Home Blog Page 592

British legal system hates its protectors

The XYZ recently reported on the prosecution of British soldiers by the British legal system for actions committed in the service of their country in Iraq. Beside the fact that this is exceedng the civil legal system’s jurisdiction, the logical corollary of this is that terrorists who could not beat one of the world’s best best militaries on the battlefield, will use the politically correct, social-justice-activist British legal system against it instead.

The latest outrage has been reported by The Telegraph:

“Veterans group expresses outrage at unlawful killing investigation despite fact that lethal shot prevented insurgent firing rocket propelled grenade at British base – A British sniper is being investigated for shooting dead an Iraqi insurgent preparing to fire a rocket propelled grenade because he did not shout a warning, according to a pressure group representing former members of the armed forces.”

Given the shot was made over a distance of almost 1200 metres, this is just stupid. In the words of XYZ contributor Grumpy Motorist, “The complete idiocy of the British legal system continues to show the world it hates its protectors.”

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has gone well beyond its initial brief. If its harassment of British soldiers is allowed to continue, it won’t just “(inhibit) the operational effectiveness of (British) troops because they start to worry about whether they will end up in a court or not.” It could undermine the defence of the United Kingdom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12107164/British-sniper-investigated-for-not-shouting-warning-in-Iraq.html

Photo by Defence Images

‘Chuck another flag on the barbie?’

Castlemaine ‘artist’, Jim Coad has a novel plan to celebrate this year’s Australia Day. He has organised an event, ‘patriotically’ named: ‘Chuck another flag on the barbie?’ which he proposes to hold in a local park.

Speaking to the ABC, Coad stated “There’s a lot of myths around what it means to be Australian, and a lot of myths around the Australian flag.” Coad hopes that the event would provide an opportunity for “discussion” about the meaning of Australia Day.

Of course, if Mr Coad wanted to have a discussion on the meaning of Australia Day, his event would probably be called “A discussion about the meaning of Australia Day.”

Obviously discussion is not really what Coad is interested in, but rather attacking the meaning of Australia Day and our nation’s culture.

Coad won’t confirm whether his event will involved the actual burning of a flag. But for many people, the idea or threat to do so is offensive enough. Flag burning, wherever and whenever it occurs is a deeply hostile act. That is why flag burning is illegal in many places, although it is not outlawed Australia.

It is deeply baffling why someone would entertain burning their own nation’s flag. Despite grievances that citizens may have about their own nation, for most people, burning the flag is like burning a photograph of one’s own family: it would churn one’s gut in a way that only betrayal and treachery can do. Of course, such an action expresses deep hostility to the history, people, and the values that the flag has come to symbolise. But perhaps most alarming is that such an idea reveals a deep and even suicidal self-loathing.

Photo by James Cridland

Islamism’s relentless attack on Muslims and the Third World

5678707481_389000034c_bin-laden A gun battle is currently underway at a university in Charsadda in northern Pakistan. Gunmen are reported to have stormed Bacha Khan University, and explosions have been heard, according to eyewitnesses.

At this stage, the XYZ has not received confirmation on who the attackers are or what they want. Such attacks are becoming so predictable that we likely need little further information to fill in the gaps.

This latest attack comes after a week of bloody Islamist attacks in poor majority Muslim nations; nations that are already struggling to maintain political stability and to lift their people out of poverty.

Only 50 km away from the gun battle which is now transpiring in Pakistan is the city of Peshawar, the location of the 2014 massacre where the Taliban slaughtered more than 130 students and teachers at a school. News images from this 2014 massacre are still clearly etched into my mind.

It sounds odd and counter intuitive that Islamists would kill fellow Muslims and destabilise Muslim nations in their attempt to ‘Islamise’ the world. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. What continues to be shown is that Islamism is bad for everyone, not least Muslims.

Photo by ssoosay

Political correctness exposes West

Australian Journalist Janet Albrechtsen proves yet again in today’s papers her ability to hit the proverbial nail on the head when it comes to the curse of political correctness. Tracing a line from the conspiracy of silence surrounding the shocking sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve in Cologne to the silence of the German authorities, to the delicate students of today and their need for a ‘safe place’ to the public shaming of climate sceptics, ‘homophobes’ and’ Islamophobes,’ Janet demonstrates in a few succinct sentences how ‘more than three decades of political correctness is suffocating liberty in the West.’

9296023134_3e48034e41_Political-correctnessOn a decidedly prescient, if not prophetic note, she further connects the dots between the stifling of social and political discourse by a self appointed and self entitled elite to ‘the next outcome’… the rise of the far right in Europe, and the populist in the United States ‘in the unmistakeable image of Donald Trump.’ Whilst observing that Trump is not fit to be President, Janet’s interpretation on the Trump phenomenon rings true with a clarity that the baffled intellectual lightweights of the political left can only wish for and cover over with their penchant for juvenile abuse.

“Those who write off Trump, and other right-wing populists, as nut-jobs and their supporters as hothead members of the forgotten middle class are only half right. The stifling imposition of political correctness by the political, media and cultural elite has created the Trump spectacle.”

“After years of trying to reason, even debate, with a PC crowd that brooks no disagreement, Trump sticks it up them. People may not agree with every stupid or insulting thing Trump says, but maybe they are liberated by a politician who says what he wants. After years of being told what to think, what to say, what not to say, it’s ­refreshing to listen to a bloke who won’t have a bar of the myriad political correctness filters applied to every field of life.”

Yes, and Amen!

Source: Political correctness exposes West

Photo by KAZVorpal

Meat Eaters Cleared of Vegan Hate-Speech

The ‘controversial’ Australian Meat and Livestock (MLA) advertisement ‘Operation Boomerang’, which features SBS newsreader Lee Lin Chin and promotes the benefits of eating lamb has today been cleared of inciting hated against vegans. Phew!

The ad has attracted close to 650 complaints only a week after its launch, with a large number claiming that it incites violence and “discriminates” against vegans. No, I am seriously not making this up….

Despite the raft of complaints, the Advertising Standards Board decided that the advertisement did not breach the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics.

We’ll give the quote of the day to Australian Meat and Livestock who are no doubt having the last laugh (on the way to the bank) over this vegan ‘hate-speech’ saga:

“The advertisement has been viewed more than 4 million times across media channels and feedback remains overwhelmingly positive.”

XYZ Quote of the Day, 19 January 2016

 

 

For strong economy – use Uber surge price model

18194781702_c3d97c971e_Uber-taxiLast week in The XYZ I argued that an Uber economy is an Ayn Rand economy, and that the Uber business model should be applied across the board to all levels of the economy. Here is an interesting article, Uber for Labour (not Labor) from the excellent libertarian site Catallaxy, by “I am Spartacus” who makes a similar case, and goes into more detail why it is a success.

It argues that although Federal government rhetoric promotes entrepreneurship, over-regulation is still stifling business and the hiring of labour, particularly low skilled labour. Thus, “Governments are increasingly welcoming new “innovative” business models like Uber, but are vehemently reluctant to create opportunities through regulatory equivalence to other parts of the market.”

Importantly, the article pinpoints one of the keys to Uber’s success – its surge pricing model:

“In periods when demand exceeds supply, regulated taxi drivers are forced to keep charging the regulated price.. doing nothing to better meet supply or reduce demand.

“Uber on the other hand has (claims to have) sophisticated algorithms that can adjust the price of taxi travel when demand exceeds supply. A price variation, usually an increase in price, can attract more supply (additional drivers) and shake out demand. This allows the market to clear, or at least near clear.”

Thus, if the surge price model was applied throughout the economy, “the Uber base price would be equivalent to the minimum wage and surge pricing would be equivalent to penalty rates.” In this way, wages and prices would be set by supply and demand, as opposed to a misplaced notion of “fairness.”

Before you protest that this is subjecting workers to the harsh realities of the marketplace, remember that we, people, are the supply, and the demand. Such a system would respond to our own needs, and create opportunities for workers economy wide.  It would do so, dare I say it, organically.

As I wrote last week:

“An Uber economy, the free market, isn’t about the exploitation of one person by another. It is about people making free choices to exchange money, goods, services, labour, for mutual benefit, with minimal disruption from the government.”

The more the Australian government can do to fulfil its election promise and “get out of the way,” the better off we will all be.

Photo by illustir

Why Central Planning Fails

We often hear seductively simple solutions to our social and economic problems. U.S. presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders (and many like him) asserts that measures such as raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes for the wealthy would provide solutions to the nation’s current economic problems, specifically the scourge of inequality.

So obvious are these solutions, and simple to implement through centralised political mechanisms, that anyone opposed to them is regarded as having a vested interest in exploitation or some kind of moral defect.

Only a couple of days ago, Oxfam announced that the richest 62 people are as wealthy as the poorest half of the world’s population. There is a grotesqueness to these kinds of statistics. It is hard not to ask, surely these men (most of them are men) could eradicate world poverty if they wanted to? If only they had more compassion than greed. If the wealthy are unable to act morally, then the government should step in to redistribute the wealth that had, no doubt, at least in part been gained through theft or exploitation of others..

It is obvious that this line of thinking has underscored much of President Barack Obama’s political career – If only we would dare to hope, and have the will to change, we can end inequality, fulfill the rights of all people to an education and healthcare, and ensure that no child is left behind. All we need is the will. Obama and his supporters have transcended their base human nature. They are the people we have been waiting for.

Obama presents us with a moral problem, which he claims he has the solution to overcome. But what Obama treats as a moral problem is actually an information problem.

The idea of central planning, or wealth redistribution sounds simple, good, and the right thing to do. Yet actually delivering such an outcome is impossible. A central planner cannot know all the needs or preferences of millions of people. That is why the introduction of ObamaCare has left many people with worse and more expensive health insurance than before.

The economy is a network of relationships, with each player holding a vast amount of knowledge that would be difficult to quantity or to even articulate.

While progressives and liberals present inequality as a moral problem to be solved (and they will solve it if only we’d let them), it is the knowledge problem of central planning which is the reason why socialism inevitably fails.

Despite their seductive appeal, simplistic wealth redistribution policies promulgated by President Obama, Bernie Sanders and the Australian Greens are doomed to failure.

Photo by david_shankbone

2016 – The Coming European Spring

The Arab Spring was sparked in Tunisia in December 2010 and spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East in 2011, (although the stillbirth Twitter Revolution in Iran can be seen as its precursor, but is largely ignored by a media eager to excuse Obama’s betrayal of democratic forces in Iran.) The Arab Spring has since had predictably mixed results, for example, with the overthrow of long time Western enemy Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  Without the commitment by Western powers to stabilising the country with a long occupation, Libya has fallen into chaos and civil war.

This Western unwillingness to commit in force for the long term, combined with Obama’s rash withdrawal of US troops from Iraq without leaving any behind, has allowed the Islamic State establishing itself in Syria and Iraq and bringing death and suffering to the already long-suffering region. In turn, decades of multicultural/ Cultural Marxist policies in Europe which have undermined popular belief in and support for the concept of national identity, have led to an unwillingness on the part of European governments to effectively police their borders.

This has led to an overwhelming tide of humanity fleeing from the chaotic and impoverished Middle East and North Africa to swamp Europe, once migrants realised that all they had to do was turn up and they would be let in. Now, Europe is reaping the results of its failure to effectively intervene in the Middle East combined with its refusal to police its own borders. The people of North Africa and the Middle East are migrating, en masse, into Europe, in a tide which appears unstoppable. It is conceivable that if nothing is done to stop this, Europe will cease to exist, at least in terms of its indigenous European identity, within the coming decades.

Furthermore, the people of North Africa appear to be bringing with them the ideology – islam – which has made their homelands unliveable, and are starting to apply this ideology in Europe. No greater symbol exists of this spread of the ideology of islam to Europe, and the European elite’s continued refusal to acknowledge the problem, than the mass sexual assault of European women by Arab muslim men at Cologne Cathedral on New Year’s Eve, and the subsequent cover-up of these events by government and the media.

However, the endgame appears in sight.

In this Trifecta video produced by PJTV, the indefatigable Bill Whittle makes the case that the European Spring will occur in 2016. Not just Europeans but people of Western heritage, and people of many faiths, cultures and races living in Western countries who want their countries to be ordered along Western principles, are fed up. It is quite possible that 2016 will be the year that the people of the West start to demand honesty and accountability from their governments with regard to the issues of immigration, religion and culture, and reassert their identity, and their right to their identity.

2016 could well be a year unlike any we have ever seen.

Maxwell stakes claim for Test return

0

6311043912_7ceb158472_Glenn-MaxwellToday’s water-cooler conversation around Australia has to be that Glenn Maxwell’s return to the Australian Test team will occur sooner rather than later. Maxwell appears determined, both in word and deed, to shed his image as a big ego, trick-shooting one-day cricket specialist, in order to perform again at the highest level.

Chasing 296 for victory against India at the MCG last night, Maxwell came in at 3 for 150, and steered Australia home to score 96 from 83 balls. He lost his wicket trying to hit the winning runs, which was left to James Faulkner.  The inningss secured not only the match, but an unassailable 3-0 lead in the 5 match One Day series between Australia and India.

While containing his signature big hits and switch hits, and at a strike rate of over 100, the innings was noteworthy for the fact that he showed true grit and concentration under intense pressure and against good bowling to score crucial runs for Australia when it really needed him. India really pressed Australia in this match. Its fast bowlers Ishant Sharma and Umesh Yadav were bowling with pace and venom, while its spinners were extracting some turn from an admittedly flat drop-in pitch. Had Maxwell fell, Australia could well have failed to reach another massive Indian total.

As such, the quality of the innings and the character exhibited was different to some of Maxwell’s other notable innings, such as his astounding, record breaking 102 from 51 balls against England in Sydney last year. What Maxwell demonstrated was that he possesses the temperament and mental strength to bat successfully in Test cricket.

Moreover, Maxwell has made it explicit that this is what he intends to do, going so far as to attempt to distance himself from his nickname – “the Big Show.” Interviewed after the match, Maxwell stated “It’s going to be a long process to show that I’m ready for the longer version and hopefully in the next few years I can find a way back to that Test team,” noting that he hopes a few more innings like the one he played last night can “change a lot of people’s perceptions.” So Maxwell understands that it will take a weight of runs, made in a range of conditions, to break back into the squad. You might say then, that even before last night’s innings, he has taken the first step.

Two notable instances in the recent decades of batsmen who showed brilliance in the one day arena but failed to capitalise in Test cricket spring to mind – Michael Bevan and Andrew Symonds. Although both perhaps lacked something in technique, the mindset required for Test cricket appeared to be their undoing – without a licence to attack ruthlessly, or the need to chase down a target, both appeared stuck in no-man’s land at the crease.

But Maxwell’s fate is not tied to theirs.  He averages 41 in first-class cricket overall, and is averaging 50 this year for Victoria. All signs suggest that he has learned from his past failures, is wary of the potential pitfalls of past greats, and is determined to forge his own path in the Test arena. I believe he should be given this chance as soon as possible.

Photo by NAPARAZZI

Three points on Trump

A range of views are expressed on The XYZ, and a range of views have been expressed regarding Trump on The XYZ.

Here is an article by Jeremy Morgan, who argues that Trump is an opportunist. And here is one by Ryan Fletcher in support of Trump, while another raises concern over his association with anti-vax nutters.

Crudeness – Trump’s greatest strength and greatest weakness

17029800149_017e072099_Donald-TrumpPersonally, I have mixed feelings on Trump. As one of my favourite commentators, Bill Whittle puts it, Trump gives us whiplash. He will say a lot of things with which we not only agree, but want to stand up and cheer because someone is actually saying them. But then he will say something which we just cannot condone.

His line on muslim immigration – “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”, is a case in point.

On The XYZ we are concerned about uncontrolled mass immigration from the muslim world, where people may be bringing into the West an ideology which is fundamentally opposed to the principles which underpin our civilisation. So when Trump says something like this, we are drawn to him. But on the other hand, the way he puts it makes it sound like he is just muslim-bashing. We are repulsed because of the crudeness with which he speaks the truth.

But it is this simplicity, which can risk misunderstanding because it is put so forcefully, and with absolutely no concern for politically correct social norms, which has made him so appealing, because he can articulate, in a crude soundbite-sized morsel, what it takes us hundreds or thousands of words to so carefully debate.

I do not think he is evil or stupid. I think he is very intelligent, and above all a brilliant salesperson. I think we should challenge him – which we do – but we also need to challenge the politically correct social norms which cause people in our society to react so reflexively against what Donald Trump says, but not against the socialist, anti-Western rhetoric of Barack Obama.

The left ordains its opponents before the right has even chosen them

The left has the ability to sense, to smell, like a predator on the Serengeti, its most dangerous opponent. They can pick them because they can tell instinctively who on the right does not play by their rules, who does not try to caveat their policies and how they articulate them out of concern for what progressives might think. When they hear a politician on the right presenting a vision, and a principle which is fundamentally opposed to their own socialist worldview, they absolutely flip.

There is an easy way to tell who the most dangerous opponent to the left is. If, in polite, politically correct company, you suggest that said candidate is not completely, 100% evil, it is made immediately clear, in no uncertain terms, that you, yourself, are the illegitimate child of Adolf Hitler. Think of the “unelectable”, “Mad Monk” Tony Abbott, who had earned these monikers even before he led the Liberal Party in opposition. George W Bush was hated and demonised as a bible-bashing rapture-believing warmonger before he was even chosen as the Republican nominee.

You can also tell who the left’s most formidable opponents of the past were, by how they are remembered, and how the history books are rewritten. For example, just ask one of your “progressive” friends what they think of the leaders who saved us from communism, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan..

The point of all this is that the left have practically ordained Trump as their opponent, while US Republicans still hold out hope for the rest of the field. Trump simply does not care what the left thinks. And he uses their own tactics against them, responding to personal attacks with devastating salvos of his own. The left know he is kryptonite to them, so expect the Godwin’s Law to go into meltdown whenever Trump is mentioned for at least the next decade.

The right – moving from one abusive relationship to the next

A pattern of behaviour for people who have suffered under abusive partners, who have endured the hell of abusive relationships, is that they move from one abusive relationship to the next. A new partner may appear charismatic and deeply attractive, but the same dark traits always lurk beneath the surface. The abused senses this, and even though these dark traits will be the thing which ultimately push them away from the abuser, they are the same dark traits which draw them to the abuser.

Classical Liberals, Cultural Libertarians, Conservatives, what I will broadly call the right, although it may be more accurate to call this broad coalition “not the left”, is currently in an abusive relationship with the society in which we live. The desire and the ability to earn wealth, and to keep it, is reviled. The free expression of ideas or opinions which do not fit society’s increasingly narrow politically correct social norms are met with social shaming, fines, loss of employment or even criminal convictions for those who express them. Pride in one’s nation, in one’s European heritage, is equated automatically with the genocide of Hitler’s Germany. Thus any attempt to assert ideas which are not socialist or Cultural Marxist in origin are immediately quashed.

So, when we on the right hear someone unashamedly expressing the things which we know we are not allowed to say, but which we know are the truth, and they get away with it, we go nuts. We fall in love. Or more accurately, we become infatuated. The right is currently infatuated with Donald Trump. His “progressive” traits, his crudeness in expressing ideas which deserve and need a more thoughtful argument, are ignored or blocked out. In the short term, he may very well deliver a knock-out blow to the left, but we may come to regret our attachment in the long term.

A person trapped in a cycle of abusive relationships will not extract themselves from this cycle until they acknowledge their own problems, and learn to assert their identity. The right needs to realise that, across the board, we are playing by the left’s rules. The centre of politics is being constantly being pulled to the left by a left which knows that all it has to do is hound us and call us Hitler long enough before we inevitably buckle. We need to stop acknowledging that the left have any credibility as a political alternative, at least in its current authoritarian-socialist form, and assert our own identity and policies with no concern for the vitriol it will provoke.

Until this happens, I believe we are stuck with Trump. I think the next decade will be even more turbulent than the last, both in America and the rest of the world. I believe that Trump will give both the left and the right a very bloody nose, but if the right learns to become more assertive, it will come out better on the other side.

The tl;dr version of all this is, with regards to Donald Trump, it’s a complicated issue and there are strong arguments on both sides.

Photo by Michael Vadon