Sunday, May 30, 2010

These are the liberal moderates? Really?

So Malcolm Fraser has finally quit the Liberal Party (he was PM from 1975 to 1983). And one of his former senior advisers, Petro Georgiou, is quitting parliament.

According to Michelle Grattan this represents a blow to the cause of the "Liberal moderates".

[with] the revelation that Malcolm Fraser has quit the party for which he won three elections because of its rightward lean, it's not a good time for Liberal moderates.

The bad news is that they're soon to get another blow, when two of their flag carriers, Petro Georgiou and Judith Troeth, leave parliament ... That will leave the small "l" liberals very thin on the ground.

Georgiou, who was an adviser to Fraser in government, is the philosophical voice of the moderates. He was a key player in Fraser's commitment to multiculturalism and setting up SBS ...

The generational change that is gradually under way in the Liberal party is not producing new strong moderate voices. It is throwing up some outspoken conservatives ...

Some of the high-profile people among the moderate minority are presently gagged because of position, ambition or both.

This has things exactly the wrong way round. The so-called "moderates" are the liberal purists. And this makes them more radical and extreme.

Consider Fraser's political history. Way back in 1968 Fraser gave a speech in which he noted that one Australian university, as an entrance requirement, "recognises the following languages - French, German, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Italian, Russian and Japanese". He criticised this selection by claiming that,

the list as a whole is one belonging to the last century except for one of the languages mentioned.

According to Fraser, the European languages did not belong in the twentieth century. Only the Japanese one did. He was prepared, as early as 1968, to junk Australia's European heritage.

When in power in the 1970s, he and his "moderate" mate Georgiou, declared Australia's Anglo-Celtic national identity to be null and void. We were instead to become a multicultural nation. Later, in the 1990s, Fraser argued for an extra 20 to 30 million migrants, claiming that "Australia must increase its population to 40 or 50 million if it was to become more than a bit player in world affairs".

Even if you support such policies, you'd have to recognise that they are anything but moderate. It's difficult to think of anything more radical. It represents an abrupt change to a country's population and identity.

Edmund Burke might well have been describing Fraser when he wrote back in the 1700s,

I cannot conceive how any man can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption, to consider his country as carte blanche, upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases.

There are those in the Liberal Party who believe that the party represents a "fusion" of a liberal and a conservative tradition in politics. I don't believe such a fusion is possible and nor do the so-called "moderate" (i.e. purist) liberals within the party.

Fraser, for instance, described the relationship between liberalism and conservatism this way:

As its name implies, ours is a liberal government holding liberal principles ...

I have stressed the commitment of the Government to liberal principles and values. Precisely because of that commitment it is also concerned to conserve and protect those principles and values.

Once liberal institutions are installed in a society, a government which wishes to preserve them must in some sense be conservative.

So the only purpose of conservatism, for Fraser, is to conserve an existing liberal orthodoxy in society. It is liberalism which is supreme. There is not even a pretence here at a fusion. It is a purist liberalism.

And an unbounded liberalism is going to have radical and not moderate outcomes. Fraser and Georgiou are therefore more accurately looked on as the purist, radical wing of the Liberal Party.

There's an excellent speech by another of the "moderates," George Brandis, which admits much the same thing - I'll look at this in my next post.


  1. It's difficult to think of anything more radical. It represents an abrupt change to a country's population and identity.

    Indeed. I've always wondered how wanting to radically alter the historic ethnic makeup of a nation through the deliberate mass importation of alien peoples could be considered a "moderate" position.

    Apparently Fraser has long argued that "Australians should put behind us the era of Anglo-Saxon conformity and we'd all better off." Hence his decision to impose multiculturalism and open the floodgates to non-European immigrants.

    It is amazing that Fraser's plan back in the 1970s to radically alter Australia's population and identity is discussed so seldomly. With the possible exception of Pierre Trudeau in Canada, I have never heard of any other national leader openly announcing their desire to deliberatly change their country in such a dramatic manner.

    I mean, can you imagine if, say, a Chinese leader came out and told his countrymen to put behind them the era of Han conformity and allow their nation to be fundamentally transformed via mass immigration? Would they not see this as a direct attack upon their continued existence as a distinct nation and people?

  2. Thank God they're gone, don't come back.

  3. You know what it actually's a form of white supremacism mixed with massive short-sighted ignorance.

    Fraser thinks that you can import all these people with different beliefs and at the end of the day 'whites' (preferably whites like him) will still rule over them all.

    It's madness, ego, and ignorance combined!

  4. I don't like Arthur Kemp because from what I hear he's a bit of a tool...but he was right on Eugene T'erreblanche. Eugene T'erreblanche thought that whites could reestablish an apartheid-like system in South Africa---which was madness and unrealistic since whites are so vastly outnumbered.

    Of course, Afrikaner racism is more based on 'child-parent'--'blacks need us' dynamics than blatant white supremacism. But it's still this attitude of 'I'm so strong in who I am I just know I could lead, guide all these people.' This is totally a white persons mental disease (men and women). Nobody else is this foolish.

    Now take that supremacist attitude (which is a product of whites feeling too secure) and add in a 'morality' 'white knight' complex such as the 'poor, underprivileged mexicans' and woalah! You got one heck of a mess!!

    The non-whites go along with it with a false smile until they get the numbers or somehow get the upper hand.


  5. This is a totally random comment.....

    I was watching music videos and I ran into a video of a black american pop star being taken to South Africa. Basically, she was taken around to all the sites were blacks were treated badly by whites. Nelson Mandela's cell etc etc. Just a constant "look how bad they were to us" attitude with corresponding museums and tours.

    And I realized, whites don't have museums where we constantly remember what some other group of people did to us. (The Alamo--but whites don't look at it in racial terms while Mexicans do, and then I think there's an Afrikaner battle of blood river museum, the church next to 9/11 but that setup isn't permanent and that's all I can think of)

    While look at all the Holocaust Museums and slave museums and such and such. Whites really aren't into holding historical grudges, while the other groups sure are. People can't move on if your always building museums and turning stuff into historical sites. (or they don't want to move on depends on how you look at it)

  6. ... More chitter-chatter from couch conservatives. Yawn.

  7. Funny thing is that the bulk of Australians view the Liberal party as conservatives.

    Liberalism is a given in Australia, the recent Akermanis controversy just goes to show how far down the track we have gone.

  8. the recent Akermanis controversy just goes to show how far down the track we have gone.

    It's incredible, isn't it?

    I'm still shaking my head at this one. If I were a Western Bulldogs member I'd be emailing or phoning the team administration to register a complaint at Akermanis' treatment.

  9. More chitter-chatter from couch conservatives.

    Kilroy, if this is your way of encouraging people to get involved, fine.

    But you shouldn't underestimate the importance of building up a conservative media.

    First, because it helps to bring people into politics. Second, because it helps to give people an effective focus and direction when they do get involved.

    The readership of this site has grown steadily year by year. The quality of comments has always been good and the quantity is growing too.

    Let it grow. If it weren't here you wouldn't suddenly have an influx of educated, intelligent, clear-sighted traditionalist activists. You'd just have what you have now - but with one less resource for people to turn to.

  10. Of greater importance, at least to Australia, was Malcolm Turnbull loosing the liberal leadership. He was an image of Fraser, social progressive and vague economic conservative. He was determined to stamp his image on the Party. Thank God he failed.

    As for Fraser, calling yourself a Conservative does not a conservative make. He never undid the real damage of Whitlam even though he had the mandate given his crushing victory over Whitlam in the '75 election. Methinks that had Whitlam been a bit more economically conservative Fraser may have voted for him.

  11. Kilroy,

    "... More chitter-chatter from couch conservatives. Yawn."

    Richardson responded,

    "[that "chitter-chatter"] helps to give people an effective focus and direction when they do get involved."

    Yep, that's right.

    Kilroy, have you ever asked yourself what we all do after we log off? Do you think we all just snap back into body snatcher mode and behave like PC drones until we log back on to chatter pointlessly a little more?

    That's the implication of your words, and that implication is wrong.

    This website and others have been invaluable to me in ongoing discussions within my church concerning the defense of traditional understandings and ways. I have contacts within the plain churches here in the US and have talked with them about how they might apply some of Richardson's and others' ideas to stop the activities of the radicals (yes, even among the plain folks, there are now cultural subversives). Is that what you are referring to as pointless chatter? Or are you referring to the discussions here which made my discussions out there informed and effective?

    And, anyway, what alternative do we have? Should there be a centralized, order-giving High Command? From whom should we accept orders?

  12. One more thing, Kilroy.

    I could appreciate your frustration if talking on this blog were the only thing you were doing to stop leftism.

    But if that's the case, I would say to you that you should not fault this blog or quit participating in it.

    No, I would ask you why you have not applied the ideas we discuss here to life around you, one situation, one person at time, beginning first of all, of course, with yourself.

    By all means don't simply talk idly. But that doesn't mean you should quit talking. It means you should do what you're talking about. And you should not assume we aren't already doing the same.

  13. ongoing discussions within my church concerning the defense of traditional understandings and ways


    Just want to say well done for taking this initiative. Hope it proves fruitful.

  14. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. So do I.

  15. Gentlemen,

    I have on many occasions encouraged Trads to actually get directly involved. Mr. Richardson has on each of those occasions responded in the same way, namely that he’s developing the philosophy upon which to build an effective political alternative. Fair enough. I have no objection or protests against this, after all, I too am making use of it.

    However, as I have always replied, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. If I can, I’m sure somebody as esteemed and capable as Mr. Richardson, and the readers of this blog, can too. Moreover, this business of “we’ll get into politics in the fullness of time” is just a cop-out. This I have also stated repeatedly. One can philosophise for ever – literally. I have on prior occasions asked at what point do you determine that a coherent philosophical basis has been established and one should now sign up to a party or start one’s own? That question, of course, has never been answered.

    Look, perhaps my comment was rather blunt. If I have hurt anybody’s feelings, I am sorry. But here’s some advice for free: if you can’t take a bit of heat, you’re in the wrong business, especially if it means defending Traditionalism in a liberal dominated world. Furthermore, I am involved politically, at a senior level no less, so don’t lecture me about how to be active.

    Us real conservatives find it impossible to break through the wall of liberalism in the Liberal Party and when I hear/read some of “my people” outside the party structure whine and complain while sitting in front of a computer screen, you can imagine why I get frustrated.

    In conclusion: grow a pair, get involved. Our philosophy is comprehensive and well developed. If the irrational nonsense that passes for modern liberalism has so many followers that dominate the institutions of the West, all the more reason for us to put our money where our mouths are. It doesn’t cost much. All your excuses to the contrary are just that, convenient excuses to do nothing but complain.

    Sorry, but that’s how I see it.

  16. Kilroy,

    Nicely written, but as Bartholomew has pointed out it assumes that the rest of us aren't doing anything politically offline. I, for one, am.

  17. Mark, I think you may find this article of interest.

  18. Mr. Richardson,

    Verry well. But this is the first time you have mentioned it. I wish you all the best. I understand that you're located in Victoria, where the Liberal Party is a far more hostile environment for Trads. If you're involved in another Party, I hope it is Labor, for reasons espoused by Pasquarelli here:

    John Pasquarelli, "Minor Parties in a No-Win Situation" The Conservative (27 April 2010)

  19. Of course I'm involved in politics outside of here. One thing that I've noticed though in the outside world is the growing confidence with which I speak on political matters. It's not mere frustration that the world is going to hell, that there's nothing that can be done, but at least the guys in charge must know what they're doing so I'd better be quiet.

    Confidence in political argument leads to your views being agreed with, considered, or followed far more frequently.

    This site is an essential resource for all thinking conservatives.