The 100 Days of Bill Shorten, PM

Comedy…or reality…gold?

Michael Copeman lets you decide.

Australians opt for the shorter of two options on July 2. What follows brings delight in industrial quantities to wind-turbine operators, gay-studies faculties and a Cecil B. deMille cast of rent-seekers, revenuers, republicans, grievance mongers and social engineers

With just a 4% two-party-preferred swing on 2nd July, William Richard Shorten could become the 30th prime minister of Australia. Let us pause to imagine what the first 100 days of his ALP Government might bring. Remember, what follows is only imaginary — for now.

Ten days in, with the last marginal seat finally declared, the new Parliament is convened urgently to pass a Bill for Marriage Equality. Two ALP Members threaten to resign rather than vote for the bill, but are persuaded not to bring down the Shorten Government, and decide to abstain instead. The bill passes and is celebrated by an impromptu Mardi Gras parade the following weekend. The PM is enthroned on the first float — a hero to the ecstatic 1 million-strong crowd, lining the full length of Sydney’s famous Oxford Street. Several churches indicate they will now be referring all couples to non-religious wedding celebrants, thus avoiding entrapment by gay provocateurs pounding on their doors and demanding to be united in accordance with the law’s dictates.

The new PM also foreshadows that there will be a referendum (not a plebiscite) to make Australia a republic, via the “minimal” change of making the Governor-General the President, in late 2016. If passed, it is planned to swear in Australia’s first President on 26th January, 2017, “Invasion” Day, thereby disavowing the shame of British colonisation and genocide.

Two weeks in, new Treasurer Chris Bowen reveals that the state of the government’s books is much worse than what was forecast in Scott Morrison’s budget of May 3. In a joint press conference, Bowen and Shorten outline their plan for new taxes to balance the budget within three years. Shorten renews his promise that no government spending will be cut in the process.

The discount on taxation of capital gains from longer-term investments is to be scrapped, and from 2018 the family home will be subject to the capital-gains tax. Bowen says the discount and family-home exemption allowed the rich to get richer. The change is projected to raise $2 billion a year.

Federal death duties are also brought in, confiscating 40% of estates over $1 million. Shorten points out that this is similar to the inheritance tax in the UK, under a Conservative government. He notes that the tax will “level the playing field”, previously tipped in favour of wealthy Australians who often inherit untaxed property worth millions. This change is projected to raise $1 billion a year initially, assuming house prices don’t drop markedly as a result of sudden divestments by older people. The following Saturday, record low auction clearances are reported for homes in all Australia’s major cities except Hobart.

Because 2015 was officially the hottest year on record, Shorten says his government has decided to act urgently to reintroduce a Carbon Tax at $25/tonne. This is projected to raise $7billion a year, with $2 billion will be paid back in subsidies to ensure that poorer Australians are not disadvantaged. The measure is aimed to rapidly reduce Australia’s still-high CO2 output per capita. As a result, airfares rise by 10-15%, but this won’t affect politicians or public servants’ travel.

The Medicare levy — which has only ever covered part of Australia’s growing health expenditure — is to be doubled from 2% to 4% for taxpayers earning over $50,000. This will raise $5 billion, which will be spent on health — the majority going to the states to keep their public hospital systems running.

Finally, Federal Government funding to private schools charging fees of more than $5,000 a year is to be discontinued. It is estimated that $2 billion per year will be saved, the promise being that it will be ploughed back into education. Champagne corks pop in gender-, womyns- and gay-studies faculties across the country, where Safe Schools 2.0 lesson plans materialise overnight.

The ASX 200 plunges 10% in its first day of full trading after all this news, with resources and energy stocks plunging up to 50%. But shares in renewable energy companies soar an average of 150% as rent-seekers dust off schemes for wave generators, solar farms, “promising” battery technologies and a wind turbine on every hill. Unfortunately, almost all will be imported. On cold, clear but windless nights around Southern Australia, power costs will soar as high-cost gas-burning plants come on line to make up the missing energy.

Coal companies announce plans to phase out their Australia operations. All steel mills, aluminium and nickel refineries in Australia are to close within two years. The price of standard unleaded petrol at the bowser begins to rise, widely expected to hit $2 a litre within six months.

Fortunately for some Australian oil and LNG producers, a re-drawn treaty with East Timor has moved the huge Sunrise seabed field into East Timorese territory, exempt from Australia’s carbon tax. The producers and the East Timorese are both very grateful.

The next week, Australia’s first indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney — newly elected in the redrawn Sydney seat of Barton — announces that she is working on a treaty to be signed on behalf the government of Australia and all Australians with indigenous blood. She envisages that the Treaty will include reparations – probably in the order of $10 billion (given the $3 billion projected total cost of the Maori reparation program in New Zealand). More significantly, the treaty will re-create individual indigenous territories across Australia, each to have their own law-making parliament, elected exclusively by Australians with indigenous blood from that region.

Ms Burney indicates that it could be important for completion of Australia’s reconciliation process if the Aboriginal flag were also to be chosen as the new Australian flag. Another plebiscite on the flag (to be held along with the Republic referendum) is announced for late 2016.

Deputy PM and Minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, unveils a landmark Equality at Work Bill, which will require that at least 50% of the employees at all levels of any organisation be women, and that the take-home pay of female employees, averaged across all employees in all departments and jobs, be no lower than that of males. Companies that fail to meet these targets within five years will be subject to higher corporate taxes.

Two weeks later, the new Australian Union Powers Bill is unveiled by the PM himself. This Bill gives union organisers rights to enter any workplace in Australia, to inspect which workers are there (and check their Union membership), and review corporate employment and pay documents. Where Union organisers find any discrepancies, the company’s executives may be ordered to a compulsory meeting, chaired by a Fair Work Australia official with “relevant” union experience. The ASX slumps another 10%.

Richard Marles, Minister for Immigration, announces that all detention centres are to be closed, and Australia will provide reception centres in Indonesian ports for asylum-seekers considering taking sea voyages to Australia. To satisfy the ALP’s left factions, and the crucial Green Senators, all would-be immigrants will be flown to Australia on chartered commercial flights and housed “in the community”. Coincidentally, much of this housing is in marginal seats, with cynics noting that the influx of new arrivals can mostly be expected to vote Labor. Airline shares – which fell 50% after the carbon tax announcement – now rise 100% on this news.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Health, Catherine King, announces plans to re-nationalise Medibank Private, and compulsorily take over all other private health insurers. She notes that Australia’s Medicare system is the envy of countries round the world, and that the Government is determined to see all Australians participate in Medicare, rather than a divisive two-tier public/private system.

Within a fortnight, a million Australians drop their private health insurance. Struggling private hospital operators call for urgent talks regarding buy-back of their facilities by the Government. Government spokesmen note that private hospitals were the domains of “the rich” and the move is intended to promote “fairness”.

During a quick trip to the United Nations HQ in New York, Bill Shorten announces that Australia will be backing his former boss, Kevin Rudd’s candidacy for UN Secretary-General. Only this way, Shorten states, can Australia’s reputation as a decent, progressive and fair-minded country be restored. Kevin promises to come and visit Australia within six months of his election as Secretary-General.

In London, the PM and his wife dine with Her Majesty and HRH Sir Philip at Buckingham Palace, and assure them that Australians will always have a soft spot in their hearts for the Monarchy, even after the likely passing of the referendum to create the minimalist model Australian Republic shortly. Bill and Chloe tweet a selfie from the Queen’s private dining room at the Palace to their many followers. The Duke of Edinburgh is heard to mutter something characteristically colourful about the noxious nature of short people

Over the next three weeks, Bill and Chloe visit and meet with national leaders in Washington, Berlin, New Delhi, Beijing and Jakarta. President Obama notes that Bill Shorten reminds him a lot of himself just eight years ago. Hillary Clinton is too busy fending off investigations looking into her use of a private email server but sends him a best-wishes message.

The PM finally arrives back in Melbourne just 98 days after election. Working late in his office on the 99th night of his prime ministership, he hears a knock on his door. Deputy PM Plibersek enters with some bad news. As Shorten remembers it later, the words of another ousted Labor PM came back to him and he recalls that, as Julia Gillard once did, she walked in ‘ice cold, ice cold’.

The next day, Australia had yet another new Prime Minister.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/imaginary-first-hundred-days-shorten-government/

Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

The True Political Spectrum: Washing Away The Deceptive Left-Wing, Right-Wing Terminology In Favour Of The Reality That Either You Are Free From Government Or You Are Oppressed By Government

In this age, society will always be imperfect at best.

Jesus has not yet assumed his position as King of the nations and consequently there will never be a perfect political and economic system

But let’s remember that we do have a choice about just how bad things can get.

After all, would you prefer the Third Reich and Communism or something a little more freeing?

People literally chose both of those and look how it ended.

Because this is a fallen world, the natural tendency is always towards corruption and the misuse of power. If something good is established in the political and economic realms, it wasn’t achieved without the hard work of people fighting against authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies. 

In essence, someone realised that humanity were made to be free and they fought against those who sought to subdue that freedom in the name of whatever oppressive ideology was popular at the time.

And guess what: nothing has changed!

The contemporary West is in many regards the most successful society ever and most of that can be attributed to the esteemed value of the individual.

Sadly, we are in a significant upheaval where much of what has been gained is currently been stripped away by the corrupt leaders elected by ignorant “useful idiots” who don’t understand their history and consequently cannot see the oppressive future they are ushering in of their own free volition.

As always these days, an understanding of the true political spectrum (ie not the left-right lie where of your two party options, one is always left and one is always right) is absolutely necessary to avoid falling trap to the deceptive language employed by politicians who seek ever more power over society.

The below article from Mr E at Rocking Philosophy is asimple yet astute breakdown of the political into an accurate and useable form: namely the relationship between the size and power of government versus the freedom of the individual.

I find his ending statements the most fascinating as Mr E, an atheist, expresses his desire for a world “where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary”. 

If you know anything about the God of the bible, this is exactly what is promised therein.

Don’t get sidetracked with supposed Christian empire in history that committed evil acts or scandals involving the church and paedophilia. I’m not talking about Christians who fail to be like Christ, or in plenty of cases, people who only claimed the name of “Christian” – I’m referring to what God says the church is and will be perfectly when Jesus rules over the nations as King.

Humanity will be perfectly free, from sin and even death, (with “free” meaning free to love, not free to act selfishly and dangerously) and the church is by default a collective that you can only become part of by your free will, otherwise known as voluntary.

Indeed, this is why we choose freely to become Christians – because our sin is killing us and we want to be made like Jesus, so wing God freely promises to all those who say yes to him.

The True Political Spectrum

Having made a video about the left-right paradigm I feel the yearning to further expound on a more accurate representation of what the left and right truly are. I’ve been researching the concept of the political spectrum for quite some time, and the political compass appears to be the most widely used:

I can no longer accept the accuracy of this chart, since collectivists are always authoritarian to some degree. They restrict individual liberty, and define rights via collective approval. This is the epitome of totalitarianism, brushing aside individuals for collective goals. This is not only oppressive to the individual, but also leads to problems like regulatory capture. Where would the ‘too big to fail’ bankers be today without state funded bailouts, bad debts passed onto the people via money printing and inflation?

Some might argue that if the banks failed then there would have been chaos. This is the fault of policies allowing a small number to dictate economic activity, and tilt this in their favour. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers didn’t care

about losses because they knew that central banks were there to insure them in the event of failure. There is no way to prevent this sort of monopoly under collectivism, since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore it’s better to have a system where mistakes cannot be accommodated for with bailouts and ponzi schemes.

Before a more accurate diagram of the present political spectrum can be given it’s important to be aware of what democracy truly is. Democracy is a collectivist ideology that defines rights via the ballot box. This is the same throughout the democratic world. True, there is a far stronger Lockean inspired culture of individualism in the United States, but still democracy has the same problems wherever one goes, and it’s worked wonders for the expansion of socialism. It saddens me that two world wars were fought in the 20th century, and still socialism could not be kept at bay. While fascism, which is simply National Socialism, has been denigrated as the true face of evil, the same cannot be said for international socialism, otherwise known as communism.

If by now you need to be told that Hitler, fascism, and Nazism, are all socialist ideologies driven by state protectionism and nationalism, then the chances are you’re a communist, or an admirer of Marx. There’s always the strong possibility you swallowed the blue pill of government education that teaches people that the Nazis were far-right, even though they controlled the means of production via state regulated corporations, and restricted property rights. If you need any of this confirmed then I have already made videos called “National & International Socialism” and “Nazis Vs Marxists”.

Nothing seems to make a Marxist and a communist angrier than the unrevised fact that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Fascism obsesses over race, while communism endlessly deals with class, but both demand adherence to authority. Hence they are both totalitarian. These two great evils have fought for dominance throughout the 20th century, and today we have a society where democracy is a perpetual battle for control of production and property rights via either the fascist or communist models.

Corporatism itself is a fascist ideology, where the means of production is manipulated by regulation defined by the state. The differences between this and communist control of production is something communists will contest ad nauseum. But they are semantical issues that ignore the fact that corporations could never exist without state policies of corporate personhood. Under laissez-faire, corporations would just be businesses, like any other. The state however benefits from corporations collecting taxes and controlling society on the behalf of bureaucrats, like feudal lords herding peasants on farmlands under feudalism.

With all this in mind we can now begin to see that we only live in one half of a paradigm made up of collectivism and individualism. Presently we live entirely within the collectivist half, where international socialism and National Socialism reside. Here is what this looks like:

It may seem very unfair to label conservatives as fascists, but this only occurs because the right-wing political choice under democracy is merely a corporatist and nationalistic alternative. Conservatism as an ideology is predominantly based around questioning change, since change may not necessarily lead to good things. Therefore I am not inclined to believe by any stretch of the imagination that conservatives are fascists per se. Admittedly they are more authoritarian than many libertarians. But they are always looking to create a society of personal accountability and minimal statism, which is far more than can be said for any socialist, obsessed with absolute control of society.

Conservatives are often associated with organised religion. Organised religion can be very problematic when it merges with the state. This is called theocracy, and is just another form of collectivism. It is not however compulsory to be religious if you are a conservative, and many conservatives are atheists. Having cleared this up it’s much easier to understand why modern right-wing parties have been lumbered in with fascists, due to their big government military spending and corporate welfare policies. Saying that, the term “far-right” is a smokescreen, since fascists are only far-right collectivists, not far right on a broader political spectrum, which looks like this:

Here the totalitarian ideologies, be it national or international socialism, are on the far left. As we progress to the right we pass all ideologies that demand adherence to the state, like democratic political parties. The middle is obviously the centrist position, though I would call this sitting on the fence. The first position to the right is libertarianism. Modern ‘purist’ libertarians believe in a state that only comprises of military, courts, and police, protecting natural rights instead of defining them (note: left-libertarians are merely communists, using dialectic to reframe terminology). This shows why libertarians are on the right, since they actively work towards a limited state, and democracy would not be a legitimate method to infringe upon the natural rights of the individual. These ideas are defined by such philosophers as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and of course the Austrian economists.

The far-right position is stateless anarchy. In a world of anarchy the individual is sovereign. Appeals to consequences galore are usually the opposition to a stateless world, but at the very least it’s possible to grasp that the interpretation of the political spectrum in this case is totalitarianism on one end, where individuals have no rights without collective approval, and anarchy on the other, where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary. Perhaps some day we can live in this world, but for now even libertarianism would be a positive result for individualists, and a perfect transitory step for the evolution of human society to voluntaryism. It seems to me that the history of mankind is the battle for individual autonomy over the collective, and I for one aim to help this cause.

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2012/08/the-true-political-spectrum.html

The Problem Of The Fragmented Political Right

Great essay.

Why the political right is so fragmented

by MC

The genuine conservative political right is defunct. It no longer exists as a separate entity and is now securely blocked in with the fantasy ‘Nazi’ ‘far right’.

The leftist/collectivist policy of denigrate, divide and destroy has worked beautifully, no doubt assisted by fifth-columnists well able to hide amongst the tolerant liberalism (small L) of conservative (small C) opinion.

The US Republican establishment is now left of centre. With the exception of the Reagan years, it has been drifting steadily leftwards, totally out of contact with grass-roots conservatism. In fact, the modern GOP does not hide its contempt for its supposed conservative roots.

The British ‘Conservative’ Party is a bit of a far-left-of-centre joke. For sick political expediency it has killed justice and allowed a multi-tier system of ‘race/Islamophobia/social cohesion’-driven legal exceptions to prevail. We now have one law for Muslims and their patrons, another law for the man in the street, and a third more draconian law for those who wish to express their freedom, liberty and/or right of free speech. The Conservatives have particularly allowed freedom of speech to become encrusted with so-called ‘hate’ legislation where hate is an ill-defined term, randomly applied and seemingly related to causing offense particularly to Muslims and/or gays and/or general dissent. But where causing offense to Christians or Jews or real conservatives is studiously ignored.

So how did we get here?

I suspect that the contrived association between Nazism and the ‘right’ has much to do with it. However, there is also a failure to understand liberty , racism and nationalism as they apply to traditional liberal conservatism. But there is yet another factor which may also be critical.

There was recently an article at Gates of Vienna about Jewgida, which attracted more than the usual number of comments. Many of those were divisive and intolerant, seeking to emphasize that Jooos are the enemy rather than celebrate the number of Jews who participate in the counterjihad movement.
Personally I am disappointed that Jewgida feels the need to exist outside of any local/national Pegida movement(s), but all the same I would welcome them into the fold.

The right is vapid because it is fragmented. It is fragmented because it has been taught to be intolerant and see the likes of Jewgida as a threat. This is not part of true conservatism or the true right; it is the absorption of leftist principles into the conservative psyche.
Real conservatism has a Judeo-Christian core belief, a belief that leads to trust and tolerance: trust and tolerance in God and in (conservative) man. When that core is deflated, however, then there is only fear and fragmentation. The negative reaction and mudslinging provoked by the publication of Diana West’s book American Betrayal (a MUST-read for ALL those on the right), presumably at the fear/knowledge that the Republican Party had also been thoroughly penetrated by KGB agents of influence, was just too much for the supposed icons of right-Republican thought.

So here is a provocative piece from a UK Nationalist website of dubious origin, which is unconfirmed in any way:

“I learnt some of the plans of the deliberate One World agents at a meeting in Harold Wilson’s [UK Prime Minister in the 60’s] room in University College, Oxford, in October 1940. He explained the organization of the subversive groups in this country, with the biological, economic and political sections as the most important, and with overt left wing organizations such as the Communist Party to divert attention from the three vital sections. He said that the overall head of the subversive organization was the head of the biological section, while he himself was the head of the political section of the subversive organization. Members of his section were to infiltrate the political Parties, A larger proportion were to infiltrate the Labour Party, most of them posing as ‘moderates’ on the right of the Party, but a substantial number were to infiltrate the Conservative Party, these posing as ‘moderates’ on the left of the Party. He explained that they were to pose as ‘moderates’ because the British people tended to distrust ‘extremists.’ At a later stage everyone who is patriotic was to be described as a ‘right wing extremist.’

— Dr. Kitty Little PhD. BSc. MA.

Let me reiterate that this is unconfirmed in any way. Nevertheless, it is thought provoking because what it posits has come true (see the rest of article at the link).

If the ‘right’ has indeed been penetrated, then the brief for the agents of influence would be to divide and render harmless, which has very obviously been achieved. The infighting in the ranks of the right, worldwide, has been sad and destructive.

Margaret Thatcher described Ted Heath as a Conservative éminence grise constantly sowing discord. This is the same Ted Heath who took the UK into the EU (EEC) and lied (by omission) about an “ever-closer union”.

By all appearances the natural Right has now been demolished and removed from the political scene in most of the western world. Thus Geert Wilders’ PVV is deemed ‘far right’ rather than plain ‘right’ because any criticism of ‘immigrants’ means ‘racism’, and ‘racism’ is ‘Nazi’ and thus ‘far right’.

The ‘Socialism’ in National Socialism is rarely emphasised, and it is the ‘National’ that is deemed responsible for all the evils of the Holocaust and the general hatred of Slavs, Africans etc. And, yes, the Nazis were very racist when it suited them. But they accommodated the Japanese, and the Bosnian Muslims and the proto-Palestinians when it was in their interests to so do. We see this same phenomenon too in most socialist regimes, where the real but covert object is to create a feudal state with a party elite ruling over a proletariat of workers whose existence is little more than slavery. All are equal, “but some are more equal than others,” as George Orwell put it. Stalin hated Jews, but he also hated Caucasians and Mongolians, and the Chinese communist nobility hate anybody not of Han descent.

Nationalism is not the same as racism. Nationalism can be precisely defined, but racism is exactly what socialists want it to be, in that it is not necessarily anything to do with ‘race’ but more to do with skin colour or religion. Socialists are obsessed with skin colour in a way that nationalists find strange and revealing. To a nationalist it is ‘culture’ that is important, and particularly the preservation of the national culture. Religion, too, is a socialist paranoia. In the socialists’ view, Christianity is uniquely indicative of ‘white’ supremacy and ‘white’ privilege, and must be purged. The more a Christian is Bible-orientated, the more dangerous he/she is. Any other religion is just a point of leverage which can be used to turn on the faucet of violence at need, and at this Islam has shown itself to be compliant and thus useful.

Socialism is a political religion. It believes that man is god, and that mankind can build a heaven-on-earth utopia based upon equality and social justice, but only if all become believers. This means that pragmatically, dissenters must be isolated and removed (exterminated), whether by using gulags or Konzentrationslager, or just scimitars, is largely academic. This philosophy also means that the party must redefine ‘truth’ because the basic curiosity of a human must be eradicated and replaced by doctrine and propaganda, a process nicknamed ‘brainwashing’.

The political right has thus been brainwashed out of the common perception, and an Antifa movement has been established to make sure it stays there. Antifas are interesting as well as oxymoronic: these are the Sturmabteilung of the Nazis rehashed as enforcers of socialism, which implies that it was always the socialism of the Nazis that was important, and that every howl of antifa rage is to give voice to an opinion that both Stalin and Hitler were correct.

There is no political ‘far right’, because in reality the Right’s policy is for small government and minimum interference with individual liberty. Therefore, to interpolate ‘far right’ is to contemplate a state with no government at all i.e. anarchy in the truest sense of the word (anarchy = without government).

The ‘right’ is often closely associated with capitalism, and we have to be careful here for most people confuse capitalism with cartelism. Capitalism means that everybody has access to the markets subject only to their own financial resources and ability to sell their labour. Cartelism means that markets are only open to those meeting criteria set by those already controlling that market. In the UK one works for a company and is paid a remuneration which is governed by a salary band. This salary band is an averaging-out of the ‘value’ of all the workers in that pay band, so the good, profitable workers have to subsidize those in their band who are unprofitable, This is called ‘Social Justice’, and is just another expression of cartelism.

The ultimate in cartelism is in the full socialist agenda, where the state is in absolute control of all production of wealth. Communism abhors capitalism, but enforces absolute state-run cartelism. That is not to say that capitalism is perfect, but it is like democracy: it is the best we have, despite its faults. There was a time when, especially in the USA, if one worked hard and intelligently, then one was almost sure to prosper. This was the American dream. But cartelism has turned that dream into a worldwide nightmare. No longer can lemonade be sold from the front yard — the cartel just can’t stand the competition.

The big selling point of socialism is ‘welfare’, and I suspect that the major criticism of rightist politics is that the balance of welfare to work is too much on the side of ‘work’ and an ethic of ‘no work, no pay’. But the incredible ability of ‘right’ politics to create jobs and distribute wealth and therefore to promote wellbeing is rarely discussed, as is the profound reciprocal ability of socialist ‘welfare’ to promote poverty. When, in the UK, I smashed my leg (high-energy pilon fracture type 3), I had a choice: I could live on welfare for the rest of my life, or I could try to hold down a job as a cripple. I chose the latter, but in doing so, had to give up all access to the former because this was an all-or-nothing inflexible type of welfare designed not to help the patient but to be able to tick a box on a political welfare agenda sheet.

Socialism tends to be very physicalist. Whilst it looks after the injury, in doing so it wants to also own the mind. It has no room for the metaphysical, which says I want to be free and to decide for myself and take responsibility for my decisions.

Because socialism is essentially a religion, it seeks always to evangelise and sermonise. It is much like Edmund taking the White Witch’s Turkish delight*: not only can one ever get enough of it, but it also puts one into spiritual shackles to the point where one will betray one’s brother and sisters for more of the same.

The opposite of the (political) Left is not National Socialism, as the Left would have us believe. And, yes, there were (and still are) street battles between socialist factions like the BNP and SWP, or even BLM and Trumpeters. The real opposition to socialism is from the liberal conservative right, who, on the whole, don’t realize that they even exist, they are now so isolated.

Although Communist Russia fought National Socialist Germany, that does not make them political opposites — brothers often fight brothers, and sometimes with an extra bitterness which comes from sibling jealousy and rivalry, given their competition for the same finite resources….

Time to make friends, brothers of the right!

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/04/why-the-political-right-is-so-fragmented/

The Problem Of The West: Socialist Policy, Low Birth Rates And Growing Muslim Immigration

Daniel Greenfield sums up a lot of the problems in the West right here:

Daniel Greenfield: There’s an old Hemingway quote about going bankrupt. How did you go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. Here in the United States, we’ve had a front row seat to gradual bankruptcy. What does that mean? Under Obama, good policies have been replaced by bad policies. Good money has been replaced by bad money. Debt has been piled up in every state of the union. We have the same speech. The state of the union is strong. We’re investing trillions of dollars in Muslim, green energy self-esteem. Of course, that’s not an investment because an investment is when you get money back. It’s just spending, but that’s how you go bankrupt. And at the end of the day, the bill comes due and suddenly it’s, “Where did all the money go?” “How did we suddenly go bankrupt?”

Now demographic bankruptcy is also a very real thing. Economic bankruptcy is when you have no more money. You wake up one morning. There’s no more money. Demographic bankruptcy is when you wake up one morning. There are no kids, and this is a very real problem. You’ve heard China is abandoning its one-child policy. It’s now going to be a two-child policy. Germany though has a one-child policy of its own. The German birthrate is 1.3. That’s a one-child policy. That’s a 1.3-child policy. There’s a slight problem here because if you’ve got a birthrate of 1.3, and you’ve got socialism, who is going to pay for all of this? The entire system is based on the idea that the next generation is going to pay in, and the next generation is going to pay in, and this whole thing can keep running along indefinitely, but the Europeans aren’t having kids. I grew up in Europe myself for sometime, and it wasn’t unusual. I was one of the few kids running around. There are a lot of elderly people. There were some middle aged people. There were not that many young people, and it’s actually getting worse these days.

So if you look at Germany, Germany is a very bad case scenario, but there are even countries that have lower birth rates. Now this is a problem because in the normal birth rate, you’re supposed to have a pyramid. The younger workers at the bottom. Then it gets narrower. There are the middle age, and then there are the elderly. In Europe, the pyramid is upside down. You have the elderly at the very top. You have a small wedge of people who are middle aged, and you have a shrinking wedge of people who are young, which means they are going demographically bankrupt. Now Europe has been going demographically bankrupt for awhile now because of its falling birth rates, so the socialists who run it have come up with an absolutely amazing plan, which socialist plans can’t possibly fail. They’re going to solve this demographic bankruptcy and this resulting economic bankruptcy when there’s nobody to do the work or pay the bills or even write the welfare checks by bringing in millions and millions of Muslims to fill in the gap. So you’re going to have people from high birth rate countries come in, and they’re going to be at the very bottom of the pyramid.

They’re going to do the work, so Hans and Fritz will retire. They can retire at 55 or whatever. He’ll get his pension, and that’ll be fine, and Mohammed will come in, and he’ll work hard, and he will have a lot of kids, and the whole socialist system will keep working great. There’s just one, tiny, little, minor problem with it, and I’m not talking about the terrorism, the Sharia, the no-go zones, the attacks on Jews, or all the other fun stuff. There’s just one other minor problem, which is that the people coming in don’t actually work. Muslim unemployment rates, yeah. I mean you can count on socialists to bring in more people who don’t work to a country where the problem is that too many people already aren’t working.

But Muslim unemployment rates in Europe, it’s not unusual to see unemployment rates in the 20 and 30 percentile range. Among youth, you see unemployment rates in the 50 and 60 percent range, and that’s not because, as the excuses go, they’re disaffected. They’re not given work. They’re not given opportunities. They don’t want to work, and why should they want to work? Because there’s a basic cultural difference between Europe, between the West, and Islam, the Muslim world. Europe, the West, we’re a work ethic culture. We believe in working. We believe in coming home and saying okay, honey, what did you do? I worked 8 hours a day. That’s great. The Muslim world, it does not work like that because the Muslim world is a slave culture. We’re in the south now. We’re in Charleston. We’re supposed to feel very bad about slavery, which is a 19th century thing in America. In the Muslim world, it’s a 20th century thing.

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery, I believe, in 1962. 1962. The JFK administration came to the Saudis, and they said maybe you should give human rights to women, and let people vote and get rid of the slaves. Back then we had a little more leverage with the Saudis than we do now, so the Saudis grumbled and said all right. All right. Fine. We’ll get rid of the slaves. That was 1962. That was a great moment in Muslim human rights. The Muslim world has never really abolished slavery especially in the Middle East except because of European pressure. The English forced the Egyptians, for example, to get rid of slavery. The Saudis still have slavery, by the way. They just made it an even worse form of slavery. The original form of slavery, the slave owners would at least take care of the kids. They would take care of the old people. It was still evil, but it was slightly less evil. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris moved on to this kind of concentration camp slavery where you take workers at the peak of their lives. You take young workers. You burn everything out of them. In some cases, you downright kill them. Then you dump them back to the country where they come from with some pocket change. This is concentration camp slavery.

It’s what the Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, that’s what they’re built on. They have huge work forces. All these nice skyscrapers, you see all these paradises for the rich, they are built by slave labor. They are built by thousands of people just dying in the heat building this thing. They are built by this, and it’s like Sparta except we supply the military, and we supply the wealth, and they just sit around on their asses all day and own the slaves. That’s the Saudi — that’s all these societies. These are societies where the idea at the top is not to work. You do not work. You see all these leaders who are fat, who are ridiculously fat. They look like they have trouble walking across the room. The Saudi royals, Qatar, that’s because they don’t walk across the room. They sit on their asses all day, and they have these servants from Africa usually fanning them with palm leaves or whatever, and they’re not going to fan themselves with palm leaves because that’s what slaves are for. That’s how a slave culture works. Even the people who aren’t at the top believe that work is something you’re punished with. It’s not something you want to do, and socialists, by the way, believe the same thing. Work isn’t a good thing. It’s something you have to be forced to do.

This is a slave culture, and in the slave culture when people come into a country where it has generous socialism, that has generous welfare policies, they’re coming there not to work. In fact, you have the whole idea that these people are refugees. They are not refugees. They are not coming across the border from Syria, making it across the border into Germany, and saying, “Thank God, we’re in Germany now. We can be safe from the civil war.” That’s not how it is. They’re crossing into Jordan. They’re crossing into Turkey. In Turkey, there’s no war. There’s no war in Jordan. They stop being refugees the moment they leave Jordan or Turkey, and when they head to Europe, they’re no longer refugees. They are economic migrants. It is very important to remember that. There is no war in Turkey. There is no war in Jordan. They are not refugees once they leave Jordan or Turkey.

Now why are they going to Germany, for example? Why? What’s so great about Germany? Now I interviewed some of these guys, and they say you know what’s great about Germany? Hitler. We like Hitler. Germany is bringing in people to accord with tolerance and European values, and what these people admire most about Germany is Hitler. They may not have heard that he died awhile back, so they may be a little unclear about the details, but what’s so great about Germany? What’s so great about Sweden? Why are they all headed there? Welfare. It’s a great welfare state. You have a German teacher asking her students in class what they wanted to be when they grew up. Susie, what do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be an ecological engineer. Hans, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to fly hot air balloons. Mohammed, what do want to be when you grow up? I want to be on Hartz IV. Hartz IV is Germany’s welfare. “Hartz” means “heart.” It’s because it’s very caring to give people free stuff, so they want to be on Hartz IV.

Germany has very generous welfare policies. So does Sweden. They don’t want to go to a lot of these countries. You have interviews with these refugees who are in Slovenia. They’ve never heard of Slovenia before. They’re not interested in Slovenia. They don’t want to live in Slovenia. Slovenia doesn’t have great, free stuff. They want to go to Germany for all the free stuff they can get, so Europe is dealing with its demographic bankruptcy by bringing in more people who don’t want to work, by bringing in more people who are going to take more out of the government than they’re going to pay into it. So the socialists have actually managed to take a crisis that they are responsible for and made it even worse. Now how did demographic bankruptcy happen in the first place? How did you get to a 1.3 child rate? That’s a ridiculous number. It’s not China. Nobody was forcing women to have abortions. Nobody was marching in at gunpoint forcing them to have abortions.

This was Germany. They voluntary did this to themselves, and it’s not just Germany. It’s across Europe. Why did this happen? This happened because they decided that their future wasn’t their children. There are two reasons that people have children. One’s slightly cynical. Children take care of you in your old age. The second one is that you care about children. Children are the future. Europe, of course, has no future because it doesn’t have children right now, so the first part, Muslims have high birth rates. They have very high birth rates, so when you have Muslims coming in to Sweden, you have Somalis, for example, coming into Sweden, they have a birth rate that’s three or four times higher than the Swedish population. Syrians are coming to Germany. Germany, as I said, has a birth rate of 1.3. Syrians have a birth rate twice that. Afghans, who are the second biggest group, forget about the Syrians. The Afghan refugee boom is now becoming very huge. It’s a country of 30 million. A quarter of them polled have said that they want to leave Afghanistan.

One hundred thousand are expected to try to get into Europe this year.

But their birth rate is much higher because this is an investment program. This is a retirement program. Their kids take care of them in their old age. In Europe, your kids don’t take care of you in your old age. The government takes care of you in your old age. Under socialism, you have a cradle to grave state. The problem is that Europe now has a lot more graves than it has cradles. It has a whole lot of people, who are elderly. It doesn’t have a lot of cradles. It doesn’t have a lot of kids. The Muslims are supposed to solve this problem, but, of course, their retirement plan is have a lot of kids, charge them for the government. It’s not a great plan because, again, you’re not producing any more workers.

Now the second idea was that in Europe the things you would care about were not your children. They would be progressive policies. People weren’t living to see — I want to see my kids get married. I want to live to see my grandkids get married. Hell, it’s I want to live to see the European Union. I want to live to see diversity, and they’re living to see it now. I want to see light rail. In the UK, they’re talking about it’s important to have no more than one child because of global warming. You can’t have too many children because of global warming. So global warming, leftist policies matter to them more than their kids. That’s why they have no kids. They have faced demographic bankruptcy because they faced economic bankruptcy, because they face ideological bankruptcy.

Now we’re not immune to this stuff. We’re going slower than Europe, but we’re also going gradually, politically bankrupt. We’re going economically bankrupt, and we’re going demographically bankrupt. The Muslim population in the United States has increased 67 percent since September 11. It’s a great way to commemorate September 11. Sixty-seven percent increase. The Muslim population in the United States is younger. Their birth rate is higher just like in Europe. In the UK, you can look at the sea at the bottom level. When you hear that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK for children or the most popular name for children in Oslo — so Oslo is 10 percent Muslim, but it’s Muslim at the bottom where it matters, where the children are. And England and Wales it’s 4 percent Muslim, but if you look at the children under 4, 9 percent are Muslim, and that is the future.

We think economic bankruptcy, the numbers sometimes sneak up on you because we don’t pay attention to the numbers that matter. When it comes to demographic bankruptcy, the numbers that matter are under 30, under 20, under 10, under 4. The median age in Germany is 46. The median Muslim age in Germany is 34. They are a much younger population. They’re having more kids which means they define the future. Now this is important for us to realize because this immigration thing is not just a problem of borders. It’s a problem of values. It’s important for us to have the children. It’s important for us to raise the children that are going to be the future because if we fail to do that, if we do what the Europeans do then we turn it over. At some point we’re going to be facing an economic crisis, and we’re going to do what the Germans did, which is say we can bail ourselves out with 5,000, 10,000 Muslims. Germany expects 1.5 million Muslims, according to a leaked government document, but with family reunification that can be up to 7.3 million people, and that’s just one country.

They’re promising that this is going to solve our demographic problems. This is going to be the future, but what they’ve really done is said that our future, socialism, matters more to us than our country. It matters more to us than our people. It matters more to us than our children. We can’t allow our United States to go that route. We can’t allow refugee resettlement to fill our cities, to fill our towns with people who are supposed to be our future, who we are told are going to do the work that we don’t want to do. Socialism is the underlying problem here. The migration we’re seeing is caused by socialism. It’s caused by left-wing policies, and now the left wing as it always does manages to make a crisis that they caused even worse. The United States is now going to be facing the same crisis. We saw that again with Obama recently. We’re going to be seeing more and more of it as time goes by. If we don’t recover the birth rate, if we don’t fundamentally change the demographics, we’re going to go the way of Europe.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261007/muslim-migration-europe-eurabia-come-true-frontpagemagcom

Hollywood, Testament To The Success Of Capitalism, Now Actively Promoting Communism

“Progressive” is the current name Communists go by. 

Sure, they’ve abandoned the revolutionary means of establishing Communism in favour of the culture eroding long march through the institutions but the end result is still the same: poverty and death for the masses, wealth and power for those in control.

Now Hollywood, the perfect example of an industry built on the freedoms of capitalism but long overrun by progressive types, is out to portray a new victim group: Communists.

Yep, why only remember legitimate victim groups like the millions of Jews murdered in the holocaust when we can also remember faux-victims whose ideology in practise murdered 100 million people during peace time!

Here’s the fun:

My wife and I sat down the Saturday before the Academy Awards to watch the 2015 film Trumbo. Dalton Trumbo is played by Bryan Cranston who did a marvelous job, certainly worthy of the Academy Award nomination he received for Best Actor.

It’s loosely based on the Hollywood screenwriter, author, and self-admitted Communist Dalton Trumbo (1905-1976) who was cited for Contempt of Congress for which he spent nearly a year in prison and blacklisted by film studios. I’ve been familiar with Trumbo’s work since the early 1970s through his 1939 anti-war novel Johnny Got His Gun, based on a case of World War I survivor who suffered shocking debilitating injuries.

“Shortly after the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, Trumbo and his publishers decided to suspend reprinting the book until the end of the war.” With the escalation of the Vietnam War, the book became popular again, so much so that Trumbo directed the 1971 film version of the novel that starred Timothy Bottoms.

Metallica’s song “One” is based on the film.

One scene in Trumbo caught my attention. Trumbo’s oldest daughter asks him if he’s a communist. Instead of answering yes or no, he asks her, “Would you share your sandwich with someone who did not have one?” to which she replies, “Of course.” Ipso facto, he replies, “So that makes you a communist too.” If Communism is just sharing, then who could be opposed to Communism?1

Are people sharing their sandwiches in North Korea and Venezuela? No, because there are no sandwiches to share. Communism isn’t about sharing. It’s about brute force.

Charity is sharing . . . voluntarily. That’s not Communism. The Good Samaritan extended mercy by way of self-sacrificing charity by sharing what belonged to him with a man beaten by robbers:

“‘But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you’” (Luke 10:30-37).

The oil, wine, the Samaritan’s mode of transportation, and the two denarii were his.

Jesus and His disciples shared a common purse as they traveled. This, too, was voluntary. No one was forced to participate.

Appeal cannot be made to Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-37. These early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Roman Empire nor the Church had any role in the sale of the property. John R. Richardson writes:

“No one was forced into giving up his goods and possessions. It was not socialism legislated either by church or state. It does not resemble modern communism in any respect. . . . Ananais was free to keep or sell his property. When he sold it, he had the right to determine whether he would give all of it, or part of it, or none of it, into the treasury of the church for the alleviation of the needs of poor Christians. J. W. Lipscomb is certainly correct when he says, ‘The program was a voluntary expression of Christian concern for the needs of fellow Christians, and was not a program for compulsory collectivism such as we hear advocated all too often today.’”2

Paul takes up a collection for the Jerusalem church “from the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15; Rom 15:14-32). They gave “according to their ability, and beyond their ability, of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3).

The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society as mandated by contract by their sponsoring investors. No matter how much a person worked, everybody would get the same amount. It didn’t take long for the less industrious to realize that their diminished labor would net them the same result of the mot industrious.

William Bradford (1590-1657), the acting governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote the following in his first-hand history of events:

“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.

“For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.

“This [free enterprise] had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

Not only is Socialism immoral by being in violation of the Eighth Commandment; it doesn’t work.

Democrats who claim that rich people are not paying their “fair share” in taxes are the less violent version of Communism. The government only uses force if you refuse to pay. No guns are needed. The long arm of the law will just empty your bank account, garnish your wages, and sell off your property for your failure to “share.”

Trumbo was a man of multiple contradictions. He claimed to be a Communist but was a very rich capitalist, described by his communist friends as a “swimming pool Soviet” because the 320-acre ranch where he and his family lived had its own private lake. No community swimming hole for the Trumbos.

The biggest lie of Trumbo, Danusha V. Goska writes, “is the film’s treatment of communism. Soviet communism murdered tens of millions of innocent human beings. The USSR did have spies active in the US. They did do damage. Dalton Trumbo did obey party dictates to insert communist material into scripts.”

It’s not as if Trumbo was ignorant of Communism’s atrocities. He admitted in a letter that he had read former Communist authors who haddenounced their former affiliation and exposed “Stalin’s repression and the existence of a secret Gulag.”3 One of them was Arthur Koestler. Koestler had joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1931, but by 1938 he had left the party having become disillusioned with Stalinism. In 1940 he published his anti-totalitarian novel Darkness at Noon.

“Darkness at Noon is an allegory set in the USSR (not named) during the 1938 purges, as Stalin consolidated his dictatorship by eliminating potential rivals within the Communist Party: the military, and the professionals. None of this is identified explicitly in the book. Most of the novel occurs within an unnamed prison and in the recollections of the main character, Rubashov.”

Trumbo knew what Koestler was describing, and he chose to ignore the warnings, not only Koestler’s but other writers as well. Koestler also edited the 1949 book The God That Failed “which collects together six essays with the testimonies of a number of famous ex-communists, who were writers and journalists. The common theme of the essays is the authors’ disillusionment with and abandonment of communism.”

The history of Communism is a record of genocide,4 as D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe show in their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?:

“Mao killed about 72 million human beings from 1948 to 1976. When we add the 40 million Stalin is responsible for, we come to a number of 112 million. Throw in Hitler’s 15 million (not counting the devastating war he started!), and we come to about 127 million. Add other killings by other atheistic and totalitarian states — as a result of their atheistic ideology — you come up with a number of more than 130 million.”5

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “estimates reach as high as sixty million” deaths just during Josef Stalin’s reign of terror.6 “Historian Robert Conquest, in The Harvest of Sorrow, his definitive account of Stalin’s reign of rural terror, estimated that 14.4 million people, half of them children, perished.”7

In addition to supporting an ideology that led to the deaths of tens of millions, Trumbo hid behind the First Amendment, a right that would not have been afforded to him if he had moved his family to a Communist nation. Trumbo was like so many limousine and private-jet liberals who support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and their wealth confiscation policies after they’ve made their multi-million-dollar fortunes. They love socialism because it keeps the competition at bay.

There’s Leonardo DiCaprio — net worth $245 million with at least five homes and a private island — promoting the scare of global warming while he jet-sets around the world burning up tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
As reported in Movie Freak, Trumbo’s daughter Niki says the depicted scene never happened. “‘No,’ she chuckles, ‘we never had a conversation like that one while riding horses. That’s made up. But it’s also what I was referring to earlier. It’s another essence moment, a scene that fits what was going on at the time and the emotions we were feeling, but not actual reality. The real moment was more like me asking, “Daddy, are you a communist?” and him replying that he was. The follow-up question was something like, “Can I be a communist when I grow up?” and I wanted him to say that of course I could be; that he’d be so proud of me if I was. Instead he told me I had to be 21 before I could make decisions like that. I had to be old enough to vote. I was so disappointed! Of course, what I wanted was his approval more than I wanted to be a communist. But, I also think he didn’t want to influence my political beliefs, so he wanted to distance himself a little bit from doing that until I was older and could actually talk about, discuss and debate those sort of topics from a place of mutual understanding.’” [↩]

Christian Economics: The Christian Message to the Market Place (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1966), 60. [↩]

Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left (New York: encouner Books, 2006), 218. [↩]

Mark Kramer, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 4. [↩]

D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 236. [↩]

Lloyd Billingsley, The Generation that Knew Not Josef: A Critique of Marxism and the Religious Left (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1985), 38. [↩]

Lewis Lord, “A reign of rural terror, a world away,” U.S. News & World Report (June 30/July 7, 2003), 4. [↩]

It’s not long before we’ll be seeing films about hard-done by paedophiles (but only non-Catholic ones, of course) and polygamists winning the Academy Awards, I kid you not.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/soft-selling-communism-in-the-film-trumbo/

The Dangers Of Digital Currency And A Cashless Society

We are headed towards a cashless society and the potential for totalitarianism abounds.

Like many evils, it will appear dressed up in all sorts of glamorous promises but in the end, it will only bring oppression.

Cory Bernardi once again brings the wisdom:

Today I am going to write about money. More specifically, what the government wants to do with your money.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports this morning that Australia is ‘on an unstoppable march towards a cashless future’; with the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Alex Hawke MP saying that a move to a purely digital currency “will lead to countless benefits for all Australians in convenience and security, and will save billions in transaction costs every year”.

He’s correct that it will enhance convenience for many and will save government huge amounts of money but he omits one very important aspect of such a change – our right to privacy.
I have repeatedly warned over the years that the move to digital currencies will begin in Europe (it is already being trialled in Sweden) and spread throughout the world. The justifications will include those points made by the Assistant Minister but will soon include the ‘need to fight the flow of funds to terror organisations’.

Whilst these may be noble and worthy aims, they are mere excuses. The real reason governments want to impose an all-digital transaction economy on us is so that no aspect of the financial system is beyond their scrutiny. To put it plainly, it’s about taxes – and every government wants more of them.

Governments have an insatiable hunger to gorge themselves on taxpayer dollars.
The political elite consider that they know how to spend your money much more effectively than you do and thus no level of taxation will ever fully sate the leviathan of government. There is always a new program, a new agenda or a new initiative that promises to be an amazing success if only enough money is thrown at it.

The evidence is quite the opposite and frankly, every year sees me come to the same conclusion: whenever the government steps in to fix a problem it ultimately creates an even greater one.

And so, as the unsustainability of the great socialist experiment of the welfare state becomes clearer by the day, governments across the world want to make sure that no transaction can escape their net.

They don’t want cash kept under the mattress or buried in the back garden. They want you to be forced to keep it electronically in a bank where they can charge you for the privilege via negative interest rates.

A digital currency will mean no transaction, however small, can escape the tax demands of government.

Some readers will think this abundantly fair, and so it may be – if we could trust government to act in our interest instead of their own. However, there is an even more dangerous aspect to such a proposal.

The digital currency process will mean that almost every aspect of your financial privacy is gone. There will be a record of every dollar spent, every item purchased and every donation made. Is it really the government’s business what food you purchase or what medicines you use? Seemingly simple daily choices could have a large impact on your life because every aspect of your spending data would be detailed for scrutiny.

It’s not too far-fetched to imagine an application for health insurance to reference your spending history in relation to fast food, alcohol and tobacco. Your lack of gym membership could count against you in seeking medical treatment. Perhaps you’ll be effectively blacklisted from employment opportunities because you donate money to a particular organisation.

In short, nothing would be beyond the examination of government. Any safeguards built in to the system would ultimately be diminished as the tentacles of government continue to expand into every aspect of our lives.

The best opportunity to prevent such expansion is at the very point of inception. The move to a digital currency is just getting started. If we are to safeguard against it, the time to act is now.

http://www.corybernardi.com/cashless_society_threatens_our_privacy

“Philosophically, Morally, Historically, and Economically, Progressivism Is Bankrupt”

There is no human established system or institution that functions perfectly but when a society broadly recognises and honours Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God will seep into a society on every level and lead to a blessing of that people.

Progressivism, which is doublespeak for the cultural Marxist, Leftist ideological movement, is antithetical to biblical Christianity and this is no more evident than in its attempts to usurp Christian culture in the West and replace it with abject failure at every societal level.

So far, Progressives have been highly successful and that’s not so much a credit to their efforts as it is a recognition that it is in human nature to choose the easiest, most self-serving, and fleshly pleasurable path in life.

The Leftist ideology is almost always the lowest common denominator, feeding it’s elect groups on victim mentality propoganda and corroding those that refuse to blame anyone and everyone else for their lousy predicament.

The following article by Merv Bendle summarises the disaster out impact of this unstabilizing religious system (yes, religious!) on the only societies of the world that managed to find stability:

Progressivism’s Collision With Reality
Philosophically, historically, and economically, progressivism is bankrupt, sustained only by the very capitalist system and productive middle-class it reviles. As the gargantuan costs become utterly unsustainable, it is this chimera in which Turnbull and his supporters invest their hope and rhetoric

The civil war within the NSW Liberal Party between the conservatives and the progressivists (the so-called ‘moderates’) is a further episode in an ideological conflict that has been underway in Anglosphere countries for two centuries. Malcolm Turnbull and his progressivist supporters seem to think they are ‘on the side of history’ when, in fact, they have aligned themselves with a bankrupt ideology.

In a recent Quadrant Online article I observed that “the terminal weakness of progressivism is presently being revealed — it is little more than state-empowered libertinism, iconoclasm, and antinomianism, financed by mortgaging the future and culminating in civilizational suicide”. I took as my starting point the claim by the political commentators, Peter van Onselen and Paul Kelly, that “the conservative movement within the Liberal Party is at a crossroads”, that there is a “new paradigm”, and that “Australia is a frontline test case” in a powerful global trend against traditional conservative values. Leading this is Turnbull, who is “a social progressive who champions same-sex marriage, serious action on climate change, a multicultural society, a repudiation of the monarchical trappings, and an economy, entrepreneurial and innovative, geared to aspiration”. As a progressive, Turnbull allegedly offers an unprecedented political synthesis of “economic adaptability with social progressivity [sic]” that leaves behind “the social conservatism of Howard and Abbott”, in favour of an “appeal to feminists, gays, environmentalists, ethnics and youths”

This is all hot air. To begin with, it is highly unlikely that feminists, gays, etc., are going to flock to the Liberals, Turnbull or not. Even more obviously, it is absurd to claim that there is a powerful global trend against traditional conservative values when the most powerful form of militant political activism on the planet is Islamism, an arch-reactionary creed being systematically imposed on 1.5 billion Muslims (and the rest of the world where possible!). Similarly, both China and India, accounting for nearly 3 billion people, are drawing upon traditional belief systems to sustain their national identities as they undergo accelerated modernization. In Europe, there is an increasing move to the right and far-right as the technocratic progressivism of the central EU powers, such as Germany, France, Italy and the Scandinavian countries, proves to be utterly impotent in the face of the mass Muslim insurgency presently overwhelming their meagre border defences. In America conservatism continues to be an extremely powerful force, as the present presidential campaign is demonstrating. Of the other continents, Africa and Latin America are home to innumerable dictatorships, kleptocracies, and failed or semi-failed states where jihadists and crime syndicates run amok and talk of a conflict between progressivism and conservatism would be not only beside the point but bizarre.

What van Onselen and Kelly are referring to concerns mainly the Anglosphere nations (which account for only about 15% of the global population). Progressivists there do have an extraordinary grip on the key academic, media, legal, political, cultural, and corporate elites, and these will tend always to project their own obsessions, desires, and self-image onto the rest of the world. They are the vehicle of the adversary culture, discussed below, which targets the values of the middle class and serves as a corrosive and parasitical force living off the largesse of liberal democratic societies, while being their most vocal and influential enemies. However, like Turnbull, they are held hostage to the baleful history of progressivism and its fatal flaws.

First amongst these is the central characteristic of progressivist policies – these require the seizure and mobilization of state power to impose and police new systems of values and behaviour upon society that would not otherwise have evolved in the desired direction of their own accord. As I have argued, these values and behaviours (e.g., in the area of sexuality and the constitution of the family) would not have arisen spontaneously from within society and, therefore, their imposition requires draconian laws and the bureaucratic regulation of everyday life. This in turn involves the core progressivist presumption — that the almost infinite intricacies of social, economic, and cultural life can be grasped, modelled, manipulated, and directed by the apparatus of the state. Historically this has always been the progressivist agenda: systematically to erode the power and autonomy of the individual, the family, the community and civil society, and to replace those with the power of the Leviathan State, with its great tangled mass of bureaucratic tentacles reaching down to surveil, regulate and ultimately strangle the most intimate of personal and social relationships in every area of life.

It has become common to dismiss this Leviathan fatalistically as the ‘Nanny State’, as if government is no worse than an over-solicitous grandparent who needs to be indulged. However, this label obscures the deadening effect this omnipresent monstrosity has on everyday life. It suggests that the state plays a nurturing role in peoples’ lives, when in fact it more often has a stultifying and exploitative impact, destroying initiative, disempowering people, and draining money and resources from the productive sectors of society to fund its progressivist obsessions.

An excellent example of such state-empowered progressivism is the drive for same-sex marriage or so-called ‘marriage equality’, of which Turnbull is also a vocal proponent. Despite its bogus egalitarian trappings (well analysed by Peter Kurti) this is actually a legislative Trojan Horse that will allow LGBTI activists to mobilize the power of the state through bespoke laws and star-chamber tribunals like Australia’s many Human Rights agencies and Victoria’s Commissioner for Gender and Sexuality. For a further example, consult the complaint against Catholic bishops now before Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissars. These actions can be deployed against any persons or institutions (especially churches and schools) that LGBTI folk claim are discriminating against them in terms of employment, education, training, ‘hate speech’, or religious ceremony, etc. Their explicit agenda is to use state power to impose their views of human sexuality on society at large, especially children via the education system. It will be (and is intended to be) a lawyers’ picnic that will expose those in the cross-hairs to crippling legal costs (as demonstrated already in the area of race) and thereby further corrode the traditional family as the foundation of society.

This brings us to the second main characteristic of progressivism – its adversarial ideology. In the medium term this dates back to the birth of progressivism during the Enlightenment and particularly to the incredibly influential assertion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau that society is a prison – “man is born free but is everywhere in chains”. In the longer term it draws also on the iconoclasm and antinomianism that have long been important tendencies within the Western tradition. These have previously erupted on a massive scale on a number of occasions, with devastating results. These include the 8th and 9th centuries in the Byzantine Empire and the Protestant Reformation, as well as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which saw the destruction of an immense amount of priceless art and cultural artefacts. In its contemporary form the progressivist adversary culture defines itself in terms of its opposition to ‘bourgeois’ or middle-class society and its traditional values, especially religion and the family, which it always claims to be ‘challenging’ in an iconoclastic fashion, usually with efforts of unrelieved banality.

The role of the adversary culture was highlighted by the first generation of neo-conservatives, including Lionel Trilling in Beyond Culture (1965), Irving Kristol in “The Adversary Culture of Intellectuals” (Encounter, October 1979), and Daniel Bell in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1975). Some of its leading ideological proponents are discussed by Paul Johnson in Intellectuals (1988) and Roger Scruton in Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (2015). It is extremely influential in Australia, where the ABC, the universities, the arts, and the media are its principal vehicles, exemplified by Q&A. A typical iconoclastic artwork is the notorious ‘Piss Christ’, which was exhibited at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997 and remains on display in America and Europe. (Revealingly, attempts to have it removed from display at the NGV were rejected on the basis of the artist’s right of freedom of expression – a right that progressivists never, ever extend to their opponents.)

Contemporary progressivism developed its adversarial ideology in the Sixties, when its proponents began their ‘long march through the institutions’, as advocated by the German New Left activist Rudi Dutschke (a founder of the Green Party) and the neo-Marxist philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, in Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972). This strategy involves promoting radical political change and subverting established institutions and professions (especially education and law) while working within them – in effect, reaping the lucrative benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism while seeking to destroy it. In this fashion, the state becomes both the vehicle and target for the adversary culture and radical political change. In Australia, the best example of this strategy (apart from the universities) is the agit-prop activism of the Green-Left cadre within the ABC, as described by Nick Cater in The Lucky Culture and the Rise of an Australian Ruling Class (2013). The ABC has proved, of course, to be a protected species under Turnbull’s stewardship.

The focus of this adversarial ideology began in Sixties with class but quickly shifted to race, and sexuality and gender, driven by the feminist and gay liberation movements. These concerns became obsessional and have dominated progressivism for the past 40 years, during which time the original agenda for change and reform was achieved. This victory has not been enough, however, especially in the realm of sexuality, where the antinomian determination to reject limits or boundaries has imposed itself. This is illustrated by the evolution of the LGBTI designation to refer to an alleged community of folk which identify with various non-mainstream forms of sexuality and gender. In the Seventies, the term “gay community” was used, but then GLBT was adopted to accommodate those who felt restricted by the label ‘gay’. This became LGBT in deference to women, and was then expanded to LGBTI to include yet another form of ‘intersexual’ gender identity. More recently, it has become LGBTIQ, to accommodate those who ‘question’ their sexuality. There is no reason to expect that the acronym will not expand further as new forms of sexual expression seize the progressivist imagination.

Sexual antinomianism reached a crescendo in the Sixties, led by Marcuse with his advocacy of an extreme form of progressivist ‘polymorphous perversity’ in Eros and Civilization (1966). As Roger Kimball observes:

Eagerly embraced by countercultural enthusiasts who wanted to believe that heating up their sex lives would hasten the demise of capitalism and bring forth the millennium, it outlines a portentous struggle between “the logic of domination” and the “will to gratification,” attacks “the established reality in the name of the pleasure principle,” and fulminates against “the repressive order of procreative sexuality.

The roots of this go back to what have been called the ‘black writers’ of the Enlightenment, and above all to libertines like the Marquise de Sade, who came very much back into vogue in the Sixties and inspired Michel Foucault, the shaven-headed grey eminence of postmodernism and champion of ‘transgressive’ behaviour who died of AIDS in 1984. As Kimball recalls, Foucault had a “penchant for sadomasochistic sex” and pursued “certain specific erotic practices [within] a mutually consensual theatre of cruelty.” And in this he followed the lead of the Marquis de Sade, who had long been one of his prime intellectual and moral heroes. (…) Foucault came to enjoy imagining “suicide festivals” or “orgies” in which sex and death would mingle in the ultimate anonymous encounter. Those planning suicide, he mused, could look “for partners without names, for occasions to die liberated from every identity.”

Foucault was “wracked by unfulfillable fantasies of absolute ecstasy” and consumed by a “demand for liberation from every fixed form,” of civilized behaviour, a core progressivist tendency. As James Miller discusses in The Passion of Michel Foucault (1993), it is rumoured that before his death Foucault set out to infect as many other men as he could via his innumerable bathhouse encounters.

Sociologically, the role played by the adversary culture promoted by progressivists can be understood in terms of the model provided by Daniel Bell in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Bell proposes that post-industrial, knowledge-based societies can be analysed in terms of three distinct but articulated realms: the economic, cultural, and political spheres. As he argues, the developments of contemporary capitalism have led to a contradiction between the economic sphere, which sustains society but requires stable, reliable, hard-working, and productive individuals capable of deferred gratification, and the cultural sphere (historically always controlled by progressivists), which is largely adversarial, narcissistic, hedonistic, consumerist, and devoted to immediate self-gratification.

Crucially, the massive growth of the welfare state has produced a further – political – imbalance in the shape of a vast population of unemployed making no economic contribution except as consumers. Ominously, they are dependent upon government for their income and many other forms of support, and they have come to form a political constituency in their own right. Over the past 50 years an implicit pact has emerged: the progressivists act as champions of this constituency in its endless pursuit of government largesse; in return they can rely upon its electoral support as they pursue their political and cultural agenda.

Unfortunately for progressives and the welfare-dependent underclass with whom they share a co-dependent relationship the historical and economic forces that have sustained progressivism are presently moving ever more deeply into an intractable crisis, as I will now outline.

Historically, progressivism has been revealed to be bankrupt, giving birth to social monstrosities. Although they appear only dimly aware of it, Turnbull and other contemporary progressives are heirs to a political ideology that has mutated several times since it emerged during the Enlightenment, sometimes quite grotesquely. Based on a belief in the perfectibility of man and the conviction that reason and science can solve all humanity’s problems, progressivism emerged some 250 years ago as an historically unprecedented faith in the possibility of human progress. Indeed, as John Passmore points out in The Perfectibility of Man (1970), “The idea of progress … is a peculiarly modern one. It is scarcely to be met with … before the first decades of the 18th century”. Whereas ancient systems of thought saw history in terms of decline from a Golden Age, or as moments in an endless cycle of events, Enlightenment thinkers envisaged an ascending path towards a secular paradise. As the French philosophe Turgot exclaimed in 1750, as humanity becomes enlightened it “marches always … towards greater perfection”.

In the 19th century, progressivism melded with apocalypticism (which involves the irruption of the Divine to redeem a fallen world) and spawned communism. In the pivotal work of Karl Marx, this took the form of a messianic ideology that purported scientifically to establish the historical inevitability of a secular paradise. This utopianism seized the imagination of the intelligentsia and has been the dominant ideology on the left ever since, enjoying a resurgence after the Global Financial Crisis.

It is usually overlooked that progressivism preceded conservatism. Indeed, the latter arose in the frightening aftermath of the French Revolution and the Terror that engulfed the most powerful nation in the world. Inspired by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), conservatism emerged as a modern political ideology in reaction to progressivism’s excessive claims for the power of science and reason, and its ignorance of the irrational and violent side of human nature exemplified by the Terror and the Napoleonic Wars that convulsed Europe and consumed millions of lives.

This order of appearance is often misunderstood because progressivism, by definition, must see itself as the highest point in the evolution of human thought. It literally can’t handle the notion that a subsequent ideology can emerge that rejects progressivism as inadequate and looks behind it to the modes of thought and society that existed prior to its appearance. Its own logic compels it to depict conservatism as a regressive form of thought instead of an indictment of its own failures.

It is this desperate need to conceal the inadequacies of progressivist thinking that drives its militant proponents to deny their opponents any right to free speech or criticism. Simply put, progressivists refuse to allow debate because they know they can’t win. This is the principle, for example, behind Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is designed to prevent any questioning of the favoured victims groups that live off the largesse of the state. It also allows allegedly aggrieved parties to claim massive amounts in damages in civil cases for alleged hurt feelings. Turnbull, having initially expressed misgivings has now revealed himself as a strong supporter of this section.

Despite the ongoing conservative challenge to its underlying premises, progressivism reigned supreme during the 19th century, finding profoundly influential expression in communism and technocratic state socialism, exemplified by Auguste Comte’s positivistic science of society, (ably critiqued by F.A. Hayek in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952)). Towards the end of that era it gave birth to major statist and collectivist political movements, including Fabianism in Britain (and subsequently Australia), communism and fascism in Europe, and the Progressive movement in the United States. President Woodrow Wilson (an Ivy League academic) was a leading progressivist within the Democratic Party and his faith in the power of the League of Nations to resolve international disputes typified the movement’s tragically misplaced optimism about the role and power of nation states.

In its extreme collectivist form, progressivism in this era viewed human perfectibility in terms of class, nationalism, and/or race. Consequently, Stalin set out to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” in 1930, initiating a systematic campaign of repression, deportation, and executions that left tens of millions of the better-off peasants dead, imprisoned, or poverty-stricken. Elsewhere, eugenics programs flourished amongst the advanced nations and found ghastly expression in the Nazi obsession with the purity of the ‘Aryan’ race and the need to expunge ‘inferior’ races from the human species, culminating in the Holocaust and the death of many more millions.

Indeed, the cataclysm of the Great War was followed by 30 years that saw the rise of totalitarian communism, fascism and Nazism, the Great Depression, World War II and the Holocaust. This period of unparalleled devastation should have extinguished progressivism’s excessive faith in the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man and the benign nature of the state, but instead it saw an unprecedented concentration of state power. This was accompanied by an increasingly blind faith in the power of government to protect, regulate, supervise, and direct human affairs. Psychologically, this was diagnosed as the ‘fear of freedom’ exhibited by people desperate for the security promised by an all-embracing state. Indeed, it constituted a ‘cult of the state’, as Jonah Goldberg describes it in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008). This is characterized by ‘the Totalitarian Temptation’ to succumb to total governmental control and involvement in everyday life.

This brings us to the second force that is undermining the progressivist project. Economically, progressivism has driven liberal democratic societies into a cul-de-sac. Throughout its history it was sustained by the enormous productive capacity of the very capitalism it desperately desired to shackle and ultimately destroy. After World War II its multitude of programs were funded by the apparent success of Keynesian economics during the 30-year post-war boom, until the mirage was extinguished by the ‘Oil Shock’ and ‘stagflation’ of the 1970s. This economic crisis produced an anti-Keynesian reaction in the subsequent Thatcher-Reagan era in the 1980s. This period saw significant neo-liberal economic reform and a fleeting attempt by Anglosphere nations to wind back the excessive presence of the state in economic and social affairs. 

In Australia, this was led by the Hawke and Keating governments and later built upon by the Howard administration. (Unfortunately, Australia was also invaded in the 1980s by leftist academics from Britain desperate to escape Thatcherism, and this cadre had an intellectually regressive impact, further entrenching neo-Marxism and postmodernism in the universities, helping to make them progressivist strongholds and no-go zones for civilized intellectual debate.

This conservative revolt was inspired by works like Hayek’s study of The Road to Serfdom (1944) and The Constitution of Liberty (1960), which showed how it is the constitutionally guaranteed liberty that promotes economic and social wealth and happiness, while increased government interference leads to torpor, impoverishment, and servitude. Hayek’s work was a re-statement of the form of classical liberalism that has long been a central component of conservatism in the Anglosphere countries. It directly challenges progressivism because it refutes the notion that centralized state planning can efficiently guide economic and social affairs. Instead, Hayek insisted that no government apparatus can ever adequately understand the complexities of advanced societies, that there is a spontaneous order at the basis of all social life, and that the most viable, productive and resilient societies are those that enjoy the maximum possible amount of individual liberty under a minimally-intrusive state.

Despite this neo-liberal reform process, the power and reach of the state continued to increase, especially in the area of social and cultural programs, as did the proportion of national populations partly or entirely dependent upon government largesse. This continued dependency upon the state accelerated after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08, and promoted a resurgence of faith in Keynesian-esque economic policies and a shift away from neo-liberalism. This reinforced the determination by governments throughout the world to finance massive and ever-increasing public expenditures though government borrowing on a scale never previously approached in history.

As a result, the economic foundations of the progressivist project are now in tatters. For example, the utterly untenable situation of the EU is infamous. Similarly, America’s total government spending has more than doubled since 2000 and national debt is now about US$19 trillion –or over 100% of GDP. This amounts to some US$58,000 (A$80,000) per head of population, or US$158,000 per taxpayer, and growing. This is a level of government indebtedness not previously seen in American history (apart from when America mobilized to fight World War II), and it largely funds costs in health, education, pension, and social security, rather than investment in infrastructure.

In Australia the national debt has grown in a similar fashion over the past decade, from A$58 billion to over A$440 billion, or over 27% of GDP, on which about A$14.5 billion in interest is presently paid annually. National debt is now equivalent to some A$19,000 per head of population; quite apart from the massive individual debt Australians shoulder (total household debt is about A$1.7 trillion). Obviously, this method of funding present-day programs through borrowings consumes massive and increasing amounts of money in interest payments and also involves a ‘generational shift’ of the huge financial burden of progressivism into the future. However, that future is rapidly becoming the present and the system is heading for imminent collapse.

Philosophically, morally, historically, and economically, progressivism is bankrupt. It has been sustained for over two centuries by the very capitalist system and productive middle-class society that it reviles and seeks to undermine and destroy. However, progressivism is about to enter its death throes as the gargantuan economic costs of its policies become utterly unsustainable. Incredibly, it is to this bleak scenario that Turnbull and his supporters want to attach the credibility and future of the Liberal Party. They must be resisted.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/02/progressivisms-collision-reality/

Thanks, Obama! Iran Gains Billions And Warm Welcome To Do Whatever It Wants As Economic Sanctions Disappear (One Day, Iran Will Invade The Middle East)

Marxists and useful idiots recently rejoiced as Obama embraced Cuba, a nation that once housed atomic weapons pointed at the United States, and they rejoice again as Obama embraces Iran, a nation for whom Obama has done everything he can to fulfil their dream of building and pointing nuclear weapons at the United States.

“What could go wrong?” earnest useful idiots everywhere scoff at the legions of people who question “why exactly it is good for Iran to receive billions of dollars we could otherwise prevent them from receiving and having more influence in the Middle East and in the world?”

Here’s the story:

The US and the EU have lifted crippling sanctions against Iran following the UN nuclear watchdog’s finding that Tehran had curbed its nuclear program as promised.

Key points:

IAEA report confirms Iran has honoured its side of the nuclear accord

Raft of US, EU and UN sanctions lifted, oil exports to resume

Iran has always said its nuclear activities were for peaceful purposes

In a dramatic move scheduled to coincide with the scrapping of the sanctions, Tehran also announced the release of five Americans including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian as part of a prisoner swap with the United States.

Together, the lifting of sanctions and the prisoner deal considerably reduce the hostility between Tehran and Washington that has shaped the Middle East since Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Tens of billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets will now be unfrozen and global companies that have been barred from doing business there will be able to exploit a market hungry for everything from automobiles to airplane parts.

The UN nuclear watchdog ruled on Saturday that Iran had abided by an agreement last year with six world powers to curtail its nuclear program, triggering the end of sanctions.

“Iran has carried out all measures required under the [July deal] to enable Implementation Day [of the deal] to occur,” the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a statement.

Iran to emerge from years of economic isolation

Within minutes, the United States formally lifted banking, steel, shipping and other sanctions on Iran, a major oil producer that has been virtually shut out of international markets for the past five years.

The European Union also began the process of lifting sanctions and Iran’s transport minister said Tehran planned to buy 114 civil aircraft from European aircraft maker Airbus.

Australia would also lift sanctions on the Islamic republic, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said.

Iran nuclear deal at a glance

The main points in the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“The easing of these sanctions will ensure that Australian business is not disadvantaged in pursuing opportunities in Iran,” she said in a statement.

The lifting of sanctions means more money and prestige for Shiite Muslim Iran as it becomes deeply embroiled in the sectarian conflicts of the Middle East, notably in the Syrian civil war, where its allies are facing Sunni Muslim rebels.

America’s thaw with Iran is viewed with deep suspicion by US Republicans as well as American allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.

US-Iranian suspicion remains deeply entrenched.

Washington maintains separate, less comprehensive sanctions on Iran over its missile program.

For its part, Iran detained 10 US Navy sailors on two boats in the Gulf a week ago, although they were released the next day.

Four American prisoners ‘yet to leave Iran’

In an unusual move, President Barack Obama pardoned three Iranian-Americans charged for violating sanctions against Iran, a lawyer for one of the men said, while prosecutors moved to drop charges against four Iranians outside the United States.

Iran agreed to free five Americans including Rezaian and Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American Christian pastor sentenced to eight years in prison in 2013 on charges of undermining Iran’s national security.

But a US official said four of the Americans had not yet left Iran due to ongoing logistical issues.

The fifth prisoner, Matthew Trevithick, has left the country after 40 days in prison. Trevithick, a student and journalist, had travelled and worked in conflict-torn nations including Syria, Mali and Afghanistan.

The prisoner deal was the culmination of months of diplomatic contacts, secret talks and legal manoeuvring that came close to falling apart because of a threat by Washington in December to impose fresh sanctions on Iran for recent ballistic missile tests.

The detente with Iran is opposed by all of the Republican candidates vying to succeed Mr Obama as president in an election in November.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said at a campaign event he was happy Americans were being freed, “but I will tell you it’s a disgrace that they were there for so long”.

Ted Cruz, a conservative senator from Texas and one of the leading Republicans, tweeted in support of Mr Abedini’s release: “Praise God! Surely bad parts of Obama’s latest deal, but prayers of thanksgiving that Pastor Saeed is coming home.”

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton took credit for helping to start the sanctions pressure on Iran during her 2009-2013 tenure as Mr Obama’s secretary of state.

Now, you may not believe in God or believe the Bible (not sure how you ended up here but welcome!) but it takes a pretty special stubborn refusal to deal with reality to pretend that this Iran deal will probably work out well for anyone, Iranians included.

After all, even Germany enjoyed the benefits of economic recovery until Hitler plunged it into a decimating world war.

Good thing Iran doesn’t have an evil, blood-thirsty dictator in power over its massive, un-sanctioned oil wealth…

Oh.

Nonetheless, welcome to the Obama administration’s foreign policy record that currently has such hits as Arab Winter, Benghazi, and the heart-wrenching Islamic State.

Time to add nuclear-Iran to that best-of because, let’s face it, what President is ever going to top that utter catastrophe?

Anyway, if you have read the Bible, especially the book of Daniel and are inclined towards a consistent futurist interpretation of Chapter 8 (more on that here), then Iran’s new lease on life and money and regional influence should be very much expected.

It’s likely that Iran’s confrontation with Saudi Arabia will escalate and eventually, whether it takes years or decades, Iran is going to come good on its promise to be really dangerous and launch an invasion of the Middle East for whatever reason it finds acceptable.

From there it’s pretty straight forward – Turkey leads a coalition to fight against Iran and whoops them, seeming regional peace, antichrist rises, Jesus returns as King to rule and reign for a Millenium, new heavens and new earth.

Economic Chaos Once Helped Pave The Way To The Third Reich So What Can We Expect From Our Global Economic Collapse?

Worst start to the stock year ever.

Marxist types lead the governments of most Western nations.

The United Nations is looking to give communism another chance.

What could go wrong?

Michael Snyder has this to say:

We have never had a year start the way that 2016 has started. In the U.S., the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 have both posted their worst four-day starts to a year ever. Canadian stocks are now down 21 percent since September, and it has been an absolute bloodbath in Europe over the past four days. Of course the primary catalyst for all of this is what has been going on in China. There has been an emergency suspension of trading in China two times within the past four days, and nobody is quite certain what is going to happen next. Eventually this wave of panic selling will settle down, but that won’t mean that this crisis will be over. In fact, what is coming is going to be much worse than what we have already seen.

On Thursday I was doing a show with some friends, and we were amazed that stocks just seemed to keep falling and falling and falling. The Dow closed down 392 points, and the NASDAQ got absolutely slammed. At this point, the Dow and the NASDAQ are both officially in “correction territory”, and some of the talking heads on television are warning that this could be the beginning of a “bear market”. But of course some of the other “experts” are insisting that this is just a temporary bump in the road.

But what everyone can agree on is that we have never seen a start to a year like this one. The following comes from CNN…

The global market freakout of 2016 just got worse.

The latest scare came on Thursday as China’s stock market crashed 7% overnight and crude oil plummeted to the lowest level in more than 12 years.

The Dow dropped 392 points on Thursday. The S&P 500 fell 2.4%, while the Nasdaq tumbled 3%.

The wave of selling has knocked the Dow down 911 points, or more than 5% so far this year. That’s the worst four-day percentage loss to start a year on record, according to FactSet stats that go back to 1897.

When CNN starts sounding like The Economic Collapse Blog, you know that things are really bad. I particularly like their use of the phrase “global market freakout”. I might have to borrow that one.

Even some of the biggest and most trusted stocks are plummeting. For instance, Apple dropped to $96.45 on Thursday. It is now down a total of 28 percent since hitting a record high of more than 134 dollars a share back in April.

So that means that if someone put all of their retirement money into Apple stock last April (which may have seemed like a really good idea at that time), by now more than one-fourth of that money is gone.

For months, I have been warning that the exact same patterns that we witnessed just prior to the great stock market crash of 2008 were happening again. To me, the parallels between 2008 and 2015/2016 were just uncanny. And now other very prominent names are making similar comparisons. According to the Washington Post, George Soros says that the way this new crisis is unfolding “reminds me of the crisis we had in 2008″…

Influential investor George Soros said that China had a “major adjustment problem” on its hands. “I would say it amounts to a crisis,” he told an economic forum in Sri Lanka, according to Bloomberg News. “When I look at the financial markets, there is a serious challenge which reminds me of the crisis we had in 2008.”

Don’t get me wrong – I am certainly not a supporter of George Soros. My point is that we are starting to hear a lot of really ominous talk from a lot of different directions. All over the world, people are starting to understand that the next great financial crisis is already here.

As I write this tonight, I just feel quite a bit of sadness. A lot of hard working people are going to lose a lot of money this year, and that includes people that I know personally. I wish that my voice had been clearer and louder. I wish that I could have done more to get people to understand what was coming. I wish that my warnings could have made more of a difference.

I just think about how I would feel if everything that I had worked for all my life was suddenly wiped out. And that is what is going to end up happening to some of these people. When you lose everything, it can be absolutely debilitating.

You only make money in the markets if you get out in time. And unfortunately, most of the general population will be like deer in the headlights and won’t know which way to move.

There will be up days for the markets in our near future. But don’t be fooled by them. It is important to remember that some of the greatest up days in U.S. stock market history were right in the middle of the stock market crash of 2008. So don’t let a rally fool you into thinking that the crisis is over.

The financial crisis that began in the second half of 2015 is now accelerating, and everything that we have witnessed over the past few days is just a natural extension of what has already been happening.

Personally, I am just really looking forward to this weekend when I will hopefully get caught up on some rest. Plus, my Washington Redskins will be hosting a playoff game on Sunday, and if they find a way to win that game that will put me in a particularly positive mood.

It is good to enjoy these simple pleasures while we still can. Unprecedented chaos is coming this year, and we are all going to need strength and courage for what is ahead.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/stock-market-crash-2016-this-is-the-worst-start-to-a-year-for-stocks-ever