THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, March 31, 2006


More garbage from the garbage providers today. The Australian newspaper reckons bin Laden will ‘never be caught alive’. There is a reason for this. It’s because he is already dead and has been for some considerable time. The reality is Osama bin Laden was a very ill man suffering from renal failure. Without treatment on a very regular basis, including dialysis, he would have soon died anyway.

The Australian’s story about bin Laden having a ‘special gun’ with which he is to be shot in the event of pending capture is pure nonsense designed to perpetuate his myth for the consumption by the dumb and gullible, who, I might add, are becoming fewer and fewer as time goes on and the people start to wake up to the fact that they’ve been conned.

Bin Laden is now a myth. The ‘War on Terrorism’ is a myth. The ‘War for Democracy’ is a myth. These myths are designed to cower and subdue a dumb and gullible people while powerful people create more power and wealth for themselves.

Wake up Australia! The road to Fascism is not that long!

Thursday, March 30, 2006


Australian spy agencies and the police will now be able to tap the phones, email and text messages of any innocent Australian civilian without that person knowing that their phone/internet is being tapped.

Howard continues to whittle away at our basic freedoms and privacy as he steadfastly continues his drive to create a New Fascist Australia. The slow insidious erosion of our rights and freedoms are going barely noticed by the vast majority of Australians as they blissfully accept the myriad of laws that have fundamentally enslaved us to the will of the government and its big business corporatist sponsors.

As yet Howard has not had reason to use his new found powers. This has led to the Australian people being lulled in to a false sense of exclusion from the laws. No one yet has been locked up, for example, for contravening the sedition laws. Nor has anyone I know been whisked off the streets and disappeared into the bowels of ASIO headquarters. While this has not happened yet – and the right-wing commentators have pointedly already gone into ‘we told you so mode’ – the point remains that all of these options are now in place ready to be used whenever Howard and his fascist thugs choose to act against dissidents if and when they become a threat to him and his regime.

Australians, beware. Don’t disregard yet another step down the road to Howard’s New Fascist Australia.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


There was a time in the 1930s that Fascists and Nazis were proud to call themselves ‘Fascists’ and ‘Nazis’. Today, however, if someone calls you a ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ they are insulting you. There will come a time, if, indeed, it hasn’t already come, when being called a ‘neoconservative’ will be just as insulting.

Today’s neoconservatism will forever be linked with the West’s war against the Iraqi, Palestinian and Afghan people and Islam generally. The folly of this war will one day be seen for what it really is – a blatant attempt by neoconservatism to brutally force American style ‘democracy’ on to a world, the Islamic world, that does not want it.

Neoconservatism’s opportunity came on 11 September 2001. The events of what has since become known the world over as ‘9/11’ became the signal for neoconservatives to launch their attack on the world of Islam. For the American neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish-Americans with extremely strong ties to right-wing Israeli politics, the enemy was, and is, most of the Middle East nations that are around them, particularly Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

For American neoconservatives a war against Iraq would serve many purposes. It would finish something that they considered was never completed during the First Gulf War – the removal of their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator for sure but not in any way a threat, particularly by the end of the Gulf War, to the US or to any one else. It would also secure the world’s second largest reserves of oil under American control, and, finally, it would remove the monkey of Saddam’s support for the Palestinian cause from Israel’s back.

At first most of the world sympathised with America’s loss on 9/11. The graphic footage of the aircraft slamming into the Twin Towers and their subsequent collapse will likely remain the most potent images of the Twenty-First Century. The finger of blame was quickly pointed at Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda movement and the world just as quickly joined the US in condemning him and his movement for what had happened. Within a few weeks the US attacked him and the Taliban regime that supported him in Afghanistan. The Taliban government was overwhelmed by the US and a puppet government soon put in place with its leader quickly endorsed by a sham of an election which was portrayed as real ‘democracy’ at work. But no sign of Osama bin Laden.

Even before the final defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan the world was beginning to hear about the evils of Saddam Hussein and how he had been involved in the events of 9/11. (One would have thought, after all the allegations by the neoconservatives and the Bush administration, that once Saddam had been caught the first thing they would do is whip him off to the US to face charges relating to 9/11 rather than have him stand trial in Iraq for crimes committed there.)

Some leaders of the Western world, including the UK’s Tony Blair, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar in Europe and John Howard in Australia, who happened to be in the US on 11 September 2001, were all quick to jump on Bush’s bandwagon of ‘regime change’ in Iraq. The propaganda machine began to churn out the most lurid stories imaginable of life under the Saddam regime. The world was told of Saddam’s desire to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons all of which, we were told, he’d gladly hand over to al Qaeda ‘terrorists’ for use against the US, the UK, Italy, Spain and, oddly enough via their branch office in Indonesia, Australia.

We now know, of course, that all of this was lies designed to garner support for their attack on an otherwise innocent nation that happened to be led by just another of the world’s dime a dozen tin-pot dictators. So, why Iraq? As I’ve said many times in the past it was for three reasons; hegemony, oil and Israel – and not necessarily in that order.

Iraq today is now in complete and utter chaos and in the first stages of what could easily become, and is showing all the signs of becoming, a very bloody civil war that could engulf the entire region.

The neoconservatives’agenda has failed miserably both in Afghanistan and Iraq. ‘Democracy’ has failed completely in both countries. In a show of pure irony the Iraqi people turned out in their millions using their first taste of democratic freedom to tell the world they are not interested in the West’s secular American-style of governmental ‘democracy’. In Iran the Iranian people also showed the West what they thought of Western-style secular ‘democracy’ and, just to demonstrate how arrogant the neoconservatives really are, they actually expressed genuine shock when the Palestinian people voted for the religious Hamas organisation in yet another show of rejection of American-style ‘democracy’.

Throughout all of this the neoconservatives have continued with their rhetoric of the ‘war on global terrorism’ and their futile quest to bring ‘democracy’ to the Middle East. Those main leaders that jumped on to the neoconservative bandwagon of attacking Iraq are still with us. Bush, Blair and Howard, whose lies have brought nothing but misery and death to hundreds of thousands of innocent people, are still lying to justify their crimes. Blair and Howard still insist that neoconservatism and an alliance with America is the answer to the world’s woes. They do not realise that, far from being the answer to the world’s woes, they are indeed, the cause of them.

Whereas neoconservatism started life as a peculiarly American phenomenon it has, like Fascism and Nazism, spread its influence and tentacles elsewhere. Neoconservatism has, as we now know, nothing to offer the world except war, death, destruction, lies, hypocrisy and an arrogant self-righteousness that is filled with hatred and an Islamaphobia that borders on paranoia. Yet those that have become neoconservatives are unable and unwilling to see the evil that neoconservatism has become – just as the Fascists and Nazis of yesteryear failed to see the evil they were perpetrating on the world – until it was too late.

In The Australian today Greg Sheridan, Howard’s chief apologist and propagandist, is almost swooning with platitudes for Tony Blair but one wonders if he would ever thank Greg Sheridan for calling him a ‘neoconservative’.

Monday, March 27, 2006


Tony Blair, visiting Australia this week, is still hanging on to the illusions that allowed him to cast in his lot with President Bush in the criminal invasion, occupation and plundering of Iraq. He continues, like John Howard, to see, even after three years of worsening bloodshed, the failures of what the peoples of the world were told were the aims of the war.

According to The Australian today Blair still says “…the struggle in Iraq is pivotal to the defeat of global terrorism.” The reality is that the ‘struggle in Iraq’ has absolutely nothing to do with ‘global terrorism’. The war that is raging in Iraq today was caused by the Coalition of the Killing. The vast majority of deaths that have occurred in Iraq thus far have been caused by the Coalition of the Killing. It started as they launched their illegal invasion and continued during the subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Blair says: “Whatever people thought about the original decision to go to war, for the last 2 1/2 to three years we have been there with a United Nations resolution and with the consent of an elected government.” What complete rubbish! The UN never passed any resolution sanctioning the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Coalition of the Killing. Nor has there been any ‘democratically elected’ government in Iraq that has given them consent to continue to kill and plunder in Iraq. There have been plenty of US appointed Iraqi lackeys that have ‘asked’ the Coalition of the Killing to stay on in Iraq in order to murder their enemies but there has never been any ‘democratically elected’ government that has given consent to stay on and continue the killing of innocents and destroying the homes of those that would prefer that the Coalition of the Killing leave Iraq. Iraq is in the mess it is in today because of the invasion. The only ‘terrorists’ in Iraq are the US and their Coalition of the Killing allies.

Blair goes on to say: “…if democracy takes root in Iraq and Afghanistan then I think, after that, global terrorism is on a downward path because their key weapon of propaganda - namely, that it is the desire of America and its allies to punish Muslim countries - will be shown to be false.” Blair actually believes that a couple of chaotic elections of US-endorsed candidates constitutes ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan and a resounding vote for the religious parties, as against the secular parties the Coalition of the Killing in Iraq had hoped for in Iraq and the subsequent civil war, are all part of the ‘success story’ of post-Saddam Iraq. Tony Blair is totally delusional!

Elsewhere in The Australian Blair asks: “Do you think the Middle East would be safer if Saddam Hussein was still there today?” Frankly, the way things are going at the moment, the answer has to be a resounding ‘Yes’! The old ‘Well, at least we got rid of Saddam’ rhetoric just doesn’t cut it anymore. The world knows the Coalition of the Killing went to Iraq based on a lie. The world knows that the Coalition of the Killing is continuing to stay in Iraq based on a lie. There is no ‘global war against terrorism’. There is no ‘terrorist threat’. There is only the terror that the US and its Coalition of the Killing allies has brought to the world of Islam that is a threat to world peace. The rest are lies told in pursuit of oil, hegemony and power for consumption by a diminishing number of dumb and gullible Western peoples.

History will be the judge of the lies and crimes of Bush, Blair and Howard – and the sooner the better!

Friday, March 24, 2006


It seems Dennis Shanahan at The Australian has finally woken up. He asks: “Why is it that the drama over the AWB does not seem to interest the Australian public?” That’s easy Dennis. It’s the same reason that the Australian public aren’t interested in the fact that Howard lied about the reasons we went to war against Iraq. It’s the same reason that the Australian public aren’t interested in the lie about kid’s overboard. It’s the same reason that the Australian public couldn’t give a toss about Howard’s refugee policies

It’s because the only thing the Australian public are interested in is their hip pocket!

As far as the Australian public are concerned Howard can do whatever he likes, including start wars and lie through his teeth, as long as he’s not perceived to have put up interest rates or caused house prices to drop – or worse, both!

Thursday, March 23, 2006


Just about everyone that was in favour of going to war against Iraq three years ago from Bush down to Blair down to Howard and even down to Greg Sheridan at the Australian are still (with a few notable exceptions) denying they were wrong and saying that everything will come out in the wash very soon, and they are still coming out with the pathetic ‘but isn’t it great that we got rid of Saddam’ rhetoric.

Greg Sheridan seems to think that: “George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard deserve praise for their courage,” then adds, “The coalition soldiers, overall, have performed magnificently.” That is, of course, if one chooses to ignore such trifling matters such as the deaths of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed by those ‘coalition soldiers’, and if one chooses to ignore the deaths and torture of those in custody at the hands of those ‘coalition soldiers’, and if one chooses to ignore the criminal executions of entire Iraqi families by those ‘coalition soldiers’.

The only people the likes of Bush, Blair, Howard and Greg Sheridan are kidding nowadays are themselves! When their terms in office are over, Bush especially, together with Blair and Howard should be dragged before the ICC to face war-crime charges. And if Greg Sheridan has ever accepted one blood-sodden dollar from the government to write what he writes then he too should be hauled before the ICC as an accomplice to Howard’s war-crimes. Sounds a bit drastic? Look at it this way; had Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, survived the war, would he not have found himself in the dock at Nuremburg with the rest of the war-criminals?

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


After reading this report in yesterdays Guardian one really has to wonder who is doing the execution style killings in Iraq. Whole families, it seems, are being wiped out in revenge attacks by coalition, mainly American, forces.

I wonder now who did the killings the aftermath of which was so graphically shown around the world last week where the only survivor seems to have been a five year-old boy. Sunnis and Shiites are undoubtedly at each others throats but one wonders who would have been blamed for the execution of the 11 Iraqis mentioned in the Guardian report had the evidence indicating that US soldiers were responsible not come to light. One then needs to ask how many other executions that have been blamed on either Sunnis or Shiites, depending on which group the victims belonged to, were actually the work of US death squads.

In another incident on 19 November last year 15 civilians belonging to two families were massacred by US troops in their homes in what was clearly a revenge killing for a roadside blast that killed a US marine at Haditha in the country’s west. Initially the authorities issued a statement saying the civilians had also been the victims of the blasts says this article in the Adelaide Advertiser. We now know differently. In the light of these revelations questions need to be asked about all of killings of civilians that have occurred since the Coalition of the Killing first invaded Iraq. Is what has been revealed thus far simply the tip of the iceberg? How many execution style civilian deaths have the Coalition really been responsible for?

Monday, March 20, 2006


It’s taken over three years but it seems the US has now completed the production of the elaborate forgeries that will be used to attempt to prove to the world once and for all that Saddam Hussein really did have links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Murdoch correspondent Sarah Baxter of Britain’s Sunday Times reports in today’s The Australian that the US Director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, has been directed by President George W. Bush to release “…the contents of 48,000 boxes of untranslated papers and tapes relating to the workings of Saddam Hussein's regime.” Among the documents, so we are told, are “…tantalising clues to possible Iraqi contacts with al-Qa'ida.” Baxter goes on to report that among the documents is an “…Iraqi intelligence report dated September 15, 2001 -- four days after the attacks on the US – [that] says Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were in contact with Iraq, and al-Qa'ida members had visited the country.” Baxter, however, does go on to mention that much of the sources for these documents are “questionable”.

Desperate stuff from a desperate President and, of course, there will be the Liar Lovers and Bush, Blair and Howard Huggers around the world that will seize on the documents to justify their arguments about the invasion, occupation and plundering of Iraq despite their dwindling numbers. It’ll be interesting to see how the neoconservative commentators react to the news of the documents release; they’ll be looking for anything at the moment that is likely to save them a bit of face – especially since Francis Fukuyama, one of their high profile intellectual leaders, has defected from their cause.

Personally, I don’t think this story has anything going for it. It’s too little and too late as far as Bush and his cronies are concerned – the world simply doesn’t believe the administration anymore no matter what they come up with. They’ve simply cried ‘Wolf’ far too many times already.

Friday, March 17, 2006


It seems SS-Rantenfuehrer Janet Albrechtsen thinks Julia Gillard may have something going for her in the Labor leadership and future Prime Minister stakes after all. Why else would Albrechtsen so enthusiastically denounce such a possibility?

Gillard, according to Albrechtsen, is not fit to be leader of the Labor Party and is unlikely to become Prime Minister because she is “…a woman with none of the usual aspirations such as settling down, getting married, having children.” Albrechtsen, in her somewhat narrowed mind, is unable to accept that Gillard, rather than aspire to being a wife and mother, instead aspires to be a party leader and possibly a Prime Minister. Furthermore, according to Albrechtsen, Gillard lacks other attributes that in Albrechtsen’s view would also preclude Gillard from being a Prime Minister; Gillard’s kitchen is apparently bare and – and this is the real clincher – she struggles with tongs at the barbie.

Albrechtsen also seems to think that ten years (with a few more to come, so she hopes) of a Liar-Loving Howard-Hugging Australia will be enough to put off Middle Australia from ever voting for Gillard to be Prime Minister.

It may well be true that Middle Australia has never had it so good but the fact that it has happened while Howard has been at the helm is purely coincidental. Just wait until interest rates start creeping up, as they inevitably will, and house values start to fall, as they already have begun to, and banks start calling in loans that are too tightly levered. Just watch how quickly then Middle Australia points its collective finger at Howard and his government. Watch how quickly, while Middle Australia begins to blame Howard for the mess that they are beginning to find themselves in, they start to take an interest in, and no longer ignore, the countless lies he’s told.

While Middle Australia has been prepared to ignore Howard’s lies while the road for them has been smooth they will soon remind him of them as their financial dream world unravels into reality.

Does Albrechtsen really think that Condoleeza Rice’s rise to leadership in the Bush administration is governed by her ability to wield tongs at the barbie? Is Albrechtsen in reality frightened that Gillard may just well be a Prime Minister one day?

Thursday, March 16, 2006


The on-again-off-again blog of the compulsive and obsessively disturbed David Davis, (aka Harry Heidelberg, a blogger who seems to have a somewhat irrational and rather unhealthy love/hate relationship with Webdiary and its management) together with his foul-mouthed Liar-loving Howard-hugging fascist supporters, Geoff Pahoff and Jay White, et al, has resurrected itself (just as ‘Harry’ was on a bit of a downer over some pathetic argument he’s having with one of the Webdiary management and about to close down his own blog because of it) just in time to have a stoush with the indomitable Sid Walker.

Sid has taken up the challenge of debating with these lunatics the minutiae of historic reality for which they, in turn, have no argument other than to resort to foul language and hints that they too, like Webdiary, simply will not publish any more of Sid’s posts!

For what it’s worth Sid, you can post your thoughts here – as, indeed, you already have – anytime.

Saturday, March 11, 2006


by Sid Walker

On Jan 16th 2006, Hamish Alcorn, Editor of Webdiary, a popular independent Australian weblog posted a clarification on the site in response to a direct challenge from Geoff Pahoff, one of the regular posters on Webdiary - a contributor with a strong commitment to the Zionist cause. Geoff’s first sentence was a direct quotation from an earlier post I had made on Webdiary.
(See for all the relevant exchanges.)

The form of Hamish’s reply was to quote Geoff Pahoff’s post, then reply in bold text. It ran as follows:

Those Bloody Zionist Threats Again
Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on January 16, 2006 - 8:41pm.
Then threats by Zionists against WD might subside -
Hamish, has WD received what in any way could be described as threats and that could be said to be from "Zionists”? Even if we used the, shall we say, very broad definition of the term Zionists obviously intended by the author [Sid Walker] of this charming little allegation?
Hamish: no.
Is your editorial policy on Holocaust denial the result of threats or pressure from Zionists?
Hamish: no.
If so, could you please provide details of this? If not could you say so please? Otherwise this allegation is left hanging in the air unanswered. Perhaps we should consider the pernicious consequences of allowing these things to pass by in silence.

So, Hamish 'clarified' the matter for Webdiary readers. No Zionist threats. No intimidation. My allegation must have its origins in my fetid imagination and had no basis in fact. Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!

And yet.... here's an extract from an email I received from Hamish, dated 12th September 2005:

"Particularly on holocaust / Zionist stuff, Webdiary has gone there before, and for her trouble Margo received death-threats and extraordinary harassment. Note that no other media will touch it. It certainly does say something about our society."

Here's another extract from an email I received from Hamish on 29th September 2005:

"Yes, we’re in a fucked up society and can’t say whatever we want. Do you want us to lose any voice we have? My sister is being accused of bullshit NOW for what is already said by VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE. Some would say an indication she’s doing something right..."

One doesn't need an IQ of 200 to figure out there's 100% inconsistency between Hamish's personal emails to me and the 'clarification' he posted on Webdiary. Both cannot be true. At least one of his statements must be untrue. There is a three-letter word for this: Hamish has been caught out telling a... fib.

If, as I suspect, Hamish was truthful when he described the ugly pressure brought to bear against Margo and Webdiary, then he is foolish to deny it so publicly.

Death threats should be reported to the police (don't we have an 'anti-terror' squad these days?). The last thing one should do, in the face of death threats, is to deny they ever happened. It encourages this thuggish, illegal type of behaviour.

Of course, my suspicion might be wrong. Hamish may be telling Webdiary readers the unvarnished truth, while amusing himself by occasionally spinning entirely fallacious horror stories in private emails.

Either way, it's not behaviour one expects from the Editor of a publication whose motto is "Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent"

Margo Kingston, Hamish's sister who founded Webdiary but has since retired, was more laconic and not so unsubtle when applying WD's bizarre censorship rules.

Here are Webdiary's 'no-go' topics again:
1. Denial of the existence of the Holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind at the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.

In the Garden of Eden, there was but one forbidden fruit.

These days we have a bunch of three :-)

Friday, March 10, 2006


I notice over at Webdiary that the arch-deceiver and liar Will Howard is up to his usual conniving tricks trying to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. He writes, “…the attribution of some sort of "cosmic evil" to Jews”, then adds in parentheses; “(or "Zionists" in the modern ‘non-racist’ version of this form of hatred).” He seems to think that all Jews are Zionists. He exposes himself when he writes, for example: “The ideas that a small number or Jews (or Zionists) run the media, world banking, have introduced AIDS, are the "real" power pulling the strings…” and so on. His not so subtle effort to create the illusion that ‘Jews’ and ‘Zionists’ are one and the same is quite transparent. Here Will Howard attempts to cynically decry the non-racist aspect of the description ‘Zionist’.

The much less subtle right-wing frothing-at-the-mouth pro-Zionist Geoff Pahoff also chimes into the debate by equating anti-right wing Israeli rhetoric as being anti-Semitic. Pahoff seems to think that it’s OK to invade and occupy other people’s real estate. He justifies this by saying that Israel was being ‘threatened’ by its neighbours and was, therefore, justified in conquering and occupying Palestinian lands. Never mind that this was nearly forty years ago and that they are still there extra-judicially murdering those that strike back to defend themselves against Zionist atrocities. Never mind that the Israeli’s are still killing innocent women and children. Never mind that thousands have been made homeless by Zionist policies of illegal collective punishment.

Several Jews and Israelis that I keep in touch with seem to think that Israel and the Jewish Diaspora generally would be far better off without the sort of garbage that these two raving lunatics carry on with.


There seems to be a total lack of understanding between what the US and Israel wants for the Middle East and what the people of the Middle East need to have.

The US has little or no understanding at all of how to cope with the situation that currently exists in Iraq. They also seem hell bent on going to war with Iran, and they blindly support Israel’s demands in matters relating to Palestine and Hamas.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld displays both his arrogance and ignorance by telling
the Senate Appropriations Committee
that he would “…count on Iraqi security forces to quell an all-out civil war in their country.” He added, almost as an afterthought, a habit that has become something of a Rumsfeld trait, “…that America's paramount goal is to prevent such a conflict in the first place.”

First, the civil war is already underway and talk of ‘prevention’ is at the very least a year and a half too late. The US government, however, refuse to see the situation as a civil war because it concedes failure. Secondly, it is the Iraqi security forces themselves that are often the main protagonists in the existing civil war using their uniforms, intelligence and command structure for their covert and often deadly participation in the civil war that Rumsfeld is hoping to stop by using them. Rumsfeld actually wants Congress to give him more money to give to the Iraqi security forces so that they can continue to do what they are doing. Utter stupidity.

And the Israeli government are showing their complete contempt of the Palestinian people and the elected Hamas government by declaring that if they retain power at the forthcoming Israeli elections they will be setting their borders unilaterally by 2010 following roughly along the current barrier line, which takes in huge chunks of Palestinian land, much of which will end up in Israeli settlers hands, and will include east Jerusalem. Hamas are unlikely to be impressed, to put it mildly, which prompts one to ask whether or not the Israeli’s are deliberately trying to provoke Hamas in order to make even more permanent gains into Palestinian territory by way of retaliatory strikes against Hamas strongholds in the event of Hamas actions against Israeli unilateral border setting, including the Gaza Strip which Israel may see fit to reinvade and even permanently occupy. The Israeli’s fail entirely to recognise the fact that neither side in this conflict will recognise each other while Israel occupies any of the pre-1967 Palestinian lands resulting in complete stalemate. This can only lead to the cycle of violence that has plagued Israeli-Palestinian relations since Israel was created.

When will these people ever learn?

Friday, March 03, 2006


One has to wonder sometimes about the Australian people. I mean, why do a people who know that their government is blatantly dishonest, and even corrupt, continue to support it both in public opinion polls and the Big Poll that comes around every few years?

The answer lies within many of the comments from the Howard supporters. Almost all of them have commented about how well off we are now under Howard. The ‘we’ve never had it so good’ cry that is often heard from Howard huggers reflects a typical modern Australian ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude. No matter that Howard has lied and schemed his way into ten years of government, no matter that tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of innocent people have died as a result of his lies, no matter that thousands who have wanted to seek refuge here in our country have had to spend years locked up just so that Howard could demonstrate to other like-minded refugees that they shouldn’t really be trying to come here, no matter that our rights have been slowly eroded away in exchange for protection from an all but non-existent threat to our security, no matter that the rights of ordinary workers to collectively negotiate work agreements have nigh on disappeared; all this matters not an iota provided, it seems, our hip pocket continues to be full and the value of our homes continues to increase so that we can continue to be able afford to indebt ourselves beyond anything most Australians have in the past been able to indebt themselves.

Is this what Australians have become? Being ‘laid back’, which seems to have evolved into complacency, is one thing but supporting a blatantly dishonest, lying and corrupt government in order to pursue personal wealth and to turn a blind eye to the suffering of other peoples who seem alien to us while Howard pursues his own agenda of creating his New Fascist Australia is verging on criminal!

Time to do something?!!