Overpaid, and loving it.

By Michael Kennedy



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

“White Flight” from schools.

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.

1http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/fears-over-white-flight-from-selective-schools-20111016-1lro2.html “Fears over 'white flight' from selective schools”, Catherine Milburn

2http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=asians%20study%20confucius%20culture&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fehlt.flinders.edu.au%2Feducation%2Fiej%2Farticles%2Fv4n4%2Fwong%2Fpaper.pdf&ei=8COiTryTNa6ZiQefooXXBg&usg=AFQjCNEpb6mxcQKGvttCpIJ86r4NtXNYkw&cad=rja “Are the Learning Styles of Asian International

Students Culturally or Contextually Based? ”

3Chan, S. (1999) The Chinese learner-a question of style. Education and Training, 41(6/7), 294-

304.

Live Export - Labor's failure to take a moral stance

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>

The Nuclear Debate Reignited

by Michael Kennedy

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

Nietzsche and the Revenge of the Non-Whites

by David Ellerton

Philosophy and politics don't usually mix. But sometimes philosophy can shed light, in an interesting way, on political problems. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I believe, can be applied to one serious political problem afflicting the West today: I am speaking of the desire, of millions of non-white immigrants to the West, to 'pay back' the white man for hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege.

I will not summarise the philosophy of Nietzsche here; instead, I will focus on one element. That element is revenge, and as readers and admirers of Nietzsche know, revenge plays an important role in that great thinker's philosophy. An account of Nietzsche's doctrine on revenge can be found in a paper by University of Wisconsin professor, Lester H. Hunt, 'The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche's Ethic of Virtue', at http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/ER&VIRT.htm .

So what does Nietzsche mean by revenge? It is the desire to right past wrongs:

As he describes it, revenge is essentially an attitude toward time itself: it is "the will's ill will against time and it's 'it was'." It is the result of the fact that, from a certain perspective, the past appears both to need changing and to be impossible to change, so that the will is left painfully powerless, "an angry spectator of all that is past." Among the effects of this painful condition is a desire to cause additional pain, either to oneself or to others: "on all who can suffer" the will "wreaks revenge for his inability to go backwards." (II 20.)(4) Revenge is responsible for the ideal of equality, the urge to punish, and the excessive desire to be just (II 7). Among the other works of revenge are... a longing to escape from this world (II 20).

(All references in footnotes are included in Hunt's paper). So what are the implications of wanting revenge? Is it healthy? Beneficial? Clearly not, according to Nietzsche. It stands in the way of (what we moderns would call) psychological wholeness, spiritual fulfilment. One part of that wholeness is the development of generosity in oneself, what Nietzsche calls the 'gift-giving' or 'bestowing' virtue:

Conceived in this way, revenge has a very broad impact on human life; Zarathustra says, "it has become a curse for everything human that this folly has acquired spirit." The trait he is describing here is purely reactive, negative, and destructive. As such, it is just the sort of trait Nietzsche would see as standing in the way of virtue. In obvious ways, it is the opposite of the spontaneous, enthusiastic, and creative activity he calls "gift-giving virtue" elsewhere in Zarathustra (I 22). Getting rid of revenge, if that should be possible, would plainly be a long step toward achieving virtue as he understands it.(5) In fact, Nietzsche more or less tell us so himself: "that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope" (II 7).(6)

The implications of all of this are wide-reaching and profound. Certainly, we can all see, in our own lives, a desire to 'right past wrongs'. Perhaps that desire, too, stands in the way of fulfilment. All of what Nietzsche is saying here occurs at the individual, moral level; that is, at helping the individual reach a level of spiritual fulfilment and self-actualisation. Those who embrace revenge deny themselves that fulfilment and become stunted human beings (I will explore, in part, Nietzsche's solution to 'the problem of revenge' later).

But how does the doctrine become political? In order to become political, it must be applied to a very large number of human beings, and here I am thinking of the millions of non-white immigrants who have come to the West in the past thirty to forty years.

In that connection, I found the following comments on a message board to be of interest. They were by African immigrants, in response to an English-language news article, 'Illegal Immigrants to get New Rights in Sweden', at: http://www.thelocal.se/32372/20110303/. I will reproduce some of them here:

22:28 March 3, 2011 by penzy

I have read some of the comments here and I am not surprised even though it is a bit sad the way some people prefer to come and display their overt ignorance for the whole world to see.

Okay so Sweden has decided to be kind and nice to other people in need and some of you have reservations. Rightly so, afterall who would want to be taken by surprise in his own household. But let's get some facts straight.

Some of us (immigrants), are here not because we feel this place is heaven. No, it cannot be. Sweden cannot in anyway take away the kind of atmosphere and environment I get in my continent. But circumstances which did not start so soon dictates that I should be here. And so am here by hook or by crook.

#1. When your great grandfathers came to my continent to kidnap my great grandfathers, they came ILLEGALLY. You called them EXPLORERS! In the same vein, those of us who are here (whether legal or illegal), are here to EXPLORE and you view us as ILLEGALS who should not be here. What do you think my great grandfathers were thinking when you were kidnapping them to come and WORK for you!

#2. After all these years of inflicting such pains on us, you have not even compensated us for the wrongs you did. Infact, you are still enslaving us economically. (Afterall, slave trade was all about economics). You are still coming to buy my cocoa seedlings at a cheaper rate (no, your own rate) and then you bring it back to me at a price beyond me which then encourages people to do what they have to do.

#3. This has led us to come to you and beg for loans. Loans you give to us at a higher interest rate and then you impose your own kind of politics which is capital intensive. That has led to corruption, erode our cultural lives and many more. Why do you think there are a lot of kidnappings in Africa? How come the Ogoni people in Nigeria cannot farm anymore because your desire for oil is polluting their land and taking their livelihood away.

Take the three reasons (there are many more) into consideration and think about it. If only you will be fair to us. If only you will honestly deal with us like you deal with your kinds. If only you will leave us to have our own unique political system, maybe, just maybe, I would be back in my continent basking in sunshine instead of having heavy clothes on me.

You sow what you reap, the bible says. You sowed something and here we are. You came to us in the name of God and now, we are here telling you about this same God you told us about and to share in the profit of what you took from us.

Is this not fair enough?

[...]

Another African gentleman, who is nowhere as eloquent as Mr 'Penzy', more or less has the same message:

23:05 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge

Crazy to hear this, whe European come to Africa, Asia and arabian countries and take our every thing, they were not illegal, when we come here to enjoy our natural resorces, which they are still taking from ours, the we are illegal, shame on you, go back to history. wait the fire is coming to you cowards

23:49 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge
Look at this crazy Chortlle

From UK, why are u forgeting what you did in Africa you English people, you did everything bad for us, like french, like every European guys and you still doing it using the so called stupid presidents you force us to accept them using our resources. we are here to get our Gold, our diamonds back, got it crazy

The responses, overall, to the news article at this message board were quite intelligent and well-written: there are a lot of educated, articulate and thoughtful people, on both sides of the political fence, in that forum. Most of it, though, I had heard all before (that is, pro- versus anti-immigrant opinons); what struck me was the position of the immigrants themselves. The anti-colonialist ideology espoused by Mr 'Penzy' was fairly typical of the Third World ideologues in the post-colonial era (e.g., the 1950s and 1960s): e.g., the Black French intellectual Franz Fanon, the dictator of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, who was a pioneer of 'African socialism'. Quite a few on the radical Left still uphold it, and, for all I know, it could be still be current in certain African countries today.

Does it represent the view of a number of immigrants to Europe and elsewhere in the West? I think so. But we have to be clear, most immigrants come for economic reasons: they want 'a better life', and feel that they are entitled to it in the West. To do so, they will pay any amount of money to people smugglers, come up with phony stories of political persecution and abuse, submit themselves to any level of hardship, indignity and danger (including drowning, in boat trips from North Africa to southern Europe), and, once in Europe, will work in menial, badly paid and insecure jobs and face risk of deportation or imprisonment in one of Europe's tens of thousands of detention centres - really concentration camps. The motives of the immigrant are not ideological, they are economic. But, when ideology comes into play, it is the ideology of anti-colonialism, and, ultimately, revenge - revenge on the white man.

And this gets right to the heart of the matter. The immigrant ideology is, above all, impudent. A country like Sweden takes in huge quantities of Third Worlders, gives them shelter, food and clothing, and now, thanks to the Swedish government, free education, health care and the 'right' to start a business; what's more, Sweden does so regardless of the effect such policies have on its own people - (e.g., overcrowding, shortages of housing, health care, school places, a growing sense of alienation which comes about through the breakdown of an ethnically homogenous community). One would expect gratitude on behalf of the immigrant - and surprise that a foreign government is doing such a thing (after all, no African or Middle Eastern government would do the same for white people). But instead, the attitude is: 'I'm going to pay you back, white man - for  blood diamonds, stolen oil, and slavery, and all the other crimes of the past... You'll reap what you have sown!'.

Much has been written, by nationalists, on the sanity of the white, Western politicians who are pro-immigrant - are they mad? But little has been written on the question of the sanity of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants are not fleeing some humanitarian catastrophe. In 2010, 128,000 immigrants tried to gain access to Greece, and there is a backlog of 46,000 applications for 'asylum'; clearly, if these were all refugees, they would be fleeing the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since the end of WWII, when millions of (mostly German) refugees fled, in fear for their lives, the advancing Red Army. But Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and the Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh) are not in such a condition. So the question is, why is it that immigrants do what they do? The British tabloids are daily full of accounts of immigrants (mostly Arab or Indian) trying to enter Britain through the French port of Calais by clinging to the underside of lorries, hiding in garbage bins, refrigerators, tubs of chocolate, etc., being taken to Britain by truck. Given that, and the 'ideology of revenge' described above, one has to question the sanity of many of these people. So the immigrant problem becomes a kind of psychological/philosophical problem.

Nietzsche's answer to the problem of revenge was the doctrine of eternal recurrence. That is, one's life will repeat itself, exactly as it is now, an infinite number of times in the future - and it has done so an infinite number of times in the past. One will live the same life over and over again, experiencing the same hardships and sorrows, and the same joys, without change. The classic Bill Murray movie, 'Groundhog Day' (1993) depicts this idea, except that the Bill Murray character is conscious of living the same day, over and over again.

What does this have to do with revenge? In the theory of eternal recurrence, time really has no beginning - there was no point, in history, when the process of time began. There may have been a big bang, a point where the universe was created. But there were an infinite number of big bangs in the past (as there will be in the future); so, one cannot say where the 'starting point' of time itself was. The implication of this is that there is no point where time (or history) will come to a stop, and all wrongs will be righted. There is no point for the African immigrant to migrate to Sweden, and 'get his revenge on the white man' for 'the crimes of colonialism', because the peoples of Africa will have to undergo their sufferings and hardships (blood diamonds, stolen oil, slavery, etc.) an infinite number of times in the future. In other words, there is no 'happy ending' for the African immigrant, where his people suffer, under the jackboot of the Western colonialists, and then finally become free and take their revenge on the evil whites. As Hunt writes:

For vengeful thinking - in fact, for any sort of intelligible use of the concept of punishment - the story that has the happy ending must not end at an arbitrary place. Suppose that Billy the Kid kills six people and then is captured. Our vengeance - or whatever drive it is that is gratified by punishment - is not satisfied if he overpowers his jailor and escapes. Nor is it satisfied if Billy is recaptured and executed, but somehow rises from the dead and commits six more murders. Our urge to punish will not accept it as satisfactory if we end the story of a punishment at some arbitrary point simply to create a happy ending. Revenge cannot knowingly do such a thing. If Nietzsche is right about the eternal recurrence, however, there is no natural place to end the story of the world. Time is not naturally divided into cycles which, like a replayed movie, have beginnings and ends. There is simply no non-arbitrary place at which we can decide that our story ends and no reason, other than the need for a happy ending, to end it at any particular place. Our desire to create art can be satisfied by such solutions, but our sense of justice cannot.

So far, then, the eternal recurrence frustrates revenge and - so, at least, we can hope - makes room for virtue by making it impossible for revenge to solve the problems that it sets for itself. Revenge aims at the satisfaction of feeling that something is being done about the evil past, but it cannot achieve this satisfaction unless the vengeful subject can think certain thoughts and see things in a certain way. Recurrence makes such states of mind impossible. It does so by healing a fissure in the world - a break in time - that the vision of vengeance requires.

Again, the implications of this are profound, and one could write a (much longer) essay on them. Here we can only state the problems (the psychology of immigration, the non-white's ideology of revenge), and not come up with a solution. Nor can we fully answer the question, 'Is Nietzsche's solution adequate?'. My short answer is, 'No'. One should not underestimate the power of ideas to affect large numbers of people: certainly, the immigrant 'Penzy' came under the influence of someone who themselves was under the influence of a Fanon, Nkrumah, Lenin or Marx. But, all the same, it is too much to hope for  to expect that immigrants, after reading, and taking on board Nietzsche, will stop emigrating to the West in the millions. It would be akin to a mass religious conversion. Millions of people would have to examine their motives, very deeply and thoughtfully, for wanting to live in the West, and ask themselves if they really will find happiness there (a happiness they feel 'entitled' to).

At the same time, certain of Nietzsche's ideas can, I think, have a powerful effect on the white intellectuals who ultimately the determine the course of our civilisation. It is this topic that I shall explore in a future essay.

National Veganism, Paganism and Environmentalism

by David Ellerton

In the year 2010, we saw another farcical election in Australia. The two major parties were so boring, and so out of touch with the public's feelings, that neither of them could secure a majority. The parties were out of touch, especially on the immigration issue. The Howard and Rudd governments, in the past ten years, brought in over a million immigrants into Australia, most of them Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipino. Perhaps, if Labor or Liberal had offered to cut immigration to zero, and expel the immigrants who've already arrived, they would have won more votes. But, as it was, they were indecisive - not only on immigration, but on the economy as well.

Because of the election, people have been asking me what sort of policies I'd support. My answer is that Nationalist Alternative is not yet an electorally-registered political party. We don't yet have a political platform.

What I can do in this article is to describe, in broad strokes, my own personal world view, my own ideology. I won't be outlining any specific policies. Instead, I'll be talking in broad terms, and hopefully my readers will be able to see, for themselves, what sort of policies would flow from these ideas.

Firstly, my ideology is part of a world-view - what I call a pagan world-view. To explain:

I don't see man as being a creature who is separate from both nature and other sentient beings - that is, mammals, fish and birds. Man is part of  nature and the animal world. Together, they form a whole. In the Christian, Jewish and Islamic world view, of course, man has special rights and privileges. He's superior to the animals. Even the most degraded man - a heroin addict from Footscray or Cabramatta, or a Somali child-soldier rapist - has more rights, has more value, than a beautiful tiger or whale. I don't see man as having a special spiritual essence compared to nature, and to animal life, and indeed, my view is that some animals, and even birds and fish, have a greater value than certain degenerate human beings.

My doctrine is that white, Western man should live in harmony with nature and the animals. One of the implications is that man shouldn't chop down more trees than is necessary, and that man shouldn't eat, skin, exploit or injure animals in any way. I could go through a great many arguments as to why we shouldn't use animal products, and harm and kill animals, but, in the end, it comes down to feeling: either you feel an aversion to hurting intelligent life-forms, or you don't. The white, Western peoples have displayed more of this feeling than any other racial group. It was we who put forward the notion of animal rights, and laws forbidding animal cruelty. Some advocates of animal liberation recognize this: the British pop singer Morrissey, for instance, recently described the Chinese as a 'subspecies' for their treatment of animals - for their flaying, torturing and cooking dogs, and so forth. The British left-wing media were horrified by his statements, and attacked him viciously. One of the things that they didn't like was the notion that some racial groups may have less of a feeling for animal welfare than others.

This leads to my second point. In my ideology, there are great differences, real differences, between racial and ethnic groups, and, indeed, between one individual and another in that group. A certain racial and ethnic group may have splendid qualities compared to another - it may be more hard-working, industrious, intelligent, law-abiding, than another; it may be more healthy, more beautiful. As well as that, one individual may be greater than another; he may be more intelligent, talented, special. In short, genius, and great men, great individuals, exist. This view is in direct contrast to the Marxist world-view, which says that only the mass of people, the poor, exploited mass, who make history and indeed have value. Great men don't exist. What's more, great races, unique, special ethnic groups, don't exist either.

The Left, in Europe, America and Australia, wants to reduce man to the lowest common denominator. That's why they lobby, incessantly, for more and more immigration. They want to turn Western countries into dumping grounds for the refuse of the Third World. Take Sweden, for instance. This is a beautiful, prosperous, clean, safe, country. The Swedish people are renowned for their physical beauty, for their healthy lifestyle, their business acumen, which in itself has led to Sweden being one of biggest exporters in the world, and one of the richest countries. The Left resents all this. Unfortunately for Sweden, the Left has been in control of Sweden for a long time, and so Sweden has been taking in over a 100,000 immigrants a year, most of them from the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa. The intention of the Left is to degrade the Swedish people. The Left wants to turn Sweden into a dumping-ground for the refuse of the Third World, and give those immigrants the same rights, the same status, as native Swedes who have built up Sweden from being one of the poorest countries in Western Europe into one of the richest. The Left's message to the Swedish people is, 'You're nothing. A burkha-wearing pram-pusher, a Somali child soldier, is just as "Swedish" as you are, and has just as many rights to Sweden's wealth, prosperity, and to Sweden's welfare state, as you do. You Swedes may think you're better than Kurds, Turks and Arabs, but really, we're not. We in the Left are going to bring all the poor and dispossessed of the Third World, all the refugees and the people who can't find jobs back home, over to Sweden. And there's nothing you racist, bigoted Swedes can do about it. Nothing!'.

Now, let me say that what's happening in Sweden is happening here in Australia and all over the Western world. We find the same phenomenon, and the same causes behind it. We have a Left which is committed to the degradation and destruction of white Western man; we also find that the Left exerts so much control that even the so-called conservatives have given in. In the old days in Australia, you could hold racialist views on immigration, and be a member, in good standing, of the Liberal or Labor parties; now, anyone who holds racialist views has been pushed out of the mainstream of politics. The only place left for them is the so called Far Right. Again, that's thanks to the baby-boomer Left, who have worked for decades to achieve that goal.

So, what's the alternative? The only real alternative, in my view is racial groups living separately from one another: Anglo-Saxons living apart from Muslims, who live apart from Chinese, who live apart from Africans, who live apart from Indians. Separateness leads to a kind of harmony, in which all the different racial groups can go about living life, without interference with from the other, and without coming into conflict whilst still co-operating globally. This segregation has to take place at the national level. Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Canada will only have Anglo-Celtic-Europeans, for instance, India will only have Indians, China only Chinese.

The other component of that world view is that there must be harmony within the nation-state. Take economic life. In Europe in the Middle Ages, the different professions organised themselves into a kind of caste-system, a system of guilds. It was a similar to system to the one that existed in societies of the ancient world, for instance, in ancient Rome and India. Under this system, there wasn't any class conflict, any discord, until much later, until the end of the 19th century. That guild socialism is an ideal for Australia in the 21st century. That is, trade unions and labour should live in harmony, in peaceful co-existence and co-operation, with the capitalist and business class.

Then we have to address man's relations with nature, with the environment, and with animals. There's been a great deal of talk about the BP oil slick in the gulf of New Mexico. BP have been attacked for despoiling the environment, in particular, the wildlife, in that region. At the same, there's been a great of hand-wringing over how many fish will be killed, how this will ruin the livelihoods of the men in the fishing industry. Now you can't live in harmony with nature, you can't respect the rights of the wildlife, you can't have a pristine, untouched environment, while you have a fishing industry which kills hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fish a year. Many of the environmentalists who make their opinions heard in the mainstream media don't seem to understand this.

Environmentalism is, in itself, a good idea. It's very similar to my own ideology. The Catholic Archbishop George Pell condemns environmentalism as a pagan ideology, and he's right. Environmentalism doesn't put man above nature, it puts him at the same level. But the implication of that doctrine is that man is at the same level of the animals as well. A really thorough-going environmentalism would not only fight to preserve the environment, and set aside certain forests and lakes as natural-heritage, protected areas, but preserve animal life from being despoiled by humans. That means, in turn, that mankind must gradually wean itself off its reliance on animal products, and let the animals, fish and birds in peace, in the same way we leave those natural-heritage areas alone, untouched and unspoiled by the hands of man.

The problem with environmentalism is that firstly, it's been infected by the same kind of crazy racial egalitarianism as the Marxist Left. Secondly, environmentalism has become a victim of its own success. It's gone too far. We have compulsory recycling, which is really a useless activity, and would only be useful if there was a war on, and had to ration paper, plastic and the rest. We have overly restrictive rules on, for instance, the burning off of old-growth trees and other vegetation in rural areas, a policy which leads to destructive bushfires which end up destroying animal and plant life. We also have a policy of putting taxes on carbon emissions, which leads to super-high electricity bills. All of this has given environmentalism a bad name. Fundamentally, the ideal of man living in harmony with nature and wildlife is a good one, a great one. But environmentalism isn't the means of putting this idea into practice.

So let's summarise. Animal welfare, conservation, racial segregation and racial harmony, harmony between the social classes: all of this, in my view, forms part of the ideal that we in the West ought to be striving towards. It's all part of an ideology which tells man to accept his place in the universe, and his being part of nature. Most religions will tell you that the divine essence of things, the spirit, doesn't lie in animals, lakes, forests, or even in man's body itself - man has a soul separate from his physical self, his body. Man's physical self, and nature itself - including the animals that live within it - are not spiritual, and so are to be abhorred. That's the Christian, and Jewish-Islamic, teaching. My world view is different. Nature does have a value; so do animals; so does man's body, his race, his degree of physical fitness, health and beauty. There is more spirituality, in my view, in an Australian native forest, or a track and field event with healthy Australian young women, than there is in a grubby synagogue or mosque. That's why I call my world view pagan.

In a future article, I'll to describe the specific and minute political policies which follow from this world view.

Free Market Fallacy

by Michael Kennedy

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.