Why is the world’s middle class turning left

.The world’s middle classes appear to be are increasingly turning left and green. Greens,are increasingly supported by wealthy middle class instead of hair-shirt hippies despite their increasing obvious watermelonness, i.e. green on outside and red underneath. That is a question that woke me up today.

I can only assume it is because of an increasing sense of dissatisfaction with their purposeless uber-free consumerist existence. I recommend you watch the BBC series ‘The Men who made us Spend’.  Around the 20’s, the marketing industry changed us from purchasing for need to purchasing for want, and our want, unlike our need, is easily manipulated by advertising and social pressure, thus hey presto, consumerist society. In the 1970’s they peeled children away from parental control and made them into the ideal impulsive consumers, and in the nineties, they got adults to release their inner child, and made them into child-like impulsive consumers, in the process infantilising our society.

But our wants are primarily narcissistic and the internet social media has just put narcissism on steroids. We work to get luxury lifestyle, buy luxury goods, experience luxury services and about half of us, make luxury children.in luxury schools. We are free, free from responsibilities for our health, our welfare, our parents, increasingly our children, and free from social groups and moral obligations. But this freedom also means we become without purpose. There is no personal tyranny to fight, no personal real injustice. So we invent sleights against us, perceive unjust inequalities at work, in wealth, sexism, racism, bullying or in desperation just simply borrow causes, such as saving polar bears.

But we are largely alone in our luxury and freedom, and without a existential or moral purpose. Politically, on the political right is more consumerism, spiritually, religion is increasingly hard to believe, hypocritical, irrelevant not having moved with the times and now child molesting. Socially, family is disintegrated, nationalism has been vilified since WWII, leaving intact only minority cultural groupings.

So where to go for purpose, for moral sustenance, for company?

The only place is the moral green movement and the moral left, preaching against consumerism and capitalism, from the comfort of your favorite fair trade Starbucks cafe. Joining is easy, costless, and socially rewarding and safe, thanks to the left’s aggressive projection of their brand onto the population in the form of political correctness, and their vilification of any competing moralities.

Except that the left and the greens are serious about destroying our pluralist western capitalist society and installing totalitarianism, the latter because of course, people may not be happy with their luxuries and freedom, but they are even more unhappy without them. And to borrow a phrase, our free capitalist society is the worst system, except for all the others – it may benefit from modification, but not destruction.

What to do to turn around the leftward march towards misanthropic totalitarianism.

Well, I don’t know now, but I will give it some thought for a few days and return.

The old are still alive – not praying for death | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

The old are still alive – not praying for death | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

A very important essay from Karen Hitchcock, resisting the pro-euthanasia push that risks putting the elderly under more pressure to just die and get out of our way:

I have had the same experience in my time in Intensive care. The old and decrepit rarely wanted to die; it was sometimes the wonderful old patients, people that would make wonderful grandparents who, aware of their lack of purpose, wanted to move on.

I do not recall a patient denied a serious request for a dignified exit, since morphine treats pain, and morphine is cheap, but I do recall that relatives are not always the best advocates for their elderly.


A little perspective, please

Tony Abbott has hit rock bottom.

Not because of turning too Right.

Because he has not prosecuted a clear, rational, Liberal and Libertarian message with conviction, force and clarity.

Because he has disappointed his Liberal base as well as the middle ground, which hoped for a clear leadership.

I too have been disappointed, and as a jilted lover, am angry.

But for all the gloating lefties, a bit of perspective:

An Abbott government at its disappointing worst is still by far the better government compared to the past 6 years of Labor malignant mis-governance.

Tony Abbott is intelligent, and has the benefit of having friends in his political base, if not among his staff, who have fearlessly told him the truth.

He is changing and will change.

He will lead Australia to victory over unreason.

13 Misconceptions About Global Warming

How silly to hitch his wagon to catastrophic AGW after the wheels fell off it, with these 13 straw man arguments.
But wait, at the very end…!
Point 13: :”I’m not claiming it’s going to be some sort of a catastrophe…”
What ???
So Veritasium is actually a luke warmist, but reluctant to advertise it.

He is backing away from the decades of IPCC scaremongering to justify the spending of trillions: 100 Million climate refugees by 2010, seas rising meters, island countries disappearing, droughts, floods killing millions, only a few years to act before too late.

So nothing to worry about – it’s just that it’s cheaper to act now. But all estimates of future climate adaptation are far smaller than the national debt we are leaving to our children. They would be far better off is we reduce the spiraling debt first.

Earth scientists split on climate change statement

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

A position statement published in 2009 said the society was concerned about the potentially harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions and favoured “strong action to substantially reduce current levels’’.

“Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature,’’ it said.

“Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.”

Publication of the position statement caused an uproar among members and led to a revised statement, after wide consultation. The revised statement said: “Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years.

“Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes, or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect in the future and to plan how best to respond.

“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.”

The revised statement was criticised as being too vague.

In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter, Mr Hutton says: “After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.


Runaway institutions – is too much of a good thing killing western societies?

It appears to me our society is being destroyed by our very institutions created to improve it. How so?

Powerful forces need checks and balances, otherwise they can runaway and cause disaster. In biology, predatos have controlling predators themselves, in our bodies, our immune system has turn-off pathways before it damages our own body, as does our blood clotting cascade, otherwise a clot in a cut would propagate throughout your circulation. Armies have civil controls to make them stop fighting and return to barracks, and spy agencies have watchers watching the watchers.

When these self-limits go missing, predators multiply and destroy local ecological balance, immune system overshoot or attack the body itself as allergies and autoimmune diseases, clots cause heart attacks, armies take over governance and spies create police states.

Many of our moral social institutions however seem unconstrained by design, I guess, perhaps because we consider that you can never have enough morality. The environmental movement, human rights laws, anti-discrimination and the social justice organisations, all seem to grow and grow, the bar always moved downwards so the problems remain dire and so their mandate is never diminished, the job never done, the workers never made redundant.

You can see a life cycle in these benevolent institutions: they start from committed reformers of a genuine problem, grow to become powerful evangelists successfully ameliorating the problem, even if often at disproportionate cost to taxpayer or industry, and finally, with little of the pressing problem left, becoming zealots searching and cleansing ever smaller immorality, ever slightest imperfection. This is natural, for no organisation with power is inclined to disband or moderate its machinery once its aim is largely achieved.

Examples are a legion:

Green organisations, having achieved clear skies, clean waterways and preserved forests in the west, delve into ever more protections, more locked up parks, even if it may cause fiercer bushfires, more social engineering to make all wear their hair shirts and endless politics of social justice that goes with it.

Climate change is probably the worst concrete example. It started in the 80’s from a reasonable concern over climate warming effects of CO2, combined with green-socialist ideology to grow into a socio-political juggernaut, raising billions with frightening apocalytic visions well ahead of the scientific evidence. When scientific evidence and observations even the public can see finally counters the apocalyptic message, the climate change institutions, now a socio-politico-industrial behemot laden with a rent-seeking green industry and unstoppable, never mind the original problem or the science. The cartoon saying “what if climate change is a hoax and we end up building a better world for nothing” is the unwitting proof of the runaway cause –

In the US, the EPA, having helped clean up particulate air pollution matter, has created the next pollutant scare of ozone, regulating ever lower limits that even national parks would not achieve. The benefits are ever smaller – with ozone not so much deaths or disease, but episodes of cough and allegedly asthma exacerbation, while estimated to cost over $1 Trillion.

Government departments of all kinds from departments for social inclusion to Antartic animal ethics committee are the obvious examples, some having had perhaps a purpose at the beginning, but ever expanding, rarely solving the issue so they can just keep growing in the face of the problem.

European regulations RoHS, REACH, and others, after successfully prohibiting known toxic substances, maintain their relevance every 6 months by adding an ever growing list of minor toxic materials, or even non-toxins, which might be toxins in the future, so called ‘candidates’ for demonstrated toxicity in the future.

Medical device regulations are ever increasing in reach and their diminishing returns in risk reduction, finally reaching its absurd conclusion with latest ISO14971 Risk Management standard, removing concept of acceptable risk and all considerations of costs and practicalities in eliminating risks in equipment. For the absurdity of this idea, go no further than the imposing governments themselves – they of course, accept all manner of risks to their citizens, based on limited funds and priorities. A perfectly safe device may never eventuate and will be affordable except to a few.

Racial equality movement and anti-discrimination laws are also never satisfied, job never done. After triumphantly outlawing slavery, racial and other discrimination of any kind, does it take a breather and celebrate its success? Not on your Nelly. The equality is never equal enough, the offense never slight enough to tolerate, now outlawing of merely giving offense through Sec18C. The movement has only grown, backed by an army of twitter vanity moralists, attacking for the slightest offense, even destroying an 13 year old for an innocent sporting barrack. Finally, the discrimination-eliminating task is not done, until it is turned the other way around, in the form of affirmative action, now discriminating in favor of perceived victim groups (and thus against all other groups).A lot of good this has done to the blacks in US and Aboriginies in Australia.

Feminism has not escaped the institutional zombification. Starting from universal suffrage, right to work and equal pay for equal work, and when achieved, growing into affirmative action calling for quotas in top job for women, Aboriginies and eventually, presumably for all minority groups that can shout loud enough. Now, a new breed of Feminazis now are calling out misogyny at the smallest slight. Prime minister Abbott was a misogynist for looking at his watch during one of Gillard’s more vacuous speeches. A scientists, in the moment of his triumph in landing a probe on a comet 300 million miles away, instead of accolades, received hate from feminist social media for the offense wearing a Hawaiian shirt with silhouettes of nudes. That is from the same feminist movement that is silent of FGM.

If our society were a human organism, it would be being ravaged by advanced multiple sclerosis, paralyzed by its own protective systems attacking its nerves, its eyes and its thoughts. I suggest that all moral causes, NGO’s and benevolent organisations need a good hard look at what they started out to do and what they are doing now; whether they have reached their use by date and whether they are now looking for work and damaging our society in the process. Equally importantly, new moral causes must define a realistic goal, and a plan for an exit strategy and not be allowed to become runaway institutions.


The Left’s fear of diversity and debate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

How about starting a drive for job equality for conservatives. End discrimination against conservatives in public institutions, similarly to gender equality.

Demand quotas, at least 40% conservatives by 2020.

Remove the political glass ceiling at the ABC.

Demand that public service, universities and the ABC report annually their percentage of conservatives vs lefties.

Start a Emily’s List for conservatives.

Protest in the streets.

Never give up !!!

via The Left’s fear of diversity and debate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

Prince Charles defends religious freedom…from Islam, what else.

prince-charlesPrince Charles defends religious freedom and calls for greater tolerance between Muslims and Christians

Prince Charles today passionately defended religious freedom [from Islamic oppression] during an address at the House of Lords.

“It is an indescribable tragedy that Christianity is now under such threat in the Middle East; an area where Christians have lived for 2,000 years, and across which Islam spread in 700AD, with people of different faiths living together peaceably for centuries.”

Read article here…

Good to see Prince Charles grow a set and at least state the obvious, about  Middle East being cleansed of Christians.

It is also noteworthy his call for the universal human right to choose and change your religion to be respected by Islam, and especially in the West. We in Australia should make it crystal clear that any Muslims must have a right to convert away from Islam.

Problem is, Islam does not allow this and considers apostasy punishable by death. It is even law in many Muslim countries. The Muslim Imams should be asked to communicate this to their flock, and if they don’t, as they cannot, then what? We all continue conveniently ignoring this gross breach of human rights in the West and Australia in particular?