Present participle and letter T are Extinct in new politico-media Argot

A rapidly standardising New Zealand dialect has now overwhelmed the diction of broadcasters and politicians. It has caused to disappear the spoken alphabet consonant “t” and without the substitute Estuary glottal stop. The discarded letter “t” simply emerges as a “d” as in the frequently spoken “baddery” or “budder,” i.e. battery, butter.

Duty is rendered as “doody,” and not as the glottalised “doo-ee,” the Cockney-Essex version.

The absence of the glottal stop as in for example “buh-uh” for butter isolates this new semi-received politico-broadcast dialect or patois from any inherited stem in Cockney and Estuary English.

Wadda and Godda (what a… and got to…) are two other elided examples of the vanished Estuary-Cockney-Essex glottal stop with now the all-purpose “d” sound filling the gap, vacuum.

“Warder,” similarly uses the “d” to replace the old glottal stop for water (war-uh in Estuary-Essex.)

In this evolving Antipodean politico-broadcast patois there is too an emphasis on the second vowel in words, a characteristic of Romance or Latin languages. Examples are “halth,” and “walth” for health and wealth.

The letter “e” is heavily extended as in “Wheat and Forgeet” for the heavily branded Wet and Forget

Transposing the letters “a” and “e” as in Alvis for Elvis or Ellis for Alice and vice versa is another unexplained and now accepted standardisation. Another such localisation is “halp” for help.

The broadcast disappearance of the present participle “ing” does share a traceable and noble lineage to the old English clipped “huntin’, fishin’ & shootin’.”

The routine rendition of a broadcast television programme as “Fear Go,” instead of Fair Go emphasises this firewalling from Estuary English.

The word air is now routinely delivered in any word syllable component to sound like ear. Now standard or received is for example “ear conditioning.”

New York Born British Prime Minister has a claim to the White House

Boris Johnson’s co-premiership with his wife Carrie introduced into the Westminster zone the trans-Atlantic concept of a shared connubial political leadership of which President and Mrs Clinton remain the outstanding Anglosphere exponents.

This might now be taken a stage further with the No.10 Downing Street duo repeating this role in the White House.

Mr Johnson was born in New York. Other than being born in the United States, the other Constitutional pre-requisite is that he lived there for 14 years.

He appears to have lived as a child in the United States for five years. So given his present age and the nine years left to reside in the United States Mr Johnson could announce a candidacy on or around his 67th birthday.

This would still make him around a decade younger than the current two front runners president Joe Biden 79 and the former president Donald Trump 76.

So in this theory which until a few weeks ago seemed entirely dotty a President Boris Johnson could serve two full terms and still be younger than either of these are currently.

Polls in the United States focus on Mr Johnson’s proven track record in fund raising and vote raising notably his 80 seat majority garnered for his Conservative government in the last British general election.

Also cited is his political personality modus operandi deemed to be more appropriate for the United States than the United Kingdom.

Above all there is Boris Johnson launching himself from an already high plateau of name recognition combined with proven fund and vote-getting experience as two time mayor of London and then prime minister.

He sees at home his Brexit capital evaporating hourly.

In the United States in contrast it is accumulating. The reason is that Brexit translates there as anti-globalism.

How could the West have failed to see that the EU “powerhouse” in the form of a united Germany still remained vulnerable to extremist ideologies and which this time took the form of relying on its enemy for most of its fuel?

How could the United States have similarly outsourced its manufacturing to another foe?

Mr Johnson based in the United States, the land of his birth, the man who got Brexit done, would become the go-to guy for presidential calibre answers to these globalist era mysteries. How did the theory of pacifying self-declared enemy powers by enriching them at the expense of your own economy achieve such traction, and for so long?

The concept of connubial presidential power sharing is accepted in the United States. Think also the Carters, Reagans, and Obamas. Neither is there any requirement for a spouse to be born in the United States. Think Melania Trump.

Mr Johnson’s biography of Winston Churchill, The Churchill Factor, has attained institutional status in the United States. Churchill’s own mother Jennie Jerome was similarly born in New York.

Mr Johnson would need to hide his party allegiance until the very last moment.

Under this hypothesis he is “drafted” by one of the main parties in a situation similar to the one that exists now in which one of the two parties, in this instance the Democrats, has no obvious campaign standard bearer.

Britain’s doctrinal media’s vituperative pursuit of the departing prime minister characterises him as a one man crime scene. This is even after the greening of Mr Johnson following his marriage to Carrie.

Should Mr Johnson see a political destiny for himself in the United States this indicates an association with the Republican Party. It is here too that his war-leader instincts demonstrated on the advent of the Ukraine invasion will render the biggest dividend.

Mr Johnson is sometimes regarded as Britain’s Donald Trump, whose mother incidentally was born in Scotland. Both started at the top and worked their way up. Both position themselves as outsiders who have wandered into the inside.

Conjecture on a trans Atlantic destiny for Mr Johnson followed on the heels of Washington polls gauging the popularity in United States federal politics of the Duchess of Sussex after Meghan gave indications that this is where she saw her own future.

Similar polls now devolved onto Mr Johnson and they gained currency after exposure in London’s Daily Express which remains Fleet Street’s crusading voice of the Empire and what is left of it.

Curiously the first eight presidents of the United States including George Washington were regarded as British subjects because the United States was part of the British Empire.

In the British Commonwealth the only other example resembling a federal scale co premiership is that of the late Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser and his wife Tamie who deputised for her husband when he was ill and who is considered to have influenced her husband’s views especially in his later years, notably about the United States.

John Howard’s Lazarus Rising is Boris Johnson’s hand book on Conservative Leadership Comebacks

Boris Johnson was served notice because he could not be dissuaded from dragging his Conservative Party and government into progressive minefields which conservatives know they can never successfully extricate themselves from.

Mr Johnson’s determination to engage in activist-grade progressivism became evident when at the Glasgow summit he proclaimed in the manner of a male member of the Royal Family “It’s one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock and we need to act now.”

This effectively set ticking Mr Johnson’s own Doomsday Clock because it followed months of Mr Johnson’s prattling about sustainable diets, vegetarianism, doing away with open fires and indeed any heat sources at all derived from beneath the earth’s surface.

Nobody is talking about this and Mr Johnson’s ouster is officially attributed to his presence at several morale-boosting staff get-togethers during his own lock downs and then prevaricating about it.

Then more recently to an unlikely tipping point in which a boozy elected minor Conservative official groped his way around a St James gentlemen’s club

The reality is rather more chilling.

At the very moment Mr Johnson made his Doomsday proclamation at the Glasgow summit his cabinet had been on the receiving end for several months and most definitely for the preceding month of Anglo-American joint intelligence to the effect that Russia was building up its expeditionary forces on the Ukraine border to the extent that an invasion was imminent.

Was Mr Johnson deliberately shielded from the Anglo-American intelligence relating to the Russian threat?

Given that former aides and associates have testified to Number 10 being anything but watertight this has to be a possibility especially that upon the invasion a few months later Mr Johnson described it as "the biggest war in Europe since 1945."

Questions must be asked however late in the day………………….

Was he aware by October 2021 and certainly by November of the invasion likelihood?

If so what measures were put in place to boost the United Kingdom’s fuel independence? Stockpiles?

Mr Johnson’s drift into progressive issues was alarming to the Conservative Party just because there is no gain it for the party politically.

There is only the quicksand effect in which the more it tries to fend them off, keep them at a distance, the more the party gets mired in them. This is what happened to the conservatives in the Australian general election only weeks before Mr Johnson’s sacking.

Mr Johnson it is continuously reiterated intends to return to the leadership of the Conservative Party.

He has always savoured the way Winston Churchill voted out in 1945 came back as prime minister in the next general election.

But Sir Winston was voted out, and then back in again, by the electorate. Not by his own Conservative Party.

Mr Johnson’s Commonwealth comeback prototype, earthly avatar, therefore is Australia’s John Howard (pictured).

He was ousted by his party, a conservative one, in 1989 yet came back to lead it to victory in the 1996 federal election.

It is a political party eviction comeback celebrated in Mr Howard’s autobiography Lazarus Rising which details the long serving prime minister’s stabilising and deft application of social conservatism.

Meanwhile the two most successful progressive practitioners in the Commonwealth sphere are Canada’s Justin Trudeau and New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern

These two Westminster zone Wizards of Woke adeptly juggle native languages, ancestral property rights, flags, place names, holidays, tribes, quotas, orders of precedence, head starts, compensation for past wrongs, affirmative action, and the issuance of scheduled Apologies.

In the United Kingdom these are not the responsibility of Westminster.

Instead these issues belong with the Welsh and Scottish governments with their own parliaments in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

These are actual countries. They are not states in the Australian or North American sense as so many still believe. They are constituted around ancient tribal borders and as such Wales and Scotland are authentic, true, bona fide First Nations.

In Britain therefore the culture wars minus indigenous conflict, minus First Nation imperatives, are on a much narrower and restricted front.

Horrified, the Tory Party now saw Mr Johnson Siren-like unnecessarily yet inexorably drawing his Conservative government onto the rocks of a politico-moral lived experience in which the party didn’t have to live, let alone experience.

Actors in Stalin Purges, Famines still promote Great Experiments

Washington catch cries and rallying calls notably the Defund the Police campaign are supposed to demonstrate officially supported empathy with the deprived and downtrodden. They are received in Russia as indications of irresolution and instability

Russia’s picking off its enemies liquidating them by whatever means wherever they are in the world demonstrates Russia’s horror of internal dissent and the consequent urgency to suppress it.

The failure to comprehend Russia continues to involve the West’s newspapers of record. At the height of the collectivisation- induced great famine of the 1930s the New York Times correspondent in Moscow won a Pulitzer award for claiming that there were no such famines.

Malcolm Muggeridge (pictured) then employed by the Manchester Guardian doubted the New York Times’ bureau head Walter Duranty’s version and went to Ukraine to investigate for himself the plight of the Kulaks. These were the farmers under intense forced collectivisation which caused the starvation known as Holodomor. His reports were buried.

Muggeridge much later toured Australasia and in both countries emphasised how the Russians continuously duped the Western media, and did so through a realisation of the media’s own susceptibility to radicalism combined with its willingness “to be deceived.”

The defund movement in the United States with its clear Administration support conveyed to the totalitarian bloc an officially sanctioned regime of anarchy or Great Chaos as it is known in China

The English speaking realm media/political class consistently fails to grasp the difference between noble-sounding proclaimed priorities uttered in the West and their interpretation when these same concepts make landfall in totalitarian Russia and China.

When the defund the police sloganeering unchallenged by the White House washed up in Moscow the call was taken literally as officially approved agitation of the variety that could be a prelude to a full scale revolution.

Stalin’s Doctors Plot and its ensuing purges was one example. The merest hint, indication, suspicion of a failure to follow the party line, the approved doctrine, triggered the direst of reprisals

Another parallel and another great experiment is the expropriation mooted as far afield as Australia and the Netherlands by the state of farmland in the interests of carbon dioxide/methane minimisation. This chimes with collectivisation. Land seizures in other words.

Similarly the compulsory re-writing of school text books and the pulling down of statues is simply interpreted as a contemporary manifestation of revisionism. The disappearance after a perceived infraction of the official (i.e. party) line from the airwaves of broadcasters in certain Commonwealth countries is regarded in Russia simply as exile.

In the contemporary Cancel culture there is a comparison here with the various purges and plots and show trials in 1930s Russia. The West’s institutional apologies translate as Soviet era Recantations

The current boosted fuel prices leading to increased food prices is seen by the Russians as the inevitable sufferings by the peasantry when such noble experiments as net zero are inflicted on the masses by the intellectual class.

Highbrow political magazines routinely render the useful fools phrase attributed to Lenin as useful “idiots.” This is quite wrong. It is just another example of the West’s tin ear in the Russian intellectual transaction.

“Fools” the original word accurately conveys Lenin’s original and intended meaning. This defines the highly educated and privileged who are anything but idiots. Yet who have susceptibility for unquestioning belief in and a compulsion to promote certain abstract theories.

In this narrow vulnerability only are they Lenin’s fools. The belief that the end of communist Russia in the form of the old USSR was somehow the “end of history” is only one obvious example of the political class’ deliberately encouraged dreamy triumphalism.

Malcolm Muggeridge’s warnings about the West’s institutional willingness to be hoodwinked by Russia have been vindicated by a series of events since the supposed “end of history.”

In 1994 posing as peacemakers Russia persuaded the UK and the US to concur in a scheme known as the Budapest Memorandum which unilaterally stripped Ukraine of all its nuclear weaponry.

The 2014 annexation of Crimea was the first siege stage in land locking Ukraine. All the while Russia encouraged the West in its sacred ideal (which is how Russia sees it) to stop using its own fuel, be politically correct, and depend on Russia’s instead. This allowed Russia to corner the market and set export prices accordingly.

This atmosphere of constant rolling deception slides easily along via an indelible illusion held on the trans Atlantic axis that Germans and Russians remain instinctively at loggerheads. Quite the opposite was and is true. The two races are culturally intensely close.

The Russians watch for weakness. The evacuation of Kabul chimed with the United States losing its grip on its own military and this view was confirmed when top operational figures subsequently held onto their jobs. Was Washington afraid to fire them?

Or were they unpurged because they were zealously pursuing centrally-driven social engineering creeds by tinkering with words and their meanings which mirrors the Leninist belief in perpetual revolution at any and all levels, all the time?

Commonwealth Prime Ministers Preoccupied by Ethical Topics Ignored Own Base

Boris Johnson changed his party without formally announcing his switch as he veered across the political divide from conservatism to globalism. He is in good company. Australian prime minister Scott Morrison did the same thing. He swerved from straight laced traditionalism to accepting the full slate of contemporary avant garde values.

The only difference being that Mr Johnson’s U-turn stemmed from the zeal associated with new converts to causes.

Mr Morrison’s rather grim-faced acceptance of such causes was of a rather more operational nature.

He sought to straddle the Australian electorate by appealing to the metropolitan voguish vote while maintaining a grasp on his base in the unpretentious outback and shires.

The outcome for both prime ministers was the same. In seeking to accommodate their fickle metropolitan types they failed to capture them and at the same time lost the faith of their own one-time ardent if less showy-off followers.

For Mr Morrison this became evident in the federal election. For Mr Johnson in two provincial by-elections.

There are much closer links between the conservative party machines in Westminster and Australasia than many realise.

By the time the result of the Australian Federal general election was received it was already too late for the lesson to be learned let alone applied by the freshly dewy-eyed Mr Johnson now surrounded by knee-taking advisors even if he had been capable of applying it, let alone learning it.

When the war came it was too late as Boris in full Churchill mode strode through the streets of Kiev with president Zelensky.

Margaret Thatcher’s war in the Falklands in contrast was at the beginning of her long term in office and allowed her to give full voice to the resolve and decisiveness that is expected from Tory prime ministers as they sweep aside distractions in order to focus on priorities such as a war.

As the various movements and cults swept in from the United States both Morrison and Johnson gave the impression of being captivated by a mood surge of “Hey! What’s this! Nothing to do with us? Never mind. We’ll run with it. Where’s it heading?”

Where now was the jut-jawed Scott Morrison brandishing a lump of coal before the federal parliament and daring his audience to look at it without fainting away in a fashionable swoon?

Where was the growling 80 seat majority Brexiteer Boris so recently renowned for his scepticism on voguish trends?

Like the China plague that black swan-like plummeted into the relatively placid lake of their early days as prime ministers, the cults kept coming in then metamorphosing and mutating.

Scott Morrison already twisting and turning in the familiar winds of career feminism suddenly found himself at the epicentre of a new gender hurricane.

This one centred on gender reassignment which in turn twisted into a tornado centred on the rights of the thus gender re-assigned to compete on equal terms in high performance sports, especially at an international level.

Boris Johnson looks like John Bull. Yet once he had got Brexit done we can see now that he was increasingly drawn to the salons where the globalists like to glow.

Both prime ministers in their different ways we can see now became hopelessly entangled in the notions of a non productive yet noisy ilk.

In doing so they fell into the tender trap, seeking the affection of everyone.

Mr Johnson is viewed now as someone whose sympathies always lay with the a la mode metropolitans and whose true colours only needed ignition.

In Australia there were just a few straws in the wind that prime minister Scott Morrison sensed that he was beset by a swarm of social justice diversions, notably the gender ones.

In a move that still mystifies many Mr Morrison dealt harshly with the female head of a major and successful and difficult federal trading enterprise who dished out bonuses in the form of fancy wrist watches to her high-performing department heads.

Mr Morrison cited first foremost and always as a “marketing” man seemed blind to the incentive value in all this. He made the ceo a public example to all and any other federal employee tempted to do anything resembling a grand gesture off their own bat.

Australasians now fear precedent spill over and sectarian schism

From the outset of this millennium the coastal enclaves of the United States exported ethics to the rest of the Anglosphere.

These buzzed up moral constructs were absorbed unquestioningly like warm honey until even just a few days ago. The repeal of Roe versus Wade amounted to a slap in the face.

The United States ethics command of the Anglosphere became obvious when government heads in the UK and Australasia felt compelled to remind their own citizens that they were not in fact under United States jurisdiction, and thus they were unaffected by Roe versus Wade

It was the coupling of climate and identity that supercharged the United States coastal progressive agenda export and made it unchallengeable by a compliant politico media class in Australasia and much of continental Europe too.

In fact the repeal of Roe versus Wade had silently returned to the Supreme Court agenda following the retirement in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It has been claimed that Justice Ginsburg (pictured) also questioned the constitutionality of Roe versus Wade on the grounds that there was nothing in the United States Constitution that dealt with abortion and that the matter therefore belonged under the aegis of the individual states.

However those who met Justice Ginsburg on her tour of New Zealand were left in no doubt about the liberal nature of her views on this and allied issues.

Justice Ginsburg during this tour New Zealand impressed audiences with her brisk and matter-of-fact descriptions of the workings of the Supreme Court.

Her visit to New Zealand achieved global attention when she announced subsequently that if Donald Trump was elected to the presidency then she would relocate to the famously social justice conscious nation in the South Pacific.

In the event Justice Ginsburg is said to be a cause of the Roe versus Wade repeal because of her determinedly clinging to her office until her death in the year she retired, 2020.

This allowed the by now elected and in-office president Donald Trump to weigh the Supreme Court against the libertarians.

Many are surprised that the Roe versus Wade repeal was made prior to the United States mid term elections later this year.

Premature leaks of the repeal’s imminence are probably one cause. Another is that the Republicans precipitated the repeal in the belief that it would consolidate their own vote.

Meanwhile one of the reasons that political leaders in Australasia so swiftly reassured their own citizens that Roe versus Wade would not spill over into these countries is the extreme sensitivity in these Oceania nations to anything involving Roman Catholicism.

Both countries from their pioneering inception sought to reduce sectarian tensions and this was notably successful in education.

Prior to the climate-identity blending the issue of abortion was the dominant moral issue of its era and its intensity was only fanned by the rawness of the division about it within Catholicism itself.

The Roe versus Wade reappraisal has re-ignited in the region a conscience-gender issue that many believed had become subsumed and even utterly buried simply because the dominant dual climate-identity packaged activism sucked the oxygen out of any competing moral issue.

In the Westminster zone of the Anglosphere this newly revived issue in all its rawness is likely to be handled gingerly by public broadcasters especially. This sector is anxious to preserve undiluted and unchallenged its flagship and priority United States doctrinal import which is the climate -identitarian coupled theory.

The tacitly accepted United States formula ethics export dominance has suddenly U-turned and ploughed into the back of a movement that more than any other had evoked traditional and confusing values often religious ones.

Contorted Language and Ersatz Theory Hid Europe’s Peril

Hanna Reitsch was the first woman to fly a helicopter and also a jet plane. She was an early glider pilot and refined air brake technology. It was as a gliding instructor that she toured Australasia where in an interview she was asked what Germans most regretted about World War 2.

“Losing it,” replied the winner of two Iron Crosses.

How did West Germany recover so rapidly from World War 2, and then absorb so easily the old Soviet East Germany?

The aviatrix had supplied the answer. It was the next fixture that counted. Not the engagement that had just been lost.

Anyone crossing over from the still devastated UK in the early 1960s saw how swathes of Britain’s industrial cities were still laid waste while West Germany’s had somehow been utterly restored without any indications of the so-recent conflict.

The German single minded determination to win the peace was conducted without any diverting distractions especially those of an ideological nature.

So when the green movement took over from a highly visible yet hardly threatening bunch of post war anarchic collectives it was received with relief as a middle class and manageable safety valve.

Nobody imagined that the green movement would become the applied ideology that would involve Germany for the third time as the detonator for a European war.

Or that the fuse would be most deeply disguised by the 16 years of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s regime when Germany on the face of it had achieved the broad uplands of peace and prosperity as the stabilizer of Europe.

The requirement to manage and contain the green movement would amount to Germany each year entrusting more and more and then most of its power requirements to Russia.

This particular lesson in the peril of appeasement is being ignored with everyone in authority pretending it never happened in the first place.

Unabashed international and national government agencies criss-cross airspace seeking to reappropriate Covid funds. Treasuries are told that they must divert gigantic resources to finance poorer countries whose problems are in fact due to political instability.

As Russia bombards Ukraine in order to land lock it the global debate conducted by the intergovernmental agencies whose job it was to stop the conflict in the first place still centres on a modelled crisis instead of the actual one. Any diversion is welcome. Think Glasgow.

The 1972 Nixon-Kissinger entente with China was designed to introduce a split in world communism. Yet nobody sounded the alarm that there was pending a re-grouping for the February 24 Ukraine invasion.

Hanna Reitsch in two words bluntly summarised a state of affairs that most are still too tremulous to articulate. Most people who had anything to do with Germany in the decades immediately after the war know her verdict to be correct.

Compare this with the situation now in which governments, media outlets, and intergovernmental organisations dance around issues of any importance at all if there is any danger of giving offence to any ordained ideology, especially one from which they profit.

Where are the West’s intelligence agencies in all this? Nowadays theirs is anything but an oath of silence as they must jockey around with the rest of the bunch for their funding.

They restrict themselves to dazzling insights into the blindingly obvious.

There is a lesson here and it is one that the ruling/ political class cannot bring itself to confront.

It is that ideologies can overwhelm the very organisations supposed to manage them and they do so by infiltrating the body politic as a cause more noble than the obvious ones such as national defence.

The fact that Nato handed over its main strategic asset, its fuel supply, to the enemy that it was configured to fight, to contain, reminds us how ideology cancels logic.

Ideological pronouncements now dominate. These catch-phrase and slickly-branded theories replace what were until quite recently known as statements.

Hanna Reitsch who flew the last plane out of Berlin was witness to and participant in what is considered the most lethal of these theories.

The aviator’s summary in its plain spoken two-word delivery distils a simple fact.

Which is why it still stands out amid the ethereal, obscure yet high-sounding slogans which today masquerade as descriptions of what has gone on, is going on, and what will go on.

Retribalization zealotry route for China penetration of institutions

Accelerating separatism in favour of pre-European inhabitants in Australia and New Zealand encourages China to press ahead with its scheme to widen its presence in Oceania.

The CCP understands that the more the governments of Australasia utter the words coming together, the more determined they are in fact to ensure that the opposite happens.

The announcement by Australia’s new Labour government that it intends to establish a parallel Aboriginal advisory auxiliary parliament signals an in-depth commitment to a dual foreign policy and one that will favour a tilt toward China.

New Zealand’s Labour government has a slate of policies both declared and undeclared to empower through co-governance those claiming a pre-European birthright and thus an enhanced perceived and distinct lived experience.

In Australasia separatism blends with policies on clean energy and identitarianism to become the main ingredient of the political formula for winning upscale metropolitan electorates.

This now in turn blends with China’s already successful penetration of institutions that are highly regarded by these same privileged co-governance movement activist bases.

Internationally China’s quite recent capture of Hollywood by becoming the major cinematographic consuming nation put China at the fountain head of in-vogue progressive trends and this is the reason why there is so little public contention over China’s acts and intentions.

It is the reason for example why in these Australasian lands of the great reset public broadcasters only handle in a stifled way China’s role in the genesis and then dispersion of the Covid 19 plague.

Also muted for example is anything very searching in terms of analysing the confluence of Beijing’s Winter Olympics and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Also off the table is insight into the volume and quantity of the abandoned United States military hardware in Afghanistan likely to have been transferred across the border for copying and/or actual use in China.

China’s acquisition of Hollywood in order to protect its other institutional investments is an example of its win-win approach meaning it wins twice. It colonised the film colony and in doing so guaranteed the security of its other downstream contemporary culture investments.

There is something in common here with the broader clandestine modus operandi.

A national intelligence agency secures an above-board and conspicuous asset, one operating in the light of day, (limelight in Hollywood’s case) and uses it to conceal and reinforce its other subsidiary assets that operate in the shadows.

The advent of tribal co-governance in Australia and New Zealand demonstrates how the win-win ploy brings with it for China a multiplier effect.

The knock on is that it grasps the imagination of the new and decisive culturally sensitive voting bloc the excitable metropolitan intelligentsia with its determination to occupy the contemporary moral high ground.

China’s ability to influence outcomes is matched only by its hidden persuasion to staunch debate on matters inimical to these outcomes.

The Middle Kingdom knows that the drift toward co-governance in Australasia is an Oceania political current flowing strongly in its favour.

Ever since it implanted Maoism in Paris in 1968 China has understood how receptive are the West’s urban intelligentsia to it doctrines.

As it focuses on replacing the United States in the Indo-Pacific hegemony China will continue to colonise in the region institutions in public broadcasting and education with their instinctive shared anxiety to be on the right side of history which the CCP views as its own right to determine it.

The CCP understands too that within the socialist governments of constituted democracies there lurks a solid core of hard liners. These are the CCP’s dragons teeth… the sowers of the seeds of strife.

The CCP knows how prone ideologues are to its own way of thinking and how eager this new political class is to empathise with the new rallying cries notably the one about the importance of being on the right side of history.

It was Chairman Mao few now care to remember who enshrined the importance of being politically correct.

The CCP’s penetration of western institutions indicates an understanding of the porosity of these institutions beyond that of their own proprietors.

Where the governments of countries in the grip of progressivism see diversity, the CCP sees divergence, disunity and contention. Open doors in other words to opportunities for intervention under any number of guises.

Who is doing who the favour?

Republicanism becomes an intense if as yet unspecified issue with the return after a nine year interval of a Labour federal government. Palace courtiers seeking to avert it and tempted to send out members of the Royal family on flag waving tours should hesitate.

The reason is that Australia needs the Royal family much more than the Royal family needs Australia.

Australia is often considered the most over-governed of any nation anywhere

Without the monarchy Australia would have added to its already richly layered in-place constituted governance a fifth layer and which like the other existing four layers would become elective.

There is the central federal government in Canberra. It has two houses, an upper and lower.

Then there are the state governments which similarly have an upper house and a lower house.

It is the monarchy which by occupying the top of this heap means that to these four layers there cannot be added a fifth political layer in the form of a presidential layer.

Would for example an Australia minus the monarchy adopt the French system with an elected president?

Australia has yet another layer of governance, an additional layer often overlooked internationally.

It is that each state in addition to having a prime minister (known as “premier” to distinguish them from the federal prime minister) also has a state governor.

In a republic how would state governors become state governors? Would they be elected as they are for example in the United States?

If you add a presidential layer to all this Australia would have a total of six layers of constituted elective government and still not counting local government.

Australia’s new Labour-led government is an activist one dedicated to symbolic change and progress.

This is exactly the kind of coalition of the privileged that has one single towering target which is another coalition of the privileged this time one based on bloodline…..the monarchy

Buckingham Palace courtiers will be tempted to palliate this renewed and reforming fervour by sending members of the royal family to Australia to draw the sting.

If they do they will merely present the reformers with their dream target which is the royal family in the flesh.

It is uncertain that the courtiers have got the message that what worked so successfully in the 1950s-70s era now has quite the opposite effect of the desired result.

The ill-advised open Land Rover parading of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Jamaica (pictured) is a warning.

Prince Charles meanwhile around the same time found himself in Canada cornered by activists loudly seeking public apologies and acknowledgments for long ago internal measures that most Canadians themselves were unaware of.

Another example of clumsy Palace bureaucracy was the decision to position Prince William as a soccer aficionado. In the UK the soccer version of football is a working class pastime.

William doggedly in the stands spectating was loudly and embarrassingly booed at one of England’s big games.

The lesson is that even in England the ideal way of keeping the Royals in touch with the collective mood is to kick them out of touch.

It was the former federal prime minister Scott Morrison of the Liberal (ie conservative) Coalition and his decision to step back from cultural wars that dismayed his traditional loyalists and paved the way for vote splitting fringe parties to usher in the Labour government.

Australia’s extraordinary civil and economic progress since its federation in 1901 has often been credited to a population largely indifferent to politics and reserving their partisan zeal instead for sport.

No longer. Australia now manifests itself as the United States once did. Which is as a new nation put into the world to do good.

Australia’s ever more frequently recurring progressive paroxysms mean shaking off much of the impedimenta accumulated before and after 1901.

This clutter of yesteryear is personified by the monarchy which paradoxically until just a few decades ago in the Antipodes was similarly viewed as a universal force for good.

A royal visit in the current mood will be interpreted simply as a promotional stunt for the monarchy.

This will be the progressive point of view regardless of the countervailing and now seemingly mandatory crack of doom planetary proclamations uttered by the heirs apparent during the course of such tours.

Benign royal absenteeism will allow to be placed in perspective in the Australia-Monarchy transaction the question of who exactly is doing who the favour?

Choreographed cover up meant Allies sourced power supplies from their enemy

Robert Ludlum the thriller writer was asked how he discovered his rich amalgam of world threatening conspiracy, mystery and corporate greed. “I was leafing through a picture book portraying Germany between the wars,” he explained.

“The population was poverty stricken, hopeless. Then a few pages later this same population became transformed into a picture of purposeful prosperity.

“What had happened?

“Hitler had taken over. Hitler had to have external assistance, powerful international helpers. Who and what were they and how did they transform Germany so quickly?”

Thus fired and inspired by this dark mystery as he saw it, Robert Ludlum launched his 27-book dominance of the thriller business in the closing decades of the 20th century.

“Who paid for all those shovels, uniforms, autobahns?”

Robert Ludlum a genial, unpretentious New Yorker who died in 2001 aired in a matter-of-fact manner his lightbulb moment in the course of an Australasian promotional tour.

There are no indications that he ever offered this explanation before or since.

Mr Ludlum filled this informational vacuum with an unmatched series of fantastical conjectures in book and movie form. If he was still writing now Mr Ludlum might consider the following……

Why a defence pact in this case Nato organised to defend its members against a known enemy Russia deliberately puts its head into the mouth of this same threat by depending on it for its strategic fuel supplies.

Who implemented this self-contradictory arrangement? Who or what caused the treaty member governments to embark on this self-defeating strategy? Were there subsidies declared or undeclared? Were there other undisclosed inducements official or semi official?

So who or what suppressed the fact that these same member countries one after another were entering into covenants, contracts, with Russia for anything up to half their fuel requirements?

Why is the Nato defence pact funding to the tune of around $1 billion per day its own opponent?

What happened to the whistle blowers, the individuals and the institutions entrusted with raising the alarm?

There is the matter of the mainstream media. Who or what cowed it into submission as Nato members over so many years one after the other arranged to finance exactly the foe that Nato was designed to protect them from?

What were the factors deflecting them from sounding the alarm when the security of their own countries became so obviously threatened?

Were their allegiances in fact devoted to entities that did not include their own readers, listeners, and viewers? If so what or who were and still are the focus of these undisclosed loyalties and allegiances?

Today’s Robert Ludlum equivalent pondering their own The Scarlatti Inheritance, The Osterman Weekend, The Rhinemann Exchange, The Holcroft Covenant and Bourne conspiracies now have a rich new motherlode.

This includes how the world’s most watched commodities, the energy ones, as a result of this are exploding in cost greatly to the profit of the exporting nations such as Russia.

Someone knows the answer. Who or what are they and more significantly, where are they?

A working Robert Ludlum-style three word title for a thriller based on all this?

The Deceiving Climate