China And the Zombies Of The Past

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 17/08/2019 - 7:02pm in

The hybrid war, being conducted against China by the United States and its gaggle of puppet states from the UK to Canada to Australia, has entered a new phase.

Australia’s Capitalist Climate Change Diplomacy (2)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 17/08/2019 - 10:23am in

Locator map of Tuvalu. [A]
Previous to his political career as backstabber COALition federal leader, Scott Morrison’s professional experience was in tourism, marketing, public relations, advertising.

That experience shows in this week’s 50th Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu. In a moment you’ll understand.

(source)Meant as a PR masterly coup (above, Morrison impersonating daggy dad ScoMo) to counter the growing Chinese influence in the Pacific, the PIF tumbled, crumpled and finally flopped.

Morrison refused to sign the original draft joint declaration (above, Morrison displaying his coal arsehole face), because it contained references to coal and to limiting global warming to less than 1.5°C and to aiming for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

It took 12 hours of apparently heated discussion to reach a watered-down joint declaration, which left representatives of the Smaller Island States group of nations unhappy.

Reproaches flew back and forth, it seems. Frank Bainimarama, Fiji PM:

“The prime minister [Morrison] at one stage, because he was apparently backed into a corner by the leaders, came up with how much money Australia have been giving to the Pacific. He said: ‘I want that stated. I want that on the record.’ Very insulting.”

Bainimarama did not beat about the bushes when asked to compare China and Australia:

“After what we went through with Morrison, nothing can be worse than him.

“China never insults the Pacific. You say it as if there’s a competition between Australia and China. There’s no competition, except to say the Chinese don’t insult us. They don’t go down and tell the world that we’ve given this much money to the Pacific islands. They don’t do that. They’re good people, definitely better than Morrison, I can tell you that.”

Questions about Australia membership on the Forum were raised, as Vanuatu PM Enele Sopoaga, whom reportedly cried during the shouting match, apparently said to Morrison:

“You are concerned about saving your economies, your situation in Australia, I’m concerned about saving my people in Tuvalu and likewise other leaders of small island countries.”

Morrison has a way with people, uh? But it would be unfair to lay that entirely at his hooves. He had more than a little help from his existing friends.

Enter acting PM Michael McCormack -- surprise! Upset by Sopoaga’s plea for survival, Big Mac (whom I suppose is not mentally retarded), allegedly said during a function last Friday:

“I also get a little bit annoyed when we have people in those sorts of countries pointing the finger at Australia and say we should be shutting down all our resources sector so that, you know, they will continue to survive.”

Imagine the audacity of those “people in those sorts of countries”: to put their survival before mining profits!

Besides, they will survive even if sea levels rise -- Einstein says -- because they can come to Australia to work as seasonal fruit-pickers.

You can’t deny this story is reminiscent of Morrison’s “Where the bloody hell are ya?” publicity campaign.

But, there’s more!

Last week Heather Cook (yes, with C), ASIO deputy director-general, told a parliamentary inquiry into press freedom that Australian journalists must be investigated because some of them are on the payroll of foreign spies.

Extending that to media personalities could explain unhinged ultra-right wing shock jock Polly the Parrot, aka Alan Jones, telling Morrison to “shove a sock down” NZ PM Jacinda Ardern’s throat:  that makes sense if one assumes Polly is on the payroll of some nefarious foreign power (aka Putin) intent on ruining inter-Tasman diplomatic relations.

I trust ASIO and AFP will start investigations on the double, to say nothing of Christian Porter, Attorney General, whom -- I imagine -- will come out, all guns blazing, against Polly, just like he did against John Setka. Just wait. Any moment now.

Image Credits:
[A] Locator map of Tuvalu (2013). Author: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Source: Wikimedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. My usage of the file in no way that suggests the licensor endorses me or my use.

Fascism’s Advocacy of Privatisation and Financial Retrenchment

I’ve posted a number of blogs about the way some Conservative propagandists have tried to discredit socialism by claiming that Fascism was a form of it. The argument here is that Fascism advocated the state planning and management of the economy like state socialism, and so therefore must similarly be a form of socialism. For the Libertarians, any state intervention in the economy or industry is automatically attacked as socialism. They demand instead complete free trade and the reduction of the state to an absolute minimum, based on their ideas of 19th century laissez-faire economics. For them, any economic system that is not based on complete free trade and unregulated private industry is socialism, not capitalism. Left-wing commenters, on the other hand, have argued very clearly that this is a very unrealistic idea of capitalism, which has never existed in reality. Mussolini did indeed begin his career as a radical socialist, and Fascism itself emerged from Italian anarcho-syndicalism after the First World War.  However, Mussolini broke with the socialists and forces of the Italian left, to embrace capitalism and the parties and organisations of the right. The Fascists were supported by the rich landowners and the industrialists in their attacks on socialism, trade unions, and the peasant organisations. They were invited into the Italian parliament to join a coalition of right-wing Liberals and eventually merged with the Italian Nationalists. They also rejected, at least initially, state intervention in industry. In government, Mussolini stated that Fascism stood for the economics of the Manchester School, that is, absolute free enterprise.

The Fascists’ Conservative economic stance is clearly seen in their 1921 Party programme. This demanded a system of cuts to uneconomic businesses and public works projects that is very similar to the policy taken towards them by right-wing governments, including New Labour, ever since Margaret Thatcher. And it also declared its support for private industry against state control. In the section ‘Cornerstones of Fiscal Policy and Policies for National Economic Reconstruction’ are the following clauses

  1. Balancing state and local budgets (when necessary) by means of rigorous cutbacks to all parasitic or redundant entities and via reductions in expenditures neither crucial to the well-being of the beneficiaries nor justified by more general objectives.
  2. Decentralisation of the public administration so as to simplify the delibery of services and to streamline our bureaucracy, without falling into the trap of regionalism (which we firmly oppose).
  3. Shielding the taxpayers’ money from misuse by means of the abolition of all state or local government concessions and subventions to consortia, cooperatives, factories, special clienteles, and other entities similarly incapable of surviving on their own and not indispensable to the nation.


6. Cessation of policies favoring public works projects that are botched, undertaken for electoral reasons, or supposedly to insure law and order, projects that are unprofitable because of the irregular and fragmentary way in which they are distributed.


8. Return to private sector of industries that the state has managed poorly, in particular the telephone system and the railroads. Regarding the latter, competition needs to be enhanced between the major lines, which need, in turn, to be managed differentially with respect to regional and local lines.

9. Abolition of the state monopoly on postal and telegraphic communications so that private enterprise may supplement and eventually replace the state-run service.

The subsequent section, ‘Cornerstones of Social Policy’, begins with a statement of the importance of private property and industry as the fundamental basis of Fascist economic and social policy. This runs

Fascism recognises the social function of private property. At once a right and a duty, private property is the form of management that society has traditionally granted individuals so that they may increase the overall patrimony.

In its opposition to socialist projects for reconstruction that rely upon a dogmatically collectivist model of economics, the National Fascist Party has its feet firmly planted in the soil of our historical and national reality. This reality does not allow for a single type of agricultural or industrial economy. The party, accordingly, supports any and every solution, be it individualistic or any other kind, that will guarantee the maximum level of production and well-being.

The National Fascist Party advocates a regime that would strive to increase our national wealth by unleashing individual enterprises and energies – the most powerful and industrious factor in economic production – and by abolishing, once and for all, the rusty, costly, and unproductive machinery of state-, society -, and municipality-based control. The party thus supports all efforts to enhance Italy’s productivity and to eliminate forms of individual and group parasitism. 

see Jeffrey T. Schnapp, ed., A Primer of Italian Fascism (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press 2000), 14-15.

Now the Fascist programme did contain elements of Socialism, such as the demands for an eight hour working day, and later in Mussolini’s regime the state ended up owning a sizable part of the Italian economy as it was forced to buy up failing corporations. But even if the regime was forced to go back on its stated policy of allowing failing companies to go to the wall, it still strongly supported private enterprise although subject to considerable state intervention.

It’s very clear from this that, at least at that stage, Fascist economic policy was very similar to the free enterprise economics of Thatcher and Reagan. There’s also a further similarity, in that contemporary politics in both America and Britain is also corporatist. The Italian Fascist economy was supposed to be run by a ‘Chamber of Corporations and Fasces’ in which both representatives of management and the trade unions sat together. In practice the trade unions were strictly controlled by the Fascist state, with the management and proprietors enjoying a far greater degree of freedom. Contemporary Britain and America has a form of corporativism, in that very members of Congress in the US and parliament in Britain are proprietors or senior management of private firms. The parties also receive substantial funding from private corporations, with the result that government policy is framed to benefit private corporate interests, rather than working people.

Unlike Mussolini’s later regime, however, the current right-wing governments haven’t worked out that free trade and an economy based on untrammeled, absolute private industry doesn’t work either. They’re what the Australian economist John Quiggin has described as ‘zombie economics’, because the ideas are dead and should have been discarded long ago, but are still haunting us.

Conservative propagandists are therefore completely wrong. Fascism was pro-capitalist, and supported private enterprise, despite the movement’s left-wing origins and Mussolini’s attempt to return to socialism during the brief period of the Nazi-supported Salo Republic. It is very similar to today’s Conservativism rather than socialism, although the Republicans and Tories haven’t outlawed rival political parties nor tried to replace parliament or congress with a personal dictatorship and corporativist chamber. But Boris Johnson over here and Donald Trump across the pond are sounding more Fascist day by day, as BoJob’s splenetic attack on British MPs ‘collaborating’ with the EU shows.

Sydney Stabbings: Hatey Katie Lies Again about Muslims

Katie Hopkins is at it again – lying about Muslims being responsible for yet another violent attack. It was reported today that a man had been arrested following the stabbing of two women in Sydney. The alleged perp was detained by members of the public. The article about it in today’s I says that they were two British guys, who see themselves as ‘protectors’ and said they’d do it again if they had to. Apparently they piled up crates and wooden boxes on the killer to keep him down until Sydney’s finest arrived. It’s a terrible crime, but what caught Katie Hopkins’ attention was that the attacker was filmed on video shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ – the Islamic slogan meaning ‘God is great’. From this she concluded that this was yet another Islamic terror attack against Western infidels, and attacked the idea that it wasn’t. She tweeted

“Notice the speed at which: Norway mosque shooting became a terror act … Sydney Allahu Akbar stabbing became nothing to do with terror”.


“White guy goes on gun-rampage … The left: blame all whites … Knife guy shouts Allah Akhbar and goes on knife rampage … The left: blame mental health”.

She claimed that “Police confirm Sydney Stabbing terrorist was a Muslim convert with terrorist ideologies … To those determined to make this ANYTHING BUT Islamic terror YOU are part of the problem”

Except it really wasn’t a terrorist attack. The Groaniad in their article point out that the suspect had the decidedly un-Islamic name of Mert Ney. And one of his relatives issued this statement making it clear that none of the family had any connection with Islam whatsoever.

“I saw a lot of news articles saying it was about terrorism, but our family doesn’t practice Islam. Obviously, I know I am dark skinned and I look like I am from the Middle East, that’s going to be the obvious thing. But I’m not Islamic, my mum’s not Islamic, my sister isn’t Islamic, my dad is probably an atheist. We’ve got nothing to do with Islam at all”.

And Ney did have mental health problems. So when the Sydney police said that they weren’t treating it as a terror attack, they telling the truth. Because it certainly doesn’t appear to have been one.


But as Zelo Street concluded, Katie Hopkins really is a paranoid, delusional ignorant racist liar, and that there’s been no change there. But as Hopkins lies and delusions become more extreme and obvious, she’s losing more and more support. She’s been sacked from various right-wing newspapers and media outlets because she’s too racist even for them. And the other month when she turned up in a London hotel premiering her film about how Christians and Jews were being driven out of Britain by aggressive Muslims, she was too much for a reporter from the Jewish Chronicle. This gentleman of the press got very concerned about her audience. They were mostly extremely right-wing, islamophobic Jews. Which is interesting, as the reason why the JC, along with the right-wing Jewish establishment has been smearing Corbyn and his supporters as anti-Semites is because Corbyn genuinely wants justice for the Palestinians. And the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, one of the organisations leading the witch hunt, is itself guilty of racism. It has declared that the section of the British population most likely to be islamophobic is Muslim men. As for Hatey Katie’s claim that the ‘Left’ tries to deny or play down clear instances of Islamic terrorism, this is part of a long campaign by the racist, Zionist right to associate socialism and Islam with anti-Semitic violence. Way back around 2004/5 I can remember reading a glowing review by Frederick Raphael in the Spectator of a book set in France in the 2020s. In this fictional future, the remains of European socialism have joined with the Muslims to begin a new Holocaust against the continent’s Jews.

The book’s clearly nothing but anti-Left, anti-Muslim propaganda. But the Spectator’s approving review of the book shows that while Hopkins’ vile views are now an embarrassment to her former allies and employers, they certainly shared and promoted them. And still do. She’s just more explicit than they are. 

Book Launch: Regulation Theory and Australian Capitalism

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 14/08/2019 - 3:32pm in


Events, Australia

 Rethinking Social Justice and Labour Law.Regulation Theory & Australian Capitalism: Rethinking Social Justice and Labour Law.

Please join Brett Heino, together with Joellen Riley Munton and Eugene-Schofield Georgeson, for the launch of the paperback version of his book Regulation Theory and Australian Capitalism: Rethinking Social Justice and Labour Law.


3 September, 2019
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm Registrations & Networking from 5:30pm, Book Launch from 6pm


UTS Faculty of Law Boardroom (Room 5B.05.03)
Building 5, Block B, Level 5
1-59 Quay Street, Haymarket 


Register here

This is a free event. Registration is essential.


Dr Brett

The end of the post-World War II ‘long boom’ in the mid-1970s proved the beginning of a process of political-economic change that has fundamentally transformed labour law, both in Australia and across the developed world more generally. The dissolution of productive industry, the fragmentation of employment categories, the rise of profound employment precarity and an increasingly hostile legal environment for trade unionism have been of immense significance for key social justice issues, including income inequality, the rise of a new working-underclass, and the marginalisation of organised labour.

By combining the concepts of the Parisian Regulation Approach with a Marxist jurisprudence, this book offers a theoretically rigorous yet empirically sensitive account of the legal transition, with key case studies in the metal, food processing and retail sectors. Given the similar development logic of post-World War II capitalism in Western societies, this theory, although operationalised in the Australian context, can be used in the effort to explain labour law change more broadly.


Professor Joellen Riley Munton, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney.

Dr Eugene Schofield-Georgeson, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney.

Dr Brett Heino, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney.

The post Book Launch: Regulation Theory and Australian Capitalism appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

Nigel Farage Reveals Contempt for Royal Family to Ozzie Tories

Yesterday, the Groaniad reported that Nigel Farage had made some unpleasant, and quite possibly impolitic, comments about the royal family atthe Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney. The Brexit party’s fuhrer spared the Queen his sneers, but went on to attack Prince Harry and Megan Markle for their ‘irrelevant’ social justice and environmental concerns, called the late Queen Mother a ‘slightly overweight gin drinker’. He then went on to say that he hoped the Queen would continue to live a long time to stop ‘Charlie boy’, as he called Prince Charles, becoming king, and that William would live forever to stop Harry ascending the throne. He also bewailed how Megan Markle changed Harry’s laddish behaviour. According to today’s I, page 9, the Fuhrage said

Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all kinds of mayhem. And now he’s met Megan Markle and it’s fallen off a cliff.

The I explained that when Fuhrage referred to him as being ‘inappropriately dressed’ at stag parties, he meant the time when Harry turned up at one dressed in Nazi uniform. According to the I, a spokesman for the man ‘Judge Dredd’ satirised as ‘Bilious Barrage’ claimed that the Groaniad had taken his comments out of context. But as Mike says in his article about this, it’s irrelevant whether Farage meant what he said or not. He was telling his right-wing audience what they wanted to hear: that he was their friend.

He was raising money from rich foreigners again.


Now I’m aware that some of the readers of this blog may well be republicans, who believe that the monarchy is a vestige of feudal privilege and that we would be better off with a proper democratic constitution and an elected presidency. I’m also aware that what Farage said at the conference would be unremarkable if it came from a member of the public or a journalist. A few years ago, before his career imploded due to plagiarism, Johan Hari wrote a very long article in either the Independent or Guardian attacking the royal family. A tranche of government material had been declassified and released to the national archives. These revealed that ministers and senior civil servants had been worried about Prince Charles writing letters to newspapers and various official bodies trying to influence government policy. He was, for example, very keen to stop the closure of the grammar schools. The officials found his interference a headache because the monarchy is supposed to be above politics. They are definitely not supposed to try to influence government policy.

The Tory press, including and especially the Heil, despise Charles. I can remember the Rothermere’s mighty organ claiming that that the Tories were discussing ways to ensure that the Crown passed directly from the Queen to William, completely bypassing Charles. The reason they cited for this was that Charles was too close to Laurens van der Post, the author of Testament to the Bushmen. Under van der Post’s influence, the Heil claimed, the future heir to the throne had become too New Age in his spiritual beliefs. He had indicated that he wanted to be known as ‘Defender of Faith’ when he ascended the throne, an inclusive title to cover all religions, rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’, meaning exclusively Christianity. As he would be the head of the Church of England, this would create a constitutional crisis. I wonder if the real reason was that Charles appeared a bit too left-wing, especially in his concern for the unemployed. And Charles’ office also spoke out against the decision by John Major’s government to close down Britain’s mining industry.

Hari was also scathing about the Queen Mother. He claimed that she was certainly no democrat, complaining that it was ‘so unnatural’ when she was a young woman. Ministers were also upset at the government apparently having to spend £1 million a year keeping an office open for her so she could get the results at Ascot. Private Eye has also described her as ‘greedy’ and criticised Charles for hypocrisy over his views on architecture. Charles caused outrage a little while ago by describing modern buildings as ‘monstrous carbuncles’. But the Prince himself was also employing the same type of architects to design similar buildings. They also attacked him for the colossal overpricing of his organic honey.

Now we live in a democracy, where you are allowed to criticise the government and the monarchy. One where people do, often. But what makes Farage’s comments unwise is that they come from a ruthlessly ambitious politician. Attacks on the royal family are bound to be controversial because they still have a central role in the country’s constitution. The Queen is the head of state, and the royal family act as this country’s ambassadors. They also have a politically unifying role. Some people may find it easier to respect a head of state like the Queen, who is above party politics. To many people the royal family also embody British history and tradition, and they are still regarded with respect by millions of British and commonwealth citizens. I dare say this is particularly true of Conservatives. I’ve a Conservative friend, who hates the Scum because, in his view, it has done nothing but run down the royal family. And looking at the wretched rag, I can’t say he’s wrong either. Nor is it alone – all of the papers run stories trying to create some controversy about the royal family. The latest of these are about Markle, and how she is apparently throwing her weight around and causing some kind of feud with the rest of the royals.

Farage’s piece of lese majeste Down Under is controversial and offensive because it comes from a politician, who clearly hopes one day to serve in government. If he did, it would surely create tensions between him and the Crown. It’s also impolitic, as even though the culture of deference is supposed to have gone, the constitutional importance of the monarchy means that any criticisms politicians have of the royal family or differences of opinion between them should be settled discreetly. Farage has shown himself to be incapable of maintaining a tactful silence on the matter.

Of course, what Farage really hates about Harry and Megan, along with Conservative rags like the Spectator, is that Harry has dared to be environmentally concerned, like his father. He’s also fallen behind Markle’s feminism, so obviously they despise him for that. And there’s also a nasty tone of racism there was well. They certainly wouldn’t have objected if he’d married a White American. But instead he married a woman of colour. Farage’s apparent view that Harry dressing up as a Nazi officer was just natural masculine hi-jinks shows just how seriously he takes the issue and the offence it caused. I’ve no problem with comedies spoofing the Nazis, like Mel Brooks’ The Producers or the BBC’s ‘Allo, ‘Allo. But the Nazis themselves were far from a joke, and people are quite right to be angry at those who think dressing up as them is a jolly jape. But Farage and his audience obviously don’t. Quite possibly the Conservatives he addressed are still pining for a White Australia policy. But in their environmentalism and their social concerns, Harry and Megan, as Mike says, are just showing themselves to be a modern couple. The monarchy also has to move with the times, whatever reactionaries like Farage like to think.

Farage’s comments aren’t just disrespectful to the royal family, they also show how he places his own political ambitions above them as an institution as well as showing his contempt for the genuinely liberal attitudes Harry and Megan have espoused. I hope they lose him votes with that part of the Conservative-voting public, who still revere the her Maj and the other royals above the sneers of press and media. 


Being Ripped Off?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 13/08/2019 - 12:21pm in

Or reaching the “heights of unlawfulness”.

In Australia, when we are not learning of workers being ripped off by their bosses, we learn of people on social security being ripped off by Centrelink.

As a service to readers of this blog, I’ve been researching what possible actions one can take in those cases. Here is a short list of resources.

Workers being ripped off:

  1. If you are a union member, you must first approach your union. You pay your union dues (they are tax deductible, btw) and have the right to demand their assistance. Unionists not only are your peers, they have experience in these matters and they will be happy to take your side.
  2. If for some reason you are not a union member, then you have no right to demand union support. Regrettable as that is, your best chance now is to approach the Fair Work Ombudsman, a Commonwealth body.

The advantage of the FWO is that’s for free. Its two problems are:

  1. They are not obliged to take your side and
  2. They will only intervene after all previous avenues of resolution between you and your employer failed.

This means you will have to deal with your employer on your own, at least initially. If you were a union member you would not be alone and a more favourable agreement could be reached without the intervention of the FWO.

If you haven’t had problems with your employer -- yet -- to join a union is entirely up to you. Personally, I think prevention is always better than cure.

You have the right to join a union and you don’t need to tell your boss in advance. Once you know which is the union for you (this older list of unions may also help), you can join online or by phone. Here’s a list of additional benefits union membership offers.

Other than direct intervention, the FWO does offer plenty useful information. That’s a valuable resource, even if you don’t use their mediation services.

I know a lot less about how to help people being ripped off by Centrelink. I’ve recently read about #NotMyDebt, a community website for victims of that extortion racket (incidentally, readers with personal experiences can contact an ABC reporter using that last link). That seems like a good starting point.

VIC Legal Aid (a non-profit providing free legal advice) has launched two court challenges against Robodebt. Another good place to start for NSW readers is the website of NSW Legal Aid. QLD Legal Aid can also be of help. Community Legal Centres also offer free legal advice, although I am not sure they deal with these matters.

Two weeks ago the Lower House passed (75 to 67), the COALition’s cynically titled Ensuring Integrity Bill. Senate voting on the bill is scheduled for late October. That I am aware of, only The Australian reported that.

ACTU President Michele O’Neil on that:

“On Tuesday members of this Government said that this bill, which will weaken the rights of working people, threatened basic democratic freedoms. On Wednesday they voted for it.

“It should send a chill down the spine of all Australians that their Government will brazenly vote for extreme, dangerous and anti-democratic laws less than 24 hours after admitting they’re likely to violate basic human rights.

“Christian Porter has attempting a slick sales job on this bill but the truth is out – this is a dangerous, extreme and anti-democratic piece of legislation that will only benefit the Morrison Government and bad bosses.

“It’s time for the Morrison Government to abandon its ideological anti-union obsession and withdraw this bill.”

Speaking of Christian Porter, the current Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the same one who castigated the CFMEU for the “heights of unlawfulness” they had reached: in 2015 Porter replaced Scott Morrison as Minister for Social Services. He was the one in charge when Robodebt was launched in 2016, although I would not be surprised ScaMo was the father of the creature.

By May this year, Department of Human Services (you’ve gotta love the Orwellian language) officials claimed up to $1.25 billion in “debts” had been identified, of which $500 million had been extorted from the public at a cost of $400 million. Yes, all that misery inflicted on 500 thousand victims for $100 million.

And the icing on the cake: one in five such “debts” had been proven false, either partially or in their entirety.

(source)In this country, it seems, you have to be a woman to have balls and tell it like it is.

Only Cask Wine From The Goon Region Allowed to Be Called Goon

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 13/08/2019 - 11:00am in

goonsack-619-386Winemakers from the Goon region of South Australia are today celebrating after international trademark laws were changed to allow only cask wine from the region to be labelled as “Goon”.

“If you want to release a “Goon” style cask wine from grapes not grown in the Goon Valley it must now be labelled as “sickly tasting cheap piss easily carted from party to party by swaying teenagers”,” said Charles Chunder, president of the Goon Winegrowers Board. “We’ve spent many years building up the reputation of our product and we want kids who are pooling their pocket money to buy a 4 litre cask to feel confident they are getting an adult to buy them the real thing.”

“As long as it gets me shitfaced I don’t care what they call it,” said renowned goon connoisseur James “Simmo” Simpson. “As long as it tastes roughly the same going back out as it does going in I’ll still drink it.”

Wines with the Goon label are now likely to attract a premium price of about 50 cents extra for a 4 litre cask, provided they contain the minimum requirement of 14% methylated spirits.

Peter Green


You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook.

CPAC’s travelling show can pack up and go home. And stay there.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/08/2019 - 7:18pm in

“I’ve been to the border,” Fox TV’s Judge Jeanine Pirro says. US citizens living there talk of “rape trees” upon which the clothes of rape victims are hung she says. They talk of children having their hearts cut out with machetes. The US, as Donald Trump regularly tweets, is under siege; its way of life…

The post CPAC’s travelling show can pack up and go home. And stay there. appeared first on The AIM Network.

Australia Debates: Communist Party China the New Nazi Germany?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/08/2019 - 8:12pm in

A row Down Under as a prominent and well placed MP says some not-nice things about China.