#auspol Whitlam was lowkey a bad PM. In no particular order, he:
- Shifted recognition of China from Taipei to Beiping.
- Let Indonesia invade, annex and genocide East Timor.
- Spent high deficits in a time of high inflation caused by the Oil Shock, fueling inflation further.
- Granted PNG independence with no plan for building/sustaining Papuan state capacity inherited from prior territorial administration.
- Made tertiary education free and in turn, turned baby boomers into the most entitled generation in Australian history.
His lasting legacy is his Dismissal, which his acolytes falsely claim was unconstitutional when it was instead unconventional. Medicare and Medibank would have come from a Labor PM regardless of the figurehead.
>This simple yet radical reform [the Single Tax on Land Values] would do away with all the injustice which socialists see in the present conditions of society, and would open the way to all the real good that they can picture in their childish scheme of making the state the universal capitalist, employer, merchant, and shopkeeper.
Marxists have no answer to this article from HG: cooperative-individualism.orโฆ
Marxists have no answer to this article from HG: cooperative-individualism.orโฆ
Assigned Capricorn at Birth ๐ต๐ธ๐บ๐ฆ๐น๐ผ๐จ๐ณ retweeted
ๅคงๅฎถๅฅฝ๏ผๆๆฏๆฑช็ฒพๅซ
ไฝ ไปฌ็ๆฑชไธปๅธญ
่ฟๆฏๆ็็คพไบค่ดฆๅท
1946ๅนด1ๆ21ๆฅๆทฑๅค๏ผๆ็ๅๅ
่ขซ่ไป็ณ็ธๆฏ๏ผไปฅ่ณไบๆๆ ๅฎถๅฏๅฝๅๅคๆธธ่ก๏ผๅฆไป่ฟๆช่ฝๆ่๏ผ่ฏทๅคงๅฎถไธบๆๅไธปใ
Assigned Capricorn at Birth ๐ต๐ธ๐บ๐ฆ๐น๐ผ๐จ๐ณ retweeted
I was at uni at Sydney around this time and Socialist Alternative would run regular "Opinion" pieces in their newspaper about child sexual abuse only being wrong because of "bourgeois morality". I believe there were paedophiles within its leadership
Assigned Capricorn at Birth ๐ต๐ธ๐บ๐ฆ๐น๐ผ๐จ๐ณ retweeted
Lol ever notice that ur history starts in 1930?
Louis XIV: far left or far right?
My post about Hitler and the far right got millions of views. Clearly, it hit a nerve. So today I'm going to show you, step by step, why the notion of "far right" as it's used in France makes almost no sense. And why the people who wield it are usually the last ones who should be lecturing anyone.
Let's start with the only question that matters: what makes a political system work or fail? To a very large extent, it's the economy. A country that produces wealth, that lets its citizens create, trade and build, stays standing. A country that destroys that collapses, no matter how beautiful its slogans are.
And in economics, there are really only two worldviews.
The first is collectivism. The idea that the State knows better than you. That it must plan production, set prices, run companies, decide what you earn, what you buy, and eventually what you think. The individual is just a cog serving a grand collective project: the class, the nation, the race, the people.
The second is freedom. Capitalism, property, individual liberty, individual responsibility. The idea that millions of people creating value for one another produce infinitely more prosperity than an office of planners, however brilliant they may be.
Now look at the list of the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Stalin: total planning, forced collectivization, millions dead. Mao: the Great Leap Forward and the deadliest famine in human history. Pol Pot: money abolished, cities emptied, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population exterminated. Mussolini, the man who coined the word fascism: "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." And Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, whose program proclaimed "the common good before individual good." He subjected the entire German economy to State plans: the Four-Year Plan, frozen prices and wages, unions dissolved into a single state labor front, industrialists producing whatever the regime decided.
Their flags were different. Their designated enemies were different. But the machinery was the same: the individual doesn't exist, only the collective matters, and the State decides everything.
Why does it always end in totalitarianism? Because collectivism doesn't work. And when a system doesn't work, it has only two options: admit failure or force people. They always choose force.
Ludwig von Mises proved it as early as 1920: without free prices, without a market, a planner simply cannot know what to produce, how much, or at what cost. He is flying blind. A planned economy isn't a less efficient version of the market. It's an impossibility.
Friedrich Hayek drew the political conclusion in 1944 in The Road to Serfdom, a book he dedicated "to the socialists of all parties." One chapter is titled "The Socialist Roots of Naziism." Another, "Why the Worst Get on Top." For Hayek, controlling the economy isn't controlling one sector among others. It is "the control of the means for all our ends." Whoever controls your bread controls your life. Then your speech. Then your thoughts.
Milton Friedman put it his own way: a society that puts equality before freedom ends up with neither.
So we know exactly what works. It's not an opinion. It's a century of real-world experiments. Listen to the Austrian school, Mises and Hayek, with Friedman from Chicago alongside them: economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility.
And this is where we get to the great accusatory inversion. Part of the left-wing press spends its time screaming fascism. Why? Because the fascism fantasy is the best way to never talk about the track record of their own ideas. Deep down, they know: if their collectivist program were applied all the way, it wouldn't work, because a collective economy cannot work. And an economy that doesn't work always ends up having to coerce, surveil and ban. In other words, it becomes exactly what they claim to be fighting. The real heirs of totalitarian logic are not the ones being pointed at.
So who gets called "far right" in 2026? People who want safe cities. People who want to keep their culture. People who just want to live a peaceful life, raise their kids, and not have to board up their shop every weekend. People who want the law to apply to everyone.
If that's the far right, then the word no longer means anything. And maybe that was the point.
Replying to @Contrahumanist
No. Morantโs actions targeted armed Boer combatants during the guerrilla phase of the war, under the pressures and orders of that conflict. A modern South African-Australian housing activist and TikToker isnโt a 1901 veldt fighter. Descent alone doesnโt flip the switch. The combat veteran still wins the physical fight cleanly.
Replying to @Contrahumanist
Breaker Morant. Boer War lieutenant, skilled horseman and combat veteran who fought irregular warfare. PurplePingers is a modern housing activist and TikToker. In a physical fight the soldier wins handily.
.@Grok who would win in a fight: PurplePingers or Breaker Morant?
Replying to @SexyMalena091
And yet transwomen wonโt accept womenโs rights.
Assigned Capricorn at Birth ๐ต๐ธ๐บ๐ฆ๐น๐ผ๐จ๐ณ retweeted
ไปๅคฉๆฏๅฐๆนพๅ
ๅค่
ๅฏนไธญๅๆฐๅฝๆฅ่ฏดๆฏๅฐๅ
ๅค่
็ญๅ
ๅคๅคง้ๅ
ๆไปฌๅ่ฟๅคง้ๅ
ๅค่
I still remember my interactions online with BsharriaLaw who wanted to lower the age of consent to 14 and was a member of the sexpest PSOE. His crashout was legendary.



























