By Christian Marx  

Any keen observer of geopolitics will by now be well acquainted with the Yellow Vests in France. This remarkable movement is primarily anti-capitalist in tone. The French people have had enough of the crippling austerity of neoliberal capitalism. Unlike America or Australia, the people of France have a robust class consciousness.

Unfortunately, Australia is not so blessed. Years of adulterated consumer culture and an almost universal monopoly on our media landscape has produced a culture of extreme narcism and a lack of the most rudimentary insight into our political landscape and the machine driving it.

The French have a deep history of tackling extreme inequality. The most famous period in their history is the period of 1789-1794, known as the French Revolution. The rich were disposed of in a prolonged and very bloody coup. How did it become so frenzied and bloodthirsty? Millions wanted to eat and were starving, while the decadent bourgeoisie filled their bloated bellies with the blood of the working class. One could argue that they were metaphorical vampires. Feasting on the carcasses of the poor, this elderly, the sick, and even children’s misery.

Australia is not quite at the levels of poverty the French had to contend with circa 1789, but alarm bells should be ringing among the populace. Take a walk through the streets of any major city during the day. You will see hundreds of rough sleepers in the main streets. Contrast this with 25 years ago and there was not a single homeless person in sight. I can remember Melbourne of the late 80s/early 90s and it is unrecognisable compared to today.

How did it get this way? The cancer of neoliberal capitalism. Basically, an economic and social theory that puts the profits of the few ahead of the needs of a society. Social safety nets are smashed, jobs are outsourced, and public utilities are sold off to crony offsiders. See here for an in-depth description.

While the Yellow Vests in France are to be lauded for their courage, an insidious synthesis has created a new breed and very different beast of Yellow Vest movement in Australia. Instead of tackling the prime cause of our current dilemma (neoliberal capitalism), these nefarious agents are scapegoating immigrants and pushing a very dangerous notion of ultra-nationalism. This author has visited many Yellow Vest pages and movements operating in and around Australia. Many are ignoring rampant inequality and misrepresenting the true meaning of the Yellow Vests in France.

The far-right and Libertarian capitalists have used the very left-wing France Yellow Vests as a cover for their own agenda of either scapegoating minorities or as in the case with the Libertarians blaming the Macron government for being too socialist. This is absurd as Socialists do not work as investment bankers and they do not enforce austerity on the working class while providing massive tax subsidies for the very rich. Macron has done both. Also, for those who may be intellectually challenged, just because a political party has the word “Socialist” in their title does not make them in any way socialist! A classic example is the Nazi Party who were the “National Socialist Workers Party.” Funnily enough the Nazis hated unions and threw Marxists, Socialists and Unions into the concentration camps along with the Slavs, Gypsies, Jews, intellectuals and anyone else who challenged their Fascist agenda.

Using mere semantics, we could argue that the Democrats in the U.S are democratic. Their railroading of Bernie Sanders in favour of Hilary Clinton would suggest otherwise.

The same could be said of The Democratic Republic of North Korea. Is it truly democratic?

The only Yellow Vests page I have found to be close to the ethos of the French Yellow Vests is this page. This movement is actually exposing neoliberal capitalism and fighting against racism, Fascism and other right wing movement who are piggy backing onto a legitimately progressive movement in France. I urge you all to be very careful when visiting the array of Yellow Vest pages springing up in Australia. Many are not what they seem.

By Margcal 

As one who steps back from The AIMN from time to time, I appreciated Michael and Carol’s post about setting some standards, or reviving ones that have been breached too often.

My particular gripe is to do with religion, on two fronts: the belittling of those with any sort of religious belief, and the way that Christians are denigrated that would be deleted if it were directed at any other religious group, most particularly, in the Australian context, Muslims. Additionally, I find it offensive that so much criticism is theologically illiterate and/or just plain ignorant. On that last point, no serious biblical scholar believes that the bible is a blow-by-blow history book. And for those whose last encounter with “religious instruction” was in their school days, like everything else, times have changed: questions and debate are not so much allowed as encouraged. That some remain unconvinced by the time they leave school is no different now than way back when.

Context: I am a Christian. I identify as Catholic but not a “good” one. I’m critical of the current and very critical of the last two leadership régimes. I rarely go to Mass but every so often go to a Lutheran church which has a magnificent music programme that incorporates Bach cantatas into its services, as they were intended when written. I also have a B Theol, for my sins, and continue to read in that vein from time to time.

I find it offensive when Christians are regularly mocked for believing in some ‘fairy in the sky’ or ‘imaginary friend’. I, and other Christians, are well aware that, some earlier Christian writings to the contrary, we cannot prove that what we call God exists. But equally, mockers cannot prove that God does not exist. The only logical and defensible position to hold is agnosticism.

I find it ignorant when a ‘straw man’ is held up as a Christian, and Christianity and all Christians are thereby dismissed. Such was the position of AC Grayling in one of his books when I decided to read what someone from his school of thought (which includes Dawkins) actually had to say. On the basis of what he offered, I could agree with his position. But that was trumped by finding so many flaws in that position.

It’s rather like holding up Morrison and Abbott and other self-proclaimed Christians in Parliament and saying these are Christians, this is why religion is bad. There are atheists who are equally as bad, but critics do not therefore denounce atheism. In the past I have commented on The AIMN site that I only wish that those who are not religious, who are anti-religious, would challenge the hypocrites in Parliament, getting them to justify their policies and practices when held up to the light of their professed beliefs. They could bullshit all they liked but, bottom line, Morrison, Abbott and Co deviate so far from Christian beliefs that it is sickening.

Christians are also well aware that their “how to live well” instructions are not unique to that religious group. Does that matter? I don’t think so. “The Good” is pretty much generally agreed by all, giving rise to many guides to leading a good life. Some of these are codified in some form, both in the tenets of religious organisations and in non-religious spheres such as civil and criminal law.

I’m no historian but my impression is that in most times and places in recorded human history, humans have believed in some sort of deity or creator. By extension, for most of recorded history all the bad, and good, actions in the world have been caused or done by people who have a religious belief or practice. I’m not saying that no wars have been fought on religious grounds, that would be absurd. But it is just as absurd to say that all wars are religiously inspired. If you leave it at that level, nuance and reason are totally lacking. Similarly for all the lesser evils of daily life. People are flawed humans before they are flawed believers. Lust for power and possessions, fear, envy, jealousy, anger and all the rest are common to all humanity, whether believer, agnostic or atheist. To blame the ills of the world on religion seriously short-changes the search for peace and cooperation.

As I have also commented on The AIMN, being so insulting to people of faith only puts them off-side. In spite of religious leaders not speaking out, in the case, for example, of Manus and Nauru; or speaking only too loudly, for example regarding marriage equality, grass-roots Christians overwhelmingly support social justice, fairness, inclusion – the same thing that many, but not all, atheists support. Why alienate your allies?

As a not entirely irrelevant side issue, I have no objection to churches paying tax. I would only warn that a cost-benefit analysis might be a wise undertaking before legislating. We know about the rotten church leaders and the rotten followers of religion. But we don’t hear so much about the grass-roots followers of religion who donate so much time and money to serving all in the community, not only their co-religionists. If paying tax forced some services provided by churches to close through lack of funds, (a) would the government pick up the slack? I’m sceptical. Taking but one example, where are all the facilities that were promised when deinstitutionalisation was in vogue? And (b), would all those volunteers and donors want to become part of any government run replacement, should such miraculously occur?

The harm that religious believers have done must be admitted. But all the good they have done must also be admitted. To not do so is dishonest. You could say the same about atheists but that is rarely if ever heard. I can understand that anyone hurt by a religious person (who, by hurting, is betraying their beliefs) would abandon a church they were brought up in, even criticise it. Some, hurt or not, stick with their beliefs even while leaving their church. Others stay in their church and work from within to bring about change.

Even if you have no religious belief, wouldn’t the world be a better place if you helped those of faith to be their best selves, living up to their beliefs, rather than attacking them?

Diannaart made a comment following Michael and Carol’s piece with which I am in hearty agreement:

There are many people here I’d like to meet because I find them very interesting compassionate and intelligent. There are also a very small number of commentators I would like to meet face to face and discover if they would say the same things to my face, the things they have had no compunction writing.

So if you could reign in the bigoted, insulting and ignorant articles and comments about religion, then you would be doing more good than harm, whether Google notices or not.

By Rosemary J36 

Waste and built-in obsolescence will be key issues for any generations to come which survive the increasingly disastrous climate conditions that past and present generations have allowed to happen.

In the UK during WWII, every scrap of paper was recycled and I also remember scrap metal yards doing great business.

At secondary school, we were issued with all the necessary exercise books, one for every subject, plus one, made from recycled paper, which was to be used for general note-taking in any subject.

When we had filled one of these books, we were only issued, free, with a replacement if we had clearly filled every available space and not thinned down the book by tearing out pages! If we did not pass inspection, we had to pay for the replacement!

The profligate waste in today’s world, and the pollution resulting from our indiscriminate disposal of unwanted matter are adding to the climate damage, which is dooming us to ever more extreme weather events and damaged food sources.

In the Northern Territory, our remoteness, and lack of imagination, means that our recycling is very limited and far too much goes to landfill.

The other aspect of waste is our failure to harvest the abundant sunshine which we enjoy.

At great expense, we have a railway link to Adelaide in the Ghan railway, which is underused.

If I had the power to get together a group of commercial representatives and NT and Federal politicians, I would urge them to develop recycling facilities here in the NT. We no longer ship our waste to China but if they could recycle it, why cannot we? Bring it here on the Ghan! Or ship it to our port.

We could provide renewable energy to service any facilities required for the recycling process, we could turn suitable plastics into the material required for road surfacing, glass into a substitute for sand in concrete making and in the process we could also power manufacturing facilities for creating renewable energy resources. And while we need to reduce food waste, any that is thrown out should be recycled appropriately to put back into the earth what came from the earth!

With increasing temperatures, evaporation leads to water shortages, yet I understand that film that floats on water and which acts as a solar panel could simultaneously reduce evaporation and supply power! We could manufacture that film!

Our population is diminishing in the Top End, but this could be rapidly reversed if we were to develop industry. Also, ripe for further research is tidal and wave energy. The Top End and the north of WA have massive tides which could surely generate a different form of renewable energy. If you have ever felt the power of waves, you will know how much energy is going to waste! Such a pity that the CSIRO has lost so many scientists to other parts of the world, where wave power is being harnessed!

We are – praise be! – on the threshold of a national election. Inevitably one of the major parties will garner enough votes to be able to form a coalition to form government, but we need consensus government, not adversarial government.

Let us support independent candidates who have a vision for the long-term future, not limited to the electoral cycle, who also have integrity and are determined that government will be transparent.

I hate to think of people as a resource – in the way that economists talk of capital and labour – but we are wasting one resource in ways that damage people. The refugees offshore and who are living in the community but not allowed to seek work – this is costing the country billions and destroying people’s potential in the process.

In the long run, humanity repays a hundredfold!

Current government is responsible for increasing the gap by giving more to those who do not need it and penalising those who desperately require assistance.

Helping those who need help pays enormous dividends over time, morally as well as financially.

We must change course or we will be rapidly overtaken by events!

By Khaled Elomar 

To me, and I’m sure to you as well, it signifies everything that is contrary to a Celebration.

This is the first day where theft, murder, torture, torment, pain and suffering was inflicted on the Great Indigenous people of this land.

A day where Indigenous communities were ripped apart. A day where Indigenous people lost their lives. Children become orphans. People were shackled and imprisoned for no reason other than being non-white and defending their land and families.

Today, along with the other 364 days, is a day that every Australian should be crying and commemorating the FNP for the Terrorism they’ve experienced and are still experiencing unfortunately.

You want to celebrate Australia Day? There are 364 other days in the year to do so. Just not this day.

Today is definitely not a Day to celebrate but more so a Day of Sadness and Pain.

To the Indigenous People of this great Land, on behalf of the Members and Admin team of this Group, I Truly Am Sorry. I know it can’t, and won’t, fix the past and present but I hope we can fix the future.

Or a ramble through 83+ years of memories

By Rosemary J36

I was in my third year of life (in England, on the outskirts of London) when WWII was declared, and it heavily coloured the rest of my life. Growing up with rationing and shortages has led to habits of minimising waste. I even wore to university in 1954 a blouse, home-made from the fabric of a dress which my mother had made for me to wear to Junior school when I was 9!

In order to provide a background to the views I have formed over the years – which include the need to invest heavily in education, the destructiveness of adversarial politics and law and the need to replace the pseudo-science of religion with real understanding of how knowledge evolves from scientific research – I venture to provide a (possibly boring) slice of my autobiography! After all – everything comes down to cause and effect, and how life treats you affects what you think and believe.

My mother was born in England in 1896 to a minister of the Church of Christ, so her version of Christianity was verging on the puritanical. However, to my gain, she was, unknowingly, a pioneer of feminism, whose misguided marriage led to her determination that her two daughters would never have to be dependent on another! My father was in a technical branch of the Civil Service with a background in mechanical engineering.

The older I get, the more I appreciate that my mother (who, sadly, died in 1975) is truly my hero!

The timing of my arrival in this world was also critical, because it enabled me to benefit from radical changes in England to the education system – Scotland is fiercely independent in many things!

Many small, private secondary schools were invited to become state-aided Grammar schools, retaining their charters as long as this did not conflict with the government approved syllabus, drawn up by the relevant regional university groups. Many of these schools were single sex, generally seen as being to the benefit of girls more than boys.

Can I stress at this point that my parents were both reasonably intelligent people but, with three children, had they had to pay for our secondary and tertiary education, it might not have been possible for them to do so for all of us. My mother’s father had moved to a new church every two years, so her own education had been very fragmented. She had also been employed in the Civil Service before having to resign on marriage in 1931.

Back to the history.

We did little in the way of current affairs at school, as the curriculum was geared towards achieving university entrance standard, but my mother was very much a conservative supporter, while my father was a died-in-the-wool Labour supporter. I learned early in life that both sides have much in common but taking sides was dangerous!

Also, in my teen years, the little I knew of the USA indicated that anyone, from any background, could aspire to be President. Nowadays, of course, only multi-millionaires – preferably with strong ties in the corporate world, have a hope in Hades of rising to those heights.

By my third year in Grammar school, (equivalent to Year 9) having had a smattering of Latin and Chemistry mixed into a very broad general education, we had to choose between science and the arts. With Maths as my best subject, I chose science, leading to Chemistry and Biology in ‘O’ Levels and Pure and Applied Maths and Physics in ‘A’ Levels, along with a whole lot of other subjects at ‘O’ Level, the most critical being English Language, without which no white-collar employment would be available!

In the last 2 of our 7 years in secondary education, those of us on the science side had to keep up English Literature as a non-examinable subject, although those on the arts side did not have an equivalent requirement to continue with a science subject. Personally, I think this is a grave mistake, particularly with girls, because they then regard science as a mystery – as do an alarmingly high proportion of our current national politicians!

The other invaluable part of my education in those last 2 years was the study of Comparative Religion. In my opinion, understanding and tolerance require a base of knowledge, while ignorance too often leads to bigoted attitudes and prejudice.

I still use my knowledge of the human body and its systems, which I gained in school biology, although it fell really short in only teaching us about reproduction in rabbits! Dangerous for pre-pill young women! My older sister was later of much help, as she went on the study medicine, finally specialising in surgery, so her greater knowledge of human sexual matters was invaluable!

Although I failed to pass the entrance and scholarship examination for Oxford and Cambridge, which would have enabled me to follow in the footsteps of my brother, who won a State Scholarship to the latter university, I did pass the entrance exam for what was then the Imperial College of Science and Technology (now simply IC) in London University. Distracted by a mixed sex (overwhelmingly male) social climate, I struggled to achieve highly in my studies but did complete a BSc (Special) Mathematics in 1957.

By this time, I was well on the way to becoming an agnostic!

On and off from then until 2004, I taught maths at both secondary and early tertiary level and have helped many mature-aged young women who always thought, wrongly, that maths was beyond them. Male maths and science teachers have a lot to answer for in this context!

Because of the space race and the British government’s need to recruit more maths and science graduates into teaching to raise the standard (does this sound familiar? It should!) I taught my first year on probation to acquire qualified teacher status. This, of course, even with 5 years full-time and 3 years part-time maths teaching experience under my belt, did not make me ‘qualified’ by Australian standards so, after arriving in Australia in 1971, I only taught part-time or casually, all at secondary level, until I completed my Grad Dip Ed (Secondary) as an external student at Mitchell College (now Charles Sturt University).

I succeeding in gaining a position at the fledgling NTU (now CDU) in 1989 and later undertook, successfully, an MSc (Science Education) by thesis through Curtin University.

Here I must make the point that my entire education, up to the age of 68, was paid for by the relevant governments.

Because the formerly private secondary schools, which moved under the government’s control, had been modelled on the British Public Schools – Eton and Harrow etc – they had a House system with a highly competitive points system in sports and other areas, and an expectation that growing maturity required increasing responsibility – for oneself and for others.

This also, because of the no fees situation in state-owned schools, imbued in many of the beneficiaries a realisation that they had a moral debt to repay the nation – not financially but in service! This is a grave lack in a user pays system! The latter fails to encourage an active involvement in voluntary organisations.

I have dual British and Australian citizenship, my family having moved to Australia when my husband, a civil engineer, was appointed to a position here in 1970. I followed him with our children, arriving at the start of 1971.

I cannot honestly say that I have a great deal of pride in either country – entirely due to the nature of politics!

I realised in middle life that a significant number of people have had their lives affected adversely because of the prohibitive cost of seeking legal advice. So, in my last semester as a maths lecturer, I commenced study for an LLB – little knowing that you cannot give legal advice (without risking expensive claims against you if that advice is faulty!) unless you have a current practising certificate and professional indemnity insurance! So, I continued on to cover that last requirement for admission by completing a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice. I had also completed the necessary requirements to be an accredited mediator, and I practiced law in a small firm for a little over 4 years, but continued mediating for a few years longer.

This fulfilled a dream I can trace back to 1975, when I started study in a Diploma in Accounting and completed, among other units, a year-long Business Law unit.

Anyone who tells you that you are too old to learn is misleading you. Life is a continuous learning experience even if it is at its best up to age 5!

I have my own theories about how religions were developed, but underpinning all religions it seems to me there four factors.

1. A desire to explain natural phenomena.
2. A desire to find a meaning for life.
3. A need to have some rules for a community to live in peace.
4. A desire for power which enables an individual to claim the capacity to translate messages from some supernatural being(s).

My own belief is that the ethics – do as you would be done by, etc – which appear to underpin the teachings attributed to an individual (who may/may not have existed) known as Jesus Christ, are, in fact very desirable ethics and I think it a pity that our current would-be leaders do not practice them.

They give a meaning to life – help others!

But, human nature being what it is, ‘greed is good’ prevails over unselfishness!

Modern science is well on the way to providing answers to many questions and Stephen Fry has issued a video which effectively de-bunks the concept of a loving, omnipotent god!

When I consider the adversarial processes for law and politics, inherited from the British colonisers, and which have controlled our lives, I find them way short of desirable.

We also have a Constitution, designed to designate which of Commonwealth and States can use which powers – a totally inadequate document in the modern world.

We have politicians more interested in retaining power than setting our systems to rights or helping you and me and our fellow voters, the stupid people who elected them!

I firmly believe the scientists on climate change.

I am torn between wanting us to act urgently, so that my 3 great grandchildren will be able to enjoy their lives, and hoping that we bumble on to be rapidly overtaken by events and the selfish, greedy corporations will have their comeuppance!

One last thought!

Karl Marx is quoted as referring to religion as ‘the opium of the people’.

Nowadays I think it could be fairly claimed that big business has invested heavily in making entertainment the opium of the people – and it reminds me of the Decline of the Roman Empire!

By Aerchie 

The Liberal Party does not have a problem with women.

It has a problem with white, middle-aged males. They do make up the vast majority of the elected members of the Liberal Party, as well as the vast majority of the un-elected hidden party apparatchiks. The few women who are involved with the Liberal Party are probably accepted because they can make the tea and cook the after-meeting cakes.

This has been politics since the time of Athens. Sadly for the Liberal Party, times have changed just a little in the past 2,500 years. Not that they have noticed. Just as they have failed to notice many other changes in society.

Kelly O’Dwyer herself told her colleagues last year that the Liberals were widely seen as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers”.

White middle-aged males have always held the power in white Anglo-Saxon society. They are mentored by old white males who have graduated from middle age. And the one thing they all agree on is that women do not belong in Parliament, unless it is to bring them a glass of water.

Maybe, one day, just before their extinction, the Liberal Party will suddenly wake up to what has created the success of both the ALP and the Greens. The electorate is slightly more female than male!

Of course, if the Liberal Party were to allow roughly equal numbers of women into the Parliament, then the Liberal Party would totally change its abilities, attitudes and aims. The Party would become unrecognisable.

Perhaps this is why the current Liberal Party is so opposed to change. In a new equality-based Liberal Party, there would be no room for the dinosauric white middle-aged white males!

This article was originally published on Aerchie’s Archives.