Monday Essays for the Silenced Majority

Every empire in history has followed the same trajectory.
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com/2019/07/convulsions-of-dying-empire.html

Diversity + proximity = war. That's why nations exist.
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com/2019/07/immigrants-are-global-problem.html

In this piece, the demographic that frightens me is the Nazis, or as I call them, the "Do-Gooders"; people with the congenital inability to "live and let live". They often operate from the most noble of sentiments (like the Temperance League), but the harm they do and have done, is incalculable.
https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2019/07/do-humans-have-value-in-ai-world.html

Substitute "Australia" for "America" and you have an accurate picture of what's happening on this side of the lake. The division here may be simpler than in the U.S. and is developing along the lines of "country" vs "city".
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-two-americas.html

Where are the Greens? Isn't this the sort of environmental vandalism they claim to oppose? Aren't they opposing a proposed wind-farm in Tasmania for exactly the same reason? Have they outlived their utility?
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/07/27/more-bad-news-on-wind-turbines-in-bass-straight-grid-wrecking-bird-killers/

This is part-and-parcel of the decline and fall of a civilisation. John Greer did a whole series of posts on this theme in his old blog "The Archdruid Report".
The short form is that, since the Enlightenment, the role of religion has been replaced by the Academy (shorthand for all the sciences) and like religion before it, it's harnessed to the service of the dominant minority (elites) who use it to justify their rule. In our declining civilisation, the animosity of the ordinary people is directed at all the institutions seen to be supporting what they percieve to be a corrupt, incompetent oligarchy. Fed-up with the "dominant minority", people are turning their backs on the institutions that support them (including the Academy) and are seeking meaning and purpose in the margins. Precisely where religion was relegated, at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=18190

Jim Kunstler, with his usual, acerbic analysis of the decline and fall of the American Empire.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/things-to-come/

Opinions FB Would Prefer You Didn't Read

What is Facebook? A "platform" or a publisher? Apparently, they think they can be both! It appears Facebook has been quietly blocking some of my posts. I can still see them, so I didn't know they're blocked until I saw a couple of "counter-articles" posted immediately below one (on the climate change scam) I linked to (that wasn't blocked) and followed the settings to find out what they were and why they'd appeared on my page.

Knowing that FB censors opinions it disagrees with, I'm going to collate all the good articles and links I find into blog posts here and just alert everyone on FB when I put one up. So here are the links FB has blocked over the last couple of weeks, along with my comments. 

"Nations are a wonderful thing. People need to have a sense of identity, of belonging, of roots. As one of those who doesn't really have a nation, but merely a passport, I wish more Westerners could understand just how privileged they are to belong to their nations - and to have passports that are worth considerably more than the paper that they are printed on." 
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-neo-tsar-against-neo-liberals.html

A few gems from the blogs I follow... It appears the Greens believe it's possible to simultaneously promote and oppose the same environmental initiatives: 
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/05/16/green-energy-runs-into-green-lawfare/

But what do you expect from a group whos' collective conversation with objective reality (and the rest of the world) has become a monologue? 
https://www.ecosophia.net/a-conversation-with-the-world/ 

And the result is that the inmates are now running the asylum: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-KEIoI7go 

Just so no-one can claim I'm biased (actually, I am), Capitalism is also going feral. Increasingly, this is how employers in the West treat their workers. Still, this kind of nonsense has a very short 'use-by' date: https://didactsreach.blogspot.com/2019/05/domain-query-reactor-scrag-inevitable.html 

Contrast that, with a company that values its employees: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi6Q377Hh08 

This one is particularly important!  "Diversity breeds distrust. Distrust breeds discivic behaviour. Discivic behaviour leads, always and everywhere, to the collapse of once-superior and strong civilisations. To argue otherwise is to ignore the often-harsh and painful lessons of history, in which high-trust societies became low-trust ones and started falling to pieces, gradually at first, then faster and faster, until nothing was left of them but a few charred and broken remains." 
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com/2019/05/life-in-low-trust-society.html

Musical deckchairs on the Titanic

Dmitri Orlov's recent essay looks at the question, which ideology - Capitalism or Socialism - is best in a collapse scenario. (This essay is behind a paywall. I strongly recommend you subscribe $1/month to receive his remarkably good content.) Predictably, Dmitri comes out in favor of Socialism, given the wealth of essays he's written on the collapse of the Soviet Union and his comparisons with the United States. In this particular case, Socialism has a proven track-record. The Soviet Union may be gone, but the Russian Federation remains and its' people survived relatively unscathed. While the jury's still out on whether Capitalism will help the People weather an economic collapse, the odds of muddlin' through without a revolution or civil war don't look anywhere near as good.

From its earliest beginnings when, as John Greer so eloquently described, Mankind unlocked Natures' treasure-chest of fossil-fuel energy and unleashed a wave of wealth the likes of which had never existed before in Human history, the biggest single question has been; "What do we DO with it?" Capitalism and Socialism are simply the two ideologies that answered this question and survived the Darwinian selection process, to dominate political and economic thinking.

But which ideology "best", in a collapse scenario? Both ideologies are artifacts of Industrialism. They were both born out of the unique circumstances that enabled the Industrial Revolution and they'll both become irrelevant when Industrialism finally reaches the end of the Hubbert curve. There is no doubt that Industrial civilisation is in decline. And it has been, since it reached its' high-water-mark on 20th July, 1969. (Everyone alive at that time, remembers exactly where they were on that day.) No matter what the greenies and cornucopians say, Industrial civilisation is designed and optimised to run on fossil energy. Oil is to Industrialism, what water is, to your body; There is NO substitute! Peak Oil occurred in 2005. Peak Coal is right now. Peak natural Gas is less than a decade away.

So, when the industrial world finally splutters to a halt, with the fuel gauge reading "E", the socio-economic ideologies that evolved to answer the question "What do we do with all the wealth?" will be about as relevant as a bicycle is to a fish. The reality is, that the arguments between Capitalism and Socialism are just squabbling over deck chairs on a proverbial Titanic.

So, what socio-economic ideology would be "best" in a collapse scenario? The answer depends on a number of factors, many of which are variable and few of which are predictable - climate instability, for example. But what can be predicted with certainty is that whatever society succeeds ours, its inhabitants will have to get by without the vast amounts of energy that we command.

Think 95% less energy or more.

No fossil fuels means the end of "industrial" agriculture  and that means that there will be less people. A LOT less people! Industrial agriculture is what enables seven billion Humans to inhabit this planet at the same time. Agriculture, without fossil fuelled machinery could optimistically support around one billion souls, probably fewer, given how industrial acricultural practices have degraded vast tracts of once fertile soils. That assumes that 90% of them are occupied growing food or directly supporting those who do. Hunter-gathering could support, at most, a few million, globally.

Abundant energy underpins the accumulation of vast pools of capital. Vast pools of capital enable the creation of enormous wealth. Without abundant energy, there won't be that much wealth to argue over. So, in a post-industrial world, the most pressing question is more likely to be "How do we survive?" And that's going to require answers that are completely different to those supplied by Capitalism or Socialism.

But there are answers to be had. The energy bonanza that enabled industrial civilisation is only a three hunderd year 'blip' in a Human story that stretches back for millenia and probably has less than a century left to run. Thousands of generations lived without the industrial conveniences we consider normal and while most would be considered 'poverty' by our standards. But people survived and sometimes even thrived. Three or four generations from now, people will need to live like that again.

Between now and then, is a period of slow (but accelerating) decline. Optimists will point to record stock market valuations and other such 'indicators' of 'prosperity'. But real, tangible wealth is in decline everywhere. Subtract all the 'wealth' generated by 'speculative' activity (particulary in the 'Financial' sector) and what remains is the actual, physical economy. It's not hard to see that the real economy has been in freefall for decades.

The question is changing. The critical question now, is "What do we do, to prepare for an era where we command less than 1% of the energy we now enjoy?" And that's going to require a new socio-economic theory.

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.