Mangled Thoughts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have made a mistake: The case of X is true but, it is far more shocking than I had related in, ?More Developments in the Krogerites? Persecution of Prodos Mariankis???(May 10th, 2006).

Thursday evening, I had missed a call but a message had been left with a friends. It was passed to me yesterday evening, and it gave me a jolt.

When I called X last night, Thursday, 11th of May. X said the stalwart friend, who has read the article of the 10th, indicated I might be mistaken on a couple of things, and I was. The State Office of Trustees is charging X a 6 &1/2% ?administration fee??, and not, as I had stated, 10% ? it is still larceny. Secondly, one of Bracks? goons, named in the article, is not a Dickinson `woman?, but a Dickson goon pretending to be a decent woman. Other than that, there is nothing to correct.

Y confirmed the details set out in the article. The real mistake committed is, I hadn?t related the full shocking account. That?s understandable for, as I wrote, X is facing up to it as best as X possibly can, and with humour and a stiff upper lip. Being such a decent, dignified sort X spared relating the full details of what X is enduring at the hands of X?s daughters, VCAT, and the Bracks totalitarian Junta, and the failure of that moral Krogerite Cretin called David Davis.

Readers will appreciate why, by the end of this article, nay, before the end of it, one calls not only for the sacking of David Davis from his Upper House Seat, the sacking of Dickson, and the Bracks? Minister responsible to be sacked and thrown out of the Parliament. A forthright police investigation, with the prospect of charges being laid, is justified and must be executed. The investigation cannot be compromised by the Junta?s craven, venal lackeys in the Force It must be an investigation into the Agency of the Bracks? Junta, the Office of Public Trustees, concentrating on the goons the Bracks Junta has inserted into it.

Indeed, what the Bracks Junta has done to X satisfies its own secret police state Act, the Crimes Act, and that book should be thrown against the Bracks Cabinet of totalitarian liars, spivs, and commies. Compounding the sheer totalitarian brutality of the Bracks Junta and X?s daughters, is how badly the Krogerite glove puppet, David Davis, has failed in his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to his constituent.

The whole affair, which is still not completed, is nothing but a disgusting, totalitarian, action against X. Each corrupt, vile, party, to the action against X, is motivated only by greed. Their venal rapaciousness is fully manifested in the aim, one aim only, to confiscate X?s property, and get away with it by declaring X insane.

To say what Y related is upsetting is a litote, an understatement. By the time readers have finished perusing this article, unless one is mistaken, only the same vicious, gutless, venal, creeps named above will remain unmoved. The brutality of those slobs, and their cruel actions against X, and not only X, ladies and gentlemen, but also Y, are not concealed, they are on stark naked display in broad daylight. If any reader does not feel an urge to storm into Spring Street and have the Bracks Junta strung up, one will be very much surprised. I also declare, I will be taking all this very revealing reading material to Ted Baillieu. As opposed to merely requesting him to act, as in the article of the 10th, Ted now has no choice at all. Ted must act because, it is unambiguous what his duty, as an M.P. and Leader of the Opposition, is. So let?s to it and hit those savage cretins where it hurts, right in the groin of each and every one of the rotten, lying, cruel, spineless bastards.

Without identifying X and Y, a detail is required in order to clarify the plight of X and Y. X and Y are married, it is the second marriage for each of them. X raised the daughters out of X?s own resources, Working hard to maintain them, she also paid to send the 2 daughters to a private school. X is not `wealthy?, just prudent, independent and diligent in all their affairs. Likewise, X, until the daughters began their vile, spiteful and very nasty action, has continued to be very generous toward them, within X?s modest means. X as offspring not of age yet from a first marriage.

To recapitulate, the daughters launched the action in order to confiscate X?s property. That is the object of seeking to have the court to have X declared insane. X is not insane. X does have multiple sclerosis and is slowly going blind, that is the only affliction X has.

The action thus turns on X having to prove themselves not insane:

?X has to meet this disgusting rubbish of a test in order to retain their own private property, as well as to fend off all the ramifications of a capricious, malicious, vile declaration by an apparatchik of the Junta declaring someone insane for no reason at all. That is how serious and how bad it is to fight off such a false action before a ?tribunal??.

Again, a stiff in common law judge would have not admitted the case as entirely without merit, and would have rated the applicants for wasting the court?s time.

Dementia, Alzheimers disease, and insanity have never been a basis or a cause for private property and the affairs of someone to be either automatically transferred to or taken over by the Office of State Trustees Mark, that office is only an office of trust. Their duty is constricted to act only in the interests of anyone who has nominated that office to act on their behalf, in their interests. The Office is resorted to only in restricted cases, under restrictions in law. Even if X did suffer dementia, and X does not, X is married to a thoroughly decent, successful, diligent prudent spouse. All these points excludes resort to the Office, and to say the least, everything the Bracks Junta, via its goons in the State Office, has done against X.

Whether anyone who suffers a neurological condition of dementia, or alzheimers disease, or insanity, and insanity, as neurological afflictions, is, firstly, strictly a matter for them and those whom they consult, experts in psychiatry. It is certainly not a cause for action in a kangaroo court, nor is it an excuse for the Bracks Junta to confiscate private property.

?The retired officer was in no doubt, the application was entirely irregular. Neither a Tribunal nor the Office itself, he made it plain, had any business taking such an action against X at all. They had, in short, no cause and authority to proceed further in this case. The office has no authority at all to do what the Junta apparatchik decided to do against X. The Apparatchik did not quash the action as she should have done.??

X is not insane. X only suffers multiple sclerosis. X and Y are happily married and they are engaging, cultivated, unlike their persecutors, and thoroughly decent ? unlike their persecutors.

It begs the question, what other breaches, against common law does a tribunal commit in accepting such cases and letting them run to the bitter end? Since insanity is a neurological affliction, on what grounds can a pretend judge force anyone to defend themselves in a kangaroo court, to protect themselves thus, and do so by having to prove themselves not insane? Since the `judge? believes a `court? can try someone for a medical condition, what justification did the `judge? have for accepting the case? Certainly the daughters supplied no evidence from an expert. The `judge?, apparently, regards grounds of action a mere inconvenience for: The action stands on nothing more than the lies and, as we shall relate, slanders the daughters have told against X and Y. On the strength of that garbage, VCAT admitted the case. Here?s the twist: X and Y have had to pay for, among the many expenses they have been forced to incur in order to fight this case, expert medical evidence.

The daughters have told lies about X, and Y. In order to press their action, before a pretend judge, is they have slandered Y They have depicted Y as an unscrupulous manipulator who has only married X to get hold of X?s property. Thus the line is, since X is insane, X is incapable of managing their interests, bad enough. Oblivious to Y?s designs, X is at risk of losing all assets to Y. To protect X?s interests, the court must issue court orders for the transfer of property the daughters. To entrench the slander against Y, the daughters have visited anyone else they have identified as having a connection to Y in order to tell them the slander. For example, they told Y?s first wife and the upshot is, a court intervention order has been issued against Y prohibiting him visiting his offspring. Needless to say, this gruesome success of the daughter has served their court action: `See, he is what we say he is, he has a court order against him.? To fight this vicious campaign of smears and slander, and to protect his good name, Y is incurring the expense of running a defamation case against the daughters.

While the `court? have been having a fine old time agreeing to run the daughter?s confections of lies and slanders, the daughters have visited their elderly victims. Yes, those two charmers bashed X on the street, breaking X?s hip. At the top of a staircase to the flat of X, the two demure gels seized hold of Y and threw Y down the staircase. It is neither a short staircase nor a shallow one. Y remarked, ?The only reason why I was not killed is because there was an obstacle in the staircase which broke my fall.??

Have the police laid criminal charges against the daughters? Ha, don?t be silly, this is Brackistaniland, complete with New Age, Political Correct Selective Policing which is, clocking motorists as a good source of revenue, while real violent criminals run riot in Govt. schools? yards and classrooms, and on the streets of Melbourne. Yes, they bashed X, nearly murdered Y, and the two darlings are free and still persecuting both X and Y.

That?s enough of the horrific treatment of X and Y by two savage daughters, it?s too appalling to pursue further here-in and it is highly improper to continue to, out of respect for X and Y. The expensive private schooling has been completely wasted on those two evil scumbags. Put it down to the garbage of psycho-social-babble, which is pumped into the heads of conceited young things in private schools also.

As we have observed, the daughters achieved an interim, tactical success with:

?The daughters, yes daughters, of the elderly victim? have successfully sought application for the State Trustees to act against the victim by seizing X?s accounts, as a provisional action. Readers can see the point; it is one major inroad into achieving their aim of seizing the victim?s property, by having the victim declared insane by a Tribunal. The Officers have done so, and, adding injury to injury, are charging the victim a 10% administration fee. The villainy, however, in that action of the Junta, through its agent, is that they decided to seize X?s accounts.??

That action committed by goon of the Bracks Junta, despite the expert advice to X of a retired officer, of the State Trustees Office, a pre-Bracks Junta old school gentleman, that such an action is nonsense and would be entirely irregular. To put it bluntly, it is be unlawful for the State Trustees Office to do what the Bracks? goon, Dickson has done. This much, readers have already read. The Junta?s action, however, is worse than what I related in the first article.

Dickson did not simply,

?(Take)?X?s accounts and locked them up, and are charging X a 10% ?administration fee?. That?s right, the Bracks Junta has got its hands on private property and ripping X off. Officers jobbed into the Agency by the Junta have exercised the Junta?s love of Police State Power and Coercion, and seized X?s private property.

X, who is completely independent of government, does not even have access to the accounts. If it were not for a stalwart friend, X would be penniless. X would not be able to?

No, what Dickson did was, she removed the funds out of bank accounts, and out of X?s superannuation fund, and closed every account she seized. The funds of each of those accounts have been shipped into State Trustees Office?s accounts. That?s right, all X?s bank accounts have been stripped of the funds in each and closed down, they no longer exist. That?s right, Dickson did not merely seize the accounts and freeze them against the lawful owner, she confiscated the funds, she stripped all the funds out of the accounts, then closed the accounts, and siphoned the funds into the State Trustees Office?s accounts.

From the time when Dickson was first appointed to the case, for the Bracks Junta and the Office, certainly not for X, she would intensify her attempts to seize the accounts and strip them of the funds, and kept doing this until she succeeded.

Here is a grim twist adding insult to injury: X had to apply to VCAT to order the Office to release her accounts, it wasn?t accepted. VCAT did order the Office to pay X a sum per week The Office and Dickson have refused. Dickson has declared, they don?t have to comply with that order, an odiously inadequate order as it is. Needless to say, amongst other nasty trials, the financial pressures upon X and Y are now mounting.

Now,in case readers have missed it, the Bracks Junta, via its goons in the Office have actually acted unlawfully. It is now no longer a matter of opinion, even that of a retired gentleman of the old school. No, there is no doubt in this matter, the Bracks Junta, through its goons has unlawfully seizedf assets, and it has unlawfully confiscated them, and it has unlawfully shutdown accounts, including the superannuation fund which are private property of X.

The Bracks Junta has seized on the action of the daughters to confiscate private property. Examining the events, it seems very much the Junta believed the agains both X and Y, and the slander of insanity, had been sufficiently developed that it would serve as a smokescreen to confiscate private property. The Bracks Junta is in violation of common law and , diktat, `regulations? It has deliberately violated Acts which have force in such affairs. No ifs and buts and maybes about it, that is what the Junta has done, through its agent, the Office, and an officer so charged, Dickson, have done.

The claim I made in the first article, the action was irregular and unlawful, was secure, but not so solidly founded it turns out, as it actually is.

I remind readers of some brief remarks in the first article, on totalitarianism, police state thuggery, the overthrow of the Rule of Common Law, the completion of the Junta?s totalitarian aims by the Bill of rights, and so forth. Ladies and gentlemen, that damnable Bill of Rights has not yet been rammed through Parliament. We have a foretaste of what is to come in the Blasphemy `law? and `Inquisition?. The action against X is a vivid, shocking revelation of what the Bracks Junta is. In that singular action, involving an act of violence against a defenceless victim of a vile persecution, and police state coercion exercised by a goon, has crystallised what that Junta is and what it is about: a pack of totalitarian, venal, craven, lying, commie spivs. Their act of direct confiscation of private property does not even have the thin cover of that rubbish, `made law? and `regulation?, and `an Act of Parliament?. It is naked,brazen, in broad daylight confiscation of private property , and committed against some-one who has had enough cruel treatment dealt to them

Unbelievable, but then, one has never ceased over the last few years that that is exactly what the Bracks Junta is. Well, they couldn?t help themselves, sooner or later they would fully show themselves for what they are. They have done it, and in one singular shocking act.

Now, for David Davis, that useless, spinless, ductile, craven, krogerite glove puppet ensured the above rotten savages were free to so brutally persecute X and Y, and confiscate X?s private property. As I related, X took the case to Davis. ?Understandable??? now reads a limp way to put things, in view of what the couple have endured so far, and the plight they are in.

Their plight puts into perspective how disgusting Davis? inaction is, and when I wrote the first article, I considered it disgusting as it was. It?s worse. That man sat in X?s home and didn?t take any notes as the above was related to him. Davis did not ask any questions of them. When X and Y had finished, Davis simply left and, as I wrote, he has not lifted a finger to help his constituent and with it, fulfil his duty as a m.p. This lazy, conceited slob walked out on a couple in need of someone who can fight for them and win justice for them, and he walked out on them.

Their mistake, that of X and Y, is plain. What they should have done is to spend another fortune on hiring a Rolls Royce and driving up to his office. Then, believing he was receiving the sort of Toorak Political Brahmin the Krogerites like to suck up to, Davis would have shifted his butt and acted. More-over, since X has been slandered, X is insane Davis could very safely ignore the couple, ?Who is going to believe the rantings of a lunatic. Yes, Sir, nothing for Davis to excite himself over, just a cruelly treated elderly couple of no account to me I?ll let the daughters the `Judge?, the Junta, the goons squad, chew them up, confiscate all their property, and spit them out onto the streets.??

Davis is worse than a moral cretin, but then, that is what the Krogerites are, worse than moral cretins. In fact, their persecution of Prodos shows that they are exactly like the Bracks Junta and its goons in the bureaucracy, in its agencies and in the Judiciary. Venal, brutal, liars who happily pulverize decent men and women and, continually inventing novelties as `law? to ensure they can get away with their rotten actions. The krogerite wreckers are treacherous cowards who serve only the Bracks Junta. Well, that more than adds up, they find it highly profitable, look at that venal good for nothing bastard called Ron Walker.

Here we have the rotten, vile, totalitarian Bracks Junta engaging in nothing less than direct confiscation of private property, and joining with the daughters in bashing the couple up, and what is the reaction of the Krogerites? Nothing, just studied silence and butt protection, as they mutter between themselves:

Don?t upset the Bracks Junta wheeze. Don?t say a word, ignore it, it?ll go away, we?re too important for that. Don?t bother us, you?re just a no-body. What a cheek disturbing us high and mighty good-selves. Piss off, peasant.

The Krogerite bunch of socialist, venal, craven, gangsters should really should live up to what they are and seek to be jobbed into one of the Junta?s u-beaut let?s skin a peasant alive scams.

Ted has several problems, now, not just one. He now must launch an action against the Cabinet and Dickson. There is no choice, the case is such he cannot prevaricate in acting on it. He must also deal with Davis. He must deal with the rotten, treacherous Korgerites. He must seek justice for X and Y. He must seek damages against, not taxpayer, but each of the Cabinet and Dickson. Damages in order to compensate X and Y. he must order a police investigation into the Bracks Junta?s actions against X and Y, with the demand serious charges be laid against each of the Bracks Cabinet, and Dickson. It is that solid and shocking a case. He also now has the opportunity to fling out of the Party the Krogerite traitors. He even has a chance to take office. This is how shocking the case is, and the role of a Krogerite in this totalitarian action by the Police Junta.

That?s it for today folks. I have to be off. On Monday, I shall be resuming this affair, and with fresh material to relate. In the meantime, to X and Y, in your tribulaton, my sincerest sympathies; one wishes one could do more to serve you. I am so appalled by what has been done to you, and I have written this with a heavy heart. I shall be taking it up with Ted Baillieu,it merits nothing less. I will see to it first thing Monday morning.

Their libels and lies against Prodos are, of course, worse than mere contempt, but it is born of their contempt for the members of the Victorian Liberal Party and the principles of the Liberal party, and Victorians generally.

Their libels and lies against Prodos have been delivered in order to secure Prodos cannot hold any office in the Party. Well, K.K. and R. have been caught red-handed on this score, it is they, and in particular Sheezel, Tony Barry, and Hannon who are not fit and proper persons, according to the regulations of the Victorian Liberal Party, to hold an office, including standing for a seat in Parlaiment.

Their contempt for members is distilled in their treatment of the Richmond Branch. To recapitulate, it is a seat the K.K.&R. were never interseted in, and never bothered about before because, it requires a swing of 27% to win it. They took interest only when the members of the Branch accepted as their candidate someone who is everything the K.K.R. are not and on that, did not visit it, but have interfered in it and for one reason only: to attack Prodos and stop him.

The 8 dead bodies the KKR have dug up to contend for the job of candidate has, of course, nothing to do with serving the Branch and Richmond at all. It is everything to do with the Krogerites and what they enjoy doing, coercing Branches to select candidates only the krogerites approve of. In summary, they are trampling over the members and speaking down at them as feudal vassal serfs, and punishing them for being disobedient vassals:

`You will not select this candidate, you will select the candidate we tell you to select. We, however, have given you 8 dead bodies, so you have a choice’. Choice, ha, one dead body is no better than the other 7. Even if it were a choice, each of the 8 have been imposed upon the Richmond Branch.

The Richmond members should take a leaf out of the Mt. Waverley book of how to respond to the K.K.R., by telling them what they can go and do in clear, unambiguous, colourful, language.

What a pack of slimey, gutless, girlies who are good at one thing only, inflicting pain, but only so far as they do not have to face anyone in the open. They use the offices they have been jobbed into, and Party rules to sheild themsleves and to engage in smear, character assassination, and coercion. These spineless cretins, however, as also the Bracks Junta and its armies of jackbooted goons, can’t take pain, out in the open they are cowards. The point? They can’t take pain, they work protected but, they have not counted on the Internet to expose them for what they are and for what they are doing to Victorians.

And, let me say this to the walking dead Krogerite, David Davis:

X is relieved that, because of the Internet, your failure, gutlessness, and defection from your taxpayer kept duty as an M.P. to constituents, is being belted right back into your knackers. As for Bracks’ goons in the Office of Trustees, they should be sacked and made to pay compensation to X, and the Minister’s head lopped off for another bit of totalitarian police state thuggery. David Davis nearly let the Bracks Junta get away with outright confiscation of private property.

Nearly, the Internet has foiled is lazy, conceited, impression that spitting on constituent’s with a meritorious case to pursue would never come to anyone’s notice, and not be broadcasted, by the Power of the Internet. Davis has failed.

What a great invention the Internet is.

I have a feeling, Ted Baillieu will acquire a sudden interest in Davis, and Bracks and his goons in that Office. Ted can’t afford to have such unprincipled, gutless dead krogerite bodies in the Parliamentary wing of the Party.

Yes, Davis only served to compound X’s anguish and distress, caused by the vicious, vile, capricious, shocking and, due to the Office, police state treatment that has been dealt out to X. Three parties, who are doing nothing more than laying their hands on private property, seizing it, confiscating it.

Davis amplifies why the parlaimentary wing has been ineffectual, it has been wrecked by whining, load of socialist bull-shitting pillow biters. He didn’t bother his sawdust filled cranium about this shocking case, nor about X who has justice and right on their side, and walked away from it. He walked away from it and with it, ignored what is also a solid case with which to give the commie Bracks Junta a thorough bashing in the face and nuts. He didn’t do it, because he belongs to a narrow Krogerite section who are no better than the slimes who fill the Bracks Junta, in Parliament, in the bureaucracy, and in the `Judiciary’.

Davis, you are a corpse who has been merely stuck into a solid Liberal seat, in an upright pose , courtesy of K.K. &R Ltd., to the anger of abused constituents and Vic Liberal Party members.

In the past, when fresh bodies were unavailable for Professors and undergraduates of medical science to work on, `Resurrectionists’ were used to dig up and snatch bodies in cemeteries. The famous pair of Resurrectionists were two naughty chaps called Burke and Hare, they ran their own supply of dead bodies without digging graves. I once watched a set of macabre stories. The central characters of one short of the set were two desperate, impecunious, medical undergraduates who decided to get into the business of body-snatching. The bunglers managed to top themselves stone dead in a grave they were digging up. It was a hilarious short movie.

The Krogers have jobbed in gofers, lackeys, resurrectionists, and stuffed in dead bodies, into Victorian Party offices and Parliamentary seats, and as candidates, 8 of them for the seat of Richmond alone. The black comedy sums up K.K. &R., Ltd. They are succeeding at, in the end, topping only themselves and, the regular grave-diggers will shovel the soil into the grave, covering forever the newly dead.

My mole inside 104 Exhibition Street furnished this tid bit, Kroger’s resurrectionists have found two dead bodies for the seat of Richmond. My mistake, I counted 6 short. It turns out, they’ve dug up 8 bodies to contest the now totally lost job of Candidate for Richmond.

The left dominated media have a sniff of the real scandal and treachery committed by K.K.&R. ltd., and against Prodos Marinakis, but they do not have a clue what the actual case. Tags, such as `the Kroger faction’, and, `the Kennett faction’, are way off beam, as they are, while sniffing and hunting for the truth, missing wide of the mark. Typical of journos on so many matters, believing they are insiders when they are sitting way outside looking in. As for factions and factions fighting, while that describes the internal politics of the ALP, it is wide of the mark when applied to the Vic. Liberal Party.

There is no Krogerite faction, just a small clique, the K.K.R. and backed by another narrow clique, the Toorak Political Brahmins. This lot of spineless, selfish, not Liberal wreckers and traitors have control of the Party by the Korgers having jobbed their lackeys, gofers, ressurectionists and dead bodies into the executive offices of the Party and into Parliamentary seats. that is all.

That is all, and yet, so ruinous for the Party and, more to the point, what it stands for, and thus its job against the Bracks Junta, and its duty, of the Parliamentary wing of the Victorian Liberal Party, to Victorians, service by a principled and gutsy service in Parliament. That service, and principles, and guts and duty have been stamped upon by the K.K.R. and their narrow clique of Toorak Political Brahmin backers. Their great success is summed up, they have sold out the Liberal Party to the Bracks Junta, and at a profit to boot, just look at Ron Walker and how well he has done buy sacking good old taxpayers through his fellow commie mate, Steve Bracks.

The closest a journo has come to fingering the K.K.R. for what they are and doing, is a journo of Mao’s Red Age. He’s a Johnny come lately on this, the latest hot news, 8 bodies, with which one of them is selected, to be propped up by the glove puppet and inferi master as candidate for Richmond, though his puppets.

Matthew Murphy writes:

Baillieu backer seeks Honeywood seat
May 11, 2006

Mr Clarke is an architect, property developer and a former executive director of the Property Council of Australia. His bitter fight with Helen Kroger for the state presidency in 2003 strained his relations with party headquarters.

I commenced with that paragraph because it has direct bearing on KKR jobbing in procedures. So, here it is:

A number of candidates are believed to have nominated for Liberal pre-selection in the safe Labour seat of Richmond.

He waspishly remarks:

Prodos Marinakis…was the only person to seek candidacy.

The 8 contenders can’t be glove puppets, worn, holed socks, Kroger has drawn out of his bottom drawer. They must be corpses because, who would be so stupid as to contend for the job of candidate in the wake of the disgusting action of the KKR against Prodos, with Hannon lending his weightiness as a Kroger glove puppet, from his presidential chair, to join in `Let’s bash up Prodos, because he is a genuine Liberal and he is our moral and intellectual superior.’ Who would, anyone living and sane, wish to have their name broadcast in public, and stand before the public gaze, and that of the Left dominated media, in the wake of all that? Who would have their name attached to a scandal broadcast over the Internet and which the newspapers are copying for good copy?

A krogerite glove puppet, perhaps, who has been promised a pig’s trough job in the Party with, or without, a good Liberal seat later on? In this case, however, no. The 8 are dead bodies the resurrectionists have supplied in the manner of B.&H.

Dead bodies? Perhaps not quite dead, but after this non selection contest, they will be stone dead, along with their Krogerite masters.

Btw., the Krogers and their henchmen and women must have not only read the Harry Potter series, and watched the movies, they seem to believe in such powerful magic is true. Let’s see:

1. They believe they have mastered transfiguration, the evidence is glove puppets.

Not quite Kroger: sticking a glove on a hand and doing a bad ventriloquism act is not, according to the book, a successful example of transfiguration. A sock puppet, Krogers M.&H., is just a sock stuck on the hand.

2. The inferi curse - animating dead bodies. Nope, dead bodies are dead bodies after all.

Murphy writes:

Liberal headquarters extended the deadline for nominations

That’s economical. The krogerite glove puppets deliberately did not set a voting day in order to stop Prodos from running again, and to take however long it would take to dig up dead bodies or create them.

They have been busy at either emptying the Richmond cemetery or knocking locals on their nuts with a steel cosh.

Give Murphy his due, while the media is sniffing and hunting around in order to discover what is not going on inside the Party, but is really being done to it by only the narrow Krogerite Clique of K.K.&R with their Toorak Political Brahmin Backers propping them up, Murphy has also found out about the Resurrectionist business of KKR, and has made a snack of those responsible for it, and Helen Kroger.

I’ll say it again, if it were not for what is at stake, and the conduct of KK&R not disgusting and shocking, the antics of KK.&R would simply be hilarious, that is how moronic and stupid they are. Great comedy takes brains, those guys and gels are just shallow, witless, vile, village idiots who have somehow managed to get their hands on the affairs of serious adults.

Bye the bye, Murphy writing on what my mole inside 104 exhibition Street had informed me of, long before Murphy’s account went to press, is just an indication of:

My little friend is very trustworthy.

Damn, how the Krogerites must hate it, 104 Exhibition Street leaks faster than a rice strainer, a rice strainer absent of rice.

It is fitting to quote:

One of Burke and Hare’s main clients was Edinburgh University professor Dr Robert Knox. His anatomy classes were more akin to entertainment than science and could attract as many as 500 “students”. He needed a steady supply of corpses.

From 1827 Burke and Hare went on a killing spree around Edinburgh. No-one knows exactly how many of their victims ended up on Dr Knox’s table however it could be as many as thirty.

Luck finally ran out for Burke and Hare with their killing of Irish immigrant Mary Docherty. Questions were asked and Mary’s body discovered in Doctor Knox’s possession. Links were made back to Burke and Hare who were both arrested.

Hare agreed to testify against Burke in exchange for his own freedom. In the face of the evidence Burke confessed to some sixteen murders but always denied having ever robbed a grave.

To read more on these fore-runners of K.K.and R. Ltd., go to:

Burke & Hare: From Ireland to Edinburgh
:To Late 20th Century-Early 21st Century Victorian Liberal Party, Melbourne.

Ted Baillieu has a problem. It is Kroger and his thugs. He can fix it by sacking the craven, gutless goons and crawlers and the rest of the Krogerites who infest the Victorian Liberal Party.

Last Friday, I promised more developments in the disgraceful Prodos affair. If you recall, it involved the character assassination of Prodos Marinakis, a candidate for the seat of Richmond, by Kroger?s henchmen.

One development is a shocking record of the actions of that good-for-nothing, gutless, snout in the trough and malicious moron called Tony Barry, who has shown yet again that he hasn?t finished fishing in the sewers of Exhibition Street. The second development is the gutlessness of Krogerite and Paper Doyley mate David Davis. He will be dealt with at the end of this article.

The Krogerites believe the media will lose interest in the shocking scandal of their vile, rotten, and treacherous actions against the Party, its members, and Prodos Marinakis. Thus forgotten, they believe they will be left in peace to continue treating the Party and its members with complete contempt, wrecking the Victorian Liberal Party and selling out to the Bracks Junta.

This is Ted?s major problem. He has Kroger’s power-mad goons controlling all levels of the Victorian Liberal Party who only give a damn for themselves. They are nothing but a pack of venal, craven, ductile and thuggish spivs. Kroger will eventually fail. The power of the Internet alone will see to that.

Meanwhile the left-dominated media won?t let it alone either; they are lapping it up and are on the hunt. It won?t be dropped until the Krogerite sewer rats are cleaned out of the Party. Yes, Sheezel the Sleezle and Buffy the Slimer Barry et al have to be stamped on and booted out of the Victorian Liberal Party?s well paid offices, and right out of Exhibition Street.

They can run to those whom they truly serve, the Bracks Junta, but even the ALP wouldn?t have that lot in their ranks - the hard left of the ALP maybe, but not the decent branch of the ALP.

My very trustworthy mole in 104 Exhibition Street has leaked again. According to my little friend Tony Barry boasted about how he got Russell Hannon ?to gag that greasy wog??, meaning Prodos Marinakis. What is the significance of this Waspish racist comment?

Hannon is President of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party. So we apparently have another Kroger stooge aiding and abetting an attack on the character of a member of the Party. It is true that I cannot confirm my mole?s statement. But he/she has never lied to me, and is utterly disgusted by what was said.

Lending strength to my mole?s information is the indisputable fact that this lot slandered Prodos by falsely claiming that his web site contained racist links. A journalist from the leftwing Age investigated the allegation and said that it was totally false. This lie was not enough for Kroger?s cronies. They had to sink even further. Barry the ?Spiv? falsely accused Prodos of abusing him and shouting obscenities at him. It is now well known in Exhibition Street that Hannon is now defending Barry?s slander.

What a vile trio of Kroger lackeys, Barry, Sheezel, and Hannon, all of whom hold major positions in the Party. Believe it or not, they are even planning on becoming MPs. And for this the Party can thank Kroger.

Barry the thug, Kroger?s lap dog, fancies himself as a King Maker: Ha, ha, funny joke. Well, it would be funny if it were not so ruinous for the Liberal Party. Hannon is just another useless Krogerite glove puppet who has only been jobbed into an executive position because of his talent for bootlicking.

What is Hannon doing? He is helping the rest of them wreck the Party and try to destroy Prodos Marinakis? reputation. Fortunately for Prodos the people of Richmond know him to be an honest and upright man. I doubt very much that this gang of street assassins could find anyone to fill his shoes.

These three, Barry, Sheezel, and Hannon, have ganged up on Prodos Marinakis once again. They have clubbed together to ensure Prodos cannot even speak out within the Party. They are currently working hard to ensure Prodos cannot speak against the campaign of slander and malicious character assassination the Krogerites have launched against him.

They are working to ensure Prodos is silenced and not free to make an appropriate response to his persecutors. They are working hard to ensure Prodos cannot disclose the lies and slanders told against him. It is nothing less then using force to strip Prodos of his freedom within the Party to protect himself from the smears and slanders of these thugs.

Prodos? persecutors, it seems, continue to believe they can savagely persecute him with impunity. This crew told a brazen lie when they accused Prodos of having racist links. This lie, and others, were the inventions of the Krogerites in order to stop Prodos running as the candidate for the seat of Richmond. The racist association libel, has taken a new turn and has acquired a black, bleak and ironic edge.

Prodos is the son of Greek immigrants. He is not a racist. His only crimes are, holding real Liberal convictions and being morally and intellectually superior to his persecutors. He is, that is, just the sort of chap who, in the Parliament, can supply the front bench with the ammunition and artillery to totally eviscerate the Bracks Junta for its atrocious actions and measures, while serving the Liberal case and policies with solid arguments and analysis.

That gutless, malicious thug, Barry, and his even more cowardly and also IQ challenged pal, Sheezel, have slimed Prodos for racists links. An Age journalist, looking for a juicy story against the Liberal Party was disappointed. Having thoroughly investigated the smear against Prodos he found it was false. Here?s the black irony:

As I have already said, Barry has been quoted verbatim calling Prodos a ?greasy Wog.?? It is clear who the racist is, it is the foul-mouthed Barry.

Ted Baillieu ought to ponder a very serious question in view of Barry?s latest vicious attack on Prodos. Barry has just slimed Prodos for being a Greek, and thus, obviously, his Greek heritage, though he is firmly an Australian patriot, far more so, in my opinion, than Barry will ever be. So what will Greek Liberal Party members, and non-member Liberal voters, and swinging voters, make of this vile action? I think Ted Baillieu is going to find out soon enough.

One of the Party?s senior executives has not only smeared someone for his Greek heritage. Barry has even tried to paint Prodos as being a foul-mouthed thug. I say this will go down like a brick falling on a snail, ?squish?.

It is easy to conceive that some Greek members, who give generous support to the Party and what it is supposed to stand for, will be very angry indeed. Would they be satisfied with a mere hand-wringing apology? ?We?re sorry, Barry is sorry, Sheezel is sorry, and it won?t happen again?? It would be better to have them given a swift hard boot up their backsides or, in the balls, if they have any, and then shoot them out the door.

Next, what would the media make of Barry?s malicious conduct, Ted? Why, it would be the sort of publicity the Liberals need in an election against the Bracks Junta like it needs a hole in the head. On the other hand, the Krogerite wreckers and smearers of good men and women are a proverbial hole in the Liberal Party head. Fill it in,Ted, by stamping on them and getting rid of them. They, Ted, are no good at all: Ted, just look at their continuing rotten, malicious persecution of Prodos, who is the sort of man the Liberals needs in its parliamentary ranks.

You need an abnormally low IQ to ignore what the Krogerites are doing to the Party. Someone with an IQ as low as ten could not miss Barry?s real, malicious libel against Prodos. The libel, Ted, is besides all their other savage tirades against Prodos. Ted, can you afford to face the electors of the Victorian Parliament with such low-lifes in charge of crucial functions of the Party?

David Davis is a Liberal member of the Victorian State Parliament, Upper House, Seat of South Yarra. He is also a supporter of the Krogerite faction and like the rest of them, just another gutless political hack. He can?t even bring himself to do one of the primary duties of a member of Parliament, to take up the case of a constituent who is clearly being unjustly treated, and cruelly so, it is a shocking case. It is, to mark, the taxpayer kept duty of any MP to act in such cases and take them to Parliament in order to obtain rectification, and reparation for unjustly treated, atrociously treated, constituents.

The Rule of Common Law is being thoroughly undermined in Victoria. The Blasphemy `Law? and its medieval Inquisition illuminate how thoroughly the Bracks Junta is overthrowing the Rule of Common Law, a bastion of freedom against a tyrannical executive clinging to the Treasury Benches. The Bill of Rights will complete the aims of the BracksJunta. The spinelessness of Doyle and his fellow Krogerites, nay, their support for the Blasphemy `Law? is a disgusting betrayal of Liberalism.Well, the case of X is no better, justice is being thrown down in this case.

This type of case is being launched with increasing frequency in Victoria, adult off-spring seeking to seize their parents? private property by having one of the ?courts Tribunal? (which do not at all run on Common Law principles, anything but Common Law), declare their parents insane. Parents, in increasing numbers, in order to retain their property, face such trials as having to prove that they are not insane. Read it again carefully:

To defend themselves against such outrageous, disgusting, shocking actions, they have to prove that they are not insane.

Defendants have to do so to the satisfaction of pretend judges presiding on kangaroo courts. X has to meet this disgusting rubbish of a test in order to retain their own private property, as well as to fend off all the ramifications of a capricious, malicious, vile declaration by an apparatchik of the Junta declaring someone insane for no reason at all. That is how serious and how bad it is to fight off such a false action before a ?tribunal?.

In the case of X, a number of sitting days, spread over a couple of months, have already been wracked up. The trial and persecution of X, and that is what it amounts to, is still not completed in the ?Tribunal?.

In contrast, it is safe to assume, stiff in Common Law judges would reject the action against X and all such cases, as entirely without merit and, most likely, fine the appellants for wasting the court?s time, and have something hard to say against applicants and their malicious, vile motives. In the case of X, things are worse, and what makes it worse is entirely due to the Bracks Junta and its agent, the Office of State Trustees.

The daughters, yes daughters, of the elderly victim ( and by elderly, X is not in their 60?s) have successfully sought application for the State Trustees to act against the victim by seizing X?s accounts, as a provisional action. Readers can see the point; it is one major inroad into achieving their aim of seizing the victim?s property, by having the victim declared insane by a Tribunal. The Officers have done so, and, adding injury to injury, are charging the victim a 10% administration fee. The villainy, however, in that action of the Junta, through its agent, is that they decided to seize X?s accounts.

A retired officer, of the State Trustees Office, a pre-Bracks Junta old school gentleman, visited the victim one evening, soon before the Office?s action against X. To his question, `Did you receive my letter advising you of my visit, and why??, X replied, ?No?. To his question, ?Are you informed at all of why I am here?, X replied,?No?. He had to explain to X the reason for his visit.

He then proceeded to assure X this action against X is irregular, and that it must be a mistake. He re-assured X, in view of this action being nonsense, the Office will not proceed further, and it will be dropped.

Readers, before continuing, I can vouchsafe that X is not insane, and X has an above average IQ, and is very competent, and X?s accomplishments reflects those things. X is witty, sharp, shrewd, prudent, and, in short, is in full possession of their faculties.

The retired officer was in no doubt, the application was entirely irregular. Neither a Tribunal nor the Office itself, he made it plain, had any business taking such an action against X at all. They had, in short, no cause and authority to proceed further in this case. They have no authority at all to do what the Junta apparatchik decided to do against X. The Apparatchik did not quash the action as she should have done.

As the Bracks Junta, through its Attorney-General Rob Hulls , has done with all judicial offices, epitomised by the likes of Szoke, they have stuffed the Office with the same totalitarian, politically correct, craven, venal nasty types the Junta is fond of. One name in particular has been supplied, and yes, it is a woman, Dickinson.

The goons, who have been jobbed into the Office of Trustees, decided to issue a seizure order anyway. That is, they decided to proceed for no regular reason, they have no lawful ground at all for such action. They took X?s accounts and locked them up, and are charging X a 10% ?administration fee?. That?s right, the Bracks Junta has got its hands on private property and ripping X off. Officers jobbed into the Agency by the Junta have exercised the Junta?s love of Police State Power and Coercion, and seized X?s private property.

X, who is completely independent of govt, does not even have access to the accounts. If it were not for a stalwart friend, X would be penniless. X would not be able to pay bills, buy food, and not conduct their affairs. The friend to X is paying for X?s requirements, until her property can be recovered from the Bracks Junta. To do that, the case now, as things stand, unless an M.P. shows guts, must be completed, the application to have X declared insane quashed (for the vile, malicious load of rubbish it is).

That is what the Junta has done to X, through the ferocious, shocking action of their appointees to the Office. How did they do it is clear enough, they have simply acted on the false allegation and slander of, X is insane, and thus they seized X?s accounts.

X is, understandably, distressed because of this rotten triple trial at the hands of:

-X?s daughters

-The ` Tribunal? and its `Judge?, they having have shown out no less disgusting and vicious for accepting the action against X and dragging it out so long, instead of having quashed it for the load of rubbish it is.

-The Junta, and its Office of State Trustees.

One party is still seeking to seize X?s property. Another, the Tribunal is cleaning up too by their highly profitable taxpayer kept ?jobs? and their daily ?court? charges to taxpayers.

The third party, the Bracks Junta, via its goons in the Trustees office, has already managed to seize some major items of X?s private property - X?s accounts.

One afternoon, Bracks? goon walked by X and the friend and looked down at them, the contempt on her face rather plain. It is typical of the types the Junta is jobbing into many positions entailing grave responsibilities. The Krogerites share much in common with those types.

Unlike X, if Dickinson should cross my pass, I will happily tell her what she really is - something Krogerite members of Parlaiment don?t have the guts to do, and certainly not one whose name is David Davis.

X is distressed, understandably, by the persecution from the three sets of good for nothing, vile, malicious, rotters. X is facing up to it as best as X possibly can, and with humour and a stiff upper lip.

That?s the summation of the case, now for Liberal MP David Davis.

X, as a constituent of Davis, decided to take the matter to Davis. The shocking action of the trustee was the last straw for X. X, finally, decided, rightly so, to seek justice, through Davis, in Parliament. Davis received X and heard X, and that is all that Davis did.

Davis didn?t take notes during the meeting. Davis has never contacted X again. Davis has not raised the case in Parliament. Davis has failed in his sworn duty, taken on oath, to serve constituents by upholding common law freedoms against totalitarian, capricious actions of the Executive and its agencies, and by Courts. To this, it is a gross failure to take up cases of constituents who are dealt such hard, savage treatment as X clearly is enduring, and seek justice and a remedy in the Parliament for the constituent.

David Davis, the spineless, gutless, unprincipled Krogerite lazy slob, has failed the constituent, failed in his duty, has failed to uphold the Rule of Common Law, failed to serve all by protecting X against such a disgusting action which involves the goons of the Bracks Junta against X.

Davis is the sort of ductile coward the Krogerites have jobbed into Parliament.

From Liberal Party members, to Prodos, to constituents, the Krogerites have treated them with contempt and, shown a willingness to engage in malicious persecutions and, betray all of them. They are gutless, venal, ductile, and treacherous humbugs. They stand for nothing at all but their own craven, venal, aims and desires and the delusions they hold about themselves. They have done well in serving only the Bracks Junta.

Two quite different cases, that of Prodos, that of X, both shocking, and both show exactly what the Krogerites are really like. This is the problem Ted has. What is Ted made of? If he does hold Liberal Principles, and has a spine, then he will have to deal with the Krogerites in both wings of the Victorian Liberal Party.

Ted, mate, it is not only members who fully appreciate what the wreckers are, and what they are doing to the Party. The public is not deceived, which is why they have refused to vote for the Liberals. There is one constituent, X, who is in no doubt what a Krogerite lackey is, Ted.

They won?t vote out the Bracks Junta just to install another pack of venal, craven, liars and thugs. The public won?t vote the liberals onto the Treasury benches while they control the Party. You wish to do well by all, Ted? It is your first test, getting the Krogerites right off the backs of Liberal Party members and out of the Party. It?s your problem, too, Ted. What will you do? Are you a man of principle and act or, give way to that treacherous lot?

The Krogerites believe the media attention is ending and the scandal of what they are responsible for, the wrecking of the Party will fade quickly. Get this Helen, Michael, Barry, Sheezel, Hannon, Davis, Doyle; this is only the beginning. It won?t end until the rot is stopped and cleaned out, and the rot is you lot.

Barry and Sheezel can go kiss the butts of their bed pals at Crikey.com, for they are the only guys who ?lurve you??. Make no mistake, Victorian Liberal Party members have had a gutful of this lot. The media will make a meal of this pack of rotten cowards.

In view of the slanders against Prodos, from the likes of that malicious thug called Barry, and that cowardly weasel, Sheezel, and those snivelling whiners at Crikey, readers might view , Prodos not only has guts, Liberal convictions, amusing, colourful, he is a very serious man too. So, Just to guide the record straight:

the complete list of
all PRODOS.COM interviews
currently online! Click on these and listen now to discussions on philosophy, science, business, art,
world affairs, human rights!

A few titles:

ALLAN GOTTHELF DISCUSSES HIS BOOK “ON AYN RAND”
From the PRODOS.COM archives 2000 …

How should a person gain his philosophy? What is philosophy? What is the meaning of life? And is mysticism required to answer this question? What is ?value??? What does human survival require? What does it mean for a human being ?to live??? Selfishness: what is it according to Ayn Rand? Contrasting it with the Nietzchien view. The harmony of rational interests. In Ayn Rand?s novel, “The Fountainhead,” Howard Roark gives up a job that would bring him wealth and fame. How was that, by Ayn Rand?s philosophy, a selfish act? How did Allan Gotthelf first meet Ayn Rand?

THE CAPITALIST MANIFESTO BY ANDREW BERNSTEIN
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: A JOURNEY INTO AMERICAN IDEALS
In his “dissenting opinion” in the Kelo vs New London eminent domain case, United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas takes us on a journey into the thinking and the spirit of the American Founding Fathers. With San Diego based attorney, James Valliant, we analyse Justice Thomas’s approach and learn about how the framers of the American Constitution approached defending man’s rights - defending it against the very kinds of people represented by Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court’s majority opinion!

REVIVAL AND INFLUENCE OF ANCIENT SKEPTICISM IN MODERN SCIENCE
Skepticism?s Medieval alliance with theology. Extreme skepticism and moderate skepticism. Montaigne?s skeptic view regarding the statement ?honey is sweet??. Rene Descartes ?? the material universe as a giant piece of clockwork; ?I think; therefore I am.?? Looking for that which cannot be doubted. The ?evil demon?? hypothesis. When Science shook up the old views of the world. Thomas Hobbes ? his solution for the problem of finding a criteria for true knowledge. Influence of skepticism on modern science. Newtonians: ?We can do science without knowing the ultimate causes of things.?? Is statistical evidence proof of cause and effect?Skepticism and quantum mechanics Skepticism in ethics and politics. The elephant and the 3 blind men.

Prodos doesn’t simply have a thorough understanding of economics, he’s engaged in first rate inquiry and examinition of ideas.

The ALP prides itself on its thinkers and as a Party of ideas: Prodos leaves them behind and on a very sound lead of considerable distance.

Here are hard hitting items on Castro and Cuba:

Here’s an interesting excerpt from a radio interview on the last linked site:

JOSE BASULTO: Let me say something here. Ninoska mentioned something very important which is Eli?n’s wish. Eli?n has mentioned time and time again, and I have been there when he has said it, he wants to stay. He is very happy here. The only times that I have seen Eli?n kind of sad or concerned or worried is when somebody mentions the possibility that he may have to be returned to Cuba.

PRODOS: Does [Eli?n] say why he does not like Cuba?

JOSE BASULTO: (laughing) I wouldn’t even dare repeat the words he used the other day talking to his father (on the phone).

PRODOS: Is that right?

JOSE BASULTO: He said, ?Don’t send me back to that so and so. Please, you come over here.’

PRODOS: Is he angry with his father?

JOSE BASULTO: No he’s not. He loves his father - (after all) it’s his father. What he would like to be is together with his father - but in the United States. And I’m sure the father would like that too but at this time and this juncture in which Castro found that Eli?n was a gold mine for his propaganda effort and to detract attention away from his internal problems he is not going to let him loose so easy. So if Eli?n’s father’s possibility of coming here to claim his child, I think, is next to zero. Most especially if he tends to bring his [Cuban] family along to do that.

NINOSKA PEREC: The difference is that the one is a system that destroys the individuality of the human being. When Castro took over and in post-communism - on the people of Cuba he had to turn them into atheists first and then turn them into what Che Guevara has said — and this is what was written on the ID’s that were found on Cuban soldiers that were killed in Angola. It said the following: “Hate as the motivation. The kind of hate that makes a human being a cold and calculating killing machine. This is the hate that our soldiers must have.”

PRODOS: Prodos world wide at www.prodos.com - defending the right of Eli?n Gonzalez to live as a free person in a free society. Escaping from Cuba his mother died, his step-father died - to take him to freedom - to take him to America. Now the politicians and many others think that he’s got to go back to his father and have ignored the fact that his father may be under duress and that in any case - whether or not his father wants him back and is genuine - it would mean having to grow up as a Cuban Communist and be subjected to what could only be described as psychological torture and brainwashing.

Erich Veyhl, a colleague of mine, sent me a note saying that “New York Congressman Rangler - one of the more brash, reckless loud-mouth - Clinton supporters during Clinton’s impeachment - claimed we only want Eli?n to stay, out of an obsessive hatred for communism”. Gee, I thought that would be a GOOD thing! Having an obsessive hate for communism sounds pretty healthy to me. Mark Da Cunha, as somebody who runs Capitalism Magazine, do you have an obsessive hatred for communism - in the nicest possible way?

MARK DA CUNHA: My main love is for Capitalism. The problem with Communism that it resurfaces in different ways as with Fascism and Socialism and so forth. But I’d like to ask a question of Cuban friends.

PRODOS: Sure!

MARK DA CUNHA: I was reading about life in Cuba for children and tried to concretized difference between life as a child in Cuba and life as a child in America. I was reading for example that children had to have compulsory military service until a certain age and that they have to work in a farm labor camp so many days per year. Can you verify any of this or explain any of this?

ED LOCKE: The American Left likes Communism.

PRODOS: They like Communism?

ED LOCKE: Yeah, they think Communism is a great system.

PRODOS: Gees!

MARK DA CUNHA: To continue Ed Locke’s point. I think the link between the American Left and Castro is that where Castro wants to force people into slavery, I think the American Left, like Clinton and so forth, wishes us to vote our selves into slavery.

PRODOS: (Prodos and Ninoska laugh) The freedom to be slaves!

MARK DA CUNHA: We see that through the U.S. government’s expanding public education system; we see that through volunteerism where if you don’t ‘volunteer’ to pick up garbage, you don’t graduate from High School; we see that in the drive by the Clinton administration to enslave American doctors. So no wonder the American Left can see no difference and nothing wrong with Cuba. That’s where they want to lead us to!

PRODOS: So here we have, on the one hand, these poor Cubans trying to escape to freedom while the freest country on earth is going towards Socialism and Communism. Folks we’ve got to leave it there. Thanks very much for your time and helping us to defend the rights of Eli?n Gonzalez!

Here’s Prodos on some Victorian and Oz affairs.

Prodos is just the sort of go ahead, gutsy, principled and brainy chap the Liberals need in the Parliament.