That is "The Elite" who (think they) know better than the rest of us
what should be done about refugees, global warming, drugs, crime,
terrorists and consulting "we the people" on legislation. That is
the same elite as was mentioned in the August
blog who have been the power behind the scenes. The elite
that is influencing both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to dump
Last August I wrote:
all the promises made before the last election, Mike has dissolved
local government with the intent of making it more user friendly to the
major political parties by amalgamating local government areas.
(In Australia, local government is a department of state
government.) To quell the outraged public objections, he has
cancelled the racing greyhound industry, a change that has occupied the
media to the exclusion of the much more important amalgamation
issue. Mike is playing the greyhound issue as "principled" and
based on his moralistic religious outlook.
So Mike is an extreme example of
a changeable politician, in that he has made major reforms against the
promises of his party, and opportunistic legislation calculated to take
the heat off the very important amalgamation issue.
Now that the councils are amalgamated, the diversionary tactic is being
reversed. Done properly, it will look like a premier bowing to
public pressure. Watch Mike's polling go up like a rocket.
He is apparently also about to reverse Barry O'Farrell's drink laws.
More public kudos?
Mike could well look like future PM material.
The Donald is still scoring,
despite the Elite big guns focused on him.
The evidence is in the Australian media narrative. Only Matt
Drudge is visibly pro Trump from Australia. Our ABC is so
incredibly negative that if anyone took the ABC spin at face value,
they would have to doubt the sanity of everyone (Including Afro &
Hispanic) in the USA.
Donald is a compelling speaker. He makes valid political and
Against him we have the filthiest scuttlebutt. Stuff from more
than a decade past. Stuff that the media replay on a loop.
Arguments about his prejudices. I wonder how much the holders of
that stuff were paid?
The even more compelling scuttlebutt on Bill and Hillary barely gets a
A JAILABLE OFFENCE IN THE US of A TO DESTROY EVIDENCE (in this case,
emails) AFTER IT HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED?
That's what Hillary did. We only
hear the scuttlebutt about Hillary because Trump says it in the Hillary
I suspect Hillary will find some way of dodging the third debate.
Instead she will rely on the HUGE war chest that her elite backers
(both Democrat and Republican) have built.
Expect dirty trix, including massive misdirection, ballot fraud.
And if Trump even looks like winning, for god's sake, have the Secret
Service on overtime.
The third debate was, to my eye, a clear Trump victory. A
Trump victory is not how it was reported in Australia.
However it should be noted that:
I suspect the media hype is
purchased positive feedback combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- Voter fraud is where money
works most efficiently.
- Ecuador's silencing of
Assange could well be due to a presidential threat.
- There is much ado about
Trump's quite reasonable reservations as to whether he would question
the election results.
- If we could see how Hillary's
warchest is being spent it might give a clue as to why Trump is cited
as a loser.
I predict that, like Brexit, the polls will be an inaccurate guide to
the final result. Whether the media-bias effect will be great
enough to have Hillary win remains to be seen. But I suspect that
a winner Trump may well look closely at the persons behind those
attacks. And I think those potential targets are well aware of
Trump's likely actions if he wins.
The trouble is, in the eyes of elitists, Malcolm (Turnbull) is nearly
as bad as Tony (Abbott) was. Both seem to not want money as much
as a place in posterity. And the major party alternative
(Shorten) does not shine, even with so much onside media that Labour
& the CFMEU are being viewed less negatively.
On top of that, the minor parties and independents are making
inroads. If it gets any worse, the only way for the elite to get
anything legislated will be by having their opposition
with their government.
(not a joke)
At the micro level, the plebiscite on LGBTI marriage is the way to
go. The LGBTI crowd have realized that a plebiscite just might
not go their way. Especially with all those codicils that mean
people might be forced to provide services against their
principles. Given a plebiscite, a majority of Australians could
well baulk at the following:
The list could go on. But we
do not have a "First Amendment" in Australia, and the memory of Andrew
Bolt's "free speech denied because of hurt feelings" case is still
- Despite ethical objections,
those licensed to marry will be forced to marry all applicants.
One church is reportedly thinking of giving up their right to marrying
- Some cake makers reportedly
find it abhorrent that they might be forced to provide LGBTI cakes.
So that is why we are not having a plebiscite vote. Because the LGBTI
might well lose that vote.
I again refer to my suggestion of last
February. The PM should hold an online plebiscite. He
does not need Parliamentary permission.
Kate Warner is the governor of Tasmania. She is reported as
having entered the political arena by speaking out against Pauline
Hanson on Muslim immigration.
In Australia the governors have the power to sack parliament. They also
have to power to rule by decree. It is so nice to know that Mz
Warner will have the power to sack a government that disagrees with her
stated politics. The fact that she has broken informal rules
already may be taken as the likelihood that she would use her sacking
government powers in the future.
Following his comments on the matter it is obvious that the incumbent
government of Phil Hodgman is not concerned.
Rowan Callick wrote (Australian, 24 October 2016 P11) a detailed
critique of the path being followed by China under the elitist Xi
government. Memorable highlights were:
and extended questioning with "incentives" to confess.
loss of open to the public judicial process.
loss of reporting of some cases. Selected cases reported in
enemies are being targeted.
For the last three years, 730
party members were detained each day for questioning.
I would imagine that China correspondent Rowan is not planning to
visit China until after Xi has left.
Our education system is being subsidized by the offer of government
loans to students wishing for further education. The problem is,
opportunistic educators are offering extremely expensive training in
skills which have a very low chance of the graduate obtaining
I think that the training and qualifications model needs revision.
Back in 1999 I presented a paper at the IVETA conference. In it's
conclusion I predicted:
paradigm will come to dominate education?
There will ultimately
be only two or three certifying organizations for each vocation. These
organizations will produce marque qualifications of trusted standard,
like Coca-Cola or Pepsi for soft drinks; McDonald's for Burgers.
The race has started.
Microsoft and Novell have become the certifying organizations for
certificates in computing. They have achieved this by publishing a
syllabus and franchising a worldwide testing network. City & Guilds
are paralleling that evolution. They seek trainers, and already offer
franchised testing all over the world. The University of Minnesota has
recently taken the first step toward becoming a worldwide agricultural
There is room at the
top of each vocation for two or three testing authorities. Whoever
captures recognition as the quality examiner will come to be the
possessor of a marque that is comparable in value to the Netscape or
Amazon or even Microsoft domain marques.
I would like to see our Federal and State governments offer open
examinations that would count towards a qualification recognized for
employment within the government and by government contractors.
Such professional bodies exist already, e.g. The Legal
Profession Admission Board.
Ideally the qualifying institution would be separate from the
training institution. In fact, I would like to see the examining
organization sell syllabii to the various subjects, and permit students
to study texts at home or attend classes offered by third parties on
the individual subjects.
So Malcolm, Mike et al.
How about it?
mail responses to: firstname.lastname@example.org