Having taken a year off from blogging, I realize the last article I posted, prior to my 12 month break, might convey the misleading impression that I favour the election of the Liberal-National Coalition at the forthcoming Australian Federal election.
I don’t. Just in case anyone out there cares a hoot about my opinion, I shall NOT be voting for the Coalition at the coming Federal election. For me, the prospect of wall-to-wall Tory governments around Australia is very unappetizing.
Using the power of Australia’s preferential voting system to select my most preferred candidates – while ensuring this choice does not, in effect, favour my least preferred – I shall put the Coalition last on my ballot papers.
Soon after the election was called, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) launched a new feature on its website called Vote Compass.
My ABC Compass Election Rating
It’s a simple online questionnaire, developed in conjunction with two of Australia’s leading universities, which quizzes participants on their policy positions and eventually places them on the ‘political compass’.
I subscribe to a few email lists on topics such as privacy and cyber-security, and I noticed a few people querying whether this is an underhand attempt to extract identifiable information from participants about their political views.
Personally, I doubt that. Compared with things most of us do everyday using Google’s ubiquitous services, data extracted from this test is rather tame. Spooks in this and other nations already have a lot more information about me and my views than they’ll ever get from my responses to this short multiple-choice questionnaire. In any case, I actually prefer that all and sundry DO know my political views. That’s why I maintain a blog about politics..
At the coming election, I shall look for credible, intelligent independents. If I find any, they’ll get my first preference. After that, I’ll vote Green – and I’ll ensure my effective preference goes to Labor before the Coalition. The ABC’s Compass assessed my voting intention with reasonable accuracy.
It’s unfortunate the ABC Compass is two dimensional. Political analysis can and should be more sophisticated than that – especially when the choice of major parties is between three major groupings, not two.
For decades, many mainstream political scientists have recognised that the ‘Green’ dimension of political opinion merits it’s own axis. It’s not a subset of the old ‘left-right’ axis.
I favour more (intelligent) regulation on environmental policy issues. All of us – including future generations – depend on successful environmental management. But I’m not in favour of more government interference across the board. I’d like government to butt out of other policy areas such as free speech and so-called ‘drug laws’ – and let individuals decide what’s best for themselves. Those views – if they have a home at all in the political landscape of today – are more commonly associated with the libertarian right-wing.
If the 2-D compass was expanded into three dimensions, the nuance of my political views could be better represented.
With three axes instead of two, a ‘political compass’ could distinguish between my wish for more effective environmental regulation and desire for less government regulation in other policy areas. It would show more clearly why I intend to give a higher preference to the Greens, not Labor (crucially, Labor has never had the courage to stand up to Big Coal, whereas the Greens are less constrained and more assiduous in pursuing environmentally-realistic goals).
A 3-D model would still have difficulty distinguishing between social libertarianism and economic conservatism (both tend to be placed to the right of a left-right axis, conflating two very different things). Nevertheless, three political dimensions inevitably allow for more subtlety than two.
In theory, four dimensions should do better than three – but there’s a problem. Humans find it hard to visualize four dimensions. How would a model represent a fourth axis? Could most of us conceptualize it at all?
Perhaps three dimensions represent the limits of this type of political metaphor?
Yet there IS a dimension to politics in Australia (and in the western world more generally) that’s actually well-represented by an axis that can’t easily be imagined. Our fumbling difficulty in defining, describing and even identifying this axis portrays clearly what needs to be represented.
There is a dimension of politics in our contemporary world that’s simply excluded from mainstream debate. Any attempts to include these ‘forbidden ideas’ are variously treated with horror, contempt or disbelief – if they’re acknowledged at all. In most cases, they are merely ignored.
It’s a dimension that THIS blog DOES discuss. For want of a better term, I’ll call this axis support for – versus opposition to – an inferred cryptocracy (which clearly has an egregious bias towards Zionism).
Cryptocracy means rule by hidden forces (human – not supernatural!) There’s no real need on this axis to distinguish between the three major parties in Australia – because ALL of them replicate the stolid refusal 0f mainstream media to even countenance that these are subjects worth discussing.
What subjects? A few examples..
Take 9/11 – the spectacular mass murders in the USA that took place on September 11th 2001.
No single event in this new century has had a greater impact on the world. It’s on the basis of 9/11 that massive budget increases for the military and so-called ‘security services’ have been justified. Wars have been rationalized as the direct consequence of 9/11; the invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan – ongoing after nearly 12 years – if the quintessential example, but there are others. And of course, the plummeting loss of our personal freedoms and the rapid growth of a surveillance state flows directly from the official 9/11 narrative.
Yet no-one prominent in Australian politics – Labor, Liberal or Green – has ever been willing to discuss obvious gaping holes in the official 9/11 narrative. This applies even to ‘fringe’ parties. Indeed, Julian Assange and his newly-formed ‘Wikileaks Party’ effectively play a gatekeeper role on this also (remember Assange’s glib one-liner, a few years back, that 9/11 was a “false conspiracy”).
It’s a classic case of the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ syndrome. All our TV-promoted politicians behave like the Emperor’s sycophantic courtiers. Based on more than a decade of personal observation, the best that can be hoped, if one tries to engage them in a serious discussion on the subject, is silence and a pledge to “look into it”. They never get back..
Another example? Consider Australia’s very own “9/11” – the appalling massacre at Port Arthur that occurred in the first month of the Howard Government in 1996. This was Australia’s worst ever mass murder – at least since the poorly-documented massacres on The Frontier of British settlement in the 19th century. Yet the Port Arthur has never once been subject to a Coronial inquiry, an Inquest or Ppublic Inquiry of any kind. The alleged murderer – Martin Bryant – did indeed stand trial – after he’d been kept in solitary confinement for several months, and after his lawyer was switched to a man who subsequently turned out to be a serious fraudster. In the end an isolated and confused Bryant pleaded guilty, so prosecution evidence was never tested in court.
Modern Australia’s worst ever mass-murder has therefore been treated with quite astonishingly little scrutiny – much less than would be normal in a regular single murder case that attracted little media attention. Is this curious fact ever raised by any mainstream politicians? It is not. Even our ‘mavericks’, such as the loquacious MP Bob Katter, are silent on this issue. The inadequacy of the official narrative about Port Arthur is as blatant as the flaws in the 9/11 narrative. The reaction of the Australian political class has been cowardly and complicit in both cases.
Of course, evasive and deceptive behaviour on these issues isn’t confined to politicians. Far from it. The talking heads of our mass media , if anything, are more demonically one-eyed than the political elite. There’s clearly a broad consensus, within that part of the intelligentsia that’s well-promoted and communicates with large audiences, to look the other way and if necessary deceive. The cowardly consensus encompasses players and commentators, ‘decision-makers’ and analysts.
Switching gears, let’s talk economics. Needless to say, it’s a topic about which there’s incessant chatter in the mainstream media, in our parliaments and in general public discourse.
Yet the mechanism whereby ‘funds’ are actually created – which is surely a central issue – is never subject to deep critical analysis by ‘mainstream commentators’. The assumption that new funds can only be obtained by incurring debt is never questioned. The possibility that elected governments could carefully issue finance to resource programs in the public interest – interest free – is never mentioned. “Governments can’t print money!” is occasionally used as a conversation stopper. Inquiring whether this aphorism must be true under all circumstances is never welcomed. Economists who do discuss it are marginalized in mainstream discourse and accordingly deprived of the audience their ideas merit.
Australian politics – and world politics as a whole – cannot be understood without consideration of the subjects hitherto relegated to a largely-suppressed “4th Dimension”. We certainly can’t explain the wars of recent years without exploring the cryptocracy’s suppressed dimension. These wars were promoted by, and served the interests of, the Zionist Lobby and the Anglosphere’s military-industrial complex (note that there’s a lot of overlap between the two). Without appreciating this, the series of bloody, offensive wars half a world away, foisted upon us by a frenetic media and go-along politicians, can neither be understood nor stopped.
In Australia’s three-dimensional political babble..
- Greens complain the Emperor’s suit isn’t green enough.
- Laborites say it’s not pink enough.
- For Conservatives, it’s not sufficiently blue.
From where I sit, they all miss the main point: the Emperor’s suit is almost entirely see-through.
Viewing the beast in its gruesome geopolitical, financial and historical entirety is not a source of comfort.
Even so, I’d rather be able to make some sense of the world as it really is – and have a chance of discerning the best way forward – than abandon intellectual integrity for a chair on the gaudy, noisy and distracting carousel to nowhere.