Very dangerous trend

Two polls have shown the Labor government is in trouble, while Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s popularity is rising as fast as support for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is plummeting.

If it’s starting to finally dawn on you that Rudd is shallow then wait until you find out how Left Julia is. She has tagged Jim Cairns as one of her heroes.

You remember him? He was the communist who supported the Viet Cong and took up collections to better enable them to kill Diggers. He organized the Moratoriums and went to Moscow every year to better coordinate his attacks on our society.

Oh yes, he was also our Deputy PM under the other “Great” ALP luminary – Gough Whitlam.

The day Julia was selected as Deputy I found and linked to a speech she had delivered to a Girls High School in Melbourne advocating they take to the streets to force change just like Cairns had done. The link was taken down the very next day.

Still, I recall a year or two ago a young man commenting on Communism – “It’s just another political party like the ALP or the Libs, isn’t it? so what chance the young ones heed my cry in the wilderness.

None, but never mind, like a long and hard route march – one day it ends and one day the ALP will be back where they belong.

18 Responses to Very dangerous trend

  1. PeterW says:

    I remember commie Cairns turning up at Woodside around Kapyong Day one year and trying to hand the CO copies of a strange publication which claimed, through the use of amateurish illustrations, that the UN forces in Korea had used ‘biological’ weapons on the peace loving hordes from the north. The pamphlet included drawings of artillery projectiles allegedly landing on the northern bank of the Yalu River and then in a ‘Jules Vern’ like way the nose cones unscrewed and spiders infected with diseases various emerged to bite the valiant peoples’ defenders.

    He had the same sad pamphlets with him when I last saw him sitting on a blanket outside the entrance to the South Melbourne Market during the 80s – he was a regular on Saturdays hawking a variety of 60s and 70s vintage communist crap.

    A ‘lion of the left’, left destitute and intellectually incapacitated by his fellow travellers to fend for himself on the rude streets of Melbourne.

    The hypocrisy of his Labor mates who came to eulogise him after he died was nauseating.

    By the way, the CO appeared to listen politely to the ex-cabinet minister for a short while, then told him to “*&ck off”… The guard commander helped him on his way to the gate where the rest of the guard, myself included, stared in silence at him as he scurried away.

  2. PQ says:

    There was dancing, drinking and celebrations on the day I heard that rotten old mongrel had croaked.

    I don’t usually speak ill of the dead, but in Comrade Cairns case I make an exception.

    • Bob says:

      Probably not drinking and dancing alone. You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of Jane Fonda I suppose?

      • PeterW says:

        ” You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of Jane Fonda I suppose?”

        Only when she floated around a fur-lined spaceship whilst naked in Barbarella…

        Her later performances were well below par, especially the part she played as a traitor in ‘Janey goes to Hanoi’.

  3. 1735099 says:

    Jim Cairns has never been forgiven by the Right in Australia for his leadership of the Moratorium. The strength of the moratorium movement shocked the then government, and their support for the war went very swiftly to water.
    Never before in our history had so many people across the political spectrum mobilised in one cause. These events marked a watershed in our national experience. Until that time crowds of 100000 demonstrating on our cities’ streets were simply inconceivable.
    He was never a member of the Communist Party of Australia, BTW, as his application to join in 1946 was rejected.
    Looking at Cairns’ early personal history helps to explain his aversion to war.
    His father, whom Cairns never really knew, was an AIF officer in the First World War. He was disillusioned by what he saw, particularly the way in which Australian soldiers were viewed by the British hierarchy. He deserted his family and did not return to Australia at the end of the conflict. He committed suicide in Africa some years after the war.
    Cairns watched his single mother deal with this and the economic depression that followed, and no doubt this influenced his world view.
    His experience as a policeman also provides some insight into the man. As a member of the “Shadowing Squad” in Melbourne he captured an armed gunman (called William Cody) after Cody had attempted to shoot him. Cairns chased him on to a tram, leaving him isolated from his colleague who couldn’t keep up. (Cairns was a champion athlete at the time and very fit). Cairns was carrying a Browning, but only fired it in the air. Cody got five shots off at him, but missed with all of them. He received a commendation for this, which is on the record in police archives in Victoria.
    He was promoted to first constable in four and three quarter years, so must have been a pretty fair copper.
    He tried to get an exemption from the Force to join the AIF, but was rejected because he was in an essential service. His resignation from the Victorian Police Force was accepted in September 1944. Jim joined the AIF in January 1945 and later served in Morotai.
    Doesn’t quite fit the stereotype, does it?

  4. Kev says:

    Doesn’t quite fit the stereotype, does it?
    Now that’s cherry picking. You didn’t mention he raised money for the North Vietnamese through Monash or that he was a paid up member of the Australia-USSR Society and made several trips to the USSR during the war. Likewise you didn’t mention the fact that he welcomed a Viet Cong delegation in 1973 just after the Paris Peace Accords were signed and while they were planning to invade the South.

    Yes, the moratoriums did rattle the Government. Organized by the Cairns and his extreme Left friends with the specific aim of aiding and abetting the North Vietnamese. I have a friend, an ex LtCol who marched. He did so because that was where the action and the girls were on that given day. Most marched for half considered, go along with the crowd, type thoughts. Others marched because they hated what capitalism stood for and simply wanted the Communists to win.

    Worked a treat but that doesn’t make it OK.

    • Bob says:

      You didn’t mention the marchers who were paid to be there…..the uni students who became a large number of those taking part and who became the more radical and like to turn to violence. They used to mobilise quickly and used the pyramid telephone system to do so. Identical to pyramid selling, organiser rings five or whatever and each of those ring five and so on. The system was used at most demos in Melbourne. At the time I think the payment was about a days pay to a copper.
      I had an ex mate who was locked up for kicking a copper and he and his friends thought it was a great day out at the first moratorium in Melbourne. So not everyone attended out of a need to express dissatisfaction with the governments stand on Vietnam.

  5. 1735099 says:

    Kev
    “rotten old mongrel”"
    “destitute and intellectually incapacitated”
    And that’s not cherry-picking?
    As the immortal bard says – “The evil that men do lives after them
    The good is oft interred with their bones”
    No man is all good or all evil. The Australian nation thought well enough of him to give him a state funeral. Look at the history. He changed the nation. History is not about what’s OK – it’s about what happened.

    • Kev says:

      He was given a state funeral because he was an ex PM, not because he was respected. His final days spent manning a table and trying to peddle a box or two of looney books outside the Melbourne market is a more memorable farewell.

      True, history is about what happened but people make judgement on whether what happened was for the better or well intentioned and Jim’s legacy is neither.

      Oh, and he definitely cannot be compared with Caesar.

    • Bob says:

      1993075…..”The Australian nation thought enough of him to give him a state funeral”…..I don’t recall the referendum or even a poll asking for opinions. Kev is right the state funeral is a matter of protocol…..not born out of respect, but so that the right thing can be seen to be done, bearing in mind the position attained by the deceased during his service to the nation(whether that service be seen to be positive or negative). It enables people to attend as a duty not necessarily a personal need.
      Where were his comrades at a time when he most needed them?
      The state funeral gives them an opportunity to show party solidarity and get the most out of media attention….you know like politicians turning up at major sports events or the return of a solo sailor (well done that girl).
      I venture that the Australian nation really didn’t give a toss because they actually had no say in the matter.
      If Cairns had ventured forth with his unpatriotic views during WWI or WWII he would have been hailed a traitor and would not have survived.

      • 1735099 says:

        “It enables people to attend as a duty not necessarily a personal need”.
        I wonder did Bob Menzies consider it a duty to visit Cairns at his home in Hawthorn after he was attacked and injured in an assault in 1969.
        There was obviously a degree of respect felt at that time.
        The hate still felt by some on the extreme Right for Cairns and what he stood for is a throwback to the anti-Communist hysteria generated in the McCarthy era.
        “If Cairns had ventured forth with his unpatriotic views during WWI or WWII he would have been hailed a traitor and would not have survived.”
        There was no war declared when we had troops in Vietnam, so the “traitor” tag thrown around with abandon is meaningless. There were a few spooks in ASIO who would have dearly loved to put Cairns away, but there was always the inconvenient truth that he had committed no offence.
        The fact that he was revered by many Australians is a reflection of how far our nation has come since WW1.

        • Kev says:

          The hate still felt by some on the extreme Right
          He was only a hero to the extreme left. I am actually centrist and I don’t like him or what he stood for. He is revered by the left only, which leaves a lot of non reverence. Of course anyone under 40 doesn’t count as they don’t know who the hell Jim Cairns is or was.

          Bob Menzies was doing his duty and I don’t know what he thought of Jim but it could hardly be complimentary.

          The fact that war wasn’t declared is a red herring. He was, plain and simple, a traitor and even if some clever lawyer would suggest otherwise, aiding and abetting the enemy is the act of a traitor.

          Well, if Gough had had a heart attack, at one stage Jim would’ve been PM. The nation was a heartbeat away from being headed by a commo, as it is now.

        • Bob says:

          Forever the debater…..
          Tell me 9553071…..To what extent are you privvy to the thoughts of Menzies when he visited Cairns, when was it ….1969?
          I was writing about the reason for Cairns having a state funeral and you bring up a meeting between Cairns and Menzies in an attempt to show that Cairns was respected. I am afraid that even I, a person with little formal education, can accept that assumption.
          This man clearly deserves respect, remember the loans affair, Junie Morosi and his denials under oath of a sexual affair (later admitted), disliked by many of his fellow Labor ministers due to his extreme left leanings, his sacking by his Labor leader, knocked back by the Communist party although clearly a socialist driven by Marxist beliefs and of course I have to bring up his actions at the time of the Vietnam WAR.
          You are clearly at odds with the lay person’s understanding of what a traitor is or you foolishly hold Jim Cairns out to be someone to be respected and ….what was your wording…oh yes revered. I see you use the words “many Australians”, now isn’t that broad….doesn’t mean all, or most, but probably more than one, perhaps even some. Revered….held in awe, I don’t think so.
          In definitions of traitor that I have found there is no mention of a declaration of war. Betraying another, a cause or a trust or to commit treason against one’s country seem to be the criteria. I believe he fits the bill. Treason and sedition take it to another level…..see for yourself….still no mention of a declaration of war.

          You may believe that he committed no offence, I believe that his actions were probably not acted upon for political reasons. I believe he understood that because he was in the public eye that he could safely conduct himself in the manner he did, because an action against him by the Govt. of the time would have created more head aches than allowing him to continue.
          Now that is my assumption. I am starting to sound like you, but at least I am not generalising and expecting my statement to be taken as Gospel.

  6. 1735099 says:

    “I believe that his actions were probably not acted upon for political reasons”
    Precisely – any attempt to proceed against Cairns in the 70s would have been a political disaster for the Coalition at the time and they knew it. Cairns clearly was “revered” by many Australians at that time. In May 1970, tens of thousands of them followed him through the streets of Melbourne.
    I also strongly doubt that the 53% of Australians who voted Labor in December 1972 considered him a traitor. Some in my extended family were involved in the moratorium in Brisbane even though I was serving at the time. I didn’t see their involvement as traitorous. These people weren’t smelly Uni students by the way – they were respectable middle class Aussies who have never taken to the streets before or since.
    Blaming the soldiers for the conduct of the war – something that some on the Left did, made about as much sense as calling those opposing it at home traitors, something the Right did.
    The most traitorous action any government can take is to send people to fight knowing that they don’t have the support of the nation. This is the ultimate betrayal of a soldier, whether he is a volunteer or a conscript. This is why Vietnam was such a tragedy, and why so many veterans felt angry and rejected upon return. It took until 1987 for that to be addressed.
    You tell me – which is worse – sending conscripts and volunteers to fight an unpopular war, or giving them a hard time when they get back? Both are shameful.
    It was obvious by 1970 that public opinion was at least divided, if not hostile to the war. This is the simple historical fact.
    There is a basic difference between fact and opinion. Your opinion is that Cairns was a traitor. You’re entitled to it, but it remains an opinion. This country is and was a democracy, and the fact remains that the ballot box prevailed in 1972.

  7. PeterW says:

    “There is a basic difference between fact and opinion. Your opinion is that Cairns was a traitor.”

    Yup, Bob has that fact right. Cairns was a traitor along with Burchett and his fellow travellers.

    As an aside, here’s Burchett dressed in his favourite ‘uniform’ – [http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/30/WilfredBurchett_051230012514671_wideweb__300x455.jpg].

    So, bobby red-herring, waffling away as usual with your ludicrous definitions of words. Like the stupid red-herring definition you’ve concocted in order to defend your ridiculous and ignorant position on Cairns: “The most traitorous action any government can take is to send people to fight knowing that they don’t have the support of the nation.”

    What an absurd claim, even the ALP supported Australia’s involvement in Vietnam at first, it only changed its tune when it saw cheap political capital could be gained through opposing the war.

    The most traitorous action of this period was the succour Cairns provided to our enemies. He actively gave support to the regime in North Vietnam during a time when you and thousands of others of his countrymen and women were engaged in battle against it.

    Not only has Cairns a documented track record as a liar under oath, he committed premeditated and painstakingly executed intellectual fraud during his defence of his beloved Soviet Union.

    Rather than the foolish whitewashed apologia of Cairn’s family history you cling to in your vapid defence of his so called commitment to peace, Cairn’s was not inspired by some red-herring reaction to his father’s service in the 2nd AIF. He was solely motivated by his loyalty to the International Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Committee for State Security who funded the ‘World Peace Council’, and its local offshoot the Australian Peace Council, of which Cairns was a dedicated and vocal chairman despite the misgivings of the ALP which condemned “so-called peace councils” as “instruments of Soviet imperialism”.

    It’s worth noting that ‘peace activist Cairns’ purposefully refused to condemn, but instead defended, North Korea’s invasion of South Korea and the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. His organisation supported the 1981 Soviet-backed imposition of martial law in Poland and the crushing of Poland’s 10-million strong independent trade union, Solidarity.

    In a speech to a moratorium parade in May 1970, Cairns infamously stated that “…the forces led by the Vietnam National Liberation Front and Hanoi were “on the side of right”.

    The real tragedy regarding the Vietnam War was the vilification and denigration of those regular and conscripted soldiers, sailors and airman who loyally served their country.

    It was a deliberate campaign promoted and sponsored by Cairns – that is why so many veterans feel angry and rejected to this day.

    And where was Cairns whilst Australian service men and women were being spat on and abused in the streets? He was chairing a meeting at the Sydney Town Hall which had been organised to welcome a North Vietnamese delegation and express support for its totalitarian government.

    As Cairns stood on the town hall stage praising the virtues of the ‘victorious’ north a large portrait of Ho Chi Min hung on the wall behind him, the North’s totalitarian dictator and the man who as the war came to an end ordered the mass murder of tens of thousands and the torture of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

    That is Cairns’ true legacy – a traitor.

    Oh and the ballot box didn’t lie in 1975 either when Cairns and his dissolute cronies of the left were thrown out of office by the Australian people who were disgusted by their ineptness and duplicity.

    The victorious ‘right’ were granted office by the people with a two party preferred vote of 55.7% and a swing of more than 7% over the ‘vanquished’ left.

    A glorious result I enjoyed immensely.

  8. 1735099 says:

    “What an absurd claim…..”

    Absurdity looms large when Vietnam is considered. Remember “We had to destroy the village to save it?” and “Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity?”

    Tell me what is absurd about the proposition that it is traitorous to send soldiers to fight when they’re not supported by their countrymen and women. By the time of the Moratorium, there was no doubt at all about the weight of public opinion in this country.

    You also argue a logical absurdity when you say –

    “The victorious ‘right’ were granted office by the people”
    Whilst at the same time describing support for Labor as –
    “when it saw cheap political capital could be gained through opposing the war”
    In other words, if the voters agree with you, the will of the people is being expressed – if they disagree, it’s cheap politics. This is a fascinating double standard.
    “…along with Burchett and his fellow travellers”
    I’m wondering how Burchett was beamed into the discussion. Why stop with him – you could introduce a whole panoply of figures from the history of the Australian left, but what exactly they have to do with Jim Cairns is anybody’s guess. And you accuse me of introducing red herrings!
    “….a large portrait of Ho Chi Min (sic) hung on the wall behind him, the North’s totalitarian dictator and the man who as the war came to an end ordered the mass murder of tens of thousands and the torture of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.”
    Ho Chi Minh died on 2 September 1969. The war ended with the capture of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Perhaps he was temporally resurrected – they’re tricky, those Commos.
    And whilst we’re talking about casualty figures, you could equally as legitimately accuse a succession of US Presidents (and by association, Australian PMs) of genocide by the same definition.
    The following statistics come from Wikipaedia, and before you scoff at their origin, be aware that they use as their most frequently cited source R J Rummel, a leading authority on casualties of war in general and Vietnam in particular – (Rummel, R J, Freedom, Democracy, Peace, Power, Democide and War, University of Hawaii).
    “During the Diem Regime (1955-1963) an estimated 24,000 persons died during forced relocations of 900,000 civilians, 4,000 prisoners were killed through ill-treatment, another 10,000 suspected communists were executed, 1,500 civilians died in shelling.”
    Total = 39500 killed, 900000 relocated
    “From 1964 to 1975 an estimated 1,500 persons died during the forced relocations of some 1,200,000 civilians, another 5,000 prisoners were killed through ill-treatment and another 30,000 suspected communists were executed, and 6,000 civilians died in the more extensive shelling. In Qam Ham province another 4,700 civilians were killed in 1969″.
    Total = 47200 killed, 1200000 relocated
    “US forces killed an estimated 2 million Vietnamese civilians and 1.1 million communist combatants due to the extensive use of fire power (artillery, bombing)”
    Total = 3100000 killed
    Total for “free world” forces = 3186700 killed 2100000 relocated
    “An estimated 95,000 civilians died in the communist re-education camps, another 500,000 were involved in forced labour projects, which killed 48,000 civilians. Another 100,000 were executed. Finally, 400,000 boat people died while trying to flee Vietnam. This is 643,000 killed during the consolidation of communist rule.”
    Total for the Communist forces = 643000 killed, 500000 relocated.
    If you do the Maths it’s apparent that the free world forces were more efficient at killing than the Communists by a factor of five to one. Given the weaponry they used, that’s hardly surprising. It says nothing about Jim Cairns.
    You might also be interested in this article published in Vietnam net (accessible from Kev’s blog) – http://english.vietnamnet.vn/features/201003/Vietnam-and-Afghanistan-Tragedy-and-Lessons-897941/

    You could also visit Vietnam and talk about the war with people who lived through it in their own country. They tend to harbour very different opinions from those who tell war stories from the other side of the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook