The PR Blog

I REMEMBER WHEN Armistice Day was commemorated spontaneously, reverently and universally.

As a kid at state (primary) school we were taught about the sacrifice of the soldiers who died in the war to end all wars and assembled at 11.00am to salute the flag, the Union Jack, and have 2 minutes silence with heads bowed. 

That was in the 1940’s when there were many veterans of WW1 still among us.

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month was instilled into us with the utmost reverence and seriousness.

E.D. Butler (1916–2006) was an influential Australian nationalist and founder of the Australian League of Rights, known for his opposition to international financial power and his advocacy for national sovereignty.

In The Planned Surrender of Australia, E.D. Butler warned that Australia was gradually losing its sovereignty to foreign powers and international financial institutions. It was back in 1989 that he argued that the country’s policies were increasingly dictated by external interests rather than by Australians themselves, leading to an erosion of economic independence, democratic control, and national identity. Butler urged Australians to resist this trend, advocating for economic self-reliance, protection of local industries, and a focus on national welfare over global obligations. His message was a call to safeguard Australia’s future by rejecting foreign influence and prioritising Australian autonomy.

The speech is almost Australia's equivalent to George Orwell's 1984 but tailored to Australia. Strangely enough this speech can easily be relevant to every Western Nation at the moment. 

Sir  Winston Churchill and Donald Trump are two towering, if unlikely, figures in the political landscapes of Britain and the United States.

Despite differences in their backgrounds and political eras, both men rose to power with a blend of unshakable confidence, bold rhetoric, and a magnetic appeal that captured the imagination of millions. In short, they had charisma. They were powerfully individual. 

Each experienced the sting of political defeat only to retain influence and return to the public stage with undiminished resolve.

Churchill’s legacy as Britain’s wartime leader and Trump’s as a leader of a group of deplorables and garbage offer fascinating parallels in the power of resilience and the enduring connection to their supporters.

Examining their political journeys reveals how these leaders, in their own unique ways, came to embody national pride and defiance, forever shaping how their countries think about leadership in uncertain times.

This morning I went outside to sit in the sunshine and have a morning cup of tea. The manager of my building complex was mowing the lawn and the smell of the freshly mown grass was in the morning air. 

Most of us know that smell so well and it triggers memories of childhoods and happy days.  For my American readers, you are heading into winter as we down under head into summer. 

But we, throughout the world, are all heading into a new season of light and I sense a happy and optimistic spring after 4 years of a winter of discontent. 

America is now truly unburdened by what has been!

It is time to metaphorically mow the lawns, take out the trash and clean up the mess. And what a job it will be. 

When I was young, I had the honour of voting in my first election.  It was in New Zealand back in the 1970's when there were two parties that most people voted for. Right or Left, I voted for neither. I cast my vote for a thing called Social Credit. 

Now don't confuse this with the modern perception  of China's Social Credit system..... in fact the two could not be more different. In fact, the very name that Douglas chose was something that gave it a bad reputation before it ever really got off the ground. 

The Social Credit system, proposed by C.H. Douglas in the 1920s, aimed to solve a common economic problem: people often don’t have enough money to buy everything businesses produce, which leads to waste and financial hardship. Douglas’s solution involved giving everyone a basic income, called a “National Dividend,” and adjusting prices to make goods more affordable. By putting money directly into people’s hands and controlling the money supply through government rather than banks, Social Credit envisioned a fairer, more stable economy without taking away individual freedom or relying heavily on taxes.

You see, back then, I actually trusted my government to do the right thing.

Was  I right or wrong? I will never know. I have voted staunchly conservative in every election since then. Was it the folly of youth? But my young ideological brain rather liked the idea and I have obviously become far more cynical since those heady days of youth.