Friday 28 February 2014

The road to ruin

Another scintillating essay from the pen of Theodore Dalrymple.
The article examines the notion (now an ideology) that the State (now big government) can create a collectivist human Utopia.
He examines the polemical writings of immigrant Austrian economist F A Hayek in his book The Road To Serfdom (1944):

It went through six printings in its first year, but its effect on majority opinion was, for many years to come, negligible. Hayek believed that while intellectuals in modern liberal democracies—those to whom he somewhat contemptuously referred as the professional second hand dealers in ideas—did not usually have direct access to power, the theories that they diffused among the population ultimately had a profound, even determining, influence upon their society. Intellectuals are of far greater importance than appears at first sight.

Hayek was therefore alarmed at the general acceptance of collectivist arguments—or worse still, assumptions—by British intellectuals of all classes. He had seen the process—or thought he had seen it—before, in the German-speaking world from which he came, and he feared that Britain would likewise slide down the totalitarian path. Moreover, at the time he wrote, the “success” of the two major totalitarian powers in Europe, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, seemed to have justified the belief that a plan was necessary to coordinate human activity toward a consciously chosen goal.

History has illustrated for us the pernicious effects of these ‘successes’ and uncovered them as the grand lies they always were, but even with the evidence provided by these ideological disasters, the cultural elites of today still believe that they can erase history (Pomo deconstruction/Orwell’s 1984) and try again, this time successfully.

It truly represents the living definition of madness: doing the same thing time after time and expecting a different result each time.

Collectivist thinking arose, according to Hayek, from impatience, a lack of historical perspective, and an arrogant belief that, because we have made so much technological progress, everything must be susceptible to human control. While we take material advance for granted as soon as it occurs, we consider remaining social problems as unprecedented and anomalous, and we propose solutions that actually make more difficult further progress of the very kind that we have forgotten ever happened. While everyone saw the misery the Great Depression caused, for example, few realized that, even so, living standards actually continued to rise for the majority. If we live entirely in the moment, as if the world were created exactly as we now find it, we are almost bound to propose solutions that bring even worse problems in their wake.

But as Dalrymple observes, it is the prophetic nature of Hayek’s observations that seem to resonate over time and in particular our post-modern era:

The most interesting aspect of Hayek’s book, however, is not his refutation of collectivist ideas—which, necessary as it might have been at that moment, was not by any means original. Rather, it is his observations of the moral and psychological effects of the collectivist ideal that, 60 years later, capture the imagination—mine, at least.
Hayek thought he had observed an important change in the character of the British people, as a result both of their collectivist aspirations and of such collectivist measures as had already been legislated. He noted, for example, a shift in the locus of people’s moral concern. Increasingly, it was the state of society or the world as a whole that engaged their moral passion, not their own conduct. “It is, however, more than doubtful whether a fifty years’ approach towards collectivism has raised our moral standards, or whether the change has not rather been in the opposite direction,” he wrote. “Though we are in the habit of priding ourselves on our more sensitive social conscience, it is by no means clear that this is justified by the practice of our individual conduct.” In fact, “It may even be . . . that the passion for collective action is a way in which we now without compunction collectively indulge in that selfishness which as individuals we had learnt a little to restrain.”
Thus, to take a trifling instance, it is the duty of the city council to keep the streets clean; therefore my own conduct in this regard is morally irrelevant—which no doubt explains why so many young Britons now leave a trail of litter behind them wherever they go. If the streets are filthy, it is the council’s fault. Indeed, if anything is wrong—for example, my unhealthy diet—it is someone else’s fault, and the job of the public power to correct. Hayek—with the perspective of a foreigner who had adopted England as his home—could perceive a further tendency that has become much more pronounced since then: “There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel. The virtues possessed by the British people in a higher degree than most other people . . . were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility . . . non-interference with one’s neighbour and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.”
 
This idea that government must take responsibility for all our failures, for all our irresponsibility's and for all of our needs, this is the most significant issue in Australia today and until or unless this illusion is shattered our culture will be the cause of its own demise. 


 

 

 

 

Thursday 27 February 2014

Media projection

Jo Nova on the misrepresentation of AGW sceptics in the lame-stream-media:
In the mainstream media, skeptics are called Flat-Earthers, Deniers, and ideologues who deny basic physics. So it’s no surprise that they are exactly the opposite. A recent survey of 5,286 readers of leading skeptical blogs (eg here, WattsUp) shows that the people driving the skeptical debate are predominantly engineers and hard scientists with backgrounds like maths, physics and chemistry. Which group in the population are least likely to deny basic physics? Skeptics.
I asked Mike Haseler for more details:
  • around half of respondents had worked in engineering and a quarter in science
  • around 80% had degrees of which about 40% were “post graduate” qualified.
  • Respondents were asked which areas they had formal “post-school qualification”. A third said “physics/chemistry. One third said maths. Just under 40% said engineering. 40% said they had post school training in computer programming.
Furthermore, the media “debate” is nothing like the real debate. Four out of five skeptics agree our emissions cause CO2 levels to rise, that Co2 causes warming, and that global temperatures have increased. In other words, the mainstream media journalists have somehow entirely missed both the nature of the skeptics and the nature of the debate.
The so called “experts” (say like Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook) either don’t understand what drives skeptics, or they know but do their best “not to accidentally discover it” with irrelevant surveys, loaded questions, poor sampling and bad methodology. (I’m going with incompetence). Lewandowsky, after all, tried to figure out the motivation of skeptics by asking people who hate them if they believe Diana was murdered. Not surprisingly he didn’t find out that about half of skeptics are Engineers, but he did find 10 anonymous people on the Internet who said the moon landing was faked. This is the kind of result only government funded science could achieve.
The big question this survey doesn’t answer is why no government funded groups seem to have done this obvious research long ago. The climate is supposedly a high priority, so understanding skeptics would seem “sort of” useful. Then again, it’s only useful if you wanted to figure out whether there was a consensus, or if you wanted to reach one. I guess that’s not the aim…
Mike Haseler has done a great job here on a much needed task. I’m looking forward to seeing more of the results in future.
Full credit to all the other skeptics who didn’t need the hard science training to see the flaws. They sagely picked the correct side of the scientific debate. Congrats to those lawyers, farmers, doctors, taxi-drivers, and pool shop owners (I spoke to one yesterday) plus kids, and countless other sane brains who are not easily fooled.
Science, of course, is a philosophy, not a certificate.

The Anglosphere

An excerpt from a very enlightening conversation between Nick Cater and Daniel Hannan:

NC: How do you respond to the accusation that the theory of Anglospheric exceptionalism adopts a racist interpretation of history?
DH: That’s the default setting for people who can’t be bothered to read the thesis. It’s demonstrably false. The Anglosphere is why Bermuda is not Haiti. It’s why Hong Kong is not China. It’s why Singapore is not Indonesia. The beauty of these values is they are transferable.
There was a time in the Victorian period when Anglosphere values became mixed up with the then-prevalent ideas of racial determinism. But I don’t think anyone could conceivably claim now that Anglosphere values are transmitted genetically rather than intellectually. Every Anglosphere country, including the United Kingdom, has received massive populations from elsewhere—and the extraordinary thing about this is that it applies to all individuals. Your grandparents could have come from the Ukraine or Vietnam, but once you get the hang of living in a society characterised by personal liberty and the rule of law, there is no going back.
NC: Is this an argument in support of multiculturalism? Is the nation’s shared philosophical framework adopted by all those arrive?
DH: It depends what you mean by ‘multicultural.’ In Britain, the Left sees the word as almost synonymous with ‘multi-ethnic,’ which plainly it isn’t.
If by multiculturalism you mean valuing different sets of civic values equally, then I am an opponent. It’s possible to have a cohesive state where people will eat differently and dress differently and pray differently, but it is not possible to have a functioning state where they have completely opposed views about the role of democracy, the relationship between the individual and the state, the role of secularism, and so forth.
One of the things English-speaking societies were very good at until recently is accepting people as individuals without hectoring, or saying that you have to leave behind your cultural tradition, but you did have buy in to a certain way of doing politics. And the reason people were happy to buy into the way they did politics was it works.
When I was last in Australia I was struck, and quite moved, by the multi-ethnic makeup of the people who had come to listen to me hymning the virtues of the Anglosphere. And as far as I could tell, they were pretty ethnically representative of the cities I was speaking in. That’s a tremendous tribute to a political system that holds out something people want to belong to. Personal freedom, free contract capitalism, common law—people want to buy into that. They cross half the world to find a better system than the one they are choosing to get away from.

Worth a read in its entirety:
http://www.cis.org.au/publications/transcripts/article/5078-conversation-with-daniel-hannan

Wednesday 26 February 2014

Feminazis

At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's law I believe that one of the prime strategy's of the Nazi Party was to render all the unwanted groups; Jews, Gypsy's,the disabled and other 'undesirables', subhuman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch).

It appears the feminists adopt a similar approach to the unborn baby when it comes to abortions:
Others insist the phrase “losing a child” is impermissible. To identify with the foetus as a nascent human being is “appalling,” a “fantasy,” and not to be “pandered” to:
A foetus is no more a person than the omelette I cook up is a chicken. Potentiality does not precede reality. When people are excited about “the baby,” it is the potential of the baby, not the reality.

Misanthropes Inc


Matt Rawlins posted an article on the internet 2 days ago and this is an extract from it:

I often hear New Atheist leaders like Sam Harris argue that a society governed purely by science and has banned religion would produce a better culture. Yet, every nation that has followed this prescription has been a totalitarian disaster with a body count that is beyond the grasp of the most horrific imagination.

I am currently reading a book by Theodore Dalrymple (himself an atheist) wherein he quotes this from Harris’ book The End of Faith:

“The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world we live in.”

I don’t believe he contemplated the irony behind that statement, but the harsh reality is that this attitude held by so many ‘progressive elites’ is what provides the fuel for the horrors of the Godless experiments.

Political correctness, multiculturalism: a.k.a. Cultural Marxism

Sounds familiar?
It appears that Gramsci's plan is working, that is with the assistance of Lenin's useful idiots of course.
Birth of Multiculturalism (Linda Kimball)   In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality-Frederich Engels wrote,
"All the...large and small nationalities are destined to perish...in the revolutionary world storm... (A general war will) wipe out all...nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes...but...reactionary peoples." ("The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)
By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world's proletariat had not heeded Marx's call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.
Separately, two Marxist theorists-Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary-concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.
Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture." Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.
The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.
 
The article is a must read for those who seek to understand the chaos currently gripping western society and especially the anti-Christian bias that is emerging from the new governments in Western countries.
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

Tuesday 25 February 2014

Bob the polluter

Bob Browns philosophy on life: don't do as I do, do as I say;
A FAULTY switch and instruction manuals written entirely in Japanese have been blamed in court for why a ship owned by conservation group Sea Shepherd dropped up to 500 litres of diesel into the Trinity Inlet.
The environmental organisation, whose Australian arm is chaired by former politician Bob Brown, yesterday pleaded guilty to the marine pollution offence in the Cairns Magistrates Court.
 
 http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/sea-shepherd-guilty-of-diesel-spill-that-dropped-up-to-500-litres-of-diesel-into-the-trinity-inlet/story-fnjpusyw-1226836574239

Socialists astonished

The refreshingly articulate views of Governor Jindal of Louisiana:
....for those of you who follow pop culture, you may have taken note of the recent flap between The Robertson family of Duck Dynasty fame, and the A&E Network that produces and broadcasts the Duck Dynasty show. And you may have further observed that the one of the loudest and most aggressive defenders of the Robertson family was the Governor of Louisiana.
You may think that I was defending the Robertsons simply because I am the Governor of their home state, the great state of Louisiana. You would be wrong about that. I defended them because they have every right to speak their minds, however indelicately they may choose to do so. Of course, A&E is a for-profit business, and they can choose what they want to put on the air.
But there was something much larger at stake here. There was a time when liberals in this country believed in debate. But that is increasingly not the case for the modern left in America. No, the modern left in America has grown tired of debate. Their new strategy is to simply try to silence their critics. So these leftists immediately mobilized and did all they could not to debate the issues, but rather to attempt to silence the Robertsons.
There was a time when the left preached tolerance. And they are indeed tolerant, unless they disagree with you. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, a liberal is someone who welcomes dissent, and is astonished to find there is any. The modern left in America is completely intolerant of the views of people of faith. They want a completely secular society where people of faith keep their views to themselves.

Monday 24 February 2014

In flew Enza

I have discovered a new blog of interest; London-based Italian journalist Enza Ferreri on politics, society, religion, environment.

As yet I have not made up my mind on whether or not she is worthy of exploration but first impressions are interesting. An excerpt:
The Left, putting into practice - in some cases knowingly, in others not - Cultural Marxism with its theory of cultural hegemony developed by Italian Communist Party's co-founder Antonio Gramsci, has managed to make a socialist revolution without blood spilling - until now at least.
It has used culture, rather than the storming of palaces, to impose its ideas on a vast mass of people who for 50-60 years have been watching the TV channels it controls, reading the papers it dominates, seeing the films that the liberal Hollywood produces, learning in schools and universities totally imbued with its ideology.
The results can be seen in the story reported at the top of this article:
He [a Somali Muslim] first raped and sodomized a drunk woman as she slept. Weeks later he anally raped a dying woman who overdosed on drugs.
Here we have the double effect of the Left's dominion on Western societies.
On one hand, great numbers of uncontrolled, unrestricted, often illegal immigrants from the most socially backward parts of the world - which are usually Muslim - are allowed into our countries bringing with them their unchecked and unrefined mores, without even an attempt on our part to make them adapt, since we must "celebrate diversity". After all, the Left thinks that we owe them, due to our - according to the Marxist revision of history - terribly imperialist past, and anyway simply because they are poor and we are - relatively - rich.
On the other, the idea that there is something more important in life than self-gratification, the ethical thinking that derives from the West's historical Christian roots, has been gradually abandoned, along with Christianity itself. "Religion is the opium of the people" was one of the greatest of Karl Marx's dogmas. Another was: morality is bourgeois, is another form of the capitalist class's oppression of the proletariat.
Make no mistakes. The terms and expressions used today may be different - after all, fashions change, language evolves -, but the ideas are exactly the same. Marx and Engels wanted the destruction of the family and thought that children should be reared communally. They both hated the family just as much as private property.
The family is patriarchal, is a capitalist institution, they believed. Much like the feminists of our modern times, who are in many ways heirs (or heiresses) to Marxism.
The Left is ideologically and historically anti-Christian, rejects the idea that sexual life is within the ethical sphere - "it's only love" -, and is lax in its morality and self-discipline.
The epidemics of alcohol and drugs abuse, obesity, shopaholism and indebtedness, welfare dependency, fatherlessness, sexually-transmitted diseases, and many more malaises of our societies derive from the same cause: the erosion of Christian values and the triumph of Leftist doctrines.
While more and more people seem to realise the former disastrous effect of the Left's control over Western countries - multiculturalism -, unfortunately not nearly as many understand the latter, no less tragic, effect - abandonment of Christianity with its non-self-centred worldview.
Read more: http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/#ixzz2uCGm5Kkd
 

Saturday 22 February 2014

AGW, the end in sight?

Lies, Lies and more lies...to what end we might ask? Note well the sentence at the end of the excerpt:

Professor Bjorn Lomborg agrees man is heating the planet - but he’s still astonished that so many UN and OECD officials tell untruths about global warming: Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan takes the prize for the most extreme rhetoric, claiming not curbing global warming is “a terrible gamble with the future of the planet and with life itself"…
Both Annan and [Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the OECD last month] cited Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines last November as evidence of increased climate-change-related damage.
Never mind that the latest report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and reported “low confidence” that any changes in hurricanes in recent (or future) decades had anything to do with global warming…
Similarly, Gurria tells us that Hurricane Sandy, which slammed into New York City in 2012, is an example of inaction on climate change, costing the US “the equivalent of 0.5 per cent of its GDP” each year.
In fact, the US currently is experiencing the longest absence of intense landfall hurricanes since records began in 1900, while the adjusted damage cost for the US during this period, including Hurricane Sandy, has fallen slightly.
[United Nations climate chief, Christiana] Figueres claims “that current annual losses worldwide due to extreme weather and disasters could be a staggering 12 per cent of annual global GDP”.
But the study she cites shows only a possible loss of 1 per cent to 12 per cent of gross domestic product in the future, and this is estimated not globally but within just eight carefully selected, climate-vulnerable regions or cities…

Figueres sees “momentum growing towards” climate policies as countries such as China “reduce coal use”. In the real world, China accounts for almost 60 per cent of the global increase in coal consumption from 2012 to 2014, according to the International Energy Agency…

Figueres’s weak grasp on the facts has led her not only to conclude China is “doing it right” on climate change, but also to speculate that China has succeeded because its “political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the US”. In other words, the UN’s top climate official seems to be suggesting an authoritarian political system is better for the planet.
 
Vaclav Havel nailed it when he opined that the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement was not about saving the environment but rather about a small group of ideologues grabbing power.

Wednesday 19 February 2014

Think Well

Theodore Dalrymple has most certainly become one of my favourite sages. This latest brief extract is out of his book 'Spoilt Rotten:  the toxic cult of sentimentality',  a corker of a book if I may say.

“Sentimentality has triumphed in field after field. It has blighted the lives of millions of children, creating a dialectic of overindulgence and neglect. It has destroyed educational standards and caused untold emotional instability because of the theories of human relations it has espoused. Sentimentality has been the forerunner and accomplice of brutality wherever the policies suggested by it have been put into place. The cult of feeling destroys the ability to think, or even the awareness that is necessary to think. Pascal was absolutely right when he said:
Travaillons done a’ bien penser. Voila la principe de la morale.
Let us labour, therefore, to think well. That is the principle of morality.”

Tuesday 18 February 2014

Dalrymple nails it!

As always Theodore Dalrymple articulates our cultural dis-ease:
“No age is golden to those who live in it, and it is not often in human history that men are more grateful for progress than worried by current imperfections.
Even so, our current age seems exceptional in the peculiarity of its unease. Never in human history have people lived such long and pain-free lives; never have so many people, and so high proportion of people , had such freedom to choose how to live, what goals to pursue, and how to divert themselves. On the other hand, never have so many people felt anxious and depressed, and resorted to pills to ease their distress. Mankind has laboured long and hard to produce a cornucopia for itself, only to discover that the cornucopia does not bring the happiness expected, but only a different kind of anxiety.”

Monday 17 February 2014

Pork pies & satanic plots

As all of us have discovered through life (and no doubt to our chagrin), little lies lead to larger lies multiplying at an exponential rate until we are enmeshed in an ocean of lies. (The pun is intended with regards to the following story).

Lies form the very bedrock of the myth of Anthropogenic Global warming.

The following excerpt from Jo Nova's blog shows how while the 'experts' are blaming global warming the actual truth of this 'flood' is distinctly more prosaic.

Christopher Booker explains in The Spectator that it’s not global warming that caused such ghastly floods in the UK, but incompetence and a Green EU wetland plan. He lives near Somerset, (SW England) so he started investigating the rising water six weeks ago — which has now become widespread inundation there, with damages estimated at over £100 million.
As usual, this was a process of small government becoming collectivized big-government. In the Spectator he writes that before 1996, local groups of farmers and engineers managed the drains, but in 1996 the EA (Environmental Agency) took over. Regular dredging stopped happening, the pumping stations were neglected (or stopped, see the link to the note from the Ghost below), and the local drainage boards found it hard to get anything done with the EA red tape. Then things got worse. In 2002, “the Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress, became the agency’s new chief executive”. As Booker goes on to note, she used to run the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, not that that’s a bad thing per se, just that she had different aims to the people who lived there. The locals saw what was coming, they feared that the river had become choked and silted, they wanted control back. Instead, what they got was some parts of Somerset suddenly “returned to wetland” — but that, it seems, was kinda the goal.
Booker and Richard North pored through documents and found remarkable quotes. According to the Baroness, the cheapest way to get a wetland was to “stop drainage” and let “nature take its course”.
“A key part in this had been played by those EU directives which govern almost everything the Environment Agency gets up to — including two with which Baroness Young was already familiar when she presided over the RSPB — setting out the EU’s policy on ‘habitats’ and ‘birds’. But just as important was a 2007 directive on the ‘management of flood risks’, which required ‘flood plains’, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, to be made subject to increased flooding.
“This was just what Lady Young was looking for. She had already been giving lectures and evidence to a House of Lords committee on the EU’s earlier Water Framework directive, proclaiming that one of her agency’s top priorities should be to create more ‘habitats’ for wildlife by allowing wetlands to revert to nature. As she explained in an interview in 2008, creating new nature reserves can be very expensive. By far the cheapest way was simply to allow nature to take its course, by halting the drainage of wetlands such as the Somerset Levels. The recipe she proudly gave in her lectures, repeated to that Lords committee, was: for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’.
“In 2008 her agency therefore produced a 275-page document categorising areas at risk of flooding under six policy options. These ranged from Policy 1, covering areas where flood defences should be improved, down to category 6, where, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, the policy should be to ‘take action to increase the frequency of flooding’. The paper placed the Somerset Levels firmly under Policy 6, where the intention was quite deliberately to allow more flooding. The direct consequences of that we are now seeing round the clock on our television screens.

and............

Ultimately this was about wilderness over people:
…. in no nation has this ‘green’ ideology found such a sympathetic response as in Britain, where the senior officials of the EA — 14 of them earning more than £100,000 a year — have long been more swayed by those Agenda 21 doctrines of ‘sustainability’ and ‘biodiversity’ than by any practical concern for the needs of people, homes, businesses and farmland.
Read the whole feature: Revealed: how green ideology turned a deluge into a flood
 
One of the seminal lies of the AGW movement is that nature left alone will not only 'heal itself', but it will form a better world for all. Our life experience tells a different story. Weeds, predators, and human civilisation cannot co exist without some form of management. One choice currently being touted by some elite/greenies proposes a; 'culling of the human population':
A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.
Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
 
and.......
At the end of Pianka's speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clammered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.
Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.

and............
In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests," says:
"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S."
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:
"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."

Tumour rumour

A cancer at the heart of Australian education; Marxism:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/were-paying-for-the-teaching-of-marxist-politics/story-fni0ffxg-1226828632591

Saturday 15 February 2014

Media bias?

Why is it that the left side of politics are always considered to be the most compassionate, least racist and always considerate when the facts actually indicate the opposite?

A case in point is that of Bess Price, aboriginal elder and member of the liberal party in Northern Australia:
 Bess Price, a conservative Aboriginal politician from the Northern Territory, has been vilified by the Left, often in racist terms:
Because I have spoken out on this issue and others close to my heart, I have been routinely attacked by the left. Professor Larissa Behrendt claimed that what I say is more offensive than watching a man having sex with a horse. Her white professional protester colleague, Paddy Gibson, told the world that I was only doing it for the money and frequent flyer points. The Queensland educationist, Chris Sarra, said that I was ‘pet Aborigine’ who only said what the government wanted me to say. Chris Graham, the white editor of Tracker magazine called me a ‘grub’. A white woman in Victoria, Leonie Chester, calls herself Nampijinpa Snowy River, on the internet. She tells the world that my people, the Warlpiri, are ‘her mob’. She and her friends have obscenely insulted me on the internet, over and over. Marlene Hodder, a white woman from Alice Springs and her protesting friend, Barbara Shaw, have called me a liar several times.
The Crikey blogger, Bob Gosford, who calls himself ‘the Northern Myth’, calls me Bess ‘Gaol is Good for Aboriginal People’ Price and accuses me of ‘vaguely malevolent and populist buffoonery that is designed to capture the attention of the tutt-tutterers and spouted by politicians that inevitably have a short tenure in power’. In Brisbane, Tiga Bayles, using an Indigenous community owned radio station, told the whole world that I am ‘a head nodding Jacky-Jacky for the government’ and that I am ‘totally offensive and arrogant’ because I do not want people like Tiga who know nothing about us, speaking about my people. He and his friends laughed as they told the world that I am only interested in money.


Oops!

Unintended consequences that we are all paying for on a daily basis:
The project began in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when liberalism embraced the sexual revolution. In place of traditional standards of sexual morality, which held that the proper expression of human sexuality was within marriage and with a view to the generation of new life, liberals began to preach a message of sexual liberation. In matters of sex, they announced, whatever is done between “consenting adults” is none of society’s business.
The tradition had held that sexual conduct is properly governed by both procedural and substantive norms. The procedural norm was provided by consent: forcible sex was condemned as the crime of rape. But consent was not the only issue, because sex was not governed only by a procedural norm. A substantive norm was provided by marriage and procreation. Thus, according to the tradition, adults might consent freely to certain forms of sex—fornication, adultery, or sodomy, for example—that would nevertheless still be wrong because of their inconsistency with the substantive purposes of human sexuality. The sexual revolution sought to strip sex of its substantive norms and leave only the procedural norm in place. This was the effect of slogans affirming the legitimacy of anything “consenting adults” might do.
As this kind of thinking was put forward by a certain kind of liberal, thoughtful conservatives warned about its revolutionary consequences. The liberal claim—that consent is the only ethically relevant concern in relation to sex—has the potential to erode all traditional sexual morality and all legislation based upon it. If consent is all that is required, then fornication cannot be wrong, prostitution cannot be wrong, and homosexual intercourse cannot be wrong.
The sexual revolution could not have succeeded to the extent that it did—that is, the public could not have embraced the liberal reduction of sexual ethics to “consent”—unless these radical consequences were ignored or denied. Those who warned about the ultimate consequences were disregarded. No decisive cultural change, no radical alteration in the nation’s way of life, was in the offing: just a little “loosening up” with regard to sex. Such claims have been proven wrong: with regard to sexual morality, the America of 2014 would be unrecognizable to the America of 1964. If the liberals of that era did not lie about the consequences of what they were doing, they were not fully honest, either. Like an unscrupulous merchant, they did not fully inform their customers of all the consequences of what they were buying.
Perhaps, however, the liberals of that era did not acknowledge all the consequences of what they were doing because they themselves did not fully understand them. Many of the liberals of that era probably would have agreed, if pressed, that certain forms of sexual intercourse were improper whether or not they were consented to. With a residual decency that far exceeded their theoretical acuity, they probably took it for granted that certain forms of sex would remain outside the moral pale. For such liberals, rhetoric about “consenting adults” was probably intended to do no more than legitimize premarital sex. Such people were duping themselves as well as those upon whom they practiced such rhetoric, and therefore could not be accused of willful dishonesty. In any case, it is difficult to accuse a political movement of breaking faith over the course of two generations. Today’s sexual revolutionists may be the heirs of the liberals of the late 1960s and early 1970s predecessors, but they are not, for the most part, the same people.(Excerpt from Carson Holloway's article in Mercatornet 14.2.2014)  

U.N. hypocrisy

For many years extreme left wing Utopianists have pushed for one world government:
GREENS leader Bob Brown - whose party assumes sole balance of power in the Senate tomorrow - wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament.
This ''people's assembly'' would be based on one person, one vote, one value and was being vigorously promoted in Europe and the United Nations, he said yesterday.(Age, June 30, 2011)
 
Who would assume the mantle of the world's policeman? One assumes that 'honour' would fall to the UN and this article tells us what that would be like:
 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_uns_zero_compliance_with_zero_tolerance_of_abuse


Friday 14 February 2014

Open your eyes

The misanthropic impulse behind many conservationist demands is on loud display in this piece:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_tasty_dish_for_a_very_big_fish_and_its_all_our_fault/

When are people going to wake up and take note of the actions of nature on our own doorsteps (perhaps too many of these 'conservationaists' actually never move beyond their urban concrete boxes). If you leave nature to do its own thing the end result is chaos. Gardens left unattended become weed patches, elephants left un-culled in Africa cause immense damage which unchecked would result in their own demise.

If you are a Christian you would recognise the effects of the curse, if you are not religious surely common sense and everyday observations would suffice.

Thursday 13 February 2014

Labor's pants are an inferno

It appears that the Labor party is most successful in breeding leaders who lie through their teeth:

"...why did Shorten falsely suggest we gave too little?
“Australia subsidises its car manufacturing in the order of about $17 (per Australian per year),” Shorten complained, “ whereas the Germans do it at about somewhere between $65 and $90 and the Americans, $250.”
False. For instance, Shorten’s US figures — taken from a highly atypical year in the global financial crisis — include an one-off $80 billion rescue package of which most was a loan, since repaid.
The Productivity Commission gave the real figures last month. In fact, every Australian must donate $US17.75 a year in budgetary assistance to their car industry, Germans $14.43 and Americans only $5.41. We aren’t the least generous but the most.
Here is another comparison. We give $US1885 per car in subsidies and the US only $166. Every Australian car worker is subsidised by more than $10,000 a year. No industry in Australia is subsidised so much. No developed country subsidises car makers more and, as the Productivity Commission says, it’s just money down the drain."
 
Truly the Australian Labor party should be renamed the Lie-bore company.

Media bias

Why is it that the left side of politics is usually considered to be the most compassionate, less racist and more compassionate than the conservatives when all the evidence points to the fact that the opposite is almost always true?
 
Bess Price, a conservative Aboriginal politician from the Northern Territory, has been vilified by the Left, often in racist terms:
Because I have spoken out on this issue and others close to my heart, I have been routinely attacked by the left. Professor Larissa Behrendt claimed that what I say is more offensive than watching a man having sex with a horse. Her white professional protester colleague, Paddy Gibson, told the world that I was only doing it for the money and frequent flyer points. The Queensland educationist, Chris Sarra, said that I was ‘pet Aborigine’ who only said what the government wanted me to say. Chris Graham, the white editor of Tracker magazine called me a ‘grub’. A white woman in Victoria, Leonie Chester, calls herself Nampijinpa Snowy River, on the internet. She tells the world that my people, the Warlpiri, are ‘her mob’. She and her friends have obscenely insulted me on the internet, over and over. Marlene Hodder, a white woman from Alice Springs and her protesting friend, Barbara Shaw, have called me a liar several times. The Crikey blogger, Bob Gosford, who calls himself ‘the Northern Myth’, calls me Bess ‘Gaol is Good for Aboriginal People’ Price and accuses me of ‘vaguely malevolent and populist buffoonery that is designed to capture the attention of the tutt-tutterers and spouted by politicians that inevitably have a short tenure in power’. In Brisbane, Tiga Bayles, using an Indigenous community owned radio station, told the whole world that I am ‘a head nodding Jacky-Jacky for the government’ and that I am ‘totally offensive and arrogant’ because I do not want people like Tiga who know nothing about us, speaking about my people. He and his friends laughed as they told the world that I am only interested in money

Wednesday 12 February 2014

Magic is in the air

Magical thinking married to wishful longing, bolstered by government grants = AGW theory.

And so the evidence to support the theory that ‘climate change’ has caused the storms is… that there’s no evidence to falsify what is merely a supposition.

Truly, AGW is a magical theory that explains absolutely everything – including diametrically contradictory phenomena, lack of logic and absence of evidence – whenever people observe profoundly, ‘Something funny’s happening to the weather’.

I have another theory to explain the current deluge. It is Galileo, Newton and Einstein weeping uncontrollably from above.

Tuesday 11 February 2014

Equal to what?

The faulty reasoning behind the post modern concept of 'equality'.

Thomas Sowell has written much on this as well. The Black American economist and social commentator knows full well why something like freedom is to be championed and aimed for, but not equality. Indeed, he thinks the word ‘equality’ is one of our most misused and abused words around.
He once wrote a piece entitled “Meaningless ‘Equality’”. In it he says in part, “Anyone who questions or opposes equality is almost certain to be regarded as someone who believes in inequality – in ‘inferiority’ and ‘superiority.’ But all of these concepts suffer from the same problem: For equality, inferiority, or superiority to have any meaning, what is being compared must first be commensurable. A symphony is not equal to an automobile. Nor is it inferior or superior. They are simply not commensurable.”

Saturday 8 February 2014

The Obama debacle

To the many who are aghast at the use of Obama tactics, that is; the use of American agencies to intimidate and 'stand-over' ordinary American citizens particularly those who would stand up to expose the neo fascist/socialistic underbelly that is the Obama administration, read this and weep:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

The precursor to anarchy

Been on holiday and enjoyed being away from the keyboards. The following extract is about the phenomena euphemistically known as 'squatting', more correctly phrased as stealing:

It’s Protest So It’s Righteous

Alexander Vasudevan is a lecturer in “cultural and historical geography” with an interest in “radical politics” and “cartographies of protest.” He also, naturally, writes for the Guardian. Which may help explain his belief that proposals to criminalise squatting would create “jarring archipelagos of wealth and poverty” and, more importantly, remove “a potent symbol of protest.” Squatting, see, isn’t opportunist theft, it’s a form of political protest and therefore righteous by default:
The seizure and reclamation of space (temporary or otherwise) has become a key and potent symbol of protest here in the UK, from campus occupations to the playful interventions of groups such as UK Uncut.
Yes, we’ve seen those playful interventions and the people they tend to attract, many of whom wish to play with unsuspecting members of the public. And note the word reclamation, as if what’s being taken, often forcibly, somehow already belongs to the people who’ve decided to take it. Because… well, being terribly radical, they’re entitled, obviously.
As, for instance, when squatters invaded and occupied the home of Lisa Cockin’s mother, recently deceased, then used it as a venue for some rather lively parties. When the intruders were finally evicted, the Cockin family were left with repair costs and legal bills of several thousand pounds. Or when squatters stripped the home of Denise Joannides – even ripping up its floors - in what I’m sure could be construed as an act of radical protest.
What is at stake here is the further criminalisation of occupation-based tactics, which could severely limit the ability of vulnerable communities in particular to assert and stake their own geographical “right to the city.”
Protestors - at least those of a kind congenial to Mr Vasudevan - apparently have a right to storm and occupy a private business, a private home. How liberating it must be to have such moral certainty and a convenient disregard for boundaries and reciprocation. Note too the deployment of the Vulnerability Card, thereby implying that the nation’s squats are currently heaving with the frail, the elderly and the disabled. A strange insinuation, given that squatters are very likely to be young people like these, also gorged on “radical politics,” and whose only obvious disability is a failure to perceive their own absurd double standards.
Readers who wish to reclaim the belongings of Mr Vasudevan – say, his laptop or his phone – should head for the University of Nottingham.
Update, via the comments:

As Mr Vasudevan is keen to excuse the “seizure and reclamation” of other people’s belongings as a “potent symbol of protest,” it seems only fair – and important – to bring that sentiment back to his own doorstep, or that of his employers, if only rhetorically. Of course our academic radical has little to worry about. Readers of this blog are likely to have strong inhibitions regarding the invasion or theft of other people’s property, unlike some enthusiasts of the “radical politics” that Mr Vasudevan finds so exciting.
Vasudevan’s article links to a recent squatting news story, one of a dozen or so such incidents, reactions to which are apparently “an attempt to further sanctify the virtues of private property.” For readers overseas, the incident involved the film director Guy Ritchie, whose partly-renovated home was “seized and reclaimed” by a troupe of squatters known as the Really Free School. Once inside, the group fired up their iPhones and issued an open online invitation to other “occupiers” to join them and “sleepover in the most rah property in London.” A property that isn’t theirs and which they chose to violate because, hey, they could.
When not tweeting furiously, the group decorated Mr Ritchie’s house with banners exhorting “strike,” “occupy” and “resist.” It seems these radical souls imagine they’re being oppressed, though as so often it’s not particularly clear how or by what. A dozen or so presumptuous middle-class “activists” armed with BlackBerrys and iPads are hardly the most plausible members of a “vulnerable community.” The squatters, who refused to leave when confronted by police, claimed they would be engaging in a “collective learning process” with topics including how to steal from public transport and “classes in tarot.”
Update 2:
An anonymous commenter takes exception to my description of squatting as opportunist theft. “Squatting,” we’re told, “is more like borrowing.”
Well, borrowing usually implies consent and the voluntary return, intact, of whatever’s being borrowed. As opposed to a person whose property has been invaded then being forced to use costly legal means to recover it. And on top of this indignity, then having to pay for any repairs and outstanding utility bills. Maybe the borrowers, as our unnamed friend puts it, should just steal the owner’s credit cards and run up a hefty bill. It would save everyone a lot of hassle.
The borrowing shtick is repeated by a squatter in the Guardian comments, with an air of “so what’s the big deal?” A tone that reminds me of the ridiculous Da! Collective, a member of which confidently announced: “Squatting is not a criminal offence. If the owners want to kick us out they’ll have to apply for an eviction notice.” Both comments suggest a belief that the moral onus is, conveniently, on the owner of the property, not the people invading it, damaging it and occupying it without the owner’s permission. So presumably if the actual victim of the trespass doesn’t complain formally via a solicitor, or complain quickly enough, or simply doesn’t know their property has been invaded… hey, it’s their fault, innit?
That must be the “social justice” we hear so much about.