“If we don’t rebel, if we’re not physically in an active rebellion, then it’s spiritual death.” ― Chris Hedges
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Myth of Defending the Homeland
For Australians the legend of the ANZAC (Australian New Zealand Army Corps) is part of our social framework, a reference for all things akin to Australia’s self-image or the idealised “Ozzie” character, to wit; The model Ozzie is a strapping broad-shouldered, sun-tanned young man with a square chin and the bearing of a maturity beyond his years; none the less he is a jaunty lad with a glint in his eye which suggests a cheeky larrikin of good-humour and pleasant temperament. He loves his mum and respects his dad; he is a good brother and a staunch mate to his friends and a loyal boyfriend to his partner and if you can find a young Ozzie that fits this description, I’ll marry him!
The ludicrous caricature described above is for many Australians the idyllic Alpha male archetype, why? Since the First World War or what I refer to as The Great Slaughter of 1914 to 1919; the framework within which Australian journalists are programmed to operate has manifested a meme regarding our financial, and materiel support for the British and subsequent Amerikan Empires and their Military exploits over the years, that leave little or no room for objective analysis. Recently, or since 9/11 the framework for perpetuating the Anzac stereotype has become even more rigidly enforced as a dominant narrative. This is not to suggest that much of the pro-war reportage of Australians at war is not enthusiastically pursued by many of our so-called professional Journalists and Reporters. The fact is, without willing and eager participants to rally to the summons of the succeeding Governments of Australia and thereafter present positively spun and downright propagandistic turpitude – Australia would not have the flower of its youth fighting and dying in some corner of a foreign field, as I write.
The sad and very poignant fact is that the soldiers that the “Anzac Day” anniversary celebrations are intended to remember, were, upon returning and certainly as evidenced in their vetted letters home, for the most ‘anti-war’ and certainly not jingoistic patriots; many joined political parties and associated groups for social reform, unilateral and bilateral ceasefires and many demanded a total end to Australia’s involvement in the war. None of these sentiments or opinions was espoused by the media then or now, in exceptional cases, you will now find criticism of ‘the War’ from an Australian perspective, these will invariably be academic chat-fests broadcast on Government sponsored minority mediums, if they are broadcast at all, or in the alternative media on the internet.
This article is not posted to undermine or disrespect the lives lost and shattered by the wars Australia has been sucked into. Their lives were precious and deserve the utmost respectful remembrance: Lest we Forget and continue with this insane folly of running-dog to empires.
Regardless of the shallow sentimentality and glossy heartlessness employed, to perpetuate the stereo-type of Bronzed Ozzies fighting bravely for King and Country. The fact remains that the basis of all this jingoistic clap trap is the relentless suggestion that our young men and women are fighting to defend their homeland: Well, here’s the thing, and I think this will go some way to dousing the patriotic nonsense that fuel this sacrificial pyre of jingoism.
Australia is not their Homeland.
Yes, many were born on this land, however; Australia was and is the natural property of the native aboriginals that “discovered” and populated this continent 40,000 years ago. The land was stolen from them at gunpoint – under the Westminster System of Common Law (Criminal Law) this act is referred to as a “Robbery under Arms”. Since Lieutenant Cook commanded HMB ‘Endeavour’, which was a Barkentine, or 'Bark' not a Ship, and yep, Cook was a Lieutenant when in the role of “OC” or ‘Officer Commanding’ HMB Endeavour at the time he and his crew came upon and charted the coastline of what was to become Australia. The excuse that was given which made it ‘legally’ accepted for the British Navy to claim this ‘landfall’ for HM was the term “Terra Nullius” which suggested that “the land is empty”.
Similarly and for exactly the same reason the yiddish khazarian gangsters from eastern Europe used the term “A land with no people for a people with no land” when they entered illegally and took by “an act of Robbery Under Arms” the homeland of the Palestinians.
The same tactic was used against the native inhabitants of the land now referred to as North America. And so, soldiers of the U.S.A are equally deluded when they suggest that their military aggression against foreign foes is in Defence of their Homeland.
It’s not their Homeland; its stolen property, the title of ownership for which should be returned immediately to the rightful owners and recognised as such across the globe, or at the very least a situation should be created whereby a more equitable representation of the indigenous communities is established and the profits from all and any revenues accrued on, by or from that land should be distributed as equal shares to the respective aboriginal (generic native) communities.
The consistent theme here with these acts of “Robbery Under Arms” is that all these new “Nations” are by definition illegitimate and the positions they hold that they are defending themselves is null and void, due to the illegitimacy of their preposterous status as the legal owners of those stolen lands.
Each of these ‘Nations’ is currently involved in murderous and illegal conflicts throughout the world. I put it to the people of these ‘Nations’ that they call upon their respective Governments to recall their offensive forces and attend to the business of resolving the illegal and immoral conflicts of ownership that currently obtain with their self-proclaimed nationhood statuses.