“Australia’s pitiless migrant policy”

Unfortunately behind a paywall but sent to me by my moronic former mate who now breathes the air in Silicon Valley and drives three Mercedes and a Porsche. The article is also from the Financial Times in the UK which, as we know, is a model to us all.

Australia’s pitiless migrant policy no model for the EU

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s interior minister, has provoked outrage across Europe with his refusal to let the Aquarius, a rescue ship carrying hundreds of migrants, dock in an Italian port. The Spanish government has had to step in to give the boat a safe harbour.

Mr Salvini’s move has been described as unprecedented. But for watchers of Australian politics, it is alarmingly familiar. During a tumultuous Australian election in 2001, a Norwegian freighter, the MV Tampa, rescued more than 400 distressed asylum seekers in international waters. John Howard, the then prime minister, refused the captain permission to enter Australian waters, and ordered special forces to seize the vessel when he did so anyway.

The “Tampa affair” stands out as a moment when Canberra explicitly adopted the view that Australia could no longer afford to observe humanitarian norms. Within a few months, the first elements of the Pacific solution, which involved forcing boats back to Indonesia and detaining asylum seekers in Nauru, an island nation 750 miles offshore, were in place.

There are worrying signs — beyond the eerie Aquarius-Tampa parallel — that the EU is heading down a similar path. Last year, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, floated the idea of keeping migrants away from Europe by creating “hotspots” to handle asylum requests in north Africa. The German interior ministry has also mooted the advantages of eliminating “the prospect of reaching the European coast”.

The temptations of such a policy for European politicians are clear. A steady stream of refugees to Europe has fed the rise of populist parties, including Mr Salvini’s League and Alternative for Germany. Meanwhile, Australia’s policy has largely achieved its objective: to “stop the boats”. European leaders are drawn to the humanitarian defence for this hardline approach: that stopping the boats means fewer drownings.

They should resist. Australia’s refugee policy has become notorious for its brutality. The Nauru detention centre has seen hunger strikes, suicides and hundreds of accusations of abuse. A separate centre on Manus Island last year had its water and power cut off. Amnesty International has called the policy a “human rights catastrophe”.

Few in the EU would defend the extreme brutality of Australia’s system — but in 2001 not many Australians would have either. The logic of deterrence naturally escalates: Australia introduced mandatory detention of “unlawful non-citizens” in 1992 and, ever since, has been gradually stepping up the degree of hostility needed to, in the words of several past and present immigration ministers, “take the sugar off the table”.

Escalation can happen for two reasons. The welfare of refugees receives less attention when they are processed offshore, far from the eyes of journalists or the public. When abuses are noticed, they are defended as life-saving deterrence. In 2015, then-prime minister Tony Abbott called a report highlighting abuses of children in offshore detention “a transparent stitch-up”. A few months later he said he would not “succumb to the cries of the human rights lawyers”.

The turning back of the Aquarius could have several consequences. It might reinvigorate EU efforts to share the burden of processing refugees and address Italian and Greek complaints about how much they have borne alone. It could also spur a serious attempt at a regional solution, working with North African states.

The other, darker scenario is that Europe will opt for an Australian solution, turning back boats and warehousing refugees in poorer neighbouring countries. Mr Salvini’s rhetoric is prompting outrage, but it is the plans of the EU’s more high-minded leaders that pose the real threat to the bloc’s self-image as a human rights champion.

It fundamentally alters the character of the invaded nation

This is from Instapundit from which I have taken up one of the comments.

THE INTENSITY OF THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE, EXPLAINED:

Across the West, existing voters won’t give the left the power it wants, so they’re importing new ones.

And this is the comment that puts its finger right on the issue:

It’s not just votes, it fundamentally alters the character of the invaded nation, which is even better. It dovetails with their assault on Christianity, if they can also destroy the European nature of the West it will never recover.

They hate themselves and they hate you as well, whatever else they may say.

Something interesting happened in Canada!

The vid above is about policing in the most woke (= idiotic) city on earth in the most woke (= insane) province in Canada’s fair domain. The rest is about energy policies which provides a lesson to us all.

Ontario was once the wealthiest province in Canada, but is in the process of proving that while there may be much ruin in a great nation, eventually you really can ruin the place if you work at it long enough and hard enough. Here is a cautionary tale proving there are some people for whom no level of ruin is ever enough: $312 Billion: Green Energy Makes Ontario the Most Debt-Ridden Province on Earth. Not long, worth your time, in my view, but here is something to get you started.

A major issue has been crippling energy and environmental policies. It began when, in 1992, then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be chairman of Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario was a prosperous, economically sound province. Strong changed that when he applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world. In 1992, he introduced them through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the conference he chaired in Rio de Janeiro.

At the conference, Strong introduced his creation of Agenda 21, a global energy and environment policy of world-shattering implications, and got it ratified. It was at the same conference that world leaders signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC set the ground rules for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In Article 1 of the UNFCCC treaty, it specified:

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

It is a definition that predetermines the outcome of the IPCC’s work. You cannot isolate human causes of climate change without knowledge and understanding of natural changes and mechanisms. The fact that we cannot forecast the weather beyond 72 hours demonstrates how little we understand about natural climate change and its causes. Accurate forecasts require accurate science, and yet the science is still highly immature.

To further his anti-development agenda, Strong needed “science” to isolate and prove that increasing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity, a natural outcome of increasing production, would cause runaway global warming. Once the science was determined, the bureaucracies of national weather offices such as Environment Canada (EC) could push policies to cripple energy production, industry, and development. It is not coincidental that Gordon McBean, later assistant deputy minister of EC, chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in 1985. Other countries and regions were slow to adopt these principles, but in Ontario, Strong was able to use his position at Ontario Hydro to implement with impunity the crippling policies he orchestrated in Rio.

You’ll never guess what happened next.

 

The economic role of saving

There are two ways to understand the word “saving”. It is either:

(1) deferring the use of one’s purchasing power to a later date

OR

(2) that part of the capital, labour and other existing resources of a community that are used to maintain and extend the productive apparatus of an economy.

If you confuse (1) with (2) you will never understand how an economy works. (1) is of course modern and Keynesian, while (2) is classical and Austrian.

But these things are very very difficult to keep straight in the midst of analysis unless you really have the distinction absolutely clear.

Let me therefore take you to a sad example of how these issues became muddled in the midst of an interview with an Austrian economist who was trying to explain (2) to someone who thinks only in terms of (1). This is the title, Our Obsession with Consumption — while Ignoring Saving and Investment — Is a Big Problem. I have adopted his explanation from his Austrian treatment and translated into how things would be looked at from a classical perspective.

In economics today very little attention is given to the role of savings. This is a very curious situation.

There can be no production without prior saving.

Nature on its own provides us with only very few consumer goods eg apples on a tree.

For anything more, we must first produce the goods that we then afterwards can consume.

But to produce these goods we must first devise and construct tools, instruments or machines.

But to devise and construct tools, instruments or machines we already need a stock of already existing tools, instruments or machines. This stock is what is meant by “saving”.

Without prior savings no increase of future consumption is possible.

But then the interviewer asks this question, which transfers the issue from (2) to (1).

Do the current saving systems for retirement in the West work? If not, with what should they be replaced?

Suddenly the issue is about the future real potential purchasing power that lies behind money saving in the present. And from there the conversation never gets back to the need to widen and deepen our productive capabilities. They do go on to discuss who should make the decisions on what capital to build but by then it is too late.

The real problem for me is that even the interviewer, who was trying to provide soft questions so that the issues could be explained clearly, was too muddled himself and never allowed the interview to go where it needed to go, so another opportunity to make things clear disappeared.

Jordan Peterson discusses the campus left

And he means the faculty! The text that comes with the vid:

Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up.

Seaward bound and unbound

Let’s first define seaward: “the direction or side away from land and toward the open sea”. Seems pretty innocuous, yet there has been quite a disturbance in the force over the use of just this word the other day. And it is being commented on very sharply at Powerline here under the heading, Ammo Grrrll finds no limits in THE THIRD RAIL. Read it all since the scum on the left know no bounds to their vile subnormal behaviour. For some idea of what you will find at the link, I will just quote this and let you see for yourself what comes before and after.

The late, psychotic, plug-ugly dwarf Charles Manson shared his secret formula for getting a sizable harem of young women to do his bidding. Make them perform humiliating and deviant sex acts that break down all inhibitions and violate civilized norms. In no time, you will have a cult of lost, broken souls who are capable of slaughtering a 9-months pregnant woman. Yes, yes, I know that one person’s “deviant” act is another’s pleasure. I’m not talking about a wide range of “normal.” I’m talking about violating all borders and boundaries of human decency.

Women publicly calling another woman vile names and men tittering about it instead of defending the slandered woman as a gentleman would is a marker on the steep slide to Perdition, a breakdown of civilized norms.

People who fret over the effect on “Gaia” Mother Earth from SUVs do not think for a minute about how fragile “civilization” can be. Civilizations have come and gone. If you separate sex not only from procreation but even from loving intimacy, you have one ingredient for disaster. Demonizing normal, robust masculinity as “toxic” while unleashing enraged, unhinged, unfeminine women, immune to any criticism, is another way to hasten societal collapse.

The American left have gone insane. And if you have never heard the story of Andrew Jackson and the duel he fought, this is the place to find out. There are many reasons to compare PDT to AJ, this being just one.

Public choice theory and the American president

These are from the comments on an Instapundit post on public choice. Brings to mind the ridiculous notion that PDT may be the first politician in who knows how long to have nothing personal to gain from holding office nor does he owe anyone anything for getting him there. A once in a lifetime opportunity. Anyway, from the comments.

Public choice theory explains how government bureaucrats are captured by their constituent private sector companies the bureaucrats are supposedly regulating.

Leftists think that regulatory capture results in the regulators not regulating enough.

People such as you and I might have understood from even a young age about regulatory capture, but most academics didn’t, and in fact, many still don’t. How do we know that they don’t? Because goddamn academics are always proposing Yet Another Bureaucracy to regulate this, that or some other thing, and they’re invariably surprised (genuinely – ie, we’re talking the true nature of the Intellectual Yet Idiot class here) when they get results nothing like what they thought would happen, and often the exact opposite of what they thought would happen. eg, Obamacare and insurance rates. eg2: Obamacare and hospital wait times. eg3: Investment banks and the SEC. I could go on, and I’m sure you could name fifty examples yourself. The origin of Public Choice Theory came out of the time in the UK when the unions, the bureaucracy and academia were pushing the UK off a cliff into a permanent swamp of self-serving stupidity. Thatcher came along and reversed a great deal of that, and PCT played a part in that – Thatcher didn’t just make war on the unions, she also went after the bureaucracy and the academic/bureaucracy axis of government.

Without belaboring the issue with economic cant, it comes down to this. Bureaucrats and bureaucracies never will allow politicians to reduce the scope, size and cost of government, because the bureaucracy is enriching themselves (on a personal basis) by preventing actual cuts in budgets and staffs. The way that bureaucracies prevent cuts is to make lots of busywork, which masks their do-nothing results, but they use their constituent private sector companies and business sectors to help support their own existence. The nut of PCT is this: Bureaucracies are staffed with people who have discovered that by pulling the correct levers in regulations, obscure policy proposals and arcane budgetary rules, that they can become quite well off without having to do anything that resembles actual work as we in the private sector recognize it. The question you should always ask whenever you see a bureaucrat or his organization make a rule change or an enforcement action is “cui bono?” and you should look first and most directly at the bureaucrats advocating the rule change or enforcement action. For example: The SEC doesn’t rock the boat too hard on rule enforcement, because most of the people employed by the SEC are looking for future jobs with the investment banks they’re pretending to regulate.

The reason why government gets bigger is that it is in the personal, direct, financial interests of bureaucrats at an individual level to make it bigger. In other words, the bureaucracy wills it to happen – at every choice, in every action they take.

Israel and the Palestinians next?

Who knows what lies ahead, but some things that seemed impossible not that long ago no longer seem that way at all. This is the opening to: The “Trump Doctrine” for the Middle East.

  • Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.
  • Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.
  • Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.
  • Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iranian mullahs.

What possibilities there are! 2024 might be a world unimagined in 2016. The Great Man theory of history remains the only one that works for me, although the temper of the times does count for quite a lot. Stay tuned.

Far right, the left’s term for people with normal values and common sense

Found in the US on Powerline, but from our own ABC. Steve Hayward finds it funny, and cannot detect the anti-Trump vitriolic hatreds that lie behind it. In some ways it demonstrates that for those of us who line up behind the Trump agenda, his idiosyncracies don’t affect us even in the slightest. We are outcome-oriented. It is the combination of his values and his ability to achieve ends we support that explain why nothing that the ABC and its dreary stupidity are able to overcome. But the ABC and its mates everywhere on the left never give up since there is no doubt that something like a quarter of the population remain wedded to policies that only do them harm because of the political fashion statements put out by the media.

A few months ago North Korea was developing nuclear weapons and a delivery system that could blow up a million people on a single venture into some nihilist political program. Now such a possibility is the remotest likelihood. What has changed? And who caused that change to happen? And odder than perhaps anything, Trump offered this communist tyrant a vision of a peaceful, prosperous, capitalist North Korea as the longer-term future for his nation. I don’t expect the media to get it. Their politically-driven mental derangement is possibly beyond cure, so will simply have to stew in their bile. Meantime, videos such as the produced by the ABC, may help a few of our citizens to cross into the far right, which is the left’s term for people with normal values and common sense.

The right and the left on the ending of the Korean War

There are two views on North Korea that you can find if you look. The easiest to find is the left-media take that nothing happened, and it’s all a well-worn charade. But then there is this, which I will come to first before looking at the other. This is the positive view, taken from Ace of Spades.

The big news this morning is not only has the summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un taken place but as we were sleeping the two signed an historic agreement whereby the North has agreed to scrap its nuclear weapons program as part of an overall denuclearization of the entire Korean peninsula.

If you were merely to look at this only through the lens of how the Democrat-Left-Media complex judges success, via optics and feelings alone, then this is the biggest thing since Live Aid. But in reality, this truly has the potential to be one of the biggest foreign policy milestones since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Make no mistake; North Korea has been a belligerent, inscrutable and unpredictable enemy that has overtly and covertly stirred up trouble for nearly 70 years and so an extreme degree of caution and wariness is advised in any dealings with them; the foibles and follies of the past three administrations in particular bear this out as their policies have ranged from farcical to disastrous in terms of American interests and global security. I believe that PDT and his new team of Pompeo and Bolton know this going in.

Beyond all the platitudes and proclamations, when you get down to the granular level, the make or break in all of this relies on verification. North Korea is going to have to open up and submit to an inspection process that is antithetical to its nature as the world’s most closed, secretive nation. Can it do this? Will it do this? I suppose the fact that Kim’s willingness to meet face to face with an American president for the first time, and outside of his own country is something of a tell. He is the X factor in all of this. There may be things going on in Pyongyang as well as in his mind that tell him a rapprochement with the US, and more importantly, a concomitant distancing to whatever extent that is possible with China is in his and his nation’s best interests.

That is how you have to see it. Since memories of the rockets that were being launched not all that long ago have receded and will never be brought to mind by the media, the fact that we are now looking at a possibility of genuine peace is extraordinary. But here is the other side, brought to you via Bloomberg.

Donald Trump’s historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was unquestionably a success — for Kim.

By credibly threatening the U.S. with nuclear war, he won a one-on-one meeting with the American president — a longtime strategic goal of his family’s regime. And that’s not all.

Trump tossed in a suspension of military exercises with South Korea, while China suggested revisiting economic sanctions that the White House credits for the summit. Meanwhile, the president showered Kim with praise, calling the dictator who leads one of the planet’s most oppressive and brutal regimes “smart” and “very talented,” declaring the meeting “a great honour” and saying he trusts Kim.

Less clear is what the U.S. got in return. American officials said before the meeting they would insist that Kim agree to the “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement” of his nuclear weapons arsenal. The phrase appears nowhere in Trump and Kim’s statement.

Also missing: basics such as a timetable for Kim to give up his weapons, verification procedures or even a mutual definition of denuclearization. . . .

So far, Trump hasn’t shown he’ll avoid the same trap he’s accused his predecessors of falling into: giving North Korea too much without getting anything in return. While the president repeatedly described the document he and Kim signed as “comprehensive,” at 426 words it is anything but — and there is no indication of when or how Kim will follow through on any of his promises.

Fair enough, but the mingy dogs of the left will never say a good word about something done that benefits even their worthless hides, if it is done by someone whose approval they refuse to grant. But we shall see. These are all issues, but with Trump, Bolton and Pompeo on the watch, there is genuine reasons to hope for the best.

UNDERSTANDING THE ATMOSPHERICS: From a comment at Powerline:

Not a formally educated engineer or scientist, but I understand how things work (passed with flying colors the IC2/3 petty officer test without ever going to “A” school. I just looked at the gear and figured out how it worked.)

The one thing I understood very, very quickly (playing around with ham radio as a pre-teen) was signal to noise ratio. Anyone that understands that concept knows what Trump is doing. Lawyers rarely learn this skill. Their avocation (skill set) is to dissect every comma and period for meaning. To skilled/gifted science/engineering types finding the signal and ignoring the noise is easy peasy with Trump.

In other words take him seriously, but not literally — but that is like garlic to a vampire for a lawyer — most lawyers rank way down the scale from vampires

This is also why I know for a fact that man is not controlling the temperature of the atmosphere by using a quick study of signal to noise ratios of temp data over the long term. If you understand that concept and look at the data (even the climate hysterics data) you see for sure that man has nothing to do with climate — except maybe to move to one that suites you.