Apropos of the bromancer and Kimmel yesterday, the pond only caught up with this later... Joe Rogan Trashes ‘Ridiculous’ Backlash to Kimmel’s Melania Joke: ‘Nobody Gave a Sh*t!’
Even the MMA battered, delirious brain of a man who did much to help elect King Donald thought it was a load of hooey ...
... “So it’s on Thursday, and this is Carolla’s point, and it’s a really good point, no one gave a sh*t on Friday. It came out on Thursday, no one cared on Friday, no one cared on Saturday, until Saturday night when there was an assassination attempt and then all of a sudden everyone’s blaming Kimmel.”
Shaffir quipped that it was “funny” how the right had now resorted to tactics that he said were typical of the left.
“It’s the same sh*t!” Rogan said.
Shaffir quipped that it was “funny” how the right had now resorted to tactics that he said were typical of the left.
“It’s the same sh*t!” Rogan said.
And so on to King Donald part II, with Polonius cheerfully prattling away for the pond's Sunday meditation ..
The header: Reckless ‘fascist’ label against Donald Trump risks fuelling the fire of political violence; Academic Anna Funder has branded the US President a fascist, but such political hyperbole threatens democratic discourse and potentially incites violence.
The caption: Protesters push an effigy of, from left, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. during a May Day rally in Manila. Picture: AP
The pond has taken to heart the Polonial admonishment.
Clearly labelling King Donald a fascist is reckless and needlessly drags Godwin's Law into the morass.
The pond much prefers the simpler, more endearing terms of king or emperor, though on some days it seems as if authoritarian dictator might help. King Donald certainly loves to keep himself company with certified dictators of the Vlad the Sociopath kind, and does what he can to help them, as he's currently doing for Vlad in Ukraine.
There are more than superficial similarities in style.
Apart from that fixation with splattering gold on everything, there's the architecture, up there with anything Speer devised for Adolf, and there's the love of art... especially statues ...
Of course that statue was just another part of the grifter/scam model which does with minions aping their betters... (here)
...It is now in place at Trump National Doral, one of the president's clubs in Miami.
While it is on display at a Trump property, it was bankrolled by a cryptocurrency group named $PATRIOT.
It was made by Ohio sculptor Alan Cottrill, who was locked in a legal dispute with the cryptocurrency group over its use.
Cottrill took issue with $PATRIOT using the statue to promote its business selling a memecoin.
The company paid Cottrill about $A500,000 for the statue.
But despite being on display at Doral, the Trump family has made clear they are not involved in $PATRIOT.
While it is on display at a Trump property, it was bankrolled by a cryptocurrency group named $PATRIOT.
It was made by Ohio sculptor Alan Cottrill, who was locked in a legal dispute with the cryptocurrency group over its use.
Cottrill took issue with $PATRIOT using the statue to promote its business selling a memecoin.
The company paid Cottrill about $A500,000 for the statue.
But despite being on display at Doral, the Trump family has made clear they are not involved in $PATRIOT.
So much grift and so many grifters and so maybe Polonius is right ... maybe Xi, Putin and the Dear Leader Kim are better role models ... or perhaps CEO of "Robber Barons Inc"
Whatever, time for Polonius...
It’s just over two decades since British-American historian Michael Mann wrote this in his 2004 book, Fascists: “As a word usage today, it appears largely as the exclamation ‘Fascist!’ – a term of imprecise abuse hurled at people we do not like.”
I was reminded of this last Thursday when The Sydney Morning Herald carried a story by Jacqueline Maley about the appointment of Anna Funder to a professorship at the University of Sydney. Funder is perhaps best known for her important book Stasiland, about the former communist regime in East Germany that was effectively created by the Joseph Stalin-led Soviet Union.
It is reasonable to expect that Funder, as an authority on communist totalitarianism, would have significant understanding of Nazi and fascist totalitarianism as practised by the regimes headed by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Germany and Italy, respectively. But apparently not.
Funder’s new role is to focus on creative writing at the time of artificial intelligence and social media. But she also sees her task as making a stand against President Donald J. Trump, telling Maley: “You can see … how Trump and other fascists I have studied have gone for universities because they are places where the new, important and challenging thinking is happening.”
Funder went on to state: “Trump is a lot more personally corrupt than many other fascist leaders.” And added that the Trump administration was “capitalism with fascistic characteristics” – whatever that might mean.
Maley is no political conservative. But she saw the need to comment that “there is a debate about whether it is appropriate to use the ‘f’ word – fascist – to describe the US president”. Quite so. But Funder was not for turning.
I was reminded of this last Thursday when The Sydney Morning Herald carried a story by Jacqueline Maley about the appointment of Anna Funder to a professorship at the University of Sydney. Funder is perhaps best known for her important book Stasiland, about the former communist regime in East Germany that was effectively created by the Joseph Stalin-led Soviet Union.
It is reasonable to expect that Funder, as an authority on communist totalitarianism, would have significant understanding of Nazi and fascist totalitarianism as practised by the regimes headed by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Germany and Italy, respectively. But apparently not.
Funder’s new role is to focus on creative writing at the time of artificial intelligence and social media. But she also sees her task as making a stand against President Donald J. Trump, telling Maley: “You can see … how Trump and other fascists I have studied have gone for universities because they are places where the new, important and challenging thinking is happening.”
Funder went on to state: “Trump is a lot more personally corrupt than many other fascist leaders.” And added that the Trump administration was “capitalism with fascistic characteristics” – whatever that might mean.
Maley is no political conservative. But she saw the need to comment that “there is a debate about whether it is appropriate to use the ‘f’ word – fascist – to describe the US president”. Quite so. But Funder was not for turning.
And yet how delusional is the emperor/king? Pretty, pretty gone ...
Trump is focused on becoming one of history’s “great men.”
Had President Trump, we wondered, possibly been reading or at least thumbing through—just maybe—the works of … Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel?
Impossible. And yet. Hegel’s theory of “world-historical individuals,” men who redirected the course of humanity, focused on three figures: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Hegel described them as unlikely “heroes of an Epoch” for upending established orders that had previously seemed fixed. They were “practical, political men” who were each condemned in their age for smashing norms and for other conduct “obnoxious to moral reprehension”—as Trump has been accused of, centuries later.
And though Trump has long compared himself to America’s two greatest presidents, we were recently told by two people who are in a position to know such things—a senior administration official and a longtime Trump confidant—that the president had, in private conversations, begun thinking about himself less as a peer of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and more as an addition to Hegel’s immortal trifecta.
“He’s been talking recently about how he is the most powerful person to ever live,” the confidant told us. “He wants to be remembered as the one who did things that other people couldn’t do, because of his sheer power and force of will.”
That's a familiar concept. There was a movie celebrating the notion, Triumph des Willens.
Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon? Why not, so much better than referencing modern fascists.
And so Polonius sees his task as making a stand for the fatted golden Napoleonic beast, and bows at his feet...
Polonius next turned to the topic familiar to readers of the Australian Daily Jewish News...
Before taking up her position, Funder worked at the nearby University of Technology Sydney. As such, she would have had a reasonable idea of what was going on at her new employer. Rampant antisemitism, in fact. Engaged in by academics, students and campus visitors (including some activists from the radical Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir).
In late September 2024, University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott told the Senate’s Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities that he and the university had “failed” its Jewish academics and students. Scott did not offer his resignation.
Despite this, Funder told Maley “we are lucky to have extremely good universities in this country”.
Well, that’s true. But Funder overlooks the fact that many Australian campuses are dangerous places for Jewish Australians and are taxpayer-subsidised institutions hostile to political conservatives. Especially in the areas of social sciences.
Funder understood the brutality of East Germany’s secret police, the Stasi. But she has scant self-awareness about the intolerance of her fellow members of the left intelligentsia in this country and elsewhere.
In recent times, The Australian has reported that the Jewish Australian Michael Gawenda, a one-time editor of The Age in Melbourne, can no longer get published in the newspaper he once edited.
And Janet Albrechtsen has covered the fact that well-regarded feminist academic Catharine Lumby was “cancelled” after having accepted an invitation to address a What Were You Wearing Australia gathering. Apparently, some members of the left objected to Lumby’s concern about antisemitism in Australia.
Funder has a following at various literary festivals. Anyone who honestly examines the program of such events in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne will know they are essentially leftist stacks in which, on rare occasions, a token conservative gets a guernsey.
Whatever may have been true in days gone by, today the political right-of-centre is more tolerant than the political left-of-centre. Moreover, conservatives do not control the debate in the universities, schools and other educational institutions. The same is true in large sections of the media.
Gawenda has identified The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Guardian Australia and the ABC as comprising the “left liberal media” that failed to accurately report antisemitism in Australia following Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Indeed, antisemitism in Australia was on the increase before Israel entered its defensive war in Gaza.
The situation in many Western democracies has come to this. Leading politicians, such as Trump, who support the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and take a stance against antisemitism, are frequently described as fascists or Nazis, while those on the other side of the debate are depicted as “progressives”.
In late September 2024, University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott told the Senate’s Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities that he and the university had “failed” its Jewish academics and students. Scott did not offer his resignation.
Despite this, Funder told Maley “we are lucky to have extremely good universities in this country”.
Well, that’s true. But Funder overlooks the fact that many Australian campuses are dangerous places for Jewish Australians and are taxpayer-subsidised institutions hostile to political conservatives. Especially in the areas of social sciences.
Funder understood the brutality of East Germany’s secret police, the Stasi. But she has scant self-awareness about the intolerance of her fellow members of the left intelligentsia in this country and elsewhere.
In recent times, The Australian has reported that the Jewish Australian Michael Gawenda, a one-time editor of The Age in Melbourne, can no longer get published in the newspaper he once edited.
And Janet Albrechtsen has covered the fact that well-regarded feminist academic Catharine Lumby was “cancelled” after having accepted an invitation to address a What Were You Wearing Australia gathering. Apparently, some members of the left objected to Lumby’s concern about antisemitism in Australia.
Funder has a following at various literary festivals. Anyone who honestly examines the program of such events in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne will know they are essentially leftist stacks in which, on rare occasions, a token conservative gets a guernsey.
Whatever may have been true in days gone by, today the political right-of-centre is more tolerant than the political left-of-centre. Moreover, conservatives do not control the debate in the universities, schools and other educational institutions. The same is true in large sections of the media.
Gawenda has identified The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Guardian Australia and the ABC as comprising the “left liberal media” that failed to accurately report antisemitism in Australia following Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Indeed, antisemitism in Australia was on the increase before Israel entered its defensive war in Gaza.
The situation in many Western democracies has come to this. Leading politicians, such as Trump, who support the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and take a stance against antisemitism, are frequently described as fascists or Nazis, while those on the other side of the debate are depicted as “progressives”.
But surely King Donald qualifies as royalty in his own way?
Susan B. Glasser intimated in The New Yorker that there were briefly two kings in the country, but only one knew how to be kingly ...
In Trump’s America, It Takes a King to Praise Democracy (*intermittent archive link)
Reflections on Charles’s state visit.
Reflections on Charles’s state visit.
Two hundred and fifty years into the American experiment, it turns out that it takes a King to tell us how to run our Republic.
On Tuesday, His Majesty King Charles III, the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of George III, the British monarch who lost the Revolutionary War to a bunch of impertinent colonists enamored of Enlightenment ideas about the natural rights of man, spoke to the U.S. Congress. With dry wit and a sense of irony that was surely lost on the host he so subtly trolled, Charles extolled the virtues of American-style liberal democracy now under threat by America’s own leader. What does it say about our current politics that polite British-accented clichĂ©s about the benefits of the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the strengths that flow from “vibrant, diverse, and free societies” could end up sounding downright subversive?
The King’s biggest applause line was a tribute to Magna Carta, the thirteenth-century compact between an English monarch and his restive nobles, which, Charles noted, has become a pillar of American constitutional jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court citing it at least a hundred and sixty times in its history, not least to establish “the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.” It was a telling sign of our dysfunctional times that members of Congress from both parties, having been increasingly iced out of decision-making by a President claiming unprecedented executive power for himself, immediately rose for a standing ovation. There were whoops and cheers and what appeared to be grins of amazement at the King’s cheek.
Did it matter that Donald Trump did not get the joke?
Even as Charles was speaking, Trump’s White House posted on social media an image of the two men with the caption “TWO KINGS. đź‘‘” .
On Tuesday, His Majesty King Charles III, the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of George III, the British monarch who lost the Revolutionary War to a bunch of impertinent colonists enamored of Enlightenment ideas about the natural rights of man, spoke to the U.S. Congress. With dry wit and a sense of irony that was surely lost on the host he so subtly trolled, Charles extolled the virtues of American-style liberal democracy now under threat by America’s own leader. What does it say about our current politics that polite British-accented clichĂ©s about the benefits of the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the strengths that flow from “vibrant, diverse, and free societies” could end up sounding downright subversive?
The King’s biggest applause line was a tribute to Magna Carta, the thirteenth-century compact between an English monarch and his restive nobles, which, Charles noted, has become a pillar of American constitutional jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court citing it at least a hundred and sixty times in its history, not least to establish “the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.” It was a telling sign of our dysfunctional times that members of Congress from both parties, having been increasingly iced out of decision-making by a President claiming unprecedented executive power for himself, immediately rose for a standing ovation. There were whoops and cheers and what appeared to be grins of amazement at the King’s cheek.
Did it matter that Donald Trump did not get the joke?
Even as Charles was speaking, Trump’s White House posted on social media an image of the two men with the caption “TWO KINGS. đź‘‘” .
Later that evening, during a toast at a state dinner for his royal visitor, Trump praised his “fantastic” speech and lauded Charles for accomplishing what he could not—getting Democrats to stand and applaud him. He seemed utterly oblivious to why they had done so, and remained apparently unaware for the rest of the King’s trip. “He’s a great King,” Trump said on Thursday, at the conclusion of the state visit. “The greatest King, in my book.”
Of course wannabe kings and pale faux imitations of kings can have fascist inclinations, as Glasser noted...
Trump spent the rest of the week proving Charles’s point about unchecked powers, with his Justice Department indicting the former F.B.I. director James Comey, for a social-media post of seashells—which prosecutors improbably claim constituted a threat on the President’s life—and his Federal Communications Commission ordering a review of the broadcast licenses for ABC stations just days after the comedian Jimmy Kimmel had used the network’s airwaves to make a joke that the First Lady did not like.
So here we are, two and a half centuries later, with a King who venerates the American Bill of Rights and a President who, increasingly, rejects it. It hardly seemed a coincidence that, on the same day as the King’s speech, reports emerged about the Trump State Department’s plans to honor America’s two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary with a commemorative passport whose distinguishing feature will be a large likeness of the President. Watching Trump and Charles together this week, I could not help but think of the bizarre contrast between the public modesty of the crowned monarch and the pomposity of the self-styled populist President; of these two, it’s not George III’s heir who is the one planning to erect golden statues of himself in his palaces.
So here we are, two and a half centuries later, with a King who venerates the American Bill of Rights and a President who, increasingly, rejects it. It hardly seemed a coincidence that, on the same day as the King’s speech, reports emerged about the Trump State Department’s plans to honor America’s two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary with a commemorative passport whose distinguishing feature will be a large likeness of the President. Watching Trump and Charles together this week, I could not help but think of the bizarre contrast between the public modesty of the crowned monarch and the pomposity of the self-styled populist President; of these two, it’s not George III’s heir who is the one planning to erect golden statues of himself in his palaces.
Precisely. The pond has never thought much of Comey, and certainly doesn't have the regard the man has for himself, but for this you might be up for ten years in the slammer?
Then Polonius came up with a grotesque attempt at point scoring:
Among the Western democracies, politically motivated violence on both sides of the political divide is most prevalent in the US. In recent times, this has seen assassination attempts directed at Trump. But not his predecessors Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Wrong. To cite just one example, Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver (aka things to do in Denver when you're dead).
It turns out, in the bog standard reptile way that it's all the fault of Democrats and lefties...
Anyone who understands real fascism and real Nazism would know that Trump is not a Nazi or a fascist. No political leader can be a fascist in a functioning democracy. And the US is a democracy, despite what some left activists may say.
Trump is neither a dictator nor a king. If he were either, he would not be facing midterm elections in November in which the Republicans could lose control of their majority in the House of Representatives. It’s easy for the likes of Democrats such as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to cry “fascist!” in the political theatre at Trump. But it’s meaningless jargon.
The problem is that the political hyperbole of a Harris or Walz can encourage a young man such as Cole Allen, who has been accused of attempting to assassinate the US President in Washington DC last Saturday.
Allen’s 1000-word manifesto reads like an extremist leftist tract. Allen knew he could die in the attack that targeted Trump’s “administration officials … from the highest-ranking to the lowest”. The alleged shooter declared he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes”.
Now, Trump is none of these things. But his left-wing political enemies claim otherwise. And so Allen went into self-declared “rage”.
It’s an old saying that words are weapons. Asserting that a democratically elected politician is a “fascist” or a “rapist” are words that can motivate a crime of rage. The real enemies of free speech these days happen to include some who see fascism in others.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.
Trump is neither a dictator nor a king. If he were either, he would not be facing midterm elections in November in which the Republicans could lose control of their majority in the House of Representatives. It’s easy for the likes of Democrats such as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to cry “fascist!” in the political theatre at Trump. But it’s meaningless jargon.
The problem is that the political hyperbole of a Harris or Walz can encourage a young man such as Cole Allen, who has been accused of attempting to assassinate the US President in Washington DC last Saturday.
Allen’s 1000-word manifesto reads like an extremist leftist tract. Allen knew he could die in the attack that targeted Trump’s “administration officials … from the highest-ranking to the lowest”. The alleged shooter declared he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes”.
Now, Trump is none of these things. But his left-wing political enemies claim otherwise. And so Allen went into self-declared “rage”.
It’s an old saying that words are weapons. Asserting that a democratically elected politician is a “fascist” or a “rapist” are words that can motivate a crime of rage. The real enemies of free speech these days happen to include some who see fascism in others.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.
And yet ...
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll (*intermittent archive link)
After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.
Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.
“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.
“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
You won't find many common understandings in Polonius or the rest of the reptile pack, though it's noteworthy that Polonius didn't even attempt to slip in a few bromancer style-billy goat butts.
Instead he was all in on the golden fatted Napoleonic/Caesar beast ...
And so to the losers, also rans, dropkicks and others that the pond couldn't be bothered dealing with this meditative Sunday.
Being the Australian Daily Zionist News, the reptiles felt the urgent need to import a Pom...
London left’s anti-Israel obsession endangers Jews in Britain
Progressive activists who condemn minor slights have remained silent as synagogues burn and Jewish people face violent attacks across Britain.
By Brendan O'Neill
Columnist
Progressive activists who condemn minor slights have remained silent as synagogues burn and Jewish people face violent attacks across Britain.
By Brendan O'Neill
Columnist
As previously noted, Brendan was ably supported by garrulous Gemma ...
The trauma we allow for everyone — except Aussie Jews
How can the Jewish community ‘get over’ the Holocaust when modern events mirror 1938?
By Gemma Tognini
Columnist
How can the Jewish community ‘get over’ the Holocaust when modern events mirror 1938?
By Gemma Tognini
Columnist
Sadly pressure of space decided the dog botherer's fate, but here's the intermittent archive link for those determined to catch up.
I’m still not wrong about the voice, but I was wrong about Sam Mostyn
On Anzac Day, the Governor-General showed how to honour Indigenous culture without division. Then came the booing, revealing an uglier truth about post-voice Australia.
By Chris Kenny
On Anzac Day, the Governor-General showed how to honour Indigenous culture without division. Then came the booing, revealing an uglier truth about post-voice Australia.
By Chris Kenny
And speaking of reptiles who like to disappear up their fundament, Dame Slap was at it again ...
Why every sacked worker now sounds like Jackie ‘O’
Adverse action claims: the new goldmine for disgruntled workers
If you enact laws that represent a one-way bet for the unscrupulous to make money, don’t be surprised if you get knocked over in the rush.
By Janet Albrechtsen
Adverse action claims: the new goldmine for disgruntled workers
If you enact laws that represent a one-way bet for the unscrupulous to make money, don’t be surprised if you get knocked over in the rush.
By Janet Albrechtsen
Everyone sounds like Jackie 'O' on a$100 million year package?
Oy vey, we should all be so lucky.
But why do they sound like a woman? Why don't they sound like a Kyle?
You guessed it. Dame Slap prefers to give women a good slapping.
Perhaps she even keeps a grapefruit near her keyboard to remind herself how that sort of violence should be done..
And so to jihad Jennie, waging her never ending war on renewables, the electro state and whatever else you've got...
The header: Australia on wrong track as energy crisis exposes shocking policy failures;As global shocks hit supply, Australia’s dependence on imports and policy choices are under scrutiny — raising questions about energy independence.
The caption for the snap featuring the sort of installation which produces a state of rapture in your average reptile: Australia’s shrinking refining capacity has increased reliance on imported fuels. Picture: NewsWire/ David Crosling
On the plus side, jihad Jennie could only summon up a three minute read, which is way better than having to endure ten minutes of the Ughmann.
On the down side, jihad Jennie is a pale imitation of a dedicated fanatic of the Ughmann kind.
Perhaps that's why the reptiles decided not to interrupt with visual distractions, and instead left her to maunder along.
The pond didn't have the heart to interrupt either. It's all so heartbreakingly familiar, such an endless regurgitation featuring the same bees buzzing in the denialist bonnet...
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said “a country that can’t feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options”. It was a simple message with great force, one that provides a benchmark for our energy future.
Once the Strait of Hormuz closed, the unfolding energy crisis exposed our vulnerability. Anthony Albanese travelled to Asian neighbours, cap in hand, to secure additional supplies of petrol, diesel, jet fuel and urea. Trading on our reliability as a gas exporter reinforced the indispensable role of fossil fuels.
Diesel, the industrial fuel, powers freight, agriculture, construction, mining, defence and emergency services. It’s not optional. When diesel stops, Australia stops.
This lesson was lost on Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who claimed “there isn’t one country in the world that said ‘we need more fossil fuels’ … that conversation was not being had anywhere in the world”. Bowen is COP’s chief negotiator promoting the phasing out of fossil fuels, and the conflict of interest is clear.
Despite years of demonising fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil still account for 91 per cent of the energy that runs the country. Wind, solar and batteries will never replace everything that’s done by them. The evidence didn’t stop another minister claiming “the world’s moved on in terms of energy security”. It’s why Labor’s wishful thinking, so divorced from reality, left us ill prepared for this energy crisis.
Decisions of previous governments, of both political persuasions, also contributed to our predicament. It began with Australia’s growing dependence on imported fuels. Bowen’s recent argument that “the time to save the refineries was between 2013 and 2022 when they were closing” overlooks an inconvenient fact.
Announcements to close the two NSW refineries occurred on the watch of the Gillard Labor government – Clyde in July 2011 and Kurnell a year later – when Bowen and Albanese were cabinet ministers. Bowen’s suggestion that “it’s a lot cheaper to intervene, to save the refinery while it’s still there than to rebuild one after it’s been dismantled” was not on offer when it mattered most. Perhaps it could have prevented the nation being left with only two refineries and NSW with none.
Back then resources and energy minister Martin Ferguson claimed Kurnell’s closure “will not jeopardise Australia’s energy security”. This was “nonsensical”, according to Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes, who said: “If you can’t refine, you can’t run your nation in times of crisis.” The AWU’s proposal for an east coast gas reservation also was rejected. It’s cold comfort that Howes was prescient. Years later both issues are still on the political agenda.
The International Energy Agency requires fuel-importing nations to reserve 90 days of fuel onshore, accessible in the event of global emergencies. Australia hasn’t met this obligation since 2012. Having taken the policy to the 2019 election, the Albanese government was reminded of its obligation in the IEA’s 2023 country report.
With Labor’s commitment to an energy transition based on intermittent, weather-dependent renewables, a strategic fuel reserve should have been a priority. In December 2025, we had reserved just 49 days, compared with an average 141 days for comparable import nations. Australia stood out as the only laggard.
Labor’s attitude to international obligations reflects its ideological priorities. The Paris Agreement is sacrosanct, even though we contribute just 1.15 per cent of global emissions. The billions spent subsidising the renewables transition are often off-budget, kept from public scrutiny, despite Labor’s promised transparency.
Cost factors are the usual defence for not meeting our IEA obligations and losing our refining capacity. Yet the costs flowing from the fuel crisis will be far greater: higher power bills, higher inflation, interest rate increases, the underwriting of fuel purchases and excise cuts. This crisis will leave a long tail.
Business as usual won’t serve our national interest. Doubling down on Labor’s transition plans will lead only to more of the same. There’s now the added issue of our reliance on imports, often from China, for the renewables infrastructure. These supply chains are deeply embedded in geopolitical realities that can’t be wished away.
Once the Strait of Hormuz closed, the unfolding energy crisis exposed our vulnerability. Anthony Albanese travelled to Asian neighbours, cap in hand, to secure additional supplies of petrol, diesel, jet fuel and urea. Trading on our reliability as a gas exporter reinforced the indispensable role of fossil fuels.
Diesel, the industrial fuel, powers freight, agriculture, construction, mining, defence and emergency services. It’s not optional. When diesel stops, Australia stops.
This lesson was lost on Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who claimed “there isn’t one country in the world that said ‘we need more fossil fuels’ … that conversation was not being had anywhere in the world”. Bowen is COP’s chief negotiator promoting the phasing out of fossil fuels, and the conflict of interest is clear.
Despite years of demonising fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil still account for 91 per cent of the energy that runs the country. Wind, solar and batteries will never replace everything that’s done by them. The evidence didn’t stop another minister claiming “the world’s moved on in terms of energy security”. It’s why Labor’s wishful thinking, so divorced from reality, left us ill prepared for this energy crisis.
Decisions of previous governments, of both political persuasions, also contributed to our predicament. It began with Australia’s growing dependence on imported fuels. Bowen’s recent argument that “the time to save the refineries was between 2013 and 2022 when they were closing” overlooks an inconvenient fact.
Announcements to close the two NSW refineries occurred on the watch of the Gillard Labor government – Clyde in July 2011 and Kurnell a year later – when Bowen and Albanese were cabinet ministers. Bowen’s suggestion that “it’s a lot cheaper to intervene, to save the refinery while it’s still there than to rebuild one after it’s been dismantled” was not on offer when it mattered most. Perhaps it could have prevented the nation being left with only two refineries and NSW with none.
Back then resources and energy minister Martin Ferguson claimed Kurnell’s closure “will not jeopardise Australia’s energy security”. This was “nonsensical”, according to Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes, who said: “If you can’t refine, you can’t run your nation in times of crisis.” The AWU’s proposal for an east coast gas reservation also was rejected. It’s cold comfort that Howes was prescient. Years later both issues are still on the political agenda.
The International Energy Agency requires fuel-importing nations to reserve 90 days of fuel onshore, accessible in the event of global emergencies. Australia hasn’t met this obligation since 2012. Having taken the policy to the 2019 election, the Albanese government was reminded of its obligation in the IEA’s 2023 country report.
With Labor’s commitment to an energy transition based on intermittent, weather-dependent renewables, a strategic fuel reserve should have been a priority. In December 2025, we had reserved just 49 days, compared with an average 141 days for comparable import nations. Australia stood out as the only laggard.
Labor’s attitude to international obligations reflects its ideological priorities. The Paris Agreement is sacrosanct, even though we contribute just 1.15 per cent of global emissions. The billions spent subsidising the renewables transition are often off-budget, kept from public scrutiny, despite Labor’s promised transparency.
Cost factors are the usual defence for not meeting our IEA obligations and losing our refining capacity. Yet the costs flowing from the fuel crisis will be far greater: higher power bills, higher inflation, interest rate increases, the underwriting of fuel purchases and excise cuts. This crisis will leave a long tail.
Business as usual won’t serve our national interest. Doubling down on Labor’s transition plans will lead only to more of the same. There’s now the added issue of our reliance on imports, often from China, for the renewables infrastructure. These supply chains are deeply embedded in geopolitical realities that can’t be wished away.
Reducing our high costs of energy is essential to restoring industrial competitiveness and ending the deindustrialisation cycle. The recent loss of Incitec Pivot’s Gibson Island urea plant and Qenos, our largest producer of polymers and polyethylene, adds to our woes. It makes no sense to extend lifelines to refineries and smelters while hitting them with a de facto carbon tax under Labor’s safeguard mechanism.
We should strive to be energy independent using our coal, gas, oil and uranium, together with rooftop solar, in a balanced mix. Energy security is not optional. It’s the foundation of economic stability and national security.
We have the resources to be energy self-sufficient. What we lack is not capacity but political will and direction. We’re on the wrong track and need to change course. If not, we will face exactly what was warned – a nation with far fewer options in future.
Jennie George is a former president of the ACTU and Labor MP for Throsby.
We should strive to be energy independent using our coal, gas, oil and uranium, together with rooftop solar, in a balanced mix. Energy security is not optional. It’s the foundation of economic stability and national security.
We have the resources to be energy self-sufficient. What we lack is not capacity but political will and direction. We’re on the wrong track and need to change course. If not, we will face exactly what was warned – a nation with far fewer options in future.
Jennie George is a former president of the ACTU and Labor MP for Throsby.
It took considerable restraint not to interrupt, but the pond didn't even baulk at lines such as We have the resources to be energy self-sufficient.
Indeed, we do, we have wind, solar, EVs, all kinds of other developments in terms of the electrostate and electrification, designed to cut back on dependency on fossil fuels as a way of avoiding the current shock to the system, and the future shocks that will surely come.
But the pond doesn't expect to find any of that in the lizard Oz, just as the pond doesn't expect to find much justice in King Donald's reign...
In which the chattering classes do their best to cope with the Napoleon who has blessed them with his presence:
Simon Marks also thinks King Donald looks Kingly in the presence of another king, and why not?
The alternative would see him as a pathetic 79 year old roué or wannabe rake, a faux imitation Hugh Hefner, desperately trying to downplay his age, and pretend that he's cool by hanging out with his geriatric mates and a chick with big boobs.
Who'd want to carry that image as baggage in their head?
Much better to think of him as a Napoleonic emperor or a King John, intent on ruining the world's economy as fast as the fertiliser shortages allow ...
