Just as Hitler looked to American segregation for inspiration…
This is of course not our German model republic, but the American Union where one endeavors to consult reason at least partially. The American Union, by principally refusing immigration to elements with poor health, and even simply excluding certain races from naturalization, acknowledges by slow beginnings an attitude which is peculiar to the national State conception.
Mein Kampf (p 658)
…I guess we can now look to Hitler for inspiration as policy details are worked out and hung on the conceptual skeleton now referred to as “The Voice”.
The folkish State divides its inhabitants into three classes : State citizens, State subjects, and aliens. In principle, only birth confers the status of subject. Being a State subject as such does not entitle one to hold public offices, to exercise political activity in the sense of participation in elections, be it actively or passively. In principle, every State subject’s race and nationality have to be ascertained. Every State subject is free at any time to abandon his status and to become a State citizen in that country the nationality of which corresponds to his own. The alien is distinguished from the State subject only by the fact that he is a State subject of an alien State.
Mein Kampf (p 658)
When your policies start to show shades of Nazi methodology in order to work out the political agency of your citizens, perhaps you need to have a good, hard look at yourself.
For the pearl clutches out there; yes, it’s a distasteful comparison, but it’s also valid. That’s why the whole concept should be scrapped post haste. That it’s got this far, is an indelible stain on our nation, and a battle indicator of even more distasteful things to come.
In 1966 the execrable Mao gifted the word the cultural revolution, this was great for the “West” as it retarded Chinese industry by decades ensuring for at least 30 years China remained a near basket case.
It kicked off with the denouncement of the “4 olds”
I’d argue we are in the midst of our own revolution which will have the same destructive, generational effect Mao’s did. Much like the original Cultural Revolution it’s being driven largely by the young, manipulated by old power interests to advance their causes. The Children of the 60’s and 70’s will never forgive the Australian public for failing them by not recognising their greatness. Instead, they burrowed down as hard as they could into the culture and education systems to wreak their revenge.
The new revolution is just as nebulous as the old, its demands can’t be fully met because they aren’t explicit, every advance which was presented as meeting a demand was, again, just a staging post for the next demand.
Contrast the Old and New as the current zeitgeist seems to think is appropriate.
Men and women are different in terms of abilities and talents and compliment each other
Reliable, cheap energy is the wellspring of wealth and modern society.
Children are incapable of managing their affairs competently and should be under parental protection until they hit the age of responsibility.
Men and women are completely interchangeable and are competing in a zero sum game of status and power.
We can restrict and ration our way to prosperity through legislation and forcing people to change.
Children are wise and can make great decisions from an early age. They must be encouraged at an early age to make life changing decisions.
All races have the same innate potential.
No man should be held responsible for the sins of his father.
A two-parent family, mother and father, is the proven best way to rear children.
Your skin colour/race makes you either innately evil or good, culture has no effect on outcomes though. Unless its ‘white” culture, which doesn’t exist, and is innately evil.
Every ancestor, until proven otherwise (or non white) is automatically evil and did everything with the most base intentions. This can never be atoned for and must be kept as a source of grievance/power and status for various race hustlers to exploit.
Single parenting is great, we just haven’t arranged enough resource transfer from other people to make up for damage caused yet.
People who behave in ways that damage others must pay a penalty for those actions appropriate to the gravity of the offense.
People have a right to privacy, including the use of remote or technological devices harvesting information for government or business uses. This cannot be nullified by clicking a box to ‘consent’.
Respect being given to people is contingent on respect being shown in kind. Lying or otherwise violating respectful behaviour norms makes a person unworthy of being shown resect.
The offender is the true victim here if they click a diversity box of some sort. It’s only by not applying consequences to actions true reparations can be maintained (but never paid off)
By using something, even if you have paid for it, clicking a little box which makes it work means we can spy on you 24/7 with a granularity which would make the old Stasi blush.
Respect must automatically be given, and maintained for certain groups, but is completely optional for ‘out” groups. Eg: Gays must be shown respect, Christians, unless they capitulate, must not.
Men should be respectful to women and be habituated to step in if a woman is at risk or being taken advantage of.
Women should be aware that they should behave appropriately around men, acting the “slut” isn’t something to be turned on and off as you want it too.
Denial of short term advantage or profit for longer term success, eg, saving money, starting a business and becoming wealthy.
All women are sluts, therefore they are to be treated as less than fully functioning people and used/discarded as wanted.
Men are perfectly safe and I reserve the right to be judged by what I say, not how I act.
Anyone who has saved/ started/ and is now wealthy is an exploiter and must be ‘levelled” with taxes and regulation. This curiously enough misses the gentry class wealthy
I suppose in the end its wise to ask who, or what is benefitting from this rolling denunciation of what works for a never achievable rolling utopian nightmare.
Given most of the issues raised are firmly in the class of ‘luxury beliefs” it seems that the constituency is those who feel suitably insulated by wealth or position on the oppression totem pole to be immune to the fallout.
Training herds of youth in grievance studies is prima facie an anti-civilisational idea, yet somewhere, somehow it’s considered acceptable to tax blue collar workers to produce white collar ingrates and agitators.
Where are the “conservatives” actively defunding this idiocy?
Every now and then I peak above the parapet and regale Cats with news from the EV front. As a year has passed since the last update, I have girded my loins and offer the following for your information.
The major manufacturers have released assorted production comments in the past few months:
Toyota – investment of $100 billion over the next decade with a minimum of 30 vehicles to be offered by 2030. They expect to be selling 3.5 million EVs per year by 2030. Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles (including light trucks) are under development and they are convinced hydrogen fuel cell has a bright future.
VW – Volkswagen’s CEO recently said “as much electrification as possible, as much hydrogen as necessary”. VW see EV cars for people and hydrogen fuel cell for heavy vehicles and other requirements. VW is investing $86 billion from 2021-25 in EVs with more from 2026 onwards. By 2030, they expect over 50% of all VW group (inc Audi, Bentley, Porsche, Skoda etc.) sales to be EV and achieving 100% EV sales by 2040.
Hyundai/Kia – 23 EVs by 2025 and a further 17 models by 2030. Minimum of $22 billion investment and global EV sales exceeding 2 million per annum by 2030. Hydrogen fuel cell passenger and light trucks in extensive pre-production testing and Hyundai has commenced investing in various hydrogen refuelling facilities. EVs first, and hydrogen to follow.
Ford – Ford announced it is splitting its business into two separate divisions. The ‘E’ division will be responsible for the all-electric vehicles whilst the ‘Blue’ division will develop internal combustion models. In March 2022, the Blue division registered a patent for a combustion engine running on hydrogen with the U.S Patent and Trademark Office. Meanwhile, Ford announced that its entire vehicle range offered in Europe will be electric by 2030.
General Motors – GM plans to completely phase out vehicles using internal combustion engines by 2035 including SUVs and those giant utes they call ‘pick-ups’. $35 billion investment to 2025. GM have partnered with Liebherr-Aerospace to develop fuel cell technology for aircraft and other applications.
Mercedes – Last year the European Commission voted to uphold the ban on the sale of new petrol or diesel ICE passenger cars starting in 2035. Mercedes claims it will have an all- electric line-up by 2030. Mercedes have shelved their research into hydrogen power and will focus exclusively on EVs.
It doesn’t really matter where you look – BMW, Volvo, Renault, Mitsubishi, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Fiat et al – the answer is the same from every manufacturer. They are all moving to EVs and many are active in hydrogen fuel cell research. To be fair, some manufacturers such as Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus, McLaren and others have no choice if they want to continue to sell their cars in Europe. Many European countries are imposing sales bans from 2030 and no later than 2035 on new ICE petrol/diesel vehicles including hybrids.
Of course, the US market is key and in August 2021, President Biden announced a target that by 2030, half of the vehicles sold in the United States will be battery electric, fuel-cell or plug-in hybrid. This matched the major US automakers plans for the inevitable future of electric vehicles with GM pledging that 100% of its cars sold would be zero-emission by 2035 whilst Ford announced that 40% of its US vehicles sold by 2030 will be electric. Coupled with EV imports of foreign manufacturers, it’s likely that Biden’s target will be achieved.
But why are we doing this? Simple really.
Transport, in all its forms, is estimated to produce some 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions with passenger vehicles and trucks contributing 75% of that total (45% and 30% respectively). Aviation (12%) and shipping (11%) make up most of the balance.
The global fleet of passenger vehicles is approximately 1.4 billion cars and as manufacturers produce some 90 million vehicles per year, it will obviously take about 15 years to ‘replace’ the global fleet with non-emission vehicles. As ICE vehicles will effectively cease production from 2035, that dovetails with the internationally agreed requirement to reduce emissions by 2050.
Coupled with that, hydrogen fuel cell technology will be sufficiently advanced to power trucks, trains, heavy equipment, aircraft and boats/ships no later than 2030. Large ships burning tonnes of bunker fuel per voyage will be a distant memory by 2050 for example. But importantly, achieving the 2050 emissions target cannot be achieved without eliminating ICE petrol/diesel passenger vehicles.
Overarching all this, global organisations such as the UN, EU and IPCC plus every major political party and most politicians on the planet has been captured, rightly or wrongly, by the environmental movement. Everybody is singing from the same song sheet egged on by every NGO, chancer, influencer and charlatan – all of whom recognise the vast, almost incalculable, sums of money to be skimmed.
I acknowledge the gigantic infrastructure and cost* issues with charging all these EVs and hydrogen refuelling, but a transport transformation is underway and it cannot be stopped. By the end of this decade EV production will be frenetic and growing rapidly. Demand for lithium, graphite, ‘heavy’ magnets, rare earths, hydrogen production facilities (plus transportation) and rechargers, to name just a few, will be immense. Invest now. You don’t have to necessarily agree with the rationale for the global shift to net zero, but you might as well make some money out of it.
* The current consensus seems to be that the cost to achieve net zero will require expenditure between 1.5% – 2% of global GDP per year until 2050. Global GDP is currently around $US87 trillion per annum.
The GDP expenditure forecast is very likely optimistic.
Over the last few months Sydney has been drenched in rain, yet last week the rain stopped, and a blue sky broke through after days of dismal and gloomy grey, and I observed from my Sydney office the appearance of a beautiful rainbow in the sky. I looked at the rainbow with awe and was reminded of the parsha of Noah in Genesis from the Hebrew bible which says, “I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” And then I remembered how we now live in a time where the rainbow, that most majestic of God’s covenants, has been debased and debauched.
I don’t think there is anyone on this blog who wants to live in a society where gays, lesbians and bisexuals are persecuted or made to live their lives in fear and consumed by self-loathing. I certainly don’t. However, I’m becoming increasingly fed up with LGBTQI+ activists and their progressive allies who are seeking to impose their far-left progressive theology on our society and their ensuing attempts to censor those of us who might not agree with aspects of the theology, such as celebrating homosexual sex, or sinister queer ideology or the nonsense that is transgenderism. If we dare to voice objections, we are quickly shouted down and smeared as bigots, homophobes, transphobes, and even worse, we’re constantly told that our objections to LGBTQI+ theology encourages young gays and lesbians to commit suicide. I find such moral posturing obscene. Every day we are subjected to this ideological extortion and intolerance by radical fringe groups. I saw this during the SSM debate and as far as I am concerned, all the legalisation of SSM has done is to entrench and legitimise this extortion and intolerance. And they continue with their extortion and intolerance. I didn’t support SSM and my decision was based on a number of factors, but one factor stemmed from the increasingly aggressive and militant behaviour of the LGBTQI+ lobby despite their hollow mantras about “love” and secondly and most importantly, to me marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God but even if you take God out of the equation, marriage in all cultures, since we came down from trees, was about sanctifying procreation within a structure, a structure designed to continue the family, the clan and the tribe. I remember being highly amused when LGBTQI+ activists parroted the “love is love” nonsense during the SSM debate. Until recently, marriage had nothing to do with “love”, it was an arrangement based on clan, tribe, religion, social status, finances, procreation and to rein in and control sexuality among young people. Marriage sanctified sex. Males and females were fortunate if they did end up “falling in love” with their husbands and wives, certainly most of our ancestors would have been nonplussed at the notion of romantic love before marriage. Sure, there had to be “attraction” but “love”, that was something that came later, if at all, and the love that emanated had nothing to do with sex, it was a love that flourished from mutual respect, mutual care, and shared values.
Just because I’m happy for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to live in peace doesn’t mean that I should be forced to sanctify their sexual practices, nor should I be forced to constantly prostrate myself before the idolatrous altar of LGBTQI+ theology. To this I say no and never. Tolerance should work both ways and quite frankly, I don’t see any tolerance from the “Pride” side. And, this is why I support the “Manly 7”, and why I regard these men as brave for standing up and refusing to wear a jersey emblazoned with a symbol that many regard as offensive, oppressive and sinister, a symbol of LGBTQI+ theology and identity politics that is becoming increasingly orthodox and totalitarian.
Rabbi Samson Hirsh, who lived in the 1800s, described the symbolism of the rainbow as follows…
“We must understand that the rainbow is at best a half symbol, the complete symbol would be a whole circle, comprising the two halves together”.
Why isn’t a rainbow round? Where is the other half of the rainbow?
Rabbi Hirsh’s response, “God chooses this half symbol because whilst HE guarantees that HE will not destroy the world, HE cannot and does not guarantee that the world will not destroy itself”.
And there we have it. I have long wondered why the rainbow we see in the sky isn’t a whole circle and why it has been appropriated and now I know. The progressive theology that wants to dominate us has appropriated the other half of the rainbow and they are using it to destroy our families and our culture. God will not step in and save us as we slowly and inevitably destroy ourselves. That’s the deal. So, like the Manly 7, we must stand firm, we must resist. And if we’re called names, so be it.
A great anecdote in regards to the filming of Marathon Man, released in 1976, is the often quoted exchange between its two stars, Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier concerning their different approaches to acting.
Hoffman, a disciple of method acting, is purported to have prepared for a scene where his character had been awake for three days by doing the same himself. When told of this, Olivier suggested “Why don’t you just try acting ?”
Whether or not this was actually the case, it’s a great story, but 46 years after the film was first released, the movie still remains memorable as one of the best thrillers ever made.
Based on the novel of acclaimed screenwriter William Goldman (who also wrote the screenplay as well) it tells the story of Babe, a history graduate student (Hoffman) who becomes involved in the machinations of a Nazi war criminal Christian Szell (Olivier) to retrieve stolen diamonds from a safe deposit box owned by Szell’s dead brother. Babe becomes unwittingly involved due to his brother Doc’s (Roy Scheider) dealings with Szell.
Marathon Man is one of those films that when you analyse it in detail after the event there are a number of plot holes, but taking Hitchcock’s view that a good thriller film should be able to put the audience’s brain under their seat, then this film succeeds brilliantly as it is a superbly crafted escapist entertainment that is made with relentless skill.
The film is also memorable for the scene where Szell tortures Babe by first probing a cavity in one of Babe’s teeth and later drilling into another tooth, without anesthetic, while repeatedly asking the question “Is it safe ?”
To this day, I always ask my dentist “Is it safe ?” before my regular half yearly check-up.
The film also doesn’t play it safe. Roy Scheider was now a big star after starring in Jaws the year before and it came as major shock when just half way through the movie Szell takes Doc by surprise and kills him with a blade concealed in his sleeve.
Olivier’s performance here is one of his finest that he ever gave in a film where he brilliantly conveys the cold evil nature of his character with intelligence and cunning.
Hoffman also shines as the confused Babe who, initially out of his depth, manages to improvise to ensure he can survive the mayhem he has been thrust into.
Marathon Man has always been a personal favourite of mine ever since I saw it when it was first released. Again, it’s a film we won’t see made today as the craft and skills it was made are no longer with us.
In June 2010 I had an article published in Quadrant magazine; “The Trumping Factor”. I went back to it because I remembered writing about how those on the left and the right divide more or less uniformly and predictably across numbers of seemingly unconnected issues. To wit:
“One of the mysteries of life is that once you have established that someone is an economic socialist or an economic conservative you can then go on to predict with fair degree of accuracy their views across a range of contentious non-economic matters. Of course, you can also proceed by going from one or other non-economic matter and reach the same end.“
Back in 2010, I mentioned, inter alia, that those on the left tend to be critical of their nation’s past, particularly when it comes to colonisation and to the treatment of indigenous people. That they tend to favour apologies and reparations for perceived past injustices; to favour open borders to refugees; to favour a less forceful posture on national defence; and, of course, to favour action, as it were, to heal the planet.
I didn’t try to be exhaustive. But it’s passing strange, is it not, that I made no mention of wokeness, of intersectionality, of transgender rights – to wit, the strange case of 78 gender pronouns or men in frocks beating the pants of women in sports, of hate speech, of CRT and DEI and ESG, of defunding the police, of cancel culture, and no doubt of more things that have blessedly slipped my mind for the moment. However, it isn’t strange at all.
These bizarre developments were still in their gestation stage or less formed than that. Waiting to be sprung on us with a vengeance. They’re the reason that the confirmed leftie Bill Maher thinks his side has gone mad. And I didn’t mention gay marriage, the campaign for which had started but hadn’t gathered real pace in 2010.
My worry is what they’ll think of next to assail our sanity. There isn’t anything left you might say. But that’s what you might have said in 2010. There is no limit to their fevered imaginations allied with their fanatical determination to undo our civilisation. There will be something else to affront our senses. They’re a long way from being finished. Demons are indefatigable.