Anti-capitalism is a form of hate speech that has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions

I have been reading David Solway’s The Problem with Hate Speech which has brought this to mind. It is about how the left is doing what it can to make arguments contrary to its own beliefs illegal by transferring the normal expression of one’s own opinion into forms of hate speech, which is then made against the law. His article concludes:

If we do not speak our minds, or prefer to huddle under a canopy of pietistic complicity, as many do, we will awaken one day soon to find our freedom of expression even more severely compromised than it now is—or worse. Indeed, “microfascism” has a way of morphing into macrofascism. The upshot is that we will have reaped the bitter harvest of our cowardice, and an ironic form of justice will have been served.

If ever there has been a belief system that has led to the death and misery of more people than the various forms of socialism that have been tried and are still being tried, I do not know what it is. Venezuela stands before us today as a living dying example of how rapidly a society can be devastated by socialist leaders, and even while the example has been there before us, something like a quarter of the voting population of the richest and freest country that has ever been have been following Bernie Sanders – their own Hugo Chavez – and sincerely wish to see him become president of the United States.

Socialism is not the welfare state. It is not trying to assist the disadvantaged and the poor. It is not trying to lift the fallen and comfort the afflicted. It is a desire to run an economy from the centre, to steal the property of the capitalists and make everyone better off by making the most economically illiterate people in a society its political leaders.

In which socialist experiment has this not followed as night follows day: Venezuelans Ransack Stores as Hunger Grips the Nation.

Venezuela is convulsing from hunger.

Hundreds of people here in the city of Cumaná, home to one of the region’s independence heroes, marched on a supermarket in recent days, screaming for food. They forced open a large metal gate and poured inside. They snatched water, flour, cornmeal, salt, sugar, potatoes, anything they could find, leaving behind only broken freezers and overturned shelves.

And they showed that even in a country with the largest oil reserves in the world, it is possible for people to riot because there is not enough food.

This is from The New York Times, and therefore you might think the evils of anti-capitalism are at least being exposed. Not a bit of it. The entire article is purely descriptive. There is not a sentence in it that lays blame on anyone for the catastrophes being described. It is not entirely certain that anyone among the reporters at The New York Times actually knows. This is the only part of the story that tries to explain a thing:

Economists say years of economic mismanagement — worsened by low prices for oil, the nation’s main source of revenue — have shattered the food supply.

Sugar fields in the country’s agricultural center lie fallow for lack of fertilizers. Unused machinery rots in shuttered state-owned factories. Staples like corn and rice, once exported, now must be imported and arrive in amounts that do not meet the need.

The reporter cannot even bring himself to name the particular form of “economic mismanagement”, not even so much as to describe it as the guaranteed fruits of an anti-capitalist, socialist government. And there is no doubting that this has added to the socialist death toll, as described by this story from a month ago in the same journal of record: Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuela’s Failing Hospitals. And they are not dying, they are actually dead.

Doctors kept ailing infants alive by pumping air into their lungs by hand for hours. By nightfall, four more newborns had died.

“The death of a baby is our daily bread,” said Dr. Osleidy Camejo, a surgeon in the nation’s capital, Caracas, referring to the toll from Venezuela’s collapsing hospitals. . . .

“It is like something from the 19th century,” said Dr. Christian Pino, a surgeon at the hospital.

The figures are devastating. The rate of death among babies under a month old increased more than a hundredfold in public hospitals run by the Health Ministry, to just over 2 percent in 2015 from 0.02 percent in 2012, according to a government report provided by lawmakers.

The rate of death among new mothers in those hospitals increased by almost five times in the same period, according to the report.

And what does this reporter say about the causes of such horrors? Does he explain that this is the natural consequence of following a socialist policy?

“This is criminal that we can sit in a country with this much oil, and people are dying for lack of antibiotics,” says Oneida Guaipe, a lawmaker and former hospital union leader.

But Mr. Maduro, who succeeded Hugo Chávez, went on television and rejected the effort, describing the move as a bid to undermine him and privatize the hospital system.

“I doubt that anywhere in the world, except in Cuba, there exists a better health system than this one,” Mr. Maduro said.

Can we lock up anti-capitalists for their hate speech, their insanity, their ignorance, their murderous beliefs? No we can’t and, of course, we shouldn’t and there is no chance that we will. Nevertheless, anti-capitalist rhetoric remains at the centre of political discourse in the West. It is the most lethal belief system on earth and you can find it not just on street corners but in every legislative body across the world.

Through gritted teeth

Reading The Australian has become something of a chore. Now that I have stopped doing sudokus, there is almost no reason to have the paper delivered every day except out of life-long habit. Let me however start with Van Onselen and his efforts to back his puny judgement about our PM. He starts with a statement that absolutely no one in the world could disagree with:

Both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten have underwhelmed voters.

Shorten has, however, lived up to expectations. Malcolm, on the other hand, was brought in because he was the one-man rescue party for a floundering party. Instead, the certainty is that there will not be a single additional Coalition vote because Malcolm is PM and there will be many others lost that might even sink the party on the final day. But here is that same columnist at the end of a different story also in today’s paper

There is a feeling within the Liberals that Abbott would have been more effective on the hustings, attacking Shorten, shifting media focus to Coalition strengths beyond the economy. And he certainly would have exhibited more energy than Turnbull has.

And as for an out and out deranged judgement, since we all know that Turnbull made his move just before the by-election in WA which the Libs were going to win hands down with Tony as the leader, what can one say about this?

The Coalition research that shows marginal seats holding up, is in contrast to research before the change of leader. That certainly wasn’t the sense marginal seat MPs had of their electorates back then.

You have to cringe reading such stuff. The only thing Malcolm has going for him is that he doesn’t have Malcolm inside cabinet shafting the leader. So I turn to this interview with Tony Abbott where we find:

With less than two weeks until election day, Abbott’s immediate concern is seeing the Coalition re-elected. He thinks Labor can win the election and issues a warning to disillusioned conservatives who may be thinking of parking their vote elsewhere in protest over the leadership change last year.

“Think again, because it’s absolutely essential that we have the best possible government and that is a Turnbull-led Coalition government,” he says. “If they are thoughtful conservatives, even through gritted teeth, they will put the Coalition ahead of the Labor Party.”

Funny he should say that. What sort of feedback do you suppose he’s been getting? Gritted teeth isn’t the half of it. Where I am it’s a choice between Labor and the Greens which makes it easy since the only thing that will matter is which order I put them. Where the Libs go will make no difference. As for the Senate, on this there will have to be some deep consideration before the evil day arrives.

“It’s been a long time since the media in this country told the truth about anything”

From Stacy McCain: [Redacted] Is a Religion of Peace.

The Obama administration and the liberal media have decided that when a radical Islamic terrorist kills Americans, the one thing the narrative cannot be about is radical Islamic terrorism. It’s OK to talk about the Orlando massacre in terms of homophobia, gun control or “toxic masculinity,” but don’t you dare mention Islam. Don’t mention that Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, or that he’s the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan or that his father supports the Taliban.

This obvious pro-Muslim bias has become increasingly blatant:

Justice Department Replaces ‘Allah’ With ‘God’ in Censored Orlando Terrorist Transcript
— Katie Pavlich, Townhall

FBI Omitted ISIS From Orlando 911 Transcript
— Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection

FBI releases 911 transcripts of Omar Mateen — with references to ISIS omitted
— Allahpundit, Hot Air

The media would have you believe that this sensitivity is necessary because, if radical Islamic terrorism were identified as the cause of a gruesome mass murder, Americans would be seized by irrational “Islamophobia” and commit hate crimes against random brown people. In fact, the reason that the administration and the media are so intent on downplaying the role of Islam is because they are afraid that if they told the truth, people might vote Republican in November.

Therefore, the media won’t tell the truth. Then again, it’s been a long time since the media in this country told the truth about anything.

The Israeli left is insane

Does anyone have an explanation for this? It is one thing if you think there are votes in it so you make it part of your platform. It’s insane, but if you thought voters would like it, then you do it. But how does this make any kind of sense as a secret deal? This is the full story at the link: Secret Deal Exposed Between Israeli Opposition Leader Yitzhak Herzog and Abbas.

Link to original story

Isaac Herzog, opposition leader in the Knesset and head of the Zionist Union, held secret meetings with a representative of Palestinian Authority President Abbas last year that yielded a shocking agreement that would have turned the Middle East upside down.

A paper of understanding that was exposed Sunday night by Channel 10 News shows that MK Isaac Herzog, chairman of the Zionist Camp, who conducted extensive meetings with Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas before the March 2015 elections, agreed to hand over all of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to a Palestinian State, and reached a deal on letting Arab refugees come back to live inside 1967 Israel. The negotiations with Abbas were conducted in secret between retired Brigadier General and former MK and Minister Ephraim Sneh and a senior PA official. It should be noted that during the weeks just before the March 17 elections, the polls showed the Zionist Camp edging out Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud party, and the plan back then was seen as the shape of things to come in the most realistic way.

On the issue of the borders between Israel and Palestine, Herzog agreed to giving up 100% of the post 1967 territories, with an allowance for a mere 4% of Israeli settlements staying put in exchange for comparable land in pre-1967 Israel to be handed to the Palestinians. Eastern Jerusalem was going to become the capital of Palestine, but the two halves of the city would share municipal responsibilities. Temple Mount would be turned over to an international monitoring force, but Israel would have retained its hold on the Western Wall.

The Arab refugees were going to be taken care of based on UN resolution 194, with some being allowed back into Israel and the rest receiving financial compensation for the lands they left behind.

Israel was going to maintain a symbolic presence in the Jordan Valley, including two armored bases, and terrorism would be handled by a combined force made up of Jordanians, Palestinians and Israelis.

In response to the revelation, MK Herzog’s office released a statement saying, “In my contacts with the Palestinian Authority Chairman in 2014 I made an effort to reach understandings that would have prevented the wave of terror which I predicted, just as I am working now to prevent a situation where the abandoning of a regional conference on the part of the extreme right-wing government won’t bring on us the next war. After the rounds of the almost annual wars and funerals of the past decade I am no longer prepared to listen to the mantra that says we can defeat every threat with only military force.”

The Western left is on a suicide mission and will take us all down with them if we let them. We are dealing with the insane. All of their dreams and beliefs have been shattered by reality and it seems to me they are looking for an Armageddon to end it all. And more bizarrely than anything, Herzog does not deny it:

In response to the revelation, MK Herzog’s office released a statement saying, “In my contacts with the Palestinian Authority Chairman in 2014 I made an effort to reach understandings that would have prevented the wave of terror which I predicted, just as I am working now to prevent a situation where the abandoning of a regional conference on the part of the extreme right-wing government won’t bring on us the next war. After the rounds of the almost annual wars and funerals of the past decade I am no longer prepared to listen to the mantra that says we can defeat every threat with only military force.”

These people are crazier than anyone I have ever come across in my life. He did it because this would get Obama to endorse the Israeli Labor Party at the election. He would thus have sold out his country for short-term political advantage. That Obama would be willing to sell Israel down the river is, of course, old news.

“Stay hungry stay foolish” – the profound wisdom of Steve Jobs

Sent to me by my son. My own personal experience of what he says is getting my B.A./M.A. and then running off to live in a commune in Vancouver followed by a year and a half as a gardener in London. Absolute madness, but without it my life would have been a wreck. You must know what you want yourself if you are ever to have the ghost of a chance in getting your life to work. And as a footnote, I remember The Whole Earth Catalog really well.

Do you really believe you live in a free society?

From Drudge today. First this:

LYNCH: Transcript Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Removed…
Heavily edited…

And then there’s this:

Gay Voters Say ‘Dangerous’ to Come Out for Trump…
Physical Violence…
FLASHBACK: Trump Defends Gays from Clintons in 2000…
APPLE won’t aid Republican convention…

There is no winding back Keynesian economics other than through Say’s Law

I gave my presentation on “Classical Economic Theory and Supply Side Economics” on Friday and from my perspective it could not have gone better. And what made it work for me is that I heard things that have helped me clarify in my own mind what needs to be stated with the greater emphasis. There were a few things that came out, but let me deal with the most important which you will not be surprised to find is about how to explain the problem of Say’s Law and why it is important.

So let me state it again: Say’s Law means, quoting Keynes, that it is “impossible for effective demand to be deficient”. In spite of the existence of recessions and frequent periods of high unemployment, if you understand Say’s Law then you understand that the problem is never a deficiency of demand. It may look that way to you and to many producers. Businesses may feel grateful that government spending helps sell what might otherwise have sat on the shelves. It is why Keynesian economics has a plausibility that has allowed it to survive its constant failures for seventy years and counting.

Nevertheless, if you cannot state and explain why recessions are never caused by demand deficiency (a general glut as it was once known), you cannot in my view even begin to refute Keynesian theory. You can argue that the economy works in some other way and can go up hill and down dale with counter-explanations. But unless you can and do make the statement that “demand deficiency does not cause recessions”, then you can never overturn Keynesian economics because you have not engaged with the other side which says that recessions are caused by demand deficiency. As long as it is universally accepted that recessions are caused by a deficiency of demand – as long as we continue to teach that Y=C+I+G and that more G will lead to more Y – it will remain impossible to explain why a demand stimulus will only make matters worse. The only argument then is to point out each time a stimulus has been tried that it has failed. But unless you make it your aim to explain why that is, there is no winding Keynesian economics back.

The problem goes deeper. Public spending in almost all circumstances is seen as creating growth and jobs. The NBN is such a catastrophe yet is hardly ever given its due credit as a vast open drain on Australia’s wealth and our standard of living. From Henry Ergas today:

By the time it was booted out of office, NBN Co’s revenues were 91 per cent short of the 2011 corporate plan’s objective, while operating expenses, calculated net of payments to Telstra and Optus, were running at twice the levels the plan envisaged.

In terms of actually building the network, the number of premises to which fibre was effectively available was 89 per cent below the plan’s target. And as a wave of disputes with contractors ground deployment to a halt in four states, the NBN looked well on its way to being dead before arrival.

This is just seen as more G leading to more Y leading to more jobs. You cannot use any part of modern macro to explain just how harmful this is to the national economy. If it adds to demand, it is all to the good. So I say to you that unless you can explain why the NBN is a catastrophe in spite of all of the “demand” it creates – something neither Malcolm nor Bill are able to do – you are unable to understand how an economy actually works.

‘If you live in our country, abide by our values’

I can barely believe this story is true: PRINCE Charles issued an extraordinary rallying cry today calling on Muslims living in the UK to show more respect for British values.

The heir to the throne railed against the radicalisation of young British men by Islamist extremists as he launched an impassioned defence of Britain’s “Christian” heritage.

Telling British muslims that they should show more respect for “the values we hold dear,” the Prince revealed that he was terrified by the influence of radical preachers who spread their teachings on the internet.

In an unprecedented outburst, he said: “The radicalisation of people in Britain is a great worry, and the extent to which this is happening is alarming, particularly in a country like ours where we hold values dear.

“You would think the people who have come here, or are born here, and go to school here, would abide by those values and outlooks.”

He added that it was “frightening” that young British Muslims were being radicalised by “crazy stuff on the internet”.

The outspoken comments are a further sign that the Prince is not prepared to keep quiet on political causes close to his heart, despite assuming more and more responsibility from the Queen.

They came as he started a six-day tour of the Middle East in his mother’s place, during which he has been urged to speak out against the barbaric practises of some Gulf states.

It is understood that the Prince will challenge new Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud over the terrible punishment handed down to blogger Raif Badawi when the pair meet face to face this week.

Interestingly, and bravely, he also seems to be calling on people living in other countries to show more respect for British values as well.

Have you changed your views on Tony yet, Janet?

A few words about that editorial-page dill, Janet Albrechtsen. She had an article yesterday on Shut down the sheiks who incite violence by Muslims. She, you must recall, was one of those who harped on the need to rid ourselves of Tony Abbott and replace him with Malcolm. So this is what she wrote on the weekend:

Three fundamental failures rooted in politics, law and culture have led the West to a dangerous inflexion point in relation to the way we use words in the terrorism space. Politically, we fail to discuss the critical issue of the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Legally, we have laws that fail to prosecute those who incite murderous violence. Culturally, we have created a system of competitive victimhood, where people vie for victimhood status, become infantilised by a bevy of laws and concomitant social diktats about what can and cannot be said.

OK Janet, who’s going to undo these failures? Which political leaders, either here or in the US, will do what they can to reverse these trends? Who is more serious, Tony or Malcolm? I have to say that I am sick of the commentariat class who know what they want and can write it all down but have no clue whatsoever what it takes to actually achieve a political end. My irritation at reading her junk views on this and that knows almost no bounds.