On the 19th March 2008, Senator Nick Minchin was reported as having described the new Rudd Government as being, “Inept and incompetent”! If we had been a democracy as Nick loves to repeat ad nauseum, then such a judgement would have to be defined by voter polling, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t that proposition imply that Senator Minchin is guilty of lying to the People and general hypocrisy?  Curious is the total absence of OZ Media critiques of Minchin’s push polling BS. At best, with the Rudd Government’s current popularity hovering around 70%, Nick’s declaration would be a tad premature. It took more than a decade for the worst of Howard & Co’s undemocratic peccadilloes to catch up with them. But if Minchin is right on the case then surely, the failure of Howard to win re-election in 2007 would put the Liberal/National Party in a vastly more parlous position within the realms of actual democracy. Howard’s perpetual proposition that he was always doing “What’s in Australia’s best interests” can only be sustained in the absence of real and actual effective Opposition and the sustained absence of OZ Media demands for “Yes or No?” referenda on behalf of the people to establish mandate certainty.

Why is it that Howard insists with the certainty of a tin god, that of all people, he always knew best and still knows better than the Australian people? Such certainty may be derived from the need to continue fooling enough people to maximise the price for his memoirs. Apparently, hubris driven egomania sells, despite majority disapproval. Howard hooked Australia’s fate to the “Inept and incompetent” performance of GWB (defined by US polling) in the absence of popular support for doing so in Australia? The only rational conclusion available is that tyrannical (undemocratic) executive government committed Australia to GWB’s Iraq War 2003. Reportedly in 2008, some 50% of Iraqis now believe that conditions are better than they were before Saddam Hussein was deposed. Would that be due to the Malaki Government now being majority Shi’ite controlled, whereas Hussein’s mob was Sunni and they subjugated the Shi’ites? Does that mean that the civilian-killing suicide bombers are cool now? Would the doubters be Sunni by any chance? Would quoting such statistics facilitate the never-ending, GWB inspired brainwashing by any chance? Absolutely! 

Consider that Hussein reportedly killed hundreds of thousands of non-Sunni Iraqis to keep them under control. Consider that the USA and Allies supported the murderous Hussein regime while he was warring with Shi’ite controlled Iran? Compare that with GWB and Howard’s proposition that they are now winning the “War on Terror” by being responsible also, for having killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. At least Hussein did not destroy infrastructure as has GWB. The scale of infrastructure destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan is truly incredible. It cannot be justified in the name of “Freedom and Democracy”! It can only be accounted for in terms of Pollie Hubris and Undemocratic Egomania”. 

That some Yank economists have been reported as claiming that the Iraq War is likely to cost some $3 trillion in US taxes and Iraqi oil, is incomprehensible to the voters. No doubt the cost to date has contributed to the current economic woes of the USA. So Howard & Co’s claims that supporting GWB sans democratic input at home was and still is, “What’s in Australia’s best interests” is laughable. The current Iraq War in the historical context will be considered to have been disastrous on a scale at least on par with that of the Vietnam War. GWB may well go down in history as having been the most irresponsible, most dangerous and the least democratic US President of all time. GWB may well be considered to have surged the USA into permanent economic decline due its monstrous national foreign debt.

Compare the economic plot of US financial institutions to on-sell potential Sub-Prime debts to foreign suckers, with the selling of the US national debt to China? Try this for size. The Sub-Prime turkeys came home to roost for the entire globe, in the absence of GWB’s mob having the nous to regulate to prevent the disaster supposedly. As a result of the US meltdown, the debts that were sold to foreign suckers in turn actually sucked money in from banks all over the world - yet GWB & Co and the US Federal Reserve Bank claim not to have seen it coming. Conclusion - it was a colossal scam! Today, the US has a monstrous national foreign debt that is being funded by the Chinese Communist Government buying up US Treasury Bonds. In effect China is busy buying the USA. But maybe the Yanks reckon that when Treasury goes into meltdown and defaults on its bonds, China will lose all of its investment and the USA will come out on top again! Ha! Maybe GWB & Co reckon that the USA will suck the guts out of China in a Sub Prime fashion?

The current Iraq war, that has cost a huge amount of “Treasure” as GWB describes it, could have been put to better use than to make the armaments manufacturers and some oil companies richer. If the re-construction program has been boosting US company profits as well as generating some employment back home, then that could be especially addictive to an Administration losing badly in the polls. GWB often repeats his diatribe to the effect that, “The removal of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do!” But what was and what is the ultimate goal? What was right about it? What will be right about it? Peace and democracy in a totally destroyed nation, with its oil wells sucked dry?

If a semblance of “Bush Peace” can be attained in Iraq by partitioning the country along Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni lines, then no doubt Al Qaeda and imitators will be able to move to new killing fields closer to Israel. GWB and his irrational supporters are in deep doodoo now, having attracted Al Qaeda and like-minded friends to Iraq using US troops as bait where Al Qaeda did not operate prior to the invasion. Saddam Hussein kept Al Qaeda & friends out of Iraq and so actually performed a positive role on behalf of Israel, not likely to be acknowledged by Bush or Howard. If US troops pull out of Iraq before “The job is done” then Israel will be under greater threat than ever before. If getting the job done means victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq, then the war in Iraq is likely to continue until the Iraqi oil runs into serious decline. Then the US will find an excuse to pull out anyway. What would remain of Iraq would be the smoking ruins, hundreds of thousands of innocent victims and a legacy of war crimes, similar to what was left in Vietnam. That the power to make executive decisions relating to committing the nation to war should be put to the people for a binding “Yes or No?” vote can rationalised by consideration of Howard’s current view that the decision to commit Australia to the Vietnam War was right and just. Howard’s delusions of grandeur persist with the current Iraq War.


Regardless of brainwashing to the contrary, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of modern western civilization has been to prop up the top heavy power of the Judeo-Christian Empire. Sooner or later it will topple over. The planet cannot continue to waste its resources on wars like the current Iraq War just to defend Israel, especially so when oil revenues that once would have paid for it all, evaporate.

Ancient history is littered with stories of the decadence and ultimate demise of empires where the hubris of their leaders was so great that they ignored the economic plight of their subjects and victims alike, to squander their empire’s treasure on unproductive frivolities such as totally unnecessary ego driven wars. There is no more egregious egomania available to undemocratic leaders than to blow planetary resources out of the barrel of a gun. GWB is in that category. Howard has been obsequious, indiscriminate, inept, incompetent and undemocratic in the extreme, but Liberals rave on to the Australian populace. Continuous Opposition brainwashing might yet have the populace believing that, “Howard was the greatest PM since Federation”! Ho! Ho! Ho! If “the greatest” were to be equated to “the most undemocratic” PM since Federation, then the accolade would be more believable.

Consider that the current Liberal Opposition Leader, Brendon Nelson ignored military advice not to spend $6Bn on the Yanks’ new Hornet fighter to replace the F111 because it would be an inferior choice. Unbelievably, Nelson declared that he had the power to over-ride the best advice because he was the Minister for War! To steal Bob Brown’s apt description, Nelson made a Howardesque decision”. Bugger advice that doesn’t suit their political ideology. Bugger the people! Hubris and the defence of hubris along party lines, rules! No doubt about it. The ABC’s Four Corners program on the subject is worth reviewing:

The nub of the Four Corners story and that of many alternative sources of criticism goes along the lines of the following excerpt from that program:

“A growing squadron of critics - including a recent senior Defence insider who now breaks his silence to Four Corners - claim the still-to-be-delivered Super Hornets will be no match for the cheaper, faster, Russian-made Sukhoi fighters bought by Indonesia, Malaysia and China”.

Despite the fact that the Russians have a better and much cheaper fighter, being faithful to the OZUS Alliance for better and for worse, has assumed greater importance than, “What’s in the nation’s best interests”. The defence of Australia has been seriously compromised by Howard & Co’s hubris, which the Rudd Government now proposes to uphold. Apparently, cancelling the project would result in a loss of some $400M. Surely that loss could be sustained considering that a similar number of Russian aircraft would cost much less than the $6Bn touted for the Super Hornets. The Liberal/National Opposition of course is wholly pretending that they all light and sweetness while busily brainwashing everyone into believing that Howard & Co and Nelly Nelson in particular, made a good choice.

The following article provides an over-view of Britain and Australia’s roles in Malaya during the 2nd WW, the Communist insurgency, independence in 1957, the Indonesian confrontation and the role of Butterworth (Penang) as a staging post for Australian aircraft during the Vietnam War.

Since Australia once had a squadron of aircraft stationed at Butterworth to defend Malaysia, maybe the dominant Islamists in Malaysia today could be inveigled into offering a quid pro quo? The Malaysians might agree to use their Sukhoi squadron to help defend Australia against potential Indonesian hegemony for example? Alternatively, Israel, whom our alternating Governments and Oppositions choose to defend regardless of morality, human rights or justice, might offer a quid pro quo for Australian political and military support by lending Australia a few spare nuclear bombs, just to scare off the Indoes and to keep them on the other side of the Arafura and Timor Seas.

The biggest threat to Australia today would be that of increasing Chinese hegemony as the USA loses top dog status in world affairs. Economists say that the USA cannot continue running its massive current account deficits for decades to come, to fund hubris driven wars of US Administrations. If the Communist Chinese Government were to cease investing in the foibles of war mongering US Presidents, then the day of reckoning for the US would soon arrive. Financial reconciliation is closing in. And when it does, indiscriminate Australian Government fawning vis-à-vis the OZUS Alliance will become a liability for the Australian people. As always in the end, it is the common people who end up paying for the disasters created by hubris driven leaders.

On April Fool’s Day 2008, no doubt copying the spirit of the 2020 Summit, Liberal Party apparatchiks began publicly tinkering with the prospect of seeking advice from the general public as to how the Libs might recover from Howard’s disastrous performance. Bravo! But as to whether or not the Libs really want to change is the big ticket issue. If the Libs intend to persist with seeking a magic formula or a magic leader such as Turnbull or Abbott for winning the next election without embracing actual democratic change in Australia (and not simply internal-party change) then more of the same (a) retrospective accountability at best at an election, (b) winning by default followed by (c) undemocratic government would be the best that OZ voters could expect. If a new revitalised Liberal Party arises simply by pandering (i) to the oligarchy of vested interests as usual which are at odds with voter sentiments often and (ii) to emulating the Howard era, then the Libs will not deserve the voters’ confidence as required to regain government. After all, look at how Howard’s policy of doing nothing to trash the Liberal Party’s future, inevitably trashed the Liberal Party at the 2007 election. Trivial change tantamount to no change to the political status quo will not be acceptable to the general public. More of the same undemocratic government and undemocratic foreign policy would not be acceptable.

Without doubt, the policy of obsequious, undemocratic bipartisan support for the OZ US Alliance without equivocation has some mighty big downsides and liabilities for the Australian populace, such as the prospect of increased Islamic extremist terrorism derived from leadership hubris, egomania and short-term expediency. As usual the people don’t get a choice, but we are harangued endlessly that we live in a democracy. The definitions are Orwellian. The notion of major party “Respect for the will of the people” being of paramount importance to our major parties in Australia is an outright lie. The proposition that our political parties actually “listen to the people” when formulating their policy platforms is a euphemism for cherry picking the ideas that suit their particular ideological stances and for ignoring everything else. The outcome is said to represent “Robust Democracy”. Ho! Ho! Ho! The associated relentless haranguing of the populace is nothing more than an undemocratic power retention ploy.

The means to the end of maintaining party unity and thus the existing party power bases, the existing outrageously unfair and economically irrational pre-2004 Election, Old Super Pollie remuneration arrangements are a self-preservation ploy. Clearly our Pollies subscribe to tyranny by refusing to allow the people a direct say in specific government legislation or in executive decision making. The pretence that “Direct Democracy” where the people have a specific vote (a) on all mooted wars and (b) on establishing mandate certainty, is not necessary or would not work because, “The existing constitutional arrangements have served us well in times of war and peace since Federation” as Howard claimed is supremely inane. Clearly, Howard’s view exemplifies the attitude of both major parties, their ideologically inspired selective blindness to the views of the masses and their propensity to use brainwashing to defend their refusal to allow democratic change to occur. 


Click here to Return to the INDEX