Sunday, May 16, 2010

Has Michelle got it?

A reader, Michelle, has posted a comment on the Kevin Rudd story which I thought worth highlighting. If you recall, Rudd told a group of mining executives that they should be taxed of their profits so that the dollar would fall and we could have more foreign students in Australia:

Rudd said it was companies such as Atlas that were pushing up the dollar and making it hard for foreign students to live in Australia.

There was a collective gasp, with executives asking Rudd if he “wanted to wipe out the iron ore industry to help foreign students”.

Michelle's explanation will possibly sound dramatic to some readers. But I think there's merit to what she's arguing and I'll explain why later. Here's Michelle's take on things:

Rudd sees himself as the president of the Asia-Pacific Union, rather than the Prime Minister of Australia. So his constituents are Indians as well as Australians. As shocking as that may be, it is the real Kevin Rudd. The public mistakenly views Rudd through the prism of nationalism. But he is not a nationalist, he is a card-carrying globalist. His top-order priorities are regional integration of Australia into Asia, and advancing global governance. Domestic policies are a low-order priority that Rudd engages in to maintain a nationalist facade. Ban Ki-moon enunciated Rudd's core belief: "This is, after all, an era of integration. Regional integration is taking place all over the world". Hence, like the European Union, Rudd declared that Australia and Asia should move towards one superstate by 2020, called the Asia-Pacific Community.

Subsequently, Rudd has worked on two fronts: to weaken our national identity, and to promote regional standards in its place. He is weakening our identity by maximising the transnational flow of people, ideas and business: hence Rudd's record high immigration and foreign student numbers, relaxed foreign ownership, Asia-centric education, relentless free trade agreements, diversifying the military, etc. He is also centralising education, health, law, national security, as a precursor to harmonising with forthcoming regional standards. Climate change was a handy crisis for advancing global governance. The economic stimulus was about shoring up global interdependence and preventing a backslide into protectionism. His entire tenure has been one long gasp.

In contrast, domestic policies are an afterthought, to maintain the facade of nationalism. But Rudd's facade is cracking and the public is worried about: big population choking infrastructure, foreign buyers forcing up housing prices, immigration straining social cohesion, etc. The ETS [emissions trading scheme] back-flip is the biggest crack in Rudd's facade, but it doesn't reveal a hollowness, it reveals a transnational-progressive ideology where the interests of Australia are an afterthought. Rudd has brought the "era of integration" to our hemisphere and the Australian public still mistakenly views him as a nationalist.

When Rudd announced his Asia-Pacific Union, he said: "The purpose is to encourage the development of a genuine and comprehensive sense of community whose habitual operating principle is cooperation". Which means he wants us to become people without identity and without independent thoughts. Hence, to Rudd, the Australian people deserve no more attention than international students. Rudd is an ideologically-driven wrecking ball, devoid of ordinary sensitivities of identity, social cohesion, carrying capacity, infrastructure, etc. He is a mad ideologue and there are going to be a lot more collective gasps, as he dissolves Australia into Asia, until the public wakes up and votes him out.

I don't think this view can be lightly dismissed. The Australian political class does seem keen to promote regional integration. Back in 2003 an Australian senate committee advocated the creation of a Pacific Union, along the lines of the EU:

In essence, it proposes a Pacific community which will eventually have one currency, one labour market, common strong budgetary and fiscal discipline, democratic and ethical governance, shared defence and security arrangements, common laws and resolve in fighting crime, and, health, welfare, education and environmental goals.

In 2005, the Labor Party produced a policy paper of its own which advocated establishing a Pacific Community on these lines:

There would be a Pacific Parliament, a Pacific Court, a Pacific Common Market, a common currency and military integration.

When Rudd was elected as a Labor PM in 2007 his first priority was to push for the creation of an even larger regional bloc, an Asia-Pacific Union. He was rebuffed by some of the Asian powers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the "dream" is over. It is credible that a major priority remains the creation of such a regional bloc.

Perhaps some people might find it difficult to register such a possibility because politicians are groomed to appeal to the public: to act like statesmen and wear shiny suits and put on a reasonable face in their public appearances.

Think of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the UK. If you look at this Daily Mail story, you'll see photos of the pair exuding charm for the cameras and looking like anything but radicals. The story goes on to report Cameron's assurance that he and Clegg would,

put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest

But it was only last year that Clegg wrote a political manifesto rejecting the very idea of a common good or a national interest:

people have been empowered by technology, travel and prosperity and are no longer willing to subordinate themselves to a collective whole in the name of a supposed ‘common good’

Labour has lost its ideological way ... They are unsure how to deal with a globalised world in which the nation state is no longer the correct locus of power.

According to Clegg, it is a good thing that we now live a more atomised existence. It means that we are more self-defining (more autonomous) than if we are connected to a particular place.

We live in a more atomised society where people are no longer rigidly defined by class or place.

Clegg openly rejects the idea that his role is to be a defender of an existing entity; he sees this as the great conservative error, the error of being determined to "preserve, protect and defend". He is motivated instead by "a political ideology that stems from a restless, optimistic ambition for change and transformation."

Is Clegg therefore the man to trust to defend the national interest and the common good? I would have thought that there was hardly anyone less suitable. As much as he might look the part at press conferences, he is at heart a radical bent on a transformation in which the nation state would give way to international institutions and laws.

It's the same with Rudd and other politicians. We shouldn't take the public persona as the real thing. A friendly smile doesn't mean that they are nationalists upholding the common good. It's much more likely they are ideologues with an agenda.

Finally, don't forget Rudd's new national school curriculum. Every subject in this curriculum has to be designed with three "cross-curriculum dimensions" in mind: Australia's place in the Asia Pacific, Aborigines and sustainable living. This speaks so poorly to Australia's mainstream heritage that it even provoked criticism from Susie O'Brien, normally a somewhat leftie columnist in the Melbourne Herald Sun:

these three themes don't reflect the full picture of who we are as a nation or how we see ourselves. Where are the themes reflecting our British and European roots and current realities?

It's an important question because the three themes are more than just discrete subject areas to be learned and then forgotten. They actually underpin the entire 11-year curriculum, and provide topics for examples and analysis across all subject areas - year in, year out ...

At present the three themes don't reflect, for example, Australia's membership of the Commonwealth, the fact that we have an English monarch, and the fact that many of us have European family heritage, not just Asian or Aboriginal origins.

We can't turn our back on the fact that while Aborigines were our first Australians, and the Asia-Pacific is where our country is located, many of our families came from Europe or the United Kingdom.

Our institutions, system of government and laws, and our social identity owe more to our European and British past and present than our indigenous roots or our position in the Asia-Pacific region.

And yet this is not reflected in the themes that underpin the entire national syllabus.

It risks alienating young students, who may not feel as connected as they could be to their learning.

The idea that Australia's place is within the Asia Pacific is going to be integrated into topic selection and points for analysis in every subject area during every child's primary and secondary education. What does that say about the agenda of the Rudd Labor Government?

What are some possible flaws in Michelle's comment? Well, I'm not sure it's just Rudd or Labor who see Australia's future in terms of closer integration within the Asia-Pacific. After all, student numbers were also rising at the end of Howard's term of government.

Perhaps too a couple of the more attention grabbing statements are overstated. But overall I think Michelle's comment is praiseworthy. There is no "hoping against hope" in it, no wishful thinking. She has recognised straight out that Rudd is not a nationalist in any meaningful sense of the term. We are not to sit back and rely on the likes of Rudd to defend the national interest.

If readers had a different reaction to Michelle's comment, let me know - I'd be interested to know what they are.


  1. I thought Michelle's was a strong comment. I'm a little disturbed with Rudd because he sort of won the election by being "Howard lite". Howard was the industrial radical whilst Rudd was the sensible technocratic middle of the road guy who was still fairly conservative (as was evidenced by his continual references to Christianity). Of course nobody on the right seriously thought this of Labor or Rudd, and their desire to concentrate power at the federal level, or to push for internationalism, runs deep within their bones. It was, nonetheless, a polite public fiction that under Labor and Rudd not too much would change.

    In his first term, however, Rudd has felt emboldened to openly talk of a "big Australia" and now this "super profits tax" on our most profitable industry. Both would have landed him in serious trouble had he mentioned them openly from opposition. So far the public opposition to both these propositions has been somewhat muted. That I find disturbing.

    We don't want to go down the road of the super-sized public service, multicultural crappsville. Which is all the Labor governments, as seen most recently in England, seem to deliver.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. You forget to mention Barack Obama along with Cameron, Klegg, and Rudd. He's so internationalist he's not even American. and the liberals here love it. He won't even show his birth ceritficate or school records. In fact, he's had his own birth certificate sealed. Not only that but he bows to foreign emporers and kings (all of whom are non-european), and goes to Turkey and says the US is no longer a Christian nation! What is most amazing is that while he bows to the king of syria, emporer of japan he goes out of his way to disrespect the queen of England by giving her an... I-POD! He also goes out of his way to appoint blacks to as many offices as possible. His last two supreme court picks have been a catholic puerto rican, and a lesbian jewish woman. There are not even any white male protestants on the US Supreme Court anymore. They are obsessed with destroying the US's national identity. Sadly the transformation of America is almost complete. Right now there are 30 million illegal aliens from mexico and south america. The democrats want to give amnesty to all of them because they know the third-world population will vote for socialism. Well, my hands are clean. I didn't vote for Obama or anyone in his party. The US used to be a great country but after the 60's we weren't the same anymore. It's been downhill ever since then. To make matters worse, the US Navy under pressure from the administration will now allow women on submarines. They are also trying to get rid of don't ask don't tell, which would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. weep for America everyone. she has gone past the point of no return by electing the communist, alien devil named Barack Hussein Obama.

  4. Thanks for the comments. Jesse, this was particularly good:

    We don't want to go down the road of the super-sized public service, multicultural crappsville. Which is all the Labor governments, as seen most recently in England, seem to deliver.

  5. I always wondered how a fish n chips proprietor ended up as the face of Australian conservatism.

    The globalist agenda is well and truly in full swing.

    Economic union can only be achieved by a regional or global currency. That is the final marker that their pea soup utopia is at hand.

    The Euro, Amero, basket SDRs, global financial taxes and carbon credits are simply attempts at facilitating this.

  6. I always wondered how a fish n chips proprietor ended up as the face of Australian conservatism.

    Now that's an interesting question.

  7. I always wondered how a fish n chips proprietor ended up as the face of Australian conservatism.

    There are six reasons I can think of. First, she was bold enough to voice populist concerns about immigration. Second, she did have some personal charisma. Third, she was an acceptable face of conservatism to the liberal elite: she played to the image of the uneducated, backwoods type which then allowed the urban liberal types to feel superior. Fourth, the level of political correctness under Keating was stifling and there was no mainstream politician willing to lead a revolt against it (though Howard did eventually tap into it as well). Fifth, the fact that she was a woman under attack did seem to help her draw support from a layer of older men - a damsel in distress scenario with chivalrous men coming to her assistance. Sixth, there were those in suburban and rural Australia who recognised the disdain the liberal elite held for them and for these people Hanson's lack of sophistication was something in her favour - it marked her as different from the urban elite (a bit like Palin).

    I was never impressed by her leadership skills. She was too much interested in getting on financially through politics and she didn't want talented people sharing the limelight - those in her party with talent and drive often got a tap on the shoulder and a directive to leave.

    I think she's better categorised as a populist figure rather than someone trying to implement a principled conservative or traditionalist politics.

  8. "Michelle's explanation will possibly sound dramatic to some readers."

    Strange comment to make - I was expecting a screed, a call to violent revolution - what I read was well reasoned and accurate. Nothing dramatic there - plain simple common sense assessment of the status quo.

  9. Hey, here's an idea to wedge the Internationalists: propose that Australia apply for membership of the European Union. And why not? It's progressive, leftoid in all the right ways, secular, gei-happy, run by women (of both genders). What's not to like? This will of course be construed as a racist suggestion, but that can be overcome by supporting Turkey's entry too - and it allows us to hammer the Asian wannabes for their geocentrism!

  10. Well,

    I am cranky enough to agree with Michelle that the other Cranky Kevin - Bane of the 7.30 Report - is a wrecking ball. Oz is going to be stuffed for a long time after he is gone.

    But I suspect the pathologies that drive so much of his other questionable behaviour are not uniquely related to the internationalist view.

    The naked internationalism sounds like the world view of so much of what I have interestingly seen described as the New Class:


    Rudd and his key confidants are a part of and utterly immersed in Canberra by the New Class, which is totally borderless in their affiliations. (Think of the cultural gravity hub that is the ANU - sucking the oxygen away from any dissenting worldviews ).

    For example - if the technocrats, academics and journalists were all suddenly dispossessed from Canberra or the inner suburbs of the state capitals - were would they go ?

    The entire clique would feel like they had been dropped on another planet if forced to move to the normal suburbs or rural/regional Australia ( Byron Bay does not count in this ).

    Whereas they would doubtless feel right at home parachuted into any welcoming New Class environs overseas - London, Paris, San Francisco, Toronto - anywhere of the same worldview, irregardless of language and history.

    The worrying part then is that Canberra, and probably the other Anglo-phone capitals, are all New Class echo chambers on this - and the political class probably aren't even self-aware enough to realise how radical this agenda really is.

    Sleepwalking us into disaster.

  11. I used to live in Canberra and go to the ANU. Boy am I glad I'm out.

  12. Sorry Mark, Australia has the best professional cadre on the planet and there is no way Hanson (or Steve Fielding for that matter) was a genuine attempt at political conservatism.

    For my mind she was an unwitting patsy for fifth column subterfuge and was always meant to fail.

  13. Mark, thanks for airing my comment. It looks like I'm preaching to the converted here. Yes, maybe I overstated it to make a point. I'm just so sick of the procession of articles lamenting Rudd's "hollowness and lack of political persona or philosophy", hence I don't hold back in offering an alternative view.

    I wasn't aware of the "cross-curriculum dimensions" in the new education curriculum. Talk about newspeak.

    I agree, the Libs aren't much better. I'm just keen to get rid of Rudd because I don't see anyone else carrying the can for an Asian Union as boldly as he does. Hopefully the idea will burst like a balloon after Rudd is gone. I heard Julie Bishop support an Asian Union "but not in the way Rudd wants it". At least Abbott should be practical enough to take the foot off the immigration accelerator a little when housing and infrastructure are screaming out.

    Clegg is a mind-bender: you just shake your head and wonder how politicians can so boldly surrender national sovereignty.

    Kevo, I agree on the ANU. Rudd is fashioning it into the APU (Asia-Pacific University). He has commissioned three new departments there: the Australian Centre on China, the National Security College, and now the Australian Institute of Public Policy. The latter for brainwashing public servants to think in regional rather than national terms. Ditto the security college.

  14. Michelle,

    I really did like your comment. I just wanted to gauge other readers' reactions to it. But they seemed to like it too.


    "was always meant to fail" is probably right.


    Good comment, thanks.

  15. "Domestic policies are a low-order priority that Rudd engages in to maintain a nationalist facade"

    Sounds like an Aussie version of NZ Labour leaders Lange and Clarke.

  16. So not much different to the last gang of wreckers in the UK, and the present ones.

    But what are we to do if the electorate continues to vote for the same old, then expects something different.

  17. Its very telling that the Australians dedicated to documenting the spread of socialism have yet to mention, even in passing, one of its key victories. Gun control. How else can a population resist region (APU) as well international integration? Do you think its unusual for the governing class to implement things against the wills of majority of the population? So then what means of resistance will be left to us?

    Now I know people will look at this comment as call it radical, fear mongering, etc All I'll say to them is that they are typical Australians, citizens of a vassal state that cannot recognize freedom because they've never really had it (in a true sense).

    The idea of Australians owning guns simply to protect their life and property is alien, so of course using them to protect ourselves against oppressive government will be seen as absurd, ludicrous, radical. Typical fucking Australians.

    I consider myself to be a self hating Australian, due to ubiquitousness of this attitude. Watching question time on the ABC makes me boil with rage, when they drag out the same old cunts, regurgitating the same old ideas. The fat Aussie Homeloans dude, who said the solution to government red tape and bureaucracy is to eliminate all state and local governments in favor of one all powerful Canberra, followed by the immediate applause of the audience. The conservation your blog hosted by the anonymous extolling unity between Anglo Saxons and deriding Social Pathologists comment , really affected me because although I sided with him, I cannot find it within myself to love those people who applaud the idea of throwing away federation and the separation of powers and to replace it with autocracy, whilst still stretching their rhetoric of freedom and liberty. I cannot stand to acknowledge myself as belonging to the same nation as them. Being a member of a nation has to mean something, our national identity has now been divorced from race, religion and all historical western culture. The only things that are left are the cultural values and principles which unite us, and what those values which Australia embraces? Multiculturalism, radical egalitarianism tolerance and diversity. Global values, always supplemented by mandatory use Australian colloquialisms expressing “mate ship” and a “fair go”, as if it makes up for our total lack of identity. So I consider myself to be a white, Anglo Saxon, English speaking male. I Honor the traditions and virtues of western civilization, and feel a sense of global community (hate to use that term) with the white Anglo Saxons of America, UK, Ireland, Canada, South Africa and Zimbabwe. This identity is absolutely incompatible with being “Australian” so fuck Australia.

    Back to the gun thing I was watching that documentary The Howard Years, and they showed a clip of a speaker protesting the new gun laws who said “…the only currency with which can purchase freedom back with is BLOOD”. I was shocked and amazed that such a thought could ever enter into the mind of an Australian, and be expressed with such fire and passion. I was shocked because if their was such a head to head battle of opinion, massive rallies and people rightfully calling the PM “Hitler Howard” and “Jackboot Johnny” how is it that the resistance simply gave way?

    Despite the resistance the uniform gun laws went through and since then we haven’t heard a single peep about it from conservatives, whether they be mainstream of marginal internet bloggers. My earliest memories of anything political (I’m 21) was seeing the masses of shotguns and rifles get broken apart by bulldozers. I was to young to understand, as an adult who witnessed the same destruction what were/are your thoughts?