I might waste no acid in the pen when excoriating Latham, Bracks, Carr and the ALP, might be trite at times, `Rudd the nut nibbling chipmunk, but I take Latham and co seriously precisley because what they satnd for, national socialism and, therefore dangerous. Steve Edwards, Daily Slander, also takes them seriously, and has written a solid item outling more considerations as to why they are dangerous indeed. One posted a response, again,lengthy enough and reprint here-in.
Comments: The nationalisation of the family unit
Very good post Steve, inclusive of the Balkans and Clinton’s crusade against Serbia.
One thing to recollect is, where Clinton announced it: in a primary school room, saying`..to make Serbia safe for children here in Arkinsaw.’
That, bye the bye, killed by burying what was to be fontpage news,a scoop of the NYT, the military secrets to Peking for cash to Democrat Part Campaign funds, which Gore oversaw, while Clinton altered the official secrets act in order to hand over the military technology plans to Peking.
Those who say, yes, he was a cad but charming, and treat him as some sort of economic and business guru - noting the high level reception of businessmen in Oz to Clinton’s speaking tour, miss the point, he was not and still is not, as IsraellyCool relates today, a cad but a charming cad, he committed high treason.To this, while the left berate the coalition of the willing as `war criminals’ for toppling Saddam, Clinton truly is a war criminal for ordering the bombing of Serbia.
It is worthwhile to note, if it had not been for the airwart, the Serbian people would have toppled Milosevic sooner than they did, the opposition to him was overwhelming. Instead, he razed Serbia and only , as you pointed out , gave succour only to the murderous KLA.
The KLA is not only a front for Islamo-fascism, with extensive links to outfits such as al Qaeda, but it is also engaged in high volume drugs running in Europe, extortion, blackmail, as well as murder. Rather pertinent since, KLA murdering Serbians was a major provocation , counting on it to provoke ill-disciplined Yugoslav army units in to doing more than root out the killers, counting on the effects would galvanise some leftoid dominated Western countries to do what Clinton, and Blair ordered against Serbia.
It is plain enough, Rudd and Latham believe the bombing of serbia was humanitarian while overthrowing Husseiin `illegal’. Such moral delinquency on Latham and Rudds’ part is illuminating as also Barry Jone’s statement, the ALP would, in govt. look forward to technological exchange with the Communist regime in China.
Technological exchange with the chillingly ruthless regime in China, has nothing to do with companies investing in China on sound market grounds, thus independent of both govts. What Jones relates is govt. to govt dealings.
What technology is China’ regime interested in: that which can be utilised militarily. The govt. is in no poistion to finance high grade military weapons technology and related technology.The Chinese govt. has a large school who assert, China should go to war against the U.S.A. when it is fully equipped to do so, which entails rapid technological advances which it can’t execute itself. Peter Zhang has drawn all this out in his columns for Brookes.News.
Is an ALP govt. capable of the sort of treachery Clinton and gore committed, with China, against Serbia ?. On the strength of what Latham and Rudd and Barry Jones ( who fancies himself as `Pastor to ALP) have announced to date: Yes it would be and in view of Jone’s ebulliant, eulogising of the ALP’s special friendly relations with the Chinese govt., via of course through officials of that govt., very likely will do so.
Scare-mongering? No, not when it is considered, the ALP is friends, in fact, with a ruthless party which has committed the most horrendous crimes aginast the very people it does not serve, the Chinese themselves, and there is no doubt, it still is savage towards Chinese citizens, even emigres now nationals of other countries, as Zhang has also iluustrated. As Peter points out repeatedly, the only thing which will stop the govt. is increasing market liberty and, consequently, an increasing number of the population who, eventually, will no longer tolerate those gangsters, the communist party and the quainlty named `Red Army’.
Latham, Rudd and Jones, can bleat and blubber all they care to in public. Their garbage does not conceal at all, the monstrous position on foreign affairs they hold.
Dangerous they are , domestically and on foreign affairs.
I added a further clarifying comment to steve’s post of yesterday:
The analogy, as I stated was not meant as a tight fit. It is easy also to overlook, aside from his evil criminal actions, on economics and law, as scholars in different disciplines have drawn out into to what amounts to as overwhelming evidence:
Hitter was not solipsistic at all, eclectic and incoherent maybe, but not odd, on economics and law: it was not simply socialist parties held large numbers but since the 19th century `historiographers’, theologians, philosophers, economists and jurists had hammered out the intellectual foundations of national socialism, reinforced by sociology and psychology - the twin quack sciences,as through, exhaustive systems. And Hitlers’ economic cabinet wasn’t composed of cranks.
Reasonable that is, precisely beacuse the intellectual foundations which dominated Germany since certainly since the end of the 1850’s were nothing less than those of absolutist, so totalitarian, govt. That is where the analogy rests and, ergo, law too. The AlP is reurgitating fallacious propositions which lead to the horrendous totalitarina regimes of the 20th century.
Now, looking at what Latham and the ALP are proposing, no other conclusion but one fits, they are national socialists.
So while Latham harbours no evil progroms nonetheless, the force of the ALP’s position is totalitarian: and Steve, good job above on drawing that out in your latest post on the matter: inclusive of warfare.
As I see it, stopping the ALP is not merely a matter of humiliating them on things like, `well, how would they finance their proposed spending spree ?’ This is a fight on principles fundamental to a free and civilised country. On the other hand, such a principled stand would require of the Coalition to re-examine many of its own assumptions and domestic policies, including `anti-global warming measures’ and other measures such as those which run on nothing but the bunk and pol potian garbage of greenies.
No election is a trivial affair but the forthcoming election is pivotal for the future of Oz. What the ALP has announced already is so ominous it is has to be fought tooth and nail. They cannot be permitted to stand up in public and utter schemes thoroughly ruinous not simply unchallenged but not eviscerated. It requires those who are capable of it to meet them in public and ruthlessly, mercilessly, strip away each shred of what they stand for and, yes, mercilessly shred each of the totalitarian bastards themsleves. Not only the ALP, however, but also the no less thuggish minor parties, with the Greens second main target: the Dems are now merely blowhards watching their hold in parlaiment evaporate form the heat of their hot wind.
Govts. need oppositions and capable of taking over. Unfortunately, what sits opposite the coalition are not fit, by any stretch of the imagination to be entrusted with the offices of govt. The Coalition is a socialist party, what is needed is a genuinely liberal party able to oppose the coalition parties on a prinicpled basis, attacking those measure which indeed warrant evisceration also.
It requires spine, toughness, ability, hard work but, it must be done. A call to arms, blow buglers the battle cry, take up arms, stand to, fight, fight, fight, fight to win, fight hard, and skewer the bastards for what they are.