China is no threat to our dominance in the Pacific Islands

Just because Chinese companies are engaged in economic competition in the Pacific Islands does not mean Australia's dominance in the region is under threat, writes Jenny Hayward-Jones.
Comment 1: Of course, I found the title to be 'confronting,' as did Pink Diamond (as uncounted others) below. What it means is 'Aus as deputy-sheriff' is back - another filthy demonstration of both Aus' vassal/quisling status and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic so-called 'leaders,' plus the truly offensive notion that any country should even think of dominating any other. That the theme comes via an r-whinger think-tank justifies the inclusion of such in the M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches. That Lib equals Lab to too many decimal places is proven by Lab continuing Lib's wars.

Pink Diamond :

17 May 2013 4:04:34pm
'Dominance in the region...'
Says it all.
  • aletheia :

    17 May 2013 6:49:15pm
    "'Dominance ...' Says it all."

    Yes. Our tyrants play at least 4 'games:' democracy, diplomacy and monopoly... err, Q: That's only three? A: Yes, the 4th is called being loose with the truth. Actually, very loose; for a particular, involuntarily retired 'representative' (perhaps seeking anonymity in large numbers): "All politicians lie!"

    The game of monopoly mostly results in us, we the people (UWTP) being ripped-off (keywords: race to the bottom = spiral-down; neoliberalism, globalisation, privatisation (latter = theft from UWTP, followed by being toll-boothed into penury). Proof = privatised electricity, worst = medicine for profit.)

    The game of diplomacy results in many others than UWTP being killed (keywords: mass-murder for spoil.)

    The game of democracy mostly results in UWTP being *mis*-represented.

    The game of being loose with the truth results in UWTP being deceived, enabling the other three games to proceed.

    We, the people are being dominated by tyrants. Boo, hiss! Give us our country, democracy, (once bright) future, flogged-off government(egalitarian)enterprises + everything else stolen from us - back!

R.Ambrose Raven :

17 May 2013 11:45:39am
Whether or not Australia's dominant role in the region is "under threat" from China, it is the interests of the Pacific Islanders themselves that should matter.

We saw how eagerly the Australian Government colluded in the cover-up of the murder of the Balibo Five in order to curry favour with the Indonesian mass-murderer and war criminal Soeharto; even now, a third of a century later, the Australian Government still hasn't sought to arrest any remaining killers should they leave Indonesia. For all the arrogant and pompous talk of "human rights" and the "responsibility to protect" so favoured by such as KRudd and Gareth Evans, North Korea could not more ruthlessly discard such "values" once our Imperial interests are inconvenienced.

While Jenny's article is timely, as with so many such articles the serious shortcomings in economic and social development of the peoples themselves is effectively ignored despite its significance. Australia has taken part in military stabilisation operations in Bougainville, East Timor, the Solomons, and is attempting to improve the appalling governance of a number of other littoral states, not least PNG. Fortunately, notwithstanding the serious social and economic tensions – and corruption - most of them do live better than refugees recently released from our concentration camps, but not necessarily by much.

It is in fact exactly the same challenge as ending the cycle of poverty and dysfunction in Aboriginal communities, for exactly the same reasons. Any true balance requires that work, and income, be made to serve social interests, whereas ever since the Second World War consumerism has perverted society, requiring paid work to dominate with family and personal commitments being left the time and resources not wanted by employers. It would seem unlikely that any economic structure with a strong orientation towards cultural commitments would survive the brutality of market forces; it would need to be protected from the forces of greed if it was to deliver balance.

While those of the Den of Thieves - the NFF, CCI, AiG, the squatters' denialist organisation the PGA, etc - such as the IPA may write of Aboriginal improvement (meaning their conversion to culture-free aspirationals) their mentality is that of the sweatshop. They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS.

As it is, we have a Hard Right-dominated media (particularly a Murdoch rag, The Australian) ferociously hostile to Labor's comparatively enlightened approach in dealing with increasingly profound challenges (though often due to Green and Independent pressure). To it Labor's greatest crime is in not embracing and imposing Austerity and institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement.

  • aletheia :

    17 May 2013 5:58:19pm
    "... institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement."

    Agreed - partly, also to "comparatively enlightened approach."

    Also agreeing - more strongly, to "unlikely that any [compassionate policy] would survive the brutality of market forces" and "They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS."

    It was not Fraser (accused of 'wasting time') but Cheating [thnx] who copycatted Thatcher's TINA! + "There is no such thing as society," also implied 'no community' = no working together. Then came Smirk; neoliberalism is bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic (since it offers the voter *zero* choice.)

    Recall that a choice between evils still results in evil - put Lab/Lib (your preferred order?) last!

    TheAus was active against EGW, a disgusting, dishonest campaign against a twice properly-elected PM (possibly Aus' best, in my lifetime anyway). Note that theAus did/does such a 'good' job that many (who really should know better) still spit when they hear Gough/other target(s) mentioned.

    To theAus must be added PFBCs, when they agree on some anti-fact meme; Proof: the "David vs. Goliath" myth, circa 1967. Recall 'hell/no fury/misinformed.' When one is given zero choice, and the result is anti-99%, it's not democracy, see Bernays: "Those who manipulate..."
Comment 2: One problem with the AusBC/unleashed forum is the relatively short time given for comments - leading to haste tending to take preference, then to the recommended 200-word limit, tending to compact text. While «see Bernays: "Those who manipulate..."» contains sufficient clues as to how to locate the idea, to give it its due impact, here it is in more detail:

  «The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society»
Comment 3: A shocker. Keywords: 'conscious and intelligent manipulation,' then 'unseen mechanism,' 'invisible government' and 'true ruling power.' What all that means is *no* people-power, which is neither 'logical' nor fair - let alone acceptable. Either one has a democracy "of, by, for the people" - or one has something else - and I suggest what we have is tyranny, run (dominated!) by psychopaths.

Bernays "felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' ..."

Me: So following this, we the people's minds are 'manipulated' into utter irrelevance. Q: Did any of us approve this system by a free and fair, fully informed vote? A: Silly question; *by definition* not, yet it 'fits' our situation 100% and tyranny dominated by psychopaths is proven.

No comments:

Post a Comment