Author Archives: lawofmarkets

The Age v The Oz

Posted on by
1

This post is really only about the nature of the Australian media at the moment and not really about the issues at hand. This is from The Age/SMH: Linda Reynolds doesn’t deserve criticism: her response to Higgins rape claim was textbook.

On the other hand, this is from The Australian today: PoliticsNow: ‘Really sleazy’ — fourth woman accuses staffer after Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations.

Which seems more even-handed and which seems intent on damaging the Coalition? My only other question is how do we know – in fact, how do they know – that each of these women is referring to the same bloke?

Should one take the Covid vaccine?

Posted on by
1

This is my take on this post at Callallaxyfiles.com which comes with this heading: Australians will among the first to get a vaccine …. It is the only post I have come across anywhere in the world in which the central question is whether or not to take the “vaccine”. The consensus is to wait and see. Here are some of the comments that seem to really speak to the issue at hand.

I don’t know anybody keen to rush out and get the jab. They all want to wait until all the potential side effects are identified and can be managed. This vaccine has been developed in an accelerated program and they are waiting for a whole lot of other people to be the substitute guinea pigs while the final product is calibrated to minimise side effects. I must own to being in this group.

For those who say “I’ll wait” I can assure you that a thousand times as many resources and effort will go into covering up the damage and manipulating the efficacy than was put into actually producing useful vaccines.

You will be gaslighted from start to finish – no matter how many get sick straight after the shot (even if it’s immediately after) it will *always* be “investigated” and found to be a coincidence. And of course they’ll change the PCR testing process to ensure it appears to have worked. And if you think journalists will lift a finger in pursuit of the truth then you’re an utter fool. If you want to understand what will happen, tell yourself it’s not a sacred vaccine and is instead a car. If their excuses and gaslighting would not be convincing if they were talking about a car being defective then you shouldn’t accept the same just because this is a vaccine.

Newsweek published a “fact check” which labeled claims that India had banned the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as “mostly false” despite admitting in the article that India has in fact temporarily banned the vaccine… But it gets worse. Bill Gates owns stock in Pfizer Inc. and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated significant sums of money to help Pfizer’s development of vaccines. Interesting to note therefore that a message which originally appeared at the bottom of the Newsweek ‘fact check’ article has now disappeared. The message read; “Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.” It is not known why that message has now vanished. This is yet another example of how ‘fact checks’ are often completely devoid of facts and are merely a way of legacy media institutions and giant corporations shutting down narratives they don’t like. https://www.infowars.com/posts/newsweek-fact-check-claims-india-vaccine-ban-mostly-false-while-admitting-de-facto-ban/

What’s the point of getting a vaccine that has been rushed and in my view with dubious testing when it will not prevent me from getting the virus and will not prevent me passing the virus onto someone else. And worse, boosters will more than likely be necessary. I will not become Big Pharma’s lab ferret. And as we know, ferrets will die when exposed to human respiratory infections.

So we already know that the experimental gene therapy, otherwise known as mRNA ‘vaccine’, is at least twenty times more dangerous to recipients than the flu vaccine. (Look up CDC’s own numbers if you don’t believe me. According to their VARES system, they were up to about 453 CV vaccine-related deaths by the end of January, while there were only 20 for the flu.)

We also know that according to the manufacturers themselves, these jabs will not only not protect us from getting ConVid-1984, but they won’t stop us from passing it on either.

It is no secret that there has never been a successful coronavirus vaccine. There was quite a lot of experiments done on cats some time ago (yes, they can get these viruses too), with the results being less that optimal – namely, most of the cats died when they were next exposed to the live virus and the vaccine-created antibodies started attacking the animals’ own immune systems (known as ADE or ‘antibody-dependent enhanced’ infection.)
See here for a summary of this condition.

Further, we know that should we suffer serious side effects or die, neither we nor our relatives can sue anyone. Bad luck – the politicians allowed Big Pharma to ‘accelerate’ the development of this stuff and then granted them immunity from any f*ck ups. Compare, for example, to the measles vaccine, which took 10 years from development, to trials, to deployment. At least this is one guaranteed ‘immunity’ the ‘vaccine’ provides, I suppose! And last, we know beyond dispute that around 99.7% of people who get the virus will survive; really no different to mildly bad flu season.Check out the definitive Ioannidis et al study (Stanford) if you need convincing. So the question is: Is that the best you can say, Sinclair? Or are you just taking the proverbial? I wouldn’t actually even joke about this. And no, I’m far from being an anti-vaxxer. In my view, the misuse of this word is now not dissimilar to ‘denier’ for those who dare doubt the climate scam.

By the way, having just checked again the CDC VARES reporting system, it seems corona vaccine adverse effects in the USA are now up to 929 deaths. That’s deaths, not just feeling very sick. Of those, there have so far been more than 14 thousand cases. Anyone interested, here you go: https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html Click ‘I agree’. Click on ‘Request Form’ tab Scroll to section 3, select COVID19. Scroll to section 5 Event Category. Select the first 3: Death, Life Threatening and permanent disability

A couple of jurisdictions have already announced that vaccination will not be compulsory for frontline health workers etc., but there was still equivocation and weasel words in the media today about compulsion in the future – I heard it more than once, so at the very least, it was an unsubtle attempt at bluff (or worse). If it’s not essential for frontline health workers to be vaccinated then it should not be for the general public and that should be made absolutely clear, NOW and it should likewise be made clear that waving a little card received after injection will not become an internal passport in this country. Aside from anything else, the scope for fraud with such a system, once we get to the stage of vaccinations by GPs and pharmacies, will be considerable and will be much increased if privileges flow from being vaccinated.

2020: 800 COVID & 100 flu deaths = 900 deaths
2019: 900 flu deaths
2018: 900 flu deaths
2017: 1700 flu deaths….                                                                                              And for this, our freedoms have gone & they want us all to get vaccinated – they can fuck off. I don’t know anyone who has died from COVID let alone anyone who has had it. I hope we never get a real pandemic……

Why weren’t SARS and MERS declared pandemics. We are told that so many millions worldwide have died from Covid 19. We also know, as has been stated, that whatever you went into hospital with, if you died, it said Covid on the death Certificate. We also know that the flu has virtually disappeared this year. We also know that over 99% of people suffered mild symptoms, just like the flu. We also know, just like the flu, if you have other diseases or conditions, the symptoms can be much worse. Covid 19 was very convenient in 2020 to instil fear in people, lockdown countries and collapse economies. All part of the globalist playbook.

The TGA admits it couldn’t even round up enough people with COV19 to run a proper clinical trial. But its the Most Rigorous Testing EVER. The multi-year approval process previously was just the TGA being slow and corrupt. No politics and influence at work in their decision at all. “No pressure guys, it’s just that if you don’t approve this drug we’re going to keep everyone including you imprisoned for life, and the Americans are watching, and so are the companies who will miss out on billions of dollars all over the world because of you people personally, I’m sure you’ll make the right decision!”

The Australian government banned Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid positive patients. What’s more of an unknown, Hydroxychloroquine or Bill Gates brand new gene-modifying vaccine?Gladys says the vaccine lowers symptoms.

If 99% of people already don’t know they have Covid or have very mild symptoms why would you stick an unknown, untested vaccine into your body when the vast majority are not ill in the first place. The lefties argument is caring for your fellow man. Well if the vaccine doesn’t stop you carrying or spreading the virus, WTF is the point.

This isn’t a vaccine, it’s gene therapy. The experimental mRNA gene therapy injections have never been released to use on the mass population ever, until now. This is very new, and calling it a “vaccine” is typical wormtongue speak. It is a “not vaccine”. People that are not in a high risk group that take this new mRNA genetic therapy are largely only doing it because an authority figure said to, to avoid social shame, and to keep getting stuff (airline travel, public transport, govt benefits, etc). Do not take it – as you may suffer some horrible unintended consequences.

It doesn’t matter how complex you believe immunology to be if you want to present yourself as an expert you have to be in a position to hurt if and when you get things wrong. Even public servants (outside Health Departments) have to be accountable for their mistakes. Indeed, in most areas of medicine doctors themselves are accountable. But in the case of vaccines, there is zero accountability. None. From anybody. Not immunologists, not virologists, not epidemiologists, not doctors, not politicians. How can you know this fact and still maintain your belief in these clowns?

I’m sorry, but in my professional experience, I formed the opinion that something was off when various state governments banned the use of hydroxychloroquine; azithromycin and downplayed the effectiveness of an ivermectin drip and Vitamin D. Any medical procedure (including vaccines), needs to take into account factors that are unique in an individual. When bureaucrats are involved in the practice of medicine, it ceases to be medicine and instead becomes politics. I could site a myriad of studies in medical journals for the aforementioned ethicals, but for whatever reason, the government seeks to shut down any real discussions of these. MD’s, like in every other profession, have excellent practitioners, good practitioners, poor & dreadful practitioners. Unfortunately what we have seen in 2020/21 is that excellent/good practitioners who have dared to question the official narrative, have been labelled as crackpots and been threatened by the state health authorities, whilst dreadful practitioners who have echoed the official narrative, have been elevated to prominent/formally prestigious positions (no names, but take a guess). As for myself, I will not be taking the vaccine until 1)politics has ceased to be a primary driver in the practice of medicine; 2) They stop threatening people with consequences who choose not to participate (for legitimate medical reasons that are none of the Governments business; or because an individual may be just a crackpot). I’ll just get put on the register suggesting that I have taken the vaccine and go about my life. Unfortunately, not everyone can do this, but hey, that’s politics.**For the record, questioning the efficacy/risk of a new vaccine for a new virus is not being an anti-vaxxer, it was, however, an integral part of medical risk minimisation. Unfortunately, this process has been subverted.

Interestingly enough, the Chinese have apparently declined to grant the permission for the mRNA vaccines to be used in their country. Their own vaccine, similar to the Russian Sputnik 1, is based on the more orthodox methodology of using actual viral matter, rather than just the spike protein. Take from this what you will, but I think the more important issues remain: 1) The strong possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement reaction – i.e. the reason why there has never in the past been a successful coronavirus vaccine. This would only show up further down the track, possibly even after a few years, when another version of this virus comes along. A nice little time bomb, in other words. Maybe that’s why it normally takes up to a decade before new vaccines are allowed to be used in humans? 2) The guaranteed future mutations, quite normal for this type of virus, which will make the vaccine ineffective and will presumably require another version to be administered, further exacerbating the possibility of ADE. 3) IMHO the most important part of this, which is the fact that COVID is not particularly dangerous and we have somehow managed to survive this far with the annual flu, without locking everyone up repeatedly and without forcing them to take the flu vaccine. So, has every one of our Dear Leaders lost their mind, are they really this stupid, or is there some other agenda?

To add to my post above above, our very own researchers, testing the effectiveness of asthma inhalers, have found (quoting directly): “When we first began the trial back in March [2020], we were hoping for 50 per cent reduction [in risk of developing serious symptoms], which itself would have been very high,” QUT associate professor Dan Nicolau said. “We got 90 per cent, which even with only a few hundred people is off the charts. “And it’s not just the overall result – their temperatures are less, they get less fever, and they recover faster.” Clinical trials with health workers in the USA have found that the therapy of Ivermectin, plus topical treatment (nasal & bucal) with iota carrageenan resulted in precisely zero new infections. Say again, why are we having the ‘COVID vaccine for everyone’ conversation?

Like many others I prefer to see the vaccination proven in the general population before I deliberately subject myself to it. And that’s the point – the decision to be vaccinated, or not, is a personal decision and one that must not be mandated, and for the following reasons: 1. There are virtually no new cases of COVID in Australia apart from the virus being shared between members of very specific populations, and even then very few and very low incidences of mortality 2. Vaccine trials are on very small populations, and so any adverse effects may not be known until the general population starts receiving it 3. For most people who have had COVID they have recovered very well 4. If there is an outbreak of COVID, it seems we can control it quite well (at least while the scale is small) 5. Having a needle jabbed into your arm is not a risk-free exercise. The benefits need to outweigh the risks. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t See 2 above. So, I prefer to wait and see, since I’m hardly at risk, nor am I risk to others. Nothing to do with 5G and other crackpot, tin-hat conspiracy theories. While I trust that the TGA are doing their job, I also accept they are under pressure to approve COVID vaccines and may have got it wrong. Time will tell.

Marriner Eccles

Posted on by
2

Marriner S. Eccles was another of the early Keynesians of which there were quite a few. Keynes wrote the book but the ideas were in the air then as they remain today. This is from Wikipedia.

Marriner Stoddard Eccles (September 9, 1890 – December 18, 1977) was an American banker, economist, and member and chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.Eccles was known during his lifetime chiefly as having been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He has been remembered for having anticipated and supporting the theories of John Maynard Keynes relative to “inadequate aggregate spending” in the economy which appeared during his tenure. As Eccles wrote in his memoir Beckoning Frontiers (1951):

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth … to provide men with buying power. … Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. … The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped….

Eccles was and is seen as an early proponent of demand stimulus projects to fend off the ravages of the Great Depression. Eccles was famously rebuked by Congresswoman Jessie Sumner (R, IL) during a House of Representatives hearing on the increasingly liberal policies of the Roosevelt administration and the Federal Reserve, when she said, “you just love socialism.” He became known as a defender of Keynesian ideas, though his ideas predated Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In that respect, he is considered by some to have seen monetary policy having secondary importance and that as a result he allowed the Federal Reserve to be sublimated to the interests of the Treasury. In this view, the Federal Reserve after 1935 acquired new instruments to command monetary policy, but it did not change its behavior significantly. Further, his defense of the Federal Reserve-Treasury accord in 1951 is sometimes seen as a reversal of his previous policy stances.

Economic clowns at every turn

Posted on by
1

Fascinating title from an article in the Financial Times: Why economists keep being wrong on policy. It comes with a bit of interesting content in its description of the nature of economic theory and policy:

The abiding sin threaded through it all was that of certitude. Perfectly plausible but untested theories, whether about the money supply, fiscal balances and debt levels, or market risk, were elevated to the level of irrefutable facts. Economics, essentially a faith-based discipline, represented itself as a hard science. The real world was reduced by the 1990s to a set of complex mathematical equations that no one, least of all democratically elected politicians, dared challenge.

Thus detached from reality, economic policy swept away the postwar balance between the interests of society and markets. Arid econometrics replaced a measured understanding of political economy. It scarcely mattered that the gains of globalisation were scooped up by the super-rich, that markets became casinos and that fiscal fundamentalism was widening social divisions. Nothing counted above the equations.

And what is the conclusion?

And now? After Donald Trump, Brexit and Covid-19, it seems we are back at the beginning. Time to dust off Keynes’s general theory.

It does make me laugh. Donald Trump created the greatest economic upturn in American history but that remains completely invisible to these clowns. It would never occur to them to examine just what happened and why it might have worked. But the notion that Keynes and his General Theory have been absent from policy and need to be brought back may be the most stupid comment I have seen on economic theory and policy in a very long time.

Harry Harlow’s experiments on love and affection

Posted on by
1

Rhesus monkey clings to surrogate mother.

I have  just run across this experiment in the psychology of mother love and it is fascinating. This is from Harlow’s Classic Studies Revealed the Importance of Maternal Contact. What amazes me is the criticism he endured for his supposed cruelty to animals.

Infant rhesus monkeys were taken away from their mothers and raised in a laboratory setting, with some infants placed in separate cages away from peers. In social isolation, the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

Even without complete isolation, the infant monkeys raised without mothers developed social deficits, showing reclusive tendencies and clinging to their cloth diapers. Harlow was interested in the infants’ attachment to the cloth diapers, speculating that the soft material may simulate the comfort provided by a mother’s touch. Based on this observation, Harlow designed his now-famous surrogate mother experiment.

In this study, Harlow took infant monkeys from their biological mothers and gave them two inanimate surrogate mothers: one was a simple construction of wire and wood, and the second was covered in foam rubber and soft terry cloth. The infants were assigned to one of two conditions. In the first, the wire mother had a milk bottle and the cloth mother did not; in the second, the cloth mother had the food while the wire mother had none.

In both conditions, Harlow found that the infant monkeys spent significantly more time with the terry cloth mother than they did with the wire mother. When only the wire mother had food, the babies came to the wire mother to feed and immediately returned to cling to the cloth surrogate.

This is what he said in reply to his critics:

Remember, for every mistreated monkey, there are a million mistreated children. If my work will point this out, and save only one million human children then I can’t get overly concerned about ten monkeys.

At least his colleagues seemed to understand the nature and importance of his work.

In 1958, Harlow was elected president of the American Psychological Association. At the APA’s annual meeting on August 31 of that year, he delivered a seminal paper titled “The Nature of Love,” cited in Love at Goon Park (public library) — Deborah Blum’s masterful chronicle of how Harlow pioneered the science of affection.

This is the experimental result that mattered.

His most famous experiment involved giving young rhesus monkeys a choice between two different “mothers.” One was made of soft terrycloth but provided no food. The other was made of wire but provided nourishment from an attached baby bottle.

Harlow removed young monkeys from their natural mothers a few hours after birth and left them to be “raised” by these mother surrogates. The experiment demonstrated that the baby monkeys spent significantly more time with their cloth mother than with their wire mother.

In other words, the infant monkeys went to the wire mother only for food but preferred to spend their time with the soft, comforting cloth mother when they were not eating. Harlow concluded that affection was the primary force behind the need for closeness.

I suspect this is as much true for adults as it is for children.

Children at the Home Hospital for Irrecoverable Children in Sighetu Marmaţiei, Romania, in September 1992

But no sooner to I come across that, I came across this: 30 Years Ago, Romania Deprived Thousands of Babies of Human Contact. And there, in the midst of the story there was this:

Neuroscientists tended to view “attachment theory” as suggestive and thought-provoking work within the “soft science” of psychology. It largely relied on case studies or correlational evidence or animal research. In the psychologist Harry Harlow’s infamous “maternal deprivation” experiments, he caged baby rhesus monkeys alone, offering them only maternal facsimiles made of wire and wood, or foam and terry cloth.

Why use monkeys when you can use real children.

By design, 68 of the children would continue to receive “care as usual,” while the other 68 would be placed with foster families recruited and trained by BEIP. (Romania didn’t have a tradition of foster care; officials believed orphanages were safer for children.) Local kids whose parents volunteered to participate made up a third group. The BEIP study would become the first-ever randomized controlled trial to measure the impact of early institutionalization on brain and behavioral development and to examine high-quality foster care as an alternative.

And then they were assessed and then re-assessed again.

When the children were reassessed in a “strange situation” playroom at age 3.5, the portion who displayed secure attachments climbed from the baseline of 3 percent to nearly 50 percent among the foster-care kids, but to only 18 percent among those who remained institutionalized—and, again, the children moved before their second birthday did best. “Timing is critical,” the researchers wrote. Brain plasticity wasn’t “unlimited,” they warned. “Earlier is better.”

The benefits for children who’d achieved secure attachments accrued as time went on. At age 4.5, they had significantly lower rates of depression and anxiety and fewer “callous unemotional traits” (limited empathy, lack of guilt, shallow affect) than their peers still in institutions. About 40 percent of teenagers in the study who’d ever been in orphanages, in fact, were eventually diagnosed with a major psychiatric condition. Their growth was stunted, and their motor skills and language development stalled. MRI studies revealed that the brain volume of the still-institutionalized children was below that of the never institutionalized, and EEGs showed profoundly less brain activity. “If you think of the brain as a light bulb,” Charles Nelson has said, “it’s as though there was a dimmer that had reduced them from a 100-watt bulb to 30 watts.”

And then later in the article we come to this.

As early as 2003, it was evident to the BEIP scientists and their Romanian research partners that the foster-care children were making progress. Glimmering through the data was a sensitive period of 24 months during which it was crucial for a child to establish an attachment relationship with a caregiver, Zeanah says. Children taken out of orphanages before their second birthday were benefiting from being with families far more than those who stayed longer. “When you’re doing a trial and your preliminary evidence is that the intervention is effective, you have to ask, ‘Do we stop now and make the drug available to everyone?’ ” he told me. “For us, the ‘effective drug’ happened to be foster care, and we weren’t capable of creating a national foster-care system.” Instead, the researchers announced their results publicly, and the next year, the Romanian government banned the institutionalization of children under the age of 2. Since then, it has raised the minimum age to 7, and government-sponsored foster care has expanded dramatically.

But in the end, both sets of children ended up damaged. This is a passage towards the end of the article.

The neuropsychologist Ron Federici was another of the first wave of child-development experts to visit the institutions for the “unsalvageables,” and he has become one of the world’s top specialists caring for post-institutionalized children adopted into Western homes. “In the early years, everybody had starry eyes,” Federici says. “They thought loving, caring families could heal these kids. I warned them: These kids are going to push you to the breaking point. Get trained to work with special-needs children. Keep their bedrooms spare and simple. Instead of ‘I love you,’ just tell them, ‘You are safe.’ ” But most new or prospective parents couldn’t bear to hear it, and the adoption agencies that set up shop overnight in Romania weren’t in the business of delivering such dire messages. “I got a lot of hate mail,” says Federici, who is fast-talking and blunt, with a long face and a thatch of shiny black hair. “ ‘You’re cold! They need love! They’ve got to be hugged.’ ” But the former marine, once widely accused of being too pessimistic about the kids’ futures, is now considered prescient.

Federici and his wife adopted eight children from brutal institutions themselves: three from Russia and five from Romania, including a trio of brothers, ages 8, 10, and 12. The two oldest weighed 30 pounds each and were dying from untreated hemophilia and hepatitis C when he carried them out the front door of their orphanage; it took the couple two years to locate the boys’ younger brother in another institution. Since then, in his clinical practice in Northern Virginia, Federici has seen 9,000 young people, close to a third of them from Romania. Tracking his patients across the decades, he has found that 25 percent require round-the-clock care, another 55 percent have “significant” challenges that can be managed with adult-support services, and about 20 percent are able to live independently.

Harry Harlow was not just right, he was more right than he would ever know. It is common sense and indeed obvious; it is very hard to provide warmth outside a family relationship.

Bo Snerdley speaks

Posted on by
1

Plus this, which really is beyond even the normal level of disgusting.

The official lie beats the truth every time

Posted on by
2

And this article comes with more or less the same title: Exposed: The Media Has Been Lying About The Capitol Protests.

What is common about all of these media-fed narratives?

Not one of them is true. Not. One.

Let’s take each claim in turn.

The “fact” that five people were killed is false. Only one person is known to have been killed inside the building. She was a protester who was shot at close range by a police officer. (Had she been a minority, there would have been riots in the streets over police brutality.)

Two others died of “medical emergencies” while they happened to be on the Capitol grounds – which is not uncommon in mass gatherings. Another was apparently trampled by protestors climbing the Capitol steps – which is indeed a tragedy.

But you know what? Nobody cares. The people who matter least to our political leaders are the ones whose votes they seek. See, for example, this by Karl Rove: Donald Trump smears don’t diminish Mitch McConnel. Actual outcomes in the real world count for nothing. This is what matters, as factually untrue as this most certainly is:

Trump may not be fully aware of shifting currents among congressional Republicans. More members now admit privately that Trump had no coat-tails in the November election. Especially in the suburbs, some Republicans and many GOP-leaning independents refused to take his lawn signs or support him. That’s why so many Republican congressional candidates ran ahead of the former president.

That’s what matters, will someone get funding and support from the party itself?

Why were the following people famous while they were still alive?

Posted on by
1

Just thinking about how one might just possibly get around the cancel culture of invincible ignorance that is the most notable characteristic of so much among the left today, and I thought about that kind of question. You might include the following names among the list just as a start.

  • Plato
  • Aristotle
  • Charlemagne
  • Geoffrey Chaucer
  • William Shakespeare
  • Christopher Columbus
  • Copernicus
  • George Washington
  • Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
  • Captain James Cook
  • Adam Smith
  • John Stuart Mill
  • Abraham Lincoln
  • Karl Marx
  • William Gladstone
  • Winston Churchill

The list should be, of course, much longer and there should be dates and historical periods associated with each of them. An education consists of knowing who did what, when they did it, perhaps even some speculation why they did what they did, so that there is an understanding of why the world ended up in the way it is. And it wouldn’t hurt to know a bit of something about modern chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology as well.

Woke stupidity has already been in Australia for quite a long time

Posted on by
1

This is from Instapundit

WOKE STUPIDITY COMES TO AUSTRALIA: Governor General’s staff to be asked to do woke ‘privilege walk’ so they can identify how entitled they are while being asked bizarre questions like ‘were your parents ever addicted to drugs?’ Proper response: “I’m entitled not to be subjected to this idiocy.” 103

There is also the following string of comments that are worth noting. But bear in mind as your read these comments that for myself, the second best decision I have ever made was coming to Australia in 1975 (with the best, getting married to my blesséd wife five years later). Nevertheless, I understand what these people mean by their comments, even agree with many of them. But we in Australia are a minor political entity, one that has supported by sending troops to fight side by side with the United States in every single war the US has found itself in the midst of since 1900. No exception to that, and I also think there is no other nation that can say the same.

And Australia has proven, with the Wuhan virus and their totally hysteric reaction to it, that it is the world’s most insane country – which is no easy feat in this crazy world.

You’re thinking of Melbourne. The rest of Australia has been open and business as usual almost the entire time. Melbourne had the hysterical reaction and the lockdowns and curfews and arrests over Facebook posts – and also had 90% of the total COVID deaths in Australia.

Does Melbourne have a disproportionate percentage of folks with shiny, slip-on, shoes and PERFECT hair and nails?

Of course, Australia was already known as the country that sanctioned their swimmers because they took pictures with some guns in Texas. Friggin pictures!!

Melbourne is the only state or province or whatever it is that went into the latest insane lockdown house arrest of the citizenry (and others unlucky enough to be there) but the whole country is crazy and acting as if the Wuhan virus is Ebola or something.

Sydney is New South Wales. Their state governments are basically run exactly like they’re running Britain. Heavy on the government emergency powers and light on anything respecting constitutional rights

Our constitution is frankly utter shit when it comes to civil rights. I’ve long supported stealing the US Bill of Rights, and just:

1. Cross out “Congress” and write in “Parliament”.
2. Add enough profanity to make it clear we mean it.

Everyone in the world seems to be doing the Communist Chinese Wuhan virus dance on their citizens’ heads That’s no surprise for 90% of the world, but some in the West (ideologically, speaking) have gone particularly apeshit with it. We’ve got New York and California and Minnesota and Washington and others who are competing for “World’s craziest tyranny” award. I’m just saying that Australia is in the lead by a decent amount. I’ve been watching the Australian Open and it’s been a total joke what they did to the players (and are doing). Of course, most of the tennis players are scumbag leftists and BLM supporters and America-haters, so they deserve it.

I get what you’re saying though its a huge embarrassment all over. I’ve not had any hope for Australia for the last couple of years because of their idiocy they imported from Europe (Britain in particular). Australians should be way better than this. Heck their Constitution was almost entirely based off the American Constitution with influences from Canada added in to keep it within the Westminster style.

If you judge us by our news media, you get about as accurate an impression as if you did the same for the US.

The US has its (many) lunatic states, too, that have been doing fantastic impressions of COmmunist China and worse. But Australia is still crazier.

Seriously, I live here. I can walk straight over to the shops, sit down in a restaurant, without a mask, without any fuss at all. I have never once needed to wear a mask. I got some just in case when there was an outbreak near where I live, but I still have them all, unused. No, I don’t live in Melbourne. I have a colleague who does, who basically couldn’t leave her home for weeks.

Look, when people point to what New York did with trying to quarantine people from out-of-state (totally un-American and un-Constitutional) and stalking out-of-state license plates, and say that the US has gone nuts, I wouldn’t argue with them. Things are not that bad around me … but the fact is that they very easily could be … because the US went nuts. Biden in the White House just shows how truly nuts this country is. This is the worst time for the whole world. The stuff going on, now, is so dangerous and evil … this time in history is going to be a cautionary tale millenia into the future. The insanity and stupidity and evil that pervade the West, right now, … is really something else.

Yes, and Australia doesn’t even have the constitutional protections you guys do. There’s no law preventing the rest of this country going nuts the same way Melbourne has; it just hasn’t happened yet. I think Western Australia would have rioted if their lockdown had lasted more than five days, particularly since it was on fire at the time.

Our Constitution is a dead letter, now. It’s gone.

Not quite ready to give you guys up yet. I’ll do what I can. Like, um, release an indestructible social network.

Heh. It’s a start. There’s going to be a reckoning coming for the Western world. Very soon. This is what we are all seeing right now. But it’s a crapshoot as to which way it all turns out. But, things are broken.