Jim Molan has a very troubling op-ed in The Australian today:
Australians need to come to a consensus about the nation we want to be and how we will sustain that in the face of real threat. We should have done this years ago, and our government has done more than any other, but the past year creates an urgency that demands action this year.
Our first step must be to align the objectives of all of our governments and their agencies toward creating sovereign Australia. To achieve this we must be secure, prosperous and cohesive.
‘Sovereign Australia’? Sounds like code for autarky and stupid economic policies.
we must be secure, prosperous and cohesive.
I believe the expression is, ‘No shit, Sherlock’. The problem being that the Australian government is simply not serious about being secure, prosperous and cohesive. Just simply not serious. It could do plenty to create security and prosperity by cutting taxes, cutting red tape, cutting green tape, using the Commonwealth Grants Commission to drive economic reform in the States, and so on. This last week for example, the Victorian government has wanted to add a state constitutional ban on fracking. That should be penalised at the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As should every other state decision to sabotage economic prosperity.
Similarly, the federal government, not only tolerates, but finances the ABC – a media organisation that has chosen to undermine any ‘cohesiveness’ and ‘unity’ that Australians might have. Identity politics is a poison to liberal democracy – a system of government that builds on individuals being equal citizens of the state, not warring tribes and sub-groupings within the state.
Molan then makes a whole bunch of excuses and then gets to the very scary bit.
The challenge is magnified when we look at the differences in federal and state government priorities. … Also, state governments’ thinking about disaster response really ends at terrorism, major accidents and natural disasters. That only two jurisdictions — Tasmania and the ACT — consider civil defence against military attack as a core function of the emergency services testifies to this.
Civil defence against military invasion? The ACT do this? All those shiny-bum bureaucrats are going to defend against military invasion? Well, I suppose, they’ll be good for something, but I’m not filled with confidence. Can you imagine, it’ll be a sharpened pencil charge instead of bayonets.
But that simply raises all sorts of other issues around the ADF. When we have a government that is more concerned about the wokefication of the ADF than weapon systems and fighting soldiers, we shouldn’t be surprised that the government wants to prep us for invasion and civilians having to do the fighting.