This article was first published in The New Australian (No. 150, 3-9 April 2000). It has been published in Brookesnews in the hope it give readers a valuable insight into the mentality of Australia's so-called rightwing

In a circulated e-mail Mr Michael Warby took this magazine to task for publishing articles criticising Ray Evans and the manner of Warby's appointment as president of the the Adam Smith Club. The question of his presidency has become a Mexican stand-off in which neither side will give an inch. So be it. Mr Warby tells us that the presidency "is not something I sought, but something I was willing to take on." Well, I can only say that the Adam Smith Club is truly fortunate in having someone as president who is willing to sacrifice so much in its interests.

Nevertheless, there was a time when good form meant something; that being caught doing the dishonourable thing involved disgrace, shame and resignation — not self-serving convoluted excuses. Being old fashioned and hopelessly wedded to the honourable thing, I still believe Warby's plagiarism warranted his resignation as club president. Judging by the committee’s response, people like me are clearly out of place as well as out of our time.

Mr Warby called the TNA (meaning me) "stupid and reprehensible" for waging an "apparent campaign" against Ray Evans, following this accusation with fulsome praise of Mr Evans’ contributions to public debate. No matter how "stupid and reprehensible" Mr Warby thinks I am I’ve never committed plagiarism. As for Ray Evans’ efforts, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to Mr Warby that promoting the market and classical liberal values at others' expense is scarcely deserving of a medal let alone a semi-heroic description.

Leaving aside Mr Warby’s adulatory approach to Ray Evans’ activities, let me make several things clear. This magazine does not play favourites; it does not suck up to executives and it certainly does not try to curry favour with any individual or corporation. It stands on principle and nothing else. To put it bluntly, Mr Warby: It doesn’t give a damn, especially about the Collins Street mob.

In his defence of Evans Warby caustically refers to us as "those who claim to be defenders of freedom" (italics added). I don’t have to make any such claim, Mr Warby. My actions speak for themselves. This magazine was started by me at my own expense and it is still run at my expense.

Warby makes the risible assertion that I am making the "costs of sticking up for liberal and conservative ideas even greater than they already are." Balderdash. What costs do the likes of Warby and Evans incur? What sacrifices do these intrepid corporate funded defenders of the market place make? Mr Warby and Co evidently believe that I should leave the fight for liberty and free markets to my social and intellectual betters in Collins Street and Newport.

Warby also arrogantly claimed that those (yours truly) who criticise the Melbourne Right "are not friends of the cause of freedom". I consider this just a grubbly little attempt to belittle this magazine and silence criticism. As I said elsewhere, what the Melbourne Right cannot control or influence it maligns.

On a number of occasions, Mr Warby, I have written that sacrifice is the measure of commitment. My material sacrifices in defence of liberty and the free market are my testimony and require no further elaboration. I am not on any corporate payroll, Mr Warby; I do not preach to the low-paid the benefits of independence while supping at the expense of corporate shareholders. I never sat in an air conditioned corporate office and pompously declared, as one free-market Gradgrind executive did, that if the unemployed can only get $2 an hour they should take it and be grateful.

Every week I struggle to put out an issue of the TNA, each with articles defending free markets, warnings of green zealotry, exposing and challenging media bigotry and hypocrisy, promoting the benefits of labour markets, challenging socialists, explaining unemployment, defending economic growth and the rights of Third World peasants, etc.

And Warby’s got the bloody nerve to insinuate that I’m not a friend of liberty and I "display a lack of respect for truth, and . . . respect for others." That’s pretty rich coming from people who have, to put it mildly, accorded me scant respect or recognition in the past, and judging from the tone of Warby’s e-mail I’m not likely to get much in the future. Fortunately I’m not looking for it. I am also capable, incidentally, of distinguishing between grovelling and respect.

Warby argues that Evans does not "deserve or warrant scurrilous abuse". No one does. But what Evans has received from us has been well aimed satire. There are some, Mr Warby, who consider intellectual grandstanding, egotistical behaviour and pretentiousness as suitable targets for satirical articles.

That the subjects do not share that view is to be expected. I noticed no one from your court complains when I dish it out to the Left (see Trendy Everfickle’s column). Furthermore, we expect the targets of our satire to be able to answer for themselves. It used to be called the "manly thing", like resigning after being caught doing something that was bad form.

He whines that the ABC was out to get him. Of course it was. But it was Warby himself who was stupid enough to hand the ABC his own head on a platter. And now he’s got the chutzpah to present himself as a martyr to liberty. (What was that Johnson said about scoundrels and patriotism?) Warby made great play of Media Watch’s dishonesty but doesn’t mention the fact that it was the TNA that scathingly attacked its double standards over its exposé (see Jane Fonda, Warby and Media Watch: who’s prejudiced now?) and not the IPA.

Warby is not alone in his self-centred approach. *Mike Nahan, Warby’s boss, once described the TNA’s media criticism section as not being "frequent" enough and not "analytical". Really? (By the bye, two journalists with whom I discussed the matter found Nahan’s criticism incomprehensible).

There are more than a 150 articles on the Media Wall of Shame heavily detailing media bigotry, incompetence and outright dishonesty, naming names as a matter of course. An average of more than one per issue. There are two more this week. One satirising Stephen Romei’s ‘reporting’ of the Elian Gonzalez story while the other details his prejudiced approach to Mayor Giulani.

I am not paid to do this, Mr Warby, nor have I ever begged for so much as one corporate cent. I do it because I consider it the right thing to do. How hopelessly old fashioned of me. But I’m an old fashioned kind of guy. Your boss’s statement was petty, mean-spirited and false — but I’ve come to expect nothing else from the Melbourne Right. All said and done, none of you lot have the moral standing or authority to question my ethics or my motives. I’m not pure and I might even be a shade abrasive but I’m damned honest and independent with it. With me, what you see is what you get. There are never unpleasant surprises.

Perhaps my readership is small beer by the stunningly successful standards of the IPA and the rest of Melbourne’s self-anointed Right, but its enough for me to get the message across. Moreover, I expect the message will reach more and more people as the readership continues to grow.

What the whole thing ultimately boils down to is guts and commitment. And these, Mr Warby, are things you can’t buy — even with corporate dollars.

*Nahan's vindictive criticism of the TNA's media articles was pretty rich since the IPA's net media monitoring page has only managed to produce two press releases in the last twelve months, the last one being April 1999 (It is now 3 November 1999). And for this they get paid.