The historical detail for the reasons I claim Australia did not exist before the 26th of January 1788 is in chapter 2 of my book Prison Hulk to Redemption. The philosophical arguments about what it means to be a people are in my essay Edmund Burke on what it means to be a people. (See previous post) Both should be read in combination to appreciate the full argument. Below is the relevant section of chapter 2 of my book.
A brief account of the early years of the Colony
On the 28th of April 1770, the then Lieutenant James Cook steered his ship, Endeavour, into a broad open bay and dropped anchor at its southern shore. He named it Stingray Bay because of the abundance in its waters of stingrays on which his crew gorged. He later crossed out Stingray Bay in the ship’s logs and entered Botany Bay in tribute to Botanist Joseph Banks, the ship’s eager scientist. Banks had put together an impressive collection of specimens of unknown plants and animals after trekking around the land bordering the bay’s shores.
Cook and Endeavour were on their way back to England after carrying out the official task of observing the transit of Venus from the island of Tahiti. There were also unofficial tasks one of which was to investigate the existence of the South Land whose ancient mythology promised great riches of all kinds. From Roman times, it had been called Terra Australis Incognita – Unknown South Land. The search for the mysterious land of the south had occupied the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish, and lately the English in the person of William Dampier (1688 and 1689). Dampier added little to the findings of the Dutch seamen.
Each year, approaching Australia Day. I repost my essay on Edmund Burke’s ideas about what it means to be a people. Aboriginals and those of Aboriginal ancestry are now part of a seamless nation called Australia. See the next post for the extended argument.
EDMUND BURKE ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A ‘PEOPLE’
When Edmund Burke claimed in An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs that the French Revolution ‘was a wild attempt to methodize anarchy; to perpetuate and fix disorder…that it was a foul, impious, monstrous thing, wholly out of the course of moral nature,’ he was targeting a particular theory of political organization now known as ‘social contract theory’. It is important to understand that for Burke social contract theory not only determines the form of political organization of a particular people but the accompanying social organization as well.
My attempt to post Paul Joseph Watson’s video on Australia’s bushfires on Facebook got this jackboot response.
Independent fact-checkers at Science Feedback say that this post has false information. To help stop the spread of false news, a notice will be added to your post if you decide to share this. Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see their overall distribution reduced and be restricted in other ways.
This warning – this bullying of people with unacceptable views for our new Maoist class – shows just where Facebook has taken up its place in our society. Facebook and its fellow tyrants cannot stop me from posting the video on my website – at least not as yet.
Tiffany & Co is the latest sanctimonious weak-kneed corporate entity to fall in with the extreme left‘s program of mass manipulation, which program is to fool the average citizen into believing Australia can take action that will have a significant effect on climate change.
It’s a total fraud. Put that beside the Tiffany product.
Will Australians be stupid enough to swallow the lies peddled by these corporate fat cats who are only interested in getting their hands in your pocket. Some of them will do and say anything for filthy lucre.
The Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial of 30 July 2005, Carr’s green legacy is a black mark, includes information relevant to the present bushfires raging along Australia’s coast. Some relevant paragraphs:
The lack of emphasis on [bush] management stems partly from philosophical confusion. Many environmentalists believe, and have persuaded city people to believe, in the notion of pristine wilderness – a state to which nature can be returned by creating national parks. In their excellent book Going Native, Michael Archer and Bob Beale note that the NSW Wilderness Act 1987 (passed when Carr was environment minister) defines wilderness as an area that is “in a state that has not been substantially modified by humans and their works or is capable of being restored to such a state”. According to Archer and Beale: “This might apply to the surface of Pluto or the centre of the Earth, perhaps, but it would be arrogance or ignorance to presume that there is any place on Earth that hasn’t, at some time in the past, been managed or substantially affected in some way by humans.”
The problem with the pristine wilderness concept is that it ignores history. Much of our landscape was managed by Aboriginal people for maybe 60,000 years, through hunting and the use of fire. This management was sufficiently intrusive for it to have affected the distribution and density of many plant and animal populations. After the Aboriginal people were dispossessed, white people continued to manage much of the land that is now national park, with fire and logging. As with Aboriginal use of fire, the aim was to keep the land open, to avoid the vegetation thickening, and also to keep animal populations at certain levels through hunting. So, traditionally, people have been a part of nature, not separate from it.
Creating a national park and then, as this Government has done, largely letting “nature take its course”, means this history stops. Gradually the vegetation thickens, the fuel load grows, the animal populations expand, and weeds proliferate. The park becomes a sort of toxic ecological volcano, spewing out fire, kangaroos, weed seeds, and feral animals such as wild dogs into the surrounding countryside. It takes a few decades to reach this point. A lot of our national parks were created in the 1970s and 1980s, which is why these problems started to become acute in the 1990s.
This article appeared in the August issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to reproduce it here. There are few issues more important in Australia than the traitorous plan to set up a system of apartheid in which a superior class of Australians become the pensioners of the slaving majority.
But know, that I alone am king of me. I am as free as nature first made man, Ere the base laws of servitude began, When wild in woods the noble savage ran. Dryden
From the Roman historian Tacitus’ praise of the barbarians in the first century AD to Rousseau’s Treatise in the eighteenth, the idea of a pure and morally unsullied savage, existing in a state of nature, free from the decadent moral baseness of civilisation, has saturated the western intellect for millennia. Despite our academic pretensions to cold objectivity, we moderns are no less prone to such romantic forgeries; we continue to lament the comfort and success of our civilisation to this day, and have slipped into worshipping the ‘Noble Savages’ of our own continent – the Australian Aboriginals.
The Australian Aboriginal population’s remarkable achievement of surviving on this hostile continent for tens of thousands of years is what Geoffrey Blainey called the ‘Triumph of the Nomads’, and is rightly studied and applauded. Yet, today, a confected, Arcadian image of Aboriginal culture has come to dominate the academies of the nation. This image is the driving force behind millions of dollars in funding for indigenous studies centres, research, courses, colleges and more, and has given rise to a new pseudo-aboriginal culture that carries with it all the pomp and circumstance of a fledgling nation; its own ceremonies, its own cultural values and its own political goals. Yet it is a caricature as false as J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan.
The layperson suspicious of the passionate religious-like activity of climate change supporters, many of whom could be described as catastrophists in an Old Testament way, will quickly find themselves lost in labyrinth of science jargon if they try to find out what the truth is. If overwhelmed by the dire warnings, they will eventually find they have to take on faith and trust what the prophets of climate doom preach. But there is another dimension to belief in climate change – apart from being crushed by an avalanche information one can never personally verify.
That dimension is the leftist dimension. Climate change is a front-line dogma of the left. So if you don’t believe, you will be subjected to the vilification, intolerance and social disqualification that is the left’s penalty for faith errancy. You will be called a ‘climate denier’ with the obvious association with ‘holocaust denier.’
The problem is that reality gets in the way for the recalcitrants whose eyes and ears in daily life determine most of their beliefs. The conservative mind is an empiricist-oriented mind. We pay serious attention to what we observe in our daily lives,
Big George Brandis, the Attorney-General in the Turnbull government, sobbed when denouncing Pauline Hanson’s Burka stunt in the Senate. The stunt was wearing a full identity-crushing Islamic cover to make a point the majority of Australians would agree with. In a similar spirit, Sydney University’s Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence could not suppress a sob when speaking about the concocted report about rape and sexual harassment on Australia’s campuses. Bettina Arndt, for one, demolished that delusional report. Yesterday we were treated to sobs from WA’s Health Minister Roger Cook over the success of the government’s suicide bill.
My message to those estrogen-soaked male politicians: Get a grip and stop drinking soy milk. It’s embarrassing.
Political prudence aims at ‘combining the principles of original justice with the infinite variety of human concerns.’