Weblog of the Sydney Traditionalist Forum
Anarcho-tyrannny was a term coined by US paleoconservative journalist and social critic Sam Francis over a decade ago. It refers to the practice of governments cracking down on the law abiding citizenry with ever-intrusive laws and regulations while profound social degeneracy is ignored or even facilitated through progressive policy. As of today, it is a term that Australians should perhaps become increasingly familiar with. This is particularly the case in light of the nominally “conservative” Coalition government’s proposals to require “Australians” returning from overseas – from regions where terrorist activity has or is occurring – to prove that they have not taken part in such activities while there. In other words, the effective reversal of the onus of proof may not just require that an accused individual prove his innocence, but will now also require he prove a negative in doing so.
We have placed “Australians” above in inverted commas because, of course, these proposed legal amendments are unlikely to be a response to the action of people who have names like Peter, Paul or Christian. The proposed changes to reverse the onus of proof have been made in response to the numerous reports of “Australians” making their way to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside Islamist elements dedicated to the establishment of a Shariah state in the Levant. Who are these people, and how did they get here, and more importantly, when did they become “Australian”, and why? It is depressing that the media continues to use this descriptor for citizens of the Australian Commonwealth who travel overseas to participate in jihad. Given that there are people committed enough to go to the Middle East and risk their lives for Islamic religious warfare, it is not unreasonable to presume that other domestic activities are also occurring such as fundraising and local lobbying for these and related causes. This is something now that “Australians” are doing, apparently.
We have been critical of the so-called “conservative” governments of both Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott for their role in helping to foster a social and political environment where the absurdity of “Australian” jihadists is now a reality. The present government’s proposed reforms is just another example which vindicates our earlier objections to their globalist liberalism masquerading as allegedly patriotic, conservative politics. Our position is that an immigration policy that does not make qualitative distinctions between groups wishing to gain entry into this country will not lead to a multicultural utopia, but a society bulkanised and fractured along fault-lines which our political elite prefers to believe do not exist (or in the ‘wisdom’ of the left, are mere “social constructs”). The Australian reports that:
The government estimates about 60 Australians are fighting abroad, and several others have returned. Mr Pyne [Leader of the House of Representatives] said the return of “murderous terrorists” involved in the “atrocities of Syria and Iraq” were a serious threat to security. He said reversal of the onus of proof would likely come with a “risk” ranking system. Those who had been “hanging out in country Syria” for several months would need to properly explain themselves.
The “risk ranking system” is an embarrassing admission that a sane border and immigration policy reform cannot avoid an element of discrimination in its practical application. In that same article, Tony Abbott is also reported as saying that “[w]e do not want people who have been radicalised and militarised coming back to this country.” How very gratifying, Prime Minister. Now if only we could do something about people who have been radicalised and militarised coming into this country, or whose cultural practices and religious beliefs are a crucible for such radicalisation, then perhaps we might not need to worry about them coming back to this country after their holiday shenanigans in what they undoubtedly think of as back home.
Something we hope our leaders and lawmakers learn sooner rather than later, is that the whole world does not think like the dercinated hipster middle class from which our faux-conservative politicians hail; furthermore, those entering Australia are unlikely to be drugged on the suicidal pixie universalism of that class either. It should come as absolutely no surprise that these so-called “Australians” are now traveling to exotic places to do unsavoury things; and these things may indeed be done to us on the streets of our maajor capital cities if the causes motivating these “Australians” spill over from there to here. Events in Western Europe of the last decade prove that such fears are not entirely unfounded.
There are cultures that are simply not compatible, or openly hostile to, the archetype of Australian society. These cultures may harbour or contain the seeds of militant ideologies which are diametrically opposed to the values and interests of our country. It is not mean spirited or bigoted or otherwise ‘phobic’ to conclude that the risk of allowing such groups into our society in the first place (in numbers that allow them to create effective cultural enclaves isolated from the mainstream) is just too great for any sane people to tolerate. The wishful thinking of the oneworlder utopians presently in power has created the very problem they are now trying to deal with through draconian laws which further whittle away ancient common law liberties. Unfortunately, the chaos caused by these wishful-thinkers now calls for increased surveillance, policing and tougher criminal law provisions; this has become necessary and we can only hope that those authorities can do their jobs effectively, but it didn’t have to be this way.
The proposed laws are perhaps one of the most obvious and clear examples of anarcho-tyranny in our country to date. The anarchy is the nominal approach to citizenship through the universally accepted theory of ‘civic patriotism’. The tyranny are the laws that are drafted and enforced so that the pressure of this anarchy is kept at bay. Keeping it at bay, without addressing the root cause of the problem, however, is like maintaining the heat on a pressure cooker and clamping down on the lid. Eventually, something has to give, or it will all end in tears. Unfortunately, it looks like our politicians’ short term electoral interests continue to trump the long term interests of the nation – and this is a reason for concern for us all.
– SydneyTrads Editors