A Victory for the Left

Labor has won a resounding victory in the Victorian state election. And now, the soul-searching starts.

IMO, the Liberals' big error was thinking they need to hold seats. The disaster in the Wentworth by-election should have been a "wake-up!" call; The demographics of electorates change over time; Voters in well-off, leafy, inner-city suburbs that used to be Liberal strongholds are now more concerned with issues like climate change, pollution, (overseas) poverty and the like. Traffic congestion, urban crime, the (negative) effects of immigration, the cost of petrol and electricity and so-on don't impact their daily lives to any extent great enough to motivate them to vote for candidates that propose policies that address these issues. In any negotiation (and an election is a negotiation, between the voters and the candidate), the power lies with the party who can walk away. But, politicians being politicians, their first priority is always to stay elected. So the Liberals cuck their principles and core-values, to pander to these changes. By doing this, they give away their power. No wonder the voters are abandoning them. My respect (if not always my vote) goes to the candidate who sticks to their guns and refuses to comprimise their principles and values. 

They would do much better to chase votes in the electorates where these more closely match those of the voters. There are many current Labor-held seats where Labor has abandoned its' core-constituency - white, working-class people - who are concerned with crime, unemployment, the price of petrol and electricity and  their values and concerns would now align more closely with the "Dry" end of the Liberal Party. 

The Liberals would do well to capitalise on this. But to do this, they must stop chasing the Overton Window and plant a stake in the ideological ground. They need to espouse a set of core values and principles, present a set of policies that promote those ideas and let the voters choose. At the moment, the Liberal/National Coalition is engaging in internecine warfare. It may be a while before they have a coherent ideological position and policy set to attract votes again. When they do, they must present a clear, unambiguous alternative to the Socialist ideology and manifesto of Labor and the Left.

In the meantime, expect Labor and the Left to capitalise on this lack of opposition, nationally.


So what can an ordinary, non-Leftist voter do?

LEARN how the preferential (Reps) and quota (Senate) voting systems work. You need to know this, to understand how the system is gamed by and for vested interests and how to ensure the candidates you don't want, are denied your vote.

A vote for either of the major parties is now a waste, so start researching minor parties and independents. None of them will ever form government, but the idea is to get enough people on the cross-benches of both houses, that whichever major party does win government will be forced to negotiate with them, to get every piece of legislation through. It won't stop the rot, but it will slow it down enough to give a genuine opposition to the Left time to consolidate.

Discuss politics and economics with friends and family. Australians have been conditioned to shy away from honest, open discussion on this topic and that only serves the interests of the already politically entrenched. Work out what your core-values and principles are. Find a political position that matches them and argue your case fearlessly. Call out bullshit and bullying.

A healthy democracy requires a free and frank debate along with clear and unambiguous choices.

The Wentworth By-Election

The election of an independent in the formerly safe 'Liberal' seat of Wentworth yesterday only highlights that even Conservative voters (the traditional Liberal support base) have lost faith in 'their' party and are now 'parking' their votes with independents and small parties who, in their eyes, can't do any more harm than the 'majors' have already done. Academics, the media and the political 'elite' may complain that the electorate is moving to the 'right', but it's academia, the media and politics that have moved to the Left. In his (mercifully brief) tenure as P.M., Turnbull has moved the LP decisively to the Left and it's policy platform now sits outside the spectrum of what's acceptable to most Conservative voters. 

This result only confirms that people are starting to realise that a vote for the LNP is no different than a vote for Labor/Greens. At this stage, Conservative voters are still hoping that the LNP will come to its senses, grow a spine and start opposing the slow Socialist creep that's been infecting Australian politics for the last five decades. But it's only going to take another couple of election-cycles before even the most die-hard Liberal voters are finally forced to admit that 'their' party is now firmly in the Socialist orbit. And that opens the door for a genuinely Conservative political movement to form and grow. 

To a Leftist, a "new Conservative political movement/party" equals "NAZI". Of course, to a Leftist, anything non-Left is "Nazi". The irony (lost on Leftists) is that the Nazis were Socialists  - their official title is (was) the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". The only difference between the Nazis and the Communists, is that the former were national Socialists and the latter were (are) international Socialists. They're simply two opposing sects of the same ideology, no different in principle to Catholic vs Protestant or Sunni vs Shia. Regardless of whether it expresses itself in nationalist or internationalist form, Socialism is the most bloodthirsty ideology ever to afflict mankind.

I think politics in Australia will divide along the pro vs anti Immigration and the Globalism vs Nationalism debates, with the new 'Conservative' movement opposing (mass) immigration and favoring (ethnic) Nationalism, and the current 'majors' along with the Greens and their ilk supporting (mass) immigration and the "Globalist" agenda.

A new non-Leftist political (it may not call itself "Conservative") platform will likely contain the following elements:

pro "Ethnic Nationalism" (as distinct from "Civic Nationalism")
pro Christian
pro Capitalism
pro (genuine) freedom-of-speech
pro freedom-of-association
pro self-defence
pro rule-of-law
pro Coal/Nuclear 
pro constitutional Monarchy

anti Globalism, particularly anti U.N. (and all the (globalist) treaties/agreements that body promotes)
anti "free trade"
anti (mass) immigration (particularly from incompatible cultures)
anti Islam
anti abortion
anti Feminism
anti welfare 
anti subsidies 

Leftist Protests and How To Beat Them

The Left believes they have won the culture war and now they're the dominant culture, they only need to mop up the last pockets of (non-Left) resistance. But what they fail to appreciate is that while the the majority of Australians may be 'centre-Left' and supportive of liberal democratic ideals, this is a far cry from the extreme Marxist position that people in the Socialist Alternative and and other Leftist organisations of its ilk, take. The battle for the hearts and minds of the Australian public is still well and truly alive. If my own lived experience is anything to go by, ordinary Australians are (belatedly) becoming aware that the Left's calls for "tolerance", "diversity" and "equality" are stalking-horses for a far more sinister agenda. ("Safe" (for who or what?) Schools?) And they're starting to question the Left's motives.

The fastest way to defeat the Left would be to silence the mainstream media, particularly television. But since that's impossible, the next best tactic is to expose the Left and it's sinister agenda for the monstrosity it really is, by forcing them to show their hypocrisy to all . . . preferably in front of  television cameras. Oh! The delicious irony!

We're in a silent, undeclared war. A war on our culture. Not all war is fought in a physical battlespace with guns and bombs. A successful full spectrum fighter employs weapons and tactics across ALL battlespaces. The most effective place to win a war is in the psychological battlespace because that's where most people are at their weakest. A true strategist understands that.

Go and fight where their defenses are weakest and most easily overcome.

Case in point, how do you win a fight in a marriage? You let your more emotional other (female or male) half wear themselves out with screaming and yelling and what do they do? They collapse from their hysteria and often go to sleep. This is why meme warfare is so effective against the Left. If your enemies' greatest strength is the (easily inflamed) emotions that bind them, wear them down by keeping them excited, emotive and consequently exhausted. Keeping Leftists wound up not only exhausts them. It also comprimises their immune systems and psychological stability. That leads to depression (from which they already suffer, thanks to their inability to deal with reality) and breakdown.

How do you win? You beat SJWs by keeping them in the state they love the most - Hysteria. Nothing burns a person out faster than hysteria. Keep them in their highly energized emotive state - highly excited and irrational, and they burn out and collapse. Unless they can recharge their batteries through sleep and calm, they just keep descending into their own madness. Use it, and win. Observe how they act when interviewed or at their demonstrations; They're hot flash fires that get crazy and then collapse...no stamina, so as the hysterics burn out they rotate in fresh hysterics to fill the space.

The key to beating them, is too keep their most effective voices (hysterics) out front and constantly engaged so they burn out TOGETHER, then their psychophant followers back off due to lack of “leadership”. Most are cowards and can only function in the mob setting where they have “emotional” support.

Pay attention. Its right there in front of you all.

This suggests that an effective counter to the Leftist protests at non-Leftist gatherings could be as simple as a small, peaceful counter-protest. The counter-protestors would only need to display provocative (to Leftists) clothing (M.A.G.A. caps?), signs bearing (polite) anti-Left slogans and memes, for example:

 

or:

 

and a general 'fuck-you!' attitude.  The aim of course, is to get the Leftists frothing at the mouth and let them destroy their own brand. Our goal is to win hearts-and-minds by displaying, in the starkest possible terms to the general public, the difference between the "Loony-Left" and the sensible centerists.

Balancing the State Budget

I had friends around for dinner yesterday and enjoyed a lively discussion on politics and economics (but I repeat myself). The subject turned to the (lack of) state-government funding for essential services such as Police Ambulance and Fire brigade. My friend (who has connections with one of the major parties) pointed out that, for a number of years now, funding for all government departments have been subject to an "efficiency premium". This is a ploite way of saying that their budgets are being reduced by 3% every year. My concern is that these essential services are already cut to the bone and that any further cuts would result in a catastrophic failure that would cost lives. This begs the question "when will the efficiency premium stop?" It can't 3% all the way to zero!

This triggered discussion around how the state government might adequately fund essential services without having to raise taxes or borrow and run up a deficit. I thought that it might be possible to cut some non-essential services but it turns out there aren't many servces that can be considered non-essential these days.  Mulling over this with a glass of Scotch after dinner, I began to wonder what else besides essential services the government spends our money on. It happens that I'm researching an investment opportunity at the moment and it turns out there are a lot of subsidies I can apply for.

Who the Hell gets subsidies?
"Name a business that doesn't." quipped my friend.

W.T.F.?! Why do businesses need subsidies? Why should any business be subsidised, especially by taxpayers? Shouldn't businesses succeed (or fail) on their own merits? Isn't that how the Market is supposed to work? 

Apparently not!

Politicians believe they know better than anyone, how business should be run and can't stop themselves from meddling in affairs they have no knowledge of or projects they have on "skin" in. What if the government decides to introduce regulation into the industry? I've yet to meet a (business) regulation that costs nothing to comply with. Businesses always pass these costs on to the consumer. But what if the cost of compliance can't be added to the price the consumer pays, because it pushes the price of the product or service, above what the market can afford?

My friend explained that businesses faced with costs they can't pass on to consumers, will lobby the government for subsidies, using the excuse that if they're forced to close they'll blame the loss of jobs on the cost of compliance (and the politicians who enacted the regulations) - always a sensitive issue to politicians, who's perennial (only) interest is in getting and staying elected. Now, at this point, you'd think the smart thing to do would be to repeal the regulation. After all, that's the 'root-cause' of the problem. Treat the disease and the symptoms will go away automatically and all that. But, as politics is (now) more about pushing ideological agendas than sound economic management, (and when was the last time you heard a politician admit they were wrong?) the prefered option is to treat the symptom by subsidising the affected business or industry. After all, it's not their money they're shovelling down the proverbial rat-hole.

You can probably guess I'm against subsidies. Regulation and Subsidies damage the economy in two ways: First, the additional costs of regulation (always) get pushed onto the customer, via higher prices. Consumers then have less money to spend on any other goods and services, so ALL businesses lose, including the subsidised business. As the price of their product or service rises, the business loses its most marginal customers and the profits they generate. Second, the more subsidies the government issues, the higher taxes need to be, to cover the cost. This means that all consumers have less money to spend, reducing demand for all products and services, further eroding the profit margins of all businesses. Reduced profits from businesses results in less tax collected which further reduces the funds available for essential services. The government can, of course, borrow to cover the shortfall, but this then diverts even more funds into the 'black-hole' of interest repayments, further diverting scarce money away from essential services.

But why would governments want to regulate business and the economy? On past performance, governments have demonstrated they couldn't manage a root in a brothel, with a fist full of fifties, (or a rubber duck, in a bathtub) so it's he height of arrogance that any politician thinks they could manage a business or industry better than the people who own and run it. I think the reason they do, is that politicians (of all stripes) are more concerned with pushing their ideological agendas than actually managing the things they're paid to run - like the Police, Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade. The free market is all about finding solutions to problems. Solutions that can supply what people demand and make a profit for the entrepeneur who does the supplying. "Find a need. Fill a need!" - Bigweld, from the film "Robots". (Check it out, it's a fun movie.)

So, the way to balance the state budget (and adequately fund all the essential services we taxpayers expect) is obvious: Stop all subsidies and repeal all the regulations that drive up the cost of doing business. The message to all governments is clear: Governments! You're the biggest impediment to economic recovery. Get out of the fucking way and stop meddling in shit you know nothing about! Leave the Market alone, to work the way it's supposed to.

I won't hold my breath, waiting for this to happen. Too many politicians' pet ideologies (and the projects they spawn - like "renewable" electricity) aren't even remotely commercially viable and would fail without massive subsidies.

Knowing the difference between Immigration and Colonisation

Enoch Powell got it right!

Who Really Rules You

Want to know who truly rules over you? Simple! It's who you dare not criticise.

Advice I would give to my teen-age self

Some seriously good advice, from Captain Capitalism (aka Aaron Clarey). Grab a beverage and some snacks. Timeless, universal advice, this is very 'U.S.- centric, so make allowances for the differences.

Socialism's 'secret sauce'?

One question that's been exercising my intellect for some time now, is "what makes Socialism such a compelling idea to so many people?" And, I think I've found an answer.  It's a bit of a long read, but well worth the time. The short form: Socialism is the ideology that makes 'losers' feel good about themselves.

Australia Day

Another Australia Day produced the usual litany of protests, street marches and demands to "change the date", "change the name" and otherwise destroy the national day.

Isn't it curious that people who don't share Australian values, people who have grievances (real, manufactured or imagined) about Australian culture and values, can't create their own special days and events and celebrate them in their own ways? Even if the other 97% of Australians don't share their views, we would respect their right to have them. A right that, ironically, was won (at great cost in blood and treasure) by the same Australians who's memory and culture these people disrespect.

Instead, they do everything they can, encouraged by the "intellectual elite", aided and abetted by the media, and approved by the authorities, to disrupt and spoil the day for everyone else.

They don't build or create. They just destroy.

https://www.xyz.net.au/quote-of-the-day-changethedate-push-coming-from-greens-not-aboriginals/

https://www.xyz.net.au/alien-invaders-ever-changethedate/

Australia's is a great place. If it was the violent, racist, (insert favorite adjective)-phobic, misogynistic shit hole these moronic protesters claim it is, then why are they clamoring to come here, or bring even more people here?

https://www.xyz.net.au/australia-day-tribute-to-australia-the-first-fleet-and-our-shared-history/

On Gun-control

John Greer remarked that there can be no rational discussion on this subject, until both sides relinquish the beliefs that firearms are either talismans of Liberty or icons of violence.


Firearms are tools, nothing more, nothing less. They're designed and built to do one thing and one thing only: They deliver kinetic energy (a lot of it!) to a target, via a projectile moving at high velocity. What those projectiles are fired at, is wholly and solely the responsibility of the person holding the gun.

I distrust statistics because the numbers can be (and usually are) manipulated so instead, I prefer to ask "Has this been tried before, and what was the result?"

Does easy access to firearms cause crime? The answer to that, surprisingly, is "yes".
Q: Who has the easiest access to more (and deadlier) guns than anyone else?
A: Government!
Q: Who kills more people with guns than anyone else?
A: Government! 
It's conservatively estimated that more than two hundred million people have died, as a direct result of the actions of governments, in the last century. Governments are, far-and-away, the "heavyweight champions" of mass-murder.

But gun control advocates say that only governments should have guns?!

Every government in history, that has disarmed its citizens, has ended up murdering them. 

This is the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The "Founding Fathers" weren't starry-eyed idealists. They were hard-nosed realists with a thorough knowledge of history, who wanted to prevent the government they were creating from following the normal course of history and turning into a tyranny. So they sought an effective way to prevent this from happening.

Disarming everyone in a society is physically and logistically impossible. Disarming some people only guarantees that those still armed (including governments), will dominate, exploit, abuse and murder those who are. 

An armed population is the most effective, least-expensive, check on government excess.

Gun control advocates want the private ownership of all firearms, prohibited. With a 100% failure-rate, Prohibition is arguably the most failed and discredited public policy initiative in all history. Prohibition has never delivered on the promises of those who promote it. But it has reliably produced (and continues to produce) two outcomes: It encourages a black market in the prohibited thing, which subsidizes organized crime and in so-doing, it harms the people it's proponents claim to be helping.

How's the "war-on-drugs" going? Have we "won", yet?

Firearms can be used for defence as well as offense. In the U.S. there are roughly 60 thousand crimes (including murders) committed annually, where guns are involved. This, in a country where there are an estimated 300 million lawfully owned firearms. Only one firearm in every two thousand is used to attack. What do you suppose the other 299 million (and change) guns are being used for? What do you suppose is the number one reason in the U.S. that people buy a firearm? Self-defence! (This is also the #1 reason why criminals arm themselves!) The number two reason? Hunting! The number three reason? Target shooting!

Gun control can't logically have any effect on crime because it targets the wrong demographic - law-abiding people who own and use firearms legally. Restricting the rights of the law-abiding to curb the actions of criminals, is like kicking your cat, to stop your neighbor's dog barking.

Gun-control advocates claim that criminals obtain their firearms from the legal market (licensed firearm owners). Yet, only one in fifty firearms recovered from crime scenes or seized from criminals in Australia, can be traced back to any registered owner. (And the bulk of those that are, were reported stolen.) Where do the other forty nine (most of which, can't be purchased legally anyway) come from?

Every man-made thing has been used as a weapon at one time or another. Someone was murdered with a fishing-rod near Melbourne, three or four years ago. Evil will find a way.

One of the more bizarre claims made (or often inferred) by gun control advocates, is that simply holding a firearm changes a person's personality - that anyone could turn into a killer if the means to kill is placed in their hands. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone remark snidely "how many people am I going to shoot?" when I reveal my preferred sporting activity.  I think this reveals several disturbing things about the people who make statements like this. They base their assessment of how others would react on how they, themselves think/feel. Since they can only know the content of their own minds, I think it reveals latent homicidal/suicidal tendencies. There's no way I'd let someone who expressed ideas like this, even near a firearm. It also exposes them as elitist authoritarians - they believe they have the right to decide what others can (or can't) do, based on what they believe is "good" (or "bad"). This attitude reveals that gun control advocates view everyone (themselves included) as children - too immature/irresponsible to be trusted with anything as dangerous as firearms, or even to be educated about the potential dangers they pose and how to handle them safely.

Hardly someone fit to have a say in formulating policy.

Firearms are the greatest "equalizer" in history. No other invention gives a 60 kilo woman the power to stand up to a 120 kilo thug, like 1 kilo of "shootin' iron". And, it doesn't make any difference, if both are armed.

If prevention is preferable to cure, as the common wisdom says, what's the best way to prevent crime? Answer: to deter crime. And how do you do that? Gun control advocates will say "the Law". But they're confusing deterrence with prevention. Prevention is something that physically stops a crime from being committed, like a locked door or a razor-wire barrier. Deterrence, is something that gives the criminal a compelling reason (see below) to abstain from committing a crime. The Law does nothing to prevent crime and it's not a deterrent either, except to the already law-abiding. All that the Law does, is prescribe penalties after the crime has been committed, if the criminal is caught.  

Criminals don't obey the law! But, like all predators, they have great concern for their personal safety, so they target the weak and the helpless - those who present the least risk of injury to the criminal in the commission of the crime. Firearms are the ultimate deterrent, because the criminal has to balance the reward of committing the crime against the risk of facing an immediate, lethal response. 

Every "mass-shooting" incident in the U.S. in the last five years (with the exception of the incident in Las Vegas) has occurred in a "gun-free zone". In other words, the perpetrators all chose targets that were guaranteed to be unarmed and helpless. (The Las Vegas shooter was a sniper, against which, there's no effective deterrent or defence.) Gun crime is highest in those places where the legal ownership of firearms (and the right to use them in self-defence) is most restricted. On the other hand, the crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia - where everyone is required by law to be armed - is almost non-existent.

Crimes that don't happen, aren't reported. But anecdotal evidence suggests that in places in the U.S. where citizens are permitted to carry firearms for self-protection, criminals are effectively deterred by the mere knowledge that their intended victims are (or could be) armed. Thousands of such cases occur every month. Why do you think the Police and security guards wear their service pistols openly?

Beyond their uses for hunting and sport, it's in their deterrent effect that you find the true power (and value) of firearms.