The deep freeze is over

Just another anecdote, to use the tactics of the believers in Man Wanks the Universe (Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate change) AGW is false (though one has no need at all, unlike the boosters of AGW/C, to use such a cheap trick), there is no global warming. Agw, however, is not the subject of this post; it is only used in a metaphorical sense.

I went into a freeze because, what the dumpkofs called politicians and bureaucrats are doing to Australians is chilling. The antidote is a bit of scotch taken literally and neat (ice, water, and ginger? Bah, anyone who takes even a merely good scotch so adulterated should be shot); I’ve thawed out.

Some-one aksed the other day about what I frang on about when I blog. I gave a brief list, the occasion required impeccable manners and politics is bad manners, blogging is too, no doubt, as a subject that is/ I gave a brief list of matters that are ripe for blogging. In response to prod, I remarked, well, the great thing about blogging is it is not p.c. and it is about eviscerating things which warrant evisceration, `You call it a fucking cunt.’ A couple of gentleman drew breath and properly.

The occasion, was in the middle of a concentrated evisceration of those ignorant, slimes called Sheezel, Barry, their Krogerite fellow glove puppets, that derelict David Davies (the case of X and Y, which even Ted has not yet lifted a finger to defend against Bracks and his stasiland goon squads). Needless to say, one was still in combative mood. I felt ashamed after but, the nice thing about ladies, they like a bit of whiffy scandalous repartee, so long as it is delivered in good vein. Two lovely ladies patted me on the arm, as they defended me against the bullies who choked over what turned out a very felicitous remark.

Well, it was felicitous; two charming ladies were hanging off my arms, so you can?t get anything more felicitous than that, can you? Nonetheless, and it is not a confession, but for the best part of a week I’ve been flailing my hide.

Well, having thawed out, it’s time to call a few fucking cunts fucking cunts, and do so with gusto.

Hot news on the KKR

One has been light with the postings because, amongst other things, one has been pursuing a couple of leads for what could be another scoop. I?m, not saying what at the moment, and it is up in the air as to whether anything comes of it. Yet, one does have hot fresh news as the tag to this post suggests. My mole in 104 Exhibition St., has apprised me of a black comedy , which is the latest development. The KKR is hurting and desperate to find a big hole to hide in. The second development is the case of X and Y, and the horrendous abuse being dealt them by X?s daughter, and the Bracks Junta,its commissars of VCAT, and its goons.

My mole in 104 Exhibition St., the Victorian Liberal Party?s headquarters for the information of readers not familiar with the import of that address, has apprised me of a black comedy and it is the latest development in the scandal of their treatment of Prodos Marinakis. The KKR is hurting and desperate to find a big hole to hide in.

My mole inside 104 Exhibition Street has furnished new information on the persecution of Prodos by the wreckers of the Victorian Liberal Party by the KKR and their backers. The new development has a ring of black comedy to it, Krogers? Kronies and Resurrectionists have been told by the Powers that Be to forget Prodos and leave him alone and make a conciliatory gesture toward Prodos. The answer to the question why is straightforward, the exposure of their vicious attacks on Prodos has not only embarrassed them, it is hurting them.

To repeat a previous observation, the KKR are ignorant thugs, who, in wrecking the party, enjoy inflicting pain on others. Being the gutless thugs and girlies that they are, they believe they can safely persecute anyone the Krogerites don?t like. The undesirables are any who hold Liberal convictions. They believe they are protected by the safety of their well-paid jobs in 104 Exhibition Street and the tin pot goddies they serve - the Powers that be. They believed they could smear and slander and persecute Prodos in secret and thus would not face anybody prepared to hit them back and do it in public.

No, not hitting them back in kind, unlike their character assassination of their moral superior Prodos. It is, instead, simply a matter of throwing punches with fists loaded with the knuckle dusters of fulsome disclosures of their actions and what those Krogerite glove puppets, who feed their faces in 104 Exhibition Street at the expense of Liberal Party members, are doing to members and the Party. That sound squelching over the net? It is the grunting and squeals of hogs in a trough given electric shock treatment.

While they enjoy inflicting pain, being the gutless girlies that they are, they can?t take pain and, they are hurting. Moreover, they have become an embarrassment to their masters, and their masters have told them to stop and crawl to Prodos and kiss and make up. The motive is clear enough, the powers that be are increasingly nervous about the exposure and coverage they are receiving on the savage persecution of Prodos, and the attached illumination of what they are doing to the Victorian Liberal Party, wrecking it while serving the Bracks Junta. They are hurting also because, the consequences of the vile and disgusting treatment of Prodos and the Richmond Branch and its members, is revealing them in public for the selfish, venal, capricious moral cretins that they are.

The Powers that Be can?t see the problem is not Prodos and the exposure of the disgusting conduct of the Krogerites, it is their Krogerite vassal slaves who are the problem. It is a problem the little goddies are as much responsible for as the Krogers are. And the problem is a manifestation of why it is a problem at all, the absence of solid Liberal principles and convictions in a small narrow clique who have taken control of the Liberal Party and treat it as their feudal vassal estate.

The Powers that Be seem to believe that if the vicious campaign against Prodos is stopped and a conciliatory gesture toward Prodos made that will be the end of the matter and the public scrutiny. With this, because of the power of the Internet, the public attention the KKR and their narrow clique of backers are receiving will cease too. There are several problems with what they presume.

The first problem is their motivation: they are hurting because of the public exposure. Readers will recollect the first revelation of the scandal I wrote up and which was published on Brookesnews, and follow up articles. The media have picked it up. In the Sunday edition of the Herald Sun (14/5/06), most of page 31,Opinion Extra, was dedicated to a feature to the state of the Victorian Liberal Party, featuring Prodos. It did not do justice to Prodos; to the contrary, Brendan Donohoe, who is the state political reporter for Channel Seven, made snide comments against Prodos.

Donohoe, however, did rate the Victorian Liberal for its glaring failure to attract members and, candidates who are prepared to stand and fight for seats. Donohoe doesn?t manage to pin why the Party is in a shambles but he doesn?t hesitate to call the state of the Victorian Liberal Party for what it is, a disgrace. Donohoe blunted the force of the point by rambling on about how much members of parliament are paid, reducing the argument to a lack of monetary incentive. This is rubbish but that aside, Donohoe’s article was just one more kick in the Krogerite groin.

Well, one will not cease covering the scandal, and not just because of the scandal, but because of the Krogerites’ treachery and their wrecking of the Party. One will not cease publishing new revelations exposing a pack of venal thugs who are a cancer in the Party.

The second problem is the presumption, if the scandal is brought to an end and Prodos is appeased, then it is business as usual, with the Krogerites still in place and the clique still in control of the Party. Well, it is exactly that which led to the persecution of Prodos. They are wrong.

Victorian Liberal Party members have had enough of being treated as vassal serfs and seeing Liberal principles betrayed and the upshot, the parliamentary wing corrupted by the Brahmins and their Krogerite stooges. They are disgusted at that wing?s efforts in supporting the police state `laws? of the Bracks Junta and for the ever increasing tax and squander on bureaucracies, `environmentalism?, windmill scams, train sets, the Commie Commonwealth Games, and goon squads, all of which entails only economic carnage.

Nothing better amplifies the damage done to the Party than the wing?s spinelessness and cowardice and betrayal of Liberal principles by their support for a long list of the Bracks Junta?s rotten measures. Absolutely shocking is their failure to assert the Rule of Common Law and, instead, the gutless pricks have supported such police state measures as the Blasphemy ?Law? and medieval witch sniffers? ?court?.

The KKR are deluding themselves if they believe ending the savage action against Prodos ends what is nothing less than a fight against a bunch of cowards, who wouldn?t recognise a liberal principle if it hit them in the face. No, it doesn?t end there, It ends when the Party is gutted of those treacherous wreckers and men and women of solid Liberal principles and convictions hold offices and stand as candidates, and run on those same convictions. That is when it stops.

The third problem is, they seem to believe Liberal members are, as they are, spineless, unprincipled, craven, morons. That?s evident enough, if they believe Prodos can be turned into another lackey of theirs by offering him a conciliatory gesture. A Gesture! Krogers? lackeys, Sheezel, Tony Barry, and Russell Hannan have used their positions and Liberal Part head office to mount a vile campaign against Prodos, and the Powers that Be believe all that is required is a load of socialist drivel delivered in a heart-to heart group hug-in.

More to the point is that they are assuming Prodos is behind what is hurting them. To this, they assume if Prodos can be bought, and he can not be bought, he will call off the `retaliation? I have a hot flash for them: Prodos has nothing at all to do with the exposure of their treachery and betrayal of Liberal members and the Victorian Liberal Party.

Prodos has never contacted me, nor sent me information, nor have I approached him. It is obvious that Prodos has adhered to the Party?s rules regarding confidentiality and silence on matters internal to the Party. Why, is lost on me and for no less a reason than Sheezel, Tony Barry, and Russell Hannan have exploited that in order to mount their attacks on Prodos.

They can rest assured, it?s not the end of the attention to their nasty ways; I won?t cease writing on it and broadcasting it over the Internet. It is not a matter of `tit-for-tat? retaliation either. It is a proper exposure of the conduct of moral cretins, their actions against Prodos, and what they and that typify. So, they can hide in their offices and keep on trembling. 104 Exhibition Street leaks faster than a colander absent of rice and this fact must have the KKR bent over vomiting into the toilets several times a day.

The last problem is, a ` gesture?, type - `conciliatory?, doesn?t quite make reparation for the smears, slanders, public campaign through the sniveling lefties at Crikey.com, and the star chamber inquisition, hurled against Prodos by Sheezel, Tony Barry and Russell Hannan. It doesn?t make up for such treachery against Prodos whose crime is; he holds Liberal convictions and is their moral superior as well. It doesn?t make up for their treatment of the members of the Richmond Branch. It doesn?t make up for their shear contempt for Liberal members and Victorians. It doesn?t make up for the KKR and their backers treating the Victorian Liberal Party as their feudal estate and, their wrecking of the Party, their treachery reflected in how well they have served and supported the Bracks Junta.

A gesture and conciliation are the wrong words. What will satisfy Liberal Party members is:

The Krogerite lackeys and glove puppets given the sack and flung out of 104 into the gutters.
The control of the clique over the Party killed off.
Appointments to executive offices of men and women who do hold solid Liberal principles, and unlike the current incumbents, are actually competent to execute the responsibilities and charges those positions entail.
Killing the Krogerite habit of coercing branches into dismissing candidates for seats in Parliament who firmly hold Liberal convictions and replacing them with spineless, unprincipled glove puppets.

It is not a matter of members exacting satisfaction. They are only a few items, which must be done now. More has to be done in order to rectify the Victorian Liberal Party .The Party has to be put it back into shape to not merely win elections, but make it fit to hold the Treasury Benches again. Right now, the Liberal Party is as fit as the ALP to do that, not at all.

In the meantime, the Powers that Be and their K.K.R. glove puppets are wailing, gnashing their teeth, vomiting into toilet bowls, their heads hurt and, stamping their feet,crying, ?We want the (thoroughly deserved) publicity to stop??. Gad, it?s funny. Those oh so tough, head kicking, nobodies and con men are crumpled up in agony because, truth hurts and truth will out. Well, they can keep screaming, for they are not hurt enough yet.

N.B.: A Liberal Party member, who fully understands what the KKR are, and what they are doing to the party, read the first article on the KKR?s actions against Prodos when it was published by Brookesnews. He mentioned to me ? I give them two weeks, at the most, and then they will break down crying their little eyes out.?? Well, that senior Liberal Party member has the measure of those types.

The case of X and Y

First, a few corrections to my last piece on X and Y are to be noted.
Having related X was assaulted by X’s daughters in the street, what the daughters did to X is far worse than I had related. Early one evening, as X walked to a mailbox from her residence, her daughters, with two female friends, followed X. to the mailbox. There, they together, the daughters and friends, bashed X and threw X to the ground. This assault opened up and accentuated an old, fine and small fracture in X?s hip. The gangsters then dragged X up and grabbed hold of X?s wrists and locked X?s up into X?s back and forced marched X back to X?s residence.

The daughters? defamation of Y, who is the spouse of X, is far more vicious than I had related.

This week, the case should have been concluded in a VCAT tribunal. It hasn?t been concluded, one of Bracks? commissars decided to extend what amounts to nothing less than a Kafkaesque trial of X. The trick Bracks? commissar used, was to reject the psychiatric report another VCAT commissar had ordered X to obtain for the VCAT persecution a while ago.

What was wrong with the psychiatrist?s report? It contained the wrong answer. The conclusion was a solid statement of X is sane The Commissar did not like that finding and ordered X to spend another $300 on another examination by another psychiatrist. One can imagine the Commissars in VCAT stretching the trial of X through the remainder of this year and into next year on the strength of simply rejecting each new psychiatry report.

Dickson, Bracks? goon in the Office of State Trustees, to recapitulate, seized X?s bank and superannuation accounts, siphoned out all the funds and closed the accounts. With X?s private property thus stolen by the Bracks Junta, Y is paying X?s bills and, Y is struggling to meet the now compounding financial burden, which has followed upon the Bracks confiscation of private property.

Franz Kafka?s, The Trial, is a black, bleak, surreal story. A man is subjected to the horror of being arraigned before a Star Chamber, for no crime at all. Scoundrels, with all the qualities of police state thugs, detain him at their whim. The Trial was banned in the U.S.S.R. because, for a work of fiction, it illuminated what `law? and trials in the U.S.S.R were with rare clarity.

VCAT is not a court of Common Law. VCAT amounts to nothing less than a kangaroo court in which commissars of the Bracks Junta enforce nothing more than the whim of tyrants. Amplifying what VCAT amounts to is the shocking enforcement of Bracks? totalitarian Blasphemy `Law?, against the two Pastors on the strength of nothing more than the Commissars in VCAT did not like what the Two Pastors did, told the truth about Islamo-nazism. How they set about snaring the two Pastors, by deliberately seeking out a couple of Muslims to enter private property and, seek some excuse to find that their feelings have been hurt by the truth. Brookesnews has fully covered the brutal, totalitarian actions of Bracks? goons against the two Pastors. The editor of Brooksnews went further.

The editor has not merely published statements in the Brooksnews magazine that are, according to the Blasphemy Act, hideous crimes, he directly wrote to Commissar Sisely and pointed out, as Sisely did against the Two Pastors, she must arraign the editor before the Kafkaesque VCAT Star Chamber. Sisely has not merely not done so, she has sent a snivelling excuse which contradicts the fact of her action against the Two Pastors. These matters are available to read on the Brooksnews website. Those who have followed the correspondence and the editor?s articles are fully apprised why the editor launched the challenge to VCAT, through Commissar Sisely and the Blasphemy ?Law?.

The Commissars of VCAT haven?t acted against the editor and the reason is obvious. The Commissars act only against those they believe are too weak to stand up to those, gutless, venal, Police state thugs. Lets? get this clear, as in The Trial, the `authority’ of types like that resides only in brute coercive force and police state thuggery. Without the Bracks Junta, the Commissars of VCAT would be in the gutters as the rotten unemployable dole bludging bums that they are. Thus we see them beating up:

The two Pastors and;

A sixty year old woman, who suffers multiple sclerosis, which has impaired only her eyesight and hearing.

The Commissar, who presided this week in the Kafkaesque Trial of X, seems to assume no-one would notice that Commissar?s thuggery, and that of the Commissar for admitting a case which in Common Law would have been rejected in the first few minutes of the first hearing, for admittance of the case, as entirely without merit, as only vile nonsense put out by two vile daughters.

How brave, how learned, just as the slimes that serve communists regimes are so brave. They must be brave, for who else but the brave would arraign and brutalise decent men and women, and in this case, a 60 years old woman who has multiple sclerosis?

The Commissars are no better than X?s daughters, who, aided by their savage friends bashed their 60 year old mother in a shopping strip, broke her hip and frog marched her back to her residence, and seized and threw down a staircase X?s husband.

In doing so, they are ably abetting the Commissar in the State Trustees Office and the Junta in their act of confiscation of X?s accounts.

Unbelievable, this is Australia, and yet we have a Junta, which, daily, commits actions worthy of the USSR or, otherwise, would be no more than a fiction in a surreal and black novel.

As for the gutless krogerites and one in particular, David Davis, who plague the Liberal Party, and have supported the Junta?s totalitarian Acts and actions, what has their response been? Silence, stony silence, nothing at all.

Having related X, as a constituent of David Davis, properly sought justice by contacting Davis as her M.P., David Davis has not taken up her case. Silence, the silence of another gutless, unprincipled, krogerite glove puppet, that has been is response. Well, what of Ted Baillieu? I hear crickets chirruping, and at it is the beginning of winter.

Last Friday, Ted promoted Davis to, Minister for the cult of the goddess of death, Gaia, as the `Minister for the Environment?. He has praised Davis for being a fine, decent, hard-working Liberal M.P. Ted must have been cracking a subtle joke, for Davis has not simply failed in his duty as an M.P. to a constituent. Davis is derelict in his duty to a constituent, who is being cruelly and brutally treated, not only by her daughters, but also by the Bracks Junta, its goons, and its commissars.

Ted, mate, that 60 year old woman, who has multiple sclerosis, and her partner, are being subjected to brutal thuggery, not just at the hands of the daughters, but at the hands of the Bracks Junta. And your pals in the Liberal Party are so unprincipled they have refused to do their duty. Well, given the krogerite lackeys under Doyle backed to the hilt Bracks? Blasphemy Act, I can understand why they won?t lift a finger on her behalf, for the gutless and treacherous lackeys supported the measure which befits only a totalitarian regime.

What are you going to do, Ted? Are you going to find spine and principle and stand up for the poor couple and with it, re-assert the Rule of Common Law and not the capricious tyrants? rule by diktat ? otherwise called regulation and that garbage called `made law?. What are you going to do Ted? Are you too going to betray Liberal principles or are you going to stand up, be a man, and fight for the couple and fight the Bracks Junta? Of course, it will be difficult Ted; you would also have to stand up to your sister, in view of her collusion with the Bracks Junta in leading the naked confiscation of property, the site of the former Portsea OCTU battle school.

The betrayal of X and Y by a Krogerite glove puppet typifies what the Krogerites have stuffed the Parliamentary wing with, and why it has not fought the Bracks Junta but has, instead, backed many of its rotten measures. It is another demonstration of why they have lost the 2006-election, rather than having eviscerated the Bracks Junta and not at this years polls, but years ago. Ted, that is what the man in the street sees and is talking about, the Liberal Opposition are not better than the Bracks Junta is, they are exactly the same, rotten. You can indulge in a happy - clappy socialist group hug in Ted, and you will continue to lose voters because of spinelessness and betrayal of Liberal principles, Ted.

Oh, I must add, X explained, in the Star Chamber, defence, so far , has been impossible. Daring to even begin an explanation provokes the Commissar into treating them as having committed some horrendous crime.A truly Kafkaesque wringer this poor couple are being put through, and, it is not over yet.

Jesus of History, Christ of Faith

A brief read of a few passages in the novel, ?The de Vinci Code??, in a bookshop, suggested a tedious read. The movie might be better. The axle of it is a ?what if? bit of speculation. Mixed with the elements of a thriller; conspiracy, murder, an innocent who gets wind of a deep secret, powerful antagonists who can crush a chap with one flick of the eyebrow; and what do we get, besides a pot boiled story, demonstrations in the street.

Perhaps the timing is unfortunate. With governments and bureaucrats in the West persecuting Christians and bending over backwards to appease Islamo-nazis in our midst, the sensitivities involved are understandable, Not another damned leftist attack on Christianity? The record of Hollywood half witted lefties is not re-assuring as to whether the film is a good thriller only or another leftist indulgence. Having neither read the book nor seen the movie, the judgment is in suspension, so I?ll take it at face value, it?s merely a thriller starring lanky Hanky Tom.

The dirty secret of the story, Jesus married Mary, they had a son, and Jesus lived a pedestrian life until old age, has invoked the ire of Christians.

Well, the historical Jesus certainly was crucified to death. The difficulty with the gospel narratives is, they are not factual biographies of Jesus, they are texts written to set out christological and theological claims. This observation clears up why the gospels are not biographies, what the authors were at pains to set out can be demonstrated from biography. What facts would establish the theological and christological content which is the kernel of those books?

Answering, for example, the Resurrection doesn?t cut any ice. One, would is not referring to whether it occurred or not, and what happened. Though, to draw out the question of what happened, is not the same as what witnesses experienced when they met the risen Christ. Such questions, to repeat, are beside the point, the life of Jesus anchors the proclamation but the Jesus of Nazareth is depicted entirely in terms of that proclamation. Thus, even loose questions such as, was Jesus married cannot be answered. A bit of shrewd speculation, however, is not altogether out of order.

The wedding at Cana is an intriguing narrative; whose wedding was it? The telling detail is Jesus? mum and he serves the duty of hosts. Guests then, as now, did not supply wine In short, Jesus? part is that of the groom, and certainly not a guest

A few funerary casks of the period, in which the remains of the dead are kept, were discovered in a tomb in Jerusalem a few years ago. They are inscribed respectively:

Jesus of Nazareth
Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus
John, son of Jesus

In the N. T. narratives the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is intimate and depicted with a delicacy is matched only by the depiction of the relationship between Jesus and John, which has long impressed me as filial.

Speculative it might be, but one has long been intrigued by the possibility of a marriage. First because of the narrative units and, later, the recent archaeological discovery, by whether Jesus and Mary were in fact married and that John was indeed their son. It is possible that, for example, the casks were deliberately made to discredit the claims of Jesus? followers.

To be clear, it can?t be firmly secured either way, as this little bit of speculation shows. The real question is, does it follow the proclamation and claims of Jesus? apostles are undermined if in fact Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son?

My short answer is, the claims would not be undermined. The matter devolves upon what Jesus? apostles witnessed and understood of Jesus? life, death and resurrection. What they understood wasn?t built out of earthly details of Jesus? life. What they understood is decided by the conclusion, which is what they witnessed as the resurrection and not just the resurrection, but as the author of Luke-Acts relates, `Pentecost?. It is from that perspective, to mark, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus is appreciated, including the other wise inexplicable resolution of Jesus to surrender himself in the Garden of Gethsemane and his refusal to defend himself on a capital charge before Pilate.

The narrative presentation of the trial of Jesus depicts Pilate is given to the conclusion Jesus is harmless and would acquit him. Jesus says nothing of help Pilate, and answers questions with questions. What was said during the trial and what evidence was actually presented is another matter, but that is not the point to the narrative.

St. Paul has met only the Risen Christ, not the historical Jesus, but for Paul, that the Risen Christ and the Jesus of history are identical secures the truth of his proclamation.

In the gospels, until the Resurrection, that Jesus is not only truly a Son of God but is Son of Man is glimpsed and not apprehended as Jesus perambulates around Judaea. In the book of Revelation, the identity of Jesus and the Risen Christ is glimpsed from the other side as it were. The historical Jesus is glimpsed through the Risen Christ.

What is decisive for John, is the unique relationship between the Jesus and the Father. This, and not the historical details of Jesus? life, and the implications of what was disclosed by the life death and resurrection of one who was and remains true to the Father, and transparent to the Father. No historical fact establishes what John and the other writers of the N. T. collection are concerned to establish.

Thus, whether Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son doesn?t add or subtract to what the writers of the gospel narratives were concerned to relate. The veracity of their theological-christological claims is not yielded out of historical facts. A reliable life of Jesus would have been an entirely different work.

If Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son, and that could be established, that detail would only add charm to the proclamation, though it would add weight to the anthropological term, Son of God.

This speculative line is, of course altogether different to a fiction thriller titled, The de Vinci Code. The reaction to the movie, assuming it is a good movie, is a tad excessive. One of the departure points, Jesus married Mary M. and their son was John, is, however, a tantalising question and one for Christians to give careful consideration to.

Podcasting on Free Labour Markets

The Coalition is taking a caning over its labour market measures. Quite frankly, `Government’ should get right out of the way, Common Law is moe than adequate to resolving any conflicts of interests arising out of contracts. The problem is, the Coal;tion has kicked goals for the opponents of free labour markets. The first goal scored was when the Cabinet first mooted a bill; they asserted, `deregulating’ labour markets would increase productivity. To this false claim, things degenerated, as when Hugh Morgan declared on ABC t.v., many employees earn to much. That the Coalition has mangled what is a very moral and sound case is due to ignorance.

The Coalition boast of being pragmatic and practical, that is as bad as the ALP and its claim to be idealists. Pragmatism is a specious excuse for absolutism. The practical man is an ignorant man, which is summed up by even Liberal politicians dismissing economic theory as a romantic indulgence and the preserve of boffins. Perhaps it is understandable, to a neglible extent;Keynesian economics rules O.K. What, however, such politicians pride themselves on is ignorance, a deliberate spurning of explanation of reality, which is exposed by a telling question, Why do they ride a lift to the umpteenth floor of an office tower, fly in planes, drive in cars and over bridges, consult surgeons? Such politicians should be indifferent as to whether a butcher or a song and dance girly builds a plane or a bridge or a tower. Why bother with an engineer who has had to master an exhuastive body of theories in order to make things which don’t collapse, things which can be launched off the ground and not fall out of the sky. So, too economics, and that is what distingushes the classical Liberal economic tradition against the rubbish of Marx and Keynes.

The consequence is, the Cabinet has engaged the wrong people for advice. The H.R. Nichols Society, for example, is a club of the economically blind leading the blind. It shows, they leant their puny weight to damaging the case. The upshot is, the opposition, while their claims are rubbish too, and what Beazley is promising he would do should he win office is monstrous, is making headway in this fight, boosted by the Bracks Juntas’ use of taxpayers’ stolen property to mount a party political campaign against the reform.

Gerard Jackson and Prodos Marinakis have weighed in with what is a weekly series of podcasts, the first put up this week. Gerard is doing what the advisers and ministers are incapable of doing, explaining the economics of labour markets, and why free markets are essential. The first in the series is titled, Labour Market Reform:Can unions protect wages?

Unions, Socialists, and other critics of the market argue that without unions, collective bargaining, or state intervention wages and living standards would be driven down.

Gerard Jackson explains the fallacies behind this position. How logic, history and centuries of economic thinking refute this notion.

As with all sound theory, of course economics is abstract reasoning and requires concentration to learn and master. Gerard , none-the-less, gives a succinct and crisp account which explains the matter for the layman. Readers might note, union officials read Gerard’s articles on economics and labour markets on Brookes News precisely because, they recognise, Gerard is an economist, as opposed to say keynesians, and to study what the explanations, the theorems are, on the principle perhaps of, understand the opponent in order to attack. Not that the unions have to do much, what with the Cabinet and the Nichols mob mangling the case thoroughly, they are saved a great deal of bother.

The podcast is about 30 minutes, with a couple of short ad breaks. The series is a must listen to special, which the Cabinet also should attend to, and then sack their current advisers and engage those who can do the real work, such as Gerard.

Essays on Socialism

In Essays on Socialism, one has been comparing late C19th to 1930?s Germany, and the descent into socialism. Socialism is a religion, a pseudo rational equivalent of a theocracy. Until the rise of, in reality of superstition and mysticism as substitutes for philosophy, economics and law, the last through `legal positivism?, and with it, the rise of the cult of the nation. There was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany, which was over-ridden in the second half of the 19tth century.by the incipiently totalitarian novelties. The boosters of central planning sneered at the Liberals as dreamers clinging to quaint notions from a dead past

Rousseau?s lie of the savage noble as truly human had an unfortunate widespread influence in France and Germany, of which the Romantic Movement was but one issue. In England, the Romantic Movement was short-lived and given short thrift, regarded as built on no more than a pile of shite. Wordsworth, as a leading proponent of Rousseau?s nonsense, repented of it in his old age. He was embarrassed by his indulgence of it, and by that he had wasted so much effort distilling it through poetry.

Rousseau?s nonsense is reflected in the mythologising of the history of the German people, and in socialist pseudo philosophy, as reflected in, for example, the Rubbish of Marx and National Socialism, for which the notion of the primitive savage as true man is central. Civilisation and the basis of civilisation, freedom and free market economic production and trade, are treated as artificial. To this, from Rousseau, the expression `torn-condition? was coined and popularised. Civilisation, that is, `unnatural?, and violates the `natural man?. Yet, civilisation is so far advanced, it cannot be reversed. The question, for the pseudo philosophers and mythologisers of history, was how to reconcile the two? Socialism, as a religion is essentially the attempt to retain the primitive mores and values of tribal man, reflected in, religion is an amplification of primitive tribalism. It is interesting that the tribalist can only succeed in making many conform to religious dictate is through coercion exercised through absolutism, and hence the ramification of religion is totalitarianism.

One other upshot was a reaction against science, and substitution of scientism, charlatanism, for science, under both communist regimes and the Nazi regime. The Nazi Party went further and, basically, cultically worshipped `nature?. Others have observed all the savage beliefs of Greenies were held by the Nazi Party.

The central argument being run in essays on socialism is, all the features outlined of C19th to early C20th Germany are clearly visible in Australia and have been embraced by the major political parties in Australia. Moreover, for example, `Government? as directed the proliferation, popularisation and inculcation of savage beliefs, inclusive of those of Greens. Science is attacked and undermined by this national socialist and statist descent into charlatanism and savage mysticism and superstition. Another parallel one has drawn is the mythologising of Australian History, which is pivotal to the rise of an increasing and more strident shift to National Socialism by both the major parties. Many of Kim Beazley?s parliamentary speeches are nakedly anchored in national socialist rhetoric. The Coalition, on the other hand, have as `advisers? to cabinet those charlatans called sociologists. Sociology is not a learned discipline; it is a non-discipline, which rests on the same pseudo-philosophical streams which informed Nazism and communism, and it rests on ignorance.

A number of articles have been posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute?s website which demonstrate the same argument in the Essays on Socialism, but with fresh content.

Germany, and the descent into socialism. Socialism is a religion, a pseudo rational equivalent of a theocracy. Until the rise of, in reality of superstition and mysticism as substitutes for philosophy, economics and law, the last through `legal positivism?, and with it, the rise of the cult of the nation, there was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany which was over-ridden by the incipiently totalitarian novelties.

Rousseau?s lie of the savage noble as truly human had an unfortunate widespread influence in France and Germany, of which the Romantic Movement was but one issue. In England, the Romantic Movement was short-lived and given short thrift, regarded as built on no more than a pile of shite. Wordsworth, as a leading proponent of Rousseau?s nonsense, repented of it in his old age. He was embarrassed by his indulgence of it, and by that he had wasted so much effort distilling it through poetry.

Rousseau?s nonsense is reflected in the mythologising of the history of the German people, and in socialist pseudo philosophy, as reflected in, for example, the Rubbish of Marx and National Socialism, for which the notion of the primitive savage as true man is central. Civilisation and the basis of civilisation, freedom and free market economic production and trade, are treated as artificial. To this, from Rousseau, the expression `torn-condition? was coined and popularised. Civilisation, that is, `unnatural?, and violates the `natural man?. Yet, civilisation is so far advanced, it cannot be reversed. The question, for the pseudo philosophers and mythologisers of history, was how to reconcile the two? Socialism, as a religion is essentially the attempt to retain the primitive mores and values of tribal man, reflected in, religion is an amplification of primitive tribalism. It is interesting that the tribalist can only succeed in making many conform to religious dictate is through coercion exercised through absolutism, and hence the ramification of religion is totalitarianism.

One other upshot was a reaction against science, and substitution of scientism, charlatanism, for science, under both communist regimes and the Nazi regime. The Nazi Party went further and, basically, cultically worshipped `nature?. Others have observed all the savage beliefs of Greenies were held by the Nazi Party.

The central argument being run in essays on socialism is, all the features outlined of C19th to early C20th Germany are clearly visible in Australia and have been embraced by the major political parties in Australia. Moreover, for example, `Government? as directed the proliferation, popularisation and inculcation of savage beliefs, inclusive of those of Greens. Science is attacked and undermined by this national socialist and statist descent into charlatanism and savage mysticism and superstition. Another parallel one has drawn is the mythologising of Australian History, which is pivotal to the rise of an increasing and more strident shift to National Socialism by both the major parties. Many of Kim Beazley?s parliamentary speeches are nakedly anchored in national socialist rhetoric. The Coalition, on the other hand, have as `advisers? to cabinet those charlatans called sociologists. Sociology is not a learned discipline; it is a non-discipline, which rests on the same pseudo-philosophical streams which informed Nazism and communism, and rests on the deliberate cultivation of ignorance.

A number of articles have been posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute?s website which demonstrate the same argument in the Essays on Socialism, but with fresh content.

The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism by Murray N. Rothbard, who observes:

Americans hedged in their new governments with numerous limits and restrictions …

The new federal government formed by the Articles of Confederation was not permitted to levy any taxes upon the public; and any fundamental extension of its powers required unanimous consent by every state government.

Actually, that was true of England from when Henry II bound the King to observe the Rule of Common Law to Sir Robert Peel. The Crown had no a-priori right to tax, and had no mystical power to tax. Any revenue measure was restricted as a temporary measure only. Sir Robert Peel usurped the Parliament, which was a court of common law, by his imposition of unrestricted taxes. Peel?s novelties, inclusive of imposing a bureaucracy modelled on the Royal Court of China’s mandarin administration, for the express purpose of central planning and `regulation’ -over against the rule of common law, were nearly defeated. If he had have been defeated, would have been politically finished, a pity he got away with it.

Australian politicians in the 19th century did exactly the opposite tot eh Americans. While Australian Parliaments and the courts are rooted in the Common Law tradition, the politicians imbibed in the absolutists doctrines popular in Europe. The articles of each constitution, Federal and States? Parliaments, are loaded with terms indebted to the absolutists pseudo-philosophies cum dogmas the Europeans are still adduced to. In fact, that is what is so unsatisfactory about the resolution to the Eureka rebellion.

The Victorian Government imposed the tax the gold mining `licence? as a coercive measure with the aims of

1 Imposing a tax revenue.
2. To force the `miners? to return to working for employers.
3. To eradicate what Melbourne?s Brahmans, both sides of the political fence `conservative? and `radical?, considered unseemly and an offence to their sensibilities, transient men and families living in tent cities.

With the police used as nothing but tax extractors, and the administration of justice a risible farce, the miner?s complaint was right. The settlement to the uprising was not right, the key provision, the vote in return for taxation amounts to nothing less than a handful of politicians, administrators and miners, having agreed to sell common law upheld freedoms against a coercive executive.

It is notable that, free trading New South Welshmen opposed the N.S.W. Government?s attempt to impose a gold licence in N.S.W. While they resented the labour shortage due to the gold rush, businessmen in N.S.W opposed the attempt for the very reason that it would have been an appalling act of usurpation of liberty and with long run ramifications.

While the Eureka incident and, more importantly, the settlement to it, is celebrated as the `birth of Australian democracy?, the truth is rather different. The winners were the political Brahman, `left? and `right?, for it was the `birth? of absolutism. The Constitution for the Victorian Parliament and Executive makes that crystal clear.

While the Americans were busy trying to formulate a basis for preventing ‘government? exerting coercive power against the people and, eliminating any possible avenue for the usurpation of liberty, including by taxation and imposition of fiat money, and usurping liberty, in Australia, too many were busy on acquiring coercive power. The framers of the Constitutions of the States and Federation, were busy inserting fictions as articles, which assert nothing less than coercive, absolutist power. Those articles amount to the usurpation of the Rule of Common Law. It is no accident that many of the `Acts? of the Bracks Junta is each an usurpation of Common Law. The Bill of Rights the Bracks Junta is preparing will completely usurp Common Law for the rule of dictators.

Despite the fundamental differences between Australians and Americans over govt. and liberty, Rothbard examines movements in American history which have reversed the American Revolution -

? After the Revolution
Thus, America, above all countries, was born in an explicitly libertarian revolution, a revolution against empire; against taxation, trade monopoly, and regulation; and against militarism and executive power. The revolution resulted in governments unprecedented in restrictions placed on their power…??

So, for example, Rothbard observes something common to Australia too:

?If the laissez-faire liberals were confused by the new recrudescence of statism and mercantilism as “progressive” corporate statism, another reason for the decay of classical liberalism by the end of the nineteenth century was the growth of a peculiar new movement: socialism. Socialism began in the 1830s and expanded greatly after the 1880s. The peculiar thing about socialism was that it was a confused, hybrid movement, influenced by both the two great preexisting polar ideologies, liberalism and conservatism. From the classical liberals the socialists took a frank acceptance of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, an early glorification of “science” and “reason,” and at least a rhetorical devotion to such classical liberal ideals as peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living. Indeed, the socialists, long before the much later corporatists, pioneered in a co-opting of science, reason, and industrialism. And the socialists not only adopted the classical liberal adherence to democracy, but topped it by calling for an “expanded democracy,” in which “the people” would run the economy ? and each other
On the other hand, from the conservatives the socialists took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for trying to achieve these liberal goals. Industrial harmony and growth were to be achieved by aggrandizing the State into an all-powerful institution, ruling the economy and the society in the name of “science.” A vanguard of technocrats was to assume all-powerful rule over everyone’s person and property in the name of the “people” and of “democracy.”

In Athens and the U.S.: Decline and Fall, Eric Phillips begins:

Suppose there existed a world democracy with one vote for each person in the population. Is it not obvious, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out, that the world would adopt a flagrantly favorable policy towards China and India at everyone else’s expense?
On the other hand, suppose two robbers break into a house and start ransacking the place. When the owner comes down to protest, the robbers, if abiding strictly by the rules of democracy, could simply hold an election to determine whose property the belongings actually are, and with their superior numbers, outvote the legitimate owner.
These examples may seem theoretical, but our government today abides by this exact philosophy. As Murray Rothbard said, “On the free market, everyone?

Ludwig von Mises paper,The Psychological Basis of the Opposition to Economic Theory, is not an exercise in psycho-babble, as the following quotes demonstrates:

The Hypothesis of Marxism and the Sociology of Knowledge
Let us consider first the doctrine which teaches that thought is dependent upon the class of the thinker.
According to the Marxian view, in the period between the tribal society of the golden age of times immemorial and the transformation of capitalism into the communist paradise of the future, human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition. The class situation ? the social existence ? of an individual determines his thought. Therefore, thinking produces theories that correspond to the class interests of the thinker. These theories form the “ideological superstructure” of class interests. They are apologies for the latter and serve to cover up their nakedness. Subjectively, the individual thinker may be honest. However, it is not possible for him to pass beyond the limitations imposed on his thinking by his class situation. He is able to reveal and unmask the ideologies of other classes, but he remains throughout his life biased in favor of the ideology that his own class interests dictate.
In the volumes that have been written in defense of this thesis the question is ? characteristically ? almost never raised whether there is any truth in the supposition that society is divided into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable conflict.[7] For Marx the case was obvious.

Even if we were to assume that society is divided into classes with conflicting interests and if we were to agree that everyone is morally obliged to follow his class interests and nothing but his class interests, the question would still remain: What best serves class interests? This
is the point where “scientific” socialism and the “sociology of knowledge” show their mysticism. They assume without hesitation that whatever is demanded by one’s class interests is always immediately evident and unequivocal.[9] The comrade who is of a different opinion can only be a traitor to his class.
What reply can Marxian socialism make to those who, precisely on behalf of the proletarians, demand private ownership of the means of production, and not their socialization? If they are proletarians, this demand alone is sufficient to brand them as traitors to their class, or, if they are not proletarians, as class enemies. Or if, finally, the Marxists
The historical function of the theory of classes can best be understood when it is compared to the theory of the nationalists. Nationalism and racism also declare that there are irreconcilable conflicts of interests ? not between classes, of course, but between nations and races ? and that one’s thinking is determined by one’s nationality or race. The nationalists form “Fatherland” and “National” parties, which boast that they and they alone pursue the goals that serve the welfare of the nation and the people. Whoever does not agree with them ? whether or not he belongs to their nationality ? is forever after regarded as an enemy or a traitor. The nationalist refuses to he convinced that the programs of other parties also seek to serve the interests of the nation and the people. He cannot believe that the man who wants to live in peace with neighboring countries or who advocates free trade rather than protective tariffs does not make these demands in the interests of a foreign country, but likewise wishes to act, and thinks he is acting, in the interests of his own country. The nationalist believes so adamantly in his own program that he simply cannot conceive how any other could possibly be in the interests of his nation. Whoever thinks differently can only be a traitor or a foreign enemy.
Consequently, both doctrines ? the Marxian sociology of knowledge as well as the political theory of nationalism and racism share the assumption that the interests of one’s class, nation, or race unequivocally demand a definite course of action and that for the members of a class or nationality, or for the racially pure, no doubt can arise about what this should be. An intellectual discussion of the pros and cons of different party programs seems unthinkable to them. Class membership
What makes this procedure a matter of serious concern is that, if adhered to in practice, it renders impossible every discussion involving argument and counterargument. The battle of minds is replaced by the examination of opponents’ social, national, or racial backgrounds. Because of the vagueness of the concepts of class, nation, and race, it is always possible to conclude such an examination by “unmasking” one’s opponent. It has gone so far that one acknowledges as comrades, fellow countrymen, or racial brothers only those who share the ideas that are alone presumed adequate to such a status. (It is a sign of a special lack?

Economics refuted the belief that prosperity is to be expected from the abolition of private property and the market economy. It proved that the omnipotence of the authorities, from whom wonders had been hoped for, is a delusion and that the man who undertakes to organize social cooperation, the ****, as well as the homo faber, who directs organic and inorganic nature in the process of production, cannot go beyond certain limits. This too had to appear to the servitors of the apparatus of violence, both those in the imperium and those in the magisterium, as a lowering of their personal prestige. They considered themselves as demigods who make history, or at least as the assistants of these demigods. Now they were to be nothing but the executors of an unalterable necessity. Just as the deterministic theories, entirely apart from the condemnation they received from the ecclesiastical authorities on dogmatic grounds, encountered the inner opposition of those who believed themselves to be possessed of free will, so these theories too met with resistance on the part of rulers and their retinue, who felt free in the exercise of their political power.

And in the course of time the authority of the public institutions of compulsion and coercion, i.e., of state, church, and political parties, has somehow become very much involved with the old theory. These powers, by their very nature unfriendly to every change, now oppose the new theory precisely because it is new.
However, when we speak of the opposition that the?

Conclusion
The romantic revolt against logic and science does not limit itself to the sphere of social phenomena and the sciences of human action. It is a revolt against our entire culture and civilization. Both Spann and Sombart demand the renunciation of scientific knowledge and the return to the faith and the bucolic conditions of the Middle Ages, and all Germans who are not in the Marxist camp joyfully agree with them. The Marxists, however, are eager in this regard to transform their once sober “scientific” socialism into a romantic and sentimental socialism more pleasing to the masses.

As positivism has been inclucated into undergraduates in law schools, the same sneers against Liberalism and Common Law made by the 19th century central planners -

“There was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany, which was over-ridden in the second half of the 19tth century.by the incipiently totalitarian novelties. The boosters of central planning sneered at the Liberals as dreamers cling to quaint notions from a dead past…”

are common place in Australia today, the sneers of the ignornant.