Archive for October, 2006

A break in the business

October 27, 2006

One is trotting off to shangri la for a couple of weeks for a break. It’s time, as the desultory posting shows. I’ll be back Monday 13 the, November.

In the meantime.

The Ptrime Minister shopuld get some real scientific advice:

He asserted this morning, Co2 damages the atmosphere. Drivel.

Next, there might be a shift occurring in climate patterns, though that is unclear, because in physics it is too complex to explain climate let alone make long run predictions . One thing is clear, if shifts are occuring ( there is no uniform climate), it is not due to climate change.

The problem with bunk is, it is being used as an excuse to tax Australians heavily.

Bracks has announced another ruddy windmill farm. The Prime said ‘alternative energy is important’, as well as meeting ‘ greenhouse emission targets’, that is  cutting Co2 emissions.

Taking the last first, it wouldn’t be too bad but for one thing, it is a burden, the  reason for it is rubbish, it is economica;lly damaging. Greenies understand that, that’s why they are all for it, to undermine bad old capitalist west.

WIth windmills, `alternaitve energy’ is useless, is not investment, and will only cut energy supply, damaging business and and consumers.

Sod the environment. the only environment policy the Liberal Party should have is to kill off the fraud of environmentalism, eliminate that blood sucking cow, the Dept. of Environment, and get off the backs of enterprises and consumers.

When I return, I shall pick up the tempo with the postings. I’ve not finished yet with a couple of thugs, such as Kroger, the HR Nicholls Society, and few others in need of a whipping, including Christine Nixon.

The Victorian Liberal Party Campaign, “Headless Chooks”

October 27, 2006

What with Ted the Wimp Baillieu, whom Liberal members are now also calling Ted the Toorak Village Idiot, and the Marshmallows, Kroger and his Parasite Party, and Kroger’s “Braindead Trust, a party of party of garden gnomes would be a better punt.

At least garden gnomes lighten up, are jolly little fellows, tough ( they take heavy weather) and they don’t stab good Liberals in the back, unlike Kroger, his stick puppets, and Kroger’s (second) Brain Dead Trust – the HR Nicholls Society. ( “Brains Trust” is a slight exaggeration; some are of the view a lobotomised single cell trying to spark is no brain at all.)

If there is a campaign code-name, it couldn’t be, or shouldn’t be, ” shock and awe”. For, it is shocking, but not awesome. It’s a shocking campaign, as Liberal members mutter around Victoria .

1. The strategy, crossed fingers, Victorians will run to the Liberal Party, fleeing the Bracks regime, is working a treat. Ted is going to be put down polling day. While the Bracks Govt.  is detested for its tax burden,  its squander, its ‘laws’, its hectoring, finger wagging nanny state odious list of sins, its armies of enforcers, and the possibility of a depression worse than that which Cain and Kirner made Victorians suffer, it doesn’t register with the Toorak Village Idiot and the Marshmallows, and the clowns in 104 Exhibition Street:

Victorians aren’t about to replace Bracks with a pack of headless chooks, who will be no better than that lot in Goovt..

After all, the Parliamentary wing, for example, supported the Blasphemy Law. As for tax and squander, Ted is in a hot auction against Bracks: ” Take this Stevie, I’m going to tax and spend Victorians into the gutters faster than you.” Hot stuff, but then he is Ted the Toorak Village Idiot.

Listen, Teddy Boy, if Liberals members wished to a join a socialist party, they would have, and not bothered with the Liberal Party.

Let’s try the hard question: What do they stand for? Not Liberal Principles. They could be mistaken for another ALP faction. Not that many of the Candidates have a clue as to what they are on about.

Indeed, that is the whole object to Kroger imposing candidates, to make certain no candidates of  ability stand. It shows, he’s stuffed seats with many who bear a spooky resemblance to his stick puppets in 104 Exhibition St., and his Brainless Trust.

Liberal members around Victoria have mentioned to me they are really hard put to contemplate voting for the Candidates. They, of course, want to see Bracks bashed, but, they are fed up with the contempt Kroger and his Toorak Political Brahmin Backers have for them, and the spineless, brain dead glove puppets they have imposed.

What is to be made of candidates who believe they have a grip on economics because they are accountants? One candidate was totally stumped when a life-long Liberal member, replied, ” No, that’s not economics.” That Liberal  asked the candidate three questions to find out whether the Candidate had principles, guts, and a brain. ” The candidate is a complete moron. A dud, who holds economics is an accounting spreadsheet and a rolodex.

While some ALP canidates and sitting members seeking re-election have been on the husting for, by now, the best of 4 months, Kroger’s choices have been struggling to leanr by rote the campaign script drawn up by pr. types and Kroger’s stick puppets in 104 Exhibition St. It shows, once someone asks an unscripted question, they are lost. As one Liberal member mused, it’s like watching a snail running the Melbourne Cup, no, snails run faster. They need prompters to help them figure out a half intellignet answer.

In the meantime, Richmondites have been flooding the local hospital. their sides split from laughter at Maina Walkley, who launched her campaign in Maidstone Village.The candidate for Maidstone has a headache and would like to cure it by giving Maina and Kroger a good boot up their backsides.

Neither Party, the ALP,or Kroger’s Liberal Party are fit for office. The former are malfeasent thugs, the latter are morons.

Police Inquiry into the Bracks Administration. Pt.II

October 25, 2006

There is more to say on EOC, Brack’s Commissars for Ideological Incorrect Speak Policing, but for now, let’s turn to the second leg of why Bracks Cabinet Ministers and their administration must be subjected to police and parliamentary inquiries.The Heral Sun was prosecuted some time ago for publishing an article  on another scandal, how the Govt., through one of its departments was tearing apart a family. Suprression orders have been handed down with  increasing frequency over the last number of years. Alone, suppression of publication of cases is a very nasty development. It’s not that most are keen to pursue sordid details of cases. Secrecy, however,  begs the question of who benefits? The answer is the Bracks Administration.

Common Law is there to protect freedoms and individuals against tyranny. In Victoria, as the two Pastors case also made plain, judges are co-operating with the Bracks Govt.’s neo-Marxist agenda in the enforcement of ‘laws’ which are usually only associated with totalitarian regimes. One never contemplated this until now, but one is increasingly all for the elimination of the lifetime sinecures of Judges. Such “judges” deserve on thing and one thing, instant dismissal and with no fat super pay out. They are bums.

It is clear what VCAT is being developed into. Whether the Bracks Cabinet gets away with it hinges on questions which are crystallised in its Bill of Anti-Human rights:Is it Consitutional?Is it Lawful? My view is the answer to both questions is no and no. VCAT is now only a qasi-legal enforcer of;

Robbery – viz the Office of State trustees ( which is engaged in systematic large scale private property theft);

Totalitarian measures such as as the Blaspehmy ACT;

Suppression orders preventing disclosures of Cabinet and Administrative decisions and orders.

VCAT acts, in sum, under Cabinet orders.

Two cases, same in substance bear this out:

VICTORIANS will be kept in the dark over why sex monster Mr Baldy was given a home near schools and playgrounds.

The State Government has won a secrecy fight over documents about notorious pedophile Brian Keith Jones’s shift from jail to a Flemington house in an area dubbed “kid central”.

The ruling also protects the criminal’s personal affairs.

Kent St residents were furious when they learned last year that the sex predator had been put in their midst. Jones, 59, was moved to a unit in the grounds of Ararat prison just a day later.

Concerned parent Margaret Simons sought details, through Freedom of Information laws, on the checks done before Mr Baldy was moved to the Flemington house, which was near a meeting place for children walking to and from school and was next door to a family with two young children.

But the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused access yesterday after objections from the Department of Justice.

VCAT vice-president Judge Sandra Davis agreed the documents were exempt.

Releasing them could undermine the parole system, reveal the personal affairs of Mr Baldy and corrections officers, give offenders sensitive security information, and discourage public servants from offering frank and candid advice.


A second case is that of Mack Giles, another dangerous pedophile, who was located by the Govt. less than 100 metres from a primary school, and  under 500 from a martial arts club rooms used by children ( Herald Sun, 22/10/06).

The Govt. suppresses details of the location of relased dangerous criminals as it is. releasing releasing and locating to very dnagerous pedophiles next to primaryt schools, however, is worse, for obvious rulings.

Hulls’ objections: Yah, right: Cabinet objects to an FOI search for an explanation because, the govt.’s actions are indefensible.

As for that VCAT pseudo-judge, real taxpayers are the masters, not cabinet, no bureaucrats, not “judges”, and they have every right to an explanation.

What is clear is, the obvious corruption involved in the actions of Hulls and VCAT to conceal reasons. of govt. actions.

Taken with these:

Is Rod Hulls A Thief?

Is the Victorian Attorney General of Victoria, Mr. Hulls, a Thief? Conclusion.

Steve Bracks’ Show Trial might well have backfired

The Show Trial has backfired, and in several ways

Questions to be asked or; What is the OPI Show Trial of the ARS really about?

 Sen-Segt Paul Mullet is partly wrong,because the Bracks Cabinet is to blame and not just their glove puppet,Christine Nixon, the Junta’s Commisssar of Police.

The reality is, the Bracks Cabinet itself now warrants both a full police inquiry as well as a Parliamentary Inquiry, as do its agents such as VCAT, EROC, and the Office of State Trustees.


Nothing less now will do and it is urgent.



Thorough Parliamentary and Police Inquiries into the Bracks Govt. and its administrative apparatus is now required as a matter of urgency. Part I.

October 20, 2006

If there is any doubt the Bracks Govt. and its administration warrant a thorough police investigation and a full Parliamentary Inquiry for corruption, and there shouldn’t be any doubt, recent developments puts the matter beyond even quibbler’s objection.The Federal Police, because of what is involved, should conduct the police investigation. The reason is, Victoria Police is headed by Commissioners appointed not because they are competent, uncompromising police officers, they are not. They were appointed because of what they told the Government pleased the Cabinet (which is the subject of another article).

Two developments show why they must be investigated for corruption. Firstly, EOC and VCAT deliberately inciting strife, in order to secure convictions under the Blasphemy Law, and perverting justice in doing so.

Secondly, a VCAT ‘judgment’ handed down yesterday, declaring Victorians have no right to discover the reasons behind a Cabinet decision, which affects Victorians, or a decision by any of its administrative apparatus It might not strike some readers as corruption but it is.

On the “Equal Opportunities Commission ” site, there is a “press release” headed, EOC is “concerned about decrease in complaints”. It continues:“Commission Chairperson, Ms Fiona Smith, said she was very concerned that people may feel discouraged from making a complaint of discrimination, sexual harassment or racial or religious vilification.”“…our figures don’t show the actual incidence…merely the number of complaints lodged with us…”

The statement whines there was a horrible a 22% fall in the number of people lodging complaints against 2004/05.

Smith attributes the decrease to, the Federal Cabinet’s labour market reforms and AWAS! It’s the Federal Cabinet’s fault Victorians are not clogging EOC and VCAT with ‘complaints’.

It must have dawned on her, though dimly, what a disgusting remark that is, because she hurried onto qualifications: of course, the Acts and EOC have done their “educative job”, so Victorians know what they can’t say and do, and employers are cooperating.

Eh? Employers might be cooperating because of intimidation. If they don’t obey the Bracks Stalinoid Cabinet and its Commissars, they face criminal charges.

The number of Victorians complaining is not anywhere near what the Junta and its commissars hoped for, and not for want of trying and this is the rub:

EOC has been actively trying to induce Victorians to lodge complaints. This is, in fact, is the whole point to the “Press release”, to incite Victorians against other Victorians, to deliberately fomenting trouble and violence.

EOC seeks to incite people, and to induce Victorians into agreeing to act as informers and “complainants”. It does it in several ways, the primary methods are:

1. Advertising, as the press release is an instance of.

2.Funnelling Victorians through its website, which advertises, “Make a Complaint“. Under that head, the site steps anyone all the way through “lodging a complaint”: It advises: “Complaint Officers” will “help you prepare a written statement.”

In common law, it is a serious offence for police, courts, and any other administrative office of Govt., to procure complainants, evidence, and witnesses, and to deliberately cultivate anyone to making complaints. It is a grave offence for courts and any other body engaged in law to do exactly what EOC and VCAT do.

“Complaints Officers” “write the complaint” and then send it to the “complainant” to see if it is correct. What happens in Common law?

EOC is not merely touting for business, it is engaged in a sustained attempt to create civil strife, pervert justice, and convert Victorians into vexatious troublemakers and informers prepared to spy and give false witness on EOC’s behalf. Its site makes all that plain. As soon some idiot shows any interest to serve (the right word for it) as “complainant”, EOC ” writes” the “complaint” for the new stooge, who signs it as true and correct. It begs the question of more than perjury. If policeman/solicitor/barrister/judge/jury/witness did anything like all that, they would face very serious criminal charges Let’s quote from the two ” complaint” “application forms”:

No 1.:“I understand that the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission can help me by writing astatement of complaint from the information I provide, if I ask for that help. I have attached

my letter of complaint that I wish to try and resolve through the Victorian Equal Opportunity


EOC covers itself with a thin escape clause, “complainant” must tick one of two “options”: yes, EOC can write the statement or; no, EOC must use the statement the complainant has filled out. Other strange sentences include:

“Explain how the situation has affected you. What detriment have you suffered?

Let us know what you want to resolve this complaint.”

To make it plainer, EOC writes the complaint, mails it to the stooge, who signs what EOC wrote as the stooge’s ‘testimony’.


“Recently you discussed with a Complaints Officer the lodging of a complaint of alleged unlawful discrimination.

If you wish to try to resolve your matter through the Equal Opportunity Commission, could you please attach to this sheet information about your complaint. Please refer to the section “Making a Complaint” (over the page) for information on what to include in your letter of complaint.

If you need to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me /the Enquiry line again.”

In common law, it is not up to police to decide if a suspect is guilty and conduct the investigation, as Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor all it once but EOC does. The forms show it does, and its actions demonstrates it does. Worse, it is EROC that fabricates the evidence, though it is the “complainant” who ticks the yes please “option’ – let’s put some poor sod through the wringer.

Notice, once a “complainant” has signed that form, the idiot is from then on open to perjury charges, plus other criminal charges such as, perverting the course of justice. However, it is not a loophole for EOC, for it is guilty of the same too, as well as soliciting false witnesses and fabricating evidence.

Things degenerate: having secured someone stupid enough to agree to all that, EOC, presto, launches an “investigation”. Funny isn’t it? EOC fabricates a case, “writes” the “evidence” and launches the investigation. Surprise, surprise, the “investigator” reports back to the effect:

“Hey, Commissar, that complaint sheet you wrote for the victim of such hideous, evil crimes, it’s all true.”

Justice, law, well the “anti-discrimination” and “blasphemy” Acts are perverse, and not lawful – certainly not in Common Law. What, however, we have before us is a complete perversion and overthrow of the rule of Common Law, so it can hardly be expected that ‘applications’, “evidence”, “testimony”, and the “investigation” are no better than was served up under the regimes Nazi and Soviet.

The above makes a complete joke of “Next Step Resolution”.

In common law there are no such crimes to “resolve”. Still, under the Act, there is nothing to resolve, or wouldn’t be. EROC makes sure it is very busy bringing violent, dangerous criminals (decent, law-abiding Victorians) to book.

The whole way EOC operates is aimed at ramming Victorians before their kafkaesque star-chamber, a grotesque parody of the function of police forces, courts, judges, lawyers.

The above alone means nothing less than, EOC and its twin, VCAT, are rotten, and corrupt to the core.

EOC uses another way to persecute potential victims, and pervert law and justice. It used it against the Two Pastors.

We know what it did, in seeking to seize the Two Pastors because of a doughty gentleman, full of guts, unlike, unfortunately, too many silks, judges, and Liberal politicians these days. He only took on EOC, having discovered what they did, only having only caught them red-handed at it against the Two Pastors, as set out in the footnotes below. Oh, his name? Mr. Gerard Jackson.(1)

This brings us back to the “media press release”. The aim of that drivel is unambiguous; to foment strife between Victorians in the hope it can haul Victorians before their Star Chamber. Next, to induce Victorians to act as “litigants”. Next, to concoct testimony and evidence, pretend it is their stooge’s own testimony and evidence, and then, with all that secured, to go for the one they’ve selected as their next victim. It is solicitation and for corrupt motives, and for disgusting, monstrous ends.

The ” anti-discrimination act’ and the ‘blasphemy act’ are a mockery of law. The evils of those two Acts are compounded by what is now naked, corruption. EOC and its Commissars must now be subjected to a full police investigation, and the Minister, Mr. Rod Hulls and his office be subject to all appropriate investigations, and face all the appropriate charges that follow. For, if they were police officers, judges, lawyers, and barristers, that is exactly what would be done to them.

Why are they an exception? That he is a Minister, and they are his Commissars of a Soviet Style “Court?” No, they are not exceptions to the rule of law. In a Common Law country, with the Parliament obligated in that tradition to uphold liberty against tyranny, and corruption, neither Ministers and their appointees to the administrative apparatus of Parliament are exempt, they are open to such actions. That lot must face the full weight of the law for nothing less than corruption.

We have covered one major cause for a full inquiry. Part II will cover more reasons which have only emerged in recent days. Then, all will be reinforced by matters which demonstrate, full Parliamentary and Federal Police inquiries are fully warranted and are urgent.

1.Mr. Gerard Jackson:Bracks’ Star Chamber commission applies the law selectively against Christians in favour of Muslim bigots:“In Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria I argued that May Helou and Diane Sisely should be investigated for conspiring to destroy the reputations of two Christian pastors and of trying to intimidate critics of Islam.I also accused the Equal Opportunity Commission and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of…

Moreover, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that Diane Sisely conspired with Helou, whose loathsome actions amount to inciting religious hatred, in bringing about this disgusting prosecution. So much for this commission’s “stringent standards” of conduct.

Even more condemnatory is the grim fact that though the EOC and VCAT were aware of what Helou and Sisely had done and why the bigoted Helou acted as she did they still persisted with the prosecution. What is more, they…”

Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria:

“However, circumstantial evidence suggests that members of the Equal Opportunity Commission entered into a conspiracy to prosecute these pastors in order to intimidate potential critics of Islam into remaining silent.

Diane Sisely hired May Helou, a Muslim bigot, to help her identify people criticising Islam. True to form, this Muslim Torquemada quickly swung into action. Helou incited several Muslim converts to attend a seminar on jihad that had been organised by a Melbourne Pentecostal church. As a result three Muslims attended. About 250 Christians were present.”


(How did Jackson’s actions proper actions against EOC and VCAT develop? Thus:

A challenge to Victoria’s “anti-vilification” laws:


“The email below was sent by Joe Cambria to the Chief Executive Officer of the Equal Opportunity Commission of VictoriaDear Ms. Szoke:

I have just read a piece in referring to the racial vilification laws as the Bracks blasphemy laws. The writer, Mr. Gerry Jackson, makes reference to the case your office brought against the two Christian ministers and the “aggressive” way in which your office persecuted these two men.

believe Mr. Jackson has thrown down the gauntlet with this piece. He describes himself as an active liberal party member daring your office to prosecute him. Mr. Jackson is portraying the Islamic Prophet as a vile person. I don’t believe your office can avoid prosecuting Mr. Jackson judging from what he wrote in this article, which has been posted on the web.

Ms. Szoke, if I can please make an observation? If you fail to go after Mr. Jackson, the legal attack against the two pastors becomes obviously selective and capricious, smacking of opportunism. If you move to prosecute Mr. Jackson, the political position you place the State Government in could have adverse political consequences. After all, going after a Liberal Party member who writes a piece and then publishing it on the web that directly flies in the face of the blasphemy laws will simply look like a Stalinist prosecution.


However failing to act will immediately jeopardize the current ongoing case.

I am also copying this email to several people including the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister and several journalists to ensure this correspondence receives the proper attention. See here for the article in question.

Caught red-handed, Ms. Szoke’s reply is telling for what she tries, badly, to cover up. Attached is Mr. Cambria’s reply to Szoke’s pathetic attempt to get herself off the hook.”


For forthright coverage of the disgusting and corrupt activities of EOC and VCAT, under the Blasphemy Act, see the top right on front page of Brookesnews, and, Liberals for Free Speech.


Mr. Jackson got it in one. They are corrupt, and they are perverting law and justice in Victoria, in the course of their deliberate attempts to stir up real trouble and hatreds. It is what they have been doing all along.

Evans loosed two arrows, and shot himself. “Brains Trust” No.5

October 18, 2006

Evans’ submission to the Fair Pay Commission exceeded Moore’s in grandeur. (1), and it’s highly entertaining too. He entertained the Unions, and others who attended, all commented soon after, and many others besides. The July hearing was long after Cabinet had dismissed the HRNS. Evans could have titled his submission: ‘My Parting Shot at Ingrates and Papists’. Let Evans speak!

“the very public endorsement by the Prime Minister of this proposal, is a tragic turning away from policies and advocacy which have transformed Australian economic life in the last 15 years. Any increase in the size of the ‘welfare trench’ (!? another HRNS novelty) in which (employment) contracts between … job (seekers) and (employers)… are made illegal (merely because the Prime Minister does not agree with the terms of the contract)…”

“The people who are hurt are … the unskilled…(and) long-term unemployed. They have no-one to speak for them: not the unions, not the church leaders… not the Prime Minister.”

By “advocacy”, he refers to, “I”, “Me”, and “We”. The HRNS have dominated advocacy’ of reform for not 15 years, but over 20 years. It shows; they’ve wrecked the case and spiked debate. That is why the anti-free market media, and ACTU are keen to keep the HRNS on lead. Cabinet’s dismissal of the HRNS isn’t tragic; the tragedy is they should never have engaged them.

(What Evans means by ‘advocacy’, is for another item.)

Evans is a comic, or the PM god! Further, the PM, “turning” from reform (!), made himself captive to neo-Marxists, is code for: “Rotten Cabinet, they hurt us the HRNS.” Besides, Evans wouldn’t know what a neo Marxist is, even if it slugged him.

“…an understanding… Marxian in its modern antecedents…”

An article corrected Evans, 7 months before his submission (!):

“Mr Ray Evans… charges the Howard Government of accepting “the Marxist dogmas which inspired the trade union movement of the 1880s and 1890s”…(and concluded) imbalance-of-power argument used to justify ‘collective bargaining’ is the last remnant of a “Marxist class-war mindset”.

Unionism in the English speaking world in the 1880s and 1890s was no more inspired by Marxism than… This is not the first time that Mr Evans has asserted “… the entire regulatory edifice of unions, tribunals, employer bodies, is based on the Marxian fallacy of class struggle…”(2)

Evans continued onto Cardinal Archbishop Pell!

“an understanding shared by influential church leaders … and Cardinal George Pell, (who) may have been influenced more by Thomas Aquinas than by Karl Marx.

This makes his incursions into economic history, with his propensity to get the story completely wrong, all the more serious.”

“…it comes from such a prestigious source [Pell], it is a dangerous fantasy.”

Much is wrong in Pell’s Quadrant articles, but he’s only in need of economics. For, Pell is no neo-Marxist – even protean. Neither were, Aristotle, Aquinas, and the scholastics, who founded economics. Evans has no excuse for his defects in economics and history: Following Evans, history of economics began, yesterday.

He’s impervious to correction of major mistakes in facts and in explanation, remarkable. If he were a pupil, he would be marked down as slothful, intractable, and a clutz.

Neither gentleman is in a position to go after Evans. If they were, Evans would not have smeared them. Yet, Evans sunk himself. Evans’ remarks are extraordinary, for their venom and cowardly delivery. While the attack against Howard is his reaction to Cabinet’s dismissal of the HRNS, his attack against Pell is whiffy with anti-Catholicism.

Evans, and Moore, grew up in the 50’s, an age of ‘ecumenical’ hatred in Australia. A senior figure asked, “Can you name anyone in the HR club who is a Catholic?” I replied, “None.” “Interesting, isn’t it.” Before finishing this item, one enjoyed a snackfest with other senior figures; here’s a morsel:

A: “I know Evans and, he hates Catholics”.

Would Evans have smeared Howard if he were still an adviser to Cabinet? Of course not, it’s easy to imagine the saccharine, sycophantic nonsense he’d have written, while still smearing Pell. It’s an insular, myopic sort of twit to write all that, believing many would agree, or not notice.

Senior figures in Melbourne are disgusted by Evans’ tripe. This isn’t the 1950’s. Catholics are no longer confined to professions, unions, and armed services Many are businessmen and executives, all around Australia. Bang go the consultancies.

Whatever those lot might have presumed, they have only offended, roughly, 30 – 40% of Australians. The hot seller out now is: ‘The Evans Way: Tact; and Identifying and Pulverising Treacherous Leftists.”

The reasons for this series on the HRNS are now public. It is not indulgence in tittle-tattle about Kroger, and the “Brains Trust”. They are supplying all the incontrovertible evidence.

Their papers show: they are not even struggling general readers in economics; they are not gentlemen – “Vicious fishwives” is heard around Melbourne; they are cowards, whose notion of debate belongs to the left of the ALP (they could be mistaken for ALP agents).

The Federal Cabinet can cut the burden of Universities: plug in every student into the websites of the Universal Professors of Everything (Evans, Moore), the Great College HRNS, and affiliates (IPA, SGS, CIS OO). History, economics, philosophy, law, theology, everything under the sun for the price of an internet hook-up. Wow.

1.Ray Evans Submission to the Fair Pay Commission, 28th of July 20062.Gerard Jackson, Labour Market Reform and the dismal failure of the HR Nicholls Society, 2nd of January 2006

The HRNS’ 2 submissions to the Fair Pay Commission’s July hearing: The ACTU was delighted. “Brains Trust”, No.4.

October 18, 2006

Des Moore and Ray Evans each made a submission to the July hearing of the Fair Pay Commission (1,2). Being absent of economics, the submissions are revealing for entirely different reasons.

Any submission to the Commission would, presumably, contain a proposition and the case for why the proposition is sound, an economic case in fact. What did Evans and Moore submit?

Moore’s paper is 2 ½ pages long, bears a grandiloquent title, and littered with the perpendicular “I”, eg.:

“I have outlined them in some detail in my article…”

“I refer in particular to my comments on the decision….

“I have published in the media other briefer articles on the subject which I assume you will also be accessing.”

That’s Moore’s submission in a nutshell, “I”, “my”, and “we”. A female journalist told me, smiling, The HRNS is referred to by journalists as the ‘Ray Evans – Des Moore Self-Promotion Society’. It’s not a joke, why not is now crystal clear.

Moore shows his classical literary learning in a nice, callous touch. He quotes Luke 6:20. Not a few have noted Moore’s delicacy.

Ray Evans’ paper has a modest title but overtook Des in the “look at me stakes”. His paper is 5 ½ pages”, and published under the HRNS letterhead, with a postscript: “Mr. Ray Evans is the President of the HRNS.” Is that for life, or just all eternity?

Two things are cleared up. They don’t have to submit a thorough submission; the Commission has only to read their mighty thin corpus of learned articles to discover all that they need to know. The only authorities in the world are Moore, Evans, and the HRNS.

They are not merely conceited. They are full of hubris. It seems it never occurred to them, those who attended the hearing would regard their ‘submissions’ as the efforts of witless clowns.

Taken with Moore’s paper on minimum wages conceding the entire ACTU case ( ), is it any wonder Union officials call them pompous buffoons? Or, why a senior executive (and an economist) of a large concern, remarked on reading them:

“They make me cringe.”

Moore and Evans did splendidly. They annoyed the Commission, and greatly entertained union officials. The ACTU is very pleased, because they only watched Moore and Evans inform the Commission, the ‘the ACTU is right’.

It should be evident to readers now why the anti- free labour market media wish to keep the HRNS to the fore: To drown out any economist including Jackson who do have a grip and can run the case soundly and aggressively.

The Unions and the left-dominated media are happy for that lot to continue playing games with serious matters because of the implicit ‘we told you so’:

“We told you that’s what that lot are like. We told you what that lot and their reform are all about.”

And, that’s right, that is what the HRNS has been doing for 20 years, and the rotten thing about it is, they are completely wrong about the case for the otherwise sound and highly moral measure of freeing labour markets.

What is making Liberals choke with fury is, how could that lot have been promoted in the Liberal Party, to dominate advice and debate? The answer is Kroger, and his ‘Brains Trust.”

It begs the question, if Moore and Evans could submit that rubbish to the Commission, what were they telling cabinet?

” Trust me/us, I/we know all that is known. Just put up the Bill, and the whole world will see that I, Des Moore, and I, Ray Evans, and we the HRNS are truly profound and great”

There is more to say on Ray Evans’ submission. He delivered a venomous attack against two gentlemen in his submission. His extraordinary, illuminating exhibition was commented upon by those who attended the hearing, and by others. Senior Liberal figures are now commenting upon those remarks and they are disgusted by Evans’ “vicious fishwife’s” attack. It is time to share it with the public. Read about it in:

Evans loosed two arrows and, shot himself. Brains Trust No5.

1.Des Moore, Submission to the Fair Pay Commission on the Minimum Wage, 18th, July, 20062.2.Ray Evans, Submission to the Fair Pay Commission, 28th, July, 2006.

Des Moore set out HRNS’s entire ‘econ. case’ for free labour markets; Why the ACTU is pleased with their good work. Michael Kroger’s “Brains Trust “(3)

October 17, 2006

        The HRNS’ failure in labour market reform is not simply the errors already summarised (1). It has only conceded the entire ACTU case against labour market reforms, and damaged much else besides. No wonder the ACTU is having a jolly time of it attacking the Cabinet. An electrifying paper by Des Moore to the HRNS’ 23rd annual extravaganza conference, sums up what the HRNS have done (2).

        The paper’s doubled subject is ‘welfare effects’ of ‘minimum wages’ (not effective minimum wages), and “why Card and Krueger are wrong”. He should have left both well alone. Moore declares, “minimum rates’’ might be inadequate to maintain living standards. Governments, he continues, should maintain them by transfers. For, minimum rates delivers unemployment, and not having a job is worse than lower consumption.

        Moore seems to reduce welfare to merely having a job. If an employer were to offer, say, $1 an hour, a job seeker should be grateful for it? Never mind, says Moore, the Govt.(!) can pick up the tab for the difference between a pittance and the market rate (though Moore, doesn’t have a clue about market rates).

        So, Moore pronounces, a minimum wage rate yields unemployment, and it is having a job that counts. Never mind about the reason why so many get up every day and work in enterprise, government will take care of that. (The ACTU must have really enjoyed reading this.)

        Moore’s mutterings on transfers, amounts to another moralising demand for redistribution (income transfers), which may delight the left but few others. Yet, there is a troubling exception:

        Unemployment ‘benefits’ are compensation to all those made unemployed due to the imposition of effective minimum rates. Moore has nothing to say on this, nor against those responsible for 100% cuts and the need to compensate the victims, the ACTU, and compliant politicians and bureaucrats. (Economists, frustrated at the HRNS wrecking the free labour market case, are equally disgusted with Federal Cabinet Minister Joe Hockey calling the victims of the Unions ‘dole-bludgers’ and telling them to tramp all around Australia, as so many vagabonds, in search of a job. (3) )

        Moore is oblivious to: Capital delivers ‘living standards’ (’welfare’, ie. consumption), and capital accumulation raises them. Moore doesn’t see Govt. transfers don’t do the work of capital accumulation.

        Moore also conceded another false claim employers have a balance of power over employees. Is this why Moore decided to show “why Card and Krueger are wrong,” in a trivial, inchoate, lengthy ramble on monopsony. Well, Moore did manage to copy down the standard textbook definition of monopsony.

        Apart from other troubles, Moore didn’t spot a crucial qualification that Bellchamber and Gregory attempted to obscure. Jackson lifts it out in a swift stroke:

        “…Card (et al)…only suggest … when the minimum wage is ‘low’… rises will have little effect on employment. Nowhere did Card actually say that raising wages above the market level will not cause unemployment.” (4)

        A rise in the minimum (not the effective minimum rate) that leaves it an ineffective rate is not destructive. Jackson has written further devastating assessments of Bellchamber, Harcourt, and Card and Krueger.

        Another problem is the notion of monopsony rests on the fallacy of perfect competition, against which Jackson has also written (5). Another excellent paper is by Block and Barnett II (6).

        Moore concedes the ACTU false claim of “balance of power”, which is pinned to the error of indeterminacy of rates. The ACTU latched onto Card and Krueger in an attempt to lend credence to it.

        Moore, in ceding indeterminacy, and asserting that ineffective minimum rates are destructive and should be eliminated, ceded the ‘power’ claim. That is what t.v. viewers saw, when Hugh Morgan, told Australians, ‘you are being paid to much’ (because the “ratio” is too high (7)).What has he said but this:

        Employers should be free to drive down rates, and deny employees ‘just’ wages’.

        He has only managed to give every ACTU ‘reason’ for:

        1. Effective minimum wages.
        2. Unionised closed shops.
        3. Institutional regulation of markets.
        4. Union ‘protection’ of employees from ‘exploitation’ by unscrupulous thugs – employers.

        It hasn’t gelled with Des Moore that in free markets there is neither monopsony, nor oligopsony. That, neither employer nor employee has power, there is no power to be balanced – competitive markets and the marginal productivity of labour explains why, and why labour is justly paid.

        Moore’s paper shows laziness. Compare the extensive references Jackson has supplied in Labour Wars, and the bibliography in the Block and Barnett paper. Those gentlemen are abreast of the literature, and case studies; Moore is not. Yet, this only a part of Moore’s, and the HRNS’ overall incompetence.

        Moore has felt important waxing long on grave matters others have merely treated soundly and with precision. Moore has set out what the HRNS has been saying for some 20 years now. No wonder the ACTU likes the HRNS – they are advocates of the ACTU’s entire anti -free labour market case. Brilliant!

      1. The HRNS errors summarised in Michael Kroger and His “Brains Trust” – The HR. Nicholls Society, but for thorough explanation, Gerard Jackson, Labour Wars, linked in that item.
      2. Des Moore, Minimum Wages: Employment And Welfare Effects, Or Why Card And Krueger Were Wrong, HR Nicholls Society XXIII Conference.
      3. Joe Hockey, Federal Cabinet Minister for the Department of ‘Human Services’. Besides other schemes, Hockey and the Dept. are responsible for administering unemployment benefits.
      4. G. Jackson, Labour Wars, p.17.
      5. G. Jackson (eg.) Monopsony versus labour: our right wing lets us down again. Brookesnews. Also in Labour Wars.
      6. Walter Block and William Barnett II, An Austrian Critique of Neo – Classical Monopsony Theory. Block and Barnett II draw the same conclusions as Jackson. They also engage in a thorough examination of the false assumption on which monopsony, and oligopsony rests, ‘perfect competition’, to show monopsony is pseudo economic theory.
      7. ‘Ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage’: when it is too high, unemployment ensues (positive correlation). The ‘ratio’ is the HRNS’ ‘solution’ to the (false) dilemma of indeterminacy, and why unemployment.

The sort of movie that should be made in Australia, but never will be ( for obvious reasons).

October 13, 2006

rather many who count themsleves as good and true, defenders of freedom, even sanity, would never make a movie like this because, they can’t even fight their way out of a paper bag equipped with a self-propelled chain-saw ( just push the green button). So, someone else, somehwere, had the pick up and go to do something right, in, above all places, Canada! I aks you,Canada.

It’s about a destitute Romanian miner who, fed up, is using his pick against greenies.

An unemployed Romanian miner who is flown across the globe to confront environmental activists is the unlikely star of a Michael Moore-style film, aimed at debunking the militant green movement.

Gheorghe Lucian, 23, is a plain-speaking resident of an impoverished village where an opencast gold mine is planned…

 where unemployment is 70 per cent, is being blocked by environmentalists.

Among them is the actress Vanessa Redgrave, who used a film festival awards ceremony in June to denounce the mine project

During the hour-long film, Françoise Heidebroek, a Belgian opponent of the Rosia Montana mine, says Romanian villagers prefer to use horses rather than cars, and to rely on “traditional cattle raising, small agriculture, wood processing” to live.

Locals retort that their land is too poor for farming, that they all want cars and that they are desperate for the investment the mine would bring. The film had its first screening last week at a conference of gold-mining companies in Denver, Colorado. Alan Hill, president of Gabriel Resources, which did not control the film’s content, said: “Before, the environmentalists would lob mortars at us and we would keep our heads down. Now, there is a big push back.”

Back home again, Mr Lucian is living with his parents and four siblings in a dilapidated one-bedroom flat. “Rosia Montana is very interesting for everybody like Greenpeace and NGOs,” he said. “But these people do not ask what we need. People here have no food, no money.”

This, on  a day when a nature worshipping Melbourne outer urbs Council spent a fortune littering a suburb with water guzzling ‘native’ tree sapplings, to arrest man changing the climate by exuding a bit of harmless, and very good for all things, Co2.  What should be done is a permanent ‘exhange programme, those ‘councilors’ put on a plane to exchange all they have, never to return,  for the delights of living in a village called destitution and the residants of the village take over those moron’s high life. Come to that, so can Bracks and his greenie cabinet, and, as it turns out, many who style themsleves Liberals”.

In the meantime, thanks to the cult of Nature politicians have imposed, most of us can look forward to dying of thirst.

Michael Kroger and His “Brains Trust” – The H. R. Nicholls Society. (2)

October 13, 2006

Why do union officials smile and giggle at the names, Des Moore, Ray Evans, et al. (Kroger’s ‘brains trust’), and call them “clowns” and pompous asses? Why would an executive, rolling his eyeballs and giggling, say, their economic advice is “instant ruination”? Why could Bellchamber write a mushy article dedicated to trampling all over Des Moore? Why, a female journalist told me, does the media refer to the HRNS as Des Moore’s “pr. agency”? Reading only 3 articles on the HRNS website told me why.

The HRNS failed in mounting the public case for freeing labour markets. The reasons why are in the open: flawed economics. Flaws, it emerges, are only defects, because they have only conceded the entire ACTU false case. The flaws underpin why they have, such as:

The price of labour is indeterminate;

The definition of pay is nominal pay only – not total effective pay, inclusive of, e.g., payroll tax and other non-cash components.

Not even mentioned is the theory of the marginal productivity of labour, and thus missed is: it explains labour receives the full value of its product (a truth the ACTU won’t touch it in public if it can avoid it).

No hint of, capital accumulation raises pay to labour, and the ratio of capital to labour sets minimum wages in a free market.

The HRNS’ own novel contribution to economic theory: ‘ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage’: when it is too high, unemployment ensues (positive correlation). The ‘ratio’ is their solution to the (false) dilemma of indeterminacy, and why unemployment. It concedes all the above points.

They are oblivious to: it is not the height of the minimum wage that is decisive, it is the effective minimum wage that counts. For a minimum rate to be effective, it must be above the market rate, and it is the effective rate that causes unemployment. That a minimum wage is no more than equal to the minimum wage is not effective, it is ineffective. The HRNS “ratio” is nonsense.

There are other thorns such as, free markets continuously recalculates wage rates, so what, in a nutshell, the market rate is, and what is or is not an effective minimum rate cannot be determined unless as subjects actually engaged in factor markets buying/selling.

It is totally lost upon that lot; a minimum pay rate is of no interest to the ACTU. What interests them is imposition of effective minimum wage rates, and in securing them make the Liberal Party and businessmen take the blame for ensuing unemployment rates. They want the public to agree to effective minimum rates, by convincing the public with false arguments. This does not gel at all with that lot in the HRNS, – Hugh Morgan, Des Moore, Ray Evans, and et al.

It doesn’t gel with them because, devoid of economic theory, unlike the ACTU, they don’t have a clue as to what the ACTU Unioncrats are about and what they seek. Neither, unfortunately, do they have a clue as to how to engage those who genuinely believe the ACTU case and for reasonable reasons such as:

They might have been mislead;

Trust in those who are paid to do the actual work in economics are doing it. The ACTU is not doing all of that. It engages the public, but it is not telling the truth. The HRNS neither tells truth nor engages the public ( the public being, as the left hold, irritants to thick hides ).

Besides, the HRNS have conceded the ground to not merely the ACTU but also to its hired advisers, Bellchamber and Gregory.

What is disgusting is, Moore and Evans have been made very wealthy men to do the work they do not at all do. Even more disgusting is, for all the money poured into the HRNS and affiliates, they are producing nothing of interest, only amusement and service for the opponents to freeing labour markets. It could be someone’s idea of a joke, but it is not a joke.

In contrast, there is someone in Australia doing the work single handedly, without the buckets of funding, Mr. Gerard Jackson. Jackson is simultaneously explaining economics for general readers, engaging them, attacking opponents of market liberalisation, and, on top of that, correcting the appalling errors committed by the sorts who stuff the HRNS, and who are stuffing up the case.

Evans and Moore have only been busy living off a gravy train; their “work” is immediate evidence of the fact. The next three items are dedicated to their articles, which demonstrate their conceit, self-satisfaction, laziness, and ignorance.

Michael Kroger and His “Brains Trust” – The H.R.Nichols Society [HRNS]. (I)

October 12, 2006

The HRNS have damaged the Victorian Liberal Party. They have single-handedly demolished the otherwise sound, highly moral measure of freeing labour markets, leaving Federal Cabinet hanging and panicking. It has not only dominated the Liberal Party in Labour markets, for now 2 decades, but in other matters too. The HRNS is Kroger’s creature, his “second brain”, and for that reason it’s time to poke into the HRNS, by items dedicated to these brains of the Victorian Liberal Party.

These items are not about, eg., their disastrous failure in labour market reform as such. It is clear what their failure is; the absence of sound economic theory. It is about why they failed, spectacularly, to serve the Cabinet in such a grave matter. It is, however, only part of the overall damage they have inflicted within the Victorian Liberal Party. These items on Kroger and his ‘brains trust’ are about them.

The reason is due to their position in the Victorian Liberal Party under Kroger. In view of the items on Kroger and his parasite party, expansion is redundant.

Disclosures from well-placed sources – union officials, senior executives in large enterprises, some of whom are also economists, a lady journalist, senior Liberal Party figures, and retired successful stockbrokers, have stirred the old curiosity noodle. The information is ripe stuff.

Very soon after Hugh Morgan’s pathetic ABC interview, to launch the Cabinet’s labour market reform bill, the HRNS was dropped as Cabinet’s advisers. A senior Liberal figure told me something that only confirmed it:

The Minister, Mr. Kevin Andrew will not have the HR Nicholls near Cabinet, his office, not even from afar on the end of a telephone, emails, or letter post. One of his staffers calls them “moribund”.

The staffer would not say so unless he had Mr. Andrews approval. “Moribund’, that’s given as an exaggeration.

Some time before, a union official, smiling, informed me:

“Is the Liberal Party stupid to let them dominate economic affairs in the Liberal Party? Is the cabinet mad to have taken them as their advisers on labour markets? Not that we are dissatisfied. To the contrary, we are pleased that they are so stupid. ”

Another Union Official smiled while remarking:

“Des Moore is considered a clown, and Ray Evans a pompous buffoon in the Unions.’’

Not just by ACTU and Trades Hall heavies, but also by lowly Union hacks. The official ended by putting a question, “Why are they so ineffectual?”

In conversation with a senior executive, about a large scale undertaking completed some time ago, we were discussing the economics of it. I inquired of what proposals they’d received, and the selection of advisers. He giggled as he related:

“Well, someone did, initially, engage some ‘advisers’ from the IPA. When we looked at their proposal, and their case, a few of us made sure they were cut right out because, it was not merely nonsense, it would have been ruinous, a complete disaster.”

He giggled all the more, as he added: “That associate of Evans and Moore in the IPA still boasts, all around Melbourne, of being responsible for this (successful undertaking). He’s a standing joke between all who know.”

(The IPA being just another outlet for Evans, Moore, Kroger, and the HRNS and their “experts’’, who ‘publish’ in the IPA.).

Why, however, does everyone giggle as soon as the names Moore, Evans, the HRNS, IPA, are mentioned. Why the adjectives? Why their reputation as “clowns” and “pompous buffoon(s)”, why the laughter? The senior executives glowing praise is a clue, but there’s nothing like finding out a bit more.

Then came Bellchamber’s article in the Age, his smug put down of Des Moore’s article in The Age. Not having read Moore’s article, what had he written for Bellchamber to feel free to put Moore down, and run fallacious arguments? Keep in view, Brookesnews has already demolished Bellchamber’s arguments (1).

What could Moore have written that is so bad Bellchamber freely jumped all over him ? I turned to a source one hasn’t bothered with for many years now, because they’ve never been enlightening, the HR Nicholls Society, its website in fact. After reading three articles, I found out why, and without having to bother obtaining a copy of Moore’s Age article. Those articles explained a great deal, and why many around Melbourne laugh and giggle each time the names Moore, Evans et al. are mentioned. I laughed too.

Kroger is strangling the Victorian Liberal Party, and does it also with his ‘brains trust’.

(1). E.g., G.Jackson, Brookesnews: “Liberal Govenrment labour market reform: Unions attack economics” (August, 2005), in, Labour Market Wars.