posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:28 AM
Having read the article, it seems that Mr Palmer has made some statements which are extraordinary and incredible, without backing them up with actual
evidence. Making such statements, without the proof required to give them weight, even if true, is a bad move, and one which may land him in hot
water, and certainly will not affect the situation about which he is so moved, one iota. Save of course, for making his arguments appear weak.
I have no doubt that there have been, and will continue to be for a long time yet, intelligence organisations which will seek to control or influence
non government organisations, and entire arms of industry. I have no doubt of these things, despite the lack of direct evidence in any one case, but
because of overwhelming circumstantial evidence. I empathise deeply with Mr Palmer in this case. However, there are a couple of caveats to that.
First and most important. No hyper wealthy industry figure has the right to complain, because such people are always, to a man, corrupt as sin and
willing to sell thier own grandmothers, let alone thier fellow countrymen, down the river in order to make a faster buck. They care even less about
the environments they are destroying in order to make money, and so deserve very little sympathy or understanding from me. The chances are that if the
CIA offered this fellow a cheque, he would embugger his entire nation in a pinch, just to improve the appearance of his wealth, to appear more
attractive to investors, and more capable to potential clients in his area of business.
Second, where as I can see exactly what he means when he protests at these things, I cannot say that I would bother to mention such a thing in
public, unless I had documentation that showed a cause for further, official investigation, to add to my comments, and to forward to the proper
authorities. Without that, even the word of a tycoon of his evident prowess, is without any weight what so ever. If anything he has weakened any
potential case that might come about, via his unprovable tirade. In doing so, I believe, he has made him self look a little like a rampant fool.
A man like him could have taken his concerns several steps further, than could a man of my own pathetic means. He could have hired a small army of
lawyers, investigators, informants and so on, to flesh out his concerns. He could have bribed records department managers, bank clerks and officials
to spill what they know of the origins of payments made to the organisations he believes are being used as proxies, and had thorough background
examinations performed on the key players.
None of this has he done, despite the fact that he could easily have done so. This leads me to the conclusion, that he is using his phsychological
understanding of his fellow countryman to his advantage here, and trying to stir up anger against the organisations he has mentioned, as traitors,
using methods which do not befit a man of his stature. And why you ask? What benifit to him, since as mentioned, he has no vested interests, no
operations affected by the proposals made by the organisations he accuses of treachery? Why to gain favour with others in like industries within
Australia who DO have vested interests in the outcome of the debate on this issue. He could be in cahoots with industry figures in his nation, who
have seen the possibility of thier revenues being eaten into, and have recruited him as a proxy, using the very tactic he accuses others of, to rope
him in as a baffle, a blind, a stumbling block of substance whose involvement with them can be denied, due to his not being an affected party. Can you
imagine the potential value of the power he would then hold over those who had recruited him? Can you imagine the enormity of the favour he could ask
This smacks of utter rot either way you look at it. But because Palmer has offered no real proof of his claims, it is plain to me that the intention
of his outburst was not to inform, or indeed to induce an investigation into the parties involved, but to deflect, to destabilise the situation to the
point where the offending legislation cannot be put into force without coming up against frontier spirit, aimed under false pretences, at the people
who have called for its enaction.