Thursday 28th of August 2014

the natives from melbourne get restless because of an aussie day apathy in sydney, 1959...


Of course one has to decipher the words of the day... The Australian Natives' Association had and has nothing to do with Aboriginal people, who in 1959 were still invisible in the Australian population... This ANA was apolitical till it became affiliated with the Liberal (CONservative) party as it was an association of people BORN of WHITE people in this fair country... :


The Australian Natives' Association (ANA), a mutual society was founded in MelbourneAustralia in April 1871 as the Victorian Natives' Association.

In 1872 it voted to extend membership to men born in the other Australian colonies and changed its name at the same time[1] .[2] The Association played a leading role in the movement for Australian federation in the last 20 years of the 19th century. In 1900 it had a membership of 17,000, mainly in Victoria.

The ANA provided sickness, medical and funeral cover. Membership in the ANA was restricted to men born in Australia, at a time when Australian-born people of European descent (not including Indigenous Australians) were rising to power in place of an older generation born in Britain. In the 1890s, for the first time, they became the majority of the population. The ANA consisted mainly of energetic middle-class men aged under 50 - a perfect base for a forward-looking, idealistic movement such as federation. In 1880 the ANA committed itself to the federation of the Australian colonies, and provided much of the organisational and financial support for the Federation Leagues which led the campaign, particularly in Victoria. It avoided party politics, but they soon adopted the rising liberal politician and ANA member Alfred Deakin as their candidate for leadership of the federal movement.[citation needed]'_Association


some more gems from 1959


Robbing New South Wales because it had a Labor Government I s'ppose...?

Meanwhile a school to prepare the Dames:



And the usual gender debate:


the potts

speed versus beauty

why 1959? tony abbott was born in 1957...

As some journalists try to pin down "who is the elusive Tony Abbott", I have a fair idea... I could be wrong though.


By March 1959, Tony Abbott would have been a bit more than a year old. He was born in November 1957... This is my wild guess that 1959 would have been his first impressions of life as it was... I firmly believe his views and impressions have not moved one inch from then on.

I know, I'm wrong, but from what I have observed empirically, Tony went around in strange circles till he hit university and started to expose his inner bully and his impetuous tantrumic child that seem to have never left him... Then as the years went by, he became nostalgic about his first memories: 1959. First impressions would have deeply marked his psyche. The empire, the lords, the royalty — despite one of his uncles or whomever it was who was a "communist" and a family that was more or less...

Bugger! Tony was born in Pommyland and he never saw 1959 in Australia!... I knew that... But what was Australia then, was strongly influenced by England which, despite a few blemishes in Africa, was still a strong empire (in 1959) with pomp and circumstances. The Queen had been crowned in 1952, driven in a golden pumpkin drawn by a few big WHITE (?) horses. Royalty was the tradition of tradition, though a few neighbouring countries had chopped royal heads' off....

Tony would have seen the pageantry continuum and also the right-wing superiority of Lordshippery that most of us see as divisive snooty decrepitude. Tony would have been impregnated with this fairytale dust added to the spirit of catholic pom who still deferred to the queen, rather than that of the Irish catholic revolutionaries who hated the woman.

No two ways about it, Tony would side with Santamaria if given the chance. The narrow minded views of BA Santamaria would have suited Tony to a Tee, except when sex became a bit of a handful.

As well, growing up, Tony would have witnessed the great religious war of the Tykes and the Wasps here in this country, as well as the battle within, between the traditional catholics and the progressives . Being educated in a Jesuit school and other religious institutions in Sydney, Australia, he would have preferred the traditional golden robes to the revolutionary which was on the road to egalitarian republicanism. Tony would have hated that.

Then, he went back to Britain to complement his education in artful political dodger-y :

Following his time in Britain, he returned to Australia via Africa and advised his family of an intention to join the priesthood. During his university days, Abbott gained media attention for his political stance opposing the then dominant left-wing student leadership. On one occasion he was even beaten up at a university conference.[20] A student newspaper editor with political views opposed to those of Abbott took him to court for indecent assault after he touched her during a student debate; these charges were dismissed by the court.[21] According to the Sun-Herald newspaper, it was "an ugly and often violent time", and Abbott's tactics in student politics were like "an aggressive terrier".[22] Abbott organised rallies in support of Governor-General John Kerr after he dismissed the Whitlam Government in November 1975, as well as a pro-Falklands War demonstration during his period at Oxford.[23]


So there, 1959 in Australia had no influence on the mad monk psyche, though 1959 England would have had and 1963 in Australia must have had... 1963 in Australia was the bastard child of 1959 since 1971 was like 1949... We'll will investigate 1963 a bit later on... I was in England in 1963. I know. 

going back to the future of racist budget past...

As a potential budget solution, the Invalid and Old Age Pension Act of 1908 is an absolute corker. Since we're heading towards greater inequality anyway, maybe the Government should bring that back, writes Ian Verrender.

Pining for the days when good old fair dinkum Aussies simply got on with it? A time when whingers and bludgers didn't get a look in and if you stepped out of line you got a clip across the ear, or kick up the rear, and no one batted an eye?

Back in those days we didn't worry about deficits and debt and we certainly didn't give a toss about this modern, bleeding heart obsession with providing a level playing field for all. Back then, we were bigots and proud of it.

The Abbott Government would do well to return us to that era, if perhaps it hasn't already embarked upon that course.

For if it adopted the same rules that applied to Australia's very first pension legislation, it could put the country on course for a surplus within a year or two and all our problems would be solved.

As a potential budget solution, the Invalid and Old Age Pension Act of 1908 is an absolute corker.

Although income and assets tested, on paper at least, every Australian man and woman over 65 was entitled to a pension about one quarter of the minimum wage.

But there were a few exceptions to this universal safety net. Aliens, Asiatics (sic), and Aboriginal natives of Australia, Africa, the Pacific Islands and New Zealand were banned - although Asiatics who could prove they were born here were in the running.

Oh, and white women married to any of the above also need not apply.

In addition to colour, character also was paramount. That ruled out anyone who had deserted their spouse, hadn't supported their children for 12 months in the previous five years or anyone who hadn't lived continuously in Australia for the previous 25 years.

Making a false claim could be a hazardous endeavour. Five years in the slammer. And you really needed to be sure you had all the documentation in order because a registrar would conduct an investigation into your affairs before making a recommendation to a magistrate.

Even then, there were pitfalls. According to Section 31(2): "If it appears to the Magistrate that the claimant, although otherwise qualified for, is unfit to be intrusted (sic) with, a pension, he may recommend that the claimant, instead of being granted a pension, be sent to a benevolent asylum or charitable institution."

So, if the magistrate was suffering a force nine hangover or took a disliking, it could well be no pension and off to the loony bin for you.

We haven't quite regressed to that point yet. But we appear to be heading in the general direction. In many ways, it is worse.

While accessing the pension certainly was more difficult back in the early days, at least the authorities had the good sense to ensure the wealthy were excluded.

Some economists have claimed Treasurer Joe Hockey's first budget was not tough at all. One this week scribbled that it wasn't tough enough. But it depends on your vantage point.

For lower and middle income earners, it is harsh. They bear the brunt of permanent spending cuts. At the other end of the spectrum, the wealthy are subjected to a temporary lift in income tax.

But that new impost pales into insignificance when compared to the generous tax concessions that apply to the wealthy, particularly regarding property and share market investments and superannuation.