This lunatic was once Governor of the Bank of Canada AND the Bank of England

Our governing classes have amongst them the biggest bunch of lunatics every congregated in world history. The only thing different is that Mark Carney tells you what he thinks. The questions now are, does anyone appreciate what he is saying, do enough people in positions to make a difference understand that Carney and his colleagues are serious about doing what they say, and will anyone know how to ensure he never gets to do what he wants. And he is by no means alone.

The quotations below are from an article in Canada’s National Post: Mark Carney, man of destiny, arises to revolutionize society. It won’t be pleasant. You need to read the whole thing, which is long, but this is a sample of what you will find at the link.

Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the “Great Reset,” or the “Green New Deal,” or “Building Back Better.” All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, more safe and more woke world.

Yet another visionary, just like Mao, Stalin and Lenin. So let’s hear more of what he wants and is working to implement.

Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects. First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a “partner” in reshaping the economy and society. Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse. Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: “Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,” he promises.

A world of lockdown but one which goes on forever. 

The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by “sustainable finance,” which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, “climate roadkill.” What ESG actually represents is corporate ideological compulsion.

And where does this take us?

Carney has a lot to put straight with the world. According to his new book, and the related BBC Reith Lectures that Carney delivered last year, the three great crises of credit (2008–09 version), COVID and climate are all rooted in a single problem: People in general, and markets in particular, are not as wise, moral or far-seeing as Mark Carney.

And what does he see?

Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this “corroded” society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Carney has been a prime pusher of “net-zero,” the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is “highly valued by society.” In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of “society,” he is talking about a small, radical element of it….

Carney also commends the knowledge and wisdom of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg: “The power of Greta Thunberg’s message lies in the way she drives home both the cold logic of climate physics and the fundamental unfairness of the climate crisis.”

And like all Marxists, he has his own version of what Marx’s message is.

Mark Carney cries crocodile tears at the possible viability of the Marxist perspective in today’s political environment. But if there is one sure sign of a Marxist, it’s a belief that capitalism is — or is about to be – in “crisis.” His new book has an appendix on Marx’s theory of surplus value: that all profits are wrung from the hides of labour. He also cites Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels. In particular he notes “Engels’ pause,” the one period in capitalist history, early in the 19th century, when workers may not have shared the increases in productivity brought about by industrialization.

Of course, there will be a few eggs cracked before the omelette is cooked.

Carney projects that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (a phenomenon much invoked by the WEF) might bring about a similar period [of economic decay], thus providing a source of political unrest. “(I)t could be generations before the gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are widely shared,” he writes. “In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment, sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest… If this world of surplus labour comes to pass, Marx and Engels could again become relevant.”

He thinks he sees where all this will go, and how fortunate we will be when it is all done. But first…

Carney claims powerful parallels between Marx’s time and our own. “Substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for the steam engine, and Twitter for the telegraph, and current dynamics echo those of that era. Then, Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto in the reading room of the British Library. Today, radical viral blogs and tweets voice similar outrage.”

In fact, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, based on a tract by Engels, in Brussels, not at the British Library, but it’s more important to remember where Marx’s misguided and immutable outrage led: to a disastrous economic and political model that generated poverty and mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Meanwhile “outrage” is surely a dubious basis for policy. The outraged are certainly a useful constituency for those seeking power, however, which brings us to the influence on Carney of the man who first tried to put Marxism into practice.

But he does have his vision.

Carney’s plan is global. “We need,” he claims, “to electrify everything and turn electricity generation green.” The problem is that wind- and solar-powered electricity needs both hefty government subsidies and fossil-fuel backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Green electricity is inflexible, expensive and disruptive to grids….

His own version involves not the metaphorical and benign process of market innovation making old technologies redundant, but a deliberate suppression of viable technologies to make way for less reliable and less economic alternatives.

How will he get away with it?

Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism. Indeed, companies in our one-party ESG state are already pleading like show-trial defendants, making suicidal net-zero commitments, lest banks cut them off.

And how will this be accomplished?

Part of Carney’s strategy is to force “voluntary” standards on banking and industry, then have governments make those standards compulsory. The major accounting firms appear keen to promote the possibility of endless auditing extensions, under which the relatively straightforward metric of money is to be replaced by the infinitely malleable concepts of “purpose” and “impact.”

And where is all this to end?

What Carney ultimately wants … is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism. He suggests that “governments can delegate certain aspects of the calibration of specific instruments… to Carbon Councils in order to improve the predictability, credibility and impact of climate policies.” These carbon councils will be able to demand that national governments “comply or explain” when they inevitably fall short of targets. 

Here’s the final para of the article, summing up Carney’s aims.

Carney is a man on a mission to change global society. “Business as usual” — the most hated phrase in the socialist lexicon — is “ultimately catastrophic,” he writes. There is too much “misplaced acceptance of the status quo.” But somehow the new socialism will not be socialism as usual. This time it’s different. We can because we must. The threat is too great to permit any argument.

I will just end with this quote from the article which seems so exact.

H. L. Mencken observed that “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.” 

These people are lunatics but very powerfully placed lunatics. Madmen in authority, raving at the world but with the power to create enormous havoc. 

Have these people never heard of Ivermectin?

No escape! We are obviously being government by morons, which may be just what we deserve. This is the best bit:

Lockdown to be extended until at least early next week

New strain spreading between strangers who pass each other

Obviously the only answer is to keep everyone indoors forever.

As for Ivermectin, why do none of them ever bring it up in conversation?

I might also mention this comment at Andrew Bolt which seems apposite.

I am not terrified of Covid-19 just as I an not terrified of the Flu!

1255 Australians died of  the flu in 2017 and we never battered an eyelid.

The events on the Diamond Princess provided a unique high load, confined space study for the Covid-19 infection.

On February 3, 2020, 10 people aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship tested positive for the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Each had developed the resulting illness, COVID-19. By February 4, the people with COVID-19 had been isolated from the rest of the passengers.

The case that prompted this onboard outbreak involved a person who had been aboard the ship between January 21 and January 25. Diamond Princess arrived in Yokohama early from a 14-day round trip itinerary, which departed from Yokohama (Tokyo) on January 20 and was scheduled to return on 4th February. There are 2,666 guests and 1,045 crew on board.

We know the initial host arrived onboard 14 days prior to the first detection of the disease which tallies with the incubation period. Therefore. the virus was being freely transmitted in a confined, densely populated vessel for 15days prior to the passengers were confined to their cabins.

Of those onboard there about 900 between the ages of 70 and 79, nearly 1000 between 80-89 and about 200 over 90. The total infection rate was about 17%. 83% either did not contract Covid-19 or exhibited no symptoms.

Below is the current status in respect to those who were onboard during its quarantine in Yokohama. Total Cases: 712, Deaths: 13, Recovered:699, Active Cases: 0

The USS Roosevelt provides an even more positive insight, with a crew of some 4200, less than 20% contracted Covid-19 while only 4 were hospitalized and than 5% of those 1 died of the infection.

Yes vaccinate the at risk and those who want to and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Our governments have been taken over by terrorists.

Economic Analysis for Business – Course Lectures

These were the videos I did based on my textbook Free Market Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader. You will not find a more complete overview of how an economy works anywhere else, if I do say so myself. This is what I say of the book, and the course.

If you are genuinely interested in what is wrong with modern economics, this is where you can find out. If you would like to understand the flaws in Keynesian macro, this is the book you must read. If you are interested in marginal analysis properly explained, you again need to read this book. Based on the classical principles of John Stuart Mill, it is what is missing today; a text based on explaining how an economy works from a supply-side perspective.

Buy the text – third edition – and go through them with the videos and you will learn here more than you can find anywhere else. I would also then go to my other text on these issues: Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy.

Did you know that the “C” in YWCA stands for “Christian”?

YWCA White Privilege Checklist


What would a psychologist know about psychology?

You would like to think that someone trained in psychology would actually know something valuable about how the mind works and how to assist people with obvious psychological problems. You would like to think so, but the evidence is quite thin on the ground. Which brings me to this review of a book that has just been published, titled: Why Americans Are Suckers for Quick Fixes From Psychologists. I’m not sure slow fixes are any better, but this is from the review.

“The goal of this book is to explain why we keep falling for the ideas that psychologists tell us about the ways they’re going to help fix society,” says Jesse Singal, author of The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills. “They’ll offer some incredible new way to fight racism or to improve education or to improve gender equity in the workplace. There’s a rush of attention and often a rush of research dollars. Everyone gets really into them. There’s the NPR, New York Times coverage. And then a few years later, more research comes out. We realize the idea was barely true, if that, and it ends up having wasted a lot of time.”

Singal shows how the underlying research that propelled phenomena such as “power posing” (which promised to empower women by changing their posture), the self-esteem movement (which tried to reform poorly performing students and even criminals through enthusiastic, unearned praise), and the Implicit Association Test (which purports to measure “unconscious bias” against blacks and other marginalized groups) often can’t be replicated and sometimes doesn’t even measure what it purports to address.

“Just by dint of our brains, we’re always going to be susceptible to less-than-rigorous, monocausal accounts of a lot of our problems,” says Singal, who writes for outlets such as New YorkThe Atlantic, and Reason and co-hosts the podcast Blocked and Reported. But, he tells Nick Gillespie, by laying out the predictable ways in which research goes from the lab to the media to the culture and politics, he hopes to sharpen our critical faculties and improve our media literacy.

There are no psychological problems that come with a clear etiology. Most of it is made up as you go along. The evidence has been pretty limited that anyone is helped by therapy, and certainly its track record is no better than any placebo. Misery often comes with life and the only cure I have ever seen is someone else cares about what happens to you and that the person who cares about you is someone you care about as well. The misery of course does not go away but some of the burden is lifted. Some.

Conservative white women are the happiest people in America

From Conservative Women Are the Happiest People in America:

Not that the rest of us don’t already know they’re the most miserable people on the face of the Earth, of course, but when the survey is the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, an ongoing survey of Americans conducted since 1972, which The New York Times describes as a “widely used resource” and “the scholarly gold standard for understanding social phenomena,” that’s gotta leave a mark.

This isn’t some “agenda-driven,” Fox News-funded survey generated for the purpose of creating news and making liberals look bad. This baby comes from the no-longer-hallowed halls of academia. One can only imagine how much that burns the smug, self-righteous left.

Conservative white women are the happiest people in America.

And the unhappiest people in America … white liberal men. My initial reaction was: of course, they are; I assume the majority of them are either married to or in relationships with white liberal women.

Data from the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey which has been undertaken annually for many years,

Worst insurrection ever

After DC Stonewalls For Months, Ashli Babbit’s Jan. 6 Death Ruled A Homicide by DC Medical Examiner. And they even know who did it, but won’t tell anyone. 

The only actual homicide on January 6th with any real evidence was the execution of Trump supporter, Ashli Babbit by what appear to be DC police.  That would mean the officer was acting under the behest of people like Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, or Mayor Muriel Bowser of DC.  Unlike the George Floyd case–or many of the other similar high-profile cases in the past year–the name of the officer who summarily executed Babbit is being withheld as the government in DC stonewalls the investigation.  Is it because she was a Trump supporter?

In fact, not a single person entering into the Capitol even had a weapon on them at the time. Worst insurrection ever.

Choosing which facts you want to believe

NEO: Why new facts often don’t matter once a belief system has been established.

Removing a keystone – if a person has a keystone within his or her belief system – can cause a system to collapse in a fairly sudden and dramatic manner. I think that, during my own change process, both things happened – a slow accruing of evidence as well as some more sudden and important revelations (my change story contains some examples of each, but here’s one of the latter). Another person who had a “keystone” change experience was David Horowitz, a far left activist whose change to the right was originally sparked by learning that certain leftists he thought were decent were actually cold-blooded killers.

Most people’s belief systems are very very recalcitrant to change, and some are even impervious to it. In the latter cases – which I think are quite common – every small brick that might be removed from the edifice is almost immediately replaced with another brick, making the structure about as strong as before. Maybe even stronger, because it’s withstood many challenges. That’s the function of propaganda – to suppress the truth if it undermines the preferred narrative, but if the truth gets out, to immediately change the subject and come up with a new story to replace it. Then when that’s challenged, there’s another story and another and another for people to use to shore up anything that might be crumbling.

Who’s not susceptible? The aim is to surround yourself with people who disagree with you whose judgement you trust, if any such people actually exist, which they don’t.

From Instapundit and from the comments.

The best description I’ve seen of the psychology is Colonel John Boyd’s 1976 essay Destruction and Creation (PDF) on how an intelligent organism must necessarily think. How they build an internal model of the world, how they enhance that model, and what makes them realize that it’s fundamentally wrong in some key aspect, which causes a cycle where they tear apart their old worldview and rebuild it to more accurately reflect reality.

If the model is flawed, and all models are flawed to some degree, entropy builds up. There are all kinds of little mismatches between the model and observed reality, such as perhaps the prediction that a rural conservative will be mean, and an encounters shows them to be nice. When enough exceptions to the model build up, and they become critically important, the person can essentially have a come-to-Jesus moment where they realize that their model of reality is complete BS, and they start re-examining their beliefs, taking things apart piece-by-piece to find a better, more elegant, more parsimonious explanation for all the facts in their head.

But until that happens, they just attach some ad-hoc explanation to each failed prediction or “exception to the rule”, before they file it away in their mental map, so that they can continue on with the old, flawed model of reality. Unless their model’s predictions about reality become critically important to them, they can continue with the flawed model for quite a long time, but every encounter, every little failed prediction and exception, contributes to the entropy that will eventually cause their model to collapse. In current terms, if the cognitive dissonance becomes to great, they’ll take the red pill.

I also liked this.

A lot of people adopt beliefs not because of logic or reason or principle, but as a matter of fashion. They want to feel ‘with it’, and to be seen as ‘with it’, and they will adopt or reject ideas based on what I have to describe as ‘social aesthetics’ because I lack a more appropriate word.

With this example from someone else.

The Rosenbergs are the same. Every year, CBS, NBC and ABC would run stories about how they were innocent victims of the Red Scare. Then, around about 1990 or so, new evidence showed they were guilty beyond all doubt. CBS, NBC, and ABC ran stories about the new evidence. The following year, they were back to the original narrative, that the Rosenbergs were victims of McCarthyism and panic on the part of the evil American public. They just ignored the new evidence. Nothing can disturb the narrative.

Publishing the Venona Intercepts made it impossible to argue that they were innocent. And so many of their defenders shifted the argument, claiming that they were not “traitors,” per se, as they had a much higher loyalty than to any mere nation.


Bobby Fischer on Johnny Carson

At around the 12:00 minute mark is the moment that Fischer is given the puzzle which I am surprised Carson hadn’t seen before. I doubt the puzzle even exists today. Too mechanical for our day and age, too actually physically there and not electronic and online. Just have to slot the little squares till they are across from one at the top left to fifteen at the bottom second from the right. There is always a blank spot so that you can move a piece into an empty space. The example below is the puzzle solved but when you get it to work out it is always completely scrambled. Amazing to see Fischer was also the world champion at doing the 15 puzzle.