GetUp

Newly re-elected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has declared Open Society Foundations, organisations funded by billionaire international currency speculator, George Soros, unwelcome in Hungary. I think he is right. Soros funds, in tens of billions of dollars, lots of Non Government Organisations (NGOs) around the world, many of them through his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Although these NGOs usually identify as 'charities' or 'grass roots' movements, all have in common the political aims of open borders and identity politics, a form of balkanisation. Backed by billions, not millions of dollars, this is the opposite of democracy. In Australia GetUp, which has links to the Australian Greens and the Labor Party, is one of the best known of Soros-linked foundations. (See "Australian democracy swiss-cheesed by George Soros Open Societies Foundations.") GetUp collects your information and resells it or uses it for its own political ends, employing 'organisers' to find and interact with likely prospects for influencing Australian politics the GetUp way (and they don't like population restraint). GetUp has also been running very expensive campaigns to prevent their being obliged to declare themselves as political lobbyists, although they describe this as campaigning for democracy. (See GetUp vid about 'attack on democracy'.) Interesting problem, isn't it? See John Bentley here: "Diversionary tactics, smokescreens and the Electoral Funding and Disclosure Bill 2017.") Soros also funds the 350.org, which has empowered the Shoalhaven Greens to fight the Adani Coal Mine in Queensland, driving down its share prices. Sounds good to you? But, meanwhile, Mr Soros massively invested in coal and fossil fuels as the share price fell. You could say, well, Mr Soros is profiting from bad to fund good - except that he is funding coal, anyway. A number of writers in the Australian Independent Media Network (AIMN) defend Soros when people criticise him, which makes me think that AIMN isn't all that independent. The financial press, such as Bloomberg and investing.com defend Soros like some kind of white knight. See, for instance, https://m.investing.com/news/world-news/civil-organizations-in-hungary-brace-for-government-crackdown-on-ngos-1413683?ampMode=1.

The bigger picture

George Soros's influence has seen identity politics manifest through the calculated funding and training up of 'minorities' (or those who claim to represent them) so that they are able to skew national politics and real grassroots, always to the end of promoting high immigration and wedge politics. Open Society Foundations funded political support for the wave of mass immigration of refugees and others to Germany that began in 2015. Mr Soros's political manipulations seem sometimes to bring currencies down (see interview in video below, "60 Minutes: One Evil Man - The Exposé on George Soros.") Some believe that Soros backs wars, such as those in the Middle East, profiting in part from weapons investments and in part from reconstruction after disasters (known as 'disaster capitalism') and probably buying and selling currency as it goes up and down in response to wars. The Panama Papers recently revealed that Soros has invested private equity with the Carlyle Group, a private equity partnership that specializes in buying and selling weapons manufacturing and intelligence gathering companies with government and military contracts and it also uses secret offshore companies to conduct business. (See "Panama Papers reveal George Soros' deep money ties to secretive weapons, intel investment firm."

Soros' financial support for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign seemed obvious from the identity politics she pursued, but the film below shows Soros visiting Haiti after the 2014 earthquake with the Clintons on Clinton Foundation business. Read here for more about his investments. Soros's main game seems to be to buy a country's currency when it is going through tough times, and to sell it when the country is on the mend. He seems to be in the business of promoting mass population movements, including those caused by war. The economic effect of mass population movements is to drive up demand for and inflate the price of major infrastructure and resources, which benefits investors in these. This is known as 'disaster capitalism'. Although Soros is behind the 350.org organisation which militates against fossil fuel and has had a high profile in Greens politics against the Adani Coal Mine in Queensland, his is also investing in these fossil fuel resources. See, Richard Pollock, "George Soros Makes Massive Financial Investments On Fossil Fuels" and Thomas Landstreet #8b8e1881f4d6">'Soros Doesn't Like Coal Stocks; He Likes Money'. How might we explain this? Well, if Soros puts money into making it politically difficult for the petroleum and coal mining industries, that means that he can buy their shares more cheaply. Today, in an article that Soros should have paid for if he didn't, Bloomberg has recently characterised him simply as a 'holocaust survivor' but Soros himself described how he survived by identifying as a Christian and pointing out jews to the Nazis. (See more below).

Bloomberg Soros's Foundation to Exit Hungary Amid Crackdown, Presse Says accuses Hungary of opting for an 'illiberal state' rather than what they call the EU's 'liberal democratic model' - which many in European countries think is wrecking their democracies. Bloomberg also promotes the heroic idea that Soros is a Holocaust survivor, but the story is not so straightforward.

Bloomberg goes on to say

"The move follows the re-election of Prime Minister Viktor Orban for a third consecutive term earlier this month, after a campaign demonizing Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor Soros and promising a crackdown against NGOs he supports. Orban has condemned the European Union’s liberal democratic model, based on checks and balances and a thriving civil society, and has pledged to create an “illiberal state” modeled on countries such as Russia or Turkey.

OSF, which is active globally, established its first office abroad in Budapest in 1984 to support the democratization of the then still communist country. The charity is the main conduit for aid to more than 60 Hungarian NGOs and has spent more than $1.6 billion on democratic development in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the past 30 years."

Man, this is big scale stuff, not 'grass roots'!

How Soros helped the Nazis and declares he has no regrets

Kroft (Interviewer):
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews... And you [Soros] watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

Full relevant Kroft-Soros dialogue on Soros helping Nazis

KROFT: You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian, right? And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps, right?
SOROS: I was 14 years old and I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
SOROS: That one should think ahead, that one should understand and anticipate events and one, one is threatened - it was a tremendous threat of evil - I mean it was a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson
SOROS: (nods) Yes, yes.
KROFT: Went out in fact and helped in the confiscation of property from the jews?
SOROS: That's right.
KROFT: That sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: No. Not at all. Not at all. Mabye as a child, you don't see the connection, but it created no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, "I'm Jewish and here I am watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there. None of that?
SOROS: Well, of course, I could be on the other side. I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I should[n't] be there, because that was, well actually, funny way, it's just like in markets, that if I weren't there, if I wasn't doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow, and it was whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Analysis

The way that Soros analogises the luck of the draw in Jews' fates under the Nazis to the stock market is particularly interesting. One wonders if that is how he justifies the way he behaves himself on the stock market and when speculating on currency: "If I don't do it, someone else will." The assumption here seems to be that in all systems personal advantage will always outplay tit for tat (social cooperation). This seems especially amoral and antisocial, a kind of doctrine that might find justification in Thatcher's 'There is no society' and in Ayn Rand's work, which glorifies businessmen and damns those who lack their 'courage'.

Another candobetter writer comments,

"There is an interesting rigidity of thought and passivity here. It is as though he were an actor in a play rather than a real person who can decide one way or the other or change anything. Maybe the fact that he was placed in that position as a fourteen year old has had an effect that he does not recognise. Had he been a bit older he may have felt more power in the situation and not seen himself as just acting in a pre-set role.

This seems to have set him on a path and give him an unchanging perspective. I think more normal people re-assess things from time to time.

He has adopted what one could call an amoral approach (and I'm only going on the dialogue above). Nothing has any value and we choose the role we want out of what is on offer. Does he act out of anything but self interest?

In Sartrian terms - he could be said to be acting in bad faith i.e he is in fact free to choose more than he admits to. He was not able to change what was going on in Europe when he was 14 but he could have made other riskier , more heroic choices.

Maybe he has difficulty discriminating between the world he inhabits as created by humans and the actual physical world. He perhaps sees them both as immutable."

Here is a sanitised history of George Soros, that portrays him heroically as a businessman with an economics degree and a philanthropist.

Why do I have it in for George Soros? Because I see him funding undeclared political movements to pretend they are representing democracy, when in fact they are perverting it. The huge sums of money behind these pseudo grass roots movements mean that real democracy has no chance at all. These movements draw people in and waste their time and energy, whilst they actually bolster mainstream politics in the sense that identity politics which (largely helped by Soros' money) have now taken over the Labor Party and the Greens. I am amazed that people fall for it, but find some explanation in the concept of 'slactivism'. Being able to click on a link to save the world is a comfort when you are time poor. So maybe it's just that Moveon.org and GetUp and all the other ones are as convenient as television or fast food, and we are so atomised that people just don't know what else to do.

Emails and the web are full of messages from the faux-left about how they underestimated how much of the West's population had sympathy for racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic ideas espoused by Trump and his ilk. That's what they pretend is behind what is actually the rejection of loss of sovereignty, loss of citizens' rights, through globalism and open borders. Here are two examples, both from organisations influenced by Soros money: The Australian Greens and GetUp. And what is their message? Send us more money! That's really what they are about.

From Adam Bandt of the Greens, "Shellshocked":

"Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.

It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.

Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:

Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]

Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.

Adam" [2]

From GetUp: "Fear and uncertainty"

Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. [...] Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]
[...]
Paul, for the GetUp Team [3]

GetUp and the Greens' expressed concern about refugees and about global warming is belied by their striking lack of concern about the wars that the neocons styling themselves as liberals in the outgoing US Government have increasingly engaged in burning and polluting the planet with. Without taking war into consideration, their pleas for intervention are like a kind of Greek chorus on climate change and refugees in a fatalistic tragedy.

Why would you give these organisations more to keep on doing what they have been doing?

Trump and Roe vs Wade

Regarding pro- choice matters, I am glad that any Roe vs Wade decision will fall back to the individual states,[1] as Trump attempted unsuccessfully to emphasise in the second debate.

Draining the swamp

Will Trump actually be able to carry out his intentions such as 'draining the swamp' and pulling back from military interventions in the face of the remaining bulwark of neocons in various institutions including Congress on both Democrat and Republican side? If he is sincere, then the ability he has shown by winning the election to speak directly to people and motivate them, which his enemies are not able to do, may help him achieve more than most in his position.

Although the mainstream press totally failed to predict Trump's win, people still take their opinions from it

A friend received an email from a colleague reiterating how terrible Trump is but expressing surprise that the speech he gave on winning the presidency seemed out of character, because it wasn't as crazy as most of his pronouncments as reported in the mainstream press. This woman had never actually listened to a Trump speech. Although there are many only a keystroke away from her fingertips, she preferred to make her judgement by what she had read in the mainstream press and seen on TV. It's the same story with Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Asma al-Assad. And before that, Gaddafi. The critics of the governments that Hillary Clinton and Obama antagonised don't actually inform themselves by listening to the many interviews directly available on you tube; they just act on a take-home message of hate from the western press, which supports those nice-sounding warmongers.

Why did people vote for Trump? Because the left has become too divisive, too corporatised and wasn't fighting globalisation. Because the Greens, GetUp, Moveon.org (which is behind the organised riots in the US post Trumps election) are financed by Soros, who is a globalist. They don't stand for what they say they stand for.

NOTES

[1]
"First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.#fn2" id="r2">[2] Roe short-circuited this development#fn3" id="r3">[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society." (Source: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm)

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[3] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[4]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[5][6] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[2] "Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.

It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.

Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:

Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]

Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.

Adam"

[3]

From GetUp:

Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. Brexit, Trump, and on our own shores, the resurgence of One Nation. There's a growing nexus between economic disadvantage and racially motivated resentment that is overwhelming all political expectations. People see great wealth amassed around them in big corporations and billionaire's pockets, while they're increasingly locked out of education, opportunity and meaningful work. Many of them are demonised for their own disadvantage. Many families struggle with two jobs, only to fall short of making ends meet. Many are angry, resentful and ready to lash out at a political system they feel has deserted them. There has been an abject failure of progressives both here and abroad to understand this, let alone counter it. And when right-wing demagogues tap this pulsing vein of resentment, we've mocked it as an ignorant fringe or dismissed it as isolated extremism. We can't make that mistake any longer. Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]

But that's not the only thing to take away from today. There will be Americans, including progressives, waking up in the morning who didn't step up, who didn't make that call or knock on that door -- or who didn't even vote. Just as there were British people who left it to others to decide the fate of their union with Europe, and their own lives. There's a lesson in that: Decisions are made by those who show up.

Over the years, GetUp members have shown up together, hoped together and fought together to turn those shared hopes into a lived reality for our families and communities. This is a moment for us to recommit to each other -- to keep the surging tide of right-wing extremism from taking over our politics, our culture and our country. Everything from signing a petition, to calling your MP, is an act of hope and daring. And today, you can step up to do even more, whether it's volunteering your time or joining a local action group. It's an act of faith that there will be hundreds of thousands more standing with you. And that acting together, we'll be the ones to overwhelm all political expectations.

Together we need to do all we can do,
Paul, for the GetUp Team

http://dcleaks.com/ have revealed that billionaire, George Soros, has used billions of dollars to try to bring about open borders by funding NGOs all over the world to harass people who do not want mass immigration. Tactics taught are to equate all immigrants with refugees and to accuse people who want control over immigration numbers of racism.

Hackers have revealed that Australia's GetUp, like its U.S. counterparts, MoveOn and Avaaz, have massive financial support from Soros and that their agendas conform to those of Soros. Labor Leader Bill Shorten is linked to Soros-funded activities as is Greens Sarah Hanson-Young.

Bill Shorten, Australia's opposition leader and GetUp.

"GetUp! was established by ­activists Jeremy Heimans and David Madden with funding from Soros. The Labor-affiliated Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union donated $1.1 million to the group. Bill Shorten and John Hewson are former board members. A major funder listed on its 2014-15 Australian Electoral Commission expenditure return is Avaaz, the US GetUp! ­affiliate that has received copious amounts of funding from Soros networks."[1]

Now we have some idea why Bill Shorten refuses to reduce immigration. How many politicians have been influenced this way by Soros's money - either as recipients of awards, and positions or through funding? (We also know that every recent prime minister and opposition leader has become a member of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, which seems to have similar mass immigration values and leadership program links but no apparent affiliation with Soros. The Scanlon Foundation has mass immigration and opinion shaping agendas but no apparent links.)

Soros's money has influenced 'Leadership programs' in many areas, university grants and journalism in Australia. Google "Open Society Foundations". [2] Consider the impact of this on the formation of Australian politicians, researchers, academics, journalists, presenters, teachers, 'ethnic leaders' etc. Emily's list, for women aspiring to get ahead in politics, is financed by Soros, so we know now why the women who get ahead in Australian Labor have nothing serious to say about population or the natural environment.

The Australian Greens

Greens Leader Sarah Hanson Young was named a 'World economic forum young global leader' for 2016. George Soros is the chairman of that forum. [3] The Greens have, over the past decade or so, changed from a conservation platform to an open borders one employing the tactics of unfairly stigmatising people as racist and xenophobic when they call for limits on economic immigration in order to protect our natural environment.[4] Who or what changed so many of them?

"They attack democratic states by advocating a porous border policy, ­reframing illegal immigrants as refugees and degrading critics of totalitarian tendencies such as ­Islamism in orchestrated campaigns of PC censorship. Documents uncovered by Soros leaks reveal a pattern of funding for programs that prosecute porous borders, mass immigration into the Wes­t nations from Islamist regions, and overt campaigns against dissenters. OSF has provided several million to the Centre for American Progress, whose programs ­include the explicit targeting of free­thinkers critical of Islamism. A recent program grant described a strategy to target six critics of ­Islamism and the “right-wing media” in an “audit of Islamophobic activities”." [1]

Need to list Australian organisations and people linked to Opens Societies Foundations

There is a list available of United States organisations funded by Soros, but none available of Australian ones. Nonetheless, the U.S. list is very informative of the kinds of organisations that Soros has used to undermine national sovereignty.

'Independent' on line newspaper,New Matilda, praises South Africa's Mail and Guardian, calling for more papers like these and noting approvingly that they are backed by the Open Foundations Society.

"The twist, with South Africa’s Mail and Guardian, is revealed inside its front cover: its investigative reporting is supported by the Open Society Institute. To justify that, of course, it has to be clear that journalism is worth having, and capable of fulfilling a socially useful function as a civic tool in democracy." https://newmatilda.com/2012/06/19/journalism-we-really-need/

NOTES

[1] Jennifer Oriel, "Dumped files show influence of George Soros on Western politics, The Australian, August 22, 2016, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/dumped-files-show-influence-of-george-soros-on-western-politics/news-story/937a225e62420ea3807bd8308b0dad83
[2] For example: https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/rb-bulletin/2015/05/26/open-society-foundations-open-society-fellowship-20152016/, http://www.uq.edu.au/uqadvantage/robert-walter, http://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person460793#tab-research, International journalism grants: https://www.icij.org/about; Leadership programs: https://cpd.org.au/author/phil-lynch/ and Open Society Foundations: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/open-society-foundations-launch-worldwide-fund-support-nonprofits-navigating; and so on - just keep googling. So many of our academics, researchers, politicians, journalists, have received funding from The Open Society Foundations (George Soros) and to get this funding they had to conform to its values and tactics.
[3] http://greens.org.au/news/sa/sarah-hanson-young-named-world-economic-forum-young-global-leader-2016
[4] "Greens members harassed for expressing valid views on environment and population" and "Greens population activist threatened with expulsion"

Today I received an email from GetUp recruiting volunteers to hand out how to vote cards. They referred to success stopping destruction of the Reef (by capitalists), promoting renewable energy, etc.... Everyone who believes in population growth supports a traditional right wing agenda. This includes GetUp, the Greens and all the major political parties. Does GetUp even know what it means when it refers to right wing and left wing? Open Letter to Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Paul, Your latest email rant entitled: “Our new weapon against right wingers” implies that you think you, and GetUp, are left wing? Excerpts from Wikipedia below provide a context to the absurdity of your confusion:

The left–right [political spectrum] is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate. Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[5][6][7] Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.[8] Progressive Progressivism is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth.[2] The term is often used as shorthand for a more or less left-wing way of looking at the world. Beyond this, the meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives.[3] The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and industrialists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

The definitions above generally describe a left winger as a progressive anti-capitalist. The fundamental flaw in all of this hypothetical mumbo jumbo is the driving force behind economic development, economic inequality and environmental devastation. That driving force is population growth. Since population and economic growth (a direct consequence of capitalism) are inextricably linked; anyone who supports the former is by definition right wing. GetUp and the Greens are right wing as are all Australia’s political parties with the exception of the Lower Migration party. Australia’s annual GDP growth has averaged 3.2% since Federation. Population growth has averaged 1.6%. Over the last 2 decades GDP growth has declined and population growth has increased to around 1.8%. The numbers may seem irrelevant to a relatively innumerate left wing activist who jumps on scientific evidence to support a climate change argument but chooses to ignore it when confronted with the facts about population growth. But these scientific facts are essential for developing coherent political objectives and humane ideology. Since left wing is described as anti-capitalist you are clearly not left wing. The fuel for capitalism consists of two things. These are currently hydrocarbons and population growth. Each and both are directly responsible for climate change. It is not just hydrocarbons which are causing climate change. Had Australia’s population growth been zero since Federation only a compound rate of GDP growth of 1.6% would have been required to create the same per capital financial wealth. But because of population growth, environmental damage and infrastructure expansion has occurred. The primary beneficiaries are big business (capitalism), government and government bureaucracy. Hence all political parties support it. But the trend has changed. The cost of infrastructure and its expansion is no longer covered by GDP. The reason in Australia is primarily driven by population growth which costs more to support than the economy can generate. It is over. The era of left wing and right wing is over. It is legendary and farcical in the 21st century. There is only right wing or population stabilization; because the latter is the only way to deliver the benefits the left wing cannot deliver with this element missing from its agenda. GetUp is neither progressive nor anti-capitalist. It targets only specific consequences of its own political agenda. There are only two “developed” city states on the planet with comparable rates of population growth to Australia. These are Singapore and Qatar. Both are authoritarian regimes with far lower costs of infrastructure, and infrastructure expansion, than Australia. Their population grows due to expatriates, who have no claim on social welfare and no rights to citizenship in these city states. The only other countries with similar rates of population growth are under developed. Most are in Africa where GDP per capita is roughly 4% that of Australia’s and the birth rate per woman is roughly 6. Australia stands out as a country retaining a reactionary, non-progressive, mass migration policy which makes no ethical, environmental or economic sense. Another example of GetUp’s right wing extremism is support for refugees while actively promoting a political agenda of mass migration of the relatively fortunate; who all cost the economy more than it can afford to support them. So GetUp’s delusionary and allegedly “left wing” dogma drives the displacement of Australians from jobs using a skilled migration program which is a reactionary policy dating back to Federation. This same policy displaces genuine refugees from the opportunity to enter Australia. All political parties, including the Greens, are right wing according to universally accepted definitions of right wing. They display common agendas with their support for migration-based pro population growth extremism: • Pro capitalist extremism • Reactionary defence of the status quo • Conservative defence of the status quo • Anti progressive • Anti Green Please explain to me how GetUp’s support for migration based pro population growth extremism meets any of the traditional definitions of “Left Wing”. I respectfully refer you to my blog which might provide information of value in your educational development: /blog/310 Thanks and yours sincerely, Michael S.

GetUp is seeking donations to fund its unscientific campaign to magically transform one of the world's most rapidly expanding and extreme carbon based economies by adopting Renewable Energy Targets and other forms of financial incentives to encourage use of alternative energy while fully supporting the extreme population growth that is the driving force behind the rapid expansion of Australia's carbon emissions.

“GetUp sees population stabilisation as being somewhat conflicting with GetUp’s desire to see increased refugee intakes in Australia, and therefore its messaging may become blurred.”

GetUp therefore thinks it is OK to misrepresent the facts about emissions growth in Australia. GetUp seems intent on a Monty Pythonesque "Ridding the world of all known diseases" strategy in dealing with climate change.

GetUp knows Australia has roughly the highest emissions per capita of any country and also knows Australia has had a population growth rate of roughly 4 times the OECD country average. GetUp also knows the rate of population growth in places like Melbourne and Queensland has been around 2.5% per annum in recent years. GetUp wants to save the Barrier Reef but also wants Queensland population and coal exports to double every 20-30 years? Government profit seeking drives extreme coal exports. That is arguably driven, in part, by the immediate negative financial impacts of extreme population growth.

GetUp knows that Australia's population growth is only exceeded by some of the most underdeveloped regions of Africa; which are subject to chaotically extreme birth rates.

GetUp is seeking donations to fund its unscientific campaign to magically transform one of the world's most rapidly expanding and extreme carbon based economies by adopting Renewable Energy Targets and other forms of financial incentives to encourage use of alternative energy, while fully supporting the extreme population growth that is the driving force behind the rapid expansion of Australia's carbon emissions.

GetUp understands that without addressing population growth stabilising emissions in the short to medium term in Australia and globally will be virtually impossible.

GetUp is seeking to collect money for its "population disabled" climate action campaign despite being fully aware of the facts, by deliberately omitting reference to the primary driving force behind Australian emissions growth. This is arguably fraud. Is there any justifiable excuse for seeking these donations under false, albeit ideologically driven, pretences?

You can't effectively address the emissions issue without addressing one of the primary causes of emissions growth.

Because there is also overwhelming evidence that extreme population growth in Australia is damaging the economy (ref. Joe Hockey's recent reduction of $7.5 billion from foreign aid), is GetUp directly supporting crimes against humanity in the developing world?

It seems to me that all the evidence supports the conclusion that GetUp is guilty of seeking money under false pretences and crimes against humanity and the environment.

Quote:

“GetUp sees population stabilisation as being somewhat conflicting with GetUp’s desire to see increased refugee intakes in Australia, and therefore its messaging may become blurred.”

So GetUp chooses to omit reference to:

• Extreme population growth driven by mass migration of relatively wealthy opportunists into Australia at the expense of refugees
• The fact that many Key Performance Indicators of the Australian economy indicate that extreme population growth may be damaging both the economy and the environment, making Australia less able to increase both philanthropic foreign aid and refugee intake

GetUp, at its discretion, seems intent on not addressing whether extreme population growth is actually a root cause of the global humanitarian and environmental problems it wants to solve.

By adopting this attitude GetUp plays into the hands of Government pro-growth extremism supported by the media's focus on the asylum seeker debate while a covert mass migration policy continues "by stealth and without consensus."

Human rights and sustainable development are presumably the core motivations of these organisations:

• The Australian Greens
• GetUp
• Greenpeace
• Australian Wilderness Society
• Australian Conservation Foundation
• World Wildlife Fund
• Australian Council of Social Service

So if rational thinking indicates that these organisations are all acting against humanity and the environment, shouldn't they be open to constructive criticism and agree to review their strategies in the public interest?

GetUp recently circulated a list of issues seeking votes from members to "democratically" determine which issues were considered most important to them. GetUp included Climate Change and omitted Population Growth Management (the cause of emissions growth far exceeding the capacity of the proposed Carbon Tax to reduce emissions) despite the latter being rated by polling as one of the Top 15 2013 Federal Election issues. Meanwhile, nearly all the issues GetUp regards as worthy of "fighting for" are adversely impacted by this root cause.

Proof of Australia’s economic decline exacerbated by the extreme population growth supported by all major parties; including the Greens?

(Belated) update (30/4/2016). Not long after this article was published, the GetUp site administrator suddenly and without warning deleted this proposal together with the many other posts, all of which enthusiastically supported my proposal, as I recall. Had we been warned at least we could have retrieved copies of the posts that were of interest, before they were deleted. Given this outrageous treatment of a proposal which is clearly consistent with GetUp's purported goal "to build a progressive Australia and bring participation back into our democracy", GetUp cannot be what it claims to be.

Could I first express my thanks to Jill, Vivienne, Menkit, Sheila and others for your support for my Direct Democracy campaign?

But so far, now at 2.20pm, 18 hours since I first launched my campaign with e-mails to several dozen contacts at 8.10PM last night and over a day after I posted my proposal to GetUp, I have to say, I am underwhelmed at the response. Although the response is a long way short of what I had hoped -- only six votes in favour so far [#fn_1" id="text_1">1] -- I don't think that that is yet cause to be disheartened. Given that it was Sunday night when I posted the e-mail and that so many I e-mailed would have immense constraints placed upon the time and energy that they needed to deal with my e-mail (which Sheila has advised me is somewhat more verbose than needed) it is hardly surprising that many recipients weren't immediately convinced that it would have been worth the effort to read my e-mail.

However, I still feel confident that at least a small number of those I e-mailed will take the trouble to read my e-mail, come to see that it would be well worth their time and effort to follow some of my suggestions and do what they can to broaden support for Direct Democracy.

Once only a few extra become interested, it should only be a matter of (not too much more) time before they should be able to convince others around them that my proposal has merit and would be well worth any time and energy they could put into it. When this occurs, I believe we will have achieved a critical mass of support.

Once this campaign has a critical mass of supporters, we should face little difficulty in getting enough votes to have it officially launched it as a GetUp campaign.

Because Direct Democracy essentially takes the concept behind GetUp to its logical conclusion, I think that it is likely that this proposal will be read by a considerably greater number of recipients than most GetUp proposals. I think that few who take the trouble to read it will not become convinced of the merits of Direct Democracy. Once this occurs the campaign should have achieved a sufficiently high profile to attract support from much broader sections of the Australian community.

Past campaigns from the GetUp archive include:

• Fund Hope For Mental Health
• Ban Live Export
• Save Tassie Forests
• Support Victorian Human Rights
• End Mandatory Detention
• Save the (Murray-Darling) Basin
• No Child in Detention
• Pokies Reform
• No Pulp Mill
• No Compulsory (aboriginal land) Acquisition In the Kimberly
• Don't Let Them Stop You From Voting
• Our Rights
• Climate Action Now
• Clean Up Tasmanian Politics
• Political Donations
• Economic Fairness
• (Increase essential aboriginal) Homelands funding
• Save the Net
• Save Our Heritage
• Do it for the Children
• Make this (song about the apology to the Stolen Generations) a Hit
• Roll Back, Not Roll Out (GetUp investigation of Fraser Government intervention in Northern Territory)

One very worthwhile outcome was the outcome of the "Save the Net" campaign which succeeded in stopping of the Federal Labour Government from subjecting all Internet traffic to mandatory filtering for the spurious reason that this measure was supposed to help stamp out child pornography on the Internet.

Whilst the "Save the Net" campaign and a few the other GetUp campaigns have considerable merit, the vast majority of causes that Australian communities have fought in recent years, and are fighting today, are missing from these pages. This would seem to indicate that many serious political campaigners see little reason to hope that having GetUp take up their cause would substantially increase their prospects of success.

Currently, my proposal for a Direct Democracy campaign has attracted only 6 supporters on GetUp. Perhaps those on candobetter, who have demonstrated that they understand the urgent need for Direct Democracy could consider taking a little more effort to help me achieve the critical mass of interest I need in order to progress.

#WhatYouCanDo2" id="WhatYouCanDo2">What you can (also) do

• Please consider acting upon some of the suggestions I made in my previous article.
• If you haven't voted for my GetUp proposal, please vote for it now. You will need to be a member of GetUp in order to be able to vote. If you haven't joined, please do so now;
• Please raise this issue again with each of your contacts, whom I probably have already e-mailed or spoken to. Point out to each of them that if Direct Democracy were to become law in the not-too-distant future, then whatever cause they are now fighting so hard far now would have much better prospects of success. In future they can expect to have to spend far less of their own time, energy and money to achieve similar outcomes. So, whatever time and effort they put into supporting this campaign now could easily be repaid to them many times over in future.

Vivienne, in her comment on GetUp, made a very god argument which backs up the point I made in the seconf of my above suggestions:

There are too many action, lobby, environmental and animal rights groups all in opposition to government policies, and our election system does not address these multiple concerns. We need a true democratic system in Australia, not the farce we have.

Footnote[s]

#fn_1" id="fn_1">1. [#text_1">back] As of 4.00PM on 15 August, 20 hours after I launched the campaign, the support for my campaign still seems very modest: only 6 votes for of a total of 16 votes. Presumably as many as 8 GetUp members voted against my proposal, which is a cause for concen. The given 'avg vote' figure is 2.33 votes. That figure bears no relationship that I can work out with the previous two numbers I have given. The overall rank of my proposal (out of over 1,000 as I recall) is 438. (As of 6.14PM the proposal has 10 supporters and is ranked 318 - still a long way to go.)

You can help bring Direct Democracy to Australia. To vote on this campaign go to http://tinyurl.com/3nmwwjq

John Marlowe first wrote an article about Direct Democracy late last year on 17 November 2010, the same day as an excellent episode of Rear Vision about Direct Democracy was first broadcast. Today, I made a suggestion to GetUp that they conduct a campaign for the Australian constitution to be changed to include Direct Democracy as it is currently practised in Switzerland. It is easy for anyone who agrees with the aims of GetUp to join in order to vote for my proposal. #WhatYouCanDo">What you can do.

The article below, except for the #WhatYouCanDo">What you can do section, was originally Posted to GetUp on 15 August 2011.

GetUp should run a campaign to make provision in the Australian constitution to include Direct Democracy as it is currently practised in Switzerland. The recent experience of Swiss direct democracy and its broader history was described in the excellent 17 November 2010 episode of the ABC Radio National Rear Vision program (see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/3047700.htm for transcript, podcast is here.)

A proposal for a new law, an amendment to an existing law or repeal of an existing law could be launched by a group of concerned citizens in a way similar to campaigns now run through GetUp.

However, if Australia had Direct Democracy in its constitution, the campaign would most likely end with the proposal becoming law, provided that a "double majority", that is a national majority of voters and majorities of voters in a majority of states, (or 'cantons' in Switzerland) votes for it at a referendum.

The number of signatures required to have a national referendum put is 100,000 of Switzerland's population of 7,860,000. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Direct_democracy). The equivalent proportion of Australia's current population of 22,677,40 is 288,278, so a more appropriate rounded number of required signatures for a national referendum to be held in Australia could be 250,000. (Given that many of Australia's people live further apart from each other than do people in Switzerland a still lower threshold could be justified.)

Under the laws of Direct Democracy, if the required number of signatures are obtained, then the proposal must be put to the Swiss people at the periodic multiple national referenda that are held in Switzerland. If the proposal is voted for by a double majority, then it becomes law.

Direct Democracy differs from the way representative democracy is practised in most countries formally labeled 'democratic'. I believe that few of those countries, notably Australia, can be described as truly democratic in the sense of "government of the people by the people and for the people". If those countries adopted Direct Democracy, then they could become truly democratic.

On many occasions, in at least the last four decades Australia, has experienced Parliaments which have inexcusably ignored the clear wishes of the Australian people.

A probable reason why Australians have quietly accepted this is subtle indoctrination through the mass media. The mass media markets the questionable idea that politicians as a whole, having the best interests of their constituents at heart, are better able to judge than their [implied] mostly less educated and less knowledgeable constituents what is truly in the best longer term interests of those constituents.

In fact, the record shows that on nearly every occasion on which politicians have over-ruled the wishes of their constituencies, their judgment has not been better, or that they had been putting the welfare of powerful vested interests above the welfare of their constituents.

Often decisions which have harmed both our national prosperity and the interests of the least wealthy Australians have been reached against the known views of the majority of Australians. Sometimes there has been no electoral mandate and, on some occasions, decisions have actually run counter to specific promises made in elections.

On many other occasions, whilst decisions may not have been opposed at the time by the majority of Australians, neither would a majority of Australians have been in favour. There certainly was no informed consent.

Examples where the known wishes of the Australian public have been disregarded include: the privatisations of Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the State banks and State insurance offices, the abolition of protection for Australia's manufacturing which commenced during the years of the Whitlam Labor Government, John Howard's Goods and Services Tax (GST) and "Work Choices", the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq.

Few other privatisations -- railways, other public transport, power generation, roads, water -- have not been imposed contrary to the known wishes of the Australian public. Certainly almost none have been done with the informed consent of the public.

Examples of actions, which were certainly taken without the informed consent of the Australian public, include: the floating of the Australian dollar and the financial deregulation of the early years of the Hawke and Keating Governments, Malcolm Fraser's emasculation of Medicare, Malcolm Fraser changing investment laws to allow overseas investors to buy up Australia's mineral wealth, the Whitlam Government's failure to legislate to index taxation scales in line with inflation, Australia's participation in the invasion of Afghanistan, the attempted use of mercenaries to break the Maritime Union of Australia by John Howard in 1998, the privatisation of retirement income, otherwise known as "Superannuation", by the Hawke government.

If Direct Democracy had been law in Australia for the last four decades, little of the harm described above would have occurred. Where Governments may have succeeded in having legislation detrimental to the public interest initially passed, more than likely, the damage would have been quickly undone through the provisions of Direct Democracy.

#WhatYouCanDo" id="WhatYouCanDo">What you can do

1. If you are already a member of GetUp, vote for my proposal that GetUp launch a campaign for Direct Democracy. If you are not a member, join GetUP;
2. Please tell your friends family, neighbours and all other contacts, including community groups, you are a member of, about Direct Democracy and ask them to also support my proposal and vote for it;
3. If you have your own blog or web-site, please post information about Direct Democracy onto it. Feel more than welcome to post this article, parts of this article and links to this site and to my GetUp proposal onto your site;
4. Write a letter to your newspaper editor in support of Direct Democracy. Be sure to send us a copy;
5. Ring up talk-back radio and tell them about Direct Democracy and be sure to also tell us;
6. Post Direct Democracy material onto any on-line discussion or mailing list in which you are participating where you think others are likely to be interested;
   
7. Post your thoughts about Direct Democracy, including any you may have expressed elsewhere, onto this page;
8. Consider writing articles about Direct Democracy for candobetter or other publications which support truth and democracy;
9. Post notices about Direct Democracy onto any community notice board that you can. These could be in your sports club, local library, college school, church, community hall, university or local shop.
10. Contact your local, state or Federal representative and let him/her know of your wish for Direct Democracy;
11. If you are a member of the Greens, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Protectionist Party or another minor party, ask your elected representatives to speak in favour of Direct Democracy in the Council, State Parliament or Federal Parliament. Move resolutions in support of Direct Democracy at conference or at your local branch. If you are an office holder put a motion in support of Direct Democracy to your committee;