| Australia's Journal of Political Character Assassination | Melbourne, Australia |
SCUM AT THE TOP | Next Issue: 5 Feb 2000 |
| Editor: Harold Hark | Volume 4 Number 1 |
Saturday, 29 January 2000 WHAT'S BELOW:
Halon sales: Unscrupulous as she goes The Federal Government has scored a nice little earner by selling 250 tonnes of the ozone-depleting gas Halon (yesteryear's coolant for fridges and air conditioners) to the US of A. The deal was signed off by none other than John ("Scruples? Is that something you do to powerless children?") Howard, against the wishes of state governments, environment and rural organisations. Not only that, but the nation's Chief Drongo has put Victorian industries offside, because in a rare moment of, y'know, scruples, they got rid of all the Halon infesting their products--at their expense and with no compensation--and replaced it with less lethal stuff. The Halon then went in to a storage bank to be destroyed. So what does Honest John do? He raids the storage bank and makes a cool $9 million For All of Us. If you doubt that, federal Environment Rape Minister, Senator Robert Hill said, "the money from the sale of the gas would be used to advance Australia's fight to protect the ozone layer from further depletion." What a hoot. Gustav Nossal: A veritable Australian of the Year Gustav Nossal truly deserves his title as Australian of the Year for endorsing the right of Aborigines (and the rest of us) to protest at the Olympic Games over the Howard Government's mean-spirited attitude toward reconciliation. The Australian newspaper reports that Nossal, speaking on moves to alert the world to the Howard Government's fundamental disdain for Aboriginals, said the protest .".. is not going to be done in a way to knock down Australia." Exactly. It is not Australia who speaks when John Howard and John "the gentleman racist" Herron continue to thwart reconciliation. The protesting, Nossal said, is "going to be done in a way that will actually bring some pretty nasty facts out into the open and will maybe motivate Australian governments, both state and federal, to...address Aboriginal disadvantages. The current situation is appalling and unjustifiable and unsustainable." Of course the PM and Olympics Minister Michael Knight were quick to respond negatively to this interference with the Games' primary objectives: to show John Howard in a glowing light and to make money. SCATT implores Murrandoo Yanner to bring his own contingent to Sydney for the occasion. HH PM celebrates Australia Day by bludgeoning the hoi polloi True to its image of a Plutocratic Overlord with no regard for its subjects, the Howard Government managed--on Australia Day!--to deport an Algerian over United Nations protests of certain death upon his return to Algeria, and to rub the noses of the unemployed even further into the trickle down excrement served by its policy makers. As Tony Wright says in The Age, "It is now clear how the Federal Government hopes to make good Peter Costello's brazen claim that every Australian who wants a job could get one within four years. It is simply going to wipe unemployment from public view." New dole tests will require unemployed people in city areas to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight, up from six or eight, and people in regional areas to apply for six jobs, up from two or four. Of course the fact that there are still no jobs to be had is the conveniently forgotten half of John Howard's notorious "social contract of mutual obligation." According to The Age, Community Services Minister, Larry Anthony, said that "any job was better than none," and "just because you don't like [a job] is not a valid reason" to quit. As Tony Wright says in his article, this move "contains more than a whiff of the old 'get the dole bludgers off their bums.'" And it barely conceals the attitude of those in power that the lower castes are little more than fodder at the bidding of the elite. Was this the government's way of celebrating Australia Day? Are they dissociated to the point of requiring psychiatric help? SCATT believes that the Larval Party has no conscience, and thus no real idea of the consequences of its mean, socially devolutionary policies. We also believe that the National Party is to some extent free of the Larval Party's inept emulation of Machiavelli. Regarding the dole fiasco, National Party MP, Ian Causley, has gone on record saying, "the unemployed should be stripped of dole payments if they refused to move to where there was work." This is the simpleton ignorance typical of Nationals the country over. If you are a dumb shit, you have no way of gauging the brightness of others so you must assume that they are dumb shits too. Tony Wright points out the cost and stress of moving from the country to the city, where the jobs are. He says, " Consider a country family whose one asset is a house worth $50,000 or less. Average house prices in the big cities are now $200,000 and up." Speechwriters put the right words in their mouths, or even worse, they flow spontaneously--didn't the Prime Miniature (hats off to The Zeitgeist Gazette) wax on about how "the greatest privilege on earth was to be an Australian"--but the words mean nothing. The one and only agenda for the Larval Party is the subjugation of the masses to the whims of political and economic elitism. Sound hyperbolic? They don't want us to starve like their predecessors in China and the Soviet Union, but they want us to keep quiet, to follow and obey. And they think they are so clever. But there is not an intelligent mind among the lot. It would never have occurred to them that these two actions on Australia Day would be noticed. Partly because they are too caught up in their small-minded agendas, but mostly because they are blind to the world around them. We've asked the question before. Where is the person who will write the book of evil deeds perpetrated upon the people of Australia by the Howard and Kennett Governments? HH Ancien régime rides again: When will workers drop the guillotine on them? Paul Anderson, the feeble-voiced Chief Executive of BHP, spoke to the ABC's AM this week in the well-trained Feudalese we've come to expect from cold blooded suits in high places. Equating individual contracts with the way it is in today's global world, he advised the unions to get with the times and sign up. A few minutes later, ACTU secretary-elect, Greg Combet, came on to correct this misconception by noting that individual contracts were the big thing in the 1890's, when workers had no rights. Indeed, it has been a century-long battle to preserve collective bargaining against repeated attacks by the lords of commerce. But the battle is older than a century. We tend to forget that while local, civil and world wars come and go, there is one war that has been raging non-stop since time began: The war between employer/masters and employee/servants. Despite occasional lulls it has never been far from the agenda of those who consider themselves chosen to rule. With the election of the rabid right wing government of John Howard in 1996, the battle in Australia began again in dead earnest. It beggars belief that any grown man or woman could swallow the lie put out by Peter Reith and big business that individual contracts could possibly be good for any worker. No single worker has any leverage against the corporation or small business he or she works for, full stop. Then why have 50 per cent of workers in the Pilbara signed them? Anderson nailed the answer forthwith: they want peace in the valley. They just want to get on with their lives, to collect their paychecks, to light the barby on the weekends with a minimum of hassles. People who work long hours for little return do not need the constant fear imposed upon them of wage reductions, lay-offs, downsizing, or careless attention to safety. To this end, they are willing to turn a blind eye to the ominous signs coming from the top. Their reluctance to assess the ultimate intentions of their employers has been an eternal boon to the tyrants of politics and business, who can always count on the hesitation of workers to man the barricades. Acting in one's best interests takes courage and a willingness to suffer for outcomes. Without this cyclical stand, the lords of industry will keep pursuing their relentless agenda of wage/benefits reduction. In the depths of his elitist heart, Paul Anderson would love nothing better than a powerless workforce on individual contracts, with each individual cowering and obeisant in the best Stalinist tradition. Peter Reith, John Howard's wind-up fascist who is in charge of returning worker's rights to the nineteenth century, can pass all the industrial laws he wants, but if the workers refuse to abide by them, they are worthless. HH Let them eat GSTampons on Feb 25 Enough is enough and, if HH were a woman, he would join his sisters in menstruation who are contemplating the deliverance to Winston's Wowsers of the fruits of their monthly discharges. Either by mailing them to prominent Larvals (Dr Evil in particular) in parcels lovingly gift wrapped with scenes of bunnies and puppies--you know, the kind of scenery beloved of Lyons Forum Christians--or deftly deposited on the fauteuils of their local Larval Member. It's clearly time for action on all fronts against this government, and gift-wrapping used tampons and napkins could be one of the best. To say that incontinence nappies are health products while sanitary products are not is to put a fine point on ignorance. One is the result of biological dysfunction, while the other is not. But they both can make a hell of a mess. The Blueblood comments of Michael "Viper Eyes" Wooldridge must be a call to the greatest gift an outraged woman can give to a man who is so utterly clueless. To equate shaving equipment with tampons is a good idea of where this government is at with regard to the people it purportedly serves. Of course, the issue here is not whether to exempt items which prevent menstrual blood from anointing our footpaths as does spat beetle juice in dear old Hindustan. Nor is it, as newspaper editorials would have it, exemptions in general. The issue is a GST no one really wants. How it ever got passed is a subject for future researches into the ramifications of Faustian/Machiavellian deals. With or without her comprehension, Meg Lees will forever be consigned to the Hall of Infamy for her unnecessary complicity. As for John Howard, well, he will simply be known as the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. HH ADDENDUM: Susan Mitchell, writing in The Australian, 31/1/00, shows HH to be just another uncomprehending man, if well intentioned. She says, "As Michael Wooldridge's immediate but honest response highlighted, [tampons are] about women's experiences not really counting. If menstruation has nothing to do with men, then it simply is not an issue. If men were forced to bleed once a month, then of course it would become a sacrament." Amen. Winston's Wowsers wouldn't know a "Romance" from a tax table Is anyone keeping tabs on John Howard's efforts to embarrass Australia in the eyes of the world? The latest is the banning of the French film "Romance." His conservative padded OFLC has seen fit, by a vote of 9 to 8, to deprive non-Larval's (those of us who can think for ourselves) of seeing a movie that deals explicitly with female sexuality from the female point of view. That must have really got up their pinch-faced noses. As any Larval knows, female sexuality only exists for men to grunt on and roll off when finished. The rest of us, however, are quite happy with for women to be responsible for their own bodies and especially their own sexuality. "Romance" now joins Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo" as the only banned films in this country. But wait, there will be more. "Salo" enjoyed a brief liberalisation a few years back, and was shown in various obscure art houses. It was an unsavoury film, but certainly one that should not have been banned. In the end the conservatives are uncomfortable with it because it showed the depravities that Mussolini's Fascist government got into when they knew the jig was up. It is the same collapse of pseudo morality that any right wing government might face when it finally relaxes it's sphincter-squeezing adherence to impossible codes of morality, when it knows there are no longer any votes to be won by invoking two-faced platitudes about "family values." "Romance" is nothing if not a groundbreaking film. It is the first of its kind. It uses actual rather than simulated sex. But hang on, what is the difference to the viewer? Simulated sex conjures up actual sex, does it not? Anyone who has ever had sex will surely appreciate a little honesty for a change. The film industry routinely shows us violence we have never even contemplated, but the act of sex, which we have all shared, is still cause for outrage. What gives? Are we still walking around on all fours, or is it just that conservatives want us to. Beyond real diddling "Romance" gives us an erect penis. Why is this so horrifying? Men have been reported to flee the theatres at the sight of it. Guess who they vote for. It also shows fellatio and cunnilingus. You may or not know this, but in the state of Georgia, USA, there is still a law on the books that will put a man in prison if caught muff diving, even on his own wife! Would John Howard, Tony Abbot and Brian Harridine like to see such laws in Australia? Have no doubts in your mind about that. Things get dicey when the film portrays bondage and rape. Yet when one of the dailies asked six different people of both sexes off the street to view the film, none voted for censorship. Therefore the bondage and rape MUST have a context within the film. It is up to the viewer to decide if it is gratuitous or not. I have not seen "Romance" because John Howard won't let me, but I'll wager that the scenes of bondage and rape are not gratuitous. Forms of bondage, mild or otherwise, are sometimes engaged in by couples during the life of their sexual relationship. As for rape, you tell me what it is when a man demands his wife submit to a beer-breathed root and then falls off minutes later while she stares into the darkness. Let us see what Breillat does with rape! And then there is a closeup of a baby being born. Is this frightening to the censorious? Have the kind of people who regularly engage in censorship ever been present at a birth? What the Larvals don't realise is that, in the words of the Breillat, "The power of giving life links women to eternity and to the sacred, which men haven't got, which is why they've invented hell and religion." "Romance" is playing all over the world, including Turkey (!) and South Korea. Its ban in Australia is the tip of an iceberg that John Howard's cold heart is forming to shame this nation in the year 2000. Icily adhering to it are the asinine censorship of the Internet (soon to face a high court challenge) and the hysterically confusing guidelines being applied to sex oriented magazines and tabloids. The White Picket Fascists are trying to put sex out of business. They won't succeed--they never have--but wouldn't that be a great way to turn us off life and on to the kind of robotic consumerism that thrills them so. A Nation of Pinheads whose peak experiences revolve around tax adventures and watching toddler-oriented commercials on content-deprived television. (Reference: Chrissy Iley, "Romance in the Raw," The Weekend Australian, January 22-23, 2000.) HH Addendum: The ban has been reversed. "Romance" will be playing in Melbourne theatres the end of February. |
SCUM AT THE TOP is not copyrighted and may be used in whole or in part for any purpose the reader chooses.
Published and distributed by the Political Prisoners of the Future.