Special thanks to TT reader and commentator, Raymond, for sending this in. Australia happens to be one of the last states in the West, including the US, that are bastions for individualism and in your face mockery of the statist. It’s reassuring to know that many Australians are still not cowered into submission by the socialists, or any other totalitarian mindset for that matter, and relish the thought of delivering smack downs whenever possible. Here’s one of them.

Dear Australian Laborites, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Gillard, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of Australia cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the ACTU, the Fabian Society and every member of Emily’s List. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops and the military. We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep the ABC left wingers (particularly
Kerry O’Brien) and Bob Brown. You are, however, responsible for finding an electric vehicle big enough to move all of them.

We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Woolworths and the Stock Exchange. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, dole bludgers, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies, Lebanese bikies and boat people. We’ll keep the budgie smuggling, bike riding, volunteer firemen and lifesavers, greedy CEOs and rednecks.

We’ll keep the Bibles and the churches and give you SBS and the Greens.

You can make peace with Iran, Palestine and the Taliban and we’ll retain the right to stand up and fight when threatened. You can have the greenies and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Penny Wong. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the 4WDs, utes and V8s. You can take every hybrid hatchback
you can find.

We’ll keep “Waltzing Matilda” and our National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to keep in tune with Peter Garrett as he sings “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya”, “We Are The World” and his recent big solo hit “Beds and Batts are Burning”.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Do you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative Australians and if you do not agree, just hit delete.

In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

John Wall
Australian Law Student

P.S. Also, please take Lindsay Tanner, Wayne Swan, Alan Griffin, John Faulkner, Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin with you.

P. P. S. And you won’t have to press “1” for English when you call our country.

4 Responses

    1. And of course “Karl” can’t see the stupidity in his statement of calling John Law a ‘fascist’ when he’s clearly arguing the case against leftism. No doubt he’ll fail to understand the significance of this comment as well.

      1. Is the significance of it that some right wing prick made some vague but not comprehensible allusions in it?

        1. Herpderp, the onus is on you to prove what was written as being incomprehensible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.