Is our luck coming to an end?

An article about us with the ominous title, The Once-Lucky Country. You really need to read it for yourself, but essentially the argument is that Australians have developed the same pathologies found in the United States and Britain and they are rapidly taking us on a downward slide.

Over the last decade Australia’s luck has changed, as the country develops many of the pathologies of crowded, socially divided societies like the United Kingdom or the United States. Despite being highly dependent on resource sales to China—largely coal, gas, oil, and iron ore—Australia has embraced green domestic politics more associated with Manhattan liberals or Silicon Valley oligarchs than the prototypical unpretentious Aussie, often someone dependent on resource-based industries. The result: a dramatic reversal of the middle-class uplift that so long defined Australian society.

It is those pseduo-sophisticates like Malcolm and other dimwits of the same caste who follow the fashions of the Northern Hemisphere elites. A country which cannot do anything whatsoever to stop global warming insists on more than pulling its weight. Meanwhile we have bought into the apparent blessings of diversity as a way to help bind the nation together. I will take you to the final para but it bears reading it all. Seems accurate enough and depressing.

Today, many Australians face an uncharacteristically bleak future. Urged to settle where the planners and pundits prefer, they’re stuck in places both unaffordable and inhospitable, as part of a needless governmental drive to make life there more like that of the more congested, socially riven metropoles of Britain, the U.S., or China. What’s at stake are many of the long-established pleasures of life Down Under.

This is still the best country in the world in which to live. Although nothing lasts forever, it would be preferable if we could make it last a lot lot longer.

It is astonishing how dishonest the American media is

From the people who never said a word about, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”: Washington Post fact checker says president has now lied 10,000 times since taking office. From the same people who supported the most corrupt individual ever to run for high office in the United States. And how about, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.

These people are pathological fools.

LET ME SUPPLEMENT THE ABOVE WITH THIS: From just now at Instapundit.

HE’S NOT WRONG: Israeli ambassador calls NYT ‘cesspool of hostility.’

Richard Fernandez explains what’s going on.

Political power is only temporary and ends when you die

Which is why so many seek political power even if it the means to taking power leads to the death of Western Civilisation. They won’t have to live through the consequences of what they do so what do they care? The rest of this post was sent to me by a colleague.

I awoke this morning still puzzled about our apparent ‘social justice leaders’ who cannot bring themselves to say ‘Christian’. Last night I read this:
Easter Worshippers or Christians? Obama, Clinton and Other Democrats Accused of Bias.

Basically, when Muslims get killed they are called Muslim, but when we Christians are killed we are called ‘worshippers’. Hillary:and Obama:

I am puzzled why they cannot admit that CHRISTIANS were killed. Here is proof they suffer from Christianophobia.

Nazis were socialists


What amazes me more than anything is that I have never seen this picture before. You can easily understand that our modern socialists do not wish anyone to recall their ancestry but it is undeniable. The following text is from the introduction to Arnold Lunn’s 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. Here again we see that there was a time when it was perfectly well understood that Nazis and socialists shared the same ideology.

We are indebted to Soviet Russia not only for the horrors of Russian Communism, but for the example which Russia set and for the consequences of that example in other countries. The Nazi Gestapo is modelled on the Ogpu and the atrocities of Dachau rival the brutalities of the Russian penal camps. Socialism, which necessarily involves compulsion, cannot be imposed on a State without tyranny and terrorism, but neither tyranny nor terrorism are peculiar to Russia. Nazi Germany has not only adopted the incidental features of revolutionary Socialism, in Russia and elsewhere, but is approximating more and more in its economic structure to the Socialism of Soviet Russia. “While Germany has retained the outward forms of capitalism,” writes the well-known economist, Paul Einzig, “for all practical purposes her economic system is that of Bolshevism – the nationalistic brand of Bolshevism, it is true, but not the less Bolshevik for that.

“The owners of property,” Dr. Einzig insists, “are little more than paid managers of their own factories and landed estates. Their profits are strictly limited by the fixing of a maximum rate of dividends, by heavy taxation which is likely to increase, and by the ‘voluntary’ contributions to Winterhilfe. Their activities are surrounded by innumerable regulations and are subject to interference by various organs of the Government, by petty local party officials, and by workmen’s committees. They are ordered to sell their products at a fixed price, irrespective of whether it allows them a margin of profit. They are ordered to export at a loss, irrespective of whether they can recoup themselves by selling in the home market at a profit….

“One of the characteristics of the Communist system is that production is not dependent upon the working of the financial system, but on the amount of labour, raw material and industrial capacity available. This fundamental principle has been taken over in full by the German brand of Bolshevism.” (Lunn 1939: x-xi)

From Lunn, Arnold. 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.

I will also add this which was posted by some anonymous commenter on a different thread, but captures to perfection why every socialist denies that every single actual existing form of socialism is not real socialism.

The reason why Socialist ideology convinces impressionable people it would work is that it preys upon the narcissism of everyone by tricking them into believing their own personal vision of what socialism would look like is the vision that will in fact happen.

Since only one overall plan can be enforced however, each socialist sees something different happen in socialist experiments than what their own personal visions looked like.

Hence every socialist can then claim every past socialist experiment is not real socialism, which doubles as an excuse for them all to keep rabble rousing for more socialist experiments…

Until they each see their respective personal visions realized…

Which requires each of them to be the dictator to enforce their vision…

But only one plan can be implemented…

One party or one person “wins”.

Then every other socialist begins to hate that socialist and claim not real socialism because it wasn’t their personal vision for socialism…

So socialism naturally becomes a fight to the death for whose plan is to be enforced…

Which is why all socialist experiments have been totalitarian nightmares of socialists killing other socialists…

And at the same time they all keep thinking real socialism never existed…

The rise of savage terrorist creeds

This is from Arnold Lunn’s 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. It comes at the start of Chapter XIV, “The Fruits of a False Philosophy”. The waning of the Christian ethic across the world will have and is already having moral consequences.

“Cruelty and the abuse of power,” wrote Charles Dickens, “are the two bad passions of human nature,” passions which have not been eradicated, but have certainly been tamed by Christianity, for though no Christian can read without shame the history of the Inquisition or the story of the Catholic martyrs racked and tortured in Elizabethan England, Europe, even in its darkest moments, paid homage to Christian ideals, ideals whose influence was cumulative and progressive. The rack and the stake vanished from Europe under pressure of the strongest of all arguments, the appeal from Christians to Christ. The contrast between the ideals and the practice of Christian men is impressive, but the value of of the Christian ideals has been proved by the consequences which follow when these ideals are repudiated. Russia is the first European country officially to accept atheistic materialism as the State creed, and only those who are wilfully blind can continue to ignore the fruits of that philosophy.

Soviet Russia provides indirect evidence of the immense importance of high standards even in a society in which only a minority seriously attempt to live up to those standards. Even lip-service to an ideal has some value. The contrast between Soviet Russia and the Christian Europe which even in the darkest period recognized Christian ideals, is a powerful if indirect argument for the influence of Christianity. Soviet Russia with a few short years has sacrificed the hard-won gains of the Christian spirit, and has re-established the ruthless standards of the pagan world into which Christ was born. The uneasy conscience of Christendom which still condoned and exploited pre-Christian methods of persecution is apparent from the apologetics with which Christians attempted to justify the rack and the stake. These tragic derelictions, which Christians defended with halting casuistry, are proudly accepted by Communists as an integral element of their new civilization. Modern states accused of war atrocities have implicitly recognized the Christian standards, and have either indignantly denied the charges, or have disclaimed responsibility for regrettable excesses. The worst crimes charged against States still influenced by Christianity are venial compared with the horrors officially enjoined by the rulers of Soviet Russia. The secretive use of terrorism as an emergency weapon to be disowned and denied when challenged has been displaced by the defiant glorification of terrorism and of violence. Lenin, indeed, argues that the dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without the “violence which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules.” Lenin glorifies terrorism in the famous letter published in The Bolshevik for October 31st 1920. “The legal trial,” he wrote, “is not intended to replace terrorism; to make such a profession would be a deception of others or oneself; but to base terrorism firmly on a fundamental principle and give it legal form, unambiguously, without dishonesty or embellishment.” (Lunn 1939: 128-129)

Over the past 200 years if one could know only one fact about some nation that would determine where it was safest to live it would be whether the leader of its government was a believing Christian. Not absolute, by any means, but no other question imaginable would provide the kind of assurance that knowing the head of a government was a believing Christian.

The full bibliographic reference is: Arnold Lunn. 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. A book well worth the read if you can get your hands on one.

Self-confessed Marxist professors

Here’s the original article: Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors. These are two of the comments and there are others if you go to the link. First this:

You hate capitalism because you don’t fully understand it. You obviously hate Christianity but that also follows with college indoctrination. Capitalism is about freedom within restraint and the ability of people to achieve on their own and to their own limits. Most socialism degenerates to authoritarian Communism because that is its goal – CONTROL over people and limits on freedom. Oh yes, Sweden and Denmark are such stellar examples of socialism that works. Just this week, I heard a lady who used to live in Sweden explain that the government starts with taking 70% of your income for taxes. Sure, most things are free, but what does that leave you? That also does not account for your basic necessities of life. Plus most people cant afford even small luxuries. She went on to explain how awful the system really was, not how it is portrayed by Socialists. I choose capitalism, even with its faults, because it is miles ahead of any other system since it allows the individual the freedom to achieve. We already have numerous examples of socialism that has invaded our country with the idea of single-payer healthcare, free education, free this and free that. Oh, it all sounds so good and compassionate but it always comes with a price and a hook. Unfortunately, the poor fools that believe it are destined for a poorer standard of living. Your education, if you have much, must be very limited in the area of economics, and most of all, in common sense.

This is the second.

The Marxists aren’t really true ‘believers’. It’s like they are trying to be cool and that’s what the out there profs are! They are really square, dull, conservative in the socially awkward sense, not the individuality and self reliance of western conservatism.

So, they need something to increase their uni-cred. Marxism hits all the nodes. Being a Randian would be a true act of defiance and intellectually stimulating and interesting, but most don’t have the prerequisite confidence nor, frankly, intelligence. Marxism gives intellectual points for its convoluted drawn out over indulgence on topics without having to really need to find out the messy truth, that people are different, good and evil, ridiculously lazy and ridiculously hard working. The difference between two individuals in one domain of competence can be bewildering, but their are multi varied analysis that need to be done to figure things out even to get nearer the truth. So one variable, 2-3 at most and blame it on the west as was cool when they’d been in school, fighting the man, (who was a slightly above average IQ female teacher who was a teacher for the hours and benefits, not the shaping of young minds and the potential therein).

But they had to rebel and one part of the rebellion is holding on to these crazy Cold War Soviet propaganda machines hold on useful idiots. Intelligent enough to become a professor, but not enough to recognise the truth cos their cognitive dissonance is too strong due to years of rejection from the best girls and bitterness at settling whilst dumber kids got the chicks n’ checks. That’s enough to convince you Western Civilisation is rigged and corrupt to the core. That’s how someone with 81’s approaching 150 can purport to believe in the wage gap based on one variable, gender, which of course is a social conduct.

So logic is not important in their politics. And they are usually atheist, so an own goal there as religion doesn’t claim logical in the same sense, it’s a story of archetypes and behaviour and how to (and not to) live your life.

All this brought about because they lost their virginity at 26 to a 5/10 librarian and they will get their revenge as the 8/10 who you got into college doing her homework was fucking Brad, the athlete who earns as much as you after student fees plumbing and, well, really? How’s that fair? That’s what the Corbyn and co are so ‘passionate. Substitute passion for frustrated or angry and that would be more plausible. I mean each to their own but even in those niche circles, Diane Abbott isn’t quite A grade, especially for a powerful man, an MP no less. Look what that UKIP guy got, and Profumo was quite a catch by anyone’s standards and both are in the same league as Jezza. No wonder he’s ‘passionate’. I would be too with virtually no outlet worthy of your station in life.

So, rationalise away your shortcomings and weaknesses. It’s the inevitable result of Capitalism, people’s sexual desirability has nothing to do with the socioeconomic political environment. No matter that humans have always been this way across time and space, race and cultures. Women mate across and up competence hierarchies, not dominance hierarchies as few of those exist and they aren’t very stable. The irony is that the West has replaced the ratio of functioning hierarchies from dominance based to competence based.

That and men practicing monogamy, so the very few at the top get all the women and it’s the reason high achiever females struggle to get partners, (When that happens, the men who don’t get access to females get mad and start rioting and burning).
it’s a real and worsening problem (the women getting partners, not the men rioting cos they can’t get them, which is partly why places like Saudi Arabia are as tyrannical as they are. They know first chance, they’ll be torn to pieces to get the most attractive women that the elites have a monopoly of so they use the Quran to prove this is what Allah wants. And who argues with Allah. Bit like Henry VIII, no?)

As women start to get the higher positions, which is a good thing as we’re doubling the talent pool, but the individual women themselves, they are already outperforming men until 30, but then they leave to have families, statsistacally speaking of course, #NotAll. Women who do rise in these hierarchies also proves they’re not dominance but competence based as women wouldn’t have a chance in the numbers they are achieving at present if it was a dominance trait, but in third world countries it is. How many women leaders are their in Africa that got their on there own and not because of a male relative, father or husband. The same as it has been for all human civilisation, about 2-5%, compared to 20-40% in the west and the wealthier the country the higher the women leadership goes up. Not only that but the trends are strongly in their favour.

Back to intelligent men being resentful of less intelligent but more competent men getting all the most desirable women… all cultures, ever, have done this. It’s just hard to accept that that being in the top 3-5% of intellectually gifted increases your market value, but nowhere near as good genes and athleticism does, understandably. Put together and Donald Trumps grotesquely chauvinist comments are suddenly not so outlandish. In fact, to put it bluntly, as he definitely achieved, it’s true. Maybe that’s why women are still fixated on that comment so long after it was released, not to mention made, is because they know it’s true and they hate themselves for it. Same for so called beta-males. They resent that women behave that way and not in a rational way that is in their self interest. But self interest is not what we are all striving for all the time.

But try telling that to geeks who are convinced the tide will turn and women will want intelligence over fitness due to the tech revolution. And Marxism will set the dynamics in culture and society to make it possible.

Billions of years of evolution says, well …No!

Why don’t things make sense?

The latest three posts at, each of which are worth pondering.

It´s all about hate and
bloodlust that´s never sated
National Post [Can], by Terry Glavin    Original Article
At least two of the suicide bombers had law degrees. Two were brothers from a wealthy Colombo family, one of whom attended university in the United Kingdom and earned a postgraduate degree in Australia. There were nine of them altogether, eight men and a woman. Most were “well-educated and come from (the) middle or upper-middle class,” Ruwan Wijewardene, Sri Lanka’s deputy defence minister, told reporters. There is still much to piece together from what happened on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, about why the authorities did not respond to specific and actionable intelligence about an imminent jihadist


Trump Opponents Never Tire of Losing
American Spectator, by David Catron    Original Article
For well over three years, Donald Trump has been under attack. He has been subjected to unprecedented slander by the media, dirty tricks by the Democrats, legally dubious investigations, and sabotage by the deep state. Yet he is not only still standing, he has a record of accomplishments that any president would be happy to claim after two years in office. One would think his opponents would be able to divine a message from this. To wit, their time might be better spent working on behalf of the voters rather than launching further futile attempts to bring Trump down.


What Would an ‘Open Borders’
World Actually Look Like?
The Nation, by John Washington    Original Article
In the summer of 1947, the British lord and lawyer Sir Cyril Radcliffe found himself in charge of the fate of a subcontinent. As the freshly appointed head of the Boundary Commission, he was tasked with dividing up the British India territories of Bengal and Punjab—and he had just a few weeks to complete the task. After three and a half centuries of brutal and exploitative involvement in the region, the last 90 years as official imperial overlord of the British Raj, the United Kingdom was officially abdicating colonial rule. Deeply in debt from two world wars,

There is a lesson there but only if you can understand it

The analogy is not perfect. Socialists do not want to kill you, it just sometimes happens that they do. It is often the only way to keep the power they were given by offering free things to people who, based on these promises, allow them to take the reins of government.

People’s lives are then plunged into darkness because they took the word of political leaders who offered them what cannot possibly be afforded, who had no means to deliver on their promises.

No socialist will ever solve a single one of your economic problems. They will inevitably make the ones you have worse than they were before while adding new ones onto the old.