Random Violence commited against Martin Place Cafe!
In breaking news, the Martin Place Lindt Cafe at the centre of the deadly Sydney siege in December has been attacked, having its windows smashed.
Given that “a man in his 40s with facial hair and tanned skin,” was seen loitering in the area at the time, there is currently an inquest being conducted into the siege, and a total of five rocks have been thrown, it has naturally been assumed that it was simply a random act of vandalism, and has nothing to do with Islam.
What are your thoughts? We strongly encourage irresponsible and uniformed speculation!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sydneys-lindt-cafe-struck-by-rock-throwing-vandals-months-after-reopening/story-e6frg6nf-1227380744021
“Choose coal or choose death”
“Choose coal or death.” It is this type of idiocy, uttered by our Green apostles, along with dogmatic settling of science around climate change, which pollutes the waters of energy policy.
Allow me to raise my flag here, and make some unambiguous statements relating to my position on matters of environment, energy, science and green politik.
I don’t believe the science is settled. Ever. Dogma is settled.
Just because science is not settled, doesn’t mean it is false. Nor that it is true.
Good science typically delivers working theories and associated models that accurately, and repeatedly, and independently, return consistent results. (dear reader, bias alert: I am sceptical of the accuracy of the climate change theories)
But wait – there is more:
E is not synonymous with eco. Follow the supply chain of your e-bike’s or e-car’s charge, and it’s probably sourced to an out of mind and out of sight Coal powered power station. (but… it does not pollute – it’s an e-vehicle… half accurate, hippy; the e-vehicle’s pollution is of the NIMBY sort, so close enough for the hip hypocrites).
The bulk of the fossil fuels retail cost is taxation, so for a truly level playing field, remove the taxation on fossil fuels. But that removes government revenue – which is a no-no. WE MUST INCREASE TAX SO WE CAN INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. Because.
But hey, let me rant more:
I actually dislike fossil fuels. Think about it: They pollute the air, they are a finite resource, and honestly, number one for me, they fund the madness of the Middle East, including the spread of the warm and fuzzy (or is that retrogade and bloody) brands of Islam.
Now, for a little side tangent. I took the time recently to read Moby Dick. Lovely read, book the size of a fallen tree. A striking concept emerged from the depths of the page, like a Green whale as it were. People hunted whales – until quite recently, on an industrial scale. For (whale) oil. What saved the whale from extinction? Scientific advances which enabled us to extract brown gold, often from underneath the sands of barren lands. Economically, commercial whale hunting (excluding for whale sized sushi) became economically unviable. As an industry, it got out evolved and became financially as dead as the Dodo.
In fact, Oil is one of those bitter-sweet entities. Humanity’s ability to extract artificial light and warmth has roughly evolved from burning trees (bad), to peet (bad), Whale Oil and Coal (bad bad), to Petroleum (bad bad bad,) Natural Gas and Nuclear stuff (bad bad bad bad bad). Oh, and there have always been windmills and watermills and such thrown in the mix – but the salient point is, it evolves and moves in the direction of ever increasing yields from a unit of material. A kg of uranium will yield more energy than a kg of coal or a kg of wood – try it at home kids.
So what is my point? I like clean air. I like cheap energy. I am just disappointed that we do not have cheap, clean energy. The economist in me knows that we do not use oil, or frack, for the fracking sake of it. It’s because it’s economically advantageous.
So, how about this: Why don’t the Greens and all the ecolytes put up or shut up. Cease fossil fuel taxation and subsidising renewables. It is an artificial competitive advantage, and not sustainable in the real world. That’s retarded (as in the hindrance sense of the word). Deliver genuinely cheaper technologies and the crowd will follow. I know I will. And we will ALL be better off, for the right reasons.
The irony is, that the imperative which drives the required innovation (can-do pragmatism driven by the profit motive) is often at odds with the lefty/green (tax and subsidise and redistribute) mindset.
And that’s what shits me
vel playing field, remove the taxation on fossil fuels. But that removes government revenue – which is a no-no. WE MUST INCREASE TAX SO WE CAN INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. Because.
But hey, let me rant more:
I actually dislike fossil fuels. Think about it: They pollute the air, they are a finite resource, and honestly, number one for me, they fund the madness of the Middle East, including the spread of the warm and fuzzy (or is that retrogade and bloody) brands of Islam.
Now, for a little side tangent. I took the time recently to read Moby Dick. Lovely read, book the size of a fallen tree. A striking concept emerged from the depths of the page, like a Green whale as it were. People hunted whales – until quite recently, on an industrial scale. For (whale) oil. What saved the whale from extinction? Scientific advances which enabled us to extract brown gold, often from underneath the sands of barren lands. Economically, commercial whale hunting (excluding for whale sized sushi) became economically unviable. As an industry, it got out evolved and became financially as dead as the Dodo.
In fact, Oil is one of those bitter-sweet entities. Humanity’s ability to extract artificial light and warmth has roughly evolved from burning trees (bad), to peet (bad), Whale Oil and Coal (bad bad), to Petroleum (bad bad bad,) Natural Gas and Nuclear stuff (bad bad bad bad bad). Oh, and there have always been windmills and watermills and such thrown in the mix – but the salient point is, it evolves and moves in the direction of ever increasing yields from a unit of material. A kg of uranium will yield more energy than a kg of coal or a kg of wood – try it at home kids.
So what is my point? I like clean air. I like cheap energy. I am just disappointed that we do not have cheap, clean energy. The economist in me knows that we do not use oil, or frack, for the fracking sake of it. It’s because it’s economically advantageous.
So, how about this: Why don’t the Greens and all the ecolytes put up or shut up. Cease fossil fuel taxation and subsidising renewables. It is an artificial competitive advantage, and not sustainable in the real world. That’s retarded (as in the hindrance sense of the word). Deliver genuinely cheaper technologies and the crowd will follow. I know I will. And we will ALL be better off, for the right reasons.
The irony is, that the imperative which drives the required innovation (can-do pragmatism driven by the profit motive) is often at odds with the lefty/green (tax and subsidise and redistribute) mindset.
And that’s what shits me Shocking news! Wannabe violent extremist lived in big house!
In news that has baffled experts, it has been revealed that at least one of five young wannabe violent extremists lived in a McMansion with his family in Narre Warren. In raids that undoubtedly saved lives, the five were arrested shortly before Anzac Day this year, foiling plans to murder police at the Anzac Day Dawn Service in Melbourne.
But his unusual background has social scientists, who are naturally at the forefront of violent extremism prevention, puzzled. Frances Bonah from the University of Northcote explains:
“Obviously, this has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is peaceful. But until now, it has been understood that people turn to violent extremism as a means to redress economic, political and social imbalances. Although their so-called ‘violence’ may be confronting to the Western Bourgeois, it is recognised that non-violent resistance legitimises the narrative of the oppressors.
“Our solution has been to accelerate wealth redistribution, facilitate dialogue to better understand other cultures, and eradicate prejudice in our society. We call this three-step process the Accelerate-Facilitate-Eradicate Pyramid.
“But this new information, that a wannabe violent extremist lived in a big house, does not fit this theory. And naturally, when new evidence contradicts our strongly held beliefs, us social scientists always reexamine our conclusions. It is now clear that a privileged background is a root cause of violent extremism. A pattern has emerged in recent years whereby many middle class, university educated people reject their comfortable life in Western countries to join violent extremists, such as Tareq Kamleh, an Adelaide doctor who has gone to the Levant to join one such group.
“Research shows that people from privileged backgrounds do not develop as high a level of resilience as people from underprivileged backgrounds. Thus, when this youth was taunted for being a Muslim, which obviously he wasn’t, because Muslims are peaceful, these few innocuous incidents were enough to provoke him into planning mass murder. In contrast, someone from an underprivileged background with a far thicker skin would have brushed off such bullying much more easily.
“We are now recommending that immigrants be encouraged to view prejudiced attitudes as an unfortunate but inevitable part of the integration process, and to use them, as did previous generations of immigrants, as a spur to integrate, work hard and make the most of the new opportunities which did not exist in their country of origin.”
Professor Bonah expects that the rest of Western academia will soon reach the same conclusion, and hopes that this new research will help governments win the “War on Violent Extremism.”
nderstand other cultures, and eradicate prejudice in our society. We call this three-step process the Accelerate-Facilitate-Eradicate Pyramid.
“But this new information, that a wannabe violent extremist lived in a big house, does not fit this theory. And naturally, when new evidence contradicts our strongly held beliefs, us social scientists always reexamine our conclusions. It is now clear that a privileged background is a root cause of violent extremism. A pattern has emerged in recent years whereby many middle class, university educated people reject their comfortable life in Western countries to join violent extremists, such as Tareq Kamleh, an Adelaide doctor who has gone to the Levant to join one such group.
“Research shows that people from privileged backgrounds do not develop as high a level of resilience as people from underprivileged backgrounds. Thus, when this youth was taunted for being a Muslim, which obviously he wasn’t, because Muslims are peaceful, these few innocuous incidents were enough to provoke him into planning mass murder. In contrast, someone from an underprivileged background with a far thicker skin would have brushed off such bullying much more easily.
“We are now recommending that immigrants be encouraged to view prejudiced attitudes as an unfortunate but inevitable part of the integration process, and to use them, as did previous generations of immigrants, as a spur to integrate, work hard and make the most of the new opportunities which did not exist in their country of origin.”
Professor Bonah expects that the rest of Western academia will soon reach the same conclusion, and hopes that this new research will help governments win the “War on Violent Extremism.” U.S. Colleges: Freedom of Speech Free Zone
As American college students begin to take their summer break, George Will for the ‘National Review’ writes (30 May 2015), that this “brings a respite from the sinister childishness rampant on campuses.”
These “childish” attacks on American campuses are attacks against freedom of speech by the progressive intelligentsia which has largely taken control of Western education and media institutions.
Will writes that the “attack on free expression is sinister because it asserts that such freedom is not merely unwise but, in a sense, meaningless.”
He elaborates, stating: “Free speech is more comprehensively and aggressively embattled now than ever before in American history, largely because of two 19th-century ideas. One is that history — actually, History, a proper noun — has a mind of its own. The other is that most people do not really have minds of their own.”
Progressives frequently disparage this or that person or idea as “’on the wrong side of history.”
Anyone who disagrees with this progressive orthodoxy (or who dares to have a mind of his own) is swiftly labeled as being on the “wrong side of history” or to be critically impaired by “false consciousness”
“Free speech”, Will explains, has been “supplanted by an entitlement to what Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education calls a right to freedom from speech deemed uncongenial.”
Lukianoff, argues that “sensitivity-based censorship” on U.S. college campuses reflects “a broader social phenomena.”
In conclusion, Will states that in “the social milieu fostered by today’s entitlement state, expectations quickly generate entitlements. Students are taught to expect intellectual comfort, including the reinforcement of their beliefs, or at least those that conform to progressive orthodoxies imbibed and enforced on campuses.”
Read more: Progressivism on Campus Takes a Summer Vacation
Bill Shorten and the Chamber of Horrors
The same sex couples gleefully lined up at the front of marriage register offices across Australia, awaiting the chance to marry legally, might have lamented the half empty chamber to which opportunistic leader of the (so-called) opposition delivered his speech bringing in the (delightfully titled) “private members” bill for changing the Marriage Act 1961. This would, of course, if passed, have given same sex couples access to the same ritual and institution, and, some would say, the same lifelong trial, enjoyed by heterosexual couples for as long as the Commonwealth has endured.
Apparently same sex items have been seeking this very right for decades, despite no one noticing until a few years ago when campus loonies seemed to have run out of things to protest about and someone came up with a chant that even rhymed – “straight or gay, black or white, marriage is a civil right.” The misfortune of the same sex couples hoping for Bill’s bill to pass was not so much that the numbers were lacking – they might have been a bit shaky on the floor of parliament, but they are probably there in the wider community – it was more that it was Bill who was pressing his lips together and passing this particular motion. No wonder the chamber was half empty, apart from the few miserable looking Coalition members on roster duty to populate the green leather, together with the vast majority of Bill’s erstwhile comrades who had to be there.
It was said to be one of Bill’s “shorter speeches,” but that was a small mercy. His short answer on Q&A is sufficient to render at least one of the invited panellists incapable of uttering a single word on the hour length program. Rarely does a middle aged human being look as patently insincere, scripted, and absurd, as Bill giving a self important speech, on an important matter. This is the man who was, in a charitable, and on the whole warm, piece recently in The Age newspaper (hardly a bastion of right wing propaganda) described as coming across to the public as “wooden and lacking in charisma… rather like a mindless puppet.”
Watching Bill drone out the monotone in the Chamber of Horrors this morning, and one can see why. It took only minutes for the casual observer to begin wondering where the hand manipulating him was, or to marvel at how the fishing line working his limbs and facial expressions seemed to be so well obscured from view. It was rather like the marionette scene in the Sound of Music, but much less fun.
Whilst the Coalition members lamented their luck, closed their eyes, and thought of England, even the most ardent of atheists on the packed Labor benches mounted a tentative prayer in mournful supplication that it night end soon. It is the “marriage equality” campaigners’ great misfortune that the bill dressed up as their great hope was being introduced by a monotonous, and somewhat moronic, robot, presently masquerading as the man who used to be Bill Shorten, union leader, and occasional breakfast television personality. By the end of the Shorten “short speech” the scene in the chamber of horrors was less breakfast television bonhomie, and more Weekend at Bernies.
of marriage register offices across Australia, awaiting the chance to marry legally, might have lamented the half empty chamber to which opportunistic leader of the (so-called) opposition delivered his speech bringing in the (delightfully titled) “private members” bill for changing the Marriage Act 1961. This would, of course, if passed, have given same sex couples access to the same ritual and institution, and, some would say, the same lifelong trial, enjoyed by heterosexual couples for as long as the Commonwealth has endured.
Apparently same sex items have been seeking this very right for decades, despite no one noticing until a few years ago when campus loonies seemed to have run out of things to protest about and someone came up with a chant that even rhymed – “straight or gay, black or white, marriage is a civil right.” The misfortune of the same sex couples hoping for Bill’s bill to pass was not so much that the numbers were lacking – they might have been a bit shaky on the floor of parliament, but they are probably there in the wider community – it was more that it was Bill who was pressing his lips together and passing this particular motion. No wonder the chamber was half empty, apart from the few miserable looking Coalition members on roster duty to populate the green leather, together with the vast majority of Bill’s erstwhile comrades who had to be there.
It was said to be one of Bill’s “shorter speeches,” but that was a small mercy. His short answer on Q&A is sufficient to render at least one of the invited panellists incapable of uttering a single word on the hour length program. Rarely does a middle aged human being look as patently insincere, scripted, and absurd, as Bill giving a self important speech, on an important matter. This is the man who was, in a charitable, and on the whole warm, piece recently in The Age newspaper (hardly a bastion of right wing propaganda) described as coming across to the public as “wooden and lacking in charisma… rather like a mindless puppet.”
Watching Bill drone out the monotone in the Chamber of Horrors this morning, and one can see why. It took only minutes for the casual observer to begin wondering where the hand manipulating him was, or to marvel at how the fishing line working his limbs and facial expressions seemed to be so well obscured from view. It was rather like the marionette scene in the Sound of Music, but much less fun.
Whilst the Coalition members lamented their luck, closed their eyes, and thought of England, even the most ardent of atheists on the packed Labor benches mounted a tentative prayer in mournful supplication that it night end soon. It is the “marriage equality” campaigners’ great misfortune that the bill dressed up as their great hope was being introduced by a monotonous, and somewhat moronic, robot, presently masquerading as the man who used to be Bill Shorten, union leader, and occasional breakfast television personality. By the end of the Shorten “short speech” the scene in the chamber of horrors was less breakfast television bonhomie, and more Weekend at Bernies. Pickering Vs Pickering
Who wouldn’t like to see a ‘face off’ between the old-school, and pugnacious Larry Pickering Vs the smug ‘school boy’ Charlie Pickering?
As proponents and supports of free speech we’d be pleased to host it here at your XYZ!
Turkey’s Election: Why it Matters
Why it matters: 10 years ago, Turkey was a serious EU member candidate. Since then, it has turned towards theocracy under Erdogan. The battle outlined in this story is one of real progressives, in my opinion, battling real oppression. The outcome is probably geopolitically relevant. Honestly, I wish them well…
Read more at the BBC here ‘Turkey election: Kurds, women, gays put faith in upstart party’.
Photo by openDemocracy 
It’s OK To Say “Just Google It”!!
When polite conversation turns to politics, the demand for proof is more often than not a tactic to derail the conversation than a genuine desire for the facts.
Can you provide a reference to prove that Palestinians have rejected the offer of statehood at least three or four times? In which journal did you read the claim that the world hasn’t warmed for 17 years? Can you please provide a link to support your argument that the Howard government ran Australia’s economy well? I won’t accept anything that isn’t an article published by the World Bank…
Well, obviously, you can. You’ve read plenty of articles. You’ve shared some on your Facebook feed. You have read so much about the topic, you’ve forgotten more than you can remember. But you’re out with friends, when one of them mentions the angry summer, and how it’s due to climate change. You ask yourself, “Is it worth it? That blonde sitting next to him is pretty cute. To hell with it, I’m going in.”
“But the world hasn’t warmed for 17 years.”
“What research is there to prove that?”
Of course, there is plenty. You’ve read the report summaries. You’ve seen the graphs. You remember being told that by now there should be no ice-caps, and then there was that idiot who predicted it would never rain again. But you haven’t read the full scientific report. You did history, not science, for goodness sake. Your friend didn’t read it either. He works in retail. But that’s not the point. When he asks you what research there is to prove that, he doesn’t mean it.
He doesn’t care.
The social rule is, when you state an opinion in line with the “consensus,” you can be as assertive as you like. But to challenge any part of this, you must carry an encyclopaedic knowledge in your head. It is a corollary of the idea that the standard of proof is higher on anyone who challenges scientific or intellectual orthodoxy, mixed in with a good bit of social stigma. If like me, you are of average intelligence, you may be able to recall a couple of facts from a couple of articles, but it will never be enough. The best you can do is say you’ll pm your friend a few articles, but in truth, he’ll never read them and you’ll never send them.
It is at least slightly easier on the internet, given you have all the resources you need at your fingertips. But you really really really wanted to watch that video about how to land on an aircraft carrier, and you have to make dinner, and you know if you simply want to express your outrage at the slaughter ISIS are carrying out, you will be held to a higher standard of credibility.
The point is that when a progressive asks you for sources to back up your argument, they are trying to shut you up. If they really cared, they would look it up themselves. You can present a concise logical argument, but they will straw-man you, then demand to see a peer-reviewed paper. In this context, the demand for evidence is not an expression of a genuine desire to study information which contradicts one’s beliefs. It is simply an underhanded accusation that what you are saying is unsubstantiated by fact, and that until you provide thesis quality material showing that you at least may have a point, your opinion will be considered that of a redneck. The goal of this tactic is to waste your time, and ultimately to immobilise you.
To counter this, I propose a simple counter-measure. State your opinion proudly and crudely. When when a progressive asks you to substantiate it, tell them to google it, and make a bee-line for that blonde.
Congratulations Labor! … It Won’t Last Long.
Labor have won the Victorian State election, but they may soon find their win is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory. If any party should be worried about its future, it is Labor.
Ever since Labor preferenced the Greens over the Liberals at the 2010 Federal election, which lost this once safe Labor seat to Adam Bandt, it became clear that Labor is experiencing a severe crisis of identity.
In the lead up to the Victorian election, Labor had already caved in to the Greens, back flipping on the East-West Link, a project which it originally proposed. But what good has come to the Labor party by caving in under the influence of the Greens? Well, in this election, it looks like it has lost them the state seat of Melbourne to the Greens, and the seats of Richmond, Brunswick, Prahran and Northcote are under serious threat, and will likely turn from Red to Green within the next state elections. What was once Labor heartland is under threat, and the threat is not from the Liberal party.
Labor needs to do some serious soul searching if they ever wants to govern again in their own right in Victoria and Federally. It would appear that Labor hasn’t learned the lesson that was the disaster of the Labor-Greens coalition under Julia Gillard, which amounted to the Labor Party being held to ransom.
One wonders what the Labor party even stands for these days. It certainly isn’t the ‘workers’ party, because most of them were appropriated by John Howard in the 1990s and cannot stand the Green appeasing chattering classes that the Labor leadership now panders to. What’s more, the chattering classes themselves despise those who they purport to advocate for. This does not bode a rosy future for the Labor party.
Labor – enjoy your victory, because it will probably not last for long. You have a lot of work to do if you want to remain the second party in Australia.
Migrant communities issue unity statement
In an unprecedented move, migrant community leaders in Europe and Australia have overnight issued strong statements relating to the recent trend for violent protests, especially with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict and so-called Islamic State.
A community leader explained:
“After watching videos of the recent violent protests, we were struck by the similarity of our youths behavior on the streets of Europe and the Middle East. It became apparent to us that we have made a grave error somewhere along the line. To be clear, many of us have fled our home country as asylum seekers, and we now realise that we have been inadvertently recreating the conditions which we fled from.
For this reason, we have developed the following code of conduct, which forms our social contract with our host countries, and operates in conjunction with existing laws and customs:
1) While we maintain our religious faith, we acknowledge that we must not practice it in a way that contradicts the laws and ethos of our host countries. So, to my daughters, rest easy, no FGM for you. And the weddings are off, at least until you finish high school.
2) We are initiating our own gratitude day. It is our way of saying thank you to the host society and community for the overwhelming, and sometimes ridiculous, level of tolerance and acceptance. To be honest, we think it’s gone too far in our favor, and because no one else will say, we will say it: We need to re-balance, for your own benefit!
3) Most importantly, we acknowledge the painful fact that the cause of most conflict which has displaced us from our traditional home is religious diversity and the associated conflict of competing belief systems. For this reason, we are making a concerted effort to stop defining ourselves by our religious creeds, so that we may stop conflict along these lines of definition”
After this announcement a free BBQ was put on by the community leaders, which was free for all to attend, as a sign of goodwill. One local resident in London summarised the mood perfectly “This is the most relieved I have felt in a long time, and the most unified our community has been in living memory. It has also been a great opportunity to tear down the barriers and interact as people, as opposed to be segregated as people of different faiths.”
Are we luring migrants to their deaths?
If the governments of third world countries can’t spend money on social services because they don’t have the money, how is it moral for the governments of first world countries to spend money they don’t have on social services?
One of the biggest differences between Western countries and the Third World is the level of support the government provides to make people’s lives better. Of course, we do a lot off our own bats, creating jobs, inventing new things and ideas, and participating in our culture. Democracy and an open economy are the foundation upon which our rich society flourishes. But governments also play a massive role in maintaining a high standard of living.
To put this difference in its starkest terms, would you rather go to a public hospital in Bolivia, or a public hospital in Australia? Would you rather be out of work in Bangladesh, or out of work in Great Britain? Would you rather go to a public school in Sweden, or a public school in Nigeria? Western countries have stronger economies, so their governments have more resources to invest in infrastructure and to perpetually support social services, however imperfectly.
But this does not tell the whole story. Until a decade ago, Australia was able to maintain its social services out of its own pocket, but in recent years under both governments, its debt has grown higher than it has ever been, and social services expanded. Europe has been running deficits for decades to support its welfare state, and the US debt has doubled under the Obama administration while government programs increase in size and number.
Western governments are borrowing money to give to us, using money we don’t have, to make our lives better. We can do this because banks and other states calculate that they will get the money back, with interest.
But when you look at the monumental levels of debt being amassed across the Western World, the question has to be asked if it is ever going to be paid back. Given that in many cases the best governments have been able to achieve is to slow the rate at which the debt is rising, and given how electorates are becoming increasingly addicted to support from the government, my fear is that the answer is no.
So a situation exists where Western states are able to make the lives of their citizens better by borrowing money which they are never going to pay back.
This situation poses a moral dilemma when we consider immigration from the Third World to the First World, its ever increasing numbers, and its ever increasing cost on those who attempt it. The argument over whether immigrants come to our country to take our welfare and our jobs, or come to create new wealth, jobs and opportunities, is perennial; let’s assume it is a bit of both. What is undeniable is that one of the reasons immigrants move to Western countries is that the quality of life is better, and one of the reasons the quality of life is better is that the government funds it.
With money it doesn’t have.
Which it is never going to pay back.
Immigrants from the Third World often come from countries which are not able to fund the level of social service infrastructure we enjoy here, partly due to the fact that they do not have the money, and if they were to borrow it, they would not be able to pay it back.
So, if we pay for social services through deficit spending, we are effectively participating in a grand, global hoax, whereby millions of desperate people are fleeing from one country which cannot support its people because it does not have the money, to another country which does support its people, even though it does not have the money either.
The blood of tens of thousands of souls who have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea, the Timor Sea, or the Rio Grande, is on the hands of this unaffordable welfare. This is important, because arguments for the welfare state are regularly placed in both economic and moral terms. But the system is economically unsustainable, and increasingly morally bankrupt.
The solution must be to pare back government spending so its supports only the poorest of the poor, to become more self reliant, and find new ways, or rediscover old ways, in which to help each other. Open markets have lifted over a billion people out of poverty in Asia over the last few decades, and can continue to do so throughout the world if given the chance.
It is morally wrong to offer the false hope of unsustainable government aid to millions of people prepared to risk their lives to come here. And it would be a dreadful irony if we were to stifle what has made our societies so successful, just as the rest of the world is catching on.