The BBC thinks Australia is becoming “unlivable”!

Saw this on Instapundit:


Personally, seeing this mentioned by the Poms on an American website does make me laugh. I can only say I consider it my greatest good fortune that I ended up in Australia, not in Canada where I was born, nor in the UK where I spent two-plus lovely years in the 1970s, nor in the US which I lived next to growing up and visited many times. 

It may not last the way things are going, but if one surveys the entire planet at the present moment, there is nowhere else better. This is a secret we should, of course, keep to ourselves since it is better to discourage others from overrunning the place.

Hopefully this is also a sign of things to come: Labor return Sri Lankan asylum seeker boat as Operation Sovereign Borders enforced.

As for climate change which is supposedly what will make Australia uninhabitable, this was a comment at Instapundit:

In 2015 – Australia absorbed between 37 and 45 million kilotons of CO2, according to peer reviewed science…
In the same year – Australians emitted an estimated 376 000 kilotons of CO2 total.
(2015 was an El-Nino year (typically a year of low vegetative growth in OZ) with the only aspect at all unusual was 17% above average rainfall across the Top End – despite the impact of a positive Indian Ocean Dipole)
If the Australia’s goal was to become ‘carbon neutral’ – this peer reviewed scientific study confirms that Australia has ALWAYS been carbon neutral.
Job done, next…

Not that I think any of it actually matters, but for the crazies who take climate change seriously, we are certainly doing our bit.

PLUS: There is then this which I just picked up at The Spectator Online [for subscribers only].

According to Professor Ian Plimer, Australia doesn’t need to worry about the ‘Net Zero’ goals that caused the guilt-ridden, city-dwelling rich list to vote Green (well, Teal but same-same). Net Zero by 2030? 2050? No worries, ‘Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits. Australia’s net contribution to global atmospheric carbon dioxide is negative. We are already at Net Zero. This is validated by the net carbon dioxide flux estimates from the IBUKI.’

“One of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history”

A must-read on the Covid pandemic if you are already sceptical about what has been taking place or even if you are not: COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Here are the opening paras:

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream led by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies. We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology. These blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scientific citations from some of the most qualified medical specialists in the world. Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

For the rest go to the link. A long and detailed article that never lets up. This is the final para:

Upon release of the vaccines, women were told the vaccines were safe during all states of pregnancy, only to find out no studies had been done on safety during pregnancy during the “safety tests” prior to release of the vaccine. We were told that careful testing on volunteers before the EUA approval for public use demonstrated extreme safety of the vaccines, only to learn that these unfortunate subjects were not followed, medical complications caused by the vaccines were not paid for and the media covered this all up. We also learned that the pharmaceutical makers of the vaccines were told by the FDA that further animal testing was unnecessary (the general public would be the Guinea pigs.) Incredibly, we were told that the Pfizer’s new mRNA vaccines had been approved by the FDA, which was a clever deception, in that another vaccine had approval (comirnaty) and not the one being used, the BioNTech vaccine. The approved comirnaty vaccine was not available in the United States. The national media told the public that the Pfizer vaccine had been approved and was no longer classed as experimental, a blatant lie. These deadly lies continue. It is time to stop this insanity and bring these people to justice.

It’s about the US but discusses what is a world-wide phenomenon.

Trump’s star rising and he’s absolutely right about stolen election

On the editorial page of The Oz today there was an article by Adam Creighton with the following heading: Trump’s star rising but he’s dead wrong about stolen election. How incredible and how disappointing, I said to myself, that the only journalist in Australia who writes honestly about the American political system has now gone over to the dark side. And then I read the article and what was absolutely clear was that the heading had completely misrepresented the contents of the story. In fact, when I opened the story at the link, this is now how the headline reads:

Trump’s rising star should force voting reform for GOP’s sake as well as Dems

Trump was miles ahead on the evening of the election and then was behind in the morning when all the counting was supposed to have ended. Here is the documentary that has brought all of this back into focus:

Here’s how the doc is described by Adam Creighton in his article:

Trump screened and lauded a new documentary, 2000 Mules, at his Florida mansion for prominent friends and fans last Friday night. It was produced by conservative provocateur and author Dinesh D’Souza and a Texas not-for-profit, True the Vote.

Using vast troves of anonymised mobile phone location data – the kind that helped police arrest rioters on Capitol Hill on January 6 – the documentary suggests at least 2000 individuals in five key swing states visited at least 10 voter drop boxes and five left-wing activist organisations during the voting period. Some “mules” – those dropping off multiple ballots – visited drop boxes more than 50 times, it claims.

The show also presented CCTV footage of people dropping multiple ballots off at strange hours, some wearing gloves (and a T-shirt; it clearly wasn’t to keep warm) at all hours of the night.

Of course it was a stolen election. What a notion that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were preferred to Donald Trump and Mike Pence! The question is whether these people will try the same in November for the Congressional elections. My guess is that they cannot be stopped. As Adam wrote:

Yet in 2022 it’s no exaggeration to say the Democratic Party has become obsessed with maintaining pandemic voting rules beyond the pandemic, casting anyone who wants to return to pre-2020 voting rules as a racist who is intent on “suppressing the vote”. It’s reasonable to ask why the party has become so insistent on keeping rules that it barely advocated for before 2020.

I wonder if anyone can guess the reason why.

CONTINUING THE STORY: The link to the video has gone and may well have just been withdrawn since, as discussed here it is a commercially produced documentary that is being sold:

The documentary made more than $1 million in under 12 hours on video streaming platform Rumble and its subscription platform Locals beginning at noon on Saturday. The take was “good enough to put ‘2000 Mules‘ in the estimated box office top ten for the weekend of May 6th to May 8th,” according to the video platform

As of publication deadline on Wednesday, the film was earning an enthusiastic user rating of 7.4 on the 10-point scale of definitive film industry site IMDB.

“2000 Mules” is available for purchase at $29.99 on D’Souza’s Locals channel or for free with purchase of an annual $50 subscription to his channel. The controversial film had a limited theatrical release last week and is also available for purchase or rent on

Old Ozzie in the comments has provided this link from Rumble in case it can still be reached:


And the trailer can be found here: 2000 Mules Trailer or perhaps here if one clicks on the link below if the vid itself does not appear:

Leoplodstadt by Tom Stoppard

From Wikipedia.

Leopoldstadt is a play by Sir Tom Stoppard, which premiered on 25 January 2020 at Wyndham’s Theatre in London’s West End. The play is set among the Jewish community of Vienna in the first half of the 20th century and follows the lives of “a prosperous Jewish family who had fled the pogroms in the East”. According to Stoppard the play “took a year to write, but the gestation was much longer. Quite a lot of it is personal to me, but I made it about a Viennese family so that it wouldn’t seem to be about me.”

The opening scene is set in 1900 but other than the dress and gadgetry available to the family, it could have been about any modern Jewish family anywhere in the West right now. The second scene is set in post-World War I Vienna in 1924 where the family is all far to the left in the manner of the 1920s. The third scene is set in November 1938 on the day of Kristallnacht. And the final scene, with virtually all of the family now dead, is set in 1955, again in Vienna. 

The best piece of theatre I have seen in many a year.

Greek philosophy and democracy

Taken from Quora from a post by Spencer McDaniel in answer to this question: Why were most Greek philosophers against democracy?

First of all, it is a grave mistake to say that “most” Greek philosophers were opposed to democracy, because that is not actually true. Most Greek philosophers were either in favor of democracy or had no opinion on it. The philosophers that most people see as having been opposed to democracy are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but, as we shall see in a moment, this common perception is actually rather inaccurate.

For one thing, we actually know very little about what the historical Socrates (lived c. 470–399 BC) thought of democracy because everything we know about Socrates’s opinions comes from the writings of his two students Plato and Xenophon. Plato in particular seems to have used the character of Socrates in his dialogues as a sort of “sounding board” for various ideas and opinions, so, in most cases, when Plato attributes an idea to Socrates, it is very difficult to tell if it is really one of Socrates’s ideas, one of Plato’s own, some combination thereof, or just an idea Plato was experimenting with.

Plato (lived c. 423–c. 347 BC) makes it very clear in his Republic that he does not have much liking for the particular form of democracy that was instituted in his native city-state of Athens. Instead, in this dialogue, Plato argues that the ideal, perfect government should be ruled by a “philosopher-king,” a man who is supremely wise, intelligent, and rational and who makes all decisions for the benefit of everyone. This, however, is an idealistic vision and it is unlikely that Plato ever expected anything resembling his ideal republic to actually be implemented.

Plato would probably have much admiration for the government of most modern democratic countries, which operate on a very different form of democracy than the one that existed in Athens during Plato’s time. Athens in the fourth century BC was a direct democracy, meaning citizens voted directly on all the issues. This was a problem because most people did not understand the issues and were unable to make informed decisions on them. Modern representative democracies would probably be more palatable to Plato’s sensibilities.

Aristotle (lived c. 384–322 BC) has sometimes been portrayed as hostile to democracy, but, in fact, this is an egregious misunderstanding of Aristotle’s complex and erudite political theory. In his Politics, Aristotle explains that there are three major forms of ideal government: a monarchy (which he defined as a government ruled by a man very much along the lines of Plato’s “philosopher-king”: one who is supremely qualified and rules for the betterment of everyone), an aristocracy (which he defined as a small group of the best and most qualified people ruling for the betterment of everyone), and a constitutional government (which he defined as a government ruled by all the free citizens on behalf of and for the betterment of everyone).

Aristotle held that, of the three ideal forms, a monarchy is the best because it is the most efficient, but he contended that all three ideal forms of government will inevitably become perverted and corrupted over time. He explains that a monarchy becomes perverted into a tyranny, a government ruled by one man for solely his own benefit. An aristocracy becomes perverted into an oligarchy, a government ruled by a few people for solely their own benefit. Finally, a constitutional government becomes perverted into a democracy, a government ruled by the majority of the population for solely their own benefit.

Aristotle reasoned that a democracy is the least terrible of these three forms of government because it results in the most number of people being happy; whereas a tyranny is the worst form of government because it results in only one man (the tyrant) being happy. Aristotle was therefore in favor of democracy, not because he necessarily liked it in and of itself, but rather because it was the least awful form of government that he could think of.

Trump advises people to go home on Jan 6, 2020

From  President Trump Shares Tweet He Released on Jan 6 that Twitter Took Down in 5 Minutes.

The left is creating a horror story of what was once a thriving democracy. Trying to imagine fifty years ahead – twenty or even ten – has now become near impossible. If the left cannot have its idiot ways, they seem to prefer national suicide to a democratically determined outcome.