the Greens and world government

From Australia’s moonbat-in-chief, Greens leader Bob Brown, comes a proposal for a global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value.

Interesting idea. Now let’s do what Bob Brown hasn’t done, and think this through. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this global parliament will have 1,000 members. That’s probably unworkably large but it’s a nice round number.

Now how many representatives would Australia have? About three. The European Union would have about 71 and the US about 45. Canada would have five seats. Eco-friendly politically correct Sweden would have one. North America, Europe and Oceania combined would have fewer than 200 representatives. Add South America and you could say the western world would have around 240 seats. China would have 200 and India about 172. Based on the fact that there are around 1.62 billion Muslims in the world (some sources believe that to be a considerable under-estimate) we could expect to see around 231 Muslim representatives in the global parliament. Given the results of the elections in supposedly moderate Egypt it’s fairly safe to assume we’d see a solid bloc of hardline Islamists that would have at least 150 seats, possibly a good many more. They’d outnumber of the entire representation of the EU and the US combined.

How many seats would Green candidates win? In Australia the Greens could muster less than half the votes required to win a single seat. They might win one in ten of the EU seats. Say seven seats. Let’s be generous and double that.

OK, left-wing parties that are broadly supportive of the green agenda would win a lot more seats. They might win half of the western world’s 240 seats. Say 120.

Now given that the extremist environmentalist policies favoured by Bob Brown and his Green followers really only appeal to white midde-class university-educated westerners how much support could green proposals expect to get in a world parliament? Probably about 120 votes. If a green member of this earth parliament were to put forward the kinds of draconian environmental legislation that get Bob Brown excited, how many votes would they get? The answer of course would be, 120 at the most.

And what about the social causes so dear to the hearts of people like Bob Brown? Things like homosexual marriage. How may votes would that attract in a global parliament? I suspect that a proposal to make homosexuality a world-wide criminal offence would get more votes.

In fact a world parliament would be likely to be very hostile indeed to the leftist social agenda.

If I was a radical greenie or a radical leftist a “global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value” would be my worst nightmare. So the question is, is Bob Brown more deluded than we thought he was? Or is he really pushing for something quite different from the democratic world government he wants us to think he supports? Is it merely window dressing for a true agenda to dramatically increase the powers of the present unelected, unaccountable, corrupt, bureaucratic horror that is the UN?


psychiatry as religion

Chesterton famously said that when people cease to believe in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything. I’ve talked before about environmentalism and leftist politics in general as a substitute religion. One of the most dangerous of all substitute religions is psychiatry.

Religion attempts to provide answers to many questions. Apart from spiritual matters religion tries to answer questions in the social and personal spheres. Why does evil exist? Why do people suffer? How can I find happiness? How do I make my marriage work? Unfortunately the answers psychiatry provides are bogus and often destructive.

Firstly we need to dispose of the idea that psychiatry has some connection with science. It doesn’t. That’s very obvious in the case of psychoanalysists like Freud and Jung. They were clearly working in the realm of imaginative literature (or possibly speculative fiction might be closer) rather than science. Freud was a brilliant man in many ways but he was making leaps of intuition, not doing science. Modern psychiatry is no more scientific than Freud.

I’m not arguing that mental illness doesn’t exist. There’s ample scientific evidence for the existence of a handful of conditions such as schizophrenia. But the hundreds of “disorders” listed in the DSM-IV are merely vague descriptions of collections of personality traits and behaviours. They change radically with each edition which is a valuable clue that we are not dealing with matters of science. Many of these personality traits and behaviours are in fact quite normal.

They get listed as “disorders” in the DSM if they are socially disapproved of, or if they are perceived as inconvenient. The classic case is ADHD. It used to be accepted that boys tend to be mischievous and extremely active and that they have a tendency to get into trouble. That’s what raising children is all about – teaching them to behave in a civilised manner. Today when boys behave like normal boys they can’t be disciplined because that would be oppressive. So they get medicated instead. And instead of learning to take responsibility for their own behaviour they learn to take a pill because it’s not their fault, they have a mental disorder.

People used to get sad and unhappy sometimes. That’s not allowed in the new religion of psychiatry. Unhappiness is a mental disorder. It’s depression. They have a pill for that as well. The notion that maybe unhappiness is something we all have to learn to deal with is no longer acceptable. That would mean taking responsibility. The core of the religion of psychiatry is that no-one has to take responsibility. We are told that we are facing an epidemic of depression. What we are really facing is an epidemic of sef-pity.

Or take addiction. It used to be thought that alcoholics were people who drank too much, and that drug abusers were people who used drugs to evade reality and responsibility. Now we’re told they suffer from a disease – addiction. And just about every anti-social behaviour, from promiscuity to gambling, is now a disease as well. Theodore Dalrymple has exposed the nonsense of all this in his excellent book Junk Medicine.

The result of all this is to concentrate a great deal of power in a new priesthood of doctors and therapists. Dr Tana Dineen reminds us of the dangers of this in her book Manufacturing Victims.

Crime used to be considered to be selfish or destructive behaviour that required laws and police in order to protect society. Psychiatry has been increasingly used to medicalise crime, so that now criminals are victims who need treatment.

The problems of evil, of sin, of suffering, are now seen as evidence of mental disorders that can be solved by taking the right pill. That not only allows people to evade responsibility, it also makes us a society that is increasingly unable to cope with the challenge of the real world.

Now I have nothing against religion, but a religion that merely offers excuses for vicious behaviour and that encourages us to wallow in self-pity, a religion that infantilises us, is not a healthy religion. A religion should give us the strength to come to terms with suffering and to confront evil. And a religion that goes on steadily increasing the powers of its priesthood is a danger to society. Psychiatry is simply a failed religion masquerading as science.

Cultural Marxism and the long war against civilisation

We should never forget that we are engaged in a war to the death to save civilisation. The enemy is Cultural Marxism. That has been the most dangerous enemy since the 1920s. It is the enemy within, the cancer cells slowly multiplying within the body politic.

And Cultural Marxism’s strategy is a very long-term one. They have been waging war against civilisation for the best part of a century and they are prepared to go on fighting for another century.

We are dealing with fanatics. In the long term they will accept nothing short of complete unconditional surrender to their agenda, which is the destruction of our civilisation.

Each battle they fight is merely a prelude to the next one. Each retreat we make gives them a new position from which to continue their offensive. Never ever believe a cultural marxist who seems to be prepared to compromise. They take your compromise, and then go straight back on the attack again for more.

If you look at gay marriage, they started out saying that all they wanted was for homosexuality to be decriminalised. Just one tiny concession, surely that was not too much to ask? When they got that they said that all they wanted was the removal of legal disabilities attached to homosexuality. Just one tiny concession, surely that was not too much to ask? Then they wanted civil unions. Then they wanted gay marriage but they assured us that churches wouldn’t be forced to conduct such marriages. Once they get that, they will start pushing for churches to be compelled to perform such marriages.

They started out in most countries just wanting abortions in special circumstances, and only in the early stages of pregnancy. Then the push was on to extend the “right” to abortion, step by step.

And we must never lose sight of the bigger picture. Each battle is part of a wider campaign, each campaign is just another battlefront in their war. Every beachhead they establish is the jumping-off point for another offensive. The foot-soldiers of Cultural Marxism are often unaware of all this. They’re just the Useful Idiots. They don’t need to know the overall campaign strategy.

That’s why it’s a mistake to go on the defensive. We have to force them onto the defensive. You have to start attacking the gains they’ve already made. We have to destroy their beachheads.

That might seem hopeless, but the task of Cultural Marxism seemed hopeless 80-odd years ago. Even in the 1960s no-one seriously thought that western civilisation could be brought to the brink of destruction. Now they’re within sight of final victory. Every retreat we make from this point on brings them closer to that final victory. We have very little ground left to give up. Unless we regain some of the lost ground we cannot win.

Recent events in Australia (see my most recent post) show just how vulnerable the Left is when it’s on the defensive. There is an immense but unfocused rage out there amongst ordinary people at the slow strangling of our society. That rage just needs to be focused.

a good news day in Australia as the Left gets kicked in the teeth

An extraordinary election result in Queensland today. After almost 14 years in office the Labor Party was not merely swept from power. It was annihilated. This is not an exaggeration. Labor, which won 51 seats in the previous election, may be left with as few as seven seats in the 89-seat Queensland Parliament. Prior to this Labor had won eight consecutive elections in Queensland.

The Labor Party may not even be able to form an official Opposition. Minor parties holding fewer than ten seats are not formally recognised as parties in the Queensland Parliament. And Labor is now very much a minor party in Queensland.

This electoral train wreck follows hot on the heels of Labor’s humiliating NSW election débâcle last year in which the party lost 32 of its 52 seats and was consigned to the political dustbin.

This makes the defeat of the Federal Labor government even more likely, even assuming that their tottering and much-hated minority government survives until the next scheduled general election in 2013. Federal Labor’s deeply unpopular extremist environmental policies such as the absurd carbon tax undoubtedly contributed to their disasters in both NSW and Queensland. Their immigration policies which have effectively opened the floodgates to unlimited Moslem immigration have been another factor in making the Labor Party stink in the nostrils of ordinary Australians.

The Queensland result today is the most overwhelming defeat the Labor Party has suffered since Federation in 1901. It is the most devastating political setback the Australian left has ever experienced.

And the news gets even better. The Greens vote was down as well. They won a mere 7.6% of the vote.

So it’s definitely been a very good news day in Australia.

the clueless generation

Feeling the need for some light entertainment I decided to watch some Penn and Teller. From 2004, from their TV series Bullshit. The first episode I caught was the one on PETA. Certainly not light entertainment, but illuminating.

I’m sure everyone reading this blog already knows how crazy, evil and dangerous this organisation is but there were some remarks that were particularly perceptive and thought-provoking. And amusing. Like the talk-show radio host who said of one statement by a PETA supporter that, “The foolishness of that comment is so deep that I can only ascribe it to higher education. Only someone who had been to college could say something that stupid.” Sad but true.

He said something much more interesting though. That we are dealing with a generation that has no experience of evil, so they are unable to comprehend it. They have never known the threat of Nazism or communism. They don’t know what true evil is.

I think there’s a great deal of truth in that. The generation (or by now generations) that have grown up since the fall of the Berlin Wall truly have no sense of perspective, or sense of proportion, when it comes to evil. That’s why an organisation like PETA can compare the sufferings of chickens to the Holocaust, and the teenagers and twenty-somethings of today find nothing bizarre in that comparison.

That’s also why privileged white middle-class college kids can convince themselves that the modern United States is one of the most repressive regimes in history. That’s why privileged white middle-class women can persuade themselves that they suffer oppression on a sale comparable to the worst tyrannies in history. They have never suffered real oppression. They have never suffered at all. They have never encountered genuine evil. They have no idea what such concepts truly mean.

They also, thanks to the benefit of modern educational methods, have no understanding whatsoever of history. Even events as comparatively recent and as cataclysmic as the Second World War are mysteries to them. They may have heard of such events, but the scale of those events, the issues at stake, the nearness of civilisational collapse and the sheer scale of the horrors are meaningless to them. As for the Cold War, they simply swallow the left-liberal line that communism stood for social justice and freedom in opposition to the wickedness of capitalism and western imperialism.

They cannot distinguish between things that were real dangers to civilisation like Soviet communism and imaginary monsters like the patriarchy. Just as they cannot distinguish between the imaginary oppression that women and homosexuals suffer in the modern United States and the terrifyingly real oppression represented by Islam.

It’s the same in Australia. We are dealing with generations that have grown up on a steady diet of self-liberal propaganda and liberal guilt and that honestly believe that imaginary genocides like the “Stolen Generations” are directly comparable to genuine horrors like the Holocaust. They believe because they do not understand.

When their professors tell them that the “Stolen Generations” was genocide (even though not a single person was deliberately killed and the Aboriginal population was in fact increasing rapidly during this so-called genocide) or that the situation of women is equivalent to slavery they buy it because they have not the remotest understanding of what words like genocide and slavery mean. They are merely abstract concepts.

We have to face the frightening challenge of dealing with the clueless generations.

symbolic victories, and hesitation as censorship

One of the reasons the Leftists are winning the culture wars is that they understand the importance of symbolic victories. They know that symbols matter. That’s why they’ll fight so hard for things that initially appear not to matter very much. Because they do matter. Words and symbols are important, and making us feel hesitant about using certain words or performing certain symbolic acts matters very much. They also understand the importance on instilling fear. Not physical fear, but the fear of offending, the fear of being labelled as racist, sexist, etc.

The flag is a good example when it comes to symbols. When President Obama’s political mentor Bill Ayers gets away with literally trampling the American flag (and gets to keep his well-paid job at an American university) a significant symbolic victory has been won for the Left. It’s not a flag that is being trampled, it’s a set of beliefs. Beliefs about loyalty, honour, duty, sacrifice.

Similarly when a leftist Australian academic tells us that it’s racist to fly an Australian flag the same beliefs are being attacked.

Words matter even more. Back in the 70s when feminists started to demand than manhole covers should be renamed personhole covers we laughed. We were wrong. It was part of the long-term strategy of the Cultural Left – to put certain words and certain ideas out of bounds. To make us hesitate before expressing our thoughts, our opinions.

They have succeeded. Can there be any conservative blogger (or conservative journalist or conservative politician or even just conservative citizen) who has not at some time caught themselves in the act of self-censorship? You’re about to write something, or say something, but then you ask yourself – am I going to be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, cultural insensitivity, fascism, neocolonialism, ableism or any other forbidden act if I say that?

Once that happens our right to freedom of speech is in grave jeopardy. Indeed all our rights as free citizens are in grave danger.

As Peter Hitchens puts it in a slightly different context, the boundaries of public discussion are being steadily narrowed.

Recently we’ve seen moves by feminazis and other politically correct types to add terms such as feminazi and political correctness to the index of forbidden expressions. If there’s one thing Leftists hate it’s having their own weapons turned against them. For years they’ve tried to stifle debate by throwing out words such as racist, sexist and fascist as soon as the start to lose an argument. When conservatives hit back by using words like ecofascist and feminazi it turn out that Leftists have a glass jaw.

The ideal censorship is the censorship we impose on ourselves. That was the objective of the Party in Orwell’s 1984, the reasoning behind Newspeak – that eventually the Thought Police would be unnecessary because people would no longer be capable of Thought Crime. They would no longer have the words to express dissent and everyone would have inside their own heads their own internal Thought Police.

my mirror blog

Just letting people know that given the increasingly hostile climate on the internet towards bloggers who don’t toe the politically correct line I have a mirror of this blog at WordPress. I think it’s an increasingly bad idea to have all your blogging eggs in one basket, so to speak. The leftist campaign against freedom of speech is gathering momentum in Australia but the biggest danger is internet corporations that practise “self-censorship” by caving in to pressure from lobby groups that whine about “offensive content” – and we should never forget that the Left regards anything that contradicts their political line as offensive.

This sort of covert political censorship is going to become more and more common as the Left becomes more and more aggressive and more and more determined to crush dissent, so I urge anyone who has a conservative blog to consider setting up a mirror blog at another site. It’s quite easy to do – it’s very simple indeed for example to import your Blogger content to a WordPress blog.

My WordPress blog can be found here.

I will of course continue to blog as actively here as before. It’s just an insurance policy.