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.
The essay below by Ryan T. Anderson on The Witherspoon Institute website is an excellent piece on the natural law. Edmund Burke outlined similar ideas about the duties inherent in man’s nature. See Edmund Burke on what it means to be a people.
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.
Continue reading The Place of Laissez-Faire Economics in Edmund Burke’s Political Order
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.
Continue reading Edmund Burke and Magna Carta
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.
Continue reading Some Reflections on the 1960s
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.
Continue reading getup!’s worker ants
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.
Continue reading A reminder of getup!’s manipulative power
One of the strange things about politics today is the attempt by Left-wing activists to demonise ‘nationalism’.
For normal people, loving one’s country is a natural feeling. It gives them a sense of belonging, the comfort of having a clear national identity.
Most Australians are proud of our country’s achievements. For many decades, this was the unifying purpose of Australia Day: celebrating the greatness of our nation and the Western civilisation that arrived here on 26 January 1788.
We know Australia is a wonderful place because so many people from overseas want to come here (often by any means possible).
But in recent years, the Green-Left has tried to turn Australia Day into a day of division. They want to ‘change the date’ or even abandon the celebrations altogether.
The Australia-haters have come from within. They want to make us feel guilty about our love of country and ashamed of our national day. Read on…
Arthur Evelyn St. John Waugh was born in 1903 to upper-middle-class Anglicans who lived in a suburb of London. He attended a boarding secondary school (Lancing College), read history at Oxford, published his first book (a biography of the painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti) at age twenty-four, then his first novel a year later. Waugh married that same year (1928), divorced after two years, and converted to Catholicism. After the first marriage was declared null, he married a Catholic by whom he had seven children. He served honorably but ineffectively as an infantry officer in World War II, and was to publish thirteen novels, as well as seven travel books, three biographies, a volume of autobiography, and numerous essays and book reviews. Lionized in the 1920s as a trendy man of fashion, he became increasingly conservative in politics and churchmanship and notorious for his truculent contempt for the sham enthusiasms of modernity. He died on Easter Sunday, 1966, at his house in Somerset. Read on…