The relative newcomer on the block, Menzies House, has some interesting material and claims:
Founded in January 2010, Menzies House is the leading Australian blog for conservative, centre-right and libertarian thinkers and activists.
Of course we at Catallaxy claim:
Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog
Perhaps we are both right: after all post-modernism allows for all opinions to be equally valid.
But what about you, dear readers, how do you rate Menzies House and Catallaxy Files? What should we do to improve the quality of this blog (now that we have a relatively settled platform following some inconvenient problems with the website).
Perhaps we are both right: after all post-modernism allows for all opinions to be equally valid.
I realise this is a throwaway line, but is this actually what people thnk pomo is all about?
As for the comparison – Catallaxy wins, but that’s due to a better comments policy, and better comments all round. Menzies House has reasonable pieces, but is pretty circle-jerky.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 2:22 pm
Catallaxy sucks.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm
Let’s not get into a pissing contest here. Of course it’s silly for a brand new site such as theirs to claim to be a “leading” site. On the other hand it’s perhaps presumptuous of catallaxy to claim the mantle. It’s one of those descriptors that is best bestowed by others rather than by yourself.
daddy dave
7 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm
I honestly don’t think Catallaxy is aggressively right wing enough. I needs to be more.
It shouldn’t hold back as it does at times.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm
Both sites are great and complement one another.
anyways with John Humprhreys there and Sinc& others here both will do well.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 2:26 pm
Jc, the sites that are ‘aggressively right wing’ are filled with White Priders and BNP types. They also tend to be offensively stupid.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 2:26 pm
THR:
You know by right wing I mean libertarian, classic liberals. I added “aggressive” really to just mess around.
White priders and BNP types are really disaffected national socialist types with “socialist” being the operative word.
I am truly amazed for instance how ALP and Green party policies these days are basically indistinguishable from One Nation’s.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 2:30 pm
THR
Again, labeling the BNP as “right wing” is something the Communists have done. It is amazing how so much of our political/ideological nomenclature comes from mid 20th century Communists.
Communists would argue they are “left” wing because of their economics/production/property ownership agenda. Yet when it comes to the BNP, you use ‘race’ as the appropriate parameter. Why don’t you use the same criteria for the BNP as you do for Commies/Socialists?
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 2:33 pm
White priders and BNP types are really disaffected national socialist types with “socialist” being the operative word.
Except that many of them have jumped on board with free market economics.
If you can’t see the difference between ALP/Green policies and One Nation’s, you aren’t looking hard enough.
As for ‘socialism’ – Menzies and Churchill were more ‘socialist’ than the national socialists.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 2:35 pm
Why don’t you use the same criteria for the BNP as you do for Commies/Socialists?
Because by any criteria, they are still ‘ightist’, to the extent that such a simplistic category applies at all.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 2:40 pm
Except that many of them have jumped on board with free market economics.
Like who?
JC
7 Feb 10 at 2:41 pm
THR
But what criteria have you used to evaluate them as “right” wing.
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 2:43 pm
oh God, do we have to have this debate again? fascists are socialists and communists are socialists but fascists are not communists and socialists are not necessarily fascists, and nationalists are fascist socialists unless they are capitalists; in which case they are nationalist conservative fascists which is a contradiction because fascists are radicals; which means that conservatives are not fascists unless they are neocons in which case they are radical nationalist libertarians; but libertarians are not neocons because some libertarians are not conservatives.
whew!
can we move on now?
daddy dave
7 Feb 10 at 2:47 pm
But what criteria have you used to evaluate them as “right” wing.
They call themselves right wing.
Like who?
Have a look at these sites, jc. To a man, they think that Obama is literally a Marxist.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 2:53 pm
dd
It really is a pox not only blog discussions here, but in Australian civic discourse in general. I attribute the marginal role played by left-wing intellectuals in Australian debate to precisely this characteristic all leftists seem to have. It is reallt bad PR for any good policy ideas or critiques they might actually have. When a leftist gets going, it is difficult not to turn really quickly, as they seem to just fling all these neologisms around like confetti and with such inconsistency that one can only shake the head, and mutter, “what the fuck is he trying to say”. It is REAL bugbear of mine, which is why I outlined an alternative
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 2:55 pm
THR:
To be honest the most disturbing things about Obama and the Dems is the current behavior over the health care issue and the way they have conducted themselves.
I also think it was quite disturbing how Obama criticized the SCOTUS at the state of the union reminding everyone of the old soviet show trials.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 3:10 pm
To a man, they think that Obama is literally a Marxist.
Mmm. We haven’t seen these sort of extraordinary claims before.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 3:17 pm
So hyperbole about Bush justifies the same about Obama?
THR
7 Feb 10 at 3:18 pm
So you agree Nazism and communism are morally the same.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 3:25 pm
No. I asked whether anti-Bush hyperbole justifies anti-Obama hyperbole?
THR
7 Feb 10 at 3:28 pm
Either way, you’re suddenly ashamed of Marx.
I thought you’d regard a comparison with the fat, unemployed bum as a compliment to Barry.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 3:59 pm
Either way, you’re suddenly ashamed of Marx.
No, but I’d be ashamed of Obama if I thought he represented Marx.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 4:02 pm
THR:
Are you ashamed to these guys calling themselves Marxists?
They actually are Marxists. In fact Marx would be rolling in his grave if he saw the modern left’s love of anti-development policies such as the greens etc.
http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/
Marx was wrong of course but he never shirked away from his desire to better the material development of the prol.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 4:05 pm
Well he’s not killing millions of citizens, if that’s what you mean.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 4:15 pm
Perhaps we are both right: after all post-modernism allows for all opinions to be equally valid.
.
Indeed. So I nominate this.
.
Menzies House has some good bits. It looks too much like a PR site tho’ and it hasn;t developed the salon culture essential yet.
.
I like the way Catallaxy looks fine, ‘cept maybe a header is required and a sans serif comments font. More stuff on kulcha would be good ye dismal bastards.
Adrien
7 Feb 10 at 4:18 pm
CL
The extent to which Americans think Obama is a Marxist is the extent to which Americans are braindead, ignorant, and/or ill-educated.
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 4:18 pm
That’s interesting British boilerplate, Peter. Not sure what it has to do with me.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 4:33 pm
I think Obama is more about Obama than he is about Marxism.
entropy
7 Feb 10 at 4:59 pm
CL
I didn’t say it did! And what is “British boilerplate”?
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 5:08 pm
It’s what he cooks his dinner with.
Adrien
7 Feb 10 at 5:15 pm
The Economist (I’ll find a link if anyone really wants one) says Obama must move to the centre. Most Presidents have functioned without a super-majority by negotiating with moderates from the other side.
Phillip Adams in the weekend Oz magazine says he must stop trying to appease the Right and become the real lefty he should be.
Who is right?
ken nielsen
7 Feb 10 at 5:44 pm
Left-wing fantasies about Obama.
1. That Obama has been appeasing the right. (variant: that Obama has reached out to the right but they have slapped his hand away)
2. That Obama’s main problem is a failure to communicate (such as the benefits of his health care package)
3. That people are too stupid to understand a great deal when it’s in front of them (because of mendacious right-wing interference)
daddy dave
7 Feb 10 at 6:32 pm
Right-wing fantasies:
1. That Obama is in any way ‘left wing’, that he isn’t to the right of the Coalition in Australia, and most conservative parties in Europe.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 7:11 pm
THR:
Which policies would you describe as “right wing” free-market right?
JC
7 Feb 10 at 7:18 pm
Where he is in relation to the Coalition in Australia (tho it isn’t a coalition except in government) is irrelevant.
Increasingly he seems to be too left wing for American opinion.
The more important thing though is that he is inexperienced at running a government.
Will he learn enough quickly enough to accomplish anything?
ken nielsen
7 Feb 10 at 7:22 pm
No, I don’t think he will learn. He isn’t as self-preserving as Clinton and the people surrounding him are basically Chicago hit-men types that suggest he goes harder as the people haven’t understood his policies.
I think he’s a goner as there appears to be some really decent GOPer’s that will go for the nomination.
The Virginia governor looks like a damn good prospect, possibly matched with Carly Fiorina when she wins the senate seat in California in the coming fall.
He’s basically a punk over his head.
I can actually se the potential for Hillary to run against him in the Dem primaries if he looks that far gone.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 7:33 pm
You live and learn. Nationalising companies, massively increasing the size of government and socialising medicine are now apparently right wing policies.
Infidel Tiger
7 Feb 10 at 7:39 pm
Obamanation is a person that grew up imbued with hard leftwing politics from his mother and grand parents.
His father was a commie.
He hung around with people like Bill Ayers a former far left terrorist and spent 20 years in a church that taught whites are pigs.
His friendships were with left wingers and had the most leftwing voting record in the senate in both the state house and Washington.
His friends at University were all left wing and finally he was a “community organizer” in the Acorn mold.
He doesn’t even know what right wing believe and certainly doesn’t understand markets or how they work.
I think Obamanation is actually sincere when he says he wants to be bi-partisan. However his understanding of bi-partisanship is people agreeing with mostly statist policies.
He thinks that technocratic policy ideas that always function with state supervision are the only way to solve problems.
It would be like asking to have him fire up a part of his brain that has never worked before.
He can’t change as he wouldn’t know how to.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 7:43 pm
He certainly doesn’t believe in the American model.
Michael Sutcliffe
7 Feb 10 at 7:51 pm
He hates what America represents, Michael. That’s why he goes around the world apologizing to everyone.
I wonder if Bob Brown is going to try and shout him down when he comes here like the fascist green creep did to the previous prez.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, I’m curious too. Will he ask ‘why haven’t you withdrawn from the Middle East and closed Gitmo like you promised?’, or will Obama be exempt for being an African-American Democrat?
Michael Sutcliffe
7 Feb 10 at 8:01 pm
My guess is that Brown won’t.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 8:02 pm
In fairness to the Greens, they are the only party I can think of who have offered consistent, principled objection to China.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 8:12 pm
THR:
The truth is that China is not really a left wing set up any more as it looks to me to resemble Bismark’s Prussia.
The fact that China follows market determined policies for a good part of its economy and industrializing rapidly with a view to bettering the plight of the average person would put them exactly opposite to where the Greens are, which is mostly about de-industrializing and anti-development, so of course they would speak up about China.
It doesn’t shock me in the least that the Greens would be saying things against China.
I can’t recall them ever complaining about human right records is commie, dictatorial dumps before.
In fact I have a theory. The moment a country reaches say $3,000 in per capita income the Australian Greens will begin to say bad things about you if the opportunity ever came up.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 8:24 pm
That’s a bit unfair, jc. All the major parties look the other way when it comes to Tibet, China’s appalling human rights record, etc.
Besides, if you want to curb the ALP, the best bet for conservatives in Oz is to hope that the Greens get the balance of power (assuming it doesn’t go to the Coalition, which is unlikely). The Greens are a bit more principled than Fielding or the Nationals, for instance.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 8:27 pm
THR
I am no China or US basher, but I can totally understand why so many are. And I think Bob Brown is to be commended for making his views known. He is not being cynical or manipulative. He has long held those views, those views are popular among Australians, and they are rational.
I hope he sticks one up the Chinese too.
People in this country have become too politically lazy, and are giving away their autonomy more and more to the state. VERY un-Australian.
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 8:30 pm
Yea, but Tibet is the way Greens want people to live, or rather the image they have of how they we should all live…. which is a spartan like existence breathing fresh mountain air.
Look the problem for the major parties- for both parties- is how do you tackle obvious human rights records in China, which is bad, but certainly not as bad before the opening of the economy in the 80′s.
They’re not a shit can you can kick down the road any longer. They’re a serious player.
So it’s okay for the Greens to talk about China as they’re not governing and nowhere close to ever having the levers of government … Thank god.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 8:40 pm
Peter:
Why would you want to stick it up to the Chinese?
The last time we did shit like that was with the Japan when we stuck it up to them so much it ended up causing the first war over energy.
If you really mean what you say we ought to stop trading with them and place the country on a trade embargo. You support that?
The most effective way to get them to poltically liberalize peacefully is to to see the place get wealthier and the regime has no option by to free up even further.
Fuck Brown, the fascist green creep has has no interest in China’s human rights record. All he’s concerned with is the fact the fact that they’re developing.
If you gave Brown the choice of seeing Chinese people under a jackboot but as poor as dirt with little development and far less emissions and a rancid totalitarian thugocracy, which do you think Brown would prefer? That version of China or the current one?
Brown puts people way down the list of priorities. Gaia is the most important thing to the louse.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 8:49 pm
JC
Once again you are responding to things I have not said.
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 8:55 pm
My hope is that Bob Brown retains his integrity. BB hates the Chinese human rights record. I don’t, but then I as I said I am no China basher, and so have nothing to protest about.
Peter Patton
7 Feb 10 at 8:57 pm
I don’t, but then I as I said I am no China basher, and so have nothing to protest about.
Cultural materialist, eh, Peter? All just units to you, I suppose? Not people – just ones and zeroes.
Abu Chowdah
7 Feb 10 at 9:06 pm
That Obama is in any way ‘left wing’, that he isn’t to the right of the Coalition in Australia, and most conservative parties in Europe.
I’ve noticed that this newly minted talking point is increasingly common amongst lefties. Politically, Obama has failed massively so liberals are wheeling out their trusty old face-saver: it’s not that he’s too left wing; it’s that he’s not left-wing enough. Obama has been a far left kook his entire life and he has carried that worldview into the White House and acted on it with as much dedication as practicable.
Re Bob Brown and the Greens, they’re almost exclusively actuated by the standard luvvie outrage about mystical Tibet – a Shangri-La to them where property-hating Buddhists ride (non farting) unicorns through organic farmlands and enchanted forrests, eschewing meat and taking care not to stomp on any grasshoppers. The Greens as a political movement globally remained silent about the USSR – along with China, the worst mass murderers in human history – and supported unilateral disarmament in Europe. They hated
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 9:41 pm
They hated Solzhenitsyn and everyone like him.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 9:43 pm
I’m not a China “basher.”
I merely acknowledge the fact that they are a totalitarian (sorry Adrien, I mean authoritarian), expansionist dictatorship. I also admit that they oppress minorities, lock up dissidents, slaughtered thousands of protesters in one day in recent history, engage in rampant crony capitalism, have created and propped up North Korea, one of the most dystopian nightmare states of all time, and block information about freedom and democracy from entering the country via the internet.
There’s probably other stuff too, but that’s off the top of my head.
But it’s not “bashing” I’m simply acknowledging facts.
daddy dave
7 Feb 10 at 9:52 pm
“Once again”?
Peter I can’t recall engaging with you.Perhaps you can bring me up to speed last time we did so.
I think you’ll find that my response was more than directly tailored to your comment about the Greens.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 10:00 pm
My hope is that Bob Brown retains his integrity.
What integrity are you suggesting Brown has? I can’t imagine St. Bob having anything other than integrity.. Lol.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 10:02 pm
I’ll give him integrity, even though I don’t agree with a lot of his beliefs. He’s a man of conviction.
daddy dave
7 Feb 10 at 10:23 pm
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Catallaxy’s potential improvement?
Actually, to be fair, this kind of wide-ranging discussion is part of the reason Catallaxy is better than Menzies House (note to self – must come up with a good alt name, a la ‘Cat’/'Catalepsy’ and ‘Larva Rodeo’/'Lavatory Pro’).
Re improvement… I’d suggest more contributors for greater diversity, but not any old drifters. I’m sure there’s plenty of untapped centre-right talent in academia, for example. But not economists – that won’t add diversity
Historians, anthropologists and sociologists would be welcome.
Perhaps Adrien is right, and Catallaxy could do with more “kulcha” – any libertarians out there with degrees and work experience in literature/art/cinema studies who can also write engagingly?
Jarrah
7 Feb 10 at 10:23 pm
I’ve noticed that this newly minted talking point is increasingly common amongst lefties
You should have been paying more attention before Obama’s election, and even more after he was just elected, when he started appointing rightist stooges among his staff. The left never had high hopes in Obama, any more than the Australian left did for Rudd.
The Greens as a political movement globally remained silent about the USSR
So Bob Brown is expected to retrospectively denounce the Soviet Union? And retrospectively offer support to Solzhenitsyn? Does this retrospective business also count for today’s GOP candidates? After all, as we’ve seen, Reagan was responsible for mass murder across the developing world. Whatever we may say of the Greens, they’re better than that.
Jc, there are a number of shades of grey between uncritical support for China, and cessation of all relations, trade or otherwise. It’s entirely plausible that our government could explore some of those shades of grey.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 10:30 pm
any libertarians out there with degrees and work experience in literature/art/cinema studies who can also write engagingly?
Mario Vargas Llosa?
THR
7 Feb 10 at 10:31 pm
Ken Nielsen.
Currency Lad.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Feb 10 at 10:33 pm
Why don’t you ask to cross post some of your reviews and stuff here, Jarrha as I thought your book review was pretty good.
You could post some other stuff too, in order to soften the blow or the hard edge. Lol.
You’d possibly be a good add here. But I would tend to avoid any references/links to idiots and intellectual hooligans like you did recently as that shows a great deal of innocent ignorance of course. That would obviously require finessing.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 10:33 pm
“…he started appointing rightist stooges among his staff.”
Yeah, rightists like left-wing wacko Eric Holder, 9/11 troofer Van Jones, “safe schools czar” (and child molestation advocate), Kevin Jennings, and a Maoist communications director. But who are these phantom “rightists,” THR? Let’s have some names and some explanations evidencing their rightism.
Go!
So Bob Brown is expected to retrospectively denounce the Soviet Union?
He was alive at the time, THR. But I was talking about “The Greens as a political movement globally.” As you should know, because you just quoted that phrase.
After all, as we’ve seen, Reagan was responsible for mass murder across the developing world.
No. We’ve seen that left-wing “freedom fighters” were mass murderers and that Reagan played a world historical role in demolishing the USSR – the most bloodthirsty tyranny in human history. Leaving aside China for a moment – where the death toll, according to – ahem – some people, was caused by an entirely natural “famine.”
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 10:52 pm
“Ken Nielsen”
I meant additional people.
“Currency Lad”
Not a bad idea. What say you, CL? Your blog is currently dormant, after all.
Some hard science types might be nice too. Keep the suggestions coming, people!
Jarrah
7 Feb 10 at 11:17 pm
CL, you’re lying about what I’ve said on China and Mao.
And you’re lying about the ‘leftists’ in Obama’s ranks. The ‘Maoist’, for instance, merely mentioned in passing that she admired Mao’s philosophy. Saying such a thing makes you a leftist to the same extent that reading Macchiavelli makes you part of the Medici family. For the most part, Obama’s merely continued the policies of Bush Jnr.
No. We’ve seen that left-wing “freedom fighters” were mass murderers and that Reagan played a world historical role in demolishing the USSR
Well, your notion of who is left wing must extend to clergy and aid workers in Central America, who were threatened with death for daring to offer aid to those in the midst of political terror. It must also include Iraq’s Kurds, since, after all, Reagan supplied Saddam with considerable assistance with respect to military and finance, let Saddam off the hook for attacking US citizens (compare and contrast Reagan’s treatment of Libya and Iran) and opposed an anti-genocide bill launched by Congress in the wake of Saddam’s slaughter of Kurds.
Basically, Reagan is a man who, whenever he was faced with a choice between mass murder and peace, supported mass murder each and every time. And yet you think him ‘great’…
As for the USSR – what specifically did Reagan do to ‘demolish’ the USSR, the ‘most bloodthirsty’ (after Hitler and some others) regime of all time? Your Reagan thesis here is less ridiculous than your papal bull of some time ago, but I’m still curious to see your logical contortions between a demented Reagan’s policies, and the actual, concrete demise of the USSR.
Go!
THR
7 Feb 10 at 11:17 pm
As for rightist stooges on Team Obama – Hillary is one, Rahm Emmanuel, another.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 11:27 pm
THR:
You really are overdoing the pudding.
Reagan assisted Saddam in the war against Iran with specific weapons that would give them a chance at not being over run.
It was a policy of “tilt”- tilting the war against Iran’s superiority.
US weapons weren’t used against the Kurds as the weapons supplied were ground to air missiles.
The White House at the time preferred both sides to lose if it were at all possible.
Most of Saddams’s weaponry was supplied by the Soviets and the French to a lesser the degree. The French of course were only interested in the cold hard cash, while Saddam had always really been a soviet client.
If there’s anyone you should be sounding off against, that is if you’re upset about Saddam supplied with arms your real beef ought to be with the Sovs.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 11:27 pm
As for rightist stooges on Team Obama – Hillary is one, Rahm Emmanuel, another.
Hillary is a right winger? Rahm is too?
Dude. Please.
JC
7 Feb 10 at 11:28 pm
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, Sinclair. I spend a lot of my time doing ‘proper writing’ in between Catallaxian contretemps and haven’t done much kulcha or related stuff for a while. A couple of old (and brief) film reviews here for those looking for promising weekly cheapies at the video store.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 11:33 pm
The Clintons never heard of a ‘humanitarian’ bombing they didn’t like. Hillary is essentially rightist in terms of her portfolio – remember, she’s not minister for women’s bits, but essentially the public face of a regime which persists with some ugly foreign policies.
And Reagan didn’t merely assist Saddam with the Iranians.
He let them off the hook after they killed 30 Americans – Reagan oversaw the military take down a civilian plane (Iranian) for far less. And Reagan (and Bush Snr) blocked an anti-genocide bill when Saddam was butchering Kurds. Reagan’s support for Saddam went above and beyond a mere pragmatic alliance.
THR
7 Feb 10 at 11:34 pm
Jarrah, just saw your comment. Hey, I’ll think about it if the urge to do some cultural stuff returns. You and Adrien are better at that genre than me, though, to be honest.
C.L.
7 Feb 10 at 11:35 pm
“Menzies House … is pretty circle-jerky.”
Um, see above thread?
BirdLab
8 Feb 10 at 10:54 am
If anyone disagrees with any of the content on Menzies House, you are more than welcome to submit a piece!
Tim Andrews
8 Feb 10 at 3:18 pm
Which is a generosity you won’t see at a swamp like Larvatus Prodeo – except when Brian is wheeled out to predict the end of the world again.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 3:21 pm
Has he been at it recently? I wonder if he saw or reviewed 2012?
Brian loves end-times stuff. He doesn’t seem to get enough of it.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 3:24 pm
I’ve nothing for or against Menzies House, but I think it revealing that the quote mentioned by Samuel was originally among the few paragraphs originally written on the Menzies House website… BEFORE it was activated.
So, essentially, they were the best in Australia before they were up and running.
MM
8 Feb 10 at 7:22 pm
Of course… we all know that the ALS blog “thoughts on freedom” is actually the leading libertarian blog in Australia.
blog.libertarian.org.au
John Humphreys
9 Feb 10 at 2:58 am
[...] has forgotten more about fine art than most of us have ever known. In light of recent comments on this thread over at Catallaxy that Ozblogistan — and specifically, the libertarian bit of it — could do with [...]
skepticlawyer » An ‘unvalued person’: guest post by Adrien
10 Feb 10 at 10:07 am