Discover more from New World Perspective
Geopolitical Compass #33
It seems after the complete loss of autonomy for Australians during Covid, they may finally be coming to their senses.
Politically motivated use of justice systems
Australians aren’t as stupid as their leaders
Krugman at his best
Middle East inconsistencies
Ukraine: reality bites
Politically motivated attacks against those trying to change failing systems is standard. Using the ‘wheels of justice’ to attack political opponents is becoming widespread these days, particularly in ‘democratic’ Western nations; continual attacks on Trump, attempts to ban Germany’s AfD political party as it gains popularity, EU sanctions on Hungary. Now it’s Argentina’s turn:
This seems a half-hearted effort with very weak foundation, and should not see any material effect on the election result.
A prosecutor launched a criminal case Friday against Argentina's frontrunner in this month's presidential elections, accusing Javier Milei of deliberately causing a drop in the Argentine currency when he encouraged citizens not to save in pesos.
Too little too late. Good news for Argentina.
Despite Australians absolute rolling over into subservience during the Covid period, there may be hope yet for Aussies not fully giving up their independent thought and falling into a nanny state mentality.
Australians were presented with a purposefully vague notion on ‘The Voice’ ostensibly to give Aboriginal Australian’s more say over matters. It was all kept purposefully vague and airy fairy. Like this ‘explainer’ from the nationally funded broadcaster ABC:
The Voice would be an independent advisory body. The members of the voice would be made up of and chosen by First Nations people from communities around Australia.
Under the constitution, the government already has the power to make laws for Indigenous people. The voice would be a way for them to be consulted on those laws.
It could provide advice on issues like health, children, education and housing in the hope that such advice would lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people and better value for money. The government would be under no obligation to act on the advice.
Deliberately vague terminology and explanation, but that’s all Aussies were given. The idea was basically a political lobby group that would be funded by taxpayers to interfere where they desired to slow down progress and ensure preferential treatment and no doubt extra budget funding for whatever projects they deemed fit to support and also likely backhanders to keep ‘the voices’ happy and amenable with whatever pet projects they wanted as well as jobs for the lads.
Despite heavy pushing by government including the Prime Minister, the referendum on Saturday has fallen flat on it’s face with a resounding NO vote across the nation.
Unsurprisingly, we can see the stark difference between reality vs virtue signalling by drilling down further into the result. Lest I be accused of bias or racism, I’ll leave it to a clear signal from Australian people about their feelings based on experience.
Can you guess from the chart below which state is home to the highest proportion of Aboriginals as a proportion of it’s population (30.8% of people), and which is the home of the nation’s capital, full of virtue signalling politicians, federal government workers and in which Aboriginals only make up 2.2% of the population?
The Australia Electoral Commission has estimated the cost of the continually delayed referendum - while the government and special interest groups tried to manufacture consent - at $450 million.
Will the Prime Minister who was a heavy proponent of the YES vote now fall on his sword for wasting hundreds of millions on a referendum he himself conceded would be tough to win (hence the continual date push back)?
Not unless he’s forced to behind closed doors by his colleagues who see an opportunity for themselves. Integrity amongst Western political leaders is all but lost for the moment.
Does anything Krugman write ever age well?!
Sure Paul, all we have to do to ‘bring down’ inflation is exclude the things people can no longer afford like food, housing, energy and transport and it drops like a stone. Job done.
I’m no expert in Middle East relations. This chart is already outdated, but gives you an idea of how complicated the region is.
So for that reason, during ongoing events and the fog of war, I won’t provide commentary that could very well prove wrong in a very fast evolving situation.
I will however illustrate logical inconsistencies that arise to provide you with context and show hypocrisy that our leaders are only too good at. Things to keep in mind when you are bombarded with news.
Stuff like this…
Remember also that you will be presented with a lot of ‘proof’ by both sides to back whatever their argument is to have you believe them. For example this weeks narrative that Hamas burnt Jewish babies during its attack. Was there a lot of violence and regrettable deaths? Absolutely. Were Hamas soldiers burning Jewish babies?
Thanks to The Good Citizen and others for easily disproving this one.
Gone are the days where you can blindly trust what you see, even when presented by allegedly reputable sources or people you trust. More than ever, you need to stand back and question the narrative you’re been presented, regardless of the source. Reserve your judgement for a day, more often than not - many outlandish claims such as the one above will be refuted just as quickly as it appears. But the shock value and outrage which was the original intention still lingers with people, and that was the plan.
Don’t fall for it.
As was always inevitable, the US has grown tired of Ukraine. No longer will it support Ukraine “whatever it takes.” This has been replaced by “hurry up, we’re losing interest.”
The main reason behind this is the necons are finally starting to realise that Russia indeed does control the situation on the ground and is prepared to go on for years to achieve it’s goal - a demilitarised and neutral Ukraine.
Israel is merely the pivot to distract the masses and provide a convenient vehicle to slink away, tail between it’s legs from yet another war it instigated, but can’t win.
Could the US continue printing money to support both conflicts? Yes, but debased dollars don’t solve the problem of needing tangible military hardware and ammunition to supply to each war you’re funding. Physical resource and production capacity constraints necessitate the US to pick and choose. Particularly if it’s intent on continue to provoke a conflict over Taiwan as well. A three war-front is just not maintainable, in fact even one war-fronts against ‘weaker’ enemies are not winnable; Syria, Afghanistan etc.
So the time to choose is fast approaching.