The ‘secret lore’ of ancient times

In the context of continuous creation of matter in the Cosmos, La Violette, mythologist and modern scientist, goes on to say as follows:

“It is impressive that creation myths and secret lore of ancient times describe a cosmogony that finds validation in sophisticated astronomical observations secured only in the past few decades. Armed with a vast array of modern technology, ranging from space-borne gamma-ray telescopes to supercomputers and laser interferometers, our civilisation is just now arriving at a level of understanding about the physical world comparable to that of these early mythmakers.

As we review the concepts presented in these ancient metaphorical ‘texts,’ we are confronted with advanced ideas at every step, indicating that the originators of these works had an intimate understanding of how open reaction systems are able to produce ordered patterns. The ancient science portrays modern scientific concepts such as entropy, order through fluctuation, circular causality, positive feedback, critical mass, spontaneous symmetry breaking, bifurcation, matter/antimatter creation asymmetry, wave pattern self-stabilisation, stable periodic states, and sequential quantum jumps to successive steady states.

In the creation myth of Atlantis, these ancient theoreticians even present a two-dimensional diagram of a wavelike dissipative structure, something that modern scientists have discovered only with the help of sophisticated computers.”

Comment: While those of comparable erudition can cope with La Violette’s scientific claims, can there not be history encoded in myths by apparently clever people who lived long ago, and who have since disappeared? In any event, we ourselves do not seem to know very much about the universe we occupy.

If the stakeholders in the current prevailing paradigms in the relevant scientific disciplines are reluctant to consider those of La Violette’s propositions which challenge these paradigms, why expect them to accept that, not only were there advanced civilisations on Earth in earlier times, but their knowledge may have been codified in ‘myth’ when a major cosmic catastrophe threatened?

However, should there be any fences placed around any learning?

An elusive and imagined enemy

As I was making my coffee, while waiting for my toaster to deliver my breakfast, I heard a little tap, tap … tap, tap … on the kitchen window. I looked and was surprised to find a tiny bird (finch?) fluttering against the window, while tapping on it. It took me a while (as an ‘owl’ I am not very bright first thing in the morning) to realise that the tapping was not a message for me in Morse (I would not have understood that anyway). This tiny bird was attacking an intruder in its territory (but which was hiding behind a pane of glass).

Feeling sorry for the little fellow, I placed my palm against the glass. Denied sight of its adversary, it flew back to the shrubbery, which normally could harbour a small variety of little birds.

To my surprise, while reading the newspaper and crunching on the toast, the little fellow came back. I wondered: it either has a good memory, or it is being driven by a high level of testosterone (as most active male persons are – including the great hunters of Narooma, the fishermen). I also understood the little bird’s frustration. The interloper was most persistent in its challenge; every change in direction was followed most accurately. Every attack was reciprocated.

To relieve my new friend of its anxiety or anger, I waved the newspaper at the window to deny it the image it was attacking. That worked. It went back to the shrubbery.

To my great surprise, it came back a little later. Had it been sitting in the shrubbery thinking ‘I’ll get that bum yet?’ These little fellows do not obviously tolerate interlopers; and they do not forgive. It was only the appearance of what must have seemed a threatening huge object – in the form of my open newspaper – which discouraged it at last!

For some obscure reason, the episode reminded me of NATO and the Taliban (sort of).

Needing a higher image of the human being

Schopenhauer, the great 19th century philosopher, has been described as ‘the first Western philosopher to stumble on’ the Upanishads. In his Afterward to Easwaran’s ‘The Upanishads,’ Michael Nagler says that Schopenhauer, thence, ‘was trying to draw our attention … to a habit of looking beneath the surface of life to its underlying causes … and … to the courage to discover in ourselves a higher image of the human being.’ Nagler also quotes Gandhi thus: ‘there must be “heart unity” among all, meaning spontaneous concern for the welfare of others … ‘

Against that, we have Firestone, et al claiming that mankind is now in the Sixth Extinction on Earth, referring in part to over-population and damage to our environment. Greed – both corporate and governmental – rules. Covert hegemonic wars by nations, overt religious wars, migratory invasions by Middle Easterners of Europe and other nations of the West, and crass greed by armed political factions in many places, all suggest that mankind needs another century or two (or three) before mutual destruction can give way to mutual support globally. Well, one can only hope, and pray!

Yet, from my own experience in Australia, there are so many of us contributing to civil society – both in Australia and overseas. But, there are not just enough of us. Against that, a rampaging age of expectation – claiming more and more of other people’s hard-earned money (euphemistically described as government money) – is devaluing moral standards overall.

I therefore fear that Fukuyama’s ‘The Great Deterioration,’ referring to the de-moralisation of advanced Western societies, will continue to have relevance. As well, Huntington’s clash of civilisations may have already begun. Perhaps only a tri-polar global governance (by 3 powers representing divergent cultures) can bring political stability and relative security.

Empires, hegemonic or not, just do not last! Ask Ashoka, Rome, Genghis Khan, Britain.

Immigrants and citizenship – for whose benefit?

Once upon a time – and this is not a fairy tale – Australian immigration officials based overseas assessed applicants for immigration as to whether they could settle in their new home successfully. Immigrants were to benefit the nation. Why else take them? Alternatively, the vast intake necessitated by needed development would, if not selected carefully, de-stabilise the host nation; and the government was not looking for cheap labour.

Selected immigrants sought to better themselves, and settled in successfully – with initial support from Good Neighbour Councils of Anglo-Australians. Very expensive settlement services were then provided by the government. I was responsible for their implementation, sequentially over the years, of all of them (bar the English language program). That is how I was able to write ‘Destiny Will Out,’ which demonstrated how well our migrants were looked after.

These settlers accepted Australia’s institutional framework, and adapted themselves to the prevailing (and evolving) social mores. No ‘ghettos’ were formed. Imported tribal tensions and sectarian prejudices were quietly nipped in the bud.

Now we have immigrants who want the host nation to amend its laws to suit their religio-cultural preferences. As well, whether they arrive by boat without entry visas or by air with visas, many demand a right to stay, to move freely, and to be supported by taxpaying Australia. Quaintly, some ‘single-issue’ politicians, and ‘legal eagles’ seeking to open up the entry door, supported by caring (but financially irresponsible) people, support free entry!

Thus, secure national borders and the financial self-sufficiency of immigrants – the requirements of honest, tax-paying residents – move backstage against the ethos of entitlement to other people’s money, and the demands of the welfare industry. An indication of undesirable outcomes: a ‘snakehead’ (people smuggler), granted asylum as a refugee, reportedly went back to Asia to continue his business, while his wife was given public housing ahead of a long waiting list of residents.

A critical observer might look askance at the laborious process of assessing asylum claims, and the unemployment record of accepted ‘refugees.’ For example, a well-respected reporter wrote that, 5 years after acceptance, only 9% of Afghans were employed. But then, our asylum seekers may be traders, ‘middlemen,’ and suchlike, rather than factory or rural workers.

What is the benefit to the nation of those who will seek and live on welfare (an attraction in Europe as well) for years? Some of the jihadists now overseas were reportedly on Australian welfare. Ask those whose taxes are being handed out so freely, not UN officials, spokesmen for NGOs spruiking ‘human rights,’ or those local politicians who participate in ‘pork-barrelling.’

Dishonesty backed by irresponsibility

Opportunists seeking back door entry (I am here; you will keep me) are surprisingly supported by some locals, unrelated by tribe or genes. They are so caring that they expect other people’s hard-earned money to provide whatever the asylum seeker wants. Recently, one of the latter specified the ‘boob’ enhancement she sought. Do these local supporters see these arrivals as becoming economically viable within a reasonable period, without being a long-term financial burden on the nation?

Perhaps, all accepted asylum seekers might be treated as are entrants from New Zealand – no welfare support. That is, look after yourself during a 3-year temporary-visa period. Against that, recently an employed Asian reportedly lost his job in Australia. He must have been on a temporary employment visa, because he promptly sought asylum. He received cash from the official welfare service, supplemented by support from a community welfare agency, and the communities from 2 different churches! He continued to complain about his inadequate funds.

This is reportedly the most expensive country in the world. It is, I believe, the most generous country in the world. For how long will we sheep accept being as shorn we are for this generosity? As well, the processing of asylum seekers remaining in Australia can give cause for concern from the viewpoint of national responsibility. I am not aware that the official agencies look into the national interest when assessing unidentifiable applicants for asylum, or when reviewing the decision making in cases of rejection.

Indeed, I do wonder whether the High Court (the highest court in Australia), as well as the lower courts involved in hearing apparently unending appeals (seemingly comparable to Indonesia) go beyond the wording of the law (but not necessarily its intent) to look at the national interest (that should not be too difficult to define).

The following extracts are from my book ‘Musings at Death’s Door.’ (ebook from Amazon Kindle @$US 2.99).

“Asylum seekers should also not be kept in detention where they are provided with full board, education, health and welfare services, we are told. But we are not told who will house, feed, and medicate them were they to be free to roam all over the country while they await a decision … … “

“The Anglo-Australian supporters of the boat arrivals claim that all asylum seekers are genuine refugees (how would they know that?) and that they have all suffered trauma and torture (anyone with any evidence?). They seek speedy decisions in spite of the reality that almost all arrivals have torn up their identity papers and other documentation which got them to Indonesia. What does that behaviour suggest? That there is an intent not to be honest? … … “

“There is another moral problem. How could anyone risk the life of a child or one’s womenfolk on one of the asylum seeker boats? Is it then the case that the journey is not as dangerous as it is said to be? … … “

“Who are these modern boat arrivals? Those who hold valid passports issued by their country of nationality, who can afford the airfare to Indonesia, who pay a ‘snake-head’ (people smuggler) a large sum of money (according to the media about US$10,000 per head) for a place on a fishing boat, who hand over their mobile phones to the snake-head, who tear up their identification papers, and who seek to be intercepted by Australia’s border patrols as soon as possible. … … “

“Could those travellers who destroy their identification and travel papers and seek acceptance as refugees when intercepted by border control be asked what it is they are hiding? This is an issue of morality. … … “

“Some of the supporters have since argued that anyone who wants a better life and gets here one way or the other should be allowed to stay. Since the bulk of mankind would seek to be refugees from the hardships of life, are these sup¬porters saying that if you have the money, you can enter Australia freely by the back door? … … “

“Does not the irrational behaviour of many asylum seekers while well fed, comfortably housed, and medicated as needed in detention, suggest that they may have arrived with mental health problems? … … “

“It is too facile to blame detention or its duration, when it is the asylum seekers with no documentation who are responsible for the delay. Could not a little over-acting also be beneficial? Is it not known worldwide that lengthy detention, probably offshore, is part of the process? … … “

“One can only ask to be considered for refugee status, were one to provide necessary evidence. Currently, it is Australia which has to prove that the claimant is not a refugee as defined by the UN Convention … … “

Quaint aspects of humanitarian entry

“Soon, as I was told, the Liberal Party wanted white right-wing HEs, just for a change. These came from Eastern Europe (except Yugoslavia). Anyone claiming to be a refugee seemed to be accepted. In one recorded instance, a man claiming to be a refugee went back home to collect his wife, as advised by an Immigration officer! As with the Indo-Chinese, Australia provided their airfares, housed and fed them in a migrant hostel for 6 months. They received a regular welfare payment, which enabled them to pay for their board and other expenses. They were then allocated a flat for 3 months, to ease their entry into private accommodation.

Many of the Indo-Chinese moving into their own homes were assisted by small loans to buy furniture, much of it not repaid. As a couple of Indo-Chinese girls said to an Immigration officer, ‘You Aussies f…ing stupid. You give money for nothing.’ Little wonder that there was, and still is, such a rush of claims for asylum entry. Acceptance as a refugee permits a lifetime access to the public teat.

Later, the Labor Party sought white left-wing HEs. So I was informed. We found them in post-Allende Chile. However, there soon developed a flood of applicants from all of Central and South America. Then the Vaticanites enabled East Timorese to receive HE admission, even when they were living in Portugal, their country of nationality! Our senior bureaucrats and Ministers can indeed be very flexible in their decision making.

All of a sudden, Poles living within Poland could qualify as HEs! How influential was the Polish Pope? Then, for a while, ‘White Russians’ came from China as HEs. These had fled the arrival of communism in Russia 60 years before. An all-white colleague of mine used to claim proudly that he was Chinese; he was born in China of White Russian parents.

There were also Jewish Russians who had been permitted by the Soviet Government to join close family in Israel but who, on arrival in Vienna, sought El Dorado in Western nations. The Prime Minister of Israel in the 1980s was not happy at having up to 85% of potential citizens deflected elsewhere, mainly by professional recruiters from the USA.

Then, contrary to policy, presumably through Ministerial discretion, a number of Jewish Russian women married to non-Jewish men were permitted entry to Australia. They had left Israel because they did not like their experiences as second-class citizens of Israel. There are two other classes below them, as confirmed to me by my good Jewish Australian friend who had spent some time in Israel. (My friend is not ‘self-hating,’ is knowledgeable, and observes the Jewish traditions). One of these Jewish Russian women subsequently worked for me in the Department of Immigration; she was a worthy immigrant, who also told me a great deal about Israel.”

(No matter how they were enabled to enter Australia, one might expect that most entrants would want to find work or establish a business, in order to make a success of their new lives. That did happen. The exceptions may be, according to our media, many of the recent boat-arriving asylum seekers; their unemployment rate is reportedly high, and for long periods.

The above paragraphs are extracts from ‘Musings at Death’s Door.’)

The abuse of humanitarian entry

When the taxpaying community becomes tired of subsidising some of the rorts of humanitarian entry, the true spirit of adventure and self-reliance that were the hallmarks of migration will return. So say most of the old migrants and the old Aussie, but not the professional ethnic or his welfare cohorts. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime (or two) should be the basis of policy, instead of encouraging him to sit around waiting for a handout of a sardine pickle.

… … Humanitarian policy is often misrepresented. My first experience of such misrepresentation was when the then Minister announced a one-off amnesty for people illegally in Australia. After a very clear exposition by the Minister, at which I was present, one of the ethnic representatives, who spoke excellent English, went back and wrote a biased and error-filled report in his ethnic language newspaper. An unexpected and genuine gesture was misrepresented.

“They gave the naked man a shirt and he said it was too thick,” as the Russians say. What did the newsman gain from such a misrepresentation? Did he see his role as attacking the government at every opportunity (while seeking privileges)? Attack, whinge, attack – is the tactical ploy of some professional ethnics.

When I was transferred to the position of head of the humanitarian entry policy of Immigration, I found that a new policy had just been approved but not implemented. In addition to refugee entry based on the formal definition relating to a well-founded fear of persecution, there would be humanitarian entry based on a well-founded fear of discrimination. The policy as drafted seemed to be an impossible one to administer. …

… … I rewrote the policy, the Minister approved it, and it was implemented. A survey of the programme after six months showed not one Baha’i, the only people who, according to Amnesty International and other reports, were clearly in need of succour through that policy. … … I finalised the support mechanisms with the leaders of the Baha’i faith to provide settlement assistance to those approved for humanitarian entry into Australia.

… … With time, more and more people were approved under the humanitarian policy, always on a case-by-case basis. There had to be an apparent prima facie basis for acceptance. And all manner of people from a range of countries were coming in. To my knowledge, that programme was successful, although there were many instances of abuse. Those who knew how to squawk the loudest were the most successful of the dubious cases. Some of the sponsors were not averse to personally abusing officials – I can vouch for that.

… … When the refugee programme (which had resulted in a huge intake of Vietnamese, mainly of ethnic-Chinese ancestry, and with a substantial proportion of Catholics) was expanded to cover East Europeans, I understood from my political contacts that their party wanted some white refugees for a change. When the programme was subsequently expanded to cover Latin Americans, it was rumoured that the then Minister wanted some left-wing refugees, also for a change. Was it significant that the people in the geographical areas covered were predominantly of the same Church?

The bureaucrats too made their contribution to changes of policy. Their motives were mixed – to grease the squeaky wheel (for genuine humanitarian concerns or to ease the pressure on the Minister); to big-note themselves (with an eye to promotion into the international agencies); or to do favours (with a possible career upgrade if politicians so decided). I do not believe that cost to the taxpayer, coherence in policy, or the consequential shifts in ethnic community balance or relations or tensions, were given adequate consideration. That would also require a certain intellectual competence and I saw little evidence of that in my day.

(The above extracts from my book ‘Destiny Will Out’ should indicate that humanitarian entry policy was essentially a political ploy. Flexibility, not corruption or lax administration, was the name of the game, although a few inexperienced senior bureaucrats were then unavoidable.

Today, asylum-seeking economic immigrants arriving by boat (without documentation) or by air (with entry visas) have thrown politicians into confusion. Approvals of boat people reportedly exceed 90 %. How could that be?

Their supporters are either irresponsible in terms of the cost to honest taxpayers, or to the inherent policy issues. These include inter-community cohesion in Australia, and the family responsibilities of the men who place their women and children on unsafe boats, surely knowing that processing of their claims will take place overseas. Whinge, attack, whinge remains the weapon of choice of asylum-seeker glee-clubs.)

The other side of Vietnamese refugees

After that near incident in the streets there was no more trouble. The community’s leaders obviously asserted control and used the clear pathways available for seeking their objectives.

Soon after, the apparently unstructured community in Melbourne impressed me with the quality and efficiency of their organisation and social cohesion when they held a weekend celebration of the Moon Festival. It was a very successful cultural event, and it was obvious that everyone attending had a great time. It was estimated that about 3,500 Vietnamese had attended the festival. I reported that it was a fantastic achievement. And they took in their stride the coloured representative of the white Australian government.

However, the community’s main objective was migration. The day after his arrival in a migrant hostel, a refugee sponsored relatives and friends from refugee camps in South-East Asia. Selection from these refugee camps seemed to be very liberal, driven by ‘international obligations’. This was a euphemism used by the bureaucracy to silence objectors, and it was based purely on Australia’s voluntary offer regarding the size of its refugee intake. This offer would obviously have had regard to our promises to the first asylum countries that we would take as many as possible.

On a per capita of population basis, we took more than France, which caused the problem in the first place. And the US, which lost the war against all reasonable expectations, and which was the secondary cause of the exodus, would have been ever so grateful to Australia, for forever standing behind US foreign policy. (We do that in the hope that US citizens would be willing to die for Australia.) Once an annual target for refugee intake was set, bureaucratic practice took over: the budget had to be spent, if need be, by increasing ‘productivity’ in the processing in refugee camps. Selection must therefore have been quite generous.

When Australia was permitted to open an embassy in communist Vietnam, and Australian Immigration officials interviewed applicants under family reunion immigration policy, a female applicant was apparently told by the interviewing officer that it would take three years for her to get to Australia through the process. Allegedly the response was: “Too long. I’ll take a boat.” Well! Such boat departures were still illegal.

And what happened, I wondered, to all those fears about piracy, pillage and rape? There is little doubt that these horrifying events did occur, but were they exaggerated? Were the almost weekly articles published somewhere in Australia at that time about the terrible experiences of refugees at sea intended to keep softening the Australian taxpayer years after the end of that war? And the lady did arrive by boat in a country of first asylum (so I was told); and we paid for her air fare from there to Australia.

The very powerful ethnic welfare, refugee support, and immigration advisory industries would “chuck a fit” (a phrase popular with cynical high school kids) at such questioning. But then, many of these are very substantial beneficiaries of an uncritical “let’s do good” approach, especially if someone else was paying for it. “Gifts make beggars bold,” according to the ancient Persians. … …

So who is paying? First, the taxpayer; the total package for refugee entry and support and the consequential immigration entry and support runs into hundreds of millions of scarce taxpayers dollars. Second, the bias in favour of Vietnamese in refugee intake, has flowed through into weighting family reunion immigration entry. Unintended bias, perhaps? Or is there a bias in entry policy in favour of the lighter-coloured East Asians?

The consequence is that, given an upper limit to the annual immigration intake, such bias keeps out or delays the entry of people from other source countries, even through family reunion (it is a matter of logistics). Third, the ethnic community balance is altered. That has serious implications.

As the largest of these communities wield political power, community grants and jobs in the ethnic and multicultural industries (including ethnic TV and radio and parts of the public service) may possibly be skewed in their favour. Fourth, the old Aussie, as well as the new Aussie, becomes disenchanted (at minimum) when the unemployment and welfare figures are weighted so heavily by a few ethnic communities. The Aborigines are a sufficient economic underclass, without adding to the list because of vote enhancing or soul hunting.

(These extracts from ‘Destiny Will Out’ indicate clearly that the settlement support provided to ‘East Asian’ refugees by kind Anglo-Australians effectively belled the end of ‘White Australia’ attitudes for many, and the associated ‘fear’ of the ‘yellow hordes from the north.’

Census data at the beginning of the current millennium do show that the majority of Asians allowed entry to Australia after the immigration door was officially opened in the 1970s were indeed the lighter-coloured ones. Relative staffing levels of Australian immigration officials at each of the main posts in Asia ensured this outcome.

The record does show that the Vietnamese and other East Asian intake have integrated successfully into Australia, if one were to ignore the young people involved in the drug trade some years ago.

However, irresponsible politicians, some genuinely caring people, and the ‘rent-a-crowd’ lot do not seem to have learned from our earlier experience of ‘refugee’ claims. Today, it is the turn of the asylum seekers who arrive by boat, even without any identity documents, to become the dependants of honest taxpayers, for years. So, how does the nation benefit?)

Challenging deconstruction – Part 2

The rest of my writing is covered here.

1) The Dance of Destiny
Having been well-educated by British colonialism, buffeted (but not damaged) by ignorance in a relatively new nation set in coloured seas and surrounded by foreign but ancient and durable cultures, risen to leadership positions in both civil society (through a highly interactive and contributory life) and in the federal public service, and sporadically falling into holes which were certainly not there, and also experiencing the wheels of my life-chances cart falling off for no discernible cause, I had to ask: ‘What determines human life on Earth?’

Trekking through the maya of history, geography, sociology, significant psychic experiences and personal relations of some import, I came to postulate how a personal destiny might evolve. I drew upon Hinduism, not on the New Age modifications. Increasingly, I speculate whether, like the nested fields of force in physics, there may be a nested network of human destinies, leading to one which encompasses the Cosmos as a whole. Thus, this book is much more than a memoir.

Necessarily and intuitively, I have woven through my narrative some Eastern (mainly Hindu) spirituality. Supportive endorsements again followed. The US Review of Books recommended the book, previously supported by Kirkus Discoveries and

2) Pithy perspectives: a smorgasbord of short, short stories
This book was written for fun. It was reviewed by the NSW State President of the Federation of Australian Writers. He describes the stories as “interesting,” “crazy, frightening, weird, some really lovely,” “a clever book.” The last story in the book (“quite intriguing,” “so different”) ends in a spiritual haze which envelops cats, mice, and a little girl who understands the language of animals.

The book was also favourably reviewed by the US Review of Books.

3) Musings at Death’s Door: an ancient, bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society
This is a hard-hitting, no-punches-pulled summary of my lived-through observations, gathered over more than 6 decades as an adult, culminating with a view on the place of religion in human lives, and the place of mankind in the Cosmos. Not unexpectedly, my perceptual stance is bicultural, since I was well soaked in Asia’s communitarian spirituality before I arrived in Australia, while becoming grounded firmly in the operational requirements of the Western world through more than 6 decades of a participatory life in a nation reflecting the primacy of individualism.

This book highlights what the Australian media has identified as the racket of asylum seeking (now re-affirmed by the current government), with little to no evidence that the vociferous supporters of an open door to all asylum seekers are adequately aware of the national interest. I argue for due process to enable those who have a genuine fear of persecution in their country of nationality to be granted necessary succour. The book is also critical of those who seek to retain their cultural separation even after the third generation has merged with the rest of the population; we are already an integrated multi-ethnic people. The book compares the subservience of Australia’s politicians kow-towing to powerful interests to the stand-tall stance of its workers (who could thereby be a beacon to our neighbours). I also examine empires gone and going, as well as the sham of Western democracy, and a number of other issues of societal relevance.

On the other hand, I do highlight the commendable aspects of my adopted nation, of which I am proud. We can be a beacon of tolerance and equal opportunity.

An endorsement by a professor of history and politics says “ … there is wisdom here … this book is rich, intelligent and provocative. A major contribution to Australian culture.” This book was also Recommended by the US Review of Books.

These books are available as ebooks for deconstruction or to be read for information and/or pleasure at Amazon Kindle Direct at $US 2.99 each.

Other writing
I have had a few articles relating to migrant settlement issues published in: ‘Asia Sentinel,’ ‘Malaysian Insider,’ ‘Webdiary,’ and the Multicultural Writers Association of Australia’s anthology “Culture is … “. The Eurobodalla Writers’ recent anthology “Where penguins fly” includes 3 pieces of fiction by me.

More recently, I have had 44 short articles published on on a wide range of issues, most open-ended, thereby inviting intelligent readers to reach their own conclusions.
For further background, refer and .

The uniquely generous nation

Anyone who would like to receive sustenance-enabling cash fortnightly from the government, and also be entitled to free medical, hospital, and other health services – for their whole life – should obtain residence in Australia – by hook or by crook! Asylum seekers today do just this. Australia’s generosity is displayed thus.

In necessary detention, because all identity papers may have been voluntarily destroyed, a mobile phone would apparently be provided. This enables the detainee to inform his relatives that they are being housed, well fed, and receive medical and other services as needed. I discovered that they can receive free legal services as well, which are available to legal residents only if they are indigent. They can apparently receive public housing once they are accepted as refugees, ahead of other residents already in a queue.

They do not have to prove that they have suffered trauma and torture (as their vociferous Aussie supporters have been claiming), whereas Aussie residents seeking welfare have to demonstrate financial need (as defined in Australian law) to obtain welfare. Asylum seekers reportedly do not have to prove their claims; quaintly, again reportedly, if officials assessing asylum claims cannot disprove a claim, then the applicant must be accepted as a refugee! What sort of assessment process is this? Then, once accepted as refugees, asylum seekers can threaten to sue the government for alleged deficiencies in care while in detention, and receive a bucket of money by treaty; so reported our media.

As 2 Vietnamese women said (in the 1970s) to Immigration officials, during the influx (by air) of large numbers of ‘boat arrivals’ selected from the ‘countries of first asylum’ as refugees,“You Aussies (expletive) stupid. You give money for nothing.” Did the car ‘rebirthing’ industry, the Cabramatta drug trade, the Cronulla riots and similar gang behaviour, reflect a somewhat carelessly-open door provided by certain politicians?

What I find fascinating in the pattern of rorts which are ignored by officialdom is the ease with which individuals can receive welfare benefits. I know a few on the Disability Pension who are not suffering any disability whatsoever. I have known young men who had chosen not to seek employment. I had met in Bali young Aussies who were on the dole at home. I know retirees living in very large, even expensively renovated, homes (which are not included in assessments of tax or welfare payments), who possess that most popular ‘pension card.’ Qualifying for even a dollar of the age pension is apparently enough to receive that card.

Would not a nation encouraging sloth or deception be targeted by cunning individuals? Instead of being known as the ‘lucky’ country, will we now become known as the ‘clever’ country?