Maintaining the Rage: Symbolic Numbers, Dates and Anniversaries of the Whitlam Years

Saturday 2 December 1972 Whitlam government elected.

13 December 1974 Executive Council meeting at the Lodge. Governor-General not advised of meeting until following morning. (When it was rubbed in his face?)

Tuesday 11 November 1975 Remembrance Day. Date (and time of day) chosen by Whitlam to offer the faulty advice to the Governor-General that led to his dismissal. (See public lecture by Sir David Smith "The 1975 Dismissal: Setting the Record Straight")

Tuesday 2 December 1975 Reid-Schildberger TV interview containing the Connor dismissal allegations, exactly 21 days (three weeks) after the Dismissal. Third anniversary of the election of the Whitlam government in 1972.

Saturday 13 December 1975 Federal elections following the Dismissal, 33 days, and as early as possible under the law, after the Dismissal. First anniversary of THAT Executive Council meeting at the Lodge.

Thursday 14 July 1983 Bastille Day-commemorating the start of the French Revolution. Appointment by the Governor-General of the Vice-President of the Executive Council as a Deputy Governor-General to preside over meetings of the Council at which, for any reason, the Governor-General is unable to attend. (Usually, very important appointments of this nature are gazetted the self same day. This one wasn't.)

Monday 18 July 1983 Gazettal, in Special Gazette No. 153, of the Thursday 14 July appointment of the Vice-President of the Executive Council as a Deputy Governor-General. The number 153 is biblically numerically symbolic of "the elect" (whoever they may be), and Bob, being the son of a Preacher-man and all (as well as a Rhodes scholar) would of knowed that. Had to wait four days for the Gazette numbers to be right, didn't they!

Thursday 13 December 1984 Tenth anniversary of THAT Executive Council meeting at the Lodge. Appointment, and gazettal in S 525, of un-named ministers of State for the time being as Deputy Governors-General for purposes of presiding over Executive Council meetings.

All co-incidence, of course. None of it planned. Lest we forget.

This posting may be a little off-topic, but in the interest of adherence to the forum rules I feel I should ask more experienced posters for advice, and where better than in a (deathly) quiet thread.

When I have clicked on the "new post" button during previous days the first thing I have seen is the little forum rules box stating the word limit, and the postings limit (a limit both for the total number of posts to the forum during any given 24 hour period, and the limit of postings per topic in the same time frame). What perplexes me and creates uncertainty is that on several occasions during the one day the postings limits have varied, both within the one topic, and as between different topics. How can I be sure I am going to stay within the rules, as I do not get to see the postings limits until I click to post?

For example, when I posted on 18 October to the topic "Water: place the blame where it belongs", the posting limits were 4 to the topic, and a total of 10 to the forum, in any 24 hours. On the same day, I posted to "Rex Connor: the other Dismissal", and the postings limits were 2 and 5 respectively within 24 hours. Is anyone else experiencing these limit variations? Are they applied to the topic, or to the particular registered user? Are they applied as a form of secret censorship or suppression of particular views or topics?

I have not been able to find out anything on the site about the postings limits as a visitor as opposed to a poster. Maybe I am missing something here. Any feedback anyone?

PS As I post the limit here is 2 and 5

I wonder whether readers on this forum quite comprehend how the significant events, or perhaps more precisely deceptions, of 1975 may directly affect the politico-economic conditions of the present day. If it all perplexes you, perhaps acquiring an understanding of past deceptions may help in drawing a roadmap with which to find the way out.

Alternatively, could it be readers think Sir David's observations are confined and relevant only to the past? If that is so, I can only suggest they read his submission made in 2005 to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters titled "How do I say 'Yes' or 'No'?; Let me count the ways". With it Sir David draws attention to recent serious departure from the relevant electoral law by the very body responsible for administering that law, the Australian Electoral Commission. The submission can be viewed and downloaded from www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm . It is submission No.159. The departures from the law commented upon amount to bias in classification of votes as informal at referenda as recently as 1999.

Sir David's article establishing this topic points to evidence indicative of the deception of Parliament in 1975. It is possible to infer from that evidence that such possible deception may have been connected with the orchestration of a dismissal, and the use of such to to influence a subsequent electoral outcome. Could Sir David be telling us, as plainly as he properly can, to look beyond the media legend to the possibility that not only may it have been the victim who sought dismissal, but that maybe the timing of it was even connected to electoral improprieties?

Thanks, Forrest Gumpp for having told me of this article on the other forum concerning immigration at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5868

The article and the forum discussion seems to confirm my own gut feeling that something didn't completely add up during the frenzied and virulent media campaign to bring down the Whitlam Government in 1974 and 1975.

As an early teen, who held out hopes that the Whitlam Government would create a truly great society, I felt hurt and angry at the insane vilification directed against the Whitlam government. (Have to admit, even I got sucked in, for a while, believing Uncle Rupert, when, through his glove puppet editors, he swore to us that, as much as he had wished Gough's Government well to begin with, their indisputably monumental incompetence had led them to reluctantly, with a heavy heart, turn against them. So I was resigned to having Whitlam booted out of office in the best interests of the nation, that is, until the constitutional crisis of 1975 caused me to rethink all of this.)

I was struck at how throughout these months Gough seemed oblivious to this ferocious campaign against him personally and his Government. Why didn't he turn around and take on the media hyenas? Why didn't he defend himself against all the stupid beat-ups (e.g. having a "tourist for a Prime Minister" etc.) that were preventing him and his Government from properly getting on with the job?

After he was sacked on 11 November, precious hours were lost as he had lunch, instead of racing straight back in order to have used the Labor majority in the House of Representatives to stop the supply bill and thereby scuttle Fraser's attempt to form a caretaker Government. I know that pro-Labor public servants were prepared to keep the Government running by working without pay whilst supply was denied to it.

(ToBeContinued)

(ContinuedFromAbove)

It seems to me, on reflection, that Whitlam's heart was not in standing up to the vested interests that felt threatened by his Government and that is why he did not fight as hard as I believe he could have and should have. He effectively not only allowed his government to lose office, but by subsequent omission, allowed the name of his Government to have been unfairly dragged through the mud, so much so, that, today, even supposed 'dissidents' such as Phillip Adams will spurn its legacy.

Perhaps if Connor or Cairns had been PM instead, it would have been an entirely different story.

This article seems to begin to answer some of the questions that have been buried somewhere at the back of my mind since then.

---

Can I take this opportunity to once again commend the Masters Thesis of 2002 by Sheila Newman, "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France". Chapter 7 deals with the ill-fated attempts by the Whitlam Government, and Rex Connor in particular, to deal with the 1973 Oil shocks by establishing national energy independence and to discourage further population growth?

We will soon pay the terrible price for them having been prevented from doing so, when an already overpopulated Australia's petroleum reserves are completely exhausted in 6 years time.

Sheila Newman's thesis can be found at: http://www.candobetter.org/sheila