Comments

I have had quite a bit of personal experience with the political activists I'm referring to. Pilger is not creating their ideology, but anyone, anyone who makes a living producing information produces information for a reason. Those who make a profile for themselves by virtue of simple market economics, are producing something that people want to pay for. Few people want to pay for objective truth, but rather what they want to hear. Therefore, there exists a kind of feedback cycle where those who produce information and 'make it' are those who produce that which people want to consume. I myself am by no means an exception, but I don't make a living. Note, I'm not saying people who make a living or a name producing information set out to mislead, only that there exists a selective bias, a natural selection if you will. There exists the same paranoia with the term "Socialist", which is the exact same issue with the word fascist. To free market capitalists, any objection to laissez-faire capitalism, in their minds, must come from a socialist mindset. Their belief is that Capitalism is the 'natural' state, and only the existence of Socialist ideology results in people rejecting this premise. This is obviously not true. For many on the left, in particular neo-Marxists, the same situation exists. There is a belief that it must be due to a political ideology that people identify with cultural and racial groups, have nations, family ties and compete with other groups. This ideology is more or less "right wing" or "fascist", the lines are blurred. There is no debate with what the US is doing and whether it is supportable or not, but in my opinion, and it is just my opinion, that calling it "Fascism" leads to the supposition that a specific ideology is causing this behaviour, and therefore the problem is solved by attacking those who may hold these ideological tenets. This then leads to people attacking absolutely everyone, to the point where even grassroots local political groups can get attacked. If you want to reduce immigration you might be a racist, and racism is a function of fascism. I probably have overreacted, but I consider choice of words, and how an argument or issue is framed critical. Subtle changes in language and in the manner in which events are portrayed can have a huge impact on the response to them. The media's complicity with the state isn't new, nor an invention of fascism. Institutions have always supported the ruling power since time immemorial. Priests supported the state. Academics support the dominant status quo. Even scientific institutions will go with what the powers that be require. Issues which they don't want discussed are met with silence. Twists and biases are given to stories which support the parties which have power. Putting this to 'fascism' or some collusion is I think a grave mistake, because it then leads to the conclusion that if you defeated fascist ideology for a free and open society this wouldn't happen. I believe that even if you did defeat the ideology, institutions and government would naturally gravitate towards a state where they become one monolithic, despotic power by sheer momentum, natural selection and the mechanics of how institutions work. This is what I believe actually has happened since WWII. Therefore, despite the fact it ostensibly looks like the rise or reemergence of a newish singular ideology (and therefore leads people to think a repeat of the fascism of the 30's), it actually is a recurrence of something which has happened all throughout history. I'll view the documentary. I don't mind Pilgers articles, and he does great work as a journalist, I just believe that accurate diagnosis of what has triggered the current political climate is critical to the changes of success in implementing positive change. 16 years ago I would have agreed with everything he said

Reply to comment
Sat, 2015-03-14 12:48 — Dennis K
What is fascism?

Hi Denis,

You say that you think that the term "fascism" is thrown about too readily. But that is a point that John Pilger makes at the outset, that it is used all the time to a degree that strips it of meaning by powers that are in fact, as he says, creating a sort of 'modern fascism'.

"The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism."

Continuing this theme, he cites (as Western powers often do) how Hitler started the second world war by invading Europe, and then, for his modern fascism comparison, he argues that the United States also illegally invaded Iraq and ultimately gave rise to ISIS.

What is his definition of fascism? Is it simply to illegally invade a country? To start wars of aggression? To tell big lies by manipulating the press?

"Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - 69 countries - have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed."

Of course he does not stop there. He gives a succinct run-down of the major post-WW2 debacles we are currently reaping the confusion of including Yugoslavia, Afghanisatan, Libya, Ukrain. Pilger is a real war correspondent, starting with Vietnam. He actually knows what he is talking about.

I don't think Pilger just wants to 'go after fascists'. I think his point is to go after lies - as a journalist.
I also think that "American Exceptionalism" based on the ideology of manifest destiny is like the Fascism of the 1920's; it is much stronger and runs more deeply than most kinds of nationalism. With regard to racism, after watching reports on the Ferguson riots and recent shootings, and knowing of the huge numbers of people in prison in America, the majority black, and of how the US elite aggressively endorse mass immigration whilst knowing that US blacks - who emerged into emancipation without any wealth to establish themselves with (like Australian aborigines) - remain very disadvantaged with regard to employment, housing, schooling etc. The United States is a country built on slavery on its own shores. This is also true of Europe, but most European countries did not have slaves in the mother-countries, did not enter the fossil-fuel revolution with that malignant demographic.

I was extremely impressed by an hour and a half long documentary Pilger has made about the media's role in war which is relevant to the idea of fascism as state violence and lies. It is about how dependent the media has become on state approved messages. Despite a somewhat cliched first minute or so, if you have seen the footage before, the documentary is actually quite extraordinary for the number of journalists he interviews who admit in front of the camera to towing a line that they knew was untrue. It also has remarkable footage of long-range targets and soldiers discussing their victims. And it is very relevant to today's NATO wars and America's role.

Dennis, you write, "So this I think leads to paralysis, because we misidentify the causes of these actions, and think that somehow going after "fascists" will fix everything. They are paralysed by feelings of ressentiment."

I think this is often true, but I don't think it is true of Pilger - although I used to assume it must be because of his association with the Green Left, which is not a publication that I have much respect for.

I agree that, often, "This is why we aren't making any progress. ... Rather than tackle contemporary issues, activist politics is stuck with the tried and true, and very profitable, but rather static menu of political causes," but I don't agree that that is what John Pilger is doing here. In fact I am going to change the teaser on the article to another statement from the article that more accurately reflects the guts of his message.

But, to repeat, you are mistaken to think that Pilger is engaging in "constant references to events over a generation or two ago, as if nothing since then has meant anything,." He is in fact saying how these kinds of references are misused. In fact, he is implying that they are overused and emptied of meaning, and somehow put people off investigating what is actually happening.

So you and John Pilger seem to agree on this. I suggest you reread the article and that you definitely watch the film. Then maybe let us know what you think again. :-)

DennisK,

The above post adds nothing to the discussion. Yet again, you have repeated what you have already posted and, yet again, you have failed to respond to my posts.

Note the contradiction between one sentence and the next:

The application of Marxist ideology led to death and impoverishment pretty much everywhere it was applied (my emphasis).

The very next sentence is:

At BEST ... it resulted in a low grade authoritarian police state, which people still preferred to move away from.

So which of the above do you hold to be true, DennisK? Does communism cause death and impoverishment everywhere it is applied, or does it merely "[result in] in low grade authoritarian police state[s]" presumably like Cuba and Yugoslavia of which you, unlike the Cubans or the Yugoslavs, also disapprove. The Yugoslav government stayed in power until 1999 when it was overthrown by a NATO war of aggression (with the help of Kosovar Islamist terrorists, some of whom are now fighting the Syrian people). The Cuban government has withstood attempts by its far more powerful northern neighbour to overthrow it since the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. How do you explain the survival for over 55 years of a government, which by your own logic must be hated by its people?

Until you address my arguments, this debate can't proceed.

Whitehorse Council is holding an information session on living with possums. Picture: Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife.

POSSUMS are seen as pests by countless Melburnians, but Whitehorse Council wants to show you how to live in harmony with them.

The council will host a living with possums workshop on Monday, March 23, in Blackburn North.

Whitehorse Mayor Andrew Munroe said the session was a great chance for residents to learn how to live with possums without losing their trees.

“This information evening aims to educate residents on how to protect their trees by preventing possums from reaching the tree canopy,” Cr Munroe said.

Cr Munroe said the council had found the increasing possum population was damaging residents’ trees due to overgrazing.

“Possums have adapted very well to the urban environment and as a result of that we need to implement measures to protect our trees without harming the possum population,” he said.

The Department of Environment and Primary Industries will present information on safe possum repellents, issues with possum relocation and the laws around trapping possums.

Blackburn resident Peter Baker will also share information on how he and his family saved a large tree in their backyard from near death through trial and error.

The session will be held at the North Blackburn Community Room, North Blackburn Shopping Centre, 66-104 Springfield Rd, Blackburn North on March 23 from 6.30pm — 7.30pm.

For more details, phone 9262 7671.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/learn-to-live-with-possums-at-workshop-in-blackburn-north/story-fngnvlxu-1227261223420

Dennis K wrote on 25/1/15:

If the Russians laughed at Marxism in the beginning, the tragedy could have been avoided.

The First World in which over 15 million, including over 3 million Russians, died, and which drove Russia to revolution in 1917, is not a tragedy?

Dennis K wrote on 1/2/15:

The repression began before Stalin.

The Soviet Union faced, as well as domestic counter-revolutionaries, an invasion of 13 foreign armies at the time. Had the Soviet government not resorted to harsh measures against its enemies a far more terrible bloodbath would have ensued.

Dennis K continued:

Stalin just amplified it.

Perhaps, you should explain yourself more clearly.

Of the 16 members of the 25 members of the 1917 Central committee of the Bolshevik Party (later renamed the "Communist Party") still left alive in 1927 after the civil war and famine, 12 were to be subsequently murdered on Stalin's orders.

How is Stalin's murder of the same people you condemn for acting harshly against domestic counter-revolutionaries just an 'amplification' of those actions?

I think the term "fascism" is thrown about too readily. Used in the pejorative sense, it strips the word of all meaning and is basically then nothing more than a ploy to associate regimes that one doesn't agree with with some universally agreed evil regime. If the Fascists had won the war, the terminology would be different, no doubt. But it is particularly troubling, because Fascism, as a specific political ideology is new (though it borrows heavily from previous ideas), but these events that John Pilger is describing are not. So the issues are then conflated as being caused by some ideology which was implemented in early 20th century Italy, and not the much longer power play between groups and empires and nations, which has been going on since we can record. So this I think leads to paralysis, because we misidentify the causes of these actions, and think that somehow going after "fascists" will fix everything. They are paralysed by feelings of ressentiment. This is why we aren't making any progress. The political opposition to 'fascism' is keeping the Western world in a state of paralysis and political uselessness. In short, they are fighting the war they want to fight, and not the one we need to fight. And as a result, I greatly fear that young people who are made politically active and motivated, will completely and utterly miss the mark, miss the point and miss the opportunity for change, which is precisely what I think is happening. Rather than tackle contemporary issues, activist politics is stuck with the tried and true, and very profitable, but rather static menu of political causes. There are the causes that the Left, as Kelvin Thompson as correctly stated as being a failing movement, is fixated with. One must adapt to change, and the world today, is vastly different to the world nearly 100 years ago, which is where the circumstances which created the political movement Fascism originated. The constant references to events over a generation or two ago, as if nothing since then has meant anything, is to me the sign of a geriatric and ossified society.

Karen Hitchcock, see below, sounds like a woman that the population movement would be wise to support by repeating her words, linking to her interviews and promoting her work.

She just interviewed most effectively on the 7.30 Report in Victoria tonight on how she, as a doctor working with the elderly in a major hospital, perceives that the attitude [such as that purveyed by the growth lobby] against the elderly is having a terrible effect on elderly people. She was advocating treating elderly people in a positive way, both practically and ethically. She was a typhoon of fresh air.

She did not say that the way the elderly are discussed involves hate speech but I think it does and I think that that is what the growth lobby exploits and encourages. I have ordered her essay and hope to read and cite more.

https://www.quarterlyessay.com/essay/2015/03/dear-life

"The elderly, the frail are our society. They are our parents and grandparents, our carers and neighbours, and they are every one of us in the not-too-distant future … They are not a growing cost to be managed or a burden to be shifted or a horror to be hidden away, but people whose needs require us to change …"

—Karen Hitchcock , Dear Life

It was really sad to hear of yet another young Australian who has wasted his life on behalf of ISIS against the Syrian government. Apparently Jake Bilardi claimed to be motivated by the injustice of Australian, NATO and US intervention in the Middle East. I can understand that. So he goes to support ISIS. I can't understand that.

ISIS is destroying Syria in cahoots with the US and NATO. The people of Syria have voted in no uncertain terms to show that they prefer the current government. See Huge vote for Assad and http://candobetter.net/node/3888. And, if they did not prefer it, Syria would not have been able to maintain a fight against the so-called 'rebels', let alone ISIS and NATO and the US et al. But the Australian government and media do not acknowledge this. They cover it up, they ignore it. They aid and abet the warmongerers.

So disillusioned youth, rightly horrified by the illegal wars in the Middle East, think that it is all about religious wars and that Islam is being oppressed. No, religious fundamentalism is being encouraged by the West in order to destroy secular and functioning governments in the Middle East. Iraq, Libya, now Syria. More religious fundamentalism - and killing - will make things worse.

The Australian and other Western Media have consistently demonised the Syrian leader, Basha al-Assad, and so have completely invalidated the Syrian people who recently voted him in resoundingly and the Syrian army who follow his orders because they need a leader and a functioning government. And so many impressionable youth in Australia are absorbing this message uncritically and joining forces against Syria, thinking they are heros. Most recently ISIS is trying to brand itself as an alternative to NATO dishonesty but there are so many reasons to suspect that ISIS is actually a creation of NATO that is taking on a life of its own; a commercial militia looting the killing fields and setting up a new military state where violence will rule in the name of religion.

Any young boys will die for this and young women will be enslaved to it.

It's obscene!

It is really quite incredible what nonsense officials spout, isn't it. I mean you only have to look at photographs of people who survived on 'paleodiets': pre flour and water Australian aborigines, Masai tribespeople, Zulus, PNG tribespeople, Pacific Islanders - most of them big, tall and very healthy. And those who lived in Africa lived in highly biodiverse environments with massive stocks of big predators and big grazing animals. Many of these people lived to a ripe old age UNTIL colonisation dispossessed them and made their lives increasingly precarious, contributing to high infant mortality and short lives - at the same time as it often actually caused the births of more children than customary. They have tales of their old people, they looked after their grandmothers, and photos of elderly people survive. Most of our data on these people comes from the time when they were dispossessed and was collected by the dispossessors, whom it suited to believe that these people had always died very early and had always lived in misery, just like the poor British when the same thing happened to them. It is a big problem that we live in a society where anyone given authority by the press can spout fluent nonsense and no-one questions it. The sort of diet that is making us all fat today and causing diabetes II in children, where we consume excessive fructose and sucrose, has been marketed to us for years by giant corporations that profited from this change in diet, such as cereal producers. So what is someone like that doing on the National Health and Medical Council - waxing disapproval of diets about which he admits he has no detail whatsoever? This is a government body that funds research! Ah, but where do those funds come from in our increasingly corporatised society? Let's face it, anything to do with food in our society is big business, so, don't expect real science if there is a lot of money to lose.

So, future generations will live longer, depite less spending on health care, and be poorer. Immigration will continue, towards "big Australia", in an effort to keep the proportion of age groups similar to a few decades ago, but the "pie" will be much bigger! If our future, as set out by this report, is to be a reality for future generations, it's a concession of economic failure, and poor management of our once prosperous nation! How are we to pass on Australia to future generations with such bleak futures for them? There will be crowding, and massive costs. Productivity will decline, because of lack of jobs. We are heading towards the new third world country, and reckless "growth". Population growth now is inter-generational theft! The "economic growth" model is deeply flawed and reckless. The focus on our Economy should be high living standards, jobs, affordable housing, and environmental integrity - and lastly- a healthy economy! After nearly 25 years of "economic growth", why are we to get poorer and poorer, and worse off each generation? The "projected" population growth of about 40 million by mid century is being treated as inevitable, when it's not! People are being scammed, and ripped off, by politicians with myopic vision and lack of integrity. Our present human and natural resources should be protected and optimized, rather than relying on immigration to artificially tweak or demographics, and GDP.

We need the ones that DON'T grow old...

Immigration is no solution to an ageing population (16/12/2008) at http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/immigration-is-no-solution-to-ageing.html

Immigrants are closer to being aged than those who are born into the country. Ergo, increasing population by immigration WORSENS the ageing population problem. But if you ask people who make easy, lazy money from population growth what the solution is, they would, of course, prefer to bring in people who are instant consumers the moment they arrive, over say, people who might take 15-18 years before they become consumers.. You can't package a mortgage for a 1 month old...

Really, the argument boils down to this.

We've been importing people en-masse, as the West has been doing, for decades now and this has not produced any results. Simply, we've been implementing the 'solution', and it's not working.

Oddly, few actually make this point and stick to it. The population debate between Kelvin Thompson and Robert Doyle was interesting, and Kelvin made good points, and I think he made the point that population growth is simply not working, but I think that the tactic of putting forward 'intellectual' arguments, facts and stats doesn't quite stick with people, which is why perhaps the arguments aren't gaining much traction.

I don't think it is a matter of 'debate'. We've been pursuing growth for over 20 years, increasing the rate of growth and increasing the population size more and more. All that which this was supposed to 'solve', hasn't materialised. Growthists then say that we then need MORE growth. But I think the tactic to counter this is to point out, again and again and again, is any of this working?. And not just ask it, but hammer it again and again and again.

The issue of population growth as economic benefit is SETTLED. It's been tried, and isdemonstrably a failure. No Australian can reasonably argue that mass population growth has increased the availability of good housing, jobs, made transport easier and solved the ageing population problem. There is no evidence of this, and pressed, no growthist can find anything which doesn't involve the loosest interpretation of dodgy figures and distortion of obvious reality.

I think a more simple approach to highlighting this, and relentlessly demanding explanations as to how higher house prices, increasing unemployment and increased traffic can be interpreted as improvements. The question "where has this crap actuallyworked?" needs to be posed again and again and again and again until Australians are familiar with the line, and can ask, and realise that there is no answer to, that question.

The problem is, that this tactic is 'simplistic', and many people prefer to avoid simple argument in favour of more complex, more researched arguments which prove their intellectual cred.

Large swaths of the Upper Hunter are likely to be cleared to make way for as many as 16 new or expanded open-cut coal mines, according to leaked studies prepared by the Office of the Environment and Heritage and 11 major mining companies. According to a Biodiversity Plan, seven species including the regent honeyeater, diamond firetail and brush-tailed phascogale, face being wiped out in the region. Endangered communities at risk include the Hunter Valley Weeping Myall Woodland and the Warkworth Sands Woodland. The Age: Revealed- Major new coal mines planned for the Upper Hunter Terms of reference were signed off by the former federal environment minister, Tony Burke, in October 2012 - before the results of the Strategic Assessment Report on the Future Coal Mining in the Upper Hunter Valley and the Biodiversity Plan! So, these "reports" are worth not much more than the paper they are written on if the mines already have the green light! Lock the Gate Alliance NSW Coordinator, Georgina Woods said, "We’ve suspected for some time that an agreement was being stitched-up behind closed doors with the coal industry to sign-off on extensive clearing of remnant woodland in the Hunter Valley to accommodate vast new areas of mining.... ..coal companies (have had) privileged access to biodiversity information being kept from the public, and preparing to sign-off on potential wildlife regional extinctions to accommodate the coal industry". "Apparently the coal industry was going to be given the final draft of this plot to wipe out Hunter woodland before the public saw any of it, and even before Cabinet was given a glance..." Mines in the Hunter Valley are said to damage to human health, which is costing the community more than $650million a year, a report prepared by health experts, academics and environmental scientists says. The annual health costs from mining are $600million due to pollution from the Hunter’s power stations, $65.3million due to fine dust particle emissions from coal mines and power stations in the Upper Hunter and $13million from air pollution from coal in Newcastle. Powerful mining corporation are now government "insiders" and are privileged with rights that are denied the normal public, and democratic processes!

I think your judgement that Australians struggle to believe that a government in a western liberal democracy can truly be that callous and inimical to the Australian people is dead right. They feel the same way about the ALP and the Greens. An awful lot of Australians seem to be entirely taken in by symbols and slogans. Why, just because a party calls itself 'green' should we believe it is? Why, just because a rich fat man who is treasurer says that he is making bad laws for the good of the rest of us should be believe him? Why do we believe the ALP looks after the battler when they are only one step behind the Libs? Why do we elect rich people to administer us when this is like putting foxes in charge of the hen house. Oh, stupid questions, I know.

If we human being took ownership of our decisions, our desires, and responsibility for what we do, then there won't be 'inevitable' but rather 'responsible'. The author in this case has chosen not to have children (I disagree with the merits of this strategy, but respect the choice). Now, we may have desires or impulses to do certain things, such as eat meat, acquire goods and wealth, have children, but we also have the capability to self reflect and evaluate. Listen carefully, and you'll hear people deliberately refuse to self reflect. One example. I was a vegetarian some years ago for moral reasons and perhaps I should become one again. I noted that people objected to this decision, and pointed out that we were made to eat meat. Once at a restaurant when I ordered a meal with no meat, I was lambasted as being silly, because I had 'canine teeth' which proved I was designed to eat meat. Yes, this is true, but so what? Who's making the decision here? Me or natural impulses? We hear blowhard Sam Kekovitch say the same with lamb. This is interesting, because we've become aware of our impulses, and then choose to subject ourselves to them. We use the impulse as justification, and override our mental ability to make a decision. I noted this a lot with people who had an issue with vegetarians. They didn't argue against me because I was hurting myself, but because I chose to make such a decision in the first place. I was being asked to abrogate my responsibilities as to the animals we had, and use impulses which I was aware of as an excuse. In short, to feign ignorance. It's not just vegetarianism, but many other aspects. Wealth acquisition, starting a family. We argue that because we 'evolved' or had primal urges, we must act on them, and more worryingly, somehow believe that using your will and knowledge whether to ultimately proceed is wrong. You must submit to impulse. Michael may well want to have children, but is using (in my opinion) higher order brain functions to forward project the consequences of this decision. If we all did such, we could bypass the rather cruel process of natural selection and mechanics and end up with the end result earlier, and without the unnecessary trouble in-between. But at the moment, our culture promotes being subject to base impulse over thinking. It's present in our social system, financial system, education system etc. We allow people to be excused from the consequences of their actions, because they were acting according to 'natural desires', despite the fact we are aware that they COULD make a decision. We seem to think that passing off conscious decision making to impulses, is equivalent to not having the ability to make the choice in the first place. It seems to be going into overdrive, with advertising, the media plugging into the most basic psyco-chemical feedback loops. Titillation to get clicks instead of offering information. This is what I found with the critics of my dietary choice. Because I may have had evolutionary capability and impulses, I was supposed to drop the ability to choose between taking a life and make the decision automatic. This might be good for animals which genuinely can't reflect on this matter, or simply can't survive without taking lives, but for human beings this doesn't wash. I didn't consider just doing 'what's natural' absolved me of the responsibility of the moral choice. Dante reserved one of the inner circles of hell for those who remained neutral in times of crisis. When faced with a choice, you have to make a choice, and you can no longer claim neutrality. Whether it is your choice to act on greed, lust, gluttony, pride or anger. All I hear from the pro-growth lobby, is a call to disregard this choice and work on impulse. This mentality then sees growth and so on 'inevitable' and something we can't do anything about. They know there is a problem, but then use the lack of self introspection and self control as an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility.

The ABC captured the dual dysfunctionality of Australian society, unemployment and family violence last night in 2 separate programs, "4 Corners" and "Q and A". "4 Corners" was a dismaying expose of how the privatization of what was the “Commonwealth Employment Service” has resulted in private companies doing what they are designed to do, which is to put profit ahead of everything. The program showed that this comes at the expense of the tax payer and at the expense of the client. It dismally showed suburban streets where no one had worked for a few decades. It showed the degrading experience of a woman who has been trying to find work via this privatized "service" for 8 years. The woman’s frustration and despair were palpable. There have to be thousands of Australians feeling these emotions for the same reasons. This would engulf your whole life. After this excellent expose came "Q and A" about widespread and increasing family violence, usually perpetrated by men and suffered by women and children. Australian society is getting to be a dystopia for many and in my view we must all see it for what it is, as a genuine dystopia when so many people are suffering. All the “middle class”, i.e. those not (yet) suffering have is a bit of a buffer against unemployment, homelessness and poverty. Whilst the "system” can treat people as badly as shown in the "4 Corners" program, none of us is safe. How did things go so wrong? I guess we need to face the fact that the system we live in does not work primarily for us. It works for company profits. If you are lucky enough to pay tax it would be satisfying to see it go to services that enrich the whole community, but it would seem that increasingly it goes to thieves.

Foreign Investment Forum – Tuesday, 10 March, from 7pm to 8pm
Vermont South Club, Charlesworth Park, 30A Livingstone Road, Vermont South.
As you may be aware, an inquiry into foreign investment in Australian residential real estate was undertaken last year.

The inquiry was prompted by community concerns that foreign investment in Australian real estate is causing a distortion in the market and making housing less accessible and affordable; and it has become clear that there needs to be better enforcement of the rules for foreign purchases of existing homes.

In coming weeks, the Government will announce details of the reforms to foreign investment in residential real estate.

Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP, who is the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and chaired the inquiry will address the forum on the work of the Committee, outline policy responses and take questions from the audience. Places are limited so you should RSVP asp.
Map

The problem with Brands comment, is it is just wrong. His argument is "cute". The assumption is, that this can work. That nations can absorb large numbers of people, and remain the same at the end. Experience shows this is not the case. In performing this 'solution', we destroy the very thing we are giving away. Take for instance fools like Doyle, who support high rise development and subdivision and crowding "because people like Melbourne". True as it is, the problem is, in accommodating this demand, the very thing that was desirable about Melbourne is being destroyed. The open spaces, the backyards, the lack of crowding. In every way, the push to 'share' what is desirable, is quickly eroding that which was desirable. The end result, no one has anything. Now that everyone has moved to desirable Melbourne, it has become a carbon copy of skyscraper ridden urban dystopias. What's the gain? The problem is we take too much for granted. We assume our good situation is all luck, all circumstance. No one is taught about the thousands of years of painstaking philosophical, economic, political and cultural development which led to this situation we just attribute to 'luck'. The freedom, the prosperity, was largely in part due to a long torturous cultural development, debate, violence, revolution. To maintain this, one must understand this, the origin of our freedom, or economic views, of our scientific philosophy. No one is educated in this. No one even seems to think one needs to know. Now we act like spoiled children who gained an inheritance, are blowing it, but have no idea, at all, how such an inheritance could be created in the first place. And those people we share with, are even less familiar, even less accomodating of the ideals and mentality and processed which allowed this. No matter how moral it is. Brand's solution would leave everyone worse off.

Literally. The man's profession is being a jester. He's been a jester his entire 'working' life. Whether it is Madonna, Brand, Clooney, Brangelina, whoever, these people live exceptional lives and they pretend that their concerns relate to our. They don't. How can they understand? I'm tired of their moralising. Worse, they are hypocrites. Calling on ordinary working people to bear the cost of their ideas, while they spend millions on lavish mansions (which are NOT open to people who need them or who feel they could be better off there, oddly enough). It is not celebrities who have to compete with masses of cheap labour vying for their jobs or compete for real estate. It is not celebrities who have to move because neighbourhoods have become too dangerous. They can pretend that everyone else is being silly for wanting to control immigration, because the immigrants are not going to price them out of their homes, or undercut their roles in a new movie, or their incomes from being a TV star. Russell Brand has no personal stake, so he can be decadent and hold any morality he likes. Besides, if geopolitical borders are 'imaginary', and therefore not worth worrying about, then we must point out, so too is the money he spends and has, the contracts that keep in in a job and the copyright that protects his work. They are constructs as well, which aren't "real". The right he has to stop me walking any time I like into his house, is based on the very idea which justifies borders. Does Brand allow free access to his house? Are we not part of the same sphere? Or do 'borders' suddenly matter when it affects him personally? Does he get to pick and choose when a border matters, and on what basis? I doubt I'll find a coherent philosophy.

To Whom it May concern: We, members and committee of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, and Animals Active,  are shocked and appalled at the revelations that live animals, including protected native possums, have been used as lure to bloodlet greyhounds in the racing industry. Possums, and all native animals, are protected by law, and this gives another layer of illegality, and disregard for the sentience and status of animals in our community. This greyhound industry clearly has animal cruelty deeply entrenched, and embedded, into its history and practices.  It's all based on gambling profits without productivity or integrity.    The use of wildlife for any industry or entertainment inherently exposes animals to abuse, exploitation and depraved cruelty. The capture and killing of protected native animals in such as way is a flagrant violation of the Victorian Wildlife Act, 1975. We demand that the greyhound industry be investigated, prosecuted, and shut-down. Australian Wildlife Protection Council Comments on this page are now closed. Further comments can be posted here. - Ed (21/2/15)

The following was posted to a forum discussion on johnquiggin.com about the threatened execution of Australian citizens Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran by the Indonesian government for their attempt to traffic heroin from Bali into Australia in 2005.

Megan wrote on February 19th, 2015 at 22:10 :

The AFP knew exactly what the Bali 9 were up to and secretly told the Indonesians all about it, thereby ensuring the current outcome.

The role of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in setting up Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran to face execution is chilling and shameful. Regardless of how this turns out, the AFP should be made to answer before the public for their actions, ideally through a parliamentary inquiry.

In any case, if Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran deserve to face the firing squad, so too do members of the Indonesian police, who are also known to be corrupt and implicated in drug trafficking.

One of many articles which explain heroin trafficking is "Deep Events and the CIA's Global Drug Connection", originally published 6 Sep 2008, by Professor Peter Dale Scott. The global flood of heroin, particularly from Afghanistan after the invasion of 2001, shows that the Opium Wars of 1839-1842 and 1856-1860 never ended.

Hi Sheila, How do you 'unwind' these issues, without more intervention? At this point, you either intervene, or leave the results of the intervention in place. As for the middle east, this is an interesting read, if you didn't already know the history, which you probably are familiar with. http://lostislamichistory.com/how-the-british-divided-up-the-arab-world/ While its has an Islamic bias, the use if division by the British is a standard tactic. They did the same thing with Cyprus, leading to Greek/Turkish tensions. We can't undo this, but what interests me, is why does this mentality still persist? The same is true for African states. Arbitrary borders were drawn up, leading to divisions of nations. Yet, it interests me that no one sees the nature of the problem. Today, "all sides" of politics still treat these nations, as legitimate nations, as if the issues concerning their creation should not exist. They CAN'T exist. They're not supposed to. http://peterslarson.com/2011/01/19/african-conflict-and-ethnic-distribut... The above link shows ethnic borders, and you see little correlation with the current political borders (which DO correlate with how European powers divided Africa amongst themselves). Our ability to intervene without creating more problems, relates to our own sense of nationhood and identity. For example, we KNOW that the African nation states were drawn up along colonial lines. We KNOW that the Middle Eastern states were arbitrarily created (again by colonial lines). Most people stop there (if they even get that far). Why has the West failed to realise why Iraq needed an authoritarian power to stay together? Why do we seem puzzled at these intra-national fights? I think the answer is, we don't actually know what's going on! Even the anti-war Left, during the Iraq war, spoke of Iraq as a nation as real as any European nation like France or Italy or Britain or Greece. So where is the misunderstanding? The current Western narrative, is that a country is an administrative entity, which contains an arbitrary collection of people who happen to pay tax to the same entity, have the same passports, and support the same 'team'. Our modern view of a country is one which is purely propositional and bureaucratic and economic. So we assume that this should work anywhere. Why CANT we just make people all 'Iraqis' or 'Angolans', and have them adopt this as the primary, and SOLE identity? In short, we Westerners don't understand the problems, and therefore, no matter how well meaning someone might be, they won't be able to fix it, because their model of how the world works is fundamentally flawed. We can only pretend to relate. We can only impose our own viewpoint on others because we've learned to shut out other views and systems. The necessity, the actions and beliefs and systems of other peoples aren't understood and are immediately rejected, because we've only tolerated one specific narrative of progress here. What is worse, is that in the West, the others don't exist any more. There IS only one correct way. One correct vision of 'progress'. We've philosophically accepted this and as a result, have become incapable of understanding the world. This makes us incapable of successfully intervening anywhere, even with good intentions and perhaps part of the reason that Putin is gaining power and we are losing respect. We just don't "get it". We don't "get it" with regards to Islam. We don't "get it" with regards to Russia, the Middle East or China or anywhere. We've lost the ability to even see or understand different socio-political systems or what they are doing. This is NOT just the ruling elite. This includes the student activists, the anti-war activists, academia. "Left" and "Right" subscribe to the same paradigms and goals and have the same tunnel vision. Why this is so is another discussion, but I think this loss of political diversity means that talk of straightening out problems that we started will end up making matters worse (as has been demonstrated in the Middle East). It is only when we change our own view of the world that we can even hope to look at the rest of the world and not muddle it up any more. I didn't mean to go off on a tangent, but I do believe that disparate issues interrelate. I don't believe that we can have effective political change, and change the actions of our leaders and politics, unless we acknowledge this problem and start to redevelop our politics and open it up. It is a fundamental step towards shifting power away from corporations and vested international interests. It is this reason that I think that we've been so ineffective at implementing, or instigating political change, and perhaps for the apathy as well.

The below is a bit of a loosely pinned rant: Can't you also obviously pin Syria to Western intervention? The so-called rebels are being financed by US-NATO. America is currently salivating to go into Syria and destroy it on the flimsiest of reasons. Sri Lanka is an argument between people who were brought there to work from the mainland in colonial times and those with a prior claim to Sri Lanka, if I am not mistaken. Pakistan is the result of a British colonial border creation. Egypt ... ugh...Such a confusing past of foreign interference. And South Africa under Mandela, a product of western interference dismantling land-rights legislation before it could be submitted. Iraq (as you have mentioned) with all its oil and gas privatised and dedicated to foreign corporate interests. And Russia - I just realised that the same thing happened there - with Gazprom and other Russian petroleum assets - asset stripped according to laws written by the United States. These were clawed back by Putin, who also got rid of a bunch of oligarchs. Fantastic story. Who elsewhere is capable of doing this? Chavez did - but he is dead. etcetera I must say that I think everyone, including Australia and the United States, should be provided with national civil codes, in Napoleonic style. That would give citizens some legally defendable rights and it would place a break on corporate interference. But then I am always saying this and few people have any idea of what I am talking about . :-)

Greyhound racers are secretly blooding their dogs with live bait as part of systemic and widespread cheating within the country's multimillion-dollar industry, according to explosive evidence uncovered by ABC's Four Corners program. Piglets, possums and rabbits tortured in sadistic greyhound training 'rituals'. Barbaric training practices in Australia's greyhound racing industry have been uncovered in ground-breaking investigations by Animals Australia and Animal Liberation Queensland. Live baiting has been banned and criminalised for decades, but trainers and owners across the country have been using the illegal training method in the belief that it will improve a dog's performance. The Victorian Government announced two separate investigations into the greyhound racing industry following the Four Corners story. The state's chief veterinary officer was appointed to undertake a broad investigation into the industry, while Mr Perna was to conduct an independent probe. More than 20 greyhound racing dog owners and trainers across NSW, Victoria and Queensland have been suspended after a series of raids which allegedly discovered the illegal use of live animals being used to bait and lure dogs. Any use of animals in "sports" or entertainment means they are open to abuse, exploitation and cruelty. There's so much money at stake, and money will drive cruelty. Animals Australia: Take action re greyhound live baiting exposed

Armed smugglers threatened an Italian Coast Guard motorboat in the Mediterranean Sea on Sunday as its officers attempted to rescue migrants from Libya, reports said. The armed smugglers threatened an Italian Coast Guard motorboat in the Mediterranean Sea on Sunday as its officers attempted to rescue migrants from Libya, reports said. Now,the flood of self-appointed "migrants" has turned from a trickle, into a security threat! After threatening the rescuers who had taken aboard the migrants, three of the smugglers jumped onto the then-empty migrants' boat and took off with it. Italian Premier Matteo Renzi is pressing for U.N. intervention to stem the violence in Libya. Backed by NATO airpower and Qatar’s money and weapons, the militias defeated the Quaddifi's government forces. Libya became carved out between dozens of militias, which became the de-facto rulers of the territories under their control. Italy has closed its embassy in Tripoli and repatriated its staff amid ongoing violence in Libya. The U.N. says nearly 3,500 people died in similar crossings to Europe in 2014 and more than 200,000 were rescued. The number of migrants landing on Italian shores quadrupled last year, as more than 170,000 people from the Middle East and Africa fled humanitarian crises, piling pressure on the EU to form a long-term migration strategy. The UN are more focused on accommodating the "migrants" in their destination countries that actually address the problems that cause so many people to leave their own countries!

You missed an important aspect, IMHO. The asylum seekers we are getting tend to come from the countries we are at war with or supporting interventions in. Surely stopping wars would be a good way of stemming this tide. (I know you disagree as to the amount the tide might be stemmed by this, but surely you concede that peace is more hospitable than war.)