tralian legislature, to point out that ourrninsistence on having the world’s highestrnper capita immigration intake is alreadycreatingrnquite enough communityrnbitterness. Aggravating this bitterness—rnby appealing to childish Anglophobicrnrancor in the quest for a republic—isrnsomething that, as Max Shulman nearlyrnsaid, we need the way we need extrarnnostrils.rnBut one would never gather as muchrnfrom the Labor Party’s academic andrnjournalistic entourage, several membersrnof which openly crave bloodshed in arnmanner that even on Soldier of Fortunernreaders’ lips would seem excessive. Thisrncrowd’s guru was, and is, Manning Clarkrn(1915-91), author of the Walter Duranty-rnlike Meeting Soviet Man and of arnsix-volume infringement of the TradernDescriptions Act entitled A History ofrnAustralia. Last September, Peter Ryan,rnthe publisher responsible for seeing thisrnbehemoth through the presses, sufferedrnan eloquent though belated attack ofrnguilty conscience: he admitted thatrnManning Clark was a totalitarian fraud,rnthat Clark’s alleged historiographiealrnmasterpiece blended fustian with fiction,rnand that “of the many things in myrnlife upon which I must look back withrnshame, the chiefest is that of havingrnbeen the publisher of Manning Clark’srnA History of Australia.” For proclaimingrnthese conclusions, Mr. Ryan was traducedrnby Clark’s camp-followers, on nationwidernTV and in the daily broadsheets,rnwith a rage that evoked therntreatment of Clarence Thomas. ThatrnMr. Ryan would incur the standard leftistrnaccusations of fascism, racism, militarism,rnand dementia—combined byrnsome assailants, such as Time’s RobertrnHughes, with endearing admissions ofrnnot actually having read Mr. Ryan’s mearnculpa—was easy to predict.rnOther accusations were more memorable.rnDon Watson, Mr. Keating’srnspeechwriter and a self-styled advocaternof something called “a postmodern republic,”rnapplied to Mr. Ryan the termrn”cannibal”: an epithet last publicly employed,rnto my knowledge, when Stalinrnwas still in his Kremlin and all was rightrn(i.e., left) with Mr. Watson’s world.rnGeoffrey Blainey, hounded out of hisrnMelbourne University job because of hisrnallegedly “Eurocentric” utterances, hadrngently but firmly condemned Clark’srnanti-British ravings as “the Black Armbandrnview” of history. (Upholders ofrnthe Black Armband view aver that whiternmale Australians should spend theirrnwhole lives in orgies of breast-beatingrnbecause of what they or their ancestorsrndid to Aborigines, Kanakas, women, homosexuals,rnecosystems, and so forth.rnSound familiar?) Professor Blainey’srnIS THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTErnIN YOUR WILL?rnPerhaps a better question is:rnDo you have a current will?rnIf not, the laws of your particular state will determine what is tornbe done with your estate upon your death. In addition, unlessrnthere is proper planning, federal estate taxes can claim up to 55″%rnof your property. If you would like to discuss elements of yourrnestate planning, please write or call:rnMICHAEL WARDERrnLEGACY PROGRAMrnTHE ROCKFORD INSTITUTErn934 NORTH MAIN STREETrnROCKFORD, IL 6110?rn(815) 964-5811rnsentiments provoked one HenryrnReynolds into announcing that “yourn[Blainey] are going to get shot at . . .rnyou have to expect to be clobbered andrnpeople will jump on you.” Since thenrnProfessor Reynolds has predicted, withrnchop-smacking relish, “violence and directrnaction” by Aborigines against theirrnwhite “oppressors”: oppressors who happenrnto spend a mere $1.5 billion per annumrnon social welfare for those whomrnthey purportedly oppress.rnThanks to the Australian HighrnCourt’s present craze for judicial activism.rnProfessor Reynolds’ calls for massrnmurder can no longer be laughed away.rnIn the 1992 Mabo v. Queensland case, arnmajority of High Court judges ruled thatrnthe concept of terra nullius—which hadrnunderpinned European settlement inrnAustralia from 1788 onwards—wasrninvalid. (Had the judges been half asrninterested in history as in appeasingrnAboriginal extremists, they would havernemphasized that terra nullius meant notrn”unpopulated land” but “unowned land.”rnSince the Aboriginal tribes were nomadicrn—this trait itself explaining muchrnof their Rousseauist appeal to urbanrnwhite degenerates—it is hard to see howrnthey could ever have harbored Westernrnideas of land ownership.) Disregard thernpettifogging jargon in which the Mabornruling is predictably couched, and thernmessage—as several High Court judgesrnhave admitted—becomes clear. Inalienablernnative title, on the lines ofrn(dare one say it) Verwoerd’s “tribalrnhomelands,” is what the High Courtrnwants Australia to have. The mere factrnthat Aborigines already and exclusivelyrncontrol almost half the Northern Territoryrnand substantial areas of the states—rnaround 14 percent of Australia’s totalrnarea—is apparently irrelevant. We mustrnhand over all Australia, if need be, tornAboriginal rule. Hence the widespreadrncruel joke, “What does Mabo standrnfor? Making Aborigines BillionairesrnOvernight.”rnSo what if mining, which now generatesrnover 40 percent of Australia’s exportrnincome, is the one industry thatrneven now might yet save us from sempiternalrnThird World status? So what ifrnvarious Aboriginal groups, fearful of therndole-queue, want mining to go aheadrnin their locality? So what if a concertedrnfederal policy to stop Aborigines fromrndrinking themselves to death would bern(as the Northern Territory’s governmentrnhas been saying for years) a better servicern38/CHRONICLESrnrnrn