I fully understand Brock's decision to vote for Clive Palmer's party. Hell, a vote for anyone but the usual drones idling their time away in parliament and getting overpaid for it makes sense. The time-servers have proved without a shadow of doubt that they are not capable of doing what is needed to bring Australia back on track. However, I remain steadfast in my resolve not to vote for anyone in the lower house, and vote where there is some hope, in the senate. My decision was sealed after I read an essay called 'Does Western Civilisation Have A Future', by Wolfgang Kasper.

Kasper spells out what many of us have always 'known' or at least suspected.

Some leaders on the Left and the Right are trying to get us to accept their offer of “salvation” in exchange for our “unquestioning obedience”. Most of us are still resisting that pressure, but some people, particularly the young, don't seem opposed to the idea. As Kaspers says, 'Critical Marxism', which is what it is, is “on the rise in many universities and intellectual circles”. More taxpayer-funded welfare is attractive to them, and they are sitting ducks for social engineering.

The people pushing for change see the public as future 'subjects' of an administration ruled by elites – ie, un-elected, self-serving bureaucrats, often backed buy “supranational authorities and 'covenants'” (think United Nations e.g). Politicians have less and less decision-making power, and cannot represent voter interests. This conception is “opposed to the classical liberal position of free, self-responsible citizens, who are governed in liberal-democratic nations to the extent NECESSARY to safeguard security, peace, prosperity and liberty”.

The way it looks, the accepted liberalism involving elected representatives with the autonomy to shape rules according to the Constitution, is being hijacked by shadowy public 'servants' moving from their subordinate roles to ruling the roost – no matter who we vote for.

Only a thoughtfully selected senate can pull the drones into line by overseeing and blocking the dangerous blundering of the lower house as required.

Kasper stresses that the successful model of classical liberal democracy has become “increasingly hollow”, with the real power seized by unelected tax-funded bureaucracies. Parliaments just act as rubber stamps. He also feels the same way as many voters do about “single-issue activists”, who reject the political order, and have “managed to march through the institutions''.

Dr Phelps is a prime example of this type of activist. She has used the low primary vote that got her into parliament to con anything-to-get-in-next-election Labor into wrecking our border protection policy. That might backfire, but it might not.

The constant pressures by activists and tin pot local councils on Australia Day, and voters' loss of confidence in, or their ignorance of, who should be doing what, is something else that the current politicians don't seem to be able to handle.

Democracy is at risk of being replaced buy “simplistic, conflictive populism”. Our education system has been taken over by people who want to “disrupt the memory chain” by not teaching history at all, or by bastardising the subject and using an emotional approach, riddled with identity politics and the 'badness' of the white man.

Our current crop of lower house politicians doesn't seem to be doing a thing to combat the nonsense that is white-anting Australia, and there is nothing to indicate that the next lot will either. That's why I will be writing 'None of these” on the ballot paper at the coming election, but voting in the senate. If enough people did the same, the dodos would have to take notice.

ttbn,
Voting in the Senate sounds like the way to go. How can we make more people aware of it before the election without placing it into the too hard outbox ?
Those who vote Labor because 'Dad" voted Labor would not think that far. It's the fence-sitters we must try to get to think !

ttbn- Thanks as always for your comments.

I'm re-reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and John Galt's speech- chapter "This is John Galt speaking"- there seems to be some concurrence with contemporary events.

Individual,

I don't know. All we can do is tell other people what we do and what we think. It's quite clear that here, on OLO, there are two distinct camps, and there will never be agreement on anything; those of us on the more conservative side are in agreement with each other, in the main, as are the lefties with each other. Never the twain shall meet. Change, if it ever occurs, comes from within; nobody can change another person's mind if they don't want to change. As far as social media goes, I think that all we can do is keep on keeping on and hope something is taken up by people who might read what we say. They can't all be thick.

CM,

Yes. It's ongoing. People who read, as you obviously do, know that what we are discussing now has been discussed for a long time by clever people who were far-seeing. Unfortunately, what they predicted wasn't listened to any more than it is now, as we get closer to the awful truth. Some people living today will pay the price for not listening.

ttbn,
Any politician who expect unquestioning obedience is in for a rude shock at the next election!

Criticality and Marxism don't tend to go well together, but I'd rather see people critically accept Marxism than blindly accept other political doctrines.

I'd much rather see promotion of international law than have foreign policy depend on who's willing to spend the most on weapons.

And if our border protection policy depends on being cruel to refugees, even though no refugee has ever threatened our borders, then it bloody well should be wrecked!

But I do agree with you regarding the importance of the senate to block bad legislation.
_________________________________________________

Canem Malum,
Though I've not read the whole of Atlas Shrugged, I have read John Galt's speech. I couldn't find any internal logical flaws, but the situation where it's valid is very contrived (and I know others who have read the whole book also hold that opinion). So I'n wondering: what concurrence with contemporary events do you think there is?