Tomorrow Australia will vote on whether they want hardcore socialism right now or for the slow steady boil to continue. There is a glimmer of hope in that if the Liberal conservative party wins but needs to form government with one of the true right wing minor parties. This outcome is more or less Australia’s only hope. I truly think that Australia is the Western nation most likely to fall down the socialist hellhole which is normally restricted to 2nd or 3rd world nations.
The reason for this is that Australia has never had to battle on its own ground to create its existence as a nation. At federation in 1901, several separate Australian states came together and agreed on a nation binding agreement, the Australian constitution, and thus a new nation was formed. This process was voluntary. It is the only time in the history of the world that such a process has happened voluntarily. Of course, the British Empire was at the heights of its considerable power and was rather invested in a peaceful process, but it is still impressive nonetheless.
Unfortunately it has doomed us. It has doomed us because we have never had to fight and suffer for what we have, and when it’s handed to you on a plate then with each successive generation you begin to take it for granted. Lessons learned in the past reach down for a very long time over future generations. For example, the Germans are very careful with their economy because they have suffered through the awfulness of hyperinflation. They know not only that it can happen but what it is actually like.
The USA had to fight for its existence against not only the British, but the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Indians, and finally each other. Britain has has that awfulness many times over. Ditto for every European nation as anyone with only a cursory interest in the Holy Roman Empire knows. Even Canada had to fight a few decent battles here and there as Great Britain, the USA and France all tried to make the land their own.
But not Australia. We had a dream run. We became “the lucky country”, a good fortune that we erroneously believed was permanent. But native Australians do not know how bad things can get. People in general cannot imagine that which is awful, let alone that which is beyond awful. We have a unified nation on an entire continent that holds the vast majority of resources in the Asian sphere, and we are about to throw it all away. I have no doubt that this is the journey. I am not writing to state that if we do this or that then we might avert a catastrophe. No, the catastrophe is already in play. Australia is about to get socialism good and hard, Venezuelan style. And then it will be a terrible civil war that will drag in our powerful Asian neighbors as they scramble for the resources. It will be the scramble for Australia.
A sombre tone for the hawt chicks & links but one is entitled to be just a little despondent at a crucial moment when Australia takes a big circle of the drain.
Their more recent attempt had a happier ending. Democratic Party adjunct Media Matters for America (MMA) assigned one of its 20-something grunts to go back and listen to hundreds of hours of Carlson’s old shock radio appearances. They thought they hit paydirt with a collection of about a dozen outré quotes. A rollout was carefully planned, in conjunction with corporate-Left media (CLM) allies, above all, the Washington Post. The quotes were aired over a succession of days, with the Post alone covering the “story” with an average of three articles per day for a week, including an embarrassingly fawning “profile” of the researcher that read like it was drafted by MMA itself.
Carlson, to his great credit, declined to play his assigned role of groveling penitent. Rather than explaining, or much worse, apologizing, he counterattacked against phony outrage culture and the rotten collusion between the Democratic Party, left-wing agitprop groups, and the CLM. Within a week, the story had blown over and Carlson was still on the air, having lost no further advertisers.
The attacks on the Brexit Party, and the utter failure of the attacks to impact on public sentiment, reveal two things. First: the debasement of political life at the hands of the technocratic elites. Having spent the past three decades draining public life of politics, morality and ideology, in favour of presenting themselves as the cool, neutral ‘managers’ of society, these people have completely forgotten how to do politics. Their outsourcing of political authority to Brussels, and their eschewing of ideological debate in preference for the drab managerialism of the so-called Third Way, has led to their own infantilisation, to their transformation into bureaucrats ill-versed in substantial discussion. This is why they must now rely either on fear (‘a Hard Brexit will plunge us into dystopia’) or insult (‘the Brexit Party are far-right weirdos’). Because in hollowing out political life, and self-consciously elevating it above the rough and tumble of democratic debate, they made themselves bereft of conviction, ideas, even basic debating skills. All they have left as a means of public persuasion is terror and abuse.
Brazil, eighth largest economy in the world is unashamedly backing out of green schemes.
In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro is “dismantling” environmental agencies and missions. Brazil pulled out of hosting the 2019 U.N. climate summit, and has now canceled a United Nations climate change event that was to be held in August.
Environment Minister Ricardo Salles … said he was more interested in dealing with the problems that affect Brazilians who aren’t concerned about “climate change in Paris” or “meetings in Stockholm.”
“It’s an industry,” he said of the environmental movement. “It’s an industry of consultants, an industry of lectures, an industry of seminars.”
A few days ago Bolsonaro also sacked the “militant” activist appointed by his predecessor as head of The Brazil Forum for Climate Change.
One of the big lies that is promoted in the name of “social justice” is that equality is the natural order of human life, which implies that we are not responsible for our own failures: Alabama was equally entitled to win the national championship, but Clemson unfairly oppressed them.
What we learn from sports is that competition produces hierarchy, and the people at the top — the champions — do not owe an apology to the losers down at the bottom of the league standings. It’s not Clemson’s fault that Alabama played a lousy game, and it’s not Alabama’s fault that Tennessee’s football program has become an SEC laughingstock.
On matters of trade, China is always flexible in responding to critics of its asymmetrical, 30-year mercantilism. In the initial stages of Westernization, China was exempted from criticism over serial copyright and patent infringement, dumping, and espionage. Western elites assumed that these improprieties were just speed bumps on the eventual Chinese freeway to liberalism. Supposedly the richer China got, the more progressive it would become. Huge trade deficits or military technological appropriation were small prices to pay for an evolving billion-person Palo Alto or Upper West Side.
After a time, the now-worrisome huge trade deficits and Chinese cheating were further contextualized as “our fault.” The Tom Friedman school of journalism chided our clumsy republican government as lacking Chinese authoritarian efficiency that could by fiat connect new planned utopias by high-speed rail and power them with solar-panel farms. The Wall Street–investor version of this school saw flabby, pampered Americans getting their just deserts as more productive and deserving Chinese workers outhustled and outproduced us. In such tough-love sermonizing, the more Michigan or Pennsylvania rusted, the quicker culpable Americans would either emulate China or die. China of course again agreed.
The notion that the Allies were preparing to launch a major bombing offensive against the Soviet Union just a few months after the outbreak of World War II was obviously absurd, so ridiculous a notion that not a hint of that long-debunked rumor had ever gotten into the standard history texts I had read on the European conflict. But for Huddleston to have still clung to such nonsensical beliefs even several years after the end of the war raised large questions about his gullibility or even his sanity. I wondered whether I could trust even a single word he said about anything else …
… I hardly regard myself as a specialist on the history of World War II, but I initially felt deeply embarrassed to have spent my entire life completely ignorant of that crucial early turning-point in the huge conflict. However, once I had carefully read that National Interest article, my shame quickly dissipated, for the it was obvious that the author, Michael Peck, along with his editors and readers had been equally unaware of those long-buried facts. Indeed, the article had originally run in 2015, but was republished a couple of years later due to enormous reader demand. As near as I can tell, that single 1100 word essay constituted the first and only time the momentous events described had received significant public attention in the seventy years since the end of the war.