The Post-Mortem Continues...

 I'm inclined to think the Liberals 'threw' this election on purpose. The unforced mistakes: Their utter failure to capitalise on Labor's stumbles. Their failure to take a position and stick to it. The backflips on contentious issues. The failure to articulate a vision or inspire any motivation amongst their 'base'. 

Why did we vote one of the worst governments since WWII back into power?

I suspect the Liberals figured they were in danger of inheriting the proverbial "poison Chalice" and they decided it would be better in the long run (for them), to let Labor keep hold of the ticking economic/social/demographic time-bomb their batshit-crazy socialist policies created and hope it goes off on their watch. Then, they could ride in like the Cavalry at the next election. Not that they have ever repealed any signifigant Labor initiave. They just make it sound 'nice'. 

I don't agree that the problem lies in our preferential voting system. The problem lies in the average punter's ignorance of that system, coupled with the socially conditioned taboo on discussing politics, that indirectly prevents said punters from educating themselves to a level where they can vote strategically. 

First-past-the-post systems are inherently unfair whenever there are more than two contestants. That's the conundrum the preferential system is designed to solve. The winning candidate can justly claim to have received more votes than all the other candidates, combined. An absolute majority. 

I agree that the Liberals need to revamp their operation. They need to attract new members and lots of them. They need to become far less 'autocratic' and far more 'democratic' internally. And, they need an inspiring leader, not Mr Potato-head. 

My biggest worry is that now the political Left, led by Labor, has won a "mandate", they'll do what all leftist/globalists do. They'll implement arrangements that will entrench themselves in power permanently. Things like the "hate-speech" laws are already being weaponized against critics of their "woke" globalist agenda. How soon before we have a "two-teir" judicial system like the U.K. where Whites are the second-class citizens? How soon before nationalist political parties that get too popular are declared domestic terrorist organizations and their leaders arrested and gaoled? 

Maybe, the best immunization against Communism (globalist Socialism) is for a country to suffer under its yoke for a generation. 

2025 Federal Election

Sigh! Here we go again! 

The Liberal/Labor "duopoly" is firmly entrenched. So forget any hope of a "Trumpslide" installing some third party in government any time in the next few election cycles. 

Dutton has spent the election campaign effectively shooting himself in the foot and sabotaging any chance of the Liberals winning government. So, expect Albanese to be the next PM

However, there is a chance that Labor won't secure the minimum number of seats needed to form government in it's own right. This means they will need to form a coalition with another party. The most likely choice for Albanese is to ally with the Greens. 

In a Labor-Greens alliance, the Greens will hold the balance of power and will have an influence on government policy out of all proportion to their actual numbers in Parliament. I don't know if that's what you want, but I want absolutely nothing to do with their radical Socialist agenda. In my opinion, if the Greens get to implement their manifesto, Australia will become the next Venezuela. 

Two things are apparent to me: One; Most punters are ignorant about how our voting system works. That's not their fault. We've been conditioned to regard voting as a complex, unpleasant task that needs to be gotten over with as expeditiously as possible, so we can get back to the weekend barby and Neighbours. The various "authorities" are keen to ensure that state of affairs persists. The public is like punters at the Casino; taught just enough rules to play the game, but not enough to win. Two; We've been conditioned to regard politics as a taboo subject in casual conversation. This prevents the spread of disruptive ideas.

If you keep doing the same thing, you can only expect the same result. If you want our political/economic situation to change, you must do something different and that means voting differently than you always have. The most costly thing you pay for isn't your home, or your car. It's the Government. 

The duopoly isn't going to change anything. They serve vested globalist interests, not the Australian people. 

So, what can we do?

If we want better government, we'd better get over the taboo of discussing politics and learn how to argue our positions civilly, without getting angered when someone disagrees.

But that's going to have to wait, considering the election is only days away. 

What we need to do in this coming election, is two things: First, we need to take seats away from the Greens, in the House of Representatives and, more importantly, in the Senate. And second, we (voters) need to defund the major parties. 

I haven't met anyone who actually likes (or would vote for) the Greens. Have you ever wondered how they seem to win so many Senate seats, given the apparently miniscule support base they actually have? They do it because they know how the voting system works and they game that system for their own advantage. This article, from Cairns News explains how.

TL/DR: The Greens rely on "expiring" preferences. Topher Field has an outstanding video explaining how this works. I urge you to watch it and take note. 

Political parties and independent candidates who get more than 4% of the primary (#1) vote, receive $3.80 from the taxpayers for each vote. Now, do you understand how the duoploy has so much cash to splash around at election time? They're buying your votes, with your money! In addition, they get million$ from corporate donors and wealthy "vested interests". You can bet your bottom Dollar that those "donations", aren't. They're actually investments! 

We (the voters) can't stop the corporate donors. But we can do something about the financial rape we suffer. It's as simple as not giving the duopoly any #1 votes. Now, if you are a rusted-on Liberal or Labor voter you don't need to worry. Your (duopoly) party will still coast to victory on second and subsequent preferences. They just won't score the cash jackpot that comes with that victory. The "donors" whose interests they really serve will have to finance their re-election out of their own (deep) pockets. 

Does that sound like a plan?

If you still want guidance on how you should number your ballot, Turning Point Australia has recommendations for all 151 seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate in every State. The only thing I would add to this, is that you should number ALL the boxes above the line on the Senate ballot paper. Follow the TPA recommendations for the first six. After that, it's up to you to decide how you preference the remainder. Just remember to put the Greens LAST. Auspol Explained lists most of the Parties contesting this election, with a summary of each party's platform. 

Fraud and Corruption Unravelling

For the "Understand what's Going On" file:

The more DOGE looks, the more dirt, excrement and corruption they uncover. 

Autogolpe – Jim's blog

As Jim says: "This starts to look like Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries. The Monasteries had a great deal of wealth and power, and a great deal of soft power, and the Papacy was meddling in England’s affairs. There is a plausible conspiracy theory that the Jesuits were responsible for the deaths of some inconvenient royalty. But because of all that soft power, Henry could not just take their wealth and power merely because they had it and he wanted it. He need good Christian and good theological grounds for doing so. So he sent in some protestants to go digging for dirt, and an impressive supply of dirt was found. Henry was not protestant, but he found he needed them."

Last Rites - by James Howard Kunstler - Clusterfuck Nation

The Return Of Chesterton’s Fence | The Z Blog

It's beginning to look like the (unelected, unaccountable) administrative state has been running a gargantuan racketeering operation for the last half century. And the way they're fighting to keep their dirty laundry from being washed in public only confirms they're a "wretched hive of scum and villany". 

Note how our own "wretched hive of scum and villany" is tightening its grip here in Australia. They're frightened! The forced-march to the Left has hit a major obstacle. 

The Blob Fights Back

 The blob is resorting to lawfare to cover its criminal activities and  degenerate behaviour.

“It is axiomatic that those who are beneficiaries of waste, fraud and unnecessary government spending will be the most threatened by the cuts that DOGE is making in these programs. These beneficiaries of waste and fraud are also extremely worried about the reputational, legal and potential criminal risk they will suffer by being exposed by DOGE” — Bill Ackman

Jim Kunstler details their efforts.

And Karl Denninger shows how this can be kneecapped.

The blob has been breaking long established laws for decades. Not just statutes, but even ignoring the Constitution. They do it because they've converged and corrupted the legal system. So, a huge step in M.A.G.A. will be firing and prosecuting 'activist' judges and DAs.

No, if only that could be implemented here. 

Mucking Out the Augean Stables

One for the "Understand what's going on" file: 

The dismantling of the "Deep State" continues...

"Wailing and gnashing of teeth" pretty much describes the political Left's reaction to the Trump administration's first three weeks. The Z-Man explained what the "Blob" is last week (you did listen to that podcast, didn't you?). This week, The Z-Man and James Kunstler explain how the administration is mucking out this "Augean Stable". Like Eliot Nes' "untouchables",Trump's DOGE isn't going after the deep state's (obviously) criminal, seditious and treasonous activities. He's hitting them where it really hurts - their hip-pockets. 

From the Z-Man: "The hammer blow delivered to USAID was aimed at shattering the financial structure of the Blob by removing the mechanism the Blob used to circulate money. If they are no longer underwriting the vast network of non-for-profits and regime media outlets, those entities will struggle to control the discourse. The DOGE boys examining every disbursements from Treasury is about starving the Blob of money. The restructuring of the agencies removes their power over the political class."

From JHK: "If you wondered since 2016 how come the blob and the Democratic Party were aligned so exquisitely in their operations to destroy populism (personified by Mr. Trump) and to permanently entrench single party power in America for all time to come, it’s because an endless font of taxpayer money was streamed into countless non-governmental orgs creating a shadow civil service of Democratic Party activists that melded seamlessly with the big policy-making agencies.

The money was laundered through manifold layers of these orgs and their sub-orgs to pay for an ongoing “color revolution” in the USA — lawfare, election fraud, propaganda, censorship, career cancellation, medical fuckery, open borders, and other totalitarian ploys — while enriching political players at all those manifold layers from multi-millionaire congressmen and senators to thousands of NGO officials making six-figure salaries to street hustlers like Patrisse Cullors of Black Lives Matter and “anti-racism” racist Ibram X. Kendi and his $50-million Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University (recently axed) — and, of course, ultimately the former Potemkin president “Joe Biden” and his family.

It was all this money that drove eight years of sponsored insanity. Mainly, it kept the hands of the Democratic Party firmly on the levers of power so that nothing could be done about the insults and injuries they were inflicting on our country. So, is it a mystery now that nobody was prosecuted for burning the cities in 2020, or for magically creating millions of extra “Joe Biden” votes out of nowhere that year, or setting up the kickback machine from Ukraine to Congress, or forcing millions to get a janky vaccine?"

It's a sterling effort, but I think it's too little, too late. The Global American Empire (GAE) is collapsing. All Trump will be able to do at this late juncture, is slow the decline and delay the end. The US Dollar is steadily but inexorably losing value; Gold just hit a new record - USD 2,900/Oz. It was at USD 2,800/Oz just a week ago! Don't confuse value with price. They're not equivalent. The value of Gold hasn't changed in two thousand years. The price of Gold reflects the value of the currency used to buy it. The higher the price the less valuable the currency. 

Let's hope that the entities that have been looting the American economy for the last fifty years or so, receive the justice they deserve. 

It'll be interesting to see which (mainstream) media outlets and "NGOs" suddenly find themselves bereft of funding, here in Australia 

Light on Cockroaches

 The Z-Man has a good post today, explaining why the "blob" aka the "deep-state" has fought Donald Trump so visciously, for so long:

"This should not suggest that success is assured. The blob will fight back, and it has many tentacles, so the fight has just begun. The vast amounts of fraud in the economy support millions of mortgage payments and college tuition bills, so the people benefiting from the organized fraud will not go quietly. With every window that is opened, more sunlight rushes in to expose the corruption. If the blob is to be defeated, it will be through the sorts of transparency we have seen this week."

The collapse of the American empire has now entered the equivalent of the Soviet "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" phases as the gargantuan (Fascist) fraud that was and is the U.S. government for the last twenty years is finally exposed. 

I like Topher Field, but I think his thesis about how the Americam empire can win a war with China (and by extension, BRICS) is incorrect. It rests entirely on the GAE surviving, and that's looking less likely every day. 

We'll see.

Debating Zombies

I enjoy watching Charlie Kirk's debates with college students. Not necessarily for the (admittedly hilarious) entertainment Kirk provides as he 'demolishes' these 'woke' student's arguments and talking points, but rather to gain an insight into how leftist zombies debate - if you can call what they do 'debating' - and, on how to engage with them effectively. 

Here's what I've discerned, so far:

Their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. 

While they all appear to genuinely believe in the positions they take, I've yet to see (or hear) any of these students express 'an original thought'. It's like they've been taught what to think but not how to think. They regurgitate leftist talking points and slogans but appear confused when Kirk refutes their point or asks them a question. It's like they don't have a sufficient understanding their own ideology to defend it. 

Lenin and Stalin had a description for people like this: "Useful idiots".

Instead of defending their position, they resort to a predictable selection of conversational / debating tactics. 

These include:

Refusing to define concepts, terms or words: A concept, term or word they use in one sentence can mean something completely different in the next. It all depends on the point they want to make in the moment. It's irrelevant to them, that what they say in one sentence might contradict what they said thirty seconds ago. Their only goal is to get their message out. 

Refusing to agree to or abide by, 'ground rules'.  

Constantly interrupting: This tactic appears to be designed to silence their interlocutor. And to a leftist, silence equals agreement.  

Going off-topic, introducing 'red-Herrings' and 'thought-stoppers': This is 'conversational Whack-a-Mole' and  is designed to keep the subject of the conversation so fluid that no rational conclusion can be reached.

Watching the zombies, I get the impression that they're less interested in having a conversation or a debate, than they are with having a microphone and the opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to their fellow leftists. Charlie Kirk is just an annoyance to be brushed away like a persistent Fly at a picnic. 

They absolutely detest being shown to be wrong in front of their peers. If outwitted, they will descend into 'hate-speech'. 

Objective reality, logic and reason having being discarded from their ideology, they argue everything from "morality". 

So. How to respond effectively to these tactics? 

1. The audience is what matters! There's no point engaging with a zombie unless there's an audience to witness it. Always keep in mind that your interlocutor is infected with the Socialist Mind-Virus. This is an incurable infection that will remain with them for life - like Herpes. They are the real-world incarnation of zombies. You can't change a zombie's mind. You engage with them in order to sway the audience to your point of view. 

2. Realise that your zombie isn't actually interested in debating you. From their perspective, you're just providing them with an opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to the audience. You're just an annoying interruption to their diatribe. Short-circuit this by insisting on ground-rules before you begin and enforce them every time the zombie breaks them. 

* Make it clear that you are not there to lecture each other.  This is a conversation (or a debate).

* Don't interrupt the other person. 

* Don't wast time. Make your point and be brief about it. 

* Keep your comments relevant. Stay on-topic. 

* Agree on your definitions before you begin. Refuse to start until you have. If they bring up a new word or phrase during the debate, refuse to proceed futher, until an agreed definition is established.  Define what they mean by (word). If they can't (or won't) define what they mean, then everything they say is meaningless and there's no point continuing. Or; If they can't agree on a definition, then we're just talking past each other and the conversation is pointless. 

* Be prepared to justify any statement you make, if challenged.  

* Call them out on every violation.

* Terminate the conversation if they keep breaking the rules.

3. Leftists always argue 'from morality', and always claim their position on any subject is the 'moral' one. Never allow them to claim the moral high-ground without challenge. Insist they justify their position. 

An example often serves to illustrate a point better than a long-winded explanation so, let's take a quick dive down this particular Rabbit-hole: 

On Abortion: Abortion is one of the pillars of leftist ideology, so it's a good one to attack as the zombies can't seem to restrain themselves from engaging. 

Instead of taking the position; "Abortion should be illegal because it's murder", instead, say; "Abortion is immoral because it's murder". 

See the difference? 

This short-circuits the "my body, my choice" argument, because you're not claiming any control over 'her' body. She's free to murder her unborn child if she chooses. She may be acting legally, but not morally. If they want to justify abortion, it puts them in the position of having to justify murder as 'moral'. 

So, they'll try to (re)define "Murder' as something other than "the deliberate, premeditated, unprovoked killing of one human-being by another". If they have a different definition, insist they justify why their definition is more 'moral' than yours. Don't proceed until they do. 

They'll argue that a foetus is not a human (it's just a "bundle of cells") and that life begins at some point after conception. To counter this, ask: "Is an Acorn an Oak tree?" Of course it's not! But can an Acorn become anything other than an Oak tree? Can it become an Elm? Or a Redwood? Or a Eucalyptus? Or a Sycamore? No, it can't. Therefore, while an an Acorn is not an Oak, it will become one if it germinates and grows. Just as an Acorn is a potential Oak, so a fertilized Ovum is a potential human, no matter if it's one cell, a "bundle of cells" or a foetus. 

Is an Acorn alive? Yes! It can't germinate if it's dead. And the moment it germinates, it will become an Oak tree. But it will die if it doesn't get the conditions necessary for it to germinate. Just as an Ovum will die if it's not fertilized by a sperm. New life begins at conception! 

Birth-control is moral. Abortion is immoral.     

Everything that's not S.T.E.M. can be argued from morality.