Archive for the ‘Michael kroger and his KKR Parasite Party’ Category

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.


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.

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.

Helen Kroger’s nomination for a safe seat a mere formality.

October 5, 2006

I repost the above article, written on the day a selection committee for a safe Liberal Senate seat affixed Michael Kroger’s rubber stamp ( the Committee)  to Helen’s nomination form. In it, I wrote of the implications for the Federal Liberal Party. What I wrote in that article, 21/6/06, is accurate and confirmed by the further decline of the Victorian Party, and what Kroger is now doing to the Victorian Liberal Party, described in,

Michael Kroger has commenced his purge of the Victorian Liberal Party.

So, Helen Kroger’s nomination for a safe seat a mere formality



Michael Kroger has commenced his purge of the Victorian Liberal Party.

October 4, 2006

My mole in 104 Exhibition Street has informed me: Kroger has ordered a Branch to be shut down. Kroger has a list of branches he will proceed to shut down. Kroger has also stopped formation of any new branches. The reason: to eliminate any Liberal Party member who is -opposed to him, suspected of opposing him. To eliminate Branches not loyal to him, are independent (of him); to ensure no such new Branch is formed.

Kroger has already ordered his stick puppet, $4000 a week Sheezel, to shut down the Kingston heath Branch. Kroger is using as his excuse; it doesn’t have enough members to be effective, and render its meetings official. The Branch has 15 members! It is also very active, unlike Dandenong Branch.

Dandenong has held one meeting, over 12 months ago. Its membership barely scrapes above 1.The President, a Mrs. Cunningham, employed by an MP, doesn’t lift a finger to make the Branch work. It won’t be closed because, it is dead. Unless, a spark of activity is seen, then Kroger would act against it, out of fear.

Kroger is beginning with Kingston Heath first, for the real reason: Its Chairman, Mr. Tim Warner, is a very active Liberal Party member, serving in 15 offices. Warner is, in Kroger’s eyes, a criminal. Warner, you see, opposes Kroger.Shutting down the Branch disqualifies Warner from continuing to serve the Party in those positions. Kroger, kills two foes with one stone, an active, independent Branch, and a staunch Liberal Party member, who opposes Kroger.

Kroger has ordered Julian ‘the Weasel’ Sheezel to do the dirty work. Well, that’s a mystery cleared up – why Kroger wrote a $4,000 week pay packet for ‘The Weasel’, because Jules sure doesn’t earn a cent of what he’s paid. He doesn’t produce a thing. What would he earn in enterprise? A junior clerk’s rates? He’s not capable of producing anything above $4,000 to warrant $4k a week.

Now we know why Kroger signed over $4,000 a week to “The Weasel”. Already Kroger’s hired thug, Kroger has nastier hit jobs for him. Oh, let’s not omit Kroger’s other thugs; Hannan, whose only career success to date is sucking up to Kroger, with the help of his big brother, and Potty “Mouth” Barry. Liberal Party members hand over funds and fees so Kroger can put his personal thuggish puppets into executive jobs and on pay many in enterprise, who are superior to that lot, will not see.

Michael Kroger is using the Victorian Liberal Party offices, 104 Exhibition St, as an extension to his in his Toorak mansion, and to eliminate –

Any Party member who opposes him; any Branch which opposes him; and any Branch independent of him.

Kroger, having stripped Richmond Branch of its voting rights, to impose Maina Walkley, is now making his major move: eliminating members, and stripping members of their Branches altogether, many Branches. Kingston is only the first on Kroger’s initial hit list.

Now, one did give the Federal Liberal Party a warning, in the article, Helen Kroger’s nomination for a safe seat a mere formality.

They should attend to the passage on what Helen Kroger said to Michael Kroger’s rubber stamp ‘selection committee’. There are senior Liberal figures, women as well as men, who have met Helen Kroger, and they have each said, independently:

She is a moron, she is a nasty bit of work, and she will be a disaster in the Senate, and a major embarrassment to the Party. She must be sacked as Senate Candidate for a safe Liberal Seat.

The Federal Party can find a reason to demand this. Under Party rules, she has demonstrated herself to be unfit. Yet, reason or no reason, when presented with a candidate like Helen, Federal ALP has intervened and thrown out such candidates. The Liberal Party must do the same; it has no choice, for Helen will, not might, not can; Helen will damage the Federal Liberal Party. My sources know the woman, and they are certain of it, for they have seen her in action firsthand.

Perhaps Helen only parroted Kroger when she told the selection committee, there must be a purge of the Party. One commented back then what a purge would be about. Right on the money, Michael has launched his Purge and, to use Helen’s euphemism, ‘rectification of the Party’.

Michael Kroger is eliminating Liberals, and Liberal Branches. Talent is stopped – the escalator has been switched off. In Prodos’ case, he got further than many other Liberals did, so Kroger had to knife him in public. There are blacklists of Liberals, identified as either opposed to/ as trouble for/as potential trouble/as merely being brighter, – to Kroger, his stick puppets and that lot of MPs in Spring St. Kroger is stopping formation of new Branches.

What counts is only Kroger and his Toorak Brahmin backers. They hold members in contempt, as so much dirt under the shoes, and only to be trampled on.

Now, what should all this tell the Federal Liberal Party? This:

Kroger is strangling the Party; he is killing it off. The Prime Minister wishes the Party to engage the general public, inclusive of at the local level. Kroger has made sure that that cannot occur long ago. It no longer engages Party members, and now it cannot at all engage them. Worse; there won’t be a Victorian Liberal Party to engage any Victorian. Oh, there will be Kroger, Costello, Helen Kroger, Toorak Political Brahmins, Kroger’s stick puppets, and that’s all. Wow.

What Kroger has now set himself to do is more than accelerating what is of deep concern to the Federal Party, the decline in members. He has effectively set himself to finish them off altogether.

Moreover, it is very likely that the Liberals will not survive the State election as a registered Parliamentary Party.

The Federal Party is facing the reality; the Victorian wing will be completely smashed, unless the Federal Party intervenes now. The Federal Party, therefore, also faces being wiped out in Victoria.

Or, is the Prime Minister relying on Michael Kroger, Peter Costello and Helen Kroger to do the work the Victorian Party doesn’t even cope with anymore?

Oh, who & how many will there be to even merely man polling booths – Kroger’s chums (- ‘that’s what the serfs are for’, but those not eliminated by Kroger are fleeing their Overlords)?

Kroger has to be sacked. Kroger’s stick puppets in 104 Exhibition Street have to be fired. Helen Kroger has to be sacked as the Senate Candidate in a safe Liberal seat. That’s only for starters.

It’s the Maina & Michael Kroger Show Extravaganza – to Win the Seat of Richmond.

October 4, 2006

With Kroger’s full support and approval, Maina Walkley, announced she will hold her campaign launch in Maidstone Village. That’s right, Maidstone Village, and not in Richmond.

My Mole in 104 Exhibition told all. I assumed it was a joke. My mole cut the belly laugh,”It’s not funny! It’s true.” “It’s true?” “Yes. Kroger approved it” We both broke up laughing.

Maina decided she would hold her extravaganza in Maidstone Village. She put in her request and Kroger approved it.

Well, Kroger does control the Party. He gives the orders, he hires and fires Party employees. He wrote Sheezel a $4,000 a week pay packet. He does much else, so, we can tell, there’s nothing irregular in Kroger directing the election campaign.

For those not familiar with Victoria, Maidstone is northwest of Melbourne, crammed in between Flemington racetrack, home of the Melbourne Cup, on its right , Footscray up its bottom, and Sunshine on its left. Richmond is decidedly south, in up against the City ,miles S-E-S from Maidstone village. The voters of Richmond are noticed in Maidstone for their absence.

The Mayor was grumbling only the other day, I’m sure, Richmondites.are a fickle lot , they won’t pay me tithe (rates). Maidstone Branch members are furious, no doubt, at the no-show of the Richmondites in Maidstone booths last State election.

The merits are obvious. Maina’s sole voting base and her own Kroger Party Branch, resides there, Filipinos. They’re loyal to Maina, she’s loyal to them, they’re all loyal to each other. Why, they’re even loyal to the Philippine Govt. A good thing too because, there’s safety in numbers and being far away — Liberal vassal serfs in Richmond are in pretty mutiny.

Maina’s big night out, her Ring-a-Ding-a-Ling Circus, is an all clown show -featuring her dancing troupe of Filipino flappers. Kroger must be there too, for he ordered it, and only stabbed Prodos and Richmond members in order to inflict Maina upon the serfs.

Maina shares many of his qualities. She hasn’t a Liberal Principle in her bod; doesn’t give a stuff about the Party, Victorians, and Australians. She’s out for herself. She’s conceited and dense – it’s yet to penetrate, Richmond detests her. She’s highly qualified too – as an enthusiastic supporter of Kroger.

Kroger has only one other pal in the world, his twin, Peter Costello. So, it must be a comfort to him to have Maina right up behind him.

No, really, the man is not liked at all in Victoria. There are shoe repairers who will tell you: ” Kroger, that man. Oh I remember him.” In rural Victoria, Liberal members are honest on Kroger, so long as they’re sure you aren’t a Kroger stooge – reprisals breeds reticence.

Maina and Kroger should be consistent, and run the rest of their campaign in Maidstone. Yet, they’ve done enough with this stunt.

What did the Maidstone Branch and their Candidate do to Kroger to deserve such punishment? What will the voters in Maidstone make of Maina running for Richmond in their seat, and while the Maidstone Liberal Candidate is yet to open his campaign? Answer: The Liberals have gone completely bonkers and round the bend.

What will be the great impact of the Ring a Ding a Ling Circus night ? Richmond is gone so, what the heck, why not go the whole hog and wipe out Maidstone too? For Kroger has only, by this stunt, wiped out more Liberal votes. Brilliant just, spiffing brilliant. Kroger, the Political Meister Clutzenhead.

What about Maidstone Branch members and Candidate? What, what are they supposed to make of it? Turn up and give Maina and Kroger their wholehearted support, cheer, applaud, and pound the streets for her, crying:

“Roll up, roll up and see the amazing Kroger and his dancing stick puppet. See the greatest clown show in town!”

All they can do is weep in their homes, as Kroger, Maina and her flapping Filipinos trample the electorate into mud in a single night.

The only good thing about the launch is: it won’t inflict more damage in Richmond. Kroger has made it an impregnable ALP seat, so they can’t inflict more damage. Neither can, stuck out in Maidstone, Kroger and Maina disturb Richmondites with their riot – Maidstonites will be frothing but they’re far away.

Besides, next to many other matters, Richmondites won’t like one jot Maina’s and Kroger’s grand plan to make Richmond for ever an outpost of the Philippine Govt.

Kroger has once again, by this stunt, shown how dense he is. So, just to cheer up Kroger: it won’t be long before a sobriquet is doing the rounds in Maidstone, and Richmond:

‘Maina the Maidstone Village Idiot Stick Puppet. ‘

The Monty Python crew combined effort to brains to come up with good scripts. Kroger just comes up with his stuff – and the man is denser than a concrete slab, and possessed of all the humour and wit of a hired thug.