Persuasion.. (The language of sedition).


Mr. Hogarth spoke.. :  “He would honestly and fairly put the objects of the league before them, and in so doing he would speak out fearlessly and conscientiously, and at the close of the address would be most happy to answer any question. No matter what sort of organization was formed it was absolutely necessary that if it wished to stand a test it must be built on the ground of justice, and start out on fair lines. The (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ) was not as represented by many writers to the press who put forth issues contrary to facts. The objects of the league are not suited to any particular party- Its objects are to help the working men as much as possible. He was pleased that man has the freedom of speech so that he can get on a public platform and discuss the various political  questions of the day.”


The above address could be from any number of interviews of late with any member of the LNP govt’. The familiarity of language, the tone and expression are all too familiar in today’s right-wing political rhetoric….but in truth it was from a fore-runner of the Liberal Party setting out the objectives of a new political party in 1893. “The Burra Record , Wed. 8th Feb 1893…: An address to a gathering at The Burra Institute explaining the objectives of The National Defence League”…


The National Defence League went on to place members (all the usual suspects!) in the Legislative Council (the SA. Upper House)..then went on to rename itself to the Australasian National League then to merge with the Liberal and Democratic Union and the Farmers and Producers Political Union to become the Liberal Union. The NDL stood for ‘the preservation of law, order and property’ and was opposed to ‘all undue class influence in Parliament’.. The current Liberal Party of South Australia claims on their website that their party had its origin under the NDL.


Those smooth, dulcet tones of persuasion that flow like a certain kind of syrup from the elocuted lips of the highly educated upper middle-class.. The carefully enunciated sentences that are both persuasive by their cunning use of an inherent truth layered on top of deliberate intent to deceive, betray a training in vocal semantics that can only come from an institution that holds the value of such Machiavellian double-speak close to their vulgar hearts. Institutions well established in the practice of training their charges in the use of such tactics as rhetorical contortionism and suggestive honesty.

Here is some more from the same times..It makes for VERY interesting example reading about the language tactics used by the conservative class in trying to persuade the masses.

From the South Australian Chronicle 24/Mar’ 1894.


Mr. Hogarth, the National Defence League  lecturer, was announced to lecture at the  Woodside Institute on Tuesday evening on  ‘The coming conflict and some proposed  systems of taxation.’ The weather was wet,  and at 10 minutes past 8 o’clock there were  only five persons present besides Mr. Hogarth.  At that time, however, about a dozen or fifteen  local land reformers appeared, accompanied  by Mr. C. Proud, of Adelaide, who attended  at their invitation.

Mr. Hogarth did not finish his lecture until  after 10 o’clock, but he had a good and patient  hearing. He said he wished he could infuse  into the landowners of the colony the enthusiasm displayed by the single taxers and  land reformers ; or, failing that, he wished he  could awaken them to the danger that  threatened of having much more severe  land taxation. He did not believe the  single tax would come as the single tax,  but he did believe that there was a great probability of something of the kind taking place  through the gradual increase of the land tax.  The National Defence League and the large  landowners would not object to Id.(one penny in the pound value) land tax  if the other side would guarantee that that  was all they wanted, but they knew too well it  was only the thin end of the wedge of what, in  his opinion, amounted to confiscation.

He regarded the land tax as a tax on industry, and  said if the wedge were pressed home it would  ruin the poor farmers and the insurance  societies, which had most of their funds invested in land values.

Mr. Proud severely criticised several of the  statements of Mr. Hogarth, and especially the  systematic way in which he and other National  Defence Leaguers overlooked the relief that  would be given to the landless and poorer  landowners on the remission of customs  duties which would take place as the land tax  was increased.

They always talked about the  poor farmer and the poor gardener and the  poor widow paying the increased land tax, when  as a matter of fact they knew that  a mere handful of 703 land taxpayers, including the South Australian Company as one,  would pay more than half the land tax for  the whole colony, while of course nine-tenths  of the whole people would benefit from the reduced Customs duties. As he knew the  lecturer would fight shy of facts and figures  and keep in the realm of generalities, he had  looked up the holdings and values in that district — the hundred of Onkaparinga. There  were 78,280 acres in the hundred, valued by  the Government assessors in 1893 at £312, 03S.  At Id. in the pound therefore this whole  hundred would not pay one-twentieth part as  much land tax as the City of Adelaide alone.  In fact it would pay less than three  acres in King William-street, Adelaide.  The townships of Hahndorf, Lobethal,  and Woodside, in the hundred of Onkaparinga would only pay £81 a year, or less  than 50 ft. frontage in the best part of King  William-street, and yet Mr. Hogarth had bad  the hardihood to talk of the increased land tax  pressing on the landowners in that, and  other country districts.

The population  of the district council of Onkaparinga  was 703 adult males. Assuming that they held  the land values in the hundred of  Onkaparinga at Id. in the pound they would  pay £1 13s. 9d. per annum land tax, while the  South Australian Company for land held in  that same hundred would pay £113. Did the  meeting think Mr. Hogarth and the Defence  League were fighting for the adult resident’s  33s. 9d. or the South – Australian Company’s  £113? (Applause.) Then, again, the adult  residents had families for the most part and  used dutiable goods. As Customs duties were  removed they would be benefited — most of  them to a far greater extent than the added  land tax — while the South Australian Company,  being an absentee (landlord), would save nothing from  the removal of Customs duties. Indeed that  one absentee company on all its lands in South  Australia would have to pay about £4,458 a  year land tax at Id. in the £, and the 703  large landowners would pay on the average  over £100 a year each. It was principally to  save these large land monopolists that the  National Defence League was working and  that Mr. Hogarth was lecturing, but he was  glad to notice that the country people as well  as the city workers were at length seeing the  real bearings of the question and going steadily  onwards towards increased taxation of land  values and decreased Customs duties.

The debate was conducted on very friendly  terms throughout. Votes of thanks were accorded to Mr. Hogarth on the motion of Mr.  Kelly, seconded by Mr. R. P. Keddie ; while  Mr. C. Dunn and Mr. H. Hart moved and  seconded a vote to Mr. Proud. Both votes  were carried with acclamation, and a similar  compliment was paid to Mr.’ Caldwell for presiding. The attendance increased very materially when it became known in the township  that a debate was being conducted, and  towards the close the proceedings became quite  lively and enthusiastic.” ( )

Quite lively indeed!…But mark the language used by the conservative speaker..the deliberate obfuscation, the deliberate, deceitful “playing” of the poor and vulnerable people sympathy-card when there was not the least real sympathy for such people…and THIS in 1894!..when we see the same trick played out in 2018 with the claim for reducing taxation on the same most wealthy corporations in the chance of ‘trickle-down” politics…Where, we have to ask does this blatant and insulting mockery of truth and reason emanate from?

I’ll tell you where such language comes from…it comes from those same institutions where the most miserable individual bastards that have ever had the moxxy to waste so much oxygen of this country graduated from..: Those private schools and colleges that have been parasiting off the Australian taxpayer and citizen for more years than they are worth!…Those same institutions that have taken the middle and upper-middle class brats from the grasping arms of their parents and nurtured into them the racism, the scorn, the perceived privilege and a “born to rule” bone idleness worthy of the most lascivious arseholes that ever could quote a private school motto and turn honour into horror in the space of a conjunctive!

For too many years we have let these institutions form the backbone of our educated leaders. For too many years has the Treasury of the Australian public given gross payment and unregulated charity in the form of financial grants and allowances to these most miserable of Houses of Education for none but the rich and profligate. We, the Australian people have allowed such institutions to flourish and prosper like a chancre on a healthy democracy, all the while letting them preach sedition and indeed, in some cases inculcate treason into the tender minds of their wards. Such betrayal by the higher echelons of society who benefited so well from their placements toward the trusting working classes who in turn suffered so miserably from their resulting deprivations can only be righted by the most severe censure.

It would only be fair that a tribunal access which of these “honorary” circles of sedition has done the most damage to fair governance..Which House has unleashed the worst purveyors of opportunist and capitalist plunderers upon the nation, and those that are found most culpable be cut from any funding whatsoever and be made to re-pay to the treasury all those moneys over all those years they have committed such fraud upon the Australian people.

Truly, let them be “educated” with a working-class justice most prejudice.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s