Valiant Reserve Bank slammed for COVID era monetary policy blunders

As I said, I don’t have any bone against the Queen or the Royal family in particular, other than by function of their title and role in society they end up having to associate with a lot of despicable people – well people who are extremely wealthy and powerful and hide a lot of their despicability fairly well.

Constitutional monarchies are, in my opinion, more stable forms of Government than Presidential lead Governments – however, that stability is the very thing that enables long term corruption to graft itself into the system.

What many constitutional monarchies, basically UK, Canada, Aust, and NZ suffer from, is perhaps too much stability – as Thomas Jefferson once said “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and is as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

We need some radical revolutions in the West to elect some localist nationalist leaders in those nation, and to purge our societies of the Globalists that are determine to turn our societies into equally horrid shit holes in the name of equity and diversity.

Those thinking that severing our ties with the British Monarchy will represent the ultimate triumph of MultiCult and herald of change, might end up being more than dissapointed, while those clinging to the Monarchy should be perhaps a little more open minded.

I see benefits and problems with both forms of Govt – my preferred mode of Govt is of course the benevolent dictatorship.

True – in that I usually imagine myself as the benevolent dictator… although with my affable way with people I am sure it would be a short rule before I would be deposed by a tyrant (or maybe it would be my split personality emerging? 😉

But if we are in going to imagine imaginary forms of Government than I am actually in favour of turning 40% of our Govt representatives into Plebeians – appointed parliamentarians drawn from the civil population on a random basis, through random selection, subject to few exclusions, much on the basis that Jurists are selected for Jury duty.

If we are accused of a crime than one of our civic freedoms is to put our trust in fellow citizens and trust that when presented with the facts they will come to a reasonable decision – our lives literally depend on our faith in them doing so, if we are in fact innocent.

Likewise I see no reason why we could not have random people drawn from our community, who when presented with the facts on certain Bills and issues that are brought before the House of Representatives – that they could not represent us, the people, and choose accordingly.

This in my mind would actually strengthen our Democracy and the will of the majority of Australians. Neither the LNP or Labor would get away with having inflicted MultiCult on their fellow Australians, if there had been a group of 40% of normal Australians, of which 80% were opposed to it at the time.

Having the remaining 60% of the House of Representatives elected in the current fashion would ensure that there remain enough democratically elected politicians to ensure that the dirty work of politics was still done, and the general mood of the public were able to bring more lazer focus on specific and sometimes necessary issues that need to be addressed, that the public might otherwise choose to ignore.

It would still be imperfect, but do you really think a chamber where 40% of the voters were truly independent Australians, would now standby and allow the immigration lobby to start backing up the trucks again?

We’d always be assured that we’d have a Government that represented ordinary Australians and their interests… of course this model would also require fairly high trust that your fellow man broadly shared the same values as yourself, so they could be trusted to make those decisions in your collective best interest – which the destruction of, is once again, one of the most important objectives of MultiCult and diversity.

If I can’t have that, then give me MY Autocrat.

You are applying the concept of “Democracy” to a single interpretation of it – that each individual has a right to vote, and that is what brings about the social change that inevitably leads to MultiCult.

But the issue here isn’t democracy, it is who is voting and the system under which they are doing it.

In my opinion “Democracy” only leads to to Multiculturalism when the right to vote is extended to Women and when recent immigrants and their 2nd generation descendants – both AS GROUPS, are allowed to vote.

I will say now there are many fine women and immigrants who I trust to vote in the interests of existing Australians, but as groups I have concerns.

Firstly with migrants there is an easily arguable position about the lack of attachment to the new country and culture. This concern is not so toward the immigrant, who having left a shit hole generally is exceedingly grateful to become a part of the nation they are moving too… but by their children. Who I find as a group, tend to be agnostic about the country’s history, given their own attachment only extends as far back to as their parents first setting foot in the country.

They grow up in a house hold with parents who still observe their cultural traditions, while being immensely grateful for living here, and their jaded offspring, who resent the fact that their familiar household culture isn’t further represented in society, while not possessing the gratitude of not living in an absolute shit hole. These are your Osma Faruk and that dreadful fat black African chick who I can’t even be bothered looking up. The one always wore dresses like a smashed pavlova, and who ran away when she finally provoked enough public outrage that she quit her cushy jobs. But instead of going back to Africa moved to London!!

In regards to my negative opinion on the impact of giving women the vote. Quite simply their higher openness and agreeableness (as a population group) effectively destroys the ability of the Patriarchy to defend itself from invading foreign cultures….. why can’t we let them in – its not fair (and I don’t want to be besmerched as a racist).

I’ve spoken before how I believe the tolerance displayed to degenerate behaviour is a direct outgrowth of increasing the mix of openness and agreeableness, in our collective decision making. Our attitude to immigration and things like MultiCult is another expression of this same phenonium.

Perhaps correlation isn’t causation in this particular example…. but then perhaps it is?

Offensive and Disagreeable to the common acceptable, polite narrative, but what if it is true? Who else would dare say it other than an autistic fuckwit myself?

But the other half of my issue with the arguements I am collectively replying to, is the definition of Democracy. How do we define it? People might say you can’t have true Democracy if only men voted – but do we have true Democracy now?

People’s ability to vote arbitrarily kicks in at 18 with no indication that the individual who is going to vote is capable of apply the critical consideration of the underlying policy and issues, other than on their ‘feelings’.

Then there is the voting system itself, First Past the Post, Proportional voting, Proportional Mixed Voting, Mixed Member Voting, Electoral colleges.

All of them express the notion of ‘Democracy’ in different degrees, and the bureaucratic outcome and administration of those different voting systems, produces very differently composed Governments.

Here is my suggestion for “Democracy” that would substantially improve the lot of Australians – voting is conducted on the basis of Households, in the same fashion as we hold the census.

If Democracy is believed to extend from the ground roots up, why not the household democratically decide on who it is going to vote for? Can’t decide? No vote. All that is required is that members prove that they reside at that address.

Our society rests and perpetuates its self on the ability of households to maintain themselves and look after the interests of its members, collectively knowing that insurance for misfortune eg unemployment benefits, OAP, public health are available to it.

This wouldn’t mean that renters couldn’t vote, nor could it mean that shared households couldn’t vote – although if they couldn’t come up with a vote, then there is an incentive to change your life and move out.