from the quill of Antisthenes

Finally some good news, at least for younger Australian journalists, who never knew if it was Kater, Catter, Kuter or Cutter. Now it is clear – a simple synonym to their rescue.

It is too early to say what his party would be all about, if anything. So far we were fed the predictable “football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars”, the Aussie equivalent of  the American “motherhood and apple pies”, the stale staples of all political parties. “Struggling small businesses” replace “the working families” of Julia’s fame.

For some time now I had been in favour of establishing a seriously conservative party, since  a chance of LibNats revival is negligible. Whether any such new party be can spawned by a tired political huckster is a question. Probably even naïve young voters will answer it in negative; and the older people, with longer memories, almost certainly so. Amongst many examples, I recall Big Bob making an impassioned speeches at the rallies when his/Howard’s government planned the media pleasing anti-gun laws. How stupid, how undemocratic! How strongly he was against them! And what ovations he was getting! The man of the people. The man of the hour. But just for an hour. Then, obediently, pragmatically, quietly and unblushingly voted with the government.

Now, maybe, just maybe we will see a real Bob, Bob MkIII. But don’t hold your breath.

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Sven says:

    After my arrival to Australia and following naturalisation, I was voter of Liberal Party, especially as a reaction on Whitlam and his band. But, after bad experience with Fraser, I did voted for Shooters Party. Why ? People, who came from communist countries understand me for sure, how important was to have freely shooting licence, or an Australian Passport ! When come fenomen of the Pauline Hansons One Nation Party, I have feeling, she is talking truth and from that time, I am voter of P.H.One Nation, later of One Nation NSW. Maybe Bob Katter have few good ideas, specially for country areas, but I am allways puzzled, why those small good conservative parties did not creating some sort of coalition, with strong punch !
    Another question – what is insurance of preelection promises to the people, after elections ? So many disappoitments with so many politicians !

  2. GOL says:

    I don’t know how things run in Australia, however, here in the States the “Greek tragedy” act is slowly and unpredictably stumbling to its predictable conclusion.

    There is a book by Amaury de Riencourt called The Coming Caesars. The author compared the United States to Rome, Europe to Greece (with the French being the Athenians, and the Germans the Spartans), and the Soviet Union to the Parthians. Reviewing our own history, he compared our Revolution with the Roman ejection of the kings and the establishment of the Republic. He noted that both the American and the Roman Republics had started out as very oligarchical states, but that political power had been gradually extended to the masses. This enabled the rise of powerful demagogues, which converted the old system into a power struggle between different factions that eventually coalesced into the two parties of the Optimates and the Populares (ostensibly the conservative, aristocratic party and the “liberal,” popular party; but really simply two groups vying for personal power)–which in turn led to civil war and the establishment of the empire. De Riencourt felt that something similar was happening in the United States (remember: this was written in the late fifties or early sixties!), but through a slightly different mechanism, since our Constitution had an office the Roman lacked: the presidency. Instead of civil war and institutionalized violence gradually creating a desire among the people for peace and security at any price, demogoguery and the popular desire for security and ease was gradually increasing the power of the presidency to the point where it would soon no longer be one of three equal branches of government, but would be the principal and almost only branch.

    Perhaps, even if one would find many of his comparisons and conclusions faulty, I think his principal argument was more or less correct: the presidency is gradually turning into a species of elected monarchy. I’ll wager that if it were not for the Amendment that limited the holding of the presidency to two terms, Clinton would still be in office.

    However, de Riencourt was wrong in supposing that it was only the chief executive that we had to worry about: not just the presidency, but Congress, the Supreme Court, and the whole apparatus of government, Federal, State, and local, have all increased enormously since the sixties when he wrote. What has gradually evolved in the United States is a form of elected tyranny: we voluntarily vote ourselves new masters at every election–though to a great extent our “democracy” is an illusion, since there is no real choice in an election.

    Sounds familiar?

  3. In relation to the roman Optimates, you might find these links interesting

    There appears to be a similar caste restructuring in the US, and I would venture to say in other western nations too.
    The democrats believe it or not, are the aristocratic party, with republicans the party of the masses. A traditional view of the parties is not illuminating at all. After the Lefts long march through the institutions in the 60’s 70’s, they replaced the dying east coast WASP elite with a new Transnational Progressive Bohemian aristocratic class, Mencius Moldbug details this quite well. The Left aren’t the party of the underdog quite the opposite they already are the ruling class. They use racial diversity, multiculturalism and feminism as a mobilise paramilitary for soft pressure on the rest of the native masses. For instance when someone says something politically incorrect, this provide the moment for these paramilitaries to put pressure on institutions for more ‘change’ or ‘equality’.

  4. The big problem with One nation was a lack of guiding philosophy, it was ultimately incoherent and easy pray for an expert conservative politician like John Howard to dismantle.

    I always enjoy telling people that there are more gun deaths now from illegally imported guns from overseas by criminal gangs than there were during the gun buy back scheme. So, if we were honest, we would admit that the entire gun scheme has failed, it has not reduced gun deaths at all. It’s the same with most modern policing, crime in England has increased 50X, from the early 1900, even accounting for per capita. This would be considered a failure.

  5. Pingback: How to catch a Katter Fish | Fog of Chaos

  6. Pingback: Center Nut

  7. Pingback: Mick of Manchester

  8. Barca says:

    That party still exists? What have they done so far?

  9. birthday girl says:

    Hello friends, good post and analysis at this place, I am actually enjoying these.

  10. Tropical Sun says:

    He even sounds like a snake oil salesman. One could think that the people should see through it, but snake oil salesmen make still good living.

  11. Quick & Furious says:

    It’s really a great and useful piece of info. Please keep us informed like this. Katter is a fraud. Thank you.

  12. Pingback: Under Taker

  13. K Prixel says:

    Katter does not wish to see his limitations – he’ll turn out to be a spoiler.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>