Auctioning a Nation

by Jim Osborne

Australia is heading towards being a jewel in the plutocrats empire. Our land, rich in earthly resources, the common-wealth of the Australian nation is becoming more and more a possession of the capitalist few, than one of the Australian people. This is driven by the desire of wealthy magnates in seizing further political power over the Australian government, by a media and political machine beholden, and enslaved to them, and an apathetic Australian populace, who perhaps do not realise the significant threat behind their movement.
Gina Rinehart has launched another salvo against our nation by attacking the minimum wage, suggesting it should be lower and in attributing the valid concerns about the behaviour of mining magnates in this country to mere ‘jealousy’, suggesting that jealous people should get out of the pub and make their billions.
On the criticism against her, Gina says “If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working.” She says “”There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire.”
Are Australians jealous? I don’t believe so, and most Australians would not agree with the statement that they are. If we look at the criticism and objections raised against her, very few of them, if any, have any tint of jealousy or envy to them. Whether Gina doesn’t honestly know why Australians would be critical of her, or whether she is trying to play down legitimate concerns by putting them in the category of the seven deadly sins is probably not important. It is clear that she has little interest in the well-being of our NATION, a nation of people, which means that there is a conflict of interest between her and the Australian nation.
In the past, wealthy industrialists and large business operators would have had an interest in their nation, or at least had feigned a degree of interest. Now, the contempt that they have for us, their annoyance with the fact that maintaining a first world living standard gets in their way of raking in profits is barely concealed. Dick Smith seems to be the exception to the rule, being an entrepreneur who is still engaged with the Australian nation, who still considers themselves as part of our nation and speaks for the benefit of us all. On the contrary, Gina sees Australia as merely an asset, a resource, a piece of an empire which is there for her to exploit. Australians are merely natives on the land, who’s claim to the nation is an obstruction, who’s will and destiny is something to be used and manipulated. From the tone of the speech and the behaviour of plutocrats such as Rinehart, Palmer, Harvey or Joyce, Australia is a resource, not a nation. We appear to have been dispossessed, disinherited, transformed from nationals who hold their own destiny, have sovereignty over their nation, their will, to a economic resource.
The trouble with Gina’s comments, aside from the impossibility of an economy functioning correctly if everyone becomes millionaire’s, or the impossibility of many people surviving on minimum wage, pushing hard working Australians below the poverty line, it is that she assumes that her wealth, her status as a business owner gives her political status. Our plutocracy, corporatocracy, call it what you will, is defined not by the fact that wealthy business owners and entrepreneurs exist, but that these people assume, and are given by politicians and the media, political clout. The issue is that they, and the general population too, through mainstream media indoctrination are willing to surrender their national interests for their personal profit. They consider this legitimate, a viewpoint that Nationalist Alternative does not subscribe to. Gina’s desire to create special economic zones, to import foreign labour at below first world pay rates should not be given any more political consideration than if it came from an street vendor selling lemonade. The nation has no debt to Gina, and the nation owes nothing, and is not required to make any concessions at all in order to prop up a business, especially if doing so would mean importing foreign labour into a country already struggling with unsustainable population growth.
We can point out the Gina had inherited wealth, and that starting with millions makes it much, much easier to become a billionaire than starting with nothing. We can point out that she owed much of her wealth, not through her personal ingenuity or hard work, but through an economic system which is geared towards rewarding owners of capital much more than producers of capital but this is not the heart of the issue. At the core of this issue is the assumption that people who have been successful in accumulating wealth are entitled to extra political powers, and that those without wealth, because they have been working producing our food, teaching our children and nursing our sick should subjugate their interests to the wealth.
We can regain control over put own nation, but this must first involve denying parties who disregard our democratic right to steer our nation a place in politics. We can’t regain control over our own nation, or profits from our resources, or a right to secure our culture and heritage without first removing those who political existence DEPENDS in giving away our culture, heritage, wealth and power.
Gina can say what she likes, it is a country which at least portrays itself has having free speech, even if in reality that is not the case. She can speak of her desire to create a special economic zone, to further attack white Australians through imported cheap labour in place of Australian workers. She is free to say as such. But the political left concentrate solely on money, as if Gina is simply wanting more money, and doesn’t deserve it, and this steers the public dialogue away from the real issue, which is national sovereignty, that is, the sovereignty of the people to steer their own political affairs. The left have an aversion to nationalism, and it is precisely the lack of nationalism amongst the Australian people which has left the country open to be taken over by plutocrats. If the people no longer feel they can say “This is MY country”, if they no longer feel comfortable claiming ownership of this nation, this country, then they have effectively surrendered ownership over it. It then follows that the country is treated by people like Gina as an unowned resource. It follows that that Australian people will then be seen, not as owners of the capital that is Australia, but just a resource that happens to exist on the land. Australians have accepted this through rejecting nationalism. The left, who thoroughly demand that people reject nationalism, and who admonish anyone, especially white Australians who assume the right to control their nation, have disarmed the people against attacks from plutocrats like Gina. We are left with nothing to fight back with, then economically socialist ideals, which are immediately debunked because they have been proven to fail. Without people having an awareness of their ownership over their nation, to counteract the sense of ownership that plutocrats have, they have nothing to fight back. The leftist counter-attack is of little use, and proven to be ineffective, because it never challenges the rights that people have over their own nation, it only makes ideological claims about economic morality. The problem with this, is that on what basis do we choose a more even distribution of wealth? On what basis do we prevent someone from seeking to fulfil their own self interest, if only for vague notions of justice and fairness? Is there a moral absolute that one can point to? Unfortunately no. It is only through the assertion of our rights, of what we believe to be our rights that we can maintain this commonwealth of ours.
Nationalism is about people realising that it is they who are the nation, and as such, it, and the systems within it, belong to them, for their purpose.