Broken people

For someone on the right, the people on the left have a decidedly crazy look about them. Not all, of course, but far too many. Here is an interesting article on The Leftist Mind Explained. The article was inspired by a comment from Glenn Reynolds where he wrote, “I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves.” It stuck with me as well since you really do want to make some kind of sense of behaviours and beliefs that are both clearly wrong and clearly destructive. This is how the article ends:

They all desire, in the kinds of abject Loneliness that fills their Souls like a diseased bile, to drag all of us down into the cesspit of their types of pathological Miseries. They are the armies of The Culture Of Death, the vanguard of Nihilism.

For centuries, the Western World was able to keep such attitudes confined to a small number of the population. With the spread and acceptance of Leftist Thinking in the last two hundred years, however, these various perverse ways of approaching Life have ascended to domination, a Hegemony Of Perversity, if you will. The reasons for this triumph are many, but they all bespeak of a Civilization that is in decline, one that is slowly committing suicide.

Well, maybe. I don’t know what drives them but I do know they terrify me. They are everywhere and if they cannot be stopped they will be the ruin of us.

The ABC is a threat to our national unity

And I might have added, national unity in time of war. This is from Andrew Bolt:

Now former host Jonathan Holmes insists the real threat of Islamic terrorism is nothing compared to the imagined threat of global warming:

Tony Abbott did not attend Tuesday’s United Nations climate change summit in New York. But he will, of course, be in New York on Wednesday to help decide what to do about the Islamic State of the Levant…

ISIL, as the federal Attorney-General told the ABC last week, “represents or seeks to be an existential threat to us”. An existential threat!…

ISIL is brutal, and merciless. It undoubtedly threatens the lives and well-being of some hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of people in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. It has made clear that it wants its followers to kill Australians too. But, whatever it “seeks to be”, it is not and never will be an existential threat to Australia.

Yet so far as I know, only Crikey’s Bernard Keane has called George Brandis out on his alarmism…It was one call … that precipitated last week’s raids … and … one young man was charged with a terrorism offence.

As the government made sure we knew in double quick time, he had been urged by an ISIL activist in Syria to cut off the head of an innocent Australian. One Australian. There’s an existential threat for you…

More and more laws to stop terrorists; fewer and fewer measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The ABC is an organisation captured by the far loony left and as such is a danger to the peace, order and good governance of this community. It really does have to go.

The traditional refrain of the sociopath, the monster, the bully and the aggressor

From the comments thread at Catallaxy on “Breaking news at Endeavour Hills Police station”, where a terrorist was shot dead trying to murder two Australian policemen:

The one marginally more positive thing I can see in the wash up of this is that authorities are not pretending that this is anything but terror related as they have done in many other countries in similar situations . This kind of delusional thinking that is tantamount to coverup harms our ability to respond to future threats by masking militant Muslims in a cloak of respectability.

Having said that it would be hard to do otherwise in the circumstances. The guy was clearly a person of interest and clearly came armed and aiming to inflict injury or death.

But what is not so heartening is that as predictable as the tide, Muslim spokespersons are as good as claiming it’s the police’s fault.

This quoted on Andrew Bolt’s site:

”The AFP officer was stabbed a number of times, and the Victorian police officer was stabbed twice in the arm before he shot the man dead…

Ghaith Krayem, Secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria, said he was a “little disappointed” with the police press conference after the incident…

“The police have come out very clearly and almost have said it was the young man’s fault, and I don’t know in the fall of time that may prove to be the case, but I think within a couple of hours I was disappointed…”

The Islamic Council of Victoria expressed “deep sorrow” over the incident, which left the officers in hospital in a stable condition…

“There needs to be a full and objective investigation into this incident to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated,” the council said in a statement today.

“This tragedy highlights the real cost of a failure to deal with these serious issues and why we have made numerous calls on the Australian government to deal with the root causes of alienation and disaffection of people such as this.”

The same grievance bullshit that attempts to place blame on the victims – in the police force and in wider society who are the subject of this Muslim inflicted violence that we see time and time and time again overseas.

Let me state clearly, in every western country which has been infiltrated by Muslims, some of whom are motivated by a murderous rage against anyone not Muslim or not the right type of Muslim, the constant claim is one of alienation and grievance. This is how these people work themselves up. Even many of those who are not directly motivated by rage against the west too often appear to be susceptible to grievance language which then influences them to support those who are willing to act violently.

Grievance language is also how they cover their activities, because the mantle of victimhood and grievance against the western civilization is a value that they share with the Left, which provides them with cover.

The constant refrain of militants, even while physically abusing and attacking non-muslims is some thing like – “If only you stopped defending yourself we would not have to attack you”.

This is the traditional refrain of the sociopath, the monster, the bully and the aggressor. And this was what the Islamic Council of Victoria is pandering to. Predictably.

Dangerous lunatics in politics

There are, it seems, quite a few of them. In this case, we are talking about Robert Kennedy Jr who is found to have said this:

Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”

He knows nothing about the climate, he knows nothing about constitutional protection, and he knows nothing about the problems that beset the US amongst which global warming must be next to last.

Tony Blair’s comprehensive strategy to counter religious extremism

Tony Blair’s seven principles in dealing with religious extremism, via John McTernan:

– Join the Dots. It is One Struggle
– The Problem is Getting Worse, Not Better
– The Challenge is a Spectrum, not Simply a Fringe
– Fight the Fringe; Speak Out against the Spectrum
– Support Modern-minded Muslim Opinion. They Are Our Allies
– East and West Should Work Together
– Education is a Security Issue

Here is Blair’s full essay.

Hillary Clinton – Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed

This is with certainty going to be a small story when it should be immense. The Hillary Letters tell us everything we ought to need to know to wish she never becomes president:

Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

That she, like Obama, is on the far-left is perfectly clear to anyone who understands what being an Alinskyite means. Those who have been that way inclined at some stage in their lives, when they walk away from it are forever aware of both the power and the danger of such ideas. That Hillary and Obama have no record of having abandoned any of this is as good an indication of their current beliefs as one could have. That both have pursued policies as far to the left as could be imagined in a nation in which more than half the population describe themselves as conservative is only possible because of the media cover they receive. No one will ask, of course, but it would be interesting to find out her reaction to things like this:

“Dear Saul,

“When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people.

All this is hidden right before our eyes. It will not end well.

You can read the actual letters here.

Only idiots sit out an election

It really is an idiocy to complain about election results when people on the supposed right sat out the last election. This is a list from The Other McCain by Smitty in which he argues The Vichy GOP Thinks Tea Parties Should Just Shut Up & Fall In Line, Or Something. This is the list of issues that might have been dealt with if we had elected those more to the Tea Party right.

ObamaCare is still a river of lies, with no hope of repeal
The IRS is an affront to all things American
Ground truth on Benghazi remains elusive
We have no hope of a reasonable budget
The Federal Reserve is still running amok
The immigration sellout seems a question of when, not if
Border and national security seem a shambles

As these things go, I am as Tea Party in my values as anyone I know, more so in fact. But all of these would have been more than dealt with had Romney won in 2012 and there had been more senators elected with an “R” in brackets after their name however centralist they may have been. Perfection is the enemy of the good, but Romney was more than just good, he was exceptional. We won’t see his like again, particularly someone as near electable as he was.

Suppose the planet is cooling and not warming

You can find at Quadrant Online a review, taken from the magazine, of Twilight of Abundance by an Australian, David Archibald, that for me was one of the most devastating critiques of the global warming hysteria I have ever read. What made it so extraordinary is not that it began from the premise that global warming is a con and that the planet is not warming and whatever temperature changes there may be are only to a very slight degree affected by human industrial activity. Lots of people say that so there would be nothing new if all he did was add his name to the chorus. Making the book somewhat more remarkable is that he began from the premise that the planet may be cooling and not warming at all which while still unusual is not all that unusual any longer since the evidence of potentially falling temperatures is all around us (did you see, for example, the level of ice cover on Lake Superior in June?).

What, in fact, made the book extraordinary is that he combines the possibility of global cooling with every other green scare I have ever come across, but does it in a way that I find plausible. What he argues is that if we end up with falling temperatures, contracted growing seasons, resource depletion, energy shortages and an over-populated planet, the result is the kind of catastrophe once forecast by Paul Ehrlich which he described as the population bomb. Here is Ehrlich’s famous first sentence, published in 1968, that has kept his name before the public ever since:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

None of this happened, of course, so that I along with many others have become inured to the arguments of catastrophists of every kind. And every one of these has been wrong, including the global warming crowd, for whom the only evidence they ever had has evaporated over the years since around 1999. The planet is not warming even though greenhouse gases continue to pour into the atmosphere. So what exactly are Archibald’s credentials to be discussing any of this:

David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, climate science, energy and geostrategy. After graduating from Queensland University in geology in 1979, he worked in coal and oil shale exploration in Queensland and then in oil exploration with Exxon in Sydney. A long period in stockbroking in Sydney as an analyst was followed by moving to Perth in 1999 to work for a private investor. He subsequently started the oil exploration company Oilex in 2003 and then joined a Canadian-listed oil exploration company in 2006. Also at that time, he was CEO of the mineral explorer Westgold Resources.

What intrigued me about Twilight of Abundance is that it has proposed an equal and opposite future to everything that the greens have come up with that, if true, is something that is truly frightening. And given that there is as much if not more plausibility in what he has written than in the entire green-AGW campaign which has been discredited at every turn, one wonders why this is not now being thought about as one possible future that needs to be taken on board.

I have been astonished myself that during my lifetime, the population of the world has gone up from around two billion to seven billion. If this has been a consequence of an abnormally warmer climate, the Green Revolution and the abundance of cheap energy, then we should be thinking about what might happen if the warm weather disappears while the cheap energy provided by carbon-based fuels are depleted.

The Greens as well as other parties to the left have grabbed hold of global warming as one more vehicle to attack market economies and give them political power. If Archibald is anywhere near right, it will only be those economies that are capable of adjusting in the face of new circumstances that will avoid the disasters that would follow. I therefore invite you to read the review, and then the book after that. Since none of us know what is really happening, this is one conjecture that ought to be put on everyone’s watch list since things could turn very nasty more quickly and in ways quite different from what most people at the present time are prepared to believe.

Who should pay for dinner on the first date?

I’m glad to see that chivalry hasn’t completely died, although I do tend to see a bit of self-interest here as well, but only just a bit:

A survey released yesterday morning found that about 77 percent of people in straight relationships believe men should pay the bill on a first date. The survey, put together by the financial website NerdWallet, polled roughly 1,000 people who had been dating their partners for six months or more.

The company’s survey indicates that, in the early stages of courting, the pressure to pay falls primarily on men, but this imbalance hardly dissolves as the relationship progresses. Fifty-six percent of men foot the bill in full once they’re in an established relationship, and, even further down the line, 36 percent of men pay all of household bills, versus 14 percent of women. There’s not much in the way of historical data on the question of who pays for dates, but the findings of a 1985 poll suggest that very little has changed in the past 30 years.

As Ann Coulter once said, when it comes to dating, the boy should be the one financing the cost of research.

Will the US last until 2048?

In an earlier post I speculated on just how unstable the mix of ideologies and cultural differences in the United States now is.

Nothing lasts forever, but the fracturing of the United States is happening before our very eyes, something I never thought even remotely possible not all that long ago. The question is no longer will it fall apart, but how can it be made whole again?

So now we have this, Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

Only just over half are opposed! When the most decisive issue on everyone’s mind when voting is abortion, Americans really are living in a fantasyland. And it’s not just anger with Washington but it’s anger with their fellow citizens in other states, to which is added, no doubt, a large hispanic desire to return the south west of the United States to Mexico. There was a time I could tell you what the United States stood for, what its ideals are, but no longer. It is fractured and hard to see how it could be made whole.