The Most Dangerous Socialist You’ve Never Heard Of: Antonio Gramsci

by on 27 July, 2016

By Celeste Arenas

The mainstream understanding of Marxism is underpinned by its most famous contributors: Marx and Lenin. Many believe in their radicalism, yet they took an unoriginal, cynical and unoriginal view that economic forces drive social and political structures. Instead of arriving at a new conclusion, they repeated an age old stance that strength and influence depends on money and power. If this was the primary understanding of communism, it may have swiftly been tossed aside as a fringe theory and thrown into “the dustbin of history” where it belongs. Instead communism has, and continues to hold, worldwide appeal to millions of people who stand by a theory and ignore its practical outcomes. The reason for this is more complex than Marx and Lenin predicted. It’s attributed to one of the least well known yet possibly most dangerous Marxists of all, Antonio Gramsci, the man who understood the importance of “owning the cultural means of production.

How Brexit Will Make Britain Great Again

by on 25 July, 2016

Written By Daniel Sorluca

It appears that the fear campaign that the Remain camp had adopted during the Brexit Referendum has been exposed to be a massive failure.

In order to realize the implications of Brexit is to understand its history. During the 1970s the foundations of the European Union (EU) were laid down. This came during this period where Britain was experiencing an economic slump, energy rationing, inflation, mass strikes and a loss of identity with is withered away Empire. Then-PM Edward Heath saw salvation in the European Project and thought that refusal to join would make the UK miss out on a place within the new European order. Even Margret Thatcher was initially a devoted European idealist, as she believed that joining the Common Market would benefit British trade and liberalize the economy of Europe. However seven years later, the governing Thatcher Administration had started to become alarmed as they realized that European Project actually intended to undo Thatcherism by stealth as it promised to re-establish all the rights lost for the price of national sovereignty. However, Europeanism further surged during the New Labour government and being the ‘heir to Blair’, the Tory administration of David Cameron. Although Cameron flirted with the Eurosceptic public by offering a ‘cast iron guarantee’ in his 2009 quest of the Prime Ministership, he quickly changed his mind once he became Prime Minister by declaring that it would be the wrong answer for Britain.

Who Is The Real Turnbull?

by on 25 July, 2016

By Daniel Sorluca

The perception of Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull being a representative of Australian libertarianism has proven to be a myth. When dinning with Islamic Leaders of the Lebanese Muslim Association (LMA), the existence of certain Islamic organizations that are unwilling to actively combat their radicalized counterparts but also appear to be unwilling to accept the fact of living within Western nation requires the acceptance of another worldview became apparent.

The “Progression” of Australian Schools

by on 22 July, 2016

Cody Findlay reflects on what progressives have done to our schools, and how they may not in fact, be as progressive as they say.

It’s reported that staff of a girls’ high school in Sydney can no longer refer to their students in a gendered way, and similar rules are considered in schools across the UK. This is to avoid the risks of being sued by possible pan gender, cis gender, gender fluid, gender binary, non-binary, gender dysphoria, inter gender, poly gender, social gender, third gender, transgender students and hurt feelings.

Although only a small percentage of the population identifies as any one of the groups above, a blanket ban of the gender terms ‘girl’, ‘woman’ and ‘ladies’ is under discussion and up for actual legislation. This might be a tad problematic when people enrolling, or simply trying to find this high school on a GPS are banned from referring to it as “Cheltenham Girls.”

But it’s not all bad news, I guess.

Young boys who are smart have an opportunity I never had as a kid! If a teacher can’t even call you a gendered term, there is no chance they will question your gender! Young boys who want the best guy-girl ratio should definitely enrol in Cheltenham Girls’ High. If the teachers start getting suspicious just claim that you are one of those chameleon types of genders that makes you a boy during the day. After that, have a cry and bask in the sea of women the regressive left has given you on a platter. Carpe diem young men.

The next great news for schools came on the same day.

A Sydney primary school has banned clapping “respect students with sensitive hearing.” Students now use ‘Silent cheers’ instead of clapping to express their overwhelming enjoyment when they see a wicked finger painting. The school is actually questioning the legitimacy of clicking ones fingers, humming and whistling while at school.

The pussification of the kids and teenagers in our schools is led by older ‘progressives’ who impose these rules top down. Kids are partly the product of their environment and there are real concerns for the future. Maybe it’s all part of the grand plan, according to progressives, to finally have a reasons to cut military spending? In that case I say it’s well played.

 

 

Sonia Kruger Should Win Free Speech Prize, Not Waleed Aly

by on 21 July, 2016

Erika Salmon uncovers who really deserves a prize for free speech in Australian political discourse.

Waleed Aly is Liberty Victoria’s winner of the 2016 Voltaire Award for free speech. Copying and pasting it from an article he wrote the year before, it doesn’t seem at all deserving nor credible. Waleed Aly has recently become somewhat of the go-to person for commentary on Islam, yet despite his seemingly thoughtful views and opinions, he often skims over serious questions about Islam, dismissing them as unimportant or intentionally provocative. Therefore, it is ironic that he won a prize named after one of the harshest critics of Islam in history, Voltaire, and even more so when he defends governmental intervention into free speech.

Recently on Channel 9, Sonia Kruger expresses some controversial view on Muslim immigration after the attack in Nice. Since then she has been vilified by the media and public alike, demonised as a bigot and racist, but is she? No, she is only scared and has a right to be. After she voiced her stance, she lost a lot of credibility and many of her endorsements are looking to be revoked. Even though people may not necessarily agree with her views, she should have the right to express her thoughts and opinions without being attacked. With the increase of leftist views, PC culture and the overwhelmingly tragic ideology that we must always be tolerable and understanding, and not at all voice an opinion that may or may not offend someone the concept of free speech and freedom of thought has gone out the window.

The Prime Minister in response to Kruger’s statements has said, quite wrongfully, that Australia has had a long non-discriminatory immigration policy. The White Australia policy anyone? Also, it should be reminded that it was the ALP, not the Liberal Party, who defended the White Australia policy so vehemently. However, if we want to include Muslims into our culture, without concerns, it is ultimately up to their willingness to integrate into our society and cast of ideas of militant and religious militancy, that categorises conservative Islam. Sonia Kruger was not wrong to express her views, nor should be persecuted for them and for that reason alone she should win the Voltaire award.

Government Bans Healthy and Safe Alternative: E-Cigarettes

by on 21 July, 2016

Katarina Perkovic outlines where the nanny state has shot it self in the leg, by banning safe and healthy smoking alternatives.

Disregard science and let’s push research further down the priority list – whilst we’re at it, let’s just ban e-cigarettes all together before the market decides where its true place lies.

E-cigarettes are the free market solution for those that want to quit smoking. A study in Nicotine and Tobacco Research has suggested that E-cigarettes could lead to a 21 percent drop in deaths from smoking related diseases in those born after 1997. With the growing popularity of such a product, we know what can be expected – government intervention and more nanny state laws. Australian laws surrounding e-cigarettes are some of the most complex and strict in the world. Whilst freely available as consumer products in the UK, Australia currently has a ban on selling and supplying nicotine e-liquid, due to a historical classification of nicotine as a schedule 7 dangerous poison.

This comes to no surprise, as the Australia public health lobby is notorious for their arrogance in accepting evidence, and their belief that certain people in power know better than the rest for us. All of this of course justifies introducing laws established on the basis of acting ‘for the greater good.’ Aside from the name, there are not many similarities between traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

The Australian Council on Smoking and Health have said that some research shows that whilst e-cigarettes are an effective cessation aid, they can normalise smoking and encourage young people to take up the real thing. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey, where it was found that adolescent use of e-cigarettes was growing at a steady rate, however with this came a drastic drop in use of normal tobacco cigarettes.

An article published in August 2014 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Public Health concluded, “The use of (e-cigarettes) can reduce the number of cigarettes smoked and withdrawal symptoms…”. Cancer Research expert and one of the authors of the Public Health UK study, Linda Bauld, stated that “Fears that e-cigarettes have made smoking seem normal again or even led to people taking up tobacco smoking are not so far being realized… In fact, the overall evidence points to e-cigarettes actually helping people to give up smoking tobacco”.

Increasing laws and regulations surrounding e-cigarettes will only damage the natural process of the free market. Government should be encouraging research, not seizing progress in such a life-saving innovative industry.

Katarina Perkovic is a 2nd year business student currently interning for the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance

 

The Unexpected Cost of Wind Power

by on 20 July, 2016

By Celeste Arenas

South Australia has the highest electricity bills, the highest unemployment, the highest amount of disconnections. This is apparently no coincidence, thank to the counter-productive capacity of wind power.

Known to “draw more power out than they bring in” shows just how “unreliable and ­intermittent wind power is for a state with a renewable ­energy mix of more than 40%.”

This has led to a massive unprecedented price surge in the cost of electricity, going as high as $1000 per megawatt in an hour to even $14,000 per megawatts in an hour.

This prompted an “emergency response” from the SA government to ask an energy company ENGIE to switch its Pelican Point gas power station back on.

It is a dire state of affairs when reliable and affordable electricity for South Australians are put on hold for hollow, ill thought of renewable energy policies.

Taxpayer Funded Tinder for Dogs

by on 20 July, 2016

Cody Findlay gives an inside scoop into tinder for dogs, paid by our taxes!

Great news for all libertarian men out there, you may finally get a match on tinder! This date will cost you less money than your average tinder date. Your companion will be more affectionate; less stuck up and definitely not a vegan hipster. It comes at a cost though, will probably be a tad more hairy (some people like that), smell more and a 50% chance of being a bitch.

It’s finally here folks! Tinder for dogs!

I hope you enjoy it, you helped pay for its development. The Darebin council has awarded this apps owner, Jessica Thomas a $10,000 grant to continue developing Dogshare or ‘tinder for dogs’. Yes I have been a little misleading. You don’t actually date a dog. But it works just like normal tinder where instead of finding another person to go on a date, you find dogs to walk, backyard share and dog sitting.

The government splashed taxpayers hard earned cash to help with Jessica’s pet project (pun intended) to help solve the big problems in our first world society. The Darebin council has collected over $20 million from state and federal governments, so even if you don’t live in Darebin or Victoria, at least you know your money is being well spent.

Maybe if big multinational corporations paid their taxes then local councils might help pay to develop tinder for cats. Just imagine living in a society without tinder for cats. Should we let this happen to society’s most vulnerable. How lonely does a crazy cat lady have to be before society takes action?

Tinder has mainly been dominated by the younger generations but Dogshare is looking into expanding especially into the ‘older’ dog market. This is primarily due to the influx of lonely retired greyhounds that will soon be on the market…
Cody Findlay is a 3rd year Economics and Finance Student and an Associate of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance

The Folly of Plain Packaging: Tim Andrews

by on 18 July, 2016

Cody Findlay discusses some of the points made in ATA Executive Director Tim Andrews’ speech on plain packaging: including its policy failures, contempt for free speech and for intellectual property rights.

Tim Andrews, Executive Director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance, recently made a conclusive speech about tobacco plain packaging; its policy failures and its total disregard for intellectual property rights.

At the heart of plain packaging requirements is a fundamental issue of the restriction of free speech in society. Tim highlights that through plain packaging, the government is able to disregard some companies’ intellectual property rights simply because they disapprove of the product being sold. Everyone knows smoking is bad. But this paternalistic approach that the government gets to limit free speech is “based on the idea that people don’t know what’s good for them.”

Net Payers, Net Receivers, and “Hand Outs”…

by on 18 July, 2016

unnamedStephan Livera discusses how cutting taxes will make us all better off:
Some people treat tax cuts for the rich as though they were ‘hand outs’. This is not an accurate characterisation. It all comes down to what vision of society you subscribe to. Are the things people make theirs to begin with? Or are they collectively owned by default?

Consider the amount of taxation people pay, and the amount they receive back in government benefits. From ABS 6537.0 – Government Benefits, Taxes and Household Income, Australia, 2009-10 (latest issue: 29/06/2012).

See this graph:

net benefits table 3.PNG

‘Final income’ in this case includes transfers and benefits paid by the government. So by assessing the movement up or down from private income to final income, we can understand who has paid more (Net Payer households) vs who receives more back in benefits (Net recipient households). Notice how only the top two quintiles are Net Payers.

Data drawn from this table: