Mangled Thoughts

The starting point is the controversy over the Bill Henson exhibition. Are the few pictures of a young girl art or paederastic pornography? Without seeing the photographs, it is difficult to decide but if the latter it is disgusting. The matter to zoom in on is what the scandal discloses; it’s a symptom of something else. It is not merely a controversy, and Henson does face the possibility of being charged.

Bracks and Brumby have effected a neo-Marxist coup-de-tat in Victoria, a matter I had intended to sum up this week but will do it next week. With it, under ‘anti-discrimination law’, the Blasphemy Act and such like what has happened is the judgement and discrimination exercised by many has been overthrown and instead all must obey the ‘morals’ of a narrow ‘elite’ who despise the liberty of mere dumb oafs.

Secondly, Government has undermined conventions and mores. Recently I had some chats with parents who, thanks to Federal and Victorian governments, watch their teenage offspring ruin their lives. The Federal ‘living away from home allowance’, for example, has made it possible for school children to leave home. The parents have no say, and what is more under the Bracks anti-Bill of rights it’s basically a horrific crime for parents to discipline their children.

Free markets don’t undermine families. Free markets yields the basis for families to thrive. Government has been the means for ideological parasites to deliberately undermine families. The upshot is the likes of Rudd, whose fascist, oxymoronic slogan ‘working families’ has nothing to do with families at all.

The second leg is demagoguery. Common law is rooted in absolute property rights and economic freedom. Take narcotics. Under common law, it’s not a question of legalese. If someone tries to corrupt your children, and hook your children on narcotics and thus destroy your children, you have every right to defend your children. If you are physically capable of it, you can pulverise the scumbags. If not, you can get a burly policeman to nab the scumbags, haul them into court and be assured the Judge would hand down a satisfyingly punitive sentence. Statist politicians have eliminated the right to defend yours, made it a criminal offence in fact. Crimes are crimes only if politicians say so, and the reverse is politicians declaring daily what is lawful to be crimes.

Socialism destroys morals, a real crime both major parties commit. As we see in the case of the Greens’ lie and “Kyoto compliance”, they proceed by whipping up passions using lies, and also use real concerns to justify each new decree. This is what Rudd and others are doing over petrol supply and its price control scheme euphemistically called “Fuel Watch”. Rudd is whipping up passions by slandering oil producers - “big oil”. Rudd is a demagogue.

As the Blasphemy Act and anti-discrimination Acts show, some are free to exercise discrimination and say what they wish to say. The trouble is, every other Victorian must obey the selective morality of a parasitic ‘elite’. But, in spitting on modest, decent Australians and their morals, they set something else in train, the backlash.

Unfettered, non-selective immigration for example, has generated real and nasty problems. The admission of a large number of Muslims, leading to the now ever present danger a terrorist cell will kill Australians through a bombing. Then, the gangs bashing and raping and stabbing modest Australians daily, in Victoria. Today it was reported that in Adelaide a backlash is growing, with increasing assaults on immigrants. The violence is to be condemned, but its a nasty symptom of something Sir Enoch Powell said, which was distorted by his opponents, his “Rivers of Blood Speech”.

Within the Church, the stupidity of clerics and contempt for the laity has fuelled reactions and false controversies. There are those, for example, who have been slandered and vilified for very fine work indeed. Tolerance is overthrown, intellectual liberty with it. Neither are mushy sentimental indulgences. They are in fact rooted in absolute property rights, economic liberty and advanced through common law. The break down of tolerance is due to, the major parties having overthrown absolute private rights and are extinguishing economic freedom. The distinction between meum and tuum is crucial.

In Victoria aka “Brackistan”, things are far worse. Ah, it must not be forgotten, common law and the Judges are a bar to tyranny, which is also why the former has been overthrown and the judiciary stuffed with the ideologically correct. The ‘elite’ are tolerant of only themselves and their rotten ideology; they despise all else . Art is not exempt from the upshot of the Victorian triumvirate of politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary.

Government and local councils throw taxpayers property at artists. There was a display of ‘art’ in a Melbourne lane, glorifying Islamic terrorists. Footscray Council is now showing an exhibition that is nothing but a propaganda exercise justifying the Islamo-fascist terrorist rat-hole called the “Palestinian territory”. This is besides much that is trash, though not controversial. Modest Australians are supposed to abide this abuse and have no choice but abide it. To refuse to pay taxes is now treated as a crime worse than murder. Those who strip modest Australians and entrepreneurs of their private property squander it on things that give them pleasure and not anyone else.

Modest, decent Australians might see in art only more abuse and thus, understandably go on the warpath. The self-appointed ‘elites’, Left and Right, indulge at taxpayers’ expense brutalist rubbish palmed off as art. These parasites, who spit on ordinary Australians daily and then froth at the mouth when serfs fight back, have brought on a reaction, the furore over the Henson exhibition. The question is; is the reaction warranted?

There is no point in art lovers and artists crying crocodile tears when they are the subject of hostile demands, including they be censored. If we did not have thugs for politicians stripping many of their rights, and imposing their values and tastes while making it a criminal offence for all others to exercise their rights, including judgment, they might not be in the invidious position they are in now:

1. The public baying for their blood
2. Leftist politicians promising to impose censorship control over art, and, amusingly, deciding what will be allowed to be purveyed as art.

A grim irony is, it won’t stop the politicians funding ‘exhibitions’ glorifying Islamo terrorists, and depicting Jews and Israel as Nazis and Nazi Germany. Censorship will be applied according to the selective morality and discrimination of the dictators who have, say, run riot over Victorians.

Consider this:

Premier of Brackistan John Brumby came out in support of Rudds damnation of the exhibition

“Politicians must decide and legislate what is moral behaviour…”

They are the words of dictators, and not civilised men. Who else said the same? Robert Doyle, the 2nd former Victorian State Liberal Party Opposition leader before Red Ted. That makes sense. After all, it was Doyle and every (not at all) Liberal MP who fully backed Bracks’ Blasphemy Law.

The irony is, Bill Henderson prepared his photographs in Victoria. Bracks, Brumby and Hulls have rammed down a mountain of ‘law’ to make Victorians ‘moral’. How is it then, according to all who have attacked the exhibition, a pornographic flash show for paederasts was prepared in Victoria. Oh, I know, it’s ‘art’.

In Victoria, Bracks and Hulls rammed down Acts which state, it is a criminal offence for adults to be engaged in sports clubs, tourist guiding, and many other activities, without extensive police checks, in case children are present and many a decent Victorian suddenly turns rock-spider. It is a criminal offence in Victoria to employ youngsters under a certain age and for the same reason. These extensive police state morality laws have seen youngsters sacked from their part time jobs, and Victorians presumed child molesters. Yet, despite all this, there is an artist photographing a prepubescent girl in the buff.

What is also crucial about Brumby’s statement is, it prepares the way for police state censorship. Is Rudd preparing his own censorship ‘laws’ to control art. Rudd can exploit the scandal as an excuse knowing modest Australians have understandably had enough of violent rodents committing violence against children:

Govt weighs into nude teen art debate

It’s hilarious, the number of artists and Oz Hollywood hams who vilified Howard and plump for the ALP. Some, like Kate Blanchette, also support Stalinist Greens policies. Blanchett can reprise her role as Queen Elizabeth and screech at Rudd (oh dear, dear, dear, they were such good friends) but Rudd is only hitting her with the chook that came back to roost.

Then there is The Spencer Street Soviet Age, who hurled abuse at Howard, equating him with Hitter, when the real totalitarian thugs are the Victorian ALP administration and now the Federal Rudd administration. They didn’t give a stuff about Bracks and Hulls and Brumby stripping Victorians of their inalienable Rights, but are now howling because one of their pet causes is given the same treatment.

In reality, it’s not so much Henderson, it’s the looming blanket censorship ‘laws’ that are now the threat and the politicians have found the excuse to ram them down. It must no be forgotten the Rightwing MPs during the Howard years who were trying to raise censorship control of the Internet. The reason is obvious, the Internet hurts them.

The Henson exhibition: Art or paedarastic pornography?

Without seeing it, it is difficult to decide. To this, I did look at the few photographs published in The Age. Child abuse, rape and pornography rings and convicted crims plus, the fact the Victorian Government protects the identity of convicted scumbags, particularly when they release them, has generated understandable outrage. Given many animals are hardened offenders, are understandably Victorians are furious. Therefore, anything suggestive of this vile, criminal conduct does upset Victorians. The well was poisoned long before the exhibition.

Many who have inveighed against the photos have not seen them.

Some years ago, I was impressed by a photo image of Christ on the Cross. It distils there is nothing nice about the crucifixion. In the man tortured and executed on the Cross, there is despair “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me”(Matt. 27:46). A famous Russian icon, but of the ‘temptation in the wilderness’, similarly depicts the face of Jesus; cracked eyes stare out through darkness.

For a photo, I don’t dispute the aesthetic merits of the image of the Son abandoned itself. Two details, however, caused a storm; a blunt title “pissed Christ”, and that later it was disclosed Andres Serrano produced the effect by urinating over the crucifix. Here’s a link to the picture. The crude title irritated, but it was regrettable how he produced it was disclosed; my appreciation of it was punctured. Serrano did go public in defence of his picture, saying he is a devout Catholic. He explained the image was spurred by his yyears of meditating upon the passion of Christ. It might be said, he showed no theological depth, but he is in good company with, say, Australian clergy.

What of obscene material purveyed as art? Are censorship laws required? I might be mistaken, but it seems reasonable to assume, a stiff common law judge would find against obscenities shown in public, and against material which is criminal. Pornographic photos of children, would see the photographer and anyone assisting the photographer convicted on crimes concluded out of sound principles in common law.

If Henson has committed child pornography, the pity is it is not common law principles that will prevail. On the other hand, if has not committed the crimes on which child pornography devolves, he can be on the receiving end of a gross miscarriage of justice, but we now know why, if he is falsley prosecuted.

Artists, journalists, others might rage in Henson’s defenece, but none of them gave a stuff about the very things which have lead to this backlash. Indeed, is it not so, if he has committed crimes, that he will still be on the receiving end of a miscarriage because the case would not run on sound principles but the incipiently totalitarian measures politicians and bureaucrats have substituted for law. Mr. Henson might ponder his Leftist and Rigthwing pals and patrons. They are respoibsle for the mess and, typically, politicians have seized on the backlash as an excuse to not only get him, but to prepare for Stasi control over art.

Now, I’m not altogther sure, but it’s decent to tend towards, Henson isn’t a perverse crim catering for rockspiders by producing porn pictures of naked children. Not having seen the exhibition, my reasons rest on the little generally available published evidence. First, I would mention an exquisite triptych:

It’s theme is the fall of angels from heaven - before, during and post fall. They tumble out of heaven. the figures are rotated in each cancass. It’s mainly back, behind and head, and sides shown. No frontal nudity. The model was clearly a boy. There is nothing indecent about the figures, and the scenes and theme is makes this plaint. The artist is accomplished indeed with, for example, stunning landscapes in his ouvre. Other fine paitings by other masters include children in the buff, and they are not purient either. (Though, I suppose, the purient and perverted would take a twisted view of them.) The question is, would those brilliant artists face charges today if they painted such canvasses today? It seems highly possible they would be charged and convicted:

Stella Stuthridge [criminal lawyer], who has defended people accused of child pornography, said she was unaware of any defence on the basis of artistic merit in Victoria, nor any way in which a child or parent could consent to being part of making pornography.
It was a crime in Victoria to make any depiction of a minor “in an indecent sexual manner or context”, Ms Stuthridge said.
“If you were under 16, it would be unusual if parent or child was able to consent to child pornography, for obvious reasons … in my experience, Victorian child porn laws have been very strict.

ARCHITECT Zahava Elenberg was 12 when she posed for controversial artist Bill Henson. Now, more than 20 years later, she has “absolutely no regrets”.
Ms Elenberg, now a 34-year-old mother, and another woman who once posed for Henson’s dark and evocative photographs, yesterday came forward to offer a spirited defence of the artist, whose works were seized in Sydney last week.
“Bill asked my mother at an exhibition opening if I would like to pose for him and we talked about it and decided to do it,” Ms Elenberg, who did not pose nude, said.

Model’s mother defends Henson

THE mother of the 13-year-old girl at the centre of the Bill Henson controversy has broken the family’s week-long silence to mount a strong defence of the artist’s portrayal of her daughter.

The parents of the teenager, whose nude image adorned the Sydney exhibition invitation that sparked the original complaint to police, have known the artist for more than a decade.

The girl lives with both her parents in the family home in Melbourne.
In a statement to The Age yesterday, the mother said: “There is a police investigation under way and we cannot say anything other than (that) we are very strong supporters of Bill Henson and his work.”
The mother initially declined to comment when approached by The Age, but later issued a statement through an intermediary. The girl is said to be a self-aware teenager with a keen interest in the arts.

However, The Age has learnt the girl, who is still 13, posed for Henson over the past year. The parents met Henson, who also lives in Melbourne, through family and friends and were well acquainted with the nature of his work before their daughter posed nude, sources said.
The family have been anxious to protect their privacy. Their legal interests are being represented by the high-profile Sydney media lawyer Mark O’Brie

There are of course some parents who are criminally vicious, but this does not fit the parents of the girls mentioned in the above articles. As for the photos, some explanations are no good at all, assuming Henson is innocent of what he is accused of, such as Dr Banfield’s obnoxious remarks -

“I appreciate that society’s values and knowledge of such things as child pornography and pedophilia have changed in recent years,” she said.

“This is just pandering to a hysterical minority and using the same tactics that applied to the terrorism debate, breeding a culture of fear.”

(Child abuse was ok in the past?!) It is just this sort of contempt that also motivates what is set out above and issues into backlashes; and, as numbers of Victorians on talk-back radio have made plain, makes a nonsense of what should be a solid point (if true) by Banfield;

But these works in no way endorse or hint at (pornography).

“If you were to investigate Henson’s relationship with these photographs and his life’s work that would be plainly apparent.

“Most of the commentary on this issue has been from people that have not seen the images and are being asked to react to a half-baked version of his work on the internet.”

Though does not “endorse” or “hint” are lame. If Henson is not engaged in it, he needs someone who is not so contemptuous of mere dumb oafs, and can state things with greater clarity and forthrightness. These are the sort of friends who can kill a guy in court. Such assertions as this are no good at all either:

The controversial career of Bill Henson
Occasionally it voiced some discomfort, but mostly there was admiration for an artist whose moody use of light and dark subject matter was in the spirit of bad-boy painter Caravaggio and hard-drinking poet Baudelaire

Whether photography can be art is debated, devolving on the contrast between the technique of say a master painter versus clicking a camera shutter. However, to compare photographic art with great masters in painting and sculpture, including any emerging today, is ridiculously exaggerated. Also, it was Turner who observed, painting is not realism and what the painter does is not, say paint a cow as a cow is. Socialist realism in art drives his point home rather well, it’s ugly stuff. This isn’t helpful to Henson either -

Suffer the little children
IF WE lived in a world where we let children be children, there wouldn’t be this controversy over Bill Henson’s work, it would be taken for what it is: a technically brilliant exploration of the fear and metamorphosis involved in transitioning from a child to an adult…

Pretentious bilge is only that, and thus doesn’t explain why the photo’s are chilling, dark and unpleasant. That they are front to camera, one from waist up, another clealry full length itensifies the obvious. They are not as art illuminating pictures at all. This gives weight to the perversity accusations. One is trying to give Henson the benefit, the furore doesn’t help and neither do his pics. It is odd Henson has concentrated on photographing teenagers.

Nudes by great painters, including Australians, are adult women. Go back to the masters, their matter is adults and the world of adults. Children and teenagers in their early teens figure only when in their proper place. Looking at Henson’s pictures, his defenders are blind as to why they can be seen as disgusting, and photos are not paintings in which the painter does transform subjects (allowing some painters can be perverse, as Brett Whitely’s, in his self destruction, shows - stamped also with myopic conceit and nastiness).

The photos in the paper are too ambiguous to decide off-hand either way. In common law, Henson might not be prosecuted. Where his defenders are wrong, fatally wrong, is, even so, that does not mean he could escape the censure of public disgust.

The self-styled elites, Right and left, treat Australians with contempt, strip them of their rights and property and then add insults to injuries, while indulging themselves to the hilt. The trouble with these types is, they are not highbrow. They are low, as what they dish out as ‘public art’ also frequently shows. They scream when those they spit on, fed up with the abuse give that lot a taste of their own poison , enforcement of stasiland law.

Being hotly opposed to satisland laws, including censroship, yet one can enjoy the irony in: They set up the regime under which one of their pets can be tried and flung in jail. Under some of the “laws” rammed down by Bracks and Brumby, that might well be the case. They have the hide to scream now, when they happily applauded every totalitarian measure the sort of rotten politicians who stuff Spring Street could ram down on the mere lumpenmasse. This is the moral compass of the treacherous Left and the Right in Australia. It is very odd, to repeat, though Bracks with the support of the Right rammed down ‘laws’, Henson could continuing shooting his photos in Victoria and only now they go for him?

As I say, the scandal is only a symptom of what the real problem is.

No doubt the CIS, John Humphreys, Mr. Yates, Professor Sinclair Davidson will be able to explain this:

Blackouts hit thousands as generators fail, The Times (28/5/08)

Hundreds of thousands of people were hit by electricity blackouts yesterday when seven power stations shut down. The unscheduled stoppages were regarded as an unprecedented sign of the fragility of Britain’s power infrastructure.

Operations were cancelled, people were…

We know investors are loath to sink capital into energy firms because of carbon taxes. Keep in view the recent $40billions write down on stock in Australian coal-based firms, and that Japanese energy companies have killed maintenance plans and new plants because of carbon taxes. Having made the point earlier in articles on the CIS’ unconscionable full support for carbon taxes, large, general blackouts would occur as capital is extinguished in energy companies. So, what do we read but this:

It was unclear last night why the power stations had failed…
National Grid spokesman admitted that the the number of shutdowns was highly unusual…

However, this:

David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, said that…more investment was required urgently to prevent more regular problems.

It’s now a matter of wishing. No investor will supply capital so that Brown, the Labour Party and the Greens can wipe it out. Now, this report is the latest in what emerged early this year as manufacturers began contracting, shutting down, and laying off thousands of employees. Thanks to Blair’s and Brown’s carbon taxes, energy supply was already being cut and prices spiralling; of course manufacturers were hit. Now it’s merely a case of everyone brought to a halt.

Blair and Brown, and their Green Stalinist mates, are culpable of ruining enterprises, causing massive blackouts and, generally impoverishing those they don’t serve at all, the British. Oh, I’m wrong, they ’serve them up’ alright. I’m still eagerly waiting for the CIS-Humphreys paper on why carbon taxes are costless, and really good for everyone and the spur of a new age of prosperity riding on ‘alternative energy’.

It’s curious, the CIS, John Humphreys, Mr. Yates, Professor Sinclair Davidson have not mentioned a bound problem. Carbon taxation and Kyoto compliance requires totalitarian, police state measures. Just to check, let’s look at our British cousins:

Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry ‘carbon ration cards’, say MPs

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven’t used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

A totalitarian control card of which only one function is rationiong. The force of the second quoted paragraph is, those who exceed their miserable allotment of energy will have supply cut off until the next year. Mind, Brits won’t have to worry about the prospect too much, the Labour Cabinet is wiping out energy companies by carbon taxation. But wait, there’s more joy. It will be a universal rationing card as well as a police state control card:

In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.

It has the full support of Brown, his fellow LP thugs, and the Stalinist Greens. But, who dreamt up this totalitarian scheme? Here’s a hint. The Tory Party is stuffed by the same types who have stuffed the Australian Liberal Party. It is Tory big beast Tim Yeo’s dead obnoxious brainchild.

Yeo is head of the Parliamentary “Environmental Audit Committee”. This “Committee”
must be as compassionate as the CIS is, for they pontificate on the wonderous benefits of wiping out capital and imposing a totalitarian state and that the destitute will be overwhelmed by joy from all this compassion -

“…a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain’s CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.”

Ah, I see, it’s because it’s “personal”. Funnily enough, it is personal. However, the real benefit is everyone will ‘be ‘fairly’ ground down, except for the ‘mastahs’ the thugs in both the LP and the Tory Party. Ah - the CIS didn’t advise the “Environmental Audit Committee”? No, just joking. They have their own cretins to tell them the same things.

Returning to destruction of capital in energy production in Britian; this is exaclty what Rudd is soon to ram down on Australians. It does follow, totalitarian measures will be rammed down because there is no other way to impose it. Who are the brains behind all this for Australia’s very one Soviet Gulag in the making? Why, the likes of CIS, John Humphreys, Mr. Yates, Professor Sinclair Davidson. Bye the bye, these clowns will have to work fast at writing up their paper on “The joys of carbon taxation and totalitarian thuggery”.

Rudd has used the same arguments to excuse what he is planning. Rudd will be in need of a paper to recite to millions of immiserated Australians, telling the lumpenmasses why they never had it so good, and besides, mere dumb oafs should really not expect to live prosperous lives and in freedom.

Ah, the CIS paper has a lead in, setting out carbon taxes have the added benefit of making the unwashed do what their overlords decide is good for them - the term used is ‘changing behaviour’. See, unlike the Right and Rudd and his gang of thugs, most Australians are mere animals to be herded and flogged to death.

Note: I have decided to cease calling Rudd a fascist. It’s not because he isn’t a fascist. It’s because he is thick the meaning of the word is lost on him. I’ll call him a blundering idiot who is a statist that has gone absolutely stark raving mad. Then, no one apart from their admirers said dictators are sane.

Ah, Rudd is already fleshing out his version of a control cum rationing card. I will line this out tomorrow.

No, rather finish them off entirely, in view of the demolition job called carbon taxes. The fallacy of consumption drives economic growth, as against the truth only capital accumulation drives growth.

Rudd and Swann, bye the bye, is intensifying what Costello did in office, ‘closed loopholes’, inclusive of on taxation of super funds. What it is sacking more capital hitherto not extinguished by a Governments’ ‘grab it and spend it policies’ that are now eupehmistically called ‘investment. Swann’s budget is a massive increase in ’snatching and squandering’.

Amusingly, the Key to the Rudd-Swann ‘plan’ for economic frowth is to consign all to universities. Pieces of paper, unlike capital and its accumulation, is ‘the new way’ forward to increasing economic prosperity. Saner types would see in it the reduction absurbum showing why the consumption notion is not only fallacious but itself destructive. To ram it home, Rudd isn’t proposing fuel supply can be increased and so prices cut by an army of ’skilled Australian graudates” is he?

But then, Rudd is in becauase the Right are economic illiterates too. We are in deep sewerage water and for this we can thank the likes of Kroger. So, we read in Hansard this (in “Continued”) (Continued)

In a television interview broadcasted during the weekend, Michael Kroger declared that “the 12 years of the Howard Government were wasted…” Kroger was responding to a rhetorical question. Bull, it was a cuing, faux rhetorical question on “how do you explain the state of the Liberal Party”. It’s a right stumper - out of office in all States’ Parliaments and the Federal Parliament. We could do no better than follow the meister of “cock- ups”.

Unfortunately, meister killerman has a dose of laryngitis when trying certain notes. Kroger expurgated them to sound good. He also has memoritic sclerosis. Otherwise, he told more than one white lie. Let’s commence with an up-beat contrast. It was the last day of the 2007 Federal election campaign when Kroger opined:

VIRGINIA TRIOLI: By this time tomorrow you’ll have had your say and we should know who will be getting the keys to the lodge and also to Kirribilli House.

Michael Kroger:… this poll is two days old so it may well indicate they are now focusing on their decision, this large group of undecideds….are moving towards the Coalition…because they’re concerned about the economy…That will be the sole reason they’re actually going back

As we know, the Liberal Party had been defeated by 2005. Hugh Morgan made it certain. Hugh Morgan, fresh from destroying multi-billion dollar WMC (he was paid handsomely for that mind-numbing exercise in incompetence) and a $700,000 oil under his arm, puckered up to the communards’ of communards’ cameras, ABC. He smiled.

There’s nothing nicer than walking out of a burned gift shop and telling modest Australians they must have a large pay cut. Why? So that wealthy spoilt brats such as he can feel holy after having ruined many others. He is in good company. The likes of neo-Marxist wealthy brats Bracks and Brumby, Green Guru Peter Garrett, and almost dead “Red Ted”. This was his grip on labour market reform.

The ACTU bosses, pulling the ALP, had to do zilch in 2007. Morgan, Minchin, HR Nicholls Society, Kroger’s mates Evans, Moore and Morgan, the CIS and IPA, ran the very campaign the ACTU was preparing to mount against free labour markets. Their case was wrong, a complete lie.

They, not the ALP and ACTU, discredited the thoroughly sound, highly moral case for free labour markets. They, not the ACTU, put Kevin Rudd and his fellow brown pantalooned cretins into office. Why didn’t Kroger, instead of the CIS and their pro-ALP switch-optioner John Humphreys, tell all and sundry: “Hey, if you won’t let me roger Australia then go with my mates (”Nuke coal energy companies” Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan), and vote ALP.” Ah, I know; he’s yellow.

I have related that Kroger not only buried material that was for Federal Cabinet, as did his fellow HR Nicholls Society Clubman and then Cabinet Minister(!) Nick Minchin. Kroger sent in his thugs to ruin Richmond Branch, slander their candidate in an upstanding, patriotic Australian of Greek extraction (Kroger’s henchmen spread the lie Prodos was a vehement racist who would be on the spot signed up by the Ku Klux Klan), and impose his loyalist to the Filipino government, Marina. Kroger master-minded the alteration of a Left’s stronghold, Richmond, into their heavily buttressed Mt. “bloody” Everest.

Saturday fortnight past, “The Australian” ran a spread on Kroger, Costello and the collapse of the Liberal Party. The journos who wrote it, passed by the editor, asserted Kroger’s control over the Victorian division of the Liberal Party is the stuff of legend. To check how reliable they are, it is obvious they cannot answer:

1. How he and jointly with his bed pal, Costello, can stack branches, impose candidates, and close down branches?

2. How Kroger could sign the human “dipstick”, Julian Sheezel, a $5,000 a week pay check, when Kroger held no (and still holds no) executive position?

3 For a presumed ordinary member of the Liberal Party, why do the mainstream media seek him out for official explanations of the state of the Liberal Party?

4. Why, with a decade under Keating and Hawke, over a decade under a Howard, Kroger and his fellow not at all genuine Liberals supplied advice worthy of either a snail or a snivelling ‘rightwing’ ALP faction?

Kroger is fighting for himself. I have no clue why. He bought the Victorian Liberal Party -not with his own money (his Brahman backers gave him the lolly money). He has a stranglehold over the Party, via the KKR re-write of the constitution and his “Administrative Committee”. What, then, is his worry?

Kroger has nothing to fight for. Darn, I’m wrong. With his pals in the HR Nicholls Society, IPA and CIS, and his Parliamentary wing acolytes such as Minchin, there is all to fight for: “Me, me, and them thingos I call pals for appearances sake. That’s why I like old Nick Minchin; he appearances before me and helps pulls wabbit wallets out of fancy hats. Aargh, Minch has a scholar’s grip on both but he can’t grip mine - and I’ve stuck the precious stuff where Nicky can’t get ‘em.”

Kroger on why the Liberal Party is on the skids, argues “how to commit murder and enjoy cake with cream on top”. Kroger gets away with it unlike, say, the anti-heroes in greats Kroger is entirely unsuited to star in such as, “Arsenic and Old Lace”. Kroger’s Hollywood movie lead role is Porker Pig and he is a natural.

Any economics that is grounded on totally unrealistic assumptions is ultimately bound to fail, as the case of perfect competition demonstrates. The ‘guns’ of the CIS, IPA, and the HR Nicholls. Society have caused considerable damage because of defective assumptions. The case of their wrecking labour market reform shows this, as also their collapse over Green’s claims and carbon taxation. Confined to themselves, they only damage those close to them and themselves. In affairs in which Government intervenes and supplying advice to it, such types can bring misery to many.

Stupid people are blind to others, what they do to others, to the sheer damage they wreak. This is unmistakably true of CIS, IPA, and HR Nicholls Society (also Michael Kroger viz the Victorian Liberal party).

Compounding defective economics, The CIS, John Humphreys, Professor Sinclair Davidson pretend to be experts on Hayek and Mises but they are ignorant, as their own papers put beyond question. They merely name-drop the names Mises and Hayek. To check, if they knew them, they would also be thoroughly steeped in Austrian school economics, history of economic thought, and doff their caps to Jackson instead of smearing him and generally making every effort to blacken Jackson’s solid reputation as a distinguished economist of that illustrious school.

Theirs is a an undergraduate, texbook grasp of economics. Combined with hubris, their inadequacy in economics fuels an unmistakeable callousness, but then stupid types are callous.

The CIS, pushed for a specific carbon tax, one aimed at coal fuelled energy companies. Their ‘case’ and non-existent stance of their position reflects the above. What they support is not ‘costless’.

To ram this home:

Why Prime Minister Rudd should ignore demands for price controls Gerard Jackson

The real costs of the greens’ carbon tax Gerard Jackson

Carbon Taxes and Keynesian Insanity by Gerard Jackson

Carbon taxes versus living standards Gerard Jackson

How much damage have the CIS and IPA caused over carbon tax. Monday, March 31, 2008,Great damage.

Having run the general survey on how “The Right aided the Greens”, this is the opening shot on a different line of attack that will be taken up first thing Tuesday Morning. I have been called away until then. There are other matters to run next week, such as the Neo-Marxist coup mounted by the Bracks