Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

IMAGINE … yes, exactly

March 23, 2016

No doubt that narcissist wanker who plays “Imagine” is already dragging his piano to the airport or the metro.

Mark Steyn, Tuesday, March 22.

Mark Steyn said the above on Tuesday, and a few hours later, as predictably as clockwork, mourners stood hand-in-hand in Place de la Bourse in Brussels singing Imagine.


It might sound uncharitable but Mark Steyn is far more clear headed about what this tragedy signals than those “saddy-saddy-sadcakes” who tend to ineffectual pacifist dreaming. It made him very angry … because he has been saying this for nearly a decade.

The European Union doesn’t need to imagine John Lennon’s “Imagine” because it lives in it. As I wrote nine years ago in my book America Alone:

“Imagine there’s no heaven.” No problem. Large majorities of Scandinavians and Dutchmen and Belgians are among the first peoples in human history to be unable to imagine there’s any possibility of heaven: no free people have ever been so voluntarily secular.

“Imagine all the people/Living for today.” Check.

“Imagine there’s no countries.” Check. The EU is a post-nationalist pseudo-state.

“Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion, too.” You got it.

And yet somehow “all the people/Living life in peace” doesn’t seem to be working out.

As he rightly points out, “We sing the same crappy songs but we do not live in John Lennon’s 1970.”

While we were “living for today”, Islam was playing for tomorrow. When you sing “Imagine”, you’re saying you can’t imagine anything beyond the torpor of the moment. You can’t imagine that there are people who don’t think as you do, and who regard the cobwebbed boomer-pop solidarity as confirmation of nothing more than your flaccid passivity.

Cancan’t, Copenflopen, Parisisn’t

November 15, 2015


‘The entire trillion dollar climate change industry rests on a single hypothetical assumption … To this day there is no scientific evidence to support this assumption.”


HEAVEN AND HELL: The Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty
Professor Ian Plimer
Connor Court, 2015,  348pages,   $29.95

Launched this month, a new book by Ian Plimer, Heaven and Hell, is a frontal attack on the absurd, science-free claims peddled by, of all people, Pope Francis in his recent encyclical, Laudate ‘Si.

Throughout the book the author lists many of the infamously false predictions and bogus items of “evidence” from clomate scientists and the media. This litany provokes incredulity and quiet rage as the reader is confronted time and again by the gullibility of journalists, whose professional responsibility it is to be better informed. That the global warming scam and scandal has flourished for as long as it has testifies to the scientific illiteracy and political leanings endemic in modern newsrooms.

Read my review in Quadrant OnLine




September 30, 2015

The so-called secular rebels were in fact vicious Islamists in disguise.

It gives me no joy to say that I thought the West’s strategy was wrong four years ago.

I have thought this all along and posted several blogs on what appeared to me to be obvious. Why could we not learn from the disaster in Lybia and the delusion of an Arab Spring?

This latest summary by John R Bradley, a British journalist specialising in Middle Eastern affairs, would have to be the most profoundly depressing and saddening account of bad decisions and unintended consequences I have read in a long time.

At the outset of Syria’s brutal four-year civil war, I was an almost unique voice in the British media deploring the push to depose the secular dictator President Bashar al-Assad, especially in the absence of a genuinely popular uprising against him. …

Assad, I argued, would not fall, because the people of Damascus would not rise up against him. The so-called secular rebels were in fact vicious Islamists in disguise. …

Four years on, the suffering of the Syrian people — 250,000 slaughtered, half of the population internally displaced and millions more made refugees — is obvious. And last week, in the midst of Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since the second world war, the extent of the West’s geopolitical miscalculations became painfully evident.

This clearly is the net result:

Assad is in fact now more popular than ever in the roughly one third of Syria he still controls … The West, though, is more hated than ever. A recent poll found that 80 per cent of Syrians believe we created the Islamic State — a common belief, incidentally, throughout the Middle East (and not entirely inaccurate). So it took Washington and its reactionary Gulf allies four years and billions of dollars to end up eating humble pie. They have now effectively admitted that Moscow was right about Syria all along. In the process, they have undermined any humanitarian credibility our military adventurism may still have had after the Iraq nightmare.

In my blog I quoted an article by Fiona Hill on ABC’s The Drum. She reported the desperate plea of a Syrian Christian woman, “What are your so-called Christian leaders in Australia thinking? Don’t they realise our freedoms in Syria are the envy of other Arab countries – and impossible in Qatar?! If Bashar (Al Assad) goes, we will be lambs to the slaughter.”

Tragically they were and the consequences are rippling out alarmingly across Europe to the Arctic circle.


Racism? Get over it.

July 28, 2015

There are none so blind ...

The latest earnest issue being feverishly discussed in our media is the almost universal condemnation of the booing of star AFL footballer Adam Goode.

The whole tone of debate on this issue is quite suffocating.

Everyone is wondering why: and at the same time condemning it. Like most public debates when there are calls of racism, NO ONE seems to want to understand it. The irony of this is that it will lead to inflaming things further.

If we really want to know why there is condemnation for this man then read what the people who are doing it say about him and try to understand rather than silence.

A flood of letters to The Australian basically said it was Goodes’ own fault. In summary:

Calling someone an ape is a throw away line used on anyone, regardless of origin, especially in football matches.

Goode made a fool of himself by bullying a 13 year old girl.

Authorities then chose to make her a national disgrace

Punters don’t like people playing the race card, on or off the field

If he can’t stand the heat he should get another job — such as politics

Clearly, this has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with personality. It may be hard for Goode but he should not hide behind being Aboriginal. That would be racist.


Andrew Bolt pings the racist double think of the Left with a comment this morning about Tim Soutphommasane praising a war dance by Adam Goodes as “just having pride” and criticising another by white Australians as “suspicious”.

I suspect most of the booers are not racists but people protesting against a new racism. And Soutphommasane sure gives them more to boo.


In a similar vein, the outstanding commentator Paul Sheehan from the SMH points out that the accusation of “racism” is one of the most poisoned accusation used almost exclusively by the Left to close down debate and allow open questioning. As a consequence it pours petrol onto the fire:

First among those is Andrew Pridham, a merchant banker, who is chairman of the Swans. He delivered this message to the public this week via Fairfax Media, “If you’re booing Adam Goodes, I’ve got bad news for you: you’re a racist”.
I’ve got bad news for Pridham: indiscriminate, heated, sanctimonious accusations do not help.
Then there is Jason Mifsud​, the most senior Indigenous official with the AFL. He has proposed that all Indigenous AFL players perform a war dance in support of Goodes. This suggestion is, at best, dubious and, at worst, dense.
Third, and most egregious, is Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews, who said, “He is being booed by people, not all, but many of them, because they have no respect for him and no regard for him as an Aboriginal man and that is shameful”.
Andrews, Pridham, Mifsud and others should know that when you invoke blanket accusations of racism – or homophobia or xenophobia, for that matter – the chances of winning the argument are diminished and will harvest resentment towards blunderbuss reactions.

EU democracy would lead to Nazi death camps

April 19, 2015

“We have together to fight the danger of a new Euro-scepticism. Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war”.  Herman Van Rompuy, 

The “no” votes were an “old road” that lead back to Nazi death camps, claimed Margot Wallstrom, Sweden’s Foreign Minister 

Crunch time is coming for the European Union and its benevolent anti-democratic bureaucracy. There is very clear fear by Brussels’s bureaucrats about “no” votes from European citizens. This Euro elite has a devious track record of hearing the noes but cleverly ignoring them. What would people know about the importance of their will and wisdom.  

Expressions of public dissent violate the smug Brussels worldview in which all EU decisions are for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. Any challenge provokes accusations of populism and xenophobia. Nothing can be more alien to the Brussels mind than the cut and thrust of referendum debates over Europe — it risks giving the people a say over matters that Europe’s managerial political caste consider theirs alone.

And these people suggest that anyone who disagrees with them simply must be right wing fascists, indeed Nazis. A familiar tactic?

The idea that voters are the bearers of a fascistic, nationalist or irrational virus that threatens to tear down civilisation, emerged again two weeks ago when Tony Blair waded into the British referendum debate. “Nationalism is a powerful sentiment. Let that genie out of the bottle and it is a Herculean task to put it back. Reason alone struggles. The referendum on Europe carries with it the same risk,” he said.

Don’t be fooled by the apocalyptic scaremongering: these people are just frightened of losing. Blair revealed as much when he warned about “the perilous fragility of public support for the sensible choice”. It is a grubby mindset that reveals the lack of strong proEuropean ideals among the EU’s supporters. They, our managers, people like Blair, know best. We, the voters, the irrational public, cannot be trusted to be “sensible”. The EU’s enduring hostility to referendums reveals it to be a union of rulers united in mistrust of the people. The referendum question is the acid test.

All of this reminds me of William F. Buckley Jr’s observation that he would rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

The same goes for a random sample of Eurosceptics compared to the EU bureaucracy.

CO2: the gift of life

April 12, 2015

“How do I know that increased CO2 will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways”     Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace has skewered yet again the monstrous dissembling of the global warming carbonistas. If their silly science is so certain why do they need to lie and exagerate so much?

The propaganda is ramping up again as we approach the Paris climate summit. Since the temperature on Earth has stubbornly stopped rising, the new scare is ocean acidification and the constant threats to our Great Barrier Reef.

But according to Patrick Moore this is just more lies coming on top of a lack of evidence.

Something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, just more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Moore takes the reader through chapter and verse of why the menace of increased CO2 and ocean acidification is plain wrong-headed. Through the last half a billion years when life forms emerged, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was up to ten times higher than at present. As one would expect, the sea also has its own way of resisting acidification.

Then there is the obvious practical observation:

Finally, it is a fact that people who have saltwater aquariums sometimes add CO2 to the water in order to increase coral growth and to increase plant growth. The truth is CO2 is the most important food for all life on Earth, including marine life. It is the main food for photosynthetic plankton (algae), which in turn is the food for the entire food chain in the sea.

Moore concludes rather forcefully that:

For some reason, the proponents of catastrophic global warming ignore this fact. They talk of “carbon pollution” as if CO2 is a poison. If there were no CO2 in the global atmosphere there would be no life on this planet. Surely, that should be enough to permit questioning the certainty of those who demonise this essential molecule.

Don’t expect Will Stephan, Tim Flannery or any other of the highly paid carbonistas to respond to arguments of common fact with specific counter arguments. After all, who was there to correct the leader of the free world President Obama when he publicly announced that CO2, or was it global warming, was causing his daughter’s asthma attacks.

Oh dear…

International Women’s Day

March 10, 2015

“A celebration that was once simple communist propaganda can, and should, be repurposed to celebrate the forces that actually lift people out of poverty and inequality.”

Yes, here it is again.  It always sounds, to my ears, like Earmuffs day, or Quilting Day, or Lips Appreciation day, or Lost Puppy Dog Day. It’s seems unnecessary and mildly patronising: a sort of giant ‘Whatever’ Day.

Not surprisingly, International Women’s Day’s origins were in American socialism and Eastern European communism. It was originally declared by the American Socialist Party in 1909,  Apparently, according to Leon Trotsky, it indirectly triggered a series of events that sparked the Russian February revolution in 1917.

It’s all about equality you see, but the rub is that equality of women is highest in prosperous, capitalist, free market societies. The feminist collectives would of course not understand this but there is massive evidence that this is the case. It is also a reason why people like Julie Bishop dissociates herself from this ideologically bend crowd, as recently seen on ABC’s Q and A.

A timely article was reprinted in The Australian that clarifies the issue.

As compared with men, women in economically freer countries hold more elected seats in government, have longer life expectancies, achieve higher education levels, and earn higher incomes than do women in less economically free countries. In short, in freer economies, women’s lives are longer, more prosperous and more self-directed.

So, there you have it. Nor is it true that this is only because these countries are richer and therefore able to afford more equality.

If we restrict our vision to the poorest countries, the same pattern emerges. Comparing the Fraser and UN data sets, we find that, of the poorest 25 per cent of countries (as measured by per capita GDP), the half that are more economically free achieve more gender equality than do the half that are less economically free. According to the UN’s own numbers, women suffer less inequality in poor, economically free countries than they do in poor, economically unfree countries.

One wonders why so many feminists seems to take the anti-capitalist side of almost any debate whilst also studiously ignoring the women and children in appalling conditions in those countries where freedom plays almost no role.

A landslide of evidence over the past century shows that, regardless of our good intentions, the more we allow governments to control markets, the more poverty and inequality we experience.
There is no better time to note these facts than on International Women’s Day. A celebration that was once simple communist propaganda can, and should, be repurposed to celebrate the forces that actually lift people out of poverty and inequality. The evidence suggests that equality doesn’t come at the end of the government’s gun, but at the end of the free market’s handshake.

Left’s shrillness has helped Abbott

March 1, 2015

Triggs helped Abbott  —  Turnbull helped Abbott  —  Hicks helped Abbott  — the ABC’s leak obsession helped Abbott  —  Muslim appologists helped Abbott.  The Left understands nothing and this also helped Abbott

The dramatic rise in the polls for Tony Abbott is heartening. The Left, as usual, does not understand why.  Abbott is changing. He is appeasing the Left less and standing on principle. They hate him with a loathing and this drives them mad and reminds people why they got rid of Labor a year and a half ago.

The Prime Minister pointed out the bias and the disgrace Gillian Triggs has brought on herself and the Human Rights Commission. Voters understood, in spite of the reactionary support from the ABC, the ALP swinging handbags, Fairfax and the Left generally.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about the pathetic claim by the same media that David Hicks had somehow been vindicated for joining, not one, but two terrorist organisations and shooting machine guns at the Indian Army shows that the electorate likes straight talking.

The Prime Minister’s honest comments about Muslims and the double standards of the commentariat in the name of multiculutral harmony may be at an end. People are aching for a leader to speak up and call out the traitors in our midst. They know what “Je suis Charlie” actually means.

Malcolm Turnbull’s honest comments about Triggs and a while back about the  ABC’s balance was a timely reminder to  Abbott supporters and Liberal backbenchers exactly what he does stand for.  This is probably sufficient to blow his chances for leadership clear out of the water. Thank God and thanks Malcolm.

What an irony that Fran Kelly thinks quite the opposite. The poor woman is deluded into thinking that voters are turning back to the Liberals because Turnbull looks a shoe in to roll Abbott. Even Michelle Grattan scoffed at Fran on air, “a bit far fetched” she thought, for suggesting such an implausable idea. A priceless exchange from from “Their ABC”.  

This stridency from the media makes people sit up and notice. I always think back to the 1988 Referendum, which invited us to vote ‘Yes’ on four questions. Supported by both parties and most of the media, the Australian people, smelling a rat with such collusion, gave all four of the propositions a resounding ‘No’, with their collective upturned finger. That reassured me immensely about Australian democracy and our plain ordinary, reliable common sense.

In other words, when things in the media become too shrill people become suspicious.

Tricky Triggs report hopelessly emotional

February 19, 2015

“Wild accusation, colourful paraphrasing and repetitively themed doomsday imagery are the hallmarks of political emotionalism, a persuasive doctrine that undermines realism as the evidentiary standard in Western academe, law and government. It is accompanied by the use of anecdote and emotion in the place of objective fact and causal reasoning.”

Jennifer Oriel.

An outstanding analysis of Australian Human Rights Commissioner Jillian Trigg’s report on Children in Detention should be read, marked learned and inwardly digested. It is scandalous that something so shabby and biased gets produced with such fawning approval by the ABC and Fairfax.

Apart from the plain political bias and intention to embarrass the Abbott Government when it has vastly improved the situation of detained children from the ALP disaster, the emotionalism, methodology, and generally superficial nature of its analysis is laid out clearly in Oriel’s stringent criticism.

In the absence of a scientifically valid method to demonstrate causality, the inquiry yields data that is largely known, namely that some people report ill health during immigration processing and some commit harm to themselves or others.
The most serious allegations of child physical and sexual assault receive curiously little attention, with a note that they have been referred to a government department. If child abusers are in the general population of immigration centres or have been given residency in Australia, why doesn’t the commission recommended their deportation?

Suggestive but fallacious implications about ill health and abuse are made:

The research indicates complex causality underlies reported ill health among aspiring immigrants, which may include experiences before arrival. It also may include vested political interests, as we learned from recent reports refugee advocates were coaching self-harm among immigrants in detention centres. The inquiry did not study complex causal pathways, and the systemic statistical bias arising effectively nullifies the validity of its conclusions.

In conclusion, this is not a pursuit of justice:

It is clearly unacceptable that emotionalism should supplant impartial inquiry and objective truth in the pursuit of justice. The National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention fails the test of scholarly objectivity, political impartiality and public reason that distinguishes the free world of liberal democracy from its tyrannical counterparts. In so doing, it fails the Australian public, genuine refugees and children who deserve so much better than to be used as political fodder in a tired old game.

Economics of optimism

February 11, 2015

Or how the UN, government bureaucracy and the wicked word ‘sustainability’, along with no less than 1,000 NGOs, can undermine good work and waste money

Bjorn Lomborg, working with his Post-2015 Copenhagen Consensus group, is refining his daring idea of working out what projects gives the world the best bang for each dollar spent on global development for the poor. An article republished on his own website from the Economist quotes Belland Melinda Gates on just how much progress is being made in a world of seeming total pessimism.

“THE lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than at any other time in history. And their lives will improve more than anyone else’s.” So predict Bill and Melinda Gates in their annual letter, published on January 22nd. The wealthy philanthropists expect the rate of infant mortality to halve by 2030, from one child in 20 dying before turning five to one in 40. They also forecast the eradication of polio and perhaps three other deadly diseases. Improvements in agriculture will mean that Africa will be able to feed itself. Financial security will improve as the 2 billion people who do not have a bank account start storing money and making payments using mobile phones. And affordable online courses will open up huge educational opportunities for poor people, especially girls.

That’s the good news. However, the United Nations is introducing what it calls “Sustainable Development Goals”. The dreaded S word in the title with its massive baggage of ideology, guarantees billions of wasted money, myriad targets and no accountability.

On January 17th action/2015, a coalition of over 1,000 NGOs and celebrities, began a campaign for SDGs that are inspiring, properly financed and monitored with good data—sound principles, but ones that will not help much in winnowing down the number of goals and targets.

However, the one change that would improve poverty reduction by a factor of up to one hundred for each dollar spent over other targeted spending, is simply free trade.

As for the UN push for data development — think bureaucrats — there is increasing scepticism. Lomborg points out:

gathering data is hugely expensive, at around $1.5 billion per SDG target; measuring all 169 proposed targets would eat up 12.5% of total international development aid.

Naturally, Lomborg and his team question money for climate change as being virtually useless in the context of development targets, but the idea of 169 targets “is like having no targets at all”.