Dear Arthur, please explain One Nation's sophistication
We've been struggling to work out how One Nation is more "sophisticated" than it used to be -- so we've asked the man who claimed that it was to please explain.
Advertisement
Federal
Feb 15, 2017
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO
Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science
Parliament House ACT 2600
Dear MinisterArthur
We write in relation to your recent statement that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is “more sophisticated” than it previously was, in response to a branch of the Liberal Party engaging in unprecedented preference deal with the party. In particular, we seek clarification on how, exactly, One Nation is now more sophisticated than in the late 1990s.
Is this enhanced sophistication reflected in the party’s view of single mothers, given a One Nation candidate’s view that they “are women too lazy to attract and hold a mate”, expressed in the prestigious conservative publication Quadrant?
Or has this greater level of sophistication been demonstrated in the party’s foreign policy views — such as the One Nation candidate who seeks a restoration of white rule in South Africa?
Perhaps the sophistication lies in One Nation’s view of LGBTI Australians? There’s the candidate who claims LGBTI Australians are out to destroy families. Or the candidate who says a society that supports same-sex marriage — which now includes much of the Western world — is “degenerate” and that same-sex marriage is “undermining civilisation and making our culture more like African-American culture with its 70% illegitimacy rate”?
(We note, by the way, that referring to children born to unmarried couples as “illegitimate” stigmatises every child of de facto couples in Australia.)
There is also a One Nation candidate who claims “same-sex marriage will open the door to compulsory homosexual teachings in homes, schools and churches, thereby confusing children, students and congregations because heterosexuality will not be recognised as normal” — although we admit that the image of a sexually confused congregation perhaps represents a sophisticated sense of humour.
Same-sex marriage proponents are also, according to another One Nation candidate, using Nazi mind control programs to change people’s views on the subject — which we’re prepared to allow would be a “sophisticated” psychological weapon.
We’re also unclear on what is “sophisticated” about claiming the 9/11 attacks were fake, given 9/11 truthers have been around so long their lies have become internet memes — although apparently the fake nature of the 9/11 attacks is not official One Nation policy even though the candidate who claims they were fake is still running under the One Nation banner. Perhaps he believes the hijackers used a Nazi mind control program.
Arguably, these are all merely the views of One Nation candidates, rather than the views of its elected officials. We note, however, that your Queensland Senate colleague Malcolm Roberts claims that abortion is a UN plot, that global finance is controlled by wealthy Jewish families via “privately owned central banks” and that they are behind the “hoax” of climate change; indeed, that “Goldman Sachs already controls much of the world reportedly on behalf of the Rothschilds.” As a former bank executive, we understand you would be in a strong position to assess the accuracy and, for that matter, the “sophistication” of such claims. However, we note that none of these conspiracy theories from Roberts are particularly new — indeed, despite One Nation’s strongly protectionist economic policies, Roberts has to import all his conspiracy theories from foreign sources.
Pauline Hanson has also claims that the Family Court system makes men murder women and children out of frustration — is this perhaps a sophisticated analysis of family law and domestic homicide?
Or is it, perhaps, that Hanson’s greater sophistication lies in switching the focus of her hatred and bigotry from Asian Australians to Muslim Australians since the 1990s, reflecting an innovative, agile ability to shift the target of racist demonisation as fashion dictates?
Yours sincerely,
Crikey
Share this article
Advertisement
Topics
We recommend
From around the web
Powered by Taboola
24 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
Not sophisticated, they’re sophists. Second definition.
sophist
ˈsɒfɪst/Submit
noun
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, associated in popular thought with moral scepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but false arguments.
Nah, they’re solipsists.
Solipsistic sophists?
… with solipsistic, syllogistic solecisms?
I hope you kept a copy of your letter, because there is a slight possibility that Arthur will forget to reply, owing to his dodgy memory and all
.
Who will play the Terry to his Arthur?
Dear Crikey
They are more sophisticated because recent polling shows their popularity has grown and we are in the shit in WA.
Arthur
Sinodinis meant that some of them now use knives & forks when eating. Progress.
Implying that half the world ( who don’t use knives and forks) are therefore backward?
Half the world wasn’t raised in, or imbued with, Western culture. It was a flippant remark, purely.
Possibly, but they have to keep replacing the office carpets because of knuckle damage.
“despite One Nation’s strongly protectionist economic policies, Roberts has to import all his conspiracy theories from foreign sources.” – Splendid!
When One Nation arrived on the scene some time ago it could be said that they were raw. This time around they have improved…now they are half baked!
🙂 Again, not wanting to comment on any of the above. It is well in the realm of fair game……..Just making the point that the fact that you are talking about them at all indicates their increased level of ‘sophistication’ (or another word) this time around….Why are we talking about them again?
Arthur’s belief that One Nation is more sophisticated than it used to be reminds me of the person who remarked that Princess Margaret was looking younger. No, he was told, she’s just riding older horses.
Rumtytum, that is so funny, but refreshingly to the point. Well observed
The Libs once had the decency to preference them last and engage in all sorts of political skulduggery to destroy them ….. and now they welcome them and pander to them. There’s a bloody good reason or 30 that I no longer vote Liberal
This is also part of the reason why in the Victorian state election 3 years ago that the Nationals nearly got wiped out in the traditional country areas as independent’s decided to contest seats that, traditionally Nationals hadn’t previously thought they had to worry about, the coalition get/got far to blase’ and clever for their own good.
So politicians need to join the real world occasionally and stop getting so caught up with the political backstabbing & nonsense that seems to be part of Canberra’s, ‘circus like atmosphere’?
Sophisticted enough to vote with Arfur’s coal worshipping tribe party and swap preferences with it.
This was Howard’s kitchen cabinet “advisor” there for the conception of “non-core promises”, Halverson’s “ultimate solution”, “Children Overboard”, “Iràq/WMDs” and a lot of other “sophisticted solutions”.
And let’s not forget, one of his “reasons” for One Nation’s sophistication evolution was” how the media is treating them now” – owned and operated as much of that is (“70%” of viewspapers), by whom, while they’re not geting in the way of his Party?
Seenodonors has an AO??? What the Hell for? Seeing no donors?
Please explain!!!
BK should really take care with his pile on to the PHONeys, it is very similar to the little toady at school who only ever entered a fight when the loser was on the ground, to give them a kick in the head.
Really AR, most adult Australian’s are well aware of Sinodinosis’ pasthistory, having lived in NSW I like many are (most people who lived through his notorious family business dealings, his “mates,” & not so subtle negotiations & tactics) well aware of his teflon past, and his dodgy dealings.
It is about time there are people in the press who call a spade a spade, because if we aren’t careful, Sinodinos will be back to his bad old ways, (if he isn’t already).
I hate referring to this, but there is no other better descriptor, in respect of his Australia day award. The reality is If you roll a turd in glitter it is still a turd.
Unfortunately Arthur Sinodinos is no different to Arthur Dalley, he just thinks he is, he just wants to elevate himself above the muck, but still can’t help getting his hands dirty, It’s who he is. The question is what does he get out of making this observation about One Nation?
> such as the One Nation candidate who seeks a restoration of white
> rule in South Africa?
If such is to be exhibited as a proxy for the sophistication of the policies of O.N the theme is, if anyone required reminding, that Logic does NOT contribute to any great degree in politics. There are quotes from Bonaparte to this effect.
O.N moves from point A to point B on a path of half-truths. Under any form of analysis the statements become ephemeral. Having said that there is not one colony of the former British Empire that has “improved” under Independence that was a colony during the WW!.
Quite apart from measuring real GDP and rates of increase/decrease over time a
research paper in Sociology, from a British university, exists where the researcher interviews inhabitants in their 60s, 70s & 80s with the question : “was it better then or now”. The answer is not difficult to predict. Keep in
mind that the British Empire managed the Empire at under 10% of GNP.
As an aside the poms (i.e Eden) “dropped the ball” over Suez (in 1956) when it became clear that the continued management of the Empire could not be undertaken at under 12% of GNP. As to expenses, a 19th century solution for Kenya (and the Mau Mau) was no longer politically realistic by 1960.
Appealing to this, rather simple, example – from the Editors of Crikey – it is only too clear to the “managers” of O.N that the Party does not have to be “correct” in any form: merely plausible and that will suffice. The Nats, to identify one Party, are on the “short end” in this respect.