The collectivist vision

Australia is under siege folks. This is not paranoia speaking, just read the news and most importantly the various blogs of repute where the real news is posted. Take this for example, from the previous Chairman of the ABC:

The government’s determination to control our lives did not stop at a media inquiry. The draft Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Bill 2012 seeks to further restrict our freedoms. While softened somewhat following strong criticisms, including from eminent retired judges, the reverse onus of proof remains, along with an expansion of victimhood.

The government says it never intended to restrict free speech, but the fact is, while it preaches liberty, it is about coercion. The bill is an ambit claim. We may ask, to whom is the government appealing? Since when has limiting our basic freedoms been advocated in an election campaign?

There is no popular groundswell. The government is responding to the collectivist instincts of those intellectuals who hold liberty in low regard. It isn’t so long ago that an academic floated the idea that we “suspend democracy” to silence climate change sceptics. Authoritarian government appeals to these people.

There are people in Australia (collectivists) who want to rule and they want to rule absolutely. They believe they know better than you and me and therefore they want to control our every thought, action, intention and emotion.
We must resist in order to remain free, and resist now before the only options left are violent ones, because as sure as night follows the day, the only alternative once reasonable debate is extinguished is violence, and violence makes monsters of us all. 

Facts vs. manipulation

Some sobering facts about the global warming scam. Whilst I am sure that AGW diehards can never accept truth no matter what form it appears in, perhaps those with a more tolerant (in the true sense of the word) knowledge base can accept facts over opinion.

Lord Monckton
As a climate realist who is not into the various Chicken Little scenarios, Lord Monckton also has experienced his fair share of abuse. He too is regularly pilloried and attacked, all for daring to take a view which challenges some of the perceived wisdom of the day. He dares to ask hard, inconvenient questions, which often go unanswered. Here he offers ten of them:
1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?
2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?
3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy – the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?
4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?
5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than man-made increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?
6. In the past 247 years – almost a quarter of a millennium – the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?
7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?
8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?
9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?
10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?

Given all the hatred and vilification this man must endure for simply speaking out, it would not go amiss if you kept him in your prayers. And if you have a chance to hear him speak in the coming days, please do so. You will not regret it

Eradicating a species

Environmental ideologues would have us all believe that leaving the noble savage in his/her idyllic paradise is how we imperialist colonialists should behave. Read the following essay on the helpful eradication of negative species and how modern medicine is assisting the underprivileged masses to live better, more successful lives and you will realise what bunkum the ideologues prattle.

When species extinction is a good thing

Published on Saturday, February 09, 2013 , updated Saturday, February 09, 2013

Will Jimmy Carter exterminate Guinea worm soon?

It's not a race, exactly, but there's an intriguing uncertainty about whether a former U.S. president or a software magnate will cause the next deliberate extinction of a species in the wild. Will Jimmy Carter eradicate Guinea worm before Bill Gates eradicates polio?

It is more than a third of a century since a human disease was extinguished. The last case of smallpox was in 1977, and in those days health experts expected other diseases to follow smallpox quickly into oblivion. Polio has repeatedly disappointed campaigners by hanging on, though it now affects less than 1% as many people as at its peak in the 1950s.

The generosity of Bill Gates has done much to speed the decline of polio, and he and most experts now see its end within six years at most. India, 10 years ago the worst-affected country, has been polio-free since 2011, and only three countries still host the virus: Pakistan, Afghanistan and especially Nigeria. Though the murder of nine polio vaccinators in Pakistan by Islamists in December was a tragic setback, last year there were just 222 new polio cases world-wide.

As Mr. Gates recounted in his 2013 annual letter from the Gates Foundation, the reason for his optimism is that a new approach is bearing fruit, especially in northern Nigeria. Volunteers on foot (but guided by GPS and satellite imagery) map unrecorded villages and houses to identify gaps in vaccination programs.

The Guinea worm, a disease that the Carter Center has relentlessly pursued, will probably edge out polio to the disease extinction line. In 1986, more than 3.5 million Africans and Asians were afflicted with Guinea worm, or dracunculiasis; in 2012, just 542 caught the parasite.

The larvae of this nematode worm live inside freshwater copepods, or "water fleas." When the copepods are ingested in drinking water, the worms burrow through the stomach wall into the body cavity and mate. The females, which can reach 3 feet in length, then drill their way down the inside of the victim's legs over a year before erupting painfully from a burning blister on the foot. The victim is tempted to immerse the blister in water to cool it, which allows the worm to release its larvae to seek copepods. The only cure is to pull the worm out over many weeks, inch by inch, winding it round a stick as it emerges. There is no vaccine.

Filtering water to prevent the ingestion of water fleas and making sure infected people do not enter water are the best means of prevention. Guinea worm was first targeted for eradication before polio, and it, too, has been disappointingly stubborn. But last year the number of cases halved from the year before, meaning that there are fewer guinea worms left in the world than black rhinos. The handful of cases in Chad (10), Mali (7) and Ethiopia (4) are expected to dwindle to nothing this year, but there were 521 cases in South Sudan (mostly in just one county), where eradication might take one or two more years of hard work, urged on by Mr. Carter and backed by money from the Gates Foundation, the British government and other donors. Guinea worm would be the first animal to be deliberately driven extinct.

Supposing these two welcome eradications do happen this decade, what parasites go next? Don Hopkins of the Carter Center says lymphatic filariasis, another worm carried by mosquitoes, could be gone by 2020. Onchocerciasis, or river blindness, carried by black flies, is almost gone from the Americas but will take longer to eradicate in Africa.

The first bacterium to be driven extinct could be yaws, an infection of children related to the organism that causes syphilis, which disfigures many people, especially in Ghana, Ivory Coast, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Easily treated now with a single dose of azithromycin, an antibiotic, yaws should be gone by 2020.

Unfortunately common sense has never been a prevailing argument amongst those who would control us (for our own good of course). Doubly unfortunate is that the only way through such philosophical intransigence is the 'will to power' and with that everybody loses.

A flickering flame

Read this article http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/02/07/wilders-political-correctness-and-freedom-of-speech/  and you will gain some insight into how far down the path of 'bending our knee to the god of islam' Australia has moved.

We face numerous problems in this country many of which are as a result of moving away from our Judeo-Christian foundation, but the one of dhimmitude looms large upon our horizons.

Unless we stand up to it now the future is going to be one of fear, anarchy and 'tribal' violence, you don't have to research much deeper than reviewing the lifestyles of country's ruled by Islamiscists to see that.

Aristocatty

This is the real goal of the eco-fanatics:

To mitigate climate change one needs to force the vast majority of humankind to continue living in abject poverty.

Preventing climate change does not help the poor, it dooms them! Poverty simply kills more people than climate…
 

The tofu elites want to enforce a lifestyle akin to before the industrial revolution when the forests were wild and the majority of mankind were in subjection to the chosen few. A time when the aristocrats ruled the roost and the peasants who served them were many and of course all of these new 'intellectual bureaucrats' think of themselves as the ruling class. In many ways these people emulate the aristocrats of 18th & 19th century England with the amusing irony being that they hope to achieve similar results by manufacturing a republic and abolishing any reference to the monarchy.

They are, by-and-large, useless and highly delusional. Having in many cases been brought up within financially pampered environments they gather degrees in the arts, humanities or the 'social sciences' (a misnomer if ever there was one) and because these degrees are generally of little or no substance (I know because I have four of them), these wastrels feel the need to fabricate some sort of value, hence the eco-urban-warrior syndrome. Although  truth be told a mere mention of the word warrior amongst most of the males types would be enough to make them swoon, wrists fluttering limply, as they collapse in a heap ala the end of a long night of the Sydney Mardi Gras.

I fear a new class war is upon us.

Ho hum!

More and more and more evidence that shows how destructive an ideology can be when the unintended consequences of not thinking things through emerge.

Environmentalist Clive Hambler considers the dangers of alternative energy:

Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.

I’m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I’ve worked as an environmental consultant — conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link — and I now teach ecology and conservation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy, I’ve since seen the havoc wreaked on wildlife by wind power, hydro power, biofuels and tidal barrages.

My election manifesto

Most of us are comfortable with the idea of change being inevitable. However I believe that some of these fluctuations point towards an increase in civilisation and others towards a collapse. I suspect the latter in these days.

We bear daily witness to the degradation of traditional family values, manners, decorum, civility and self-control taking place before our very eyes and yet every time someone stands up to complain against the endless assault they are shouted down with cries of ‘things have never been better’, and ‘evolution is automatically progress’ or accused of being a grumpy old man/woman, or heaven forbid a ‘dinosaur.

Not all change is automatically better nor is younger/newer necessarily better than older per se. However neither am I a traditionalist for the sake of tradition, in fact I can think of few things more boring than empty rituals…but that’s me and I value others who are enhanced or encouraged by these things. What I think is really happening is a concentrated attack on values much like the assault that was launched by Mao and probably for the same reasons.

“In Shanghai, they came for the University professors and businessmen first. Red Guards, some as young as fifteen, paraded them through the streets in dunce caps to hastily arranged tribunals. There an act of ‘self-criticism’ was demanded – confession to imaginary crimes against Mao Zedong. Most such criminals were sent to be ‘reeducated’ in labour camps. Others were beaten or executed. The great Proletarian Cultural Revolution had begun.

Mao’s goal was to erase 6,000 years of Chinese law, manners, art, and history in one nationwide orgy of destruction and murder. With a society thus freed from tradition, he believed he could mold a new type of man – a socialist man. Anyone who preserved the old ways, anyone with Western contacts, anyone with money, land or education – mall were ‘class enemies’. Violent mobs of students, soldiers, and party officials roamed the streets, attacking anyone with Western clothes or hairstyles, looting the homes of the wealthy. Death sentences were handed out like parking tickets.” (The God of Stones and Spiders, Colson, C. pg. 17)

As I read history I am struck by the predisposition of human beings to repeat their past mistakes. It is as if they are wilfully blind to what has gone before, that and the current rewriting of history that is being pushed into the education system (ala 1984!). What springs to mind is the idea of madness being that you do the same thing over and over but expect a different result each time. Perhaps the evolutionary perspective of inevitable progress is just that; madness.

But what I see in Australia is more than an evolutionary mindset. I believe that Gramsci’s ideology has blossomed. I read about it every day, an ideological war on every front; law & punishment, education, finance, farming, churches, mining, banking, marriage, the unfolding of the nanny state, strongholds on employment freedoms and on and on.

 The fact that the countries Treasurer, the Attorney General and the Minister of finance all indulge in class warfare leads me to believe that my fears are grounded in fact. That plus the fact that Labor has never hidden its Fabian roots and when you read the Fabian manifesto it’s time to tremble for the future.

Let us make every effort to make sure that this government is soundly thrashed in the upcoming election.

Green meanies.

When people with extreme mindsets cannot win an intellectual argument in the first instance, they tend to resort in exasperation by throwing their own bodies against their perceived grievances. When you marry such a mindset with the underlying world view that any productive activities which add value to natural resources is sacrilegious you have an army of committed anarchists just waiting to be thrown into battle against the forces of ‘evil’, thus the legion of 'protesters' chaining themselves to bulldozers, sitting in parks making a virtue of doing nothing, or the newest and most disturbing trend...telling lies and masquerading as someone else in order to urge disinvestment in companies you think are 'immoral'.

That the Green politicians would support such financial anarchy only goes to prove that these people are little more than totalitarian hypocrites masquerading under a 'democratic' banner until such time as they achieve their goals. Which dictator was it that said: "I believe in democratic voting, at least until I gain power."

If you believe coal is an existential threat to civilization then no revolutionary behaviour is too extreme, because you are doing it for ‘the good of the people’ and how can that be wrong? There are few worldviews more destructive than the religious one which maintains that what you do is not only to save yourself but the whole world.

Unfortunately in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king and most eco-fanatical motivations are one-eyed at best.