and the prison authorities.

Blaming the victims is traditional in this Country isn't it - so it should have been expected that the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary School teachers would be held responsible for the disaster levels of literacy amongst student "graduates". Surely the on-going employment by federal, State and Territory governments of incompetent boffins as decisionmakers in the respective Education Departments needs to be questioned and the very nature of the training of teachers challenged if students with learning difficulties are to be given a reasonable chance of becoming literate and numerate.

How, our Principals wonder, can the Prime Minister and his colleagues prevent the snowballing of unemployed and under-employed people numbers whilst government policies are clearly targetted towards destroying virtually every industry in the nation? Maximization of the use of computer-based systems which severely reduce the human labour component is good "economics" but a catastrophe for individuals in country and suburban communities whose ability to contribute to the "public purse" by way of fringe benefits, income and capital gains taxes is vastly eroded.

Only recently was it being leaked to the electorate that the Goods and Services tax scheme has been calculated on the premise that employment problems will not adversely affect the projected outcome. With magnificence like this who needs enemies?

Please confirm promptly that you are fully aware of the potential consequences, we will be happy to relay your information to these Principals.

Sincerely,
J o n M. A x t e n s

from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation. Want to join the One Nation ring? [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

Launch of "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy in Australia" - 22nd to 24th January 1999
One Nation's Queensland State Conference - 27th to 29th November 1998
Dual Citizenship and politicians- 20th November 1998
Where Prize Turkeys Gather - 17th November 1998
A time with Heather Hill - exclusive interview with One Nation's first Federal Representative - 25th October 1998
A day with Pauline - exclusive interview after the Federal Election - 22nd October 1998
It's YOUR ABC? - 17th October 1998
The Federal Election - 3rd October 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.