Australian elections results: Ex-banker will form new government
The Australian elections had no surprises in the return of one or other of the Establishment globalist parties, Liberal and Labor, to Government. What is encouraging however, and a transformative shift that might bode well for the future, is the number of “conservative” parties that recognise the menace of international finance, and the need for new banking and trade systems. These conservatives have taken measures to distance themselves from “neocon” Whig-Liberalism that is too often in the Anglophone world misnamed “right-wing.”
The Australian electorate is very closely split in its voting choices between the two primary political parties: Liberal and Labor. Despite the Liberal Party supposedly being Australia’s “conservative” party, it is no more “conservative” than Labor is “socialist.” As in most nations the Left/Right dichotomy means very little, and there has been a steady convergence that allows only the most minimal distinction between “social democrats” and “conservatives”. That is why big money has no problem funding either side or both.
Turnbull’s background is in finance. He was with Goldman Sachs. He imbibed the financial culture and has applied it to politics, as has his New Zealand counterpart, John Key. In this age of Money Power, that is regarded as the best of backgrounds, because money controls politics over much of the world. Liberal-democracy is a façade for plutocracy. The primacy of money-thinking over politics was recently remarked on by an Australian newspaper:
“Since Malcolm Turnbull toppled Tony Abbott in the Liberal Party spill, former executives from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank hold the top three political leadership posts in Australia and New Zealand. Turnbull, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and New South Wales premier Mike Baird together oversee $1.8 trillion of output-- with the latter two demonstrating a knack of persuading the public to accept their economic programs. It's the sort of day-to-day sales pitch any Wall Street dealmaker or investment banker around the world needs to master to get anywhere. ‘In banking, you're saying to clients: here's this transformative transaction and here's what it can do for you,’ said Alastair Walton, who ran Goldman Sachs' investment banking business in Australia after Turnbull left the firm in 2001. Bankers know ‘how to sell change.’” (Angus Whitley, “Want to be Prime Minister? Go join Goldies, Merrill, Deutsche Bank”, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/want-to-be-prime-minister-go-join-goldies-merrill-deutsche-bank-20150917-gjopry.html).
Turnbull aims to emulate New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, who had been an investment banker with Merrill Lynch, and had also been with the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Turnbull admires Key’s ability to explain economic issues and sell them to the public. What Key does is nothing more than smirk and fob off media questions with platitudes. Politics in a liberal-democracy is reduced to PR spin.
Where a few decades ago one heard in the globalist agenda the names of Rockefeller and Rothschild, today one hears more often Goldman Sachs. As the Australian columnist Angus Whitely, in the above quoted article, also commented, Goldman Sachs is filling political positions in the USA and elsewhere. Craig Isherwood of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia, when commenting on Turnbull becoming Prime Minister in October 2015, stated that his background with Goldman Sachs is a “black mark”, the bank having a record of causing “misery and economic destruction throughout the world”. The Greek debt crisis is cited as an example. (“Is Malcolm Turnbull another Goldman Sachs hit man?”, http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2015_10_07_Turnbull_Goldman_Sachs.html).
Goldman Sachs does not hide its role as a factor in politics. Goldman Sachs Australia and New Zealand states that its “corporate advisory team” advises corporations and governments. Goldman Sachs in what is called among plutocrats “good corporate citizenship” is proactive in engineering social change.
In the world of corporate globalism “social change” is inherently whatever destroys the traditional foundations of a society, with the aim of creating a world without boundaries, where people, resources and capital can be moved internationally without hindrance. Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, is particularly noted for his homosexual advocacy. In 2012 he joined the Human Right Campaign to support same-sex marriage. Jason Farago, writing for The Guardian was scathing of Blankfein’s pro-gay activism, questioning its sincerely, and regarding it as a PR stunt:
“As Karl Rove taught us in 2004, same-sex marriage is an uncommonly useful tool to distract citizens from questions of economic justice or political responsibility. Eight years later, the public view of equal rights for gays and lesbians has shifted. But the use value of same-sex marriage in the political sphere remains: it shifts the focus of political discourse away from tougher, more fundamental questions of economics and power. And in this moment of anti-elitist consolidation, that is just as the lords of finance would like”. (Jason Farago, “Goldman Sachs’s CEO shows gay marriage is a no-risk trade”, The Guardian, 7 February 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/07/lloyd-blankfein-gay-marriage-spokesman)
Malcolm Turnbull, like New Zealand’s John Key, imbibed the liberal moral relativism that is an essential part of corporate culture which the plutocrats avidly promote across the world. As Blankfein stated when endorsing same-sex marriage, “equality is just good for business”. Turnbull has a specific focus in promoting same sex marriage. (See: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/survey-results/same-sex-marriage). Turnbull has long been an outspoken supporter of abortion liberalisation, while touting his Catholic background. (“Turnbull defends abortion”, 8 November 2008, http://www.smh.com.au/national/turnbull-defends-abortion-20081108-5ki8.html).
Turnbull is also an avid Republican, having served as Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement. Such traditions as monarchy are seen an anachronistic in the “progressive” world of globalisation, where trading blocs are to take the place of blocs based on shared culture and ethnic kinship.
The conservative parties having parliamentary representation are Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Bob Katter’s Australian Party. Katter has no enthusiasm for the Liberal Government, although stating he will vote for confidence and supply to enable Turnbull to form a Government. Such is the distance between these two parties and the Liberal Government, that whatever concessions they can be wrung out of the Liberals are going to be minor. Although One Nation campaigned largely around Islam in Australia, both One Nation, and the Australian Party (https://www.ausparty.org.au/page/attachment/45/protecting-australian-jobs-and-australian-business) include policies that are contrary to free-trade and both advocate restrictions on the banking sector. In particular, the Hanson party, which has predictably received much ridicule from the press and political establishment, and too readily becomes side-tracked on issues such as Muslim migrants, has a banking policy that makes it one of the more relevant and truly conservative forces in Australia:
“We will bring back a people’s bank that was run transparently for Australia’s early prosperity and that will build infrastructure for future benefit to all households. Why is currency now issued mostly by borrowing and creating a debt payable by taxpayers instead of issuing money as a credit and funding infrastructure as we did in our early decades when Australia grew without federal income tax and levied only low state taxes? As well as being proven in our country it has been proven overseas”. (One Nation, “Economics and Tax Policy”, http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/economics/economics-5)
Whatever concessions Hanson might squeeze from the Liberal Government, it will certainly not relate to the party’s financial and economic policies.
Yet another conservative party with a sound financial policy is the Rise Up Australia Party, which did not gain any representation, but has a professional profile. Rise Up Australia is opposed to free trade that undermines Australia’s national economy. The Party advocates state regulation of the banking system, a debit tax in place of other taxes, and particularly of note, a state bank:
“Rise Up Australia Party favours A GOVERNMENT-OWNED NATIONAL BANK; however we would put it to the people to vote by means of a plebiscite/public feedback/survey, what banking system they would prefer. One Nationalised bank could secure government money to invest into infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and science. It could also assist in vital services to the community such as a mandatory pension to the aged regardless of financial position, but with consideration of course to low and no incomes earners.” (Rise Up Australia Party, “Economic policy”, http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RUAP-Economic-Policy.pdf)
On the manner by which nations are controlled by international finance, Ruse Up stated of its policy:
“Rise Up Australia believes it is not enough to have a AAA credit rating if we are still bound to foreign entities in debt. Without vital reforms, our nation faces a six-fold increase in government deficits over the next 25 years. We are committed to paying off 100% of our foreign debt, recognizing that borrowing from any external source makes our nation vulnerable to influences by those who ‘hold the purse strings’. Our nation’s dependency on foreign debt also puts our financial status at risk if international lending markets dry up or the banking sector’s costs increase sharply—factors at the mercy of global economic pressures that are out of Australia’s control. We believe that it is prudent to ‘live within our means’ and encourage our citizens to do likewise because as the Bible warns, ‘the borrower is slave to the lender’”. (“Foreign ownership policy”, http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/our-policies/foreign-ownership-policy/).
By contrast, the Australian Labor Party’s financial policies are of the same type as those of other Social Democratic parties throughout the world, who have historically been easily co-opted by plutocracy:
“Accessing capital at vital growth points is cited as a concern by many within the early stage innovation space. Despite a rising inflow of US capital, this lack of funding for innovative enterprises currently hurts our growth and performance. A key challenge for the nation is to unlock greater funding opportunities from angel and venture capital investors given that there are a high number of high net worth individuals in Australia. More needs to be done to build stronger links between venture capital and one of the largest savings pools on the planet - Australia’s superannuation funds. Labor will work with the financial services industry to develop options that create this nexus and allow for the flow of capital into the startup ecosystem”. (Labour Party, “Getting Australia Started”, http://www.alp.org.au/startupyear).
It might seem ironic, but it is historically consistent, that the truly “conservative” parties are offering the most radical opposition to free trade liberalism and plutocracy, while the Labor Party plays the lackey to international finance. Taking a look at a supposedly radical party, the Green Party, one could be struck by the inanity of their policies on finance and banking. The by-line of their policies is “standing up to greed and power,” but the question is: how? Their answer is some tax tinkering and a royal commission. The Greens have come into the mainstream of electoral politics with representation in the Senate and the House, and this mainstreaming shows in their uninspired policies. Homosexual issues are of more concern than the banking system. The Greens say that “a vertically integrated business model” in insurance and investment is “at the heart of the modern banking system.” Nowhere in the policy is usury mentioned. Instead they talk about economic advancement by encouraging the videogames industry. (Green Party, http://greens.org.au/banking)
The only national-revolutionary party is Australia First, which contested the elections. AF is a grass-roots movement, not an electoral party; hence the party’s standing in local and national elections is part of a larger strategy than trying to enter Parliament. AF is solidly based on the Australian heritage, its principal inspiration being the early Labor movement, which was both a social and a national movement, that was focused around bank nationalisation, and a “White Australia” immigration policy, as the primary means for securing Australian independence and identity from international capitalism. (Australia First Party, http://australiafirstparty.net/). The AFP was formed in 1996 by Graeme Campbell, a Labor Member of Parliament, who was expelled from the party for his criticism of multiculturalism and economic deregulation. AFP also advocates the return of a public banking system:
“6. The Australian People demand the formation of an Australian People’s Bank, based upon the original charter of the Commonwealth Bank of 1912, so the national government can issue low cost credit for commerce and housing and debt free credit for public works, to limit interest rates and to eliminate the private control of the Nation’s credit. The functions of an Australian People’s Bank should be extended to provide service for the projects of State governments”. (AFP “Election Programme”, http://australiafirstparty.net/our-policies/election-programme/).
Australia had the option of four parties that include at least some significant elements for national renewal and against the money power. Two of those parties, One Nation and the Australian Party achieved electoral representation. The present election and small victories can serve as a prelude for hopefully greater efforts. What is particularly encouraging is that the genuinely “conservative” parties all include major policies on economics and finance that addresses the issues of free trade and international finance. It is a lesson that could be taught to many “right-wing” and “conservative” parties around the world that think “conservatism ” is somehow synonymous with free trade liberalism.