Liars and swindlers

The left is always dishonest. Everything they do is tactical in pursuit of power. I used to be among them and for much of my career worked to defeat them, mostly in dealing with the union movement, many of whose leaders were as deranged as Jeremy Corbyn, in the same was as pretty well the whole of the phalanx of Democratic Party candidates for president. These people are only viable because for most people it is virtually unbelievable that people can be so openly deceitful, nor can they believe that such great intellectuals who populate the opinion pages of our newspapers, or run national broadcasting operations like the ABC, are actually as ignorant as they really are.

Do you ever see Venezuela in the news? Who, besides people like me, ever bring it up as the cautionary tale it is? For myself, I never take leaders on the left as actually speaking their true beliefs, but only what they believe will actually gull enough people into giving them power. If being kind to refugees, high taxation on the wealthy, free stuff for everyone, is what works, that is what they’ll say. If you do not already know the left’s attitude to World War II from September 1939, until June 1941, which then just changed in an instant when the Soviet Union was attacked, then you really ought to look into it. It is how the left always operates. Remember Kevin Rudd the economic conservative?

No leftist government has any idea how to run an economy, or maintain a free society. Put them into power and they will ruin you. And like Maduro in Venezuela, or Lenin/Stalin in Russia, or Mao in China, once they are in and democratic options are finally suppressed, you will never get them out. Which leads me to this, which is from Powerline reporting on a poll conducted by The Sun in the UK, reporting what the members of the Labour Party in Britain believe. A complete disaster, but even as insane as all of this is, they only put it up because they believe it will bring them political power. And they believe it because some wildly large proportion of the people who live in our democracies actually believe these kinds of policies are optimal. Add in saving us from climate change and you can see where we are at.

If, like me, you have wondered how a left-wing loony like Jeremy Corbyn can remain in control of the Labour Party, this poll, reported in the Sun, suggests the answer: Labour is a party of left-wing loonies.

Marxist zealots have seized control at every level since Jeremy Corbyn became leader — and are poisoning the debate with their hardline views.

For example: only a small minority of Labourites believe that a country has any right to control its own borders.

Labourites are overwhelmingly ashamed to be British:

Members of the party don’t think Labour has an anti-Semitism problem. Most believe that idea is a creation of the press, or of Corbyn’s political enemies. There could be a reason for this: a majority of Labourites say that if Brexit goes ahead, the U.K. should do no trade deals with Israel (Russia fares considerably better), and, in a not unrelated finding, most Labourites are tolerant of terrorism. In fact, only 29% blame terrorism on terrorists:

It goes on and on. An overwhelming majority think a general strike would be a terrific way to bring down a Tory government. Any Tory government. And by 51% to 40%, Labour party members, in this survey, want the government to “take broader control of broadcast media.” Of course they do.

It is a frightening picture. Labour must never again be permitted to govern the U.K. One wonders, though, how different a comparable poll of American Democrats would be.

This is the kind of brew we found ourselves dealing with at our own election in May. I’m not so sure that Malcolm didn’t have pretty well the same attitudes. We in the West are at an ideological death’s door but we haven’t gone through, at least not yet.

War of words, so far

On one side: Iran warns of ‘all-out war’ if US retaliates in wake of Saudi oil facility bombings.

And then the other: Trump warns Iran of ‘severe’ defeat if military conflict broke out.

This is the real thing. The Americans, or at least the American President does not want war. But if the Iranians, along with the Deep State, insist, they will have one. And if they do, I expect it to be over in a week with a lot of damage but not very many civilian casualties. But I’d still rather not have a war. Two Clauswitz quotes come to mind:

“Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.”

“Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. This tremendous friction is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. Moreover, every war is rich in unique episodes.”

The only way the Democrats can win the next election is if the US enters a war which then goes badly. That is why the Deep State has brought us to this point.

The children’s crusade

“In climate change, the left has found an emergency big enough to justify taking control of everything.”

I went along myself yesterday to the demo in Treasury Gardens, and truth to tell, I found it boring. It was so clearly a Marxist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist network of the kind I had been part of in my long-ago youth, right down to:

What do we want?
Climate change action!
When do we want it?

Fifty years later, even the lines are the same although the issue is different. Except it’s all so new and exciting for these ignorant and uninformed students who have not an independent or educated thought in their heads – I’d like to see how they’re going in their maths and chemistry courses. Every statement from the podium was a cliche, so much so that within ten minutes the cheers simply evaporated and everyone just got to talking to the people they were with. No one any longer cared what the speakers had to say.

The point I was trying to make yesterday is that it is all very well to be speaking among ourselves on our side of the fence but useless if we cannot force these climate totalitarians to engage in a dialogue. The Conversation – in my view out of weakness and not strength – now seeks to shut down debate on climate change within its confines. There is, of course, nothing that these ignoramuses say that we are unaware of. They, on the other hand, are unaware of every bit of the counter-arguments that have been made on our side. They are certainly unaware of the massive evidence proving that they are almost certainly wrong. This, from Cut and Paste at The Oz yesterday, is typical of the attitude they have:

Climate warrior/worrier Tim Flannery confesses to failure, Guardian Australia website, Tuesday:

Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 1.7 per cent, while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by 3.5 parts per million — the largest ever observed increase. No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure … My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that grim winnowing — a world that the Alan Joneses and Andrew Bolts of the world have laboured so hard to create … As I have become ever more furious at the polluters and denialists, I have come to understand they are threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child.

The dams are full and he mentions not a world. His failure was to be WRONG!!! And you know who is really “threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child”? And not just my children, but every one of those children all around the world who showed up to show off their ignorant concerns before returning to their comfortable, well-provisioned homes of first-world high consumption. Not only do these cruel and thoughtless airheads jeopardise their own futures, both economically and politically, but do so to an even greater extent for their counterparts in the less prosperous parts of the planet. My disgust at these people, especially for their adult leaders who corral these students into these ignorant jaunts in the park, is almost unbounded.

The question I wanted to raise in my post yesterday is to ask how we can make the climate people engage in dialogue so that everyone can hear both sides of the argument being presented at the same time with rebuttals and replies. How do we have a true Q&A? The ABC is filled with leftwing dolts who pander to their own side and ignore the other. You can have The Outsiders and Andrew Bolt who reflect our views, while also discussing both sides, but only viewed among ourselves.

The Conversation has turned into The Monologue. And they don’t care. Like all pseudo-academics of their kind, they already know the truth so do not have to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees. This decision ought to be seen as a great intellectual scandal, that a website designed for academics to discuss issues amongst themselves has shut down one half of the debate. They are the true terrorists, the actual fascists, the genuine Nazis. They are the people you read about in 1984.

I would say we cannot let them get away with it, except I don’t know what to do so that they do not get away with it. Really, what is to be done?

“Friends, mates and allies”

Scott Morrison arrives around 23 minutes in. Advance Australia Fair at around 27 minutes, with a 21(?)-gun salute. The Star Spangled Banner at around 29:00. Inspection of the Guard and then meeting the crowd, which PDT does appear to enjoy. Bugle, fife and drum band next in colonial uniforms. PDT begins speech at 38:30. The warmest speech you may ever hear a foreign leader give about Australia and our relationship. It’s the real thing.

Scott Morrison follows from around 45:00 in. Also the real thing. “Friends, mates and allies” was said by the President but it could have been said by either.

Proving that the climate has been on a warming trend since the 1850s

Why the climate has been warming consistently since 1850 must be the first thing you need to know before taking action.

This week’s issue is devoted to climate change. The stripes on our cover, developed by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading, represent the period from 1850 to 2018. The colour marks each year’s temperature, compared with the average in 1971-2000. We have found that, whether it is in Democratic politics or Russian dreams of opening an Arctic sea passage, climate now touches on everything we write about. To illustrate this, we decided to weave articles on the climate crisis and what can be done about it into all parts of this week’s coverage. As our main leader explains, because the processes that force climate change are built into the foundations of the world economy and of geopolitics, measures to check climate change have to be similarly wide-ranging and all-encompassing. To decarbonise an economy is not a simple subtraction; it requires a near-complete overhaul.
 Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief

The Scholastic Monologue Solipsists of climate science

I will put the title on this last, after I have written whatever I find out I have said when I finish. But it’s about those dolts at The Conversation who, without an ounce of shame or reflection, have decided that they will no longer print comments (and probably, therefore, articles) critical of the ignoramuses who peddle climate change ideologies.

My original choice for the title was “The Monologue” since they no longer think they are about to join into a Conversation about something. It’s not that they are so sure they are right that there is no point in talking about it. They actually now find that they are on the wrong side of the debate; they find that everything they have been saying is complete rot, so they are now going to stop talking about it, and will not give the other side a platform because they have no actual answers to what sceptics argue.

The next title I thought of was “The Solipsist”. Solipsists are self-absorbed jerks who only know what they know so there is no point in debating anything with others since these others who they would be debating don’t really exist anyway. The world around them exist only in theory from what appears inside their own minds. They therefore have no genuine reason to believe people who disagree with them have an independent existence. In the dictionary Solipsism comes out like this: “the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states”. More philosophically:

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ( listen); from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. … As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

When I looked the word up on Google, there was a further link which asked whether solipsism is a mental disorder. Whatever they say, if someone says that climate change is the most important issue in the world but doesn’t any longer wish to discuss it with anyone else, even if the policies that lead from their beliefs lead to massive harm to millions of others as we abandon proven forms of energy production, then solipsism is a mental disorder, related to narcissism and a disgusting lack of care for anyone else but themselves.

Then I thought about this as a title: “The return of the Schoolmen”. The Conversation is supposedly a forum for academics. This is how the academic world is supposed to work. Someone proposes some proposition and provides reasons for believing it is true. Others then enter into the discussion, with some perhaps agreeing and others disagreeing. The search is, of course, for truth. For the truth to emerge, different sides of the debate must be tested and reason and evidence applied.

To choose an example. Suppose some group of scientists proposed that the use of fossil fuels will for a variety of reasons cause the atmosphere to heat and the climate to change in ways that will create immense harm in say 50 to 100 years. They would then provide reasons for holding these views. Others might be convinced, but still others may think this belief is wrong. The first group provides evidence, such as here is the reason this will happen, and here is some evidence that the process has already begun. Others may look at the evidence, and argue that the process mentioned would not occur as stated, or perhaps the argument leaves out many important variables that also need to be considered. As for the evidence that the process has actually begun, those who disagree might point out that every prediction has turned out to be wrong.

The first group might then respond that they are benevolent social and physical scientists who are interested only in the welfare of others. Others might then reply that those arguing in favour of climate change don’t appear to be all that benevolent but seem to be highly self-interested since they are making a ton of money from this belief, either through the academic grants and promotions they receive, or from the vast amounts of money splashed towards various new and unproven technologies in the form of the billions of dollars governments are lashing out replacing power sourced from fossil fuels.

That is how debate has been conducted during the past 300/400 years since Scholastic Philosophy gave way to the Enlightenment. Scholasticism was based on argument from authority. So and so had said something so that was all the evidence needed. The modern age – the age that has discovered the atom, the electron and then electricity – has based many of its discoveries on actually trying to work out how things work, partly through collective thought about some subject, but also by discussing amongst themselves different possibilities and theoretical alternatives. Today only intellectual cowards argue from authority and close down debate before a firm conclusion is reached.

My only conclusion when looking at Climate Change advocates who will not debate is that we are dealing with Scholastic Philosophers. Because what never happens is that something said by a sceptic is picked up by a Climate Change Scholastic who then replies using reason and evidence. What is done instead is ignore everyone who disagrees, call them names, and as we see from The Conversation The Scholastic Monologue Solipsist, have no intention of getting into an actual debate or discussion. Instead they will if they can close down any debate they are likely to lose in an open exchange of ideas.

They are mediaeval primitives who have no place in a modern academic institution.

AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON SCHOLASTICISM: Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about the point of this post, but it is about the nature or climate science and not about scholastic philosophy. So let me bring the scholastics a bit closer to the tale. Here is Will Durant discussing the scholastics, which to me has an incredibly close family relationship to the preachers of modern climate change theology. Do not doubt that these people would burn deniers at the stake if they could. I have put in bold the statements about the Scholastics that are identical to the approach taken by climate so-called scientists.

The caput Nili of the faults that disfigure philosophy: it dishonours truth in the very search for it. It becomes the apologist of a transient dogma, and falls tragically short of that intellectual conscience, that patient respect for the evidence, that uphill attention to negative instances…. The Scholastics, who are wrongly rated as philosophers, having been primarily theologians, set the fashion for subordinating the search for truth to the promulgation of the Faith…. The great fathers of modern philosophy – Bacon, Descartes and Spinoza – protested against this philosophic harlotry.” (Will Durant. The Mansions of Philosophy 1929: page 9)

That is how I understand both scholasticism and climate science. Backwards and ignorant. If you want to say that something is true, but you are not prepared to search for the evidence to back up your statements and then go where the evidence takes you, then you are a fraud and a charlatan. It may make you wealthy, but your morals are non-existent.

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. - Winston Churchill

The only person in the Trump White House I trust on policy is Donald Trump himself. Not that I think he gets it right all the time, but that I think his instincts are right almost all the time, and he really wants the same outcomes that I do. Meanwhile, we find Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors. I understand – but who can know from here – that Bolton had actually been leaking to the media his disagreements with the President. Out he had to go for that reason alone. But the linked article tells you just how intemperate Bolton is.

John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s fired national security adviser, harshly criticized Trump’s foreign policy on Wednesday at a private lunch, saying that inviting the Taliban to Camp David sent a “terrible signal” and that it was “disrespectful” to the victims of 9/11 because the Taliban had harbored al Qaeda.

Bolton also said that any negotiations with North Korea and Iran were “doomed to failure,” according to two attendees….

Bolton also said more than once that Trump’s failure to respond to the Iranian attack on an American drone earlier this summer set the stage for the Islamic Republic’s aggression in recent months.

PDT had a few words of his own.

“Well, I was critical of John Bolton for getting us involved with a lot of other people in the Middle East,” he told reporters during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego. “We’ve spent $7.5 trillion in the Middle East and you ought to ask a lot of people about that.“

“John was not able to work with anybody, and a lot of people disagreed with his ideas,” Trump added. “A lot of people were very critical that I brought him on in the first place because of the fact that he was so in favor of going into the Middle East, and he got stuck in quicksand and we became policemen for the Middle East. It’s ridiculous.“

So we have this.

During the Q&A session, Dershowitz told the crowd that it was “a national disaster” that Bolton had been booted from the White House, to what the attendee described as “thunderous applause.”

I’m with Churchill on this. To talk is not to surrender. To go to war over someone shooting down a drone is insane. As for “national disasters”, let’s see who’s president after January 2021.

Judge for yourself

Start with this: A state’s system of justice put on trial, where it says:

Bret Walker SC is an old-fashioned stickler for precise legal language. That is why his clinical evisceration of the judges who ruled against George Pell is so effective.

Without a skerrick of emotion or one wasted word, Walker has torn the guts out of the Court of Appeal majority who rejected the cardinal’s appeal against convictions for sexually assaulting choirboys.

The special leave application drawn up by Walker and barrister Ruth Shann leads to an unstated but obvious conclusion: two of Victoria’s most senior judges utterly botched the cardinal’s case, not just on the facts but on the law.

And then this:

Grave allegations of sexual misconduct against a US Supreme Court justice. Cameron Stewart, The Australian, Monday:

Donald Trump has come out swinging in defence of conservative Sup­reme Court judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying the Justice Department should “come to his rescue” in the face of fresh attacks … The President was responding to a new book by two New York Times reporters that claims to have uncovered more evidence of sexual harassment involving Mr Kav­anaugh when he was a student. The new book, The Education of Brett M. Kavanaugh: An Investigation, examines claims by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Mr Kavanaugh’s, who alleged during his confirmation process that he had exposed himself to her at a party while they were in college.

Everything the left and much of the media touch have the same corrupting effect, it seems.