Who speaks for the citizen catallaxy files electricity and magnetism review sheet


Mentions of “intersex” — that’s the “I” in LGBTIQ, in case you didn’t know — occur 63 times, ahead of those more esoteric concerns such as “wealth” (61 times) and “inequality” (47). Whatever intersex means — or is — it’s also far more important than “ownership” (12 mentions), “production” (18) and “distribution” (10).

That “bisexual” out-mentions “poverty”, 31 to 23, says it all. Ben Chifley and Bill McKell, Labor leaders who once championed the dignity and incomes of ordinary men and women, whatever their bedroom proclivities, must be turning in their graves. The light on the hill is now more like a strobe disco ball in a gay nightclub.

It very much pains Spartacus to write that he agrees with Piketty, at least on this point. But it is plain to see that in the Australian context, the ALP is the party of the intellectual elite and the LNP the party of the business elite. And boy does that hit the nail on the head.

But the question is, if the ALP speaks for the intellectual elite (see ABC and University academics) and the LNP speaks for the business elite (see Business Council of Australia and the superannuation industrial complex), who speaks for the citizen? You know. Like Where are customers yachts?

Consider what happens when the “trade” is politics and the politicians regularly get together in a purpose built meeting room with a private security force and a giant fence ensuring they cannot be interrupted. Think politician and political staffer remuneration. Think expenses and the bipartisan rules that govern them. Then think about the protection of their constituents:

Why do they say party? They are identifying the ‘Left’ with one ‘party’. I suppose it makes sense to lump them all together intellectually (not an existing party but party in the sense of colleagues) because they are all so damned-well in lockstep.

The Left is not the intellectual elite. They are intellectual poseurs. How else to explain the way they keep getting things wrong? They think their way of thinking is what makes them gifted, regardless of the actual conclusions drawn. AGW, Socialism, the complete pigs breakfast they have made with identity politics. As far as they are concerned they are right on these because they have used their special mode of thinking.

Every society will have break-aways. People who are striking out on a new path. Everything that differentiates us from the Ancient Romans was a change, sometimes pioneered by iconoclasts, sometimes the gradual percolation of some minor adaptation that ended up having significant unforeseen consequences.

I would not put any of these are the Left as the Left always tries to jump straight to the last stage. They establish entire governments to force people to the destination they have come up with in their heads, and criminalise people who disagree.

C0nservatives actually do embrace change. It is a childish interpretation to see the word ‘conserve’ and extrapolate all their beliefs from that. It was a term coined for a particular purpose to distinguish one group of people, at one particular time, from another.

The difference between conservatives and radicals is that radicals begin with their endpoint. They stand in their present, imagine an ideal future, and that is it. And the imaginary future is always actually a commentary on their present. That is why Marx is so outdated. He saw capitalism as just a magnification of their early industrial revolution, and saw the teething pains as the fundamental characteristics.

Conservatives don’t presume to imagine the far future, nor are they inclined to demand everyone wants to get there. They look at their current situation and decide to make more proximal changes. The result of the change might reveal that the change was not worth it. Or it might. Perhaps they can make a correction. Moreover, from their new circumstances they might discover new options that were not available before that they can now avail themselves of. Or they may even be sublimely changed themselves such that the direction they wish to go in now is one that they had not particularly sought before.

Lefties do not evolve. It would be like a Tyrannosaurus climbing atop a cliff and leaping off, flapping its tiny arms to rush into being a bird. But even that assumes their projections are correct – dinosaurs were indeed fated to become birds. Perhaps a better example would be that they jump into an erupting volcano to inure themselves to heat when the earth turned molten again.