Tuesday, 23 May 2017

The Lone Wolves Paradox

Do you feel as a civilisation that we are at peace? What about free? Do you feel strong?

I ask this because I am genuinely interested in the lived experience of the Westerner these days as I for one am in genuine awe at the sheer nerve of the lies the mainstream media expects us to swallow.

In the wake of the Manchester bombing, we’ll get the usual wailing at the “senseless violence”, maybe a hashtag and a Facebook overlay, maybe even some buildings will be lit up in different colours. Then like the peaceful, free and strong civilisation we are, we will do absolutely nothing to prevent further atrocities and wait meekly for the next attack. In a war, attacks on civilians only occur when the defending force’s external defenses have failed or been breached. In the War on Terror, the West is losing. The solution is not to spend our resources on community liaising or dropping bombs on tribesmen in a country ending with -Stan, the solution is to man the external defences i.e. strong and discerning border control.

In what way is the violence senseless? it had a purpose, they just don’t want to tell the truth about why it occurred.

After a terror attack, politicians always paraphrase the sentiment that it would be giving in to the terrorists if we Western citizens changed our behavior. Which is interesting, because it’s not the behavior of the average Western citizen that is providing the motivation for the attacks; it is the behavior of the politicians, slaved as they are to the will of the oligarchs.

Finally, at what point will people realise that being attacked by a pack of “lone wolves” is exactly the sort of paradox that should allow you to break through the learned cognitive dissonance of the legacy media?

If the oligarch’s control of the media and society is so complete that you can accept the “reality” of being attacked by a pack of “lone wolves”, then it would be pretty easy to convince you of nearly anything, how about these three:

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Sunday, 21 May 2017

Human capital: How does civilisation survive?

“The days have gone down in the West, behind the hills, into Shadow. How did it come to this?” – Theoden. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Initally human civilisation was relatively simple i.e. small agarian communities of a few families co-habiting in the same area and tending to their crops. Over time the reliability of the agricultural calorie surplus leads to population growth and labour specialisation, which in turn give rise to higher and higher levels of productivity and societal complexity. However it’s important to understand that as much as the humans within a complex society are ordering the world around them via increasingly more complex technology and administration, the complex society is also ordering and moulding the people within it. In order for a society to function it needs humans capable of performing the duties of maintaining, working in, reproducing and guarding the system. A societal system’s life blood and it’s white blood cell protection is not physical infrastructure, buildings or tools, but rather is its people. However it is important to note that people or human capital is not nessessarily interchangeable; any given society requires types of human capital that are specific to it.

For instance we could not take the population of a small town now and swap them with the population of a small town in the 1500’s. Both populations would be so ill suited to their new enviroments that they would not be able to function, let alone maintain a system they did not design and were not, as human capital, suitable for. The salient point is that human capital quality and suitability is the key to achieving ever higher levels of human prosperity via more complex and productive societies.

A society which has reached some level of prosperous order by way of common rules and culture must also ensure it’s own survivability by ensuring as a system it is able to complete a feedback loop or lifetime cycle for its human capital. i.e. it must produce the sort of people it will need in the future, with the people it has now in order to continue to exist.

However if a society is producing or recieving via immigration a different type of people to the type it currently uses as human capital to exist, then over time the society will fundamentally change or fail (in both scenarios the current system has ceased to exist).
This is the defining issue of our times.

It is apparent that Western governments, in a brain-washed cultural relativistic haze, have completely dispensed with the idea that our immigration program should be selective based on human capital quality and suitability. Our countries have effectively ceded control of immigration to an unholy alliance of crony capitalists and psychopathic politicians. Sadly, this isn’t creative hyperbole, quite literally the crony capitalists want to use immigration to supress wages, grow the market size and externalise costs, and the psychopathic politicians are seeking to create voting blocs that can be catered to by government policy allowing them to be used in opposition to the host people; nearly always this is just a method to allow them to stamp a “Democracy approved” on a further increase in the size and reach of the state.

But it’s not just immigration these crony capitalists and psychopath pollies control; they also control the government’s balance sheet. They have let debt and off-balance sheet entitlements grow exponentially to allow their profiteering. The ruthlessness of their exploitation is only exceeded by their shortsightedness, as the entire time horizon is the next fiscal reporting peroid for the crony capitalists and next election for the pollies.

The unholy alliance also controls the people’s access to shelter (unaffordable housing is the main symptom of this). Land prices in the West are rigorously controlled by political power via the zoning licence and the council approval mechanism. This is no different from the land councils that governed throughout feudalism; these councils prevented peasants from using their land how they wanted and are still doing so now…

I am of the view that the chaos and troubles that we as a civilisation are currently experiencing is not an unexpected lightning bolt from a clear sky, but is rather the logical end stage of a civilisation whose inherent contradictions are now coming to fruition.

The solution is not to replace our politicians with another set, or break up the crony capitalistic corporations; the incentives for politicians to be pyschopaths and crony capitalists to exploit will remain. The solution is to alter the nature of our governance and society to remove the parasitic incentives and contradictions.

A follow-up to this piece will be forthcoming with my own perspective as to what needs to change, but I’d encourage you the reader to ask yourself, if you were given complete control of the West, how would you save our civilisation? How would you save our people?

Friday, 12 May 2017

A cause for concern

The now former governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok, was sentenced for two years jail for blasphemy against Islam. His imprisonment is the clearest example yet of Islam ruling a supposedly modern democratic nation like a theocracy.

Ahok’s crime occurred during a discussion about whether Muslims were able to vote for a Christian, specifically in relation to whether the following part of the Quran precluded doing so.

“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” – Al Maidah verse 51

Ahok’s response was as follows: “Maybe in your heart you think that you couldn’t vote for me — but you are being lied to by using Al Maidah 51”.

The judge in Ahok’s cases has determined that Ahok “considers Al-Maidah as a tool to deceive or source of lies,” and that as Al Maidah verse 51 is part of the Quran and is considered divine truth, Ahok has blasphemed.

I think it stands to reason that Ahok was not trying to say that Al Maidah 51 is a lie, but that it was being used incorrectly and maliciously in his opinion as a justification to not vote for him. Now it’s needless to say that Ahok’s conviction is a human rights travesty by the standards of any Western citizen, but that’s just it; it’s only a human rights travesty in a Western court because the West does not claim that the underlying rules and rationale of its society and legal system are divinely inspired and cannot be questioned. Ahok’s country of birth does not grant its citizens the right to free speech, and it certainly does not grant its citizens the right to question, attack or blaspheme Islam.

Let us put aside the semantics and be blunt. If we accept that Al Maidah 51 is divinely inspired truth (as the judge and Indonesia as a nation do), the logic that an instruction to not ally with a person of a particular faith is indicative that one should not vote for a person of said faith and seek to give them political power, is correct and therefore disparaging that as being a lie, meets the definition of blasphemy. This case is not just some minor difference in legal systems, this is a fundamental difference between societies, cultures and concepts of justice.

What type of society would you rather live in?

It is a cause for concern that so many people in the West are blind to the differences between their civilisation’s cultural philosophy and the rest of the world. This state of na├»ve ignorance is only able to exist because of the current overwhelming military superiority of the United States. This is particularly the case given Australia’s geographic position. I hope that we at the XYZ can continue to report on the clash of civilisations that is underway and the ramifications of a Western failure.

Thursday, 11 May 2017

My kingdom for an anthem!

I have always had sympathy for our national anthem. It cops a fair bit of unwarranted criticism in my opinion. Australians just don’t seem to like the pomp and grandeur of a national anthem, (Australians in a sporting setting are more likely to burst into “Waltzing Maltida”, “Land Down Under” or even John Farnham’s “You’re the voice” but I digress…). As an Australian anthem sympathiser, it was with much interest that I read that after the anthem is sung tonight in the opening game of the NRL’s indigenous round, an alternative anthem written by Judith Durham of The Seekers will be played via the stadium sound equipment.
Now I love a music remix as much as the next millennial, but I think I prefer the original:

Australians let us stand as one, upon this sacred land.
A new day dawns, we’re moving on to trust and understand.
Combine our ancient history and cultures everywhere,
To bond together for all time, advance Australia fair.
With loving hearts then let us sing, advance Australia fair.

Australians let us all be one, with peace and harmony.
Our precious water, soil and sun, grant life for you and me.
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts to love, respect and share,
And honouring the Dreaming, advance Australia fair.
With loving hearts then let us sing, advance Australia fair.

Helpfully, the ABC have pointed out “Gone are the words “we are young and free”, replaced by “with peace and harmony”.” I suppose that is accurate, given the greying of the Australian population we can hardly claim to be young anymore, and given the current tax and free speech regime in this nation I doubt we are very free either.

The removal of “We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil” makes me somewhat uneasy as it seems to imply that no longer is toil required for wealth. Also, the addition of “Our land abounds in nature’s gifts to love, respect and share” is worthy of consideration; the idea that land or other property is for love, respecting and sharing is fair enough although it does seem like it wouldn’t be out of place in the socialist anthem, The Internationale.
Punters who are paying attention will note most of the new lyrics concern paying homage to the indigenous people, which makes sense given the NRL’s round theme, but call me old fashioned, I thought the purpose of a national anthem was to be as broadly appealing as possible to the entire society I.e. one anthem that enunciated common shared experiences and history in a patriotic verse. This is why the anthem was changed from how it was originally written. As you can see from the original lyrics below, it was very “British Empire” indeed, hence the adoption of the current anthem which omits all the British references.
The original lyrics published in 1879 were as follows:

Verse 1
Australia’s sons let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In hist’ry’s page, let ev’ry stage
Advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.

Verse 2
When gallant Cook from Albion sailed,
To trace wide oceans o’er,
True British courage bore him on,
Til he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England’s flag,
The standard of the brave;
“With all her faults we love her still”
“Britannia rules the wave.”
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.

Verse 3
While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar,
We’ll rise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star;
From England soil and Fatherland,
Scotia and Erin fair,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.

Verse 4
Should foreign foe e’er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We’ll rouse to arms like sires of yore,
To guard our native strand;
Britannia then shall surely know,
Though oceans roll between,
Her sons in fair Australia’s land
Still keep their courage green.
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.*

The main proponent of this alternative anthem is NRL commissioner Chris Sarra. The ABC has quoted him as follows: “I don’t feel particularly connected or included in what [the current anthem] speaks about,” and “We think as a game, we want to lead in this space and we have embraced diversity and want to give Australia a glimpse of what a positive, more inclusive future looks like,”.
He also said “Personally I probably would have liked [the alternative anthem] sung. But I am wise enough to realise that this can be a tender issue for a lot of people.” Please note there is no mention of whether he wanted it sung after, or to replace the actual anthem.
It is a tender issue, Dr Sarra, and I hate to tell you this but I don’t feel particularly connected or included by the alternative lyrics and as I said earlier in this article, I prefer the original.
Post Script
Whilst browsing wikipedia to confirm the original lyrics, I found Chris Sarra’s entry to be quite interesting as well, below are excerpts:

“Chris Sarra is an inspiring and strong-willed Australian educationalist of Italian and Aboriginal heritage and the founder and Chairman of the Stronger Smarter Institute. Growing up in Bundaberg, Queensland as the youngest of ten children, Sarra experienced first-hand many of the issues faced by Indigenous students throughout their schooling. In 1998, Sarra became the first Aboriginal Principal of Cherbourg State School in South East Queensland where his leadership, in his own opinion, improved the educational outcomes of its students.”

“In 2008, Sarra blamed poor outcomes for Aboriginal students on “white trash” school teachers. He said: If I’m an incompetent teacher filling the school day with photocopied worksheets, videos and Nintendo, it doesn’t matter. Aborigines will get the blame. In its crudest form, remote communities are the place to tuck our white trash away.”

“In 2008, Sarra said that Aboriginal Australia was being ‘let down by ‘white trash’ workers in education, health, policy and public services who hide in remote communities knowing they would never last in mainstream centres’. Sarra said Aboriginal people were blamed and held to account for the dysfunction in their communities, but the standard of services and the people providing them were not subject to the same scrutiny. Sarra said, “The schools we create must be places that Aboriginal children and parents can connect with. They must be places in which it is OK to dream great things. They must be places that say to children, ‘I believe in you”

“Later, Sarra expressed regret about using the term, and explained his comments were born out of frustration and he did not intend to undermine the hard work and dedication of many white teachers working hard in remote communities.”

“In 2005, Sarra left as principal of Cherbourg School, and in 2006, with the support of the Queensland government, he established the Indigenous Education Leadership Institute, the forerunner to the Stronger Smarter Institute. From 2008 to 2013 the Stronger Smarter Institute was part of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) before Sarra’s termination from his position in March 2013. His termination came after “statements made by Dr Sarra last year that he was planning to leave QUT and education” and after being on leave from the Institute since July the previous year. Later in the year 2013, Sarra established the Institute as an independent non-profit organisation.”

“A major assessment of the Learning Communities program was led by Allan Luke and published in 2013. The report described the operations and analysed the effects of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities, addressed major issues facing Indigenous education by collecting and analysing new data, and provided a large scale picture of what is occurring in classroom pedagogy for Indigenous students. Regarding educational and attendance outcomes the report said:

“The analysis of school level attendance from 2008–2011, school-level NAPLAN gain scores from 2008–2011, and cohort-level NAPLAN gain scores from 2009–2010 show no evidence of positive SSLC [Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project] effects.”

“There is no statistically significant evidence of improved attendance or test score performance.”
In the article, Chris Sarra stretches the gap on credibility. Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian wrote regarding the report:
“Sarra told The Weekend Australian he was “reasonably content with the tone and findings of the report”. Not so content as to include them on the website. Sarra says the report covered only a short period of time for many schools. That is true. But it is no excuse for not making the report accessible to the public. Transparency surely demands it.
“Interestingly, after this newspaper put questions to Sarra as to why there was no link to the report, a link was added with a summary of the findings.”

“It cannot be said enough: what matters is how Sarra’s taxpayer-funded programs are lifting student performance so that the government can say they are spending their money wisely, given the critical goal of closing the gap of Year 12 completion.”

Saturday, 6 May 2017

Peak Insanity: Parental Visas

I am constantly amazed by the Australian government's ability to find new and shortsighted ways to betray and damage the Australian people. The latest of these daggers, is the new temporary parental visa.

The details of this visa will be announced in the May budget, but the details the SBS has got its hands on early indicate it is a temporary 10 year visa with an application fee of up to $20,000. Before I attack this new policy, let's go back over the current parental visa situation.

There are several ways Australian citizens and permanent residents can get their parents into Australia permanently these include an aged parent visa and a contributory parent visa.

The following is from the Productivity Commission's inquiry report into Australia's migrant intake:

"The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms. Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time."

Helpfully, the report adds the following sentence immediately after:

"This is a high cost for a relatively small group."

The calculated lifetime cost of these visas is inclusive of the medicare entitlements that are instantly available to the recipient and also inclusive of the age pension entitlement that the applicant may receive if they have been a resident for at least 10 years in total (at least 5 of these years, there must have been no break in  residence).

So let's put aside for a moment the insanity of the permanent parent program and how the Australian tax payer is on the hook for the vast majority of the cost and not the applicant or their family, let's talk about this new visa.

The SBS article seems to indicate that under this new temporary visa, that the visa holders will be required to pay for private health insurance and the cost of their burden on the public health system. Prima facie, this is a good thing, as the largest costs of the current permanent visas is the additional burden on the health system and the age pension entitlements, theoretically the requirement to self insure and also the 10 year limit on the visa makes it very hard for the new visa applicants to receive the age pension.

However, we all know that this visa is a thought bubble that would not survive contact with reality. All it would take is one aged parent nearing the end of their 10 year limit, to approach "A Current Affair", stricken with the fear of being sent back to their country of origin, which due to their long absence is basically a foreign country now! Furthermore, they don't want to leave their adult children and grand children, is Australia in the business of separating families?!?!? Also the parent has a valid fear of persecution or a valid fear of what the lower healthcare and general societal safety might mean for their chances of a secure dotage. One bleeding heart story is all it would take for the government to table legislation (perhaps the "Will somebody please think of the parents act"...) allowing these visa holders to transition to permanent residents, which means the Australian taxpayer and health system is actually still on the hook and was always on the hook.

But thankfully, until the "Will somebody please think of the parents act", all these costs can be kept out of federal budget calculations and therefore we can all sleep easy knowing that it will be at least another 10 years until we have to kick that can down the road again!

The fact that policies like this are even contemplated is proof that that Australia's immigration system and economy is a blatant ponzi scheme that requires ever higher immigration and debt. It makes me wonder if we are approaching the peak insanity point, whereby the incompetence and corruption of our rulers will result in the collapse of Australian society as we know it.

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

The 96th thesis or why the Pope is wrong...

I am not a theologian and certainly have no interest in breaking the peace of Westphalia, but every now and then I despair at the state of Catholicism. Of course, Protestantism isn't exactly prospering in the spiritual wasteland that is Western discourse, but at least Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone), means that I can at least ignore the tele-evangelists and modern day false prophets and head straight to the good book for divine clarity.

Unfortunately, Catholics still ascribe to the Pope some sense of  authority and this is particularly problematic when the Pope is asked to weigh in on more Earthly matters. Below is the relevant exchange:

Virginie Riva (Radio Europe 1):
Holy Father, a question, beginning with the trip but expanding to France, if you will.  You spoke at Al-Azhar University of demagogic forms of populism.  French Catholics right now are being forced to vote for either a populist or an extremist, and they are divided and confused.  What would be the elements for discerning that you could provide for these Catholic voters?

Pope Francis:
Excellent.  There is a dimension of “populism” – I put this word in quotes, because you know that I had to relearn this word in Europe, because in Latin America it has a different meaning.  There is the problem with Europe and the problem with the European Union.  I will not repeat here what I have previously said about Europe.  I already spoke about it four times: twice in Strasburg, once during my speech for the Charlemagne Prize, and at the beginning of the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the [Treaty of Rome].  Everything I have said about Europe is in those speeches.  Every country is free to make the choices it believes are right for itself.  I cannot judge if it is making this choice for this reason or another, because I do not know its internal politics.  It is true that Europe is in danger of coming undone; this is true.  I expressed it delicately in Strasburg, more strongly during the Charlemagne Prize, and most recently without any nuance.   We only have to reflect on this: the Europe which runs from the Atlantic to the Urals… There is a problem that frightens Europe and perhaps increases populism: the problem of migration.  This is true.  But let us not forget that Europe is made of migrants: centuries and centuries of migrants… that’s us!  But it is a problem that must be studied well, and we must also respect people’s opinions, honest opinions of a political discussion with a capital “P”: great Politics, not the small national politics that eventually end up falling down.  Regarding France: to tell you the truth, I do not understand French internal politics.  I have worked to have good relations, including with the current President, with whom there was a difficulty once, but afterwards I was able to speak clearly with him about the issue, while respecting his viewpoint… I do not know the history of the two candidates [Le Pen e Macron], I do not know where they are from… Yes, I do know that one is a representative of the far right, but the other candidate, I truly do not know where he is from.  For this reason, I cannot offer a clear view on France.  But speaking of Catholics: here in Egypt, during one of the gatherings, while I was greeting the people, someone said to me: “Why do you not think big about politics?”- “What does that mean?”. And this person said to me, as if asking for help: “Create a party for Catholics”. This man is good, but he is living in the last century! Concerning populism, it is related to migrants, but this is not part of my trip. If there is time, I can come back to this.  If there is time, I’ll return to this..


We, of the European colonial nations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States are constantly told our nations are "immigrant" or "proposition" nations and therefore any opposition or restriction of immigration is Un-Australian, Un-American etc.. who would've thought that Europe itself is an Immigration Proposition continent! I'd ask the Pope to consider that even a cursory review of history shows that mass migrations of peoples and clashing cultures are very rarely the ingredients for peace and prosperity.

Secondly, I am uneasy about the Pope's preference for politics that are larger than national politics, presumably this means trans-national political institutions like the EU and the UN have the Papal stamp of approval. It's needless to say that the EU and the UN have not exactly covered themselves in glory in recent times and an unholy alliance between the globalists and the Vatican would not serve Catholics, Europe or the world itself.

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Immigration driven Big Australia advocates: are they just standard financial parasites or traitors?

Bernard Salt, KPMG partner, big Australia advocate and inventor of the “smashed avocado” meme, has authored an absolute monstrosity of an article in The Australian.

He cites yet again the rationale that baby boomers exiting the workforce will create a labour vacuum, despite the fact that the labour market is not experiencing a labour shortage at all. In fact, unemployment is persistently stuck around the 6% mark, and according to the ABS up to 1.1 million Australians are underemployed, meaning they actively pursue more work than they are getting.

Bernard notes that, “there is the logic that some level of population growth supports economic prosperity.” This is a fallacious argument based on the notion that economic prosperity is achieved by simply increasing total economic activity (gross domestic product). It should go without saying that GDP growth does not necessarily translate to economic prosperity for the working or middle class. I wrote a piece recently for XYZ that showed that Australia’s households, far from feeling economically prosperous, are actually experiencing economic stress and that this can be evidenced by the falling of their fertility rate below replacement rate, resulting in a need for ponzi-style immigration levels. The Australian’s Judith Sloan pointed out recently that the benefits The Productivity Commission predicts from our immigrations settings “are partly the result of the fall in the relative wages of locals with the same skills as migrants. And there is no account taken of the costs of congestion, loss of social amenity or environmental impacts…”

The greatest affront in the piece is when Bernard implies that Australia’s immigration program is diplomatically useful as “a risk-mitigation strategy, a demonstration of good faith, by the Australian people that we are prepared to share the bounty of this land with all races and creeds for generations”. This level of snivelling appeasement is borderline treason. Australia does not belong to the world. The Australian government’s only duty should be to the Australian people, and the only criteria by which the immigration program should be judged is, “Does it benefit Australians?”.

Sadly, the government’s duty to the Australian people is ignored in favour of vested interests, and immigration is just one of the policy areas where the nation is sold out to enrich crony capitalists and their political minions.