Thomas Carlyle (1795 – 1881 ) – “Battles, in these ages, are transacted by mechanism; with the slightest possible development of human individuality or spontaneity: men now die, and kill another, in an artificial manner. Battles ever since Homer’s time, when they were Fighting Mobs, have mostly ceased to be worth looking at, worth reading or remembering.”

The French Revolution

Posted in History, Military, Philosophy | Tagged | Leave a comment

I can’t sleep

…from the quills of the dead white poets

Osip Mandelshtam 1891 -1938


I can’t sleep. Homer, and the taut white sails.
I could the list of ships read only to a half:
The long-long breed, the train of flying cranes
Had lifted once the ancient Greece above.

The wedge of cranes to alien far frontier --
On heads of kings, as foam, crowns shine --
Where do you sail? If Helen were not here,
What Troy then means for you, Achaeia’s people fine?

And Homer and the sea are moved by only love.
Whom must I listen to? Homer is silent yet,
And blackened sea with roar comes above,
Sunk in triumphant noise, head of my sleepless bed.
Posted in Communism, Poetry | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Paper money and slavery

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

A week or so ago I recalled a camp-fire discussion long time ago, when a few of us, unhappy slaves, considered our fellow ignorant, but happy slaves and what, if anything, should or could be done about them. I do not remember any profound conclusion; the best we could agree on was that as there is no point in leading a horse to water just have her to spurn you, you, if you are so interested in her welfare, point the way to the water and leave it there. After all, that particular horse may not be thirsty; and the animals smell the water at distances you can’t anyway. Simply, let the horses, and slaves, to their own devices. After all, it is the Left “intelligentsia” which knows what is the best for others.

All this went through my mind after reading about the latest brainwave of the US Treasury apparatchiks to save the United States’, and thus the world’s economy, as we know it and admire. There will be new faces on newly printed dollar bills. Obama’s ? Al Sharpton’s ? Al Gore’s ? Not yet.

Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will become both the first African-American to grace U.S. paper money and the first woman featured on currency in 100 years, the Department of the Treasury announced Wednesday. Joining her among the redesigned $20, $10 and $5 bills are Marian Anderson, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Eleanor Roosevelt, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth.

Sounds like a joke, and probably it is. A joke on the Americans who hoped, and voted, for a change (twice) and now they got it. Obama and his commissars must be enjoying themselves deciding whether legally enshrining unlimited access by pederasts to the toilets, glorifying US Army deserters or redecorating paper money is bigger fun, secure in the knowledge that however idiotic their action, the media will lap it and the so called peoples’ representatives will manage barely a whimper, if at all.

I admit I never heard of Harriet Tubman until now. I dislike slavery and it seems she was one of the few Americans who actually did something about it, notwithstanding the postbellum myth that the Civil War was about slavery.

But, being huge Harriet Tubman fans, here at The Dollar Vigilante, we have mixed feelings about her being the new face of the $20.  We’d certainly much rather look at her face than any of the other dead criminals printed on the other bills.  In fact, she is the only one who wasn’t a criminal.

Harriet was something we don’t have anymore… male or female.  An incredibly brave person who helped free slaves against a tyrannical system.  She absolutely was a hero.  We hope this is the image they use… but we doubt it.

She is best known for her wise statement, “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”

That statement has never been more true than today.  In fact, slavery never ended in the US.  Instead of ending black slavery they just ended up making everyone a slave.  After all, if slavery is having 100% of your productivity stolen from you against your will, at what percent is it not slavery?  The answer, of course, is 0%.  But it seems around 50% is enough to make people feel free in the land of the free nowadays.

And so people will cheer a black woman being on the $20 (and not even know why she was famous) but not realize that she lost the battle and they are the ones who now don’t even realize they are slaves.” Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/04/us-to-paint-new-pictures-on-its-dying-barbarous-relic-of-a-currency/#qpr4eWRB6cAFBqZ0.99

By the way – zero hedge is on our sidebar; and their writings started to get more interesting recently. After all – if Bloomberg doesn’t like them, they can’t be that bad.

So, she “.. could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”  They did not know and they were, presumably, happy.

Somebody could quote Julius Evola : “You have no liberation to seek from bonds, because you have never been bound.” Now American Negroes are free, but free to do what? Making excuses for history, five generations later? No easy answers and the post-Civil War carpetbaggers, now the salesmen of politically correct snake oil, are still at it. The people, not only the blacks, do not want to know. Should somebody tell them?


Posted in America, Civil War, History | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The EU games

Ludwig von Gress

The EU games

Our astute and non-dementia-challenged readers may have noticed that we have suspended publishing Stratfor articles. The reason is a perception on my part that the organisation has turned increasing pro-Putin, and worse, pro-Obama. Making excuses for Obama’s muddled foreign policy, if that is not too benign word, is one thing; apologies and approval of his anti-West campaign is another. I could be wrong in suspecting that the Stratfor experts are salivating at the prospect of lucrative consultancy in the new US Administration; and adjust their wise pronouncements to suit Sanders, Trump, Hilary or, after one or two executive orders, Obama.

As we know there were previous attempts to create the European union. Napoleon tried, Hitler tried, both with dismal, dismal for the people, results. Now their successors are trying again, history lessons notwithstanding. In the French corner we have a man with Mussolini’s ego, though not his intelligence – that is not needed in French politics. In the Prussian corner hovers Frau Merklel. The combination is likely to lead to a total collapse, political, moral and economical, of the countries of Europe; collapse during which April 1945 would seem to be the apex of good old times. I must add that in April 1945 there was hope for survivors; and almost unprecedented opportunity, unprecedented since the Peace of Westphalia, for Big Money. This time only the Big Money will benefit.

Now to the experts.

Stratfor: How referenda threaten EU

Britons will vote in a referendum June 23 on whether the country should remain in the European Union. Groups from both side of the debate are campaigning in the months leading up to the vote.


  • In the coming years, national governments, opposition groups and civil society organizations will increasingly turn to popular votes to decide a broad range of EU-related debates.
  • National governments will probably use referenda (or, more likely, the threat of them) to demand concessions from the European Union, to justify domestic decisions or to increase their own popularity.
  • Votes will take place against a backdrop of growing nationalism and fear of globalization, and the results will likely freeze or reverse the process of EU integration.


Europe seems to be in a referendum frenzy these days. In early May, the Hungarian government confirmed its decision to hold a referendum on the European Commission’s plan to distribute asylum seekers among member states. In April, Dutch citizens voted against the European Union Association Agreement with Ukraine in a referendum organized by a Euroskeptic organization. In June, the United Kingdom will hold a crucial vote on whether to leave the European Union altogether. The three votes have a common denominator: EU citizens are essentially being asked to decide on issues connected to the process of Continental integration.

Considering the European Union’s political and economic predicament, referenda are a very attractive tool to win the loyalty of voters. The democratic legitimacy of the European Union is being questioned, and moderate governments and their Euroskeptic opposition alike are turning to the voters for their own political gain. In the coming years, referenda will be proposed by three main sources — national governments, opposition groups and civil society organizations — and they will touch upon a broad range of EU-related questions.

An Interesting Paradox

The European Union has a tempestuous history with referenda. European governments have made many crucial decisions affecting national sovereignty without consulting the populace. The founding members of the European Economic Community (the European Union’s predecessor) did not hold referenda when the supranational organization was created in 1957. Four decades later, the initial members of the eurozone did not ask voters their opinion before creating the currency union. Only Denmark and Sweden held referenda on whether to enter the eurozone, and people voted not to join it. The United Kingdom, in turn, negotiated an opt-out with its EU peers.

When nations have consulted their citizens, the results have many times tended against European integration. The Irish initially voted against the treaties of Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2008), which transferred more power from the national government to EU institutions. In both cases, Dublin negotiated concessions from the European Union before holding second referenda, which resulted in favorable votes for the treaties. In Denmark the treaty of Maastricht, which created the European Union, required a second referendum to pass in 1993 after people voted against it a year earlier. Perhaps the most notorious EU referenda were held in France and the Netherlands in 2005, when people voted against a plan to establish an EU constitution. Such strong popular rejection in two founding EU members caused the bloc to abort the project.


Whether the European Union is democratically legitimate has been a matter of debate for decades. Aware that transferring national sovereignty to unelected technocrats in Brussels could alienate voters, national governments decided to enhance the role of the EU Parliament, the only international organization whose members are elected by universal suffrage. The idea was that, by giving the European Parliament a greater participation in the Continent’s decision-making process, the European Union would become more democratic.

But Europe’s economic and political crises have exacerbated the debate over the bloc’s democratic legitimacy, and governments are becoming increasingly nationalistic in response. With its impending referendum on whether to stay in the union, the United Kingdom is the most extreme example of this trend. But other countries are likely to make similar demands in the future. The referendum issue poses an interesting paradox: Asking voters to weigh in on European issues seems to be the most democratic way to reform the European Union — an arguably undemocratic institution. But as is usually the case, things are not as simple as they initially seem, and the practice could in fact weaken the bloc beyond repair.

Layers of Complexity

On the surface, referenda are the most formidable tool of democracy, giving voters a direct say on political, economic and social issues. They allow people to re-engage with the political process and give governments a popular mandate for major decisions that require a broad consensus. This explains why referenda are often used to reform constitutions or to make decisions on socially and politically sensitive issues (such as abortion or the death penalty).

But critics of referenda argue that they force voters to make decisions on complex issues about which they may not have complete knowledge. Referenda tend to create the illusion that complex issues can be presented in simple terms; the vote is often reduced to a binary “yes” or “no” answer. Referenda are also intimately linked to domestic political situations. Many citizens and political parties tend to see referenda as a vote on the government rather than on the issue under discussion, and the outcome is often determined by the economic situation or the popularity of the government at the time.

The European supranational government creates an additional layer of complexity. EU-related issues tend to be harder for voters to understand than national issues, and voters tend to more closely identify with and care about national rather than supranational issues. This means that voters often decide on EU referenda according to domestic political and economic conditions. Many of the French votes against the European Constitution, for example, were actually a vote against former President Jacques Chirac. The same happens with elections for the EU parliament; most political parties tend to campaign on domestic issues rather than on European issues. Thus, European Parliament election results are widely perceived as a barometer of the popularity of national governments.

EU-related referenda are also complex because of their impact on decision-making in Europe. Treaties need to be ratified by all member states before they become take effect, which means that in those countries where referenda are needed to ratify a treaty (such as in Ireland and Denmark), the entire process could be stalled because of the decision of voters in a single country. This creates enormous uncertainty about the feasibility of passing treaties, but it also gives countries temporary albeit notable leverage to negotiate concessions when voters vote no. Denmark, for example, received several exemptions from EU requirements after people initially voted against the Maastricht Treaty.

A Powerful Negotiating Tool

To a large extent, the current spate of referenda in Europe is a result of the upcoming British vote. London proved that referenda can be used to extract concessions from Brussels, but it also that the process of Continental integration can be frozen or even reversed with a popular vote. In the coming years, governments will probably use referenda (or, more likely, the threat of referenda) to demand concessions from the European Union, to justify domestic decisions, or to increase their own popularity. The net result of this situation will be to further distance EU member states from the centralized core in Brussels.

Naturally, not every country is in the same position to make demands. In 2015 the Greek government used a referendum against austerity to pressure its lenders to soften the terms of its bailout agreement with little success. In Hungary’s case, the government will use popular opposition to the relocation scheme to justify its rejection of the plan in Brussels and to improve its popularity at home. But Hungary’s position will be stronger if it coordinates its actions with other like-minded countries in the region. Larger EU members may feel more tempted than their smaller peers to threaten referenda, since they can inflict more damage on the European Union.

Euroskeptic political parties will also use referenda as a part of their electoral campaigns. The leader of the nationalist Freedom Party of Austria recently said Austria should be “governed via referenda” as Switzerland is. France’s National Front has promised to hold a vote on the country’s EU membership if it wins the presidential election in 2017. Italy’s Five Star Movement has said it would hold a referendum on the country’s membership in the eurozone if elected. Considering that France and Italy are the second- and third-largest economies in the eurozone, respectively, such referenda could finally doom the European Union. Promising to put EU-related issues to a vote helps these parties to soften their image, because a referendum looks less threatening (and more democratic) than the promise of unilateral action. Finally, interest groups or nongovernmental organizations may try to push their agendas in a similar way. But their options are more limited; only a handful of EU members have mechanisms that allow for citizens to organize referenda.

In Italy, referenda organized by citizens are binding, but only if voter turnout is above 50 percent. Most of the citizen-backed referenda in the past two decades were declared void because of low voter turnout. In the Netherlands, the threshold for voter turnout is much lower (30 percent), but the referenda organized by the public are not binding. However, even non-binding votes can put governments in awkward situations. The Dutch government is currently looking for ways to honor its promise to respect the result of a referendum in which people asked The Hague not to sign an association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. Countries such as Croatia, Lithuania and Hungary also have mechanisms that enable citizens to propose a referendum.

Some countries have other mechanisms of direct democracy. In Austria and Finland, for example, people can force their parliaments to discuss a certain topic if they collect enough signatures. In late April, the Finnish parliament held a debate on the country’s membership in the eurozone after a group of citizens collected signatures to force the topic. While the debate was not binding, citizens sent their government a clear signal that they are worried about the effect of the common currency on the Finnish economy. These discussions can be particularly awkward when, like in Finland, a Euroskeptic party is actually a member of the government and has to find a balance between its political manifesto and its coalition commitments.

The Upcoming Votes

There are plenty of issues in Europe that could be decided by a referendum in the coming years. Though a new EU treaty is very unlikely in the current political environment, any attempts to modify the bloc’s legal framework would trigger an avalanche of referenda across the Continent. Euroskeptic political parties and organizations in Southern Europe, as well as more moderate governments, could threaten to put their membership in the European Union or the eurozone to a vote so as to demand concessions from Brussels on varied topics, including fiscal targets and debt restructuring. Euroskeptic forces in Northern Europe could push for referenda to resist measures that undermine their national wealth.

Separatist movements in places such as Catalonia, Scotland and Flanders will continue to push for referenda for more autonomy or for outright independence. Regional or municipal governments can resist EU plans to allocate asylum seekers in their territories by putting the issue to a vote. Cyprus’ Greek south and its Turkish north are once again negotiating to reunify the island, but any agreement will have to be ratified by both sides in a referendum. (In 2004, Greek Cypriots rejected a U.N.-backed plan in a referendum.)

Referenda can also affect international affairs beyond the European Union. Popular pressure could force governments in several EU nations to hold a referendum on trade agreements such as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Countries like Finland and Sweden are unlikely to join NATO without a referendum, and Austria and Ireland are not planning to join the military alliance any time soon, but if they did, a referendum would be difficult to avoid.

These votes will probably be held against the backdrop of growing nationalism and fear of globalization. They will almost certainly be influenced by the political and economic situation at the time of the vote and will be subject to populist manipulation from both the organizers and their opponents (something true of most elections). The alleged attempts to solve the European Union’s crisis of representation could therefore contribute to the bloc’s weakening.” / Republished with the kind permission of Stratfor/

Thus far the Stratfor experts. Non-experts may wonder – would the Brussels apparatchiks allow any diminishing of their power? Only experts would answer yes. The games go on.

Posted in History, The EU | 3 Comments

The Quest

…from the quills of the dead white poets

Robert William Service (1874 – 1958)

I sought Him on the purple seas;
I sought Him on the peaks aflame;
Amid the gloom of giant trees
And canyons lone I called His name;
The wasted ways of earth I trod:
In vain! In vain! I found not God.

I sought him in the hives of men,
The cities grand, the hamlets grey,
The temples old beyond my ken,
The tabernacles of to-day;
All life that is, from cloud to clod
I sought ... Alas! I found not God.

Then after roaming far and wide,
In streets and seas and deserts wild,
I came to stand at last beside
The death-bed of my little child.
Lo! as I bent beneath the rod
I raised my eyes … and there was God.
Posted in Christianity, Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment

No election commentary

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

I turned my back on the rulers when I saw what they called ruling: bartering and haggling with the rubble … Among all the hypocrisies, this seem to me the worst: that even those who commanded feigned the virtues of the serfs.” Not my words, but those of Nietzsche in Thus spake Zarathustra.

Using the words of wiser men: “Like the true state, the hierarchical, organic state has ceased to exist. No comparable party or movement exists, offering itself as a defender of higher ideas, to which one can unconditionally adhere and support with absolute fidelity. The present world of party politics consists only of the regime of petty politicians, who, whatever their party affiliations, are often figureheads at the service of financial, industrial, or corporate interests. The situation has gone so far that even if parties or movements of a different type existed, they would have almost no following among the rootless masses who respond only to those who promise material advantages and “social conquests”. When striking these chords does not suffice, the only influence over the masses today – and now even more than ever – is on the plane of impassioned and sub intellectual forces, which by their nature lack any stability. These are the forces that demagogues, popular leaders, manipulators of myths, and fabricators of “public opinion” count on. In this regard we can learn from yesterday’s regimes in Germany and Italy that positioned themselves against democracy and Marxism: that potential enthusiasm and faith that animated masses of people, even to the point of fanaticism, has completely vanished in the face of crisis, or else been transferred to new, opposing myths, replacing the preceding ones by the sole force of circumstances. One must expects this from every collective current that lacks a dimension of depth, inasmuch as it depends on forces I have mentioned, corresponding to the pure ‘demos’ and its sovereignty – which is as much to say, literally, “democracy”. Julius Evola – Ride the Tiger – a survival manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul (1961).

Despite my best intentions, it actually ended up like a commentary on elections both in Australia and America. Who would have thought?

Posted in America, Australia, Election | Tagged , | 2 Comments


…from the quills of the dead white poets

Walt Whitman (1819 – 1892)


Tears! tears! tears!

In the night, in solitude, tears,

On the white shore dripping, dripping, suck’d in by the sand

Tears, not a star shining, all dark and desolate,

Moist tears from the eyes of a muffled head;

O who is that ghost? That form in the dark, with tears?

What shapeless lump is that, bent, crouch’d there on the sand?

Streaming tears, sobbing tears, throes, chocked with wild cries;

O storm, embodied, rising, careering with swift steps along the beach!

O wild and dismal nigh storm, with wind – O belching and desperate!

O shade so sedate and decorous by day, with calm countenance and regulated pace,

But away at night as you fly, none looking – O then the unloosen’d ocean,

O tears! tears! tears!

Posted in Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The budget a la Chávez

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

Last week Australians suffered the ignominy of another meaningless Federal Budget cobbled by the politicians increasingly desperate to get re-elected. So the agile and so innovative Turnbull came up with an increase of tobacco taxes. One wonders why nobody thought about this before.

Financial wizards of Venezuela would be proud.

Poor fellow, my country.

Posted in Australia, Corruption, Election, Finance and Economics, Fraud, Liberal Party | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

If only it was that simple


Turn off for thirty years, perhaps?

Posted in America, Finance and Economics, Socialism | Leave a comment

The Prophecy

…from the quills of the dead white poets

Mikhail Lermontov (1814 – 1841)


A year will come, the year of Russia, last,
When the monarchs’ crown will be cast;
Mob will forget its former love and faith,
And food of many will be blood and death;
When the cast off law will not guard
A guiltless woman and a feeble child;
when the plague on bodies, sick or dead,
Among the gloomy villages will spread,
To call from huts with pieces of a rag,
And dearth will maim this poor earth as plague;
And on the lakes will fateful glow lay:
A mighty man will come in this black day.
You will recognise this man and understand,
Why he will have the shining knife in hand:
And voe for you! – Your moans and appeals
He will consider just as funny things;
And all his image will be awful now.
As his black mantle and his lofty brow.

Translated from Russian by Yevgeny Bonver, 1966
Once again (see The Unwashed Russia) poor Mikhail wouldn’t have to change a word today.

Posted in Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment


…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

The Chernobyl anniversary came and went, an opportunity for the reason-challenged progies to rehash their anti-nuclear propaganda, with no mention of the real cause of the incident, i.e. inevitable decline of the workmanship and quality control under socialist management.

The images of some heavily decorated survivors reminded me of something, and it took some time to click. The woman, her clothing, medals and facial expression evoked the Russian female translator in Dad’s Army’s The Honourable Man episode. She, of course, was a faithful image of the Soviet heroines the Eastern Block media constantly presented.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose , in Russia in particular.

Posted in History, Socialism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

No joke, unfortunately



Posted in America, Culture, Election, Socialism | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Papeles de Panamá

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

When the news of that Panama’s legal firm helping people to hide their money surfaced, at first I thought – Only a tip of the iceberg. On second thought I realised that that would be totally inappropriate metaphor. According to popular beliefs, an iceberg shows only 1/8 of its bulk above water, depending on the salinity of water, its temperature, density of ice etc. As far as sub rosa money is concerned my uneducated guess would be that at least 1/1000 is under very murky water. Furthermore, the really rich people own banks, governments and media and thus they don’t need any Panamanian companies, prone to hacking and whistle-blowers. These are for those rich enough, but unconnected to the Big Money.

In other words, the so called Panama papers are a red herring; and the question is from what it is supposed to distract us, or to where the garden path is expected to lead us. One theory is that it is supposed to whip up the innate envy and make us accept the global governance in the belief that then it would be some mythical, honest people governing us, having nothing to do with those governing us now, admonishing us to pay the taxes while evading their own. The Guardian readers and ABC watchers may believe that, but they believe even in the Anthropogenic Global Warming, now called the Climate Change.

In accordance with the time honoured practice, the waters have been muddied by plethora of baseless theories in order to diminish the one theory which possibly could have some supporting facts. So I have read that the disclosure was organised by CIA, Putin, China and naturally, the Jews. I will leave it to you to pick up your favourite culprit, but you may first consider the following:

As yet nobody emerged to claim the Nobel Peace Prize or whatever is now being given to the people who significantly damage Western society. That could indicate a governmental organisation, a person fearing for his/her life, or a person dead.

There may be a valid reason for the extraordinarily lengthy delay – from wikipedia:

An anonymous source using the pseudonym “John Doe” made the documents available in batches to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung beginning in early 2015. The information from this unremunerated whistleblower documents transactions as far back as the 1970s and eventually totaled 2.6 terabytes of data. Given the scale of the leak, the newspaper enlisted the help of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which distributed the documents for investigation and analysis to some 400 journalists at 107 media organizations in 76 countries. The first news reports based on the papers, and 149 of the documents themselves, were published on April 3, 2016. The ICIJ plans to publish a full list of companies involved in early May 2016.

CameronMossacHowever, the one year delay would have allowed a selected personages to take remedial or protective action, as it seems that everybody but the benighted public was aware of the imminent disclosures. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) with its centre in Washington, DC (about 160 journalists from sixty countries) selective releases are suspicious, but, on the other hand, the public does not expect the whole truth from the main stream media, however “investigative” they may call themselves.

The Economist, that indefatigable fighter for the new word order, was so prescient that already on the 20th February 2016 published the two-pages ‘expose’ of the problem of the offshore tax evasion in “The biggest loophole of all” and ”The problem child”, naming Mossack Fonseca. Either prescient, or – well, that publication is no longer known for its journalistic integrity.


I was pleased to discover that the residents of Greenland do not hide their money in dodgy Panamanian schemes (see map above) and those of you who still do not love Clinton enterprises may be pleased to read https://20committee.com/2016/04/07/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/

Some are taking the whole show seriously, almost philosophically:

pj media The global world hits a snag -

One of the unappreciated risks of globalization is it destroyed the barriers to corruption formerly imposed by limitations in institutions.  The marvels of the modern age have made possible not only to spread organisations like Medicins sans Frontieres but also to proliferate crooks without borders.

Today the world is one giant Easter Island as the Panama Papers show.  For years scientists and archaeologists were baffled by how “Easter Island, in the south Pacific, once lush with subtropical broadleaf forest, was left barren and vast sea-bird colonies were destroyed after the arrival of man.” The most common theory is that the island’s 15,000 Polynesian inhabitants simply cut the trees down recklessly and — like Detroit or Venezuela — ate up their seed corn. A newer, not so very different theory is that Easter Island was reduced to a wasteland by rats. The danger facing the global world was that unlike the Polynesians there would be no getting away from the global rat.“

But the rats are starting to lose.  Events in Brazil are very probably soon to be echoed in in the West.  The pendulum is swinging against them because, as Madison observed, rats are so voracious they often eat each other before civilization can be extinguished. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote.  We are saved not by our better natures but by our worse. „

Optimistic, isn’t it?

Australia will get its comeuppance soon too –


Cui bono? Definitely not us, the ordinary people.


Posted in America, Australia, Corruption, Finance and Economics, Fraud | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Anzac Day

Ludwig von Gress

Fog of Chaos dealt with the Anzac Day a few times – K brehum Gallipoli 23-04-11, Soldier on / 25-4-12; Anzacs forgotten / 25-4-14; Anzacs / 27-4-15, so just a reminder: During the Gallipoli campaign the Allied casualties were 205 000 Brits, 47 000 Frenchies, 26 000 Aussies and 7500 Kiwies.

Posted in Australia, Education, History, Military | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mesopotamia (1917)

…from the quills of the dead white poets

Rudyard Kipling (1865 – 1936)

They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,

The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:

But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,

Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?

They shall not return to us; the strong men coldly slain

In sight of help denied from day to day:

But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,

Are they too strong and wise to put away?

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide–

Never while the bars of sunset hold.

But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,

Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour:

When the storm is ended shall we find

How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power

By the favour and contrivance of their kind?

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,

Even while they make a show of fear,

Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their friends,

To conform and re-establish each career?

Their lives cannot repay us–their death could not undo–

The shame that they have laid upon our race.

But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,

Shell we leave it unabated in its place.

Posted in Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Clubs, No Trump

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

I am not a great fan of billionaires, real estate ones in particular. On one strange occasion sometime in 1988 I skimmed through his 1987 book The Art of the Deal (there was nothing else to read and it was raining) and was not impressed. His trials and tribulation meant very little to me. Then, two weeks ago a friend, a mild admirer of Donald, lent the Trump’s old book to me and this time I read it more carefully. It has not made me to like him, but provided some outline of his enormous, yet pragmatic ego. He is able to cut his loses; and it is not out of the question that at some stage he would ask himself “Is America worth this?” The realistic observers have known the answer for some time, some are starting to write about the problems now. [Problems are unfixable] and [The weirdest possible outcome for strangest election in US history]

Leaving aside Mr Trump’s motivation – surely he can’t believe that he can change anything – anyone with a sense of fairness must feel sorry for him. Even Ronald Reagan did not have to suffer that much opprobrium and outright lies as he.

For example, take the Levandowski “assault” video. That the complainant is a serial victim of “right wing” violence ought to ring a bell, but the images tell the story anyway. If brushing past a person is a crime there would not be many left to arrest us all. Yet the deceivers claimed in the headlines that the video shows assault, correctly assuming that the media consumer sheep would not bother to look.

Another example could be the establishment treatment of the Trump’s answer to the illegal abortion punishment question. Originally he gave the absolutely correct answer to a very specific question – if you break the law you ought to be punished regardless of your gender, race, party allegiance or religion. That has nothing to do with the pros and cons of abortion; the valid laws should apply to everyone equally. Obviously, had Trump said that everybody but women ought to be punished … one can imagine the outrage. I guess that Trump is not familiar with Stalin’s Second Five Year Plan of 1936 which outlawed abortion in first pregnancies, followed in 1944 by outlawing all abortions, with two-year prison term for persons who aided a woman in securing it. A woman was cast as an incompetent dupe even then, when the narrative was that the nasty, selfish men force innocent and chaste (almost) women against their will to kill babies. Today the politically correct narrative is that the nasty, selfish men force the innocent and chaste (almost) women, against their will and their inalienable human right, not to kill babies.

The depths of ethical depravity are illustrated when even Andrew Bolt (Clayton conservative) misses the point.

The lengths the progies and cuckservatives will go to to stifle even a teensy whiff of fresh air in the putrid US ex-democracy! The Economist of 20th February 2016 devoted two pages to Trump (and one page to Bloomberg, The Economist‘s the dream US presidential and whole world ruler candidate). Well, according to The Economist‘s unbiased expert, Donald Trump inherited his wealth, but he is not as wealthy as he claims and ‘his casino operation folded’, ‘his father rented out mere apartments in Brooklyn’, ‘half his wealth is still tied up in buildings within four-mile radius’, ‘93% of his wealth sits in America and 80% is in real estate’ etc. Mudslinging goes on for two pages and an attention challenged reader would not know whether Donald is too poor to be a president or too rich. In any case, he is bad. One would think that having most of your wealth in your own country could be praiseworthy indication of patriotism; and that making money out of accommodation is better than making money by manipulating other people’s money, but that is an anathema to global order pushing publication. It is also amusing to see that what is wrong with Trump is admired on the immediately following page Michael Bloomberg’s moment. Oh, what a life it will be when we are governed by Sanders, Bloomberg and The Economist !

The beat goes on. Harper Lee ( To kill a Mocking Bird) died and voila! While her death was still in the news suddenly her letter about Trump’ casino was discovered, derogatory, needless to say. (One ambiguous sentence is enough for the progies) Don’t be surprised when, sooner or later somebody will discover a letter by Ronald Reagan warning against Trump. Sooner or later the world’s headlines will announce the shattering news that a Trump supporter farted.

Big Money can not allow somebody who is not beholden to it to enter presidential race. What would happen if the people realised their power?

Yes, the clubs are out.


Posted in America, Corruption, Election, Journalism | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

No worries


Posted in Australia, Climate Change, Islam, Socialism | 1 Comment

Life is bitter

…from the quills of the dead white poets

William Ernest Henley 1849 -1903

Life is bitter.   All the faces of the years,
Young and old, are gray with travail and with tears.
  Must we only wake to toil, to tire, to weep?
In the sun, among the leaves, upon the flowers,
Slumber stills to dreamy death the heavy hours …
                         Let me sleep.

Riches won but mock the old, unable years;
Fame’s a pearl that hides beneath a sea of tears;
  Love must wither, or must live alone and weep.
In the sunshine, through the leaves, across the flowers,
While we slumber, death approaches through the hours …
                           Let me sleep. 
Posted in Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment


…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

There is a possibility of early Australian federal elections and thus the experts spout more than usual volume of nonsense. Those in the centre and right are full of advice to Turnbull how to avoid the defeat of the Coalition. They either refuse to see the reality or are too corrupt to say the obvious.

The Left media managed to impose a leader of their liking on the Liberal camarilla, which was not too difficult. The most elected Liberals, and a minority of party members, model themselves on the American style liberals, that is leftist Democrats. The conservative principles had been abandoned long time ago by none other than that politician in the worst meaning of the word, John Howard.

Thus the party of no convictions whatsoever and ingrained hypocrisy is led by scheming crypto-socialist who himself will not lose the forthcoming elections regardless of the electoral count. If there is an unlikely Coalition win, Turnbull will sabotage anything even slightly advantageous to Australia; and will attempt to implement the destructive Labor/Green policies under different names.

If the Coalition loses, the egotist extraordinaire Turnbull will resign and after some interval will accept a Labor Party reward, perhaps an ambassadorship or something better. Win/win for the Malicious Malcolm, loss/loss for Australian people.


Posted in Australia, Corruption, Election, Liberal Party, Socialism | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

You, who first stood before the source

…from the quills of the dead white poets

Anna Akhmatova (1889 – 1966)

(To Alexander Blok)


You, who first stood before the source

With your smile, so deadly stoned!

How tortures us a look, you own, -

The heavy look of the night-birds.

But awful years will soon pass,

You’ll be again and young and careless,

And we’ll preserve the cold, mysterious,

Of minutes, given you once.

Translated by Yevgeny Bonver, 2002


Posted in Poetry | Tagged , | Leave a comment