If you were in a Catholic school in the 1950s, you would have been taught about the heroic saints, men and women, who preferred death to the denial of their faith. Indeed, the examples of the saints and martyrs were a primary vehicle for teaching pupils what their faith was really about. You have to be moved to the core to prefer to die rather than give up what you believe in. The saints and martyrs were moved to the core because they accepted the revelation that Jesus Christ was God-made-Man, ‘the way, the truth and the life’. They accepted St Peter’s declaration that Jesus was ‘the Christ, son of the living God’ (Matt. 16:16).
The first martyrs were those of the Roman persecutions, people of faith who submitted to the tearing jaws of wild beasts rather than carry out the act of offering a small sacrifice to the multitude of Roman Gods. Centuries later, much closer to Australian society, were the martyrs of the English Reformation who submitted to the barbaric penalty of hanging, drawing and quartering rather than condone Henry VIII’s trashing of key elements of Catholic teaching.
Just repeating that I have received a review for TONY ABBOTT AND THE TIMES OF REVOLUTION:
‘IF YOU WONDER how we got to where we are on the shifting sands of political correctness (and who doesn’t) this book is for you. Gerard Charles Wilson, author of Prison Hulk to Redemption (2015) is the kind of biographer who is a more interesting than his hero Tony Abbott (see James Boswell, Laird of Auchinleck and Sam Johnson, Doctor of Bolt Court, off Fleet Street)…
‘Wilson’s work may not necessarily commend itself to left-wing Honi Soitistes, but it should be on the library shelves of all Catholic universities and senior schools for its corrective attitude to the student politics of the last century and this one.’
I have completed a six-month update of TONY ABBOTT AND THE TIMES OF REVOLUTION.
In addition to the review received (see recent blog), I had feedback that the book was unnecessarily long.
I have removed all text not directly related to the book’s three intertwined themes: the character of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott as displayed in his fearless no-holds battle with the far-left radicals at Sydney University (1976-1980); what it means to be a philosophical conservative in a leftist world; and the author’s critique of the student rebellion and the radicalism driving it. The author lived through the tumultuous years of the 1960s and 1970s revolution.
TONY ABBOTT AND THE TIMES OF REVOLUTION is as much about the author as about Tony Abbott.
Since I have just said a few words on natural law and economic freedom, I want to say a few words about a natural law conception of social justice and how it can help us now. Some people think social justice is a twentieth century invention of left-leaning thinkers, but this starts the history of social justice midstream. To understand its true meaning, we must look farther back to its real historical origins.
The first known use of the phrase “social justice” was by a Jesuit Thomist, Luigi Taparelli, in his multivolume work published between 1840 and 1843 titled Saggio teoretico di dritto naturale appoggiato sul fatto (A Theoretical Treatise on Natural Law Resting on Fact). I want to emphasize two arguments that Taparelli highlighted by coining the new phrase “social justice”: first, that man is social by nature and belongs to many societies and, second, that man has natural duties to others in justice.
Professor C.B. MacPherson in his short book Burke raised what he thought was a inconsistency between Edmund Burke’s political philosophy and his ideas on economics. Joseph Pappin III takes up the challenge in this paper and provides a convincing case on how the two can be reconciled in the natural law. Joseph Pappin’s book The Metaphysics of Edmund Burke is the only book devoted to the subject (metaphysics). Highly recommended.
THE PLACE OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE ECONOMICS IN EDMUND BURKE’S POLITICS OF ORDER The Austrian Scholars Conference, March 2002 By Joseph Pappin III, University of South Carolina President of The Edmund Burke Society of America
I wish to focus upon what until now has been a largely unanswered question: “What is the relationship between Burke’s economic theory and his political theory?” The implications of this question and the built-in assumptions are that Burke’s political economy is entirely libertarian, stressing laissez-faire principles in a free-market setting, and that his political philosophy emphasizes order, hierarchy, tradition – all of which comprise a conservative world-view, recalcitrant towards change, prizing order and virtue over economic liberalism.
This was a talk I gave on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.
Edmund Burke devoted the eighth chapter in his Abridgment of English History, to King John’s reign. He records that it was near the end of John’s reign that the barons forced him to place the royal seal on the provisions and undertakings that form the document called Magna Carta, Latin for Great Charter. The Abridgment of English History is a little known and almost entirely disregarded work of Burke’s. He began it in 1757 as a commission from publisher Robert Dodsley. It was one of the projects taken up when he abandoned the law to devote himself to a literary career. He never completed the planned series of books. Indeed, chapter eight is the final full chapter. The eight chapters plus a fragment of chapter nine, ‘An Essay Towards An History Of The Laws Of England’, appeared after his death.
The reader has to take seriously Burke’s title to his work on English history because a distinct purpose is revealed in the process of abridgment. Through the sometimes sparse historical details, the reader finds a concentration on the effect of the different settled arrangements (like custom and tradition) on the development of the law governing the English people. The contrast, though nowhere near as explicit as in his later writings, is between law as developed out of the concrete circumstances of a people being a people and law as the product of abstract speculation. The fragment of chapter nine confirms this analysis.
Most Australians born after 1970 could not
be blamed for acquiring the impression that the 1960s was one long party of
sexual abandonment, drunkenness, the defiance of authority, the Beatles and the
Rolling Stones, British pop, anti-Vietnam protests, marijuana, hippies,
flower-power and so on in that colourful style. One saying is that if you
remember the 1960s, you were not there. A witty comment, but the small number
abusing themselves to the state of memory loss are all long dead and in no
position to make that boast. I can report first-hand, however, that this
picture of widespread youthful abandonment is fanciful, designed to impress
those who could not know better.
In July 1960, I turned fourteen. I was in my second year of secondary school. My father carried his camera around with him, ever at the ready to shoot photos of his adored children. We have thus a pictorial record of those years when five of my parents’ six children were in their teens.
Just before Christmas (23 December) I wrote the following on the ‘Vote Tony Out’ Facebook page:
The Votetonyout campaign is driven by Getup/Alinsky-type far-left fanatics. If you become a sucker to this paradigm leftist agitation, you’re supporting the full box of gender theory, white patriarchy, identity politics, whiteness studies, sexualisation of children (the Marxist safe schools program) open borders, radical redistribution of wealth, zero emissions, and so on and so on… Don’t be fooled by the ridiculous claim that the agitation is coming from ‘ordinary non-political concerned citiziens’. You could not be more gullible if you fell for that.
One would think after all this time that there would be no argument about GetUp!’s political pedigree. It’s Green-Left, espousing all the issues dear to the spectrum left to far-left. That seems a no-brainer. It took a while for someone to respond. A couple of days ago, this furious reply appeared from a female GetUp! worker ant. It’s as it appears.
The Votetonyout campaign is driven by Getup/Alinsky-type fanatics, if not directly by GetUp!. Zali Steggall seems to be the endorsed candidate for this group. Steggall in her interview with Steve Price on 2GB showed with her political rhetoric that she’s just another Green-left type with an infantilised abhorrence of anything conservative. She is supported by an instagram campaign showing anti-Abbott agitators wearing T-shirts with ‘Time’s up Tony’ in different colours. Very clever.
If you become a sucker to this paradigm leftist agitation, you’re supporting the full box of gender theory, white patriarchy, identity politics, whiteness studies, sexualisation of children (the Marxist safe schools program) open borders, radical retribution of wealth, zero emissions, and so on and so on…
Nobody should be fooled by the ridiculous claim that the agitation is coming from ‘ordinary non-political concerned citiziens’. You could not be more gullible if you fell for that.
The anti-Abbott campaign is what GetUp! and like-groups are preparing for any conservative who goes up against the hegemony of the Green-Left.
Mike Seccombe wrote a detailed account in The Saturday Paper (28 Oct 2016) of GetUp!’s stunningly successful tactics in the 2016 federal election which saw some key Liberal MPs lose their seats. Seccombe and The Saturday Paper are entrenched on the left. They would rather choke than say anything complimentary about those on the ‘hard right’. Seccombe’s piece is uncritical and its tone is of admiration. Nothing about the unconscionable merciless lies and manipulations that mark GetUp!’s campaigns against conservatives. Nevertheless, as far as it goes, his report provides a stark warning for conservatives in the coming federal election, said to be in May. Unless conservatives formulate strategies to check GetUp!, there’ll be a wipe-out. Australia will be given up to the far-left and the Orwellian world they tirelessly impose on the people under the guise of ‘fairness and democracy’. The echoes of the 1930s are on the left, not on the right. Below are the relevant passages from Seccombe’s report.
The available evidence shows…that the conservative parties lost the ground war [in the 2016 federal election]. Their opponents outgunned them when it came to directly interacting with voters in vulnerable seats. They actually talked to the people.
The GetUp! campaign was something unprecedented. It was by far the biggest, best-organised campaign run by an organisation not directly affiliated with a party.