Monday, July 30, 2012


A quick look around the Western world at the various forms of government now in power would give the astute political observer cause to realize that ALL governments, regardless of where they are placed by some on the political spectrum, now adhere to and promote socialism under the guise of Social Democracy.

Democracy as a form of government was never meant to be 'socialized' but that is where we have now ended up. And even America, a Constitutional Republic, is now being touted as a Social Democracy.

So what does Social Democracy mean?

To answer that question we first need to understand what Socialism is all about. According to the Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary, Socialism is described as thus:

Socialism, noun, 1. A theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting
of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etc, in the community as a whole. 2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

National Socialism, or Nazism, was based on this theory. So too was Soviet style Communism. However, the main difference between both ideologies was that Nazism permitted, even encouraged, private enterprise in manufacturing and entitlement to ownership of land provided those who participated were members of the Nazi Party and towed the party line. Soviet style Communism allows no private ownership or manufacturing of any kind, and under Soviet and Peoples Democratic Republics, such as China and North Korea, the state controls everything.

Those who are comfortable with government controlling everything, even down to their daily activities like what they can buy, are usually those who support a socialist system. But not everyone who would give their vote to a socialist party, like Labor/Greens in this country or the Democrats in the United States, are truly cognizant of what it is that they are actually voting for when they cast their vote to a socialist party. This can also be true of someone who votes for a party that is considered conservative. And I would suggest that those voters who have voted for one particular party their entire life, and this would also apply to both sides of politics, continue to do so only because their parents voted the same way. Such are the vagaries of the democratic system.

Conservatism is a relatively modern concept and is based on preserving those systems and traditions that have been proven to work over the more ideologically based (theory) practices that have become the hallmark of the left side of politics. Conservatism has taken quite a hit over the past forty years from those who have an agenda to socialize everything, and the Capitalist Free Market system which has proven its worth over the years with the rise of the Middle Class, has also been demonized as a faulty system that brings more ills than good to the world.

So what is the difference between Socialism and the Capitalist system, a system that is now often portrayed as an evil system by Socialists? Let us consult the Dictionary which states:

Capitalism, noun, 1. A system under which the means of production, distribution and exchange are in large measure privately owned and directed. 2. The concentration of capital in the hands of a few, or the resulting power or influence. 3. A system favoring such a concentration of wealth.

That modern Western Civilization has become one of the most successful civilizations of all time is completely self - evident, and should be to everyone, but what has made our civilization so successful? Capitalism combined with a Free Enterprise system has made our civilization so successful that we have seen off the Soviet System in Russia while China now embraces some forms of private ownership, manufacturing and wealth, but still strictly under state regime controls.

The Capitalist system has allowed some people to become fabulously rich. But is this a bad thing? While this author has a problem with too few people holding the majority of wealth within this kind of system because it needs to be remembered that money in the hands of some is power and that some of these very wealthy people have developed an elitist attitude that generally expresses itself in the exercising of their influence at the political level. Why politics though? Because it is government that controls the less empowered through the rule of law. Laws, that some of the elite class have no compunction in breaking and will always uphold a do as I tell you, and not as I do approach to life that has now led us to a kind of soft totalitarianism that uses Human Rights Laws and failed lawyers to cower those who have become aware and attentive to the elitists real agenda.

But Free Enterprise was also mentioned which combined with Capitalism has given the West an extraordinary advantage over that of other systems and cultures. So what is Free Enterprise? Again we will consult the Dictionary:

Free Enterprise, noun, the doctrine or practice of a minimum amount of government control of private business and industry.

From that description of Free Enterprise we may take it that if government stays away from over-regulating the functions of business and industry, business and industry will thrive and prosper, which in turn powers the economy of the state and its citizenry though job creation and wealth accumulation. The Western middle class is a product of this system which also, to a large degree, came about due to the actions of industrial unions that (which also led to more government regulations) had the workers interest and welfare at heart and through many years of protracted strikes and demands helped to create an affluent middle class. But union activism for the betterment of its workers has been a double edged sword in the sense that the rise of worker's wages and conditions (also coinciding with the Lima Declaration and lowering of trade barriers) came at a cost to the profits and long term re-investment prospects for business and industry which decided to move to third world nations where labor was cheaper and profits higher. Unions by and large, were also pro-communist by the mid-1930's, and thought nothing of bringing a business to its knees, and in some cases, even to the point of closing it down and the workers losing their jobs due to excessive union demands. And when conservative governments should have legislated to uphold the rule of law against the most militant unions, they failed to do so!

We now have the situation where Western nations which were once self-sufficient manufacturers of consumer goods now face the prospect of being reliant on third world nations for those goods. In an ever increasingly dangerous world it is not an enviable position to be in for any nation to have to rely on those nations that supply its necessities it may one day have to go to war with.

The pro-communist stance by unions has over the decades been allowed to permeate our educational and political circles. Where we once had courteous discourse between political rivals, we now have the phenomenon of Conservatives and conservatism being publicly ridiculed on a daily basis by Socialists who would rather slander and cast aspersions on their Conservative rivals than provide a well reasoned argument that may persuade their audience. But what is Conservatism?

Again, let us consult the dictionary for the meaning of Conservatism:

Noun, 1, the disposition to preserve what is established; (opposition to innovation or change). 2. The principles and practices of political conservatives of right-wing parties.

And Conservative:

Adjective, 1, disposed to preserving existing conditions and institutions etc. 2, cautious or moderate: a conservative estimate. 3, traditional in style or manner. 4, having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 5, a person of conservative principles.

The reader will note that this author has placed brackets around that part of the definition of Conservatism that implies opposition to innovation or change. The author believes this is a spurious addition to the whole definition and has been added by those who have a vested interest in denigrating traditional Conservative values which is disposed to protecting that which is considered as beneficial to society.  Conservatives are also innovative and welcome change, but not for changes sake, and unlike Socialists, only if change and innovation can be PROVEN to be beneficial for all.

Pascal Fervor has provided another example for the definition of Conservatism from a 1961 Webster's Dictionary which the author has included in this article for reference to those readers who will note the deliberate alteration of the meaning of Conservatism between the 1961 definition and the 1990 definition as provided by the Macquarie Dictionary the author has used. The definition is thus:

Conservative. n 1 a : Dispostion in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosphy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

By reading and understanding the difference between those two definitions it is plain to see why those who would choose the socialist path, that conservative ideals stand in the way of socialist ideals. It also explains why the spurious addition, that the author has bracketed in the 1990 definition, would have been added to undermine true conservative values which is nothing short of deliberate obfuscation or an act of sabotaging the true meaning. Such is the mentality of some who now profess to teach our children!

There is an old saying that goes; 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', in other words, why try to rebuild something that has been proven to work over many centuries? And that is what socialism is trying to achieve, it is trying to remake Western Civilization into something that will never work and will eventually, as the European Union is now also proving, fail, because the practice of socialism does not fit the theory for Western Civilization. The Socialists also conveniently forget their history of failed socialism. The 20th Century was a century of many wars which had their genesis based in socialist ideology. For many reasons that ideology has failed those states that embraced socialism and it was not until those states decided to allow some private enterprise to grow, that those nations have prospered. China and Vietnam are prime examples of how the socialist state failed, but private enterprise has given them a new lease of life.
Conservatives are by nature cautious of those who advocate radical politics and ideas. Those who do not appreciate their cultural history are those who will embrace socialist ideals, because they really have no precedent in their lives with which to gauge socialist values and the outcomes of socialist ideals.

'Those who forget their history are those who are doomed to repeat it'. That quote is very relevant to today's lack of teaching methods in our schools, which due to political correctness and multicultural requirements no longer teach our children the real history of our Western cultures. It is for this reason that Conservatives are now being openly denigrated, humiliated and sometimes physically attacked. Just because they know history and can see the mistakes now being made by so many who remain so ignorant, and are being lied to, by so few!


Monday, July 2, 2012

What has happened to our Police Forces?

     I once noticed in the Maitland Mercury's editorial, the heading, 'Capsicum Spray case requires careful handling'.

    As an ex cop, I can attest to the effects of a well aimed burst of Oleoresin (often referred to as Capsicum) spray, when confronting those members of the public who, affected by either intoxicating liquor or drugs, or both, loudly declare their intentions of bodily harm to you, the police officer, who has been called to their location in order to quell a disturbance, usually caused by aggressive individuals or groups of rowdy youths, which these days seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

    Before 1998, Oleoresin spray was not in the NSW Police arsenal and the art of subduing a violent person - especially an individual who had also armed themselves and were intent on at least putting you in hospital or making it very plain to you that you were now on the endangered species list - had to be done using your own physical strength, a car mounted baton or the last resort, your revolver.

    Since its introduction, the deployment of Oleoresin Spray to front line police, has been instrumental in saving many violent persons from permanent injury or even death, and has reduced the number of injured police officers involved in these confrontations.

    The Mercury editorial was chiefly concerned with the use of excessive force by the arresting officer who had sprayed a 17 year old youth, who had been handcuffed and detained in the rear cage of a police truck, and as such, was considered by a Court to be defenceless? I have been kicked by a person in a similar situation, and believe me even while handcuffed he was far from being defenceless!  

    Details for why the youth was sprayed was not then made available, nevertheless, it is my opinion that this youth probably got what he deserved! The area from where this individual was arrested has been a trouble spot for a very long time with vandalism and anti-social behaviour by local youth completely out of control, and it is this very public process of pilloring a police officer via the court process, who may have been injudicious with his use of force, that further inspires this type of lawlessness amongst our youth.

     Since the Wood Royal commission in 1997 the NSW Police Force has become so heavily politicized that the actual role of the police in law enforcement has taken a back seat to the needs of the bureaucrats who require all their T's crossed and their I's dotted. The state government is in the habit of using spin to appease those of us who cry out for more police resources to combat the ever increasing levels of violent crime, while those officers who are over worked to the point that they are driven to make poor decisions when dealing with some offenders, are then hung out high and dry for all to see. What kind of message does this send out to those in our society who like to disobey the law?

    To further exacerbate an already demoralized police force, it is now taught at the Police Academy (some call it a college) to report on your workmate if you believe he/she has done something wrong. That 'something wrong' may be anything from a personal remark made about someone to a criminal act. While I understand that any officer committing a criminal offence should be treated no differently to any other person, I baulk at the requirement to put someone on report simply because he/she may have voiced an opinion about someone, or other such trivial incidents which in regular human activity occur on a daily basis. This academically inspired expectation of every officer to become their own informant makes for a very distrustful atmosphere in any work force let alone the police force! In short, it has killed any esprit de corps and further lowered any morale that the police force had prior to this communistic doctrine being introduced after the Royal commission. Individual officers can no longer expect to be supported by the police hierarchy if they so much as have a whiff of a complaint against them. They are guilty until proven innocent and I have witnessed this time after time and have been victim myself to this very narrow and destructive thinking by so called police management.

    As a result of that just mentioned, a lack of trust now envelops the force, and with the draconian oversighting measures now in place, the NSW Police Force is in crisis. Following a recent Daily Telegraph poll of 1500 serving police officers the newspaper found that one in four officers plan to leave the force within the next five years. It also found:

    77 per cent of those polled say they will reconsider their positions as police officers if the government caps wage rise increases at 2.5 per cent, which is well below the inflation rate.   

    75 per cent of those polled also say they would move interstate to work if offered better pay and conditions.

    98 per cent say that 'red tape' is getting in the way of their efforts to protect the community.

    94 per cent say that policing is now more dangerous than at any previous time.

    92 per cent believe there are not enough operational police to maintain proactive policing patrols, including in the City of Sydney.

And what has the state government done about this very sorry excuse for a police force?

Absolutely nothing! N.S.W. is the highest taxed state in the Commonwealth and yet we get to have a third world police force where the front line police who place their lives at risk on a daily basis are now having to constantly look over their shoulder before making some pretty tough decisions. Due to the extra stress placed on them, because of low police numbers, finding themselves constantly being overworked and often in situations where they may over- react because of that stress, and arising from any incident that has, in the vernacular of the force, 'turned to shit' they are then publicly pilloried by an all too compliant media and then hung out to dry by the very authorities who are in office to provide our protection from the very same people the police officers are being publicly pilloried for if they become too 'forceful' with those they are by circumstance, forced to arrest!   

    This needs to change and change quickly. The expectation of government by the people for a secure and safe environment in which we may all feel protected is not being provided and must become a priority.