Beyond Betrayal

No book has ever frightened me as much as this. The only thing wrong with reading it is that you find yourself so surrounded by impossible odds that it seems there is no way you can go that isn’t in the wrong direction. Trying to fix things is as bad as just leaving them alone. If I were to write this up, these are the elements that would go into the story.

1) Ronald Radosh’s review of American Betrayal was so scathing I knew it had to be worth reading. He is a leftist plant who is so patently not on our side that the only wonder is that he is not universally recognised for who and what he is.

2) My own background living with my father who was a lifelong dedicated communist. I grew up understanding that the international communist conspiracy does not require everyone to receive a set of instructions to tell them what to do. They merely have to understand what the rules are and from then on they can be left on their own to play their part as they interpret it.

3) Reading the book which has been a dispiriting experience. Maybe I should just stop reading long books since they take so long but I do think it was the content.

4) What’s the content? When we were in New Orleans in 2010 I found for $3 a book titled The Politician by Robert Welch. Welch was the central figure in the John Birch Society which was this ultra-looney group on the far right when I was growing up. If you wanted preposterous then they would supply it. But between then and now my politics have moved from the left where they were then to the right where they are now. But even as I picked it up, my expectation would be that I am dealing with beyond the pale. Instead, I found Welch to be as moderate and reasonable as one could want, fully understanding who he was and how he would be viewed by others and portrayed by his enemies. He just took up the fight because he knew what he knew and could see no alternative but to try to do what he could to fix things. For what it’s worth, I still think Welch is looney and his views extreme but that he saw communism as a mortal enemy of freedom is to his credit.

5) And what Diana West writes across 400 pages might be summed up in a single sentence from The Politician.

The American people have not yet waked up to the clear evidence that Harry Hopkins, instead of being the fumbling half-mystical dogooder for which they took him, was one of the most successful Communist agents the Kremlin has ever found already planted in the American government, and then developed to top-level usefulness.” (217-218)

Diana West’s book is about Harry Hopkins, his role as a Stalinist agent and the influence he had over Roosevelt. It’s much more than that but on its own that is more than enough to make you see the world in a very different way. Weird even to write this down but it is the very implausibility that makes this an idea worth pondering. Radosh certainly had no arguments that would counter what West wrote.

6) In a nutshell, with Hopkins literally (as in actually, he really was) living in the White House during World War II, virtually the whole of American policy and strategy was designed with one purpose in mind – to allow the Russians to expand their grip on the rest of the world. Both the tyrannies of Eastern Europe after the war and the communist takeover in China were caused by these agents of influence who set American foreign policy and determined the allied war strategy. She may be wrong but she does tell an incredibly plausible story that fits with everything I already know. And if it is true, you can hardly see how an enemy this powerful can ever lose. I take the same view as Whittaker Chambers, we are on the losing side.

7) All of which West ties to the present struggle with Islamic jihad where those within our political elites who you would think ought to be alerting us to the dangers of letting down our guard are instead conspiring with the Islamists to create a world in which the rest of us will come under their sway. I cannot understand why they would do it but there seems too little evidence of resistance and plenty of evidence of collaboration.

8) As with Communism, the only saving grace in the end is just how repulsive the Islamic enemy is. But if the fifth column is as relentless and as well placed as the communists were (and are) I do not see how this can be overcome. Hence depressing but I do not wish to be so defeatist. But it’s a war that now that I see the dimensions of makes me tired and fearful. It also makes everything else seem so minimal.

Maybe I’ll be more rested tomorrow but tonight it has gotten right on top of me.

“Will the Australians take us now”

If you saw Bruce Hawker on Bolt this morning worrying about the drowning of those illegal migrants yesterday you would have experienced a serious moment of disgust. Since 7 September it is now an official concern within the ALP about these deaths at sea. Before 7 September, not so much.

But what really caught my eye in the report in The Australian Online was this.

Pointing to an older, silent man, Achmad said: “He has lost his wife and eight children.

“Will the Australians take us now,” he asked.

Just like that. He reveals the true contents of his mind. We think of the horrors of what it must have been like on that sinking ship. He, who had been surrounded by it all, who must himself have seen the dead and the drowned, who was still in the midst of it, could only think of how to leverage this tragedy into finding some means to enter Australia as an illegal migrant.

“One big lie, not one word of it is true”

When you have even Seymour Hersh saying this about Obama then we have come to a defining moment in the history of media’s lying for the left. Having been one of the worst of them himself, but from a previous generation, he finds the present generation even more despicable than his own. Yet in this instance I am sure he is pretty right about most of what he says:

On the subject of the Navy Seal raid that supposedly resulted in the death of the Al-Qaeda terror leader, Hersh remarked, ‘Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true.’

Hersh added that the Obama administration habitually lies but they continue to do so because the press allows them to get away with it.

‘It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],’ Hersh told the Guardian.

And what is the title of that Guardian interview: “Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the ‘pathetic’ American media“. He is savage about what is a true crime but what’s new. His answer:

‘I’ll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can’t control,’ he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don’t get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say ‘I don’t care what you say’.

Nor does he understand why the Washington Post held back on the Snowden files until it learned the Guardian was about to publish.

If Hersh was in charge of US Media Inc, his scorched earth policy wouldn’t stop with newspapers.

‘I would close down the news bureaus of the networks and let’s start all over, tabula rasa. The majors, NBCs, ABCs, they won’t like this – just do something different, do something that gets people mad at you, that’s what we’re supposed to be doing,’ he says. . . .

‘The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.’ And he implores journalists to do something about it.

Yeah, sure. The journalists will fix it! They are liars for the left and nothing will change until journalists begin to report without their ideological filters firmly in place. This side of never seems a long time to wait but that’s how long I suspect it’s going to take. Solutions? I cannot think of a single one.

Betting on global warming

A very perceptive comment about betting at the track by Armadillo who for some reason put it on a post dealing with global warming and the IPCC.

I confess to know very little about climate change science. The left keeps urging me to ‘trust the experts’ – they have reviewed all of the data and they alone are best placed to make a judgement on this very complex area. Fair enough. But I have been pondering where I have seen something very similar? When I purchased today’s Daily Telegraph, it suddenly dawned on me. It was sitting right there in the middle of the paper, staring me in the face.

I love to have a punt. Every week, there are about 5 professional tipsters willing to predict what is going to happen. They are paid full time to do it. They have all the relevant information at their finger tips. The breeding, the jockey, the trainer, the track conditions, the horse, it’s last run and even down to the break-up of what times the horse ran over a particular section of it’s last race (right down to a tenth of a second). The facts are indisputable. It’s all there in black and white.

These professional tipsters spend their entire week reviewing the data. They watch every race in minute detail, re-playing them over and over. They observe the evidence. They even load all the known information into complex computer models to assist in their analysis. These people are experts in their field. They know much more about horse racing than I ever will. They should be trusted.

Sometimes these guys disagree on their conclusions. Other times, they are in total agreement. Geez, if they are all saying that a certain horse is going to win based on the evidence, I can be 97% sure that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Surely? However, there are also ‘known unknowns’ – other information and factors that they are unaware of or don’t completely understand (such as who’s putting money in who’s hands).

Tomorrow, I shall do as I always do. I will look at todays tips and compare them to the actual results. As always, I’m likely to be disappointed and poorer for the experience. With all the available data, how could these experts get it so wrong? What will they tell their boss on Monday morning? What excuse will they offer? Never fear, they will be back in my newspaper next Saturday morning, offering the same expert analysis and still getting paid.

I wonder. What would be more difficult to predict if you had all the information in front of you? If you had the facts? If you had all the tools? If you knew there were ‘known unknowns’? Would it be predicting the outcome of a simple horse race? Or would it be predicting the climate of an entire planet?

I’m probably going to have a few bets today based on what the experts tell me. But don’t panic, I’m not going to ask everyone else to throw in a couple of hundred billion dollars just in case these guys are actually right (for a change).

Righto then, I’m off to Sportsbet. Enjoy your day.

The morality of global warming is all on our side

You really have to wonder why the information found in this diagram is not pure plain common knowledge.

global temperature sept 2013

The harm that the IPCC does to the poor and destitute, in the first world and in the third, is one of the great scandals of our times. The probability that global warming is a problem is near zero as is the probability that temperature change is being driven in anything other than a trivial way by human activity.

But the harm these people do, the IPCC and its enablers, is almost beyond calculation. It is one of the great moral issues of our time but the morality is exactly the other way round from how they like to portray it. The purveyors of global warming have a lot to answer for but they could not care less, wrapped up in their smug indifference to the harm they cause.

UPDATE: I have put the second graph up and removed the one I had originally posted because I have been asked for the source of the original one which I cannot recall. The new one is from The Global Warming Policy Foundation run by Sir Nigel Lawson.

Keynesian claptrap

‘We support genuinely liberal policies based on “Austrian economics” in contrast to the Keynesian claptrap routinely espoused,’ Day explains.

This is a quote from Bob Day, Senator Elect from South Australia in today’s Australian.

He thinks of it as Austrian economics but it is much older and broader than that. It is the economics of the entire economics profession during the entire pre-Keynesian era prior to 1936 starting from about 1776. Today’s macro, as I am fond of pointing out, is a classical economic fallacy. Until 1936, the economics of Y=C+I+G was seen as an absurd fallacy, obviously and unmistakeable nonsense. Now it is universally taught at all levels of economics as the fundamental truth.

Here is the issue. Y=C+I+G means total output in the domestic economy is determined by the total of consumption (C), private investment (I) and government spending (G). And thus, so far as this model is concerned, an increase in government spending is absolutely and in every way equivalent to an increase in private investment. If a mining company develops a new mine, according to macro theory, it is identical in every way in its effect on output and employment as increased spending on school halls. This is the economics taught in every mainstream first year macro course in the world. Claptrap doesn’t even get near how idiotic it is nor how destructive.

Welcome Senator Bob Day.

Such disgusting liars

temp confidence limits

The only thing they can predict with any accuracy is that if the global warming scare went away their grants would absolutely disappear. Dishonest to the core of their lying hearts.

And that’s just their own self interest at work. Far more to the point is the actual harm they do in lowering living standards where they could be raised and not just by small amounts. Every action taken to reduce the use of the cheapest possible technologies lowers the ability to produce. The higher the cost of energy, the more living standards must fall. For us in the developed world, the effect will be gradual and in the end we will probably refuse to endure any of this nonsense any more assuming the moment hasn’t arrived already. But in less developed economies, or even amongst those at the lower end of the income distribution in our richer societies, the harm done is extravagant for absolutely no positive good that they or anyone else is able to show.

We should refuse to tolerate the harm they cause. We should call them out on it. We should not let them get away with pretending that they are just taking a long term safer option while new technologies are found and proved. The hunt for newer, cheaper technologies is never ending with or without the obscene subsidies the alternative energy industry may receive. They will arrive as they are discovered and made commercial. The need for carbon abatement taxes is just an opportunity for political elites to steal money from the poor, extremely poor and destitute. This is the moral issue of our time and it is that brigade of global warming buffoons who are the most immoral group of thieves living on this planet today.