Richard Jones
There is emotion about Varadkar being appointed not elected. (I accept
the shorthand that refers to leaders of parties that win elections as
elected prime ministers etc.) What’s missing is any political assessment
of how such a thing happens. I think y’all should get to accept it as
the new norm, as the story of Varadkar standing down and the shambles that Sinn
Fein has become, in the south at least, suggest that Ireland is catching
up with Australia.
We basically don’t have elected prime ministers here anymore. The
current one is the exception that proves the rule. Boris Albanese is
such a grovelling submissive arse-licker to Australia’s parasites and
America’s war machine that he will be allowed to stay his term, but
previously we’ve had a succession of elected leaders replaced in moments
by the media, whether for their amusement or as agents of people with an
agenda. Going way back to Rudd: he was fine until he made the Whitlam
mistake, thinking he was in charge, and set in motion the collection of
significant royalties from mining companies.
Around the world, it has been commonplace for leaders to be replaced,
even when they represent substantial interests at home, because they
offend more substantial forces abroad. In the older democracies, it has
come to pass that the leaders don’t represent anyone at all. More
accurately, there are no contenders for power, so the various parties
all serve the same power. Local and sometimes national elections can be
vigorously contested on particular issues without reflecting a contest
between classes or any social forces. So the result is a government that
is merely a window dressing for control of society by the dominant
power. In America, the military-financial complex. In Australia, the
mining, property, and finance parasites subject to veto by the ultimate
power, the American military-financial complex.
This doesn’t mean that the actual powers are replacing the leaders. It
just means that the leaders are just celebs, media products with no
substance, so they can’t call on the power that they serve to protect
them from challenge. If it makes a good story when they fall, someone
will give them a push.
Note: to read about Australia’s brief period of independence under Gough Whitlam, read:
Labour Affairs 
The article didn’t explain the nickname “Boris” given to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The analogy is not to Johnson, and don’t even think of Godunov.
Yeltsin opened Russia up to a period of rape and plunder, initially by Russian criminals, but then, by Americans. Fortunately for Russia, he eventually recognised the consequences of his crimes and backed Putin who pragmatically allied with ‘oligarchs’ who were willing to put Russia first rather than unbridled greed–or who realised that such a choice was imaginary as the AngloAmericans who admired their wealth would all the more readily separate them from it.
Albanese is a sad shadow of Yeltsin. Before and after the Whitlam interlude, Australia has been totally servile to the US in foreign policy and participated in war crimes wherever and whenever instructed. Unlike Russia, Australia is not an independent country. There are no home grown forces that can provide our counterpart to Russia’s Putin. Putin was a product of Russia’s security services. Australia’s security services serve Washington. Australia has also consistently made laws as instructed from Washington for the benefit of US companies. What has changed under Albanese is that as in Russia under Yeltsin, the whole nation is abandoned and opened to plunder by US predators. This opens up a different topic, but I needed to explain why I call the worm “Boris”.
LikeLike