HOT ISSUES

The below-listed articles can be read on this page:

The Immigration Question... the critical issues of adequate water and arable land dictate what total population Australia can support; not ideology or UN refugee and multiculturalism policies.

The Great Super robbery... Workers pay multiple life insurance premiums out of their superannuation without their knowledge or consent; policies which will never pay out and annual premiums which will drain their super fund into oblivion and old age poverty.

Catch 'n' Can the Crims... The sad reality that the CEO criminals who have robbed Australians of billions of dollars, will never be adequately punished.

Government by Shareholder... The ultimate parasites, shareholders, are the primary beneficiaries of government largesse... which means us.

Managing Waste and Recycling: Get real... The vast waste and recycling fraud.

"I am a parent...": The strategic erosion of parenting in Australia: the relentless grinding down of parent's rights and responsibilities, by the medical establishment,'teachers, social workers, corporations, religious organisations, the United Nations, feminists, investment bankers, local government, the judiciary, and the media.

AUSTRALIA'S SUPER-HOT ISSUES

(1) THE IMMIGRATION QUESTION

The current conversation about immigration acceptability levels focuses on ideology, global relativity, complementation of the national skills pool, and preferred origin of immigrants; and inexplicably ignores core predetermining criteria… water, food, and accommodation.

Water
Australia has sufficient water resources to support the current population providing drought regimes do not intensify. Many climate experts suggest they will.

Speaking from the vantage point of cheerful ignorance, many politicians call volubly for capture of north Australian wet season rains; oblivious to the coastal flatness of the north, the porous nature of ambient geology, massive tropical evaporation rates, and the daunting amount of high-cost energy required to pump this water to areas of need should it actually be captured.

Meanwhile, central eastern Australia, the Murray-Darling basin, is in perennial water crisis. Further to the East Coast, talk of desalination and recycling ignores toxic heavy metal retention and very high costs.

On the issue of water alone, any additional immigration is prohibitive.

Food
Few Australians seem aware that only 4% of our continent comprises arable soils. Our food security has always been in the balance; increasingly so as developers unconscionably gobble up outer urban arable land, which is always the most food-productive.

Compliments of free trade ideology, domestic food production has been decimated and much arable land upon which national food security relies has been turned over to corporate-owned export monocultures and non-food crops such as cotton (which also compromises national water security).

Not only does this make Australia vulnerable to future food ransom, as famously alluded to by Henry Kissinger ("Control food and we control the world"), ruthless land management practices are destroying our arable soils with inappropriate cultivation, chemical fertilisers which kill essential soil bacteria, and the endemic monocultural practices which fail to fallow land and rotate crops.

This damage, according to emeritus professor Henry Nix will, in the very near future, injure our arable land beyond realistic repair.

Clearly, our food production and inadequate water resources already delimit immigration. By my calculation, we have already reached our optimum population level.

Accommodation
But, in any event, where would we find the accommodation for more immigrants? Thanks to the corporate profit-led deregulation which free trade policies have demanded, foreign buy-up of homes and land has driven accommodation prices beyond reach of anyone on fixed or otherwise low incomes. This describes 70% or more of the current population.

So, yes, we should welcome any immigrants who are independently wealthy and who bring their own soil and water.

(2) THE GREAT SUPERRANNUATION ROBBERY

What may prove to be John Howard’s most infamous legacy, was his insurance/superannuation industry dip ‘n’ rip scheme in which insurance corporations were enabled to install multiple life insurance policies on superannuant’s savings without their knowledge or consent.

Theoretically, the poor victims might have up to 21policy premiums deducted from their super accumulations over a period of three years; totaling $14,700. For workers who have several different employers per year (ie fruit pickers, shearers, contractors, seasonal workers, gardeners, decorators, performers), this could go on for decades.

Such workers are not notably astute in such matters because basic education is conveniently in decline; they are perennially tired and, anyway, they trust government and institutions to do the right thing. Never missing a trick, politicians love to quote this phrase as their alibi mantra.

The victims will never know about their loss until they retire, or receive notices from the litany of life insurance corps advising them their super savings account is empty and their many premiums now due cannot be paid.

I discovered this government-sanctioned racket quite by accident, and was also fortunate in that one insurance company worker, experiencing feelings of complicity guilt; spilled the beans to me.

I had promised to do something about this crime, which possibly harmed a million or so Aussie workers, but I had little trust in The System that facilitated such robbery. I had already demanded explanations from the relevant corporations, but to no avail, so my next hopeful step was then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Unsurprisingly, I drew a dud from Rudd.

Next, I wrote to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. What was I thinking?

Finally, four months later, Senator Nick Sherry wrote to me with soothing words about superannuation and insurance companies caring about we Aussie workers. It was then I finally realised I was tilting at windmills; attacking the corporate-government alliance, an utterly futile exercise. The insurance corporations, along with the Big Four Banks, are untouchable.

That was way back in 2008. I also witnessed Rudd and his economic impetus strategy in which every citizen received $900 which, so predictably, they used to reduce credit card debt or mortgages… an exercise which tangentially bailed out the Big Four Banks for losses incurred under the GFC. This was taxpayer bailout by stealth.

I could not help but laugh when Rudd claimed our very own Big Four had suffered no losses whatsoever, even though they were privately so broke they were unable even to loan to each other. Great Super Robbery followed by Great Bank Bailout by Taxpayer Con, I thought.

So that was that.

That was when the essential principles of Australian Justice became apparent:
Little crimes, lotsa cops.
Big crimes, no cops.

Then, a decade later, arrived the Royal Commission into banks, and finance, and miscellaneous robberies in between. Foolishly hopeful, I wrote to the ACCC and the Royal Commission.

The Royal Commissioner has refused to accept my evidence; but as Royal Commissioners seem habituated in this regard I have learned to shrug. Better to wait until a revolution comes along. An increasing proporation of Australians are concluding that nothing else will restore just and democratic government in Australia. As the latest Liberal candidate today pointed out, "The system is broken". And that is the reason he gave for standing in politics, something he swore he would never do.

How sad is that.

(3) CATCH ‘N’ CAN THE CRIM$

CRUCIAL OUTCOMES OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE BANKING AND FINANCE INDUSTRY

The Royal Commission, if it is to cure Australia’s financial and investment regulation ills, must recommend ALL key elements of the cure:

Firstly, as a matter of urgency, Parliament must legislate substantial prison sentences for offences above $1000 injury to clients, especially wherein victims were of low income or were otherwise relatively defenseless. Mandatory prosecutions and retroactive sentences must be applied or the entire regulatory exercise becomes futile. Fines are laughed at by the wealthy.
Establishment of an Office of Supreme Regulator, which ensures that the ACCC and ASIC and other finance and investment industry regulators do their job in a manner which meets the regularly surveyed expectations of the Australian people.
Establishment of a People’s Bank, modeled on that which was the Commonwealth Bank before privatisation.
Expulsion of the Rothschild’s Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements as the employer of board members of the Reserve Bank of Australia, including the position of Governor of the RBA. And, of course, transferal of the RBA to the new people’s bank.
Separation of the UK’s Hill Simon Bank from Macquarie Bank and other similar piggy-back foreign investments.
Expulsion of all foreign bank components of Australian banks and the introduction of mandatory shop-front statements of ownership.
Scrapping of the current method of economic macro-analysis, which primarily recognises as criteria, only conditions for the wealthy; and subsequent adoption of a new model which primarily benchmarks the prosperity of the poorest Australians.
Establishment of an independent commission which solely records the accurate status of employment, underemployment and unemployment of Australia’s workers.

Adoption of these reforms will ensure that finance, investment, and banking industries; and concomitant economic measuring devices, will be conducted with accuracy and honesty.

Currently, there is no regulatory oversight, let alone enforcement faculty. The finance, investment, banking, superannuation, and conjoint insurance industries operate in what amounts to a judicial immunity bubble, wherein major crime is rampant. Politically enabling such lassitude is that all Australian economic and financial overview by government is seriously distorted by mythical unemployment figures which downwardly-misrepresent reality by 800%. This is acknowledged quite openly by around 60% of Australians as “The Great Lie”.

This carefully constructed economic propaganda machine was the first vehicle upon which the vast criminal financial and economic misrepresentation network was established. Both the LNP and ALP desperately protect the ‘great lie’ because to do otherwise would be to admit that free trade has destroyed Australian manufacturing and jobs, with these, the Australian economy.

This was first suspected by arch-editor Max Walsh, then editor of the highly respected Newsweek-Bulletin, which in 1999 surveyed the nation and found that unemployment even then was 23%. This rising trend was independently confirmed every three years from 2001… ( ref Ryan Research Institute).

A few years ago, in an interview hurriedly shut down and denied by ABCTV, a demographer pointed out that one in four Australian workers has no job at all, and another one in four has only inadequate part time work.

Other independent researchers calculate that homelessness affects three million Australians. This is a far cry from the 300,000 claimed by Government, or the “Era of Unprecedented Prosperity” and 3.4% unemployment megahorned by John Howard.

The current 4.6% claim by the LNP’s Scott Morrison is an exercise in providing plausible variability to enhance the lie. If the Australian government actually represented the Australian people, instead of the wealthy and powerful and foreign-corporations; such a massive lie would attract decades-long prison sentences.

Such an egalitarian aspiration is unrealistic with the current level of political corruption but it will surely happen following sufficient emergence of people-power independents and political parties; and expulsion of the foreign Murdoch-led media duopoly.

(4) GOVERNMENT BY SHAREHOLDER

Ever since Paul Keating and John Howard transported reluctant Australians from the egalitarian prosperity of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s era, into an unprecedented era of unemployment, underemployment, poverty, and homelessness; 85% of the Australian People have been quietly disqualified and rendered invisible as citizens.

For our own good, of course.

The Governing Class, formerly describing itself as the Ruling Class, require us to understand that we have neither the knowledge nor wisdom to offer government. Anyway, we were told that we were experiencing an Unprecedented Era of Prosperity and we should be satisfied.

If truth be known, the Great Mining Boom was more of a Great Media Microphone Boom, as journalists jettisoned news in favour of politician’s press releases and propaganda opportunities; and they entirely forgot to mention that mining at its peak was 0.3% less contributing to GDP than the dying manufacturing sector (8.6% versus 9%).

Meanwhile, Howard’s "Double Taxation" Act ruled that corporations which pay tax in other countries do not have to pay tax in Australia; which shifts the burden to that shrinking sector of wage and salary earners. What is problematic is that those with part time work, or who are on welfare, have little to contribute to the income tax department which, of course, is why Canberra’s coffers are near empty.

Government programmes must now be funded by loans.

Those who ridiculed the GST should by now appreciate the genius behind this replacement of income tax, because it ensures everybody contributes to politician’s pension funds and mining development grants, whether they have full time jobs or not.

There is some lingering doubt about the wisdom of managing a national economy on the presumption that shareholders are tangibly productive people, or that they apply values such as national interest, health and education, into decision-making.

Listening to PM Scott Morrison, I am reassured that only the very wealthy elite of shareholders: the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Murdochs, and the Lowys; will noticeably be influencing government in the future.

Unless, of course, Australians wake up and reclaim their country.

(5) MANAGING WASTE AND RECYCLING… GET REAL

While the nation anguishes over the vast problems of waste management and recycling, one might be forgiven for regarding this as a deliberate and well-engineered distraction.

Which, by the way, it is.

The real decision to be made is… just when do we tell manufacturers, distributors and retailers that henceforth they can longer pack their products with plastic wrapping and packaging. The reason they do not want this conversation to emerge is that wrapping is cheaper then employing workers to serve you in shops.

I, like a million other Australians, well-remember the days when rubbish was collected once per week, in bins half the size of the current wheelie and, moreover, even these were seldom more than half-full.

Why was this?

First, and most obvious, pre-wrapping and packing was non-existent in those far-off days. If our meat, or fish, or cheese needed wrapping, this was done with butcher’s paper at the point of sale. Post-consumption, both the vegetable peelings and paper were dug into our gardens as organic fertilizer and organic mulch.

There were no plastics; only glass jars and bottles. And most of these were recyclable. Often, the kids had already cashed the bottles in at the local store, which was just up the street.

Metal cans were indeed used but these were for baked beans or sardines; and there were only two or three of these opened per week in most households. The only reason we do not immediately return to the sensible and environmentally intelligent solutions of yesteryear is that the grocery duopoly, and the importers of foreign goods, view this as a threat to their illicit profits.

Because these entities have more influence on our political representatives than do we; and because they are the primary source of media advertising revenue; this conversation is not happening.

Times Up!

Nevertheless, a genuine solution must be adopted now. Plastic containers are pumping pseudo-estrogens into men and boys, turning them into sterile and quasi-feminine blobs with boobs. And, wrapping and packing is swamping our environment… at massive cost to the economy and to environmental health. Even more alarming, this is destroying our oceans and even the fish that we eat. The oceans are the crucible of all life on this planet.

Obviously, with many homes too tiny to permit gardens, which once absorbed domestic organic waste, it will not be difficult to have this locally collected for conversion to fertilizer and mulch for domestic food farmers.

There are two paths to resolution: On a bi-partisan basis, politicians must establish a fully independent Federal Commission to immediately install binding regulatory legislation, with serious terms of imprisonment for abusers and defaulters;

Or

Politicians and the guilty parties can anticipate a violent backlash from the community. That this will happen is one of the lessons of history, and the only variable factor is when.

(6) "I am a parent"

Fifty years ago, parents held a position in the community that was respected and unassailable.

It was understood by all that parents held the future in their arms and that family was the sole nurturer of future generations. No individual or sector of the community dared question the supremacy of PARENTS as the backbone of the societal body.

The community at large understood that parents provided the love, affection, and nurturing that produced fulfilled and productive future adults, the only exceptions being the merging cadre of medical and psychiatric professionals who viewed 'Family' as restrictive competition. In 1973, global garment and pop music corporations joined this attack, perceiving parents as barriers to the lucrative youth market.

Today, in terms of the universal values of thousands of years, parenting is a dying skill. Many children are not receiving the attention they need to grow to maturity and exercise the drive and self-discipline needed to survive in the adult world. Literacy and numeracy skills have fallen, with one third of children unable to cope with job learning demands.

A recent survey discovered that many children resented the time their parents devoted to social media and electronic games. The same parents neglect to ensure their children do not spend too much time with such devices. The devices are also brain-damaging and inhibit socialisation.

Meanwhile, while teachers, social workers, and journalists declare "Zero tolerance" of bullying, absolutely nothing is being done to protect children from bullying (other than the gutsy squad of old-school mums and dads who take direct action, either by intimidating the bullies or confronting their parents).

By any measure, there is a crisis in Australian parenting. The ipso facto evidence shows this is not a random series of occurances but, if not actually orchestrated, has its genesis in linked organisations.

Why is this happening and who are the entities responsible?

Doctors

With the emergence of the 20th century a trend commenced in which medical doctors claimed parenting expertise, with no evidence whatsoever they had the prerequisite knowledge or skills but, nevertheless, they enjoyed a growing power as wealthy lobbyists of governments. One outspoken politician, the ruthless Paul Keating, described the Australian Medical Association (AMA) as the nation's most powerful trade union. Others bestow on doctors the less polite mantle of Medical Mafia, which has a total monopoly on pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, invasive interventions, and claimed cures.

Perhaps the most destructive of these family interventionists was John B Watson, US psychologist, who claimed infants were harmed by love and affection, and he held that babies’ nappies should be changed on a cold marble slab and with no verbal expressions of affection.Sir Frederick Truby King

With the specialisation of doctors as paediatricians came new demands that babies be fed artificial milk formulas, and be fed by rigid clock schedules, every four hours.

The cow milk industry successfully conjoined with doctors to present breast milk as primitive and inadequate. Thousands of babies died from the effects of watered-down, contaminated, or sour milk, and millions suffered bowel issues for the rest of their lives.

Mothers were vulnerable to this destructive advice because their own families, who might have offered commonsense advice, were often long distances away from the towns where their husbands worked.

Meanwhile, doctors and nurses colonised the birthing process, further disempowering mothers. The birthers of millennia, midwives, were rigidly controlled by doctors who were invariably ill-equipped for the role. Fathers were alienated from the birthing process.

Thus it was that parent’s roles were hijacked from the onset of each child’s life. Doctors can now arbitrarily rule on parenting and nutritional issues, skils which they do not possess. Doctors also rule out independent research which would prove their sickness industry is responsible for juvenile malnutrition, new medical conditions (ie early onset shingles, autism).

Teachers

The 1970s saw a campaign by school teachers to receive higher status and pay, which resulted in the closing down of dedicated teacher’s training colleges and replacement of classroom skills with university education which, it was reasoned, justified higher salaries.

The UN weighed in heavily but discreetly and the central message imparted to undergraduate teachers was that they were the new intelligentsia, and that parents were rendered obsolete by a new wave of knowledge and social demands.

Essentially, they were told, it is their role to sever the intergenerational transfer of knowledge.

Children were taught to disregard parental values, and parental discipline came under severe attack, especially by the teacher’s allies, social workers, psychologists, and sociologists.

Social workers

By the 1980s children were being encouraged to report their parents to welfare for child abuse… the new euphemism for parental discipline.

Parents who grounded their rebellious teenagers for entering licensed premises and discos had their children confiscated by social workers and were then refused access to them. An influx of immature and hopelessly academic social workers, who shared rarified theoretical ideologies, colonised welfare agencies.

In one early instance in Darwin (1977/78), clearly abusive parents, who had been spanking a 6 month old baby, who had suffered a skull fracture and haemorrhaging buttocks, were supported in their behavior by child protection social workers. A local welfare officer, acting on referral by community health nurses, defied orders to do nothing, and was forced to solicit the aid of hospital workers to provide the infant with protection which, no doubt, prevented the baby's death. The "child protection" social workers then campaigned to have the baby returned to the parents, claiming they merely needed support and counselling whereas the welfare officers recommended adoption. (Welfare Division, Dept Com. Development, NTA 1977).

What was regarded by almost all personnel with an overview of this saga, as criminal negligence by the social workers, never attracted sanctions or prosecution. Thus began a nation-wide era of damaging 'professional' interventions never mandated by the wider community.

Clearly, the inmates had taken over the asylum.

Religious organisations

Following WWII, several Christian denominations realised that many children were orphaned and many pregnant women had lost their husbands and boyfriends. This was seen as a marvelous opportunity to harvest little souls, and so orphanages flourished.

Not content with the supply of war-time orphans, the churches harassed mother-to-be to give up their babies for adoption. These religious bureaucrats then commenced stealing children who had been placed into temporary care because of the post-war scarcity of food and accommodation.

In UK, an advocate for children, Margaret Humphries, uncovered the thefts of 65,000 children, their parents having been told they were dead. These children were sold into virtual slavery in Rhodesia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In Australia, 2000 neglected part-Aboriginal children, and others that Christians claimed were “at risk”, were also herded into Christian orphanages. Margaret Humphries calculated that, regardless of ethnicity, 20% of all children in Christian care were sexually abused.

Clearly, this was the most extreme attack on parents and children. Demonstrating the collapse of justice in Australia, and the political and judicial power these organisations wield, these religious abusers have never been required to compensate their victims; this being borne by the long-suffering taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has used its considerable global power to protect the child sexual abusers from within its ranks, from secular justice systems. There is no convincing evidence that the Vatican has any intention of permitting judicial and police realistic access to amelioration or prevention of these crimes.

Corporations

In the 1970s, global corporations realised that penetration of the youth market was seriously hindered by parental influence. With their alliance with the now-corporatised public media (this relationship sealed by the corporate advertising which paid for media), the role of parenting became the target of subtle ridicule, especially through television sitcoms and Hollywood movies. The impact of this intervention was measurable through the rapidly diminishing level of respect that children and teenagers held for parents and for the elderly.

While corporations were attacking parenting, those in IT industries were presenting their products as essential to any kind of normal life. This attitude was promoted and constituted emotional blackmail to force parents to buy their kids increasingly sophisticated and expensive mobile phones and computers, even at the expense of nutritious food.

Then came social media and the addiction to these by children of all ages. Children became even more alienated from their parents and many began to suffer sleep deprivation as they tuned to Facebook late into the night.

As if that were not destructive enough, bullying at school, facilitated by the ludicrous hands-off attitudes of school principals, was exacerbated by online bullying. The corporations providing these services prevent governments from instituting the obvious solutions of banning such IT elements from schools and young children.

Parents are now forced to permit their children to access online by the schools themselves.

United Nations

It is not widely recognised that the United Nations was designed by Nelson Rockefeller in the 1930s as a conduit for his global corporatisation ambitions and, indeed, the UN headquarters building was built on Rockefeller land in New York.

This campaign, promoted by the Rockfeller-owned UN components (ie the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund), we now know of as Globalisation, featuring free trade ideology, which in turn was promulgated to all students in universities through the efforts of UNESCO.

Free trade enabled giant corporations to use cheap and even slave labour of the third world to undermine national manufacturing, from which traditionally cascaded 80% of all employment. Over a period of forty-five years Australian unemployment went from below 1% to 25%; and workers on inadequate part time work made up another quarter of the work force. This led to paranoid workers, fearful of losing their jobs, doing an average of 9 hours unpaid work per week.

This, plus the time wasted going from workplace to workplace, absorbed much of the time previously allocated to parenting. The pressures of poverty caused accelerated marital breakup and widespread homelessness; now affecting three million Australians.

Feminists

Feminists of the 1960s demanded equal pay for equal work and equal access to the workforce and surveys showed that 99% of men thought this stance to be eminently reasonable.

In 1973, the media, led by Rupert Murdoch, who was by now into alliance with David Rockefeller and his Trilateral Commission (consisting of the three levels of Military, Industrial lobbies, and Intelligence services), began ignoring moderate feminists in favour of aggressive man-hating radicals.

This new feminism, actively supported by the media, was able to reject half of humanity (ie males), and then diminished and reviled the role of traditional mothers; and promoted affirmative action and female quotas. This had the effect of causing the loss of breadwinner jobs, which in turn delivered marriage break-ups and a rising tide of male suicides https://www.weebly.com/editor/main.php#/

Once again, families suffered and parenting was even more eroded.

Judiciary

At some undefined point judicial activism made itself felt (first recorded in Darwin Childrens Court in 1976); but became most evident in the feminist orientated Family Law Court, resulting in fathers being almost erased from the parenting equation when marriages broke up.

Whilst women were commonly recipients of Supporting Mothers Benefits (later retitled SPB) and simultaneously receiving support payments from their former husbands, many were also enjoying part time jobs and support from new boyfriends. Husbands and fathers were forced to distance themselves, only to then be labeled as deadbeat dads.

Meanwhile, many former husbands and fathers were rendered homeless, bereft of survivable incomes, and denied access to their children vis a vis baseless feminist accusations of violence and abuse. This fed another surge in suicides. Many fathers refused to work, in protest.

Parenting had been dealt yet another blow.

Local government

As another component of globalisation, and once again sponsored by the United Nations through the UN-sponsored creation of local government associations, the highly accountable role of town clerk was abandoned in favour of the unilateral and unaccountable position of CEO.

This triggered rapid rises in Rates and the savage imposition of regulations which were blatant revenue-raising.

In both urban and rural environments these higher costs further ground family budgets into financial oblivion.

Investment bankers

In 1970, David Rockefeller assumed the mantle of the Rockefeller dynasty and his first move was to commission Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading architect of the gold war, to create the biggest ever Military-Industrial-Intelligence facility: the Trilateral Commission.

This was completed in 1973 and Rockefeller then sponsored Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch to join the Rockefeller/Rothschild Investment Banker Alliance. A few deft deals with politicians (Hawke, Keating, and Howard) enabled Murdoch to own 70% of media and strategic control of all of it. As journalist John Pilger put it, from that point onward, no journalist desiring a career submitted an article which might anger Rupert Murdoch.

Media

With control of the media this also meant control of election campaigns, enabling Murdoch and his associate Frank Lowy, to control the major political parties and, thence, the Australian Government. Bob Hawke was the first beneficiary of this new media control but was later defeated by Paul Keating who subverted Bob with promises to Murdoch of even more-favourable media ownership and control. To Keating's fury, John Howard later promised Murdoch and Packer even more outrageous media control, thereby defeating Keating in the next elections.

With this marriage of media and political establishment, this meant that the truth about the Australian economy could be hidden from the national electorate. Thus, 50% unemployment / underemployment could successfully be presented as 6% unemployment.

The implications for parenting were that half of Australia’s parents were living in poverty, half of these divorced or separated, and the remainder living in terror of joining the unemployed.

This was no climate for successful parenting.

Conclusions

So, how do we reclaim the parenting role under terms acceptable to the parent community?

There is no one answer. Simultaneously, several national reforms must take place:

Australia’s media monopoly must be broken up, foreign ownership expelled, and all media subjected to volunteer editorial regulatory councils in each community.
Australia must re-adopt democracy, which in contemporary terms means that the community must formulate all government policies. We need to jettison the appalling fraud of government by experts and lobbies, and enable the electorate to determine its own future. Ironically, only Aborigines are calling for Self-Determination.
Politician’s roles need to be reduced to listening posts for the community. The idea that these painfully venal people can do our thinking for us is ludicrous. We need to absorb the reality that 99.99% of all knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, and goodwill resides outside of government… in other words, in the national electorate. The electorate can select one of a range of survey forms with check lists to allocate budget priorities and policy direction options in whatever detail each citizen feels comfortable with.
Foreign corporations and lobbies need to be silenced.
Media election campaigns need to be outlawed.
Political donations must be banned.
Parenting must be restored as the primary source of nurturing of children, and all other agencies must be accorded secondary status under law. Because bureaucratic and 'éxpert' oversights have failed as regulatory entities, this role should be transferred to volunteer community advisory bodies, which can be seconded to legally-enforceble roles as required, or as recommended by local community referenda (as citizen-initated referenda or CIR).