Friday 30th of July 2021

as we were taken for mugs...


In Australia, the Liberals are CONservatives. Politics in their hands has been a succession of massive political frauds. The name itself "Liberal" means the opposite apart from "liberating" money for the rich and keeping the under-classes under the thumbs of the übergeordnet people. So why do they do it? And why do we fall for the trick nearly every-time? Why do (did) "decent" media sell us shit? Did they really believe in that shit?


We, the ordinary plebs with a small pea-brain knew that Abbott was lying through his teeth, for example. This was published Friday, September 6, 2013... How could journalists of the Sydney Morning Herald could not see that Abbott was full of shit? Was it to be in goose-step with the über-Murdoch press that had played a devious game to destroy Labor in the mind of people while Labor, despite their personality skirmishes was doing a decent job?


Liberalism has a long history of evolution, blooming with the illuminati like Madame de Stael and Benjamin Constant in France, but becoming top heavy with bullshit by the end of the 20th Century. So nowadays we have been lumbered with fake "liberalism", where the thieves and the evangelicals are in charge of dictating your day at Centrelink.


Lucky it's not duck season yet, otherwise you would be shot at.


Meanwhile those "Liberals" so enamoured with Abbott, Turnbull and now Scott Morrison have taken a bloodbath in Western Australia, in a manner never seen before in this country. Is this an awakening of the plebs towards decency? Is this a new dawn of the people's democracy saying "niet" to the "born to rule" class, that with a silver spoon in its arse, and saying "piss-off" to these Liberals' (CONservatives) roaming forward Clive Palmer? Wow...



meanwhile in the USA...


By Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz


While liberals and the mass media continue to celebrate the new US president and his administration, it is becoming increasingly obvious that, as ever, nothing important has really changed.

A new exclusive from the Daily Beast titled 'White House Reporters: Biden Team Wanted Our Questions in Advance' reports that the White House press corps is being pressured to provide briefing questions ahead of time in a way that makes even mainstream media journalists uncomfortable.

While it’s a relief to see briefings return, particularly with a commitment to factual information, the press can’t really do its job in the briefing room if the White House is picking and choosing the questions they want, one White House correspondent told the Daily BeastThat’s not really a free press at all.

It pissed off enough reporters for people to flag it for the [White House Correspondents Association] for them to deal with it, another source reportedly said.

While Obama’s deputy press secretary, Eric Schultz, calls the move “textbook communications work” designed to ensure that Biden’s press secretary has answers ready instead of having to “repeatedly punt questions,” clearly the reporters on the job feel differently.

“The requests prompted concerns among the White House press corps, whose members, like many reporters, are sensitive to the perception that they are coordinating with political communications staffers,”writes the Beast.


EXCLUSIVE: White House reporters say Biden's staff is asking for their questions in advance, before Jen Psaki's televised press briefings.

— Noah Shachtman (NoahShachtman) February 2, 2021



Having questions in advance would indeed be a good way to help insulate Press Secretary Jen Psaki (on whom liberals are already developing an unwholesome celebrity crush) from hard questions. This would avoid sticky situations like when Psaki deflected inquiries about treasury secretary Janet Yellen’s conflict of interest with the Citadel controversy by babbling about Yellen being the first woman in her position, and claiming that receiving $800,000 in speaking fees from that company is no reason for her to recuse herself.

So this is just one more item on the steadily growing pile of fake things about this administration. Everything about it is phony. This is the Astroturf Administration.

Biden and his cohorts point-blank lied about sending out $2,000 checks.

Deportations are continuing unimpeded, despite all the campaign pledges to the contrary.

The kids in cages that made Rachel Maddow cry on air during the Trump administration are still in their cages and will remain there for the foreseeable future.

The pro-environment candidate has authorized dozens of new oil drilling permits within days of taking office.

Re-entering the Iran nuclear deal seems as far off as ever, with the administration continuing Trump’s“maximum pressure campaign” even as Tehran says the US ending its cruel sanctions is a precondition to resuming the deal.

Biden still hasn’t taken any solid steps to end the horrific war on Yemen, or even to end US' facilitation of the slaughter as he promised on the campaign trail (he could have taken major steps toward doing this the day he took office and chose not to).

While this president hides from the press due to his rapidly deteriorating ability to answer questions in complete sentences, the mass media churn out think pieces about how taking himself out of the spotlight is actually a brilliant political move.

As Our Hidden History recently put it, “We got sold a sack of political oregano.”

We got sold a sack of political oregano

— Our Hidden History (OurHiddenHistry) February 2, 2021


And that’s all the US empire ever is, really: a murderous, tyrannical, planetary oppressor covered up by varying degrees of dishonesty. During the Trump administration the depravity was a little more honest about itself, and now during the Biden administration it’s a little more dishonest. The only major change is the thickness with which the makeup is slathered over the skull.

Everything about life in our current world order is dominated by phoniness. Our culture is manufactured by Hollywood. Our dominating political structure is manufactured by think tanks. Our perceptions of what’s going on in the world are manufactured in Langley and Arlington. The whole thing is so fake and stupid. We’ve got to figure out a way to snap out of these artificial boxes they are placing over our minds and these perceptual filters they are placing over our eyes, and birth something real and authentic into our world.


Read more:



the weakening of attention...


The term liberal [American/English meaning, not Australian] became current in English during the 17th century, used with approval to describe people who were free, broad-minded, generous—a humanistic attribute. Its political meaning began to form about a century later, and by the 19th century the dialogue between conservative and liberal would describe the politics of the day. In the United States, conservative was a designation political leaders shunned for a long time, but after the Second World War, liberal also became less and less popular.

Liberalism had a long and respectable run for more than two centuries, and its achievements were many. But more telling even than the rise and fall of liberalism in the 20th century had been the appeal of populism. Whereas liberalism was largely a matter of public opinion, populism has mostly been a result of popular sentiments, and a consequence of democracy. The cult of “the people” was always important to Americans, a central aspect of labor and socialist movements after the First World War. But over the past half century, it has become a rightist, not a leftist, factor. Thinkers such as Karl Marx wrote that the greatest and deepest concerns for people were economic and social, but they were wrong. As Hitler, Mussolini, and many others realized after the First World War, people’s identities were and are more national than economic or social. Popular was a favorite word of Hitler’s. For him, popular was national and national was popular. “I was a nationalist,” he said, “but I was not a patriot.”


Gus-note: Hitler and Mussolini also made sure that the "people" could survive under BETTER CONDITIONS. Cars and holidays, and health, became "popular" in Germany under Hitler. Freedom for some "people" — including bourgeois and workers — was paramount to raising the popularity of nationalism...


Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that democracy had its perils, that it might become a despotism or a tyranny of its own. A counterbalance to such a prospect would be the influence of serious Americans dedicated to the cause of protecting the liberties described in the American Constitution. For him, these people would come from the legal and judicial communities. (Jefferson, Adams, and Madison spoke of the necessity of “educated classes.”) Tocqueville seldom used liberal as a political adjective. He spoke of the “mentalities” of aristocracies and the manières or habits of the lower classes. The 19th-century liberal-conservative dialogue in America seldom applied, in part because of the American dislike of the word conservative. But after about 1950 there came a change. The last American presidents who called themselves liberal were Franklin D. Roosevelt and occasionally Harry Truman. The use of the word declined. In 1951, the Republican leader Robert Taft still called himself an “old-fashioned liberal,” but by 1960, the Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower called himself a conservative. In 1956, the official platform of the Republican Party, which had not been internationalist before this, called for “the establishment of American air and naval bases all around the world.” It had become the principal nationalist party.

Something else was coming about: the declining influence of American public opinion. In the 1920s, for example, Americans elected three Republican presidents at a time when American public opinion was more or less liberal, as represented among other things in the press. This function of public opinion continued until the Republican Party became populist in outlook, and also anti-liberal. Thereafter the importance of public opinion began to diminish, alongside the declining importance of newspapers.

In 2017, the Republican President Trump, stunned by the opposition he faced from the remnant big newspapers and the remnant intelligentsia and from other commentators, declared that he did not care about public opinion because the American people themselves stood behind him.

Five hundred years ago both the term and the importance of public opinion did not yet exist. Then, after about 200 years, they arose. The golden age of public opinion lasted about two centuries. Then began its decline, as also that of liberalism. In 2014 the prime minister of Hungary declared that his country was an illiberal (meaning anti-liberal) democracy. That was telling: democracy has survived liberalism.

These observations have limits. One is that, especially in Western Europe, the legacy and heritage of liberal democracy are still strong. Moreover, as Edmund Burke, one of the greatest conservative thinkers of the past (and a Whig), put it: “The public must never be regarded as incurable.”


... Then, beginning in the late 20th century, the minds of hundreds of millions of people became the recipients of images rather than of printed words. Viewing overtook the old habit of reading.

Books will never disappear, but the results of this tremendous transformation are incalculable. Among them is the weakening of attention. Words and scriptures were the elements of human knowledge for thousands of years...


Read more:



Read from top.

The advent of more instant communications, via smartphones and the likes, has also changed the landscape of philosophy and politics, in which care of intent becomes dissolved into yawn...


It is Gus Leonisky's belief that all articles published by whatever media anywhere should end with:



you are data-harvesting platformed by the libs...

The South Australian government has admitted it has been redirecting web users looking at official government links through a data-harvesting platform.

Key points:

  • The ABC has identified state government links being redirected through a domain operated by the Liberal Party
  • A campaign expert says it is not 'typical' behaviour 
  • Premier Steven Marshall says he is not aware of the redirection through the platform NationBuilder

An ABC investigation has identified close to 100 examples of state government links redirecting users through "" – a domain operated by the SA Liberal Party.

The links can be found on media releases and across parts of the SA COVID–19 website, as well as on other state government department-run sites.

On Monday, the SA Government issued a statement saying the redirections had "accidentally occurred" and that neither the Liberal Party nor the Premier's office had been aware of them.

"Steps have been taken to ensure this will no longer occur," a spokesperson told the ABC.

It still isn't clear what user information — if any — has been gathered through the redirection, and whether it has been used.

"This is certainly unusual behaviour," Sydney-based campaign consultant Daniel Stone said.

"It isn't typical in my experience, and it's quite concerning."




Read more:



Read from top



Free Julian Assange now !!!!!!!!!!!!!