Alcoa announced its renewed its energy supply contract with coal based energy Loy Yang Power. This, naturally, upset the hard Left. The Age, aka “The Spring Street Soviet”, is in horrified shock, as the tone of its report shows. The hard Left’s green fronts foamed at the mouth, in particular, Environment Victoria”. Before writing this item up, in addition to several mountain ranges of material in my discs, I needed to to find out a couple things.

A couple of things, ha! It took all ruddy day in a very interesting hunt and checking with sources that has turned up much else besides. So, what we have to do is split them up into separate posts, thanks to what I have been uncovering - and I’m several months behind unloading material as it is. Below are articles rarther germane to what we have to relate. Right, let’s begin unloading with this first post on another right disaster sapping Alcoa, Victorians and Australians.

Oh, the back-log; amongst very many other reasons such as incompetence, feeblesnees, cowardice and wrecking thoroughly sound causes and so forth, another damned good reason why the Clique and their clunker tanks the Centre of Independent Studies, HR Nicholls Society, Quadrant Magazine, Ray Evans’ Online Opinion, and Institute for Public Affairs are contemptible is their undiluted idleness. All their ‘effort’ is in begging for $millions poured into these bastards each year over decades. They are so bloody idle they have never done even what I have done in three days; you can tell; there is nothing in the piles of pulp they crank out. So, Heavens knows the frustrations of the editor of Brookesnews and any other genuine freedom fighter “marginalised” by the clique.

I’s not money I’m talking about. I’m talking about honest hard work, which is foreign to the Clique and their clunker tanks. Funds are needed for materials, not for paying a wealthy man’s version of the dole, which is a real insult to all those thrown out of jobs due to rubbish purveyed as “economic policies”. Well, the Clique do have something in common with the cadres of the hard Left and their fronts. The cadres of the Hard Left are all for the “revolution” as long as, they believe, they are rich slave masters of everyone else. The Clique holds modes Australians in contempt.

Let’s put this in perspective, the modest Australian. These are guys who slog their guts out building roads in local councils. I have never told a “Council worker” joke for over a decade now and never will. Then there are the guys slogging away on production lines.

Also, guys who happen to be entrepreneurs and their backers, which happen to include tens of millions of Australians slogging it out serving Australians in the grind of production.Very many of these guys, not many haven’t, commenced in the sloppiest, back-breaking jobs. This is as foreign to the Clique as it is to the hard Left.

Believe me, many real entrepreneurs, including heads of majors, know what back-breaking work means. They also know most employed in firms they are charged to run, right down to the cleaners. They screw their backsides down to drive production to serve customers and thus serve shareholders because this is the only way to succeed, serving even those whom a chap detests. These guys respect the little guys they are the boss of, this is the absolute truth.

I know all this because I have done it myself. Best of all, it is why I enjoy chats with many entreprenuers here in Australia and overseas on even these very humble things and not the “big (t)issues” the Clique (not only the hard Left) pretend to know and “gas-bag” on about.

Only entrepreneurs and good people under them and behind them and not parasites know this. All this puts the like of the CIS, Greg Lindsay Professor Sinclair Davidson, IPA, Ray Evans, Des Moore, Chris Berg, HR Nicholls Society, Michael Kroger, Peter Costello and Quadrant magazine in their damned place. These mediocrities do not know what work is.They don’t know what capital is They don’t know a damned thing they pretend to write on. It is amusing to note that they have not served Australians under arms either and, to be sure, they treat the men of the Armed Forces of Australia with the same nasty contempt they have for all modest Australians (and we have another item on this in the wind).

I’ll say this: It’s time for certain heads, including Alcoa’s, to bloody well face up to what they are bloody well paid to do. It isn’t to crawl to little thugs like Rudd and Brumby. Neither is it to grovel before the likes of Clive Hamilton, Sharan Burrow, Wakeham, Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull, and Tony Abbott.

To reflect, neither should they have massaged other blood-suckers such as John Brumby, Jeff Kennett, Alan Stockdale, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. In fact, it is not the job of any head of a firm to grovel to anyone but to customers. Their job is to serve people. Enterprise, from the highest to lowest stages of production is all about serving others. So, what in the blazes is Alcoa doing running to the likes of Rudd, then Brumby, the IPA and other little lying bastards who serve no-one but themselves.

To the heads of Alcoa, this is your first big mistake: saddling your firm with useless, ignorant parasites called PR Managers. I mean to say, Hugh Morgan was an object lesson. Once, surely, was enough. The next big mistake was to sell out to enjoy subsidies.

On these mistakes the rest follows, as we shall see. The trouble is, because of your gutlessness, your cowardice, your unprincipled hope of being secured, you have sold out Australians and Australia. Now you can crawl to modest shareholders and explain to them why Alcoa must be wiped out via carbon taxes. Brilliant. Bloody brilliant.

Jesus H Christ. Your biggest mistake was not why I am writing this. Your biggest mistake was selling out principles and then whining about being clobbered by the very twerps guaranteed to destroy Alcoa and through what you are screaming about now: the risk cheap energy supply will be destroyed.

Shareholders should haul you over the coals. This monstrosity can be fought but, as we shall see, Alcoa told Rudd they are happy for carbon taxes to be rammed down on everyone else, as long as they are protected.

Now, I have to get this straight and I’d like the genius in Alcoa to explain this, for a good man likes to have his facts straightened out, but who is the brain dead “chieftain” who came up with the notion Alcoa can survive carbon taxes and all else that is entailed if their little mate in Spring Street, John Brumby, protects them?

How bad is this? Well Brumby distanced himself this morning faster than streaked lightening – “Nothing to do with me. I’m only a retarded brat who by some mysterious stroke of fortune happens to be Premier of Victoria. I’m a lucky boy,. My playmate is the er, ah, um Leadah of dah Opposition. Don’t know a thing about it.”.

The Clique and the Left have too many things in common and this is a big thing in common, in Victoria:

Vic Crime Inc, set up by the IPA and two of their heroes, boof-head Kennett pretending to be Saint Merciful and his faithful Kemasabe, Alan Stockdale.

They all put the Mafia to shame. No, they would all make even the Mafia cringe.

Alan Stockdale, Macquarrie Bank’s head of taking taxpayers’ money courtesy of politicians and throwing it down the drain, euphemisically called “infrastructure”. Summed up, it is:

Politicians and bureaucrats enjoying a right old spending spree and then charging smelly oafs all over again and then diddling them for the umpteenth time via “alternative energy” scams, calling the sum total swill “investments”.

Yes, Sir, the Clique and the Left, they have their priorities right: Help themselves and then run for cover fast, hoping smelly smelly oafs aka Australians won’t notice a damned thing about them. Oafs endure stench only for so long and then they hose the shit out.

Why the US economy could suffer another contraction

Does it make sense to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act?

The US recession and the myth of 1937

Carbon taxes energy production and technology: more green nonsense

The blunt fact is terrorists, and those inside a country loyal to another country never must be tried in a civilian court. Neither does the Geneva Convention apply to them.  Consider, soldiers of opposing armies behind enemy lines out of uniform do not come under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Neither are enemy agents. They can all be interrogated and then taken out and shot. This is exactly what should happen to terrorists, including those recently convicted inside Australia.

Thanks to the open-door, non-selective immigration “policy” and the anti-Australian policy of balkanisation euphemistically called multi-culturalism, those loyal to “another country” are here in large numbers. Of course I am talking about Muslims and we are at war against Muslim enemy.

Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are dedicated to open door, non-selective mass immigration and balkanisation. An average of 5 boat loads of Muslims enter Australia per month thanks to the hard Left through their hero, Kevin Rudd ended the policy to stop this. And, the unprincipled, spineless spongers occupying Liberal Party seats and their clunker tanks who merely blew bubbles.

Rudd has acknowledged the real terrorist threat this now poses. His solution? More bloody balkanisation the collectivist way.

What a load of treacherous garbage from Left and Right.

Meantime, a Melbourne Judge gave to a number of convicted terrorists a maximum of 23 years jail term. This time will, of course be cut. During the prison time, as happens in American prisons, this provides plenty of time for these Islamo-fascists to recruit others into their nasty little cult. How do they do it in American prisons?

The old bad guy, good guy routine. Sugar for the receptive, intimidation dealt out to the obdurate and this is no joke.  Those bastards should not have been tried in a civilian court. They should have been interrogated and then shot full-stop.

It is time to stop Muslim immigration. We are at war. It is time to reintroduce selective immigration and reassert assimilation and bring an end to the hard left, anti-patriotic garbage of “multi-culturalism”.

It is time also to cut off the UN, a house of good for nothing parasites who are also transferring funds stripped off the backs of real taxpayers in America, Britain and Australia and handing it over to Islamo-fascists. We have summed up:

The UN, through its armUNRWA, is directly involved in brainwashing Arab children in the Middle East into Islam and Jihad. This is correct. The UN is directly brainwashing children in the Middle East to be good little Islamo-fascists dedicated to the destruction of the capitalist West, the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people. It has put onto real taxpayers’ kept payroll hard Leftists dedicated to these aims. This is the accurate unvarnished truth, all of which is extensively documented.

More shocking is the “Right-wing” was party to this, through Alexander Downer. We have documented all this. We will throw up all the material again to ram it home. This is not to overlook those in the ALP who also give aid and comfort to murderous, Islamo-fascist killers such as Irwin whose pity is for the PLO, which was set up and funded and advised by the KGB into the 1980’s as a matter of fact. Arafat was their useful tool, as one senior KGB explained, guffawing as he related how they ran riot in the Middle East and built the mass murder up as if he were some Hollywood starlet.

There is no such thing as a palestinian people. Israel has always been the country of the Jews people from ancient times. Rubbing insult into injury, territory was stripped out of Israel to expand the pan-Arab-Muslim empire, viz Jordan and Syria.

So, a Judge in the United States gave Obama and the “Democrats” what for too in a judgment. He told a Muslim the hard facts of life. He indirectly told Obama, this is not the way to deal with these rotten bastards, and told Obama and the hard Left what real patriotism is and what it is really built on.

In truth, to treat the enemy to a regular trial is itself is a perversion of the rule of law. The Judge made this rather plain too.

So, a judgement by a gutsy Judge who stands tall. The trial and judgment was not reported by the treacherous Left dominated media for the obvious reasons:

The judge ensured an impartial trail, upheld all principles of due principles and then delivered the Judgement that also damns Obama and his fellow travellers in the US “Democrat” Party and the media. And Shamrack’s report on the on the  the latest terrorist funding antics of the UN. It is disgusting but not surprising at all that the Clique, which has wrecked the Liberal Party and the genuine defence of freedom, happily bends the backs of Australians  as much as the Left does before those vicious, lying little wannabe rulers of the world. Get rid of the UN, a taxpayer kept den of the diseased.

The transcript of Judgment (damn it, Australia could do with principled, gutsy Judges like this patriotic, upstanding gentleman)  and Shamrack’s report in Continued.

(Continued)

These are just a few comments leading into part IV of the article in the CSIRO.

Having outlined the CSIRO is asserting two falsehoods as part of -

- Despite it being an independent institution of applied science, it is clearly tied into the Rudd Cabinet’s policies that are thorough-going socialism and of ferocious force against Australians, using the two lies as an excuse to push them;

It’s “partnerships” with fronts pushing these aims, including the hard, treacherous leftist front the Climate Institute;

Part 1V will examine real conflicts of interests with pseudo-businesses. What is not amusing are, for example, the extensive links between CSIRO and Macquarrie Bank. What is crucial about these links is this Bank is pushing the fraud of alternative energy investment and rleated measures in Australia. We commented last year the Bank took major losses in energy scams in other countries. It’s “Spanish alternative energy investments” are dynamite too, and this is not all as we shall see.

This item requires a little more time to prepare, so it will be up tomorrow.

With all the evidence in hand, the final concluding statements on CSIRO will be delivered. In view of the question of the extensive ties with pseudo-businesses and Macquarrie bank, this will be treated as a separate item, Part IV, with the conclusion forming Part V.

Following the paper trail has opened up a number of lines of investigation into CSIRO and only one conclusion can be drawn, there is much more to uncover. CSIRO has more than mere explaining to do.

The lies of Aussie Climate Minister, Penny ‘Wrong’, John O’Sullivan, Climategate 18/2/2010

It has some bearing on the exposure of CSIRO.

What else would she do? She’s a hard leftist.

The Insitute forPublic Affairs a feature on her, “The most formidable woman in Australia.” This was not a surprise. It is typical of them.

To repeat the comment on this one more bit of tripe, Wong is about as formidable as a three pound weakling on the rampage. I know grannies who are genuinely formidable and they’d love Wong to rock up on their doorsteps and I’d love to watch the ‘exchange’.

And more questions about CSIRO that need to be answered.

More research requires it now has to be a four part article. What I have uncovered this morning is, to say the last, more than disturbing. What is going on at the CSIRO is no mere abuse of taxpayers and violation of the charter of the CSIRO.

In this Part, we lay out evidence of a different type, which also demonstrates the CSIRO’s position on the twin lies of human Co2 carbon emissions and carbon taxes is not only systematic. It is worse than systematic and it is time the heads of CSIRO are made to account to taxpayers for these grave abuses. Let’s see.

Fallacious reasoning, skewed ‘economics’ and ’science’

In Part II, attention was drawn to a peculiar expression. The CSIRO’s analytical “framework” is carbon taxation, as opposed to, say, overtly asserting and advancing carbon taxation. It is the fallacy of petitio principii, asserting the conclusion.

If not eradicated the fallacy devolves into rationalisations within a closed loop and when this fails, the pretence facts don’t exist. This holds for the CSIRO’S assertion of the lie human Co2 emissions causes climate change and is a life destroying “pollutant”.

The fallacy alone is a violation of science. How can the heads of CSIRO, who are responsible, explain this? How do they explain what has followed?

The so called scientific and economic statements and reports are heavily skewed. It’s worse than this. Papers with attached bibliographies show sources that refute the claims have been filtered out. In other words, sources that show the asserted conclusions are false have been eradicated from, at the least, consideration. How do the heads of CSIRO account for this? Yet, it is worse.

The closed loop is the condition of the cultist, for whom facts are either rationalised away or are ignored or are attacked because they falsify their faith. The cultists potion is, their faith contains all facts about reality. Now, I’m not saying the heads of CSIRO are cultists, but there is yet a real problem in the CSIRO that we shall return to. However, the fallacy, in violation of science and economics, does reduce to faith alone.

We have demonstrated the fallacy is not a slip and not due to incompetence issuing into false papers and statements. We have cited sufficient evidence to show it is systematic. The final overwhelming evidence is, the heads of CSIRO are diverting funds taken from modest Australians engaged in production, many of whom will not earn the salaries they are compelled to pay the heads of CSIRO, into ‘research programmes’ based on the two falsehoods the heads have committed CSIRO to.

If the heads of CSIRO assume they do not owe taxpayers an account of why they have committed this abuse of taxpayers, they are totally wrong. They must account to the public for what they have done. Lest it is missed how serious the points so far stated are, then:

What is mounted looks a pretty good case for instant dismissals. The taxpayer does not at all owe them those pay packets nor a ‘career’ nor a sinecure for life. Their unearned benefits are conditional upon them fulfilling their duty by ensuring the integrity of the work of CSIRO according to its charter in applied science.

The heads of the CSIRO owe taxpayers an explanation of what they are responsible for, presiding over the violation of the CSIRO’s charter. Yet there is more.

The heads of CSIRO running a hard Left agenda?

Yes they are. Here’s why.

Hard Left agenda corroded the CSIRO?

The anti-science lie man causes climate change through carbon emissions and anti-economics lie of carbon taxes are hard Left smokescreens for the imposition of socialism. Socialist regimes are marked by one fact, the sheer scale of misery they have inflicted on 100s of millions of people all around the world down through the 20^th century to the present.

Carbon taxes require totalitarian measures to impose and make all Australians comply. Carbon taxes means the destruction of capital and the destruction of Australia’s capital structure, which means the immiseration of millions of Australians and their brutalisation. It is the hard Left driving this. How can the CSIRO abuse Australians and taxpayers by asserting both falsehoods and acting on them?

Let’s note that, in its statements and spelled out on its website is, the CSIRO is working to ‘transform’ Australia’s capital structure and at final consumption what modest Australians may and may not consume.

The Rudd Cabinet has spelled out its anti-freedom, anti-free market progrom. It spelled this out in its statements on how it will eradicate at what they sneeringly call “old technology” as part of their propaganda. It has spelled out its aim is to Sovietise Australians, using both lies as the major fork of this putsch. The black joke is, there will be nothing left to Sovietise because carbon taxes will destroy Australians and Australia, and this is what the CSIRO is pushing.

Tied to the putsch is, besides socialist slang and it litters their ‘research papers” such expressions in CSIRO material as:

“International Coalition of countries for the imposition and enforcement of carbon taxes.”

If people of other countries wish to live under socialist tyranny, that is their business. Why are the heads of CSIRO, their senior “economists” and some “scientists” campaigning for the Sovietisation of Australia. To this, even the website makes plain, the heads have defined the function of CSIRO as to also change Australians and Australia in this way.

In short, the heads of CSIRO have overseen the politicization of CSIRO. There’s more!

CSIRO directly co-ordinates with a hard Left front,

Through its experts. The question is, how many more, because, as it turns out, it is involved with more hard left fronts,as the documents show.

1. The CSIRO has refused to deliver data and method documentation to a scientist who found a claim made by the CSIRO of major impact is most likely false. However, Dr. Stockwell stated, the conclusion cannot be held with certainty because the evidence is needed to confirm either way. In other words, he is not dogmatic, he is working strictly within science. The CSIRO claimed “Intellectual Property?

However, the progrom to which heads and some are committed might be the reason why, who can tell? Notice, that is only one case publicly attested. Has this been done before? Is it internal “policy”? Well, that the CSIRO resorted to a fiction is highly suggestive in itself. The heads must be made to explain this too.

What “intellectual’ property rights!. It is taxpayers who pays for all the work. It is not the property of CSIRO at all. The heads of CSIRO should seek a court ruling to test this, and they would be severely bruised and embarrassed by what a judge would have to say to them.

2. The heads of CSIRO refuse to explain themselves to those whom they own an explanation, the taxpayers.

In contrast to the violation of the obligations that the heads, by accepting the positions they are entrusted with, are bound, bound! To uphold, from ensuring the integrity of the scientific work of CSIRO to accounting to any who are quite rightly entitled to material and explanations, the CSIRO co-ordinates this pseudo-research with, guess what, at least one hard Left front.

Now, that in itself is interesting, but first, we know they do because the CSIRO has told us that is exactly what they do. This reinforces the closed loop and cuts out scientists inside CSIRO and those external to CSIRO.

How is it the CISRO assumes it is not bound to its real obligations to those whom they are duty bound to serve but freely serves a hard Left front? The hard Left front has already been mentioned and some readers might have missed this. It is given in the name, The Climate Institute, which is run by hard Left leftist , John Conner. It wouldn’t come as a surprise if there is a connection to another one, Clive Hamilton’s Australia Institute.

Who is, bye the bye, the principal CSIRO economist directing the drive through economics? It looks very much the case it is Hatfield-Dodds, whose name keeps popping up in many an unedifying place, as well as leaving a mountain of trash behind him asserting carbon taxation.

“The Climate Institute” was funded and set up by one Mr. Wootton to the tune of $10million, in order to push the hard Left cause. It’s central propaganda material is the twin lies of man causes climate change through Co2 and the real aim, socialist tyranny through carbon taxes.

How does th CSIRO account for this?

Let’s refer to the evidence. First there is the anti-science ECOS pushing hard Left propaganda, and the CSIRO promotes this on its website. Next, the the hard Left’s programmatic agenda is splashed all across the CSIRO website and the CSIRO’s anti-Australian cause is attested all over the Internet. Let’s turn to this:

Energy Affordability Living Standards and Emissions Trading Assessing the social impacts of achieving deep cuts in Australian greenhouse emissions, Report to The Climate Institute

June 2008, by Steve Hatfield-Dodds CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and Richard Denniss Australian National University June 2008

Why not before scientists and economists? Oh, it’s a closed loop. Can’t have those who are scientists and economists asking awkward questions and challenging and refuting the contents of that report and a long list of ‘reports’, can we now?

Come again? The heads of CSIRO do not do their bound duty to Australians, but it “Reports “ to a hard Left front. It’s accountable to treacherous leftists but not to scientists and modest Australians who are going to be immiserated and worse by what the CSIRO is pushing.

Oh, before continuing, here is a statement of a ‘research programme’ based on the twin lies and the thoroughly discredited IPCC, which is not a scientific institution. It is a political instrument set up by politicians and kommissars to push the real aim, socialist progrom,

“We (CSIRO) also contribute scientific expertise to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on forest greenhouse issues.”  (Understanding forests and climate change)

While the CSIRO peddles this muck that can only advance the aims of the hard Left, forestry firms, which do understand forestry, are under attack. Perhaps the heads of CSIRO can explain how helping the hard Left destroy forestry is serving they who also pay for CSIRO out of their hard won earnings, forestry firms, their employees and investors. CSIRO heads do owe them an explanation !

Oh, before continuing, having mentioned CSIRO is not an enterprise, what is this rubbish:

Australian Growth Partnerships (AGP) program key features

And there is that expression again, “intellectual property”. All that the CSIRO does has been paid for by taxpayers. Is there any good reason why this shouldn’t be called a swindle against taxpayers?

On the “Climate Institute’s” site, this,

CSIRO Projections: Prevention better than cure

John Connor, Chief Executive of the Climate Institute:

“With no action to turn the tide on our rising greenhouse pollution levels Australia’s top climate scientists suggest increases in the number of months in drought across eastern and south Western Australia of up to 40-80%…….“dangerous climate change”

“The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology also project…”

Then we read this:

“In 2007, in research for The Climate Institute, the Bushfire CRC, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research produced Bushfire Weather in Southeast Australia: Recent Trends and Projected Climate Change Impacts.”

And this:

“Even in the more carbon intensive industries total employment growth is projected to be strong, with CSIRO projecting a 30% increase in employment in the minerals and energy commodities sector. This exposes the myth that taking action on climate change will cost jobs.” 

And this:

“Even in the more carbon intensive industries total employment growth is projected to be strong, with CSIRO projecting a 30% increase in employment in the minerals and energy commodities sector. This exposes the myth that taking action on climate change will cost jobs.”Targets, Technologies and the Till: Towards an effective global climate agreement

It is a falsehood in economics and the CSIRO put that out as “research”. There is no employment when capital is destroyed. The mining sectors will be destroyed too. So how could the CSIRO issue this report as sound economic analysis and findings?

Notice also this statement in the same item of “The Climate Institute’s” ties with other hard Left fronts:

Notice also this statement in the same item of “The Climate Institute’s” ties with other hard Left fronts ( it’s not speculation all this)

“This is why The Climate Institute has joined with Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Council of Social Service, Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF to launch a national clean energy jobs campaign.  These groups form something we call the Southern Cross Climate Coalition>”

Then there is this stunning information, the CSIRO is tied into a Federal Government agency that is devoted to, yes, central planning, which means the sovietisaton of Australians. How do we know this. This is how we know it is:

Sustainable Communities Initiative

Surprise, surprise, and so is The Climate Institute tied to it. Since when did the CSIRO become a protean Comintern? Now we turn to a Washington based Internationalist “Climate Institute”. It’s advisory board includes CSIRO’s Dr. Graeme Pearman, Senior Principal Research Scientist, and, DR. A. Pittock, Author and Former Director, Climate Impact Group. In the pdf document linked to, this slogan appears on every page,  “protecting the balance between climate and life on earth”.

Ah, come again? Where did that bunk come from? And, yes, it lays out the aim to make the whole world morally pure and obedient to the new socialist order. A tad cultish for sure.

Hatfield-Dodd turns up here at a little do of the agrarian collective:

S. Hatfield-Dodds, J. Carwardine, M. Dunlop, P. Graham and C. Klein, 2007,

Rural Australia Providing Climate Solutions. Preliminary report to the Australian Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.

It took five of them to write an atrociously wrong and feeble and shallow assertion of carbon taxes, either this or to fend of any hostile Kulaks who had managed to penetrate the plenary session of the little agrarian politburo:

“…while carbon prices of $50 to $75/t CO2e could unlock significant financial revenues, help diversify rural income streams, and promote rural employment. Against this, higher carbon prices may create competitiveness issues by raising input costs unless addressed or offset by other policies, including support for renewable energy or stewardship payments…

“implying that our rural businesses and communities have a strong interest in effective and rapid global action to reduce emissions, as well as in policies supporting effective adaptation.”

Seems they omitted the rider, after they have been totally wiped out by carbon taxes. By the way, in the paper is advocacy of a tremendous increase in “bio-fuel production”. Promoting a fraud that also destroys food production isn’t exactly a sign of economics at its best.

Now for this:

“The Climate Institute has released a comprehensive economic analysis that shows that Australia can afford to join leading countries in avoiding dangerous climate change.

“This report shows that decisive Australian leadership in cutting greenhouse pollution is affordable… said John Connor, Chief Executive of the Climate Institute. The report by policy experts from CSIRO, The Climate Institute, Monash University and McLennan Magasanik Associates examined a range of scenarios to explore the relative costs of Australia free riding and following other industrialised countries in the global efforts to avoid dangerous climate change versus Australia taking a leadership position.”

 

They throw in the rubbish of “free riding” on top as an economic argument?!  They are as Orwellian the whole lot are:

“ADAPTATION ‘AN ATTACK ON THE POOR’ -  A senior UN official told the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali that any delay in addressing the issue of adaptation could be called “an attack on the poor.” (5/12/07)

It looks like the CSIRO had a major influence on “The Garnaut Report”:

Summary of the DSF green collar project, Submission to the Garnaut Review, April 2008

Dr Steve Hatfield-Dodds Dr Heinz Schandl Dr Graham Turner, of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; and Tanjua Doss of The Allen Consulting Group

All the slogans that run through CSIRO material brings to mind what George Orwell had to write on the matter. Anyway, after mentioning the report is results from “continuing research, it states this:

” commissioned by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. The authors would like to thank The Climate Institute for permission to use and present the data presented in Section 2 of this report.”

The CSIRO used data produced by a hard Left front for an economics report! What on earth is going on?!

The “submission”, assuming both lies are true asserts,

“on the skills, innovation and workforce dimensions of the transition to a more environmentally sustainable society, with a particular focus on the challenges involved in achieving deep cuts in greenhouse emissions\’

In it can be read what the hard Left have in store for Australians, eg.

Public policy settings are an important part of the institutional context of economic activity. These settings, and more general social norms and expectations, act as part of the evolutionary environment of businesses, shaping the selection pressures that reward some ideas and behaviours and penalise others.”

A Mr. Allen Kearns, “Deputy Chief - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems” gave a presentation to a meeting of hard Leftists. His theme?

“Cities and Coasts: CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship. Allen Kearns is an environmental scientist with substantial international experience and practical expertise in the social, economic and ecological consequences of urban and industrial developments. His presentation will address the future ‘green collar economy’ in terms of transitioning to a more environmentally sustainable society that emits less greenhouse gases.

CSIRO has established that there are currently 3 million workers employed in reducing our environmental footprint. Drawing on further CSIRO research, Allen will outline the substantial areas of agreement and opportunity on the key aspects and requirements of the future ‘greencollar economy’ challenge.”

A headline

19/9/2008 CSIRO media release,

Reference: 08/170
CSIRO has welcomed the Federal Government’s announcement today that it will spend A$100 million on establishing a ‘Global Institute’ in Australia to lead international efforts to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Announcing the decision, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Centre would act as an international hub for co-ordinating public and private sector funding of carbon-capture and storage research projects, while also undertaking its own R&D projects.

CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Geoff Garrett, said the initiative could significantly reduce the time frames currently projected to develop and deploy critical carbon-capture and storage technologies at commercial scale. What do you get with anti-science and anti-economics?

Here they are,

“Those contributing include indigenous Australians, Catholics and Orthodox, Baptists and Anglicans, Buddhists and Baha’is, the Australian Evangelical Alliance, the Uniting Church, the Salvation Army, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Lutherans”

In view of why is related, any Christian who subscribes to this are in deep anti-Christian heresy for good measure, and the The Anglican Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn, George Browning definitely is - “He says we’ve exploited God’s creation to breaking point, and that concern for climate change is a core matter of faith for Christians.”

This lot were “brought together by, guess what? The CSIRO’s best pals, The Climate Institute, for a conference in which the whole aim was attack capitalism, through these lies, and thus freedom - Common Belief on Climate Change (transcript)

Wrapping up Part III

An item on the Climate Institute and the force of Rudd’s policies,

Mega millionaire family out themselves, “We are crypto Soviet Czars”

Can the heads of CSIRO explain:

1)The reduction of science and economics to Lysenkoism?

The evidence related in Parts I, II and III of this article are not accidents, they are systematic and there are too many of CSIRO people involved.

2) How its ‘economists and one in particular, Hatfield-Dodds, tell Australians what is false in economics and not only false but since it is the assumption the CSIRO acts on and asserts as sound analysis and advice,  means the economic destruction of Australians and Australia and requires totalitarian force to impose it?

3) Can the CSIRO explain how is it that an applied science research institution that is supposed to be serving Australians through independence and integrity in science suddenly be politically active in the Rudd Cabinet’s Socialist fraud and participate in making Australians obey it, and use Lysenkoism to break down opposition and to convince Australians it is good for them?

4). Why it is committed to a hard Left cause?

5). As the evidence makes transparent, the internal politicisation of the institution?

6) How is it that it takes “data” and “evidence” from at least one hard Left front?

7) Why it eschews hard science from scientists around the world and, it looks very much so, relies on a closed circle that includes “The Climate Institute”?

8)Why it has linked up with internationalist movements dedicated to this end?

9) Why it is replacing science and economics with cultic adherence to a totally false position, which the CSIRO cannot but be fully aware of, as is the man in the street, has been totally eviscerated over well over a decade by scientists ending in the final breakdown, the revelations of full blown fraud perpetrated by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit?

10) Why it hasn’t suspended those responsible for the position so well attested, and has had its material reviewed thoroughly be scientists of impeccable standing and integrity, and suspended research programmes which are based on the lies of carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and causes global warming, and the lie carbon taxation is good.

11) Since it is also in evidence the closed loop holds for economics in CSIRO, why has it not suspended those economists responsible, to have the material scrutinised by economists of great integrity and reputation? To this, I recommend Mr. Jackson of Brookesnews who has:

Thoroughly analysed carbon taxes and their true impact and way “alternative energy” and other “carbon reduction” schemes are destructive frauds too. Also, Dr. Frank Shostak.

The likes of Hatfield-Dodds, for one, have to be made to answer for the CSIRO’s position since, as the evidence indicates, since they are running it as true. More-over, Hatfield-Dodds seems to be CSIRO’ principal  “economist” behind this disgusting position of the CSIRO.

12) Why shouldn’t responsible heads be sacked?

Readers, end of part III. Part IV next week.

Yes more revelations to be unloaded but part IV will also be the concluding Part in what has turned out to be quite an investigation.

To Part I, Scoop: Can the CSIRO explain an explosive contradiction? What is going on? (17/2/10)

What is to be unfolded is strictly extensive evidence. For this reason, there will be a concluding Part III, which will be posted today. Put it this way, it does not look good at all.

Using a non-existent reason to shield the data and method for the 2008 report is very disturbing. The 2009 report shows incompetence. The CSIRO has a duty not to politicians and Kommissars pretending to be public servants. The taxpayer has every right to expect information is available to them and explanation of what is stated in reports. They have every right to expect the CSIRO will give good, true accounts of research. Yet, it is no longer taxpayers’ real rights at stake.

The 2008 and 2009 reports and the 2008 Hatfield-Dodds ‘economics article’ arguing for carbon taxes and ‘alternative energy’ are not isolated instances of ‘incompetence”. It is systematic and how.

Can the “Group Executive, Environment Group”, Dr Andrew Johnson, and other heads of CSIRO explain how this has occurred under their watch? Let’s examine the evidence, the CSIRO’s website. What a shocker that is. One could be forgiven for assuming it is a propaganda outlet for Rudd and Wong and their plans to Sovietise Australians and yet this can’t be done, because carbon taxes will destroy the capital structure of Australia first. Let’s commence with something simple.

ECO is reputable science?

On its site, CSIRO promotes a ‘magazine’ called Eco. It is truly stunning science:

“The Gore factor: Ecos examines the impact of Al Gore’s recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, on popular opinion in Australia. A Lowy Institute poll… after the film’s Australian release found that global warming had become a bigger concern for most Australians than terrorism and economic growth.”

I see, the lie human emitted Co2 is far more horrifyinng than Muslim terrorism and aims, and far more disturbing than Australians sliding economically.

What was it that the British judge found? Ah, yes,  Gore’s blockbuster’ is full of lies. What is the CSIRO doing promoting a propaganda movie for fat lies? What is the CSIRO doing? Asserting the lies are true?

“Wisdom from the heart of India: For centuries, the people of India’s remote Patalkot Valley have enjoyed a sustainable lifestyle in which plants have played a central role in their spiritual beliefs. Now, warns an Indian ethno-botanist, their unique knowledge and culture is under threat from external influence, including pharmaceutical companies that are cashing in on herbal ‘treasures’.”

I see, capitalism is evil. Since when did mystagogy and superstition replace science? I know, since the hard left latched onto the lie as means of achieving their aim to impose socialism. But what is the CSIRO doing promoting this?

Foreign problems in the desert landscape: In the Northern Territory, the growing problem of introduced ornamental plants becoming invasive weeds is made worse by a climate and urban culture that supports ‘poinciana power’.

Gosh, carbon emissions and stupid little oafs in suburbs are the reason for the problem. Well, what is the answer? The CSIRO spells it out in ‘economic papers’,  eradicate capitalism. But first, why is CSIRO promoting a “magazine” filled with such errant rubbish?

Do the heads of CSIRO assume modest Australians are oafs and can’t figure there might be something wrong with this? Do they assume it doesn’t disgrace the CSIRO? If so, there is something seriously wrong here and it’s not merely incompetence.

CSIRO Economics Papers and Media Releases

1. Media release, 2007 - Projecting the cost impact of climate change action (31/1/07):

“Cutting greenhouse gas emissions… would not adversely affect Australian living standards, according to a senior CSIRO researcher writing in the latest issue of Ecos magazine…

“Dr Steve Hatfield-Dodds writes… a 60 per cent cut to national emissions by 2050 is consistent with significant improvements in living standards and ongoing economic growth.

“The CSIRO researcher cites economic modeling…(by) the Australian Business Roundtable for Climate Change to counter the popular myth that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would result in economic disaster…..”

A myth?! The myths, not one but numbers of myths are Hatfiled-Dodds - CSIRO’s claims. Let’s continue.

2. Economic impact of climate change policy, July 2006

It states the analytical “framework” is carbon taxation. It’s a curious statement, ‘framework of the report’ as opposed to say, overtly asserting and advancing carbon taxation. It is wall to wall “scenarios”, which run on different rates of carbon taxation and what it conisders variables. The conclusion to one of umpteen tiresome  “scenarios” is:

“Over the period to 2050, a global technology switch is expected in favor of low or zero emissions intensity. This occurs in response to, among other things, continued energy security fears and the improved competitiveness of renewable energy sources. Despite this, fossil fuels continue to be the predominant energy sources…”

Here’s an opening statement:

“Under all climate change policy scenarios presented in this report, the objective is to reduce the global emissions of carbon dioxide to some predetermined levels… The policy instrument used… a carbon tax. Except in two scenarios, the carbon tax is considered to be globally harmonised.

“… carbon taxes… unlike emissions trading, may not guarantee a particular emissions target. It may be necessary to adjust the tax rate frequently to meet the agreed emissions target… under a national or international commitment. This is to deal with the incomplete information and inherent uncertainties about future emissions sources, abatement technologies as well as the future economic environments (for example, future inflation) within which the carbon tax policy will operate..”

 

The real “information” that is “incomplete” is the truth. Greg Lindsay and his Centre of Independent Studies have  lied about what ETS is. It is a tax on capital.

Carbon taxes destroys capital and a country’s capital structure. Only recently has Greg Lindsay admitted ETS is a tax, but is still pretending it does not have the impact it actually does. More-over, it does not matter at what ‘rate’ and in what form it is set, it destroys production. Evidence streaming in from overseas confirms in the sheer ensuing misery this true economic conclusion. The evidence continues to roll in. How can the CSIRO assert what is false in theory, capital theory, and against hard evidence as to what it means?

Secondly, that last sentence is itself damning. Wipe out cheap, efficient energy production with carbon taxes, and every firm as a consequence, from food production, through manufacture of capital goods, to consumption goods because, this makes alternatives ‘economic’. Who else wrote this bilge and what is more , instead of defending it, chose to lie and smear critics? Greg Lindsay and his Centre for Independent studies.

Alternative energy. Solar, wind and wave, while technically sound, are not economic. They can’t power up anything much and reliably. Add in, they are dispersed and what is the upshot. Ha!, In one paper, CSIRO asserts carbon taxes makes dispersed energy production efficient. The dis-economies are so tremendous Australians will be wiped out.

Nuclear energy might be economic in other countries, but not necessarily in Australia. If markets were free and not hampered, they might raise them. But it’s worse than this, the destruction of genuinely efficient energy for nuclear and the capital that would have to be re-directed into them would also immiserate millions of Australians. The fact boosters of nuclear energy also push carbon taxes and subsidies is further evidence of this. So, what is the CSIRO doing publishing false media releases and papers such as -

‘Distributed energy’ has power to save billions, 11/12/2009, Reference: 09/222

“Wide-scale adoption of low-emission distributed energy could reduce the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon future by as much a $130 billion by 2050, according to a new report released today by CSIRO.”

3. More documents published after the fraud perpetrated at the University of East Anglia in its CRU was broken:

More research into rainfall lows to improve predictions, 27/1/2010, Reference: 10/05

“But we have little insight through climate modelling into how their behaviour will change in a warming world, which is something groups such as the insurance industry are particularly interested in because they cause hail storms and intense rainfall which can damage roads and infrastructure.”

In view of over a decade of science demonstrating the central lie is a lie, concluding with the CRU scandal, it might be assumed that CSIRO, as a reputable institute of applied science would have suspended programs and re-evaluated certain assumptions. It has not, as its website, statements and reports make very clear.

4. Let’s destroy food production?

Media release: Major report released at “Bioenergy Australia 2009”

“CSIRO’s leading bioenergy scientists will share their latest research on new ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at “Bioenergy Australia 2009” … Australia’s bioenergy industry – which uses biomass for heat, power (bioelectricity) and liquid fuels (biofuels) – is relatively small. However…  it has very significant growth potential, driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…

“The report’s lead author, CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship’s Dr Deborah O’Connell, said it was important for Australia to demonstrate that the bioenergy industry is sustainable….

“Although the industry is currently small in Australia, there are many drivers for the industry to grow,” Dr O’Connell said.

“Australia has an excellent opportunity…

“A sustainable bioenergy industry would take into account the environmental, social and economic impact of growing, harvesting and converting bioenergy and ensure this was done responsibly.”

Whatever “social” is supposed to mean, it is plain economics has not been “taken into account”. The carbon-climate lie again, to justify destruction of food production by transferring factors of food production into producing “bio-fuel” material, and destroy efficient fuel production. There is nothing “responsible” about it at all, and food riots, shortages and starvation in countries hit by large-scale “bio-fuel” scams is direct evidence of what it entials.

5. Hatfiled-Dodds, again:

Steve Hatfield-Dodds CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, and Richard Denniss Australian National University, June 2008:

Energy Affordability Living Standards and Emissions Trading Assessing the social impacts of achieving deep cuts in Australian greenhouse emissions

Besides all the other defects in this report, the following is noteworthy:

Conclusions and policy implications (p30): “Second, well designed policy measures can protect low and middle income households from potential short run declines in energy affordability that result from the introduction of emissions trading, at a very modest fiscal cost. This may require targeted affordability payments if carbon prices are very high…

“Overall, we find that the introduction of a carbon price does not need to involve a social cost.Australia can make deep cuts in Australian greenhouse emissions without reducing living standards, and – with good policy design – can avoid net adverse impacts on low income or vulnerable households, even if carbon prices are very high. We can protect people and the planet by reducing the risk of dangerous climate change without imposing costs on vulnerable groups – promoting sustainability and equity for current and future generations.”

This is what the CIS claimed too, ‘Carbon taxes, which is what ETS is, can be compensated for by income transfers’. I notice this very odd statement, ‘a carbon price does not need to involve a social cost’. In the hand book of hard leftists,there is “no social costs” in wiping out the freedom and prosperity of millions of modest people. This is what they want to do. Why is the CSIRO advocating this? Living standards will be destroyed because what generates them will be wiped out.

So far, the sum total of the CSIRO’s “economic research and analysis and reports” can be summarised in a few pages. In fact, Greg Lindsay did it. This is weird.

To repeat, with the demonstrated fraud perpetrated by the CRU as the final end proving the bankruptcy of the claim, human Co2 emissions causes climate change, why is the claim asserted by the CSIRO, as its website overall makes very plain. What is going on? Remember, this article started in Part I examining a CSIRO report in which CSIRO’s own data falsifies the claim. How it managed to draw the conclusion it did in its 2009 report with it’s own evidence is very odd.

Yet, as we have seen, it is not only 2 reports and a newspaper article. It is looking decidely systematic. The fact that it throws funds taken from modest Australians into this “research” and on computer systems to “model” these “assumptions” shows it is systematic and its own website makes it even plainer that it is systematic. This is the sort of thing that brings science and economics into disrepute, and CSIRO has a reputation to uphold.

We now take a break. Later today, the final part of this article will be posted and it will include more very interesting information indeed.

cf. Reply to Ben Eltham, Part II Taxes and Capital theory, and what the Right did not do, published today.

Some needed expansions are given in the footnotes. Anymore would have been overloading it. These couple of points warrant separate statement.

Having mentioned that, I read an updated analysis one year before Hoechst and ICI shutdown their factories demonstrating the danger had turned hot red critical. I can disclose that it was a source in either Hoechst or ICI who handed me the internal, confidential analysis. I’m not saying which company, nor who handed me the paper.

Mind, if they had used the right guns and supplied them with their material, they could have fought a victorious, public campaign. For, the paper integrated economic and financial analysis with sterling precision and clarity. Nobody from the Right wrote that paper and this is certain.

So, I had the paper in my hand one year before the firms shut down their factories in Australia. I had to return it, for it was strictly internal.

My source was there to the end, seeing the final production run finish, employees dismissed, the plant emptied of all but a tiny few to close the books. Their last job was to document all the plant and equipment, planning sell-offs, salvage and sale of the property. My source joked about it, as in the black humour jokes. It took some time for the source to come to grips with, it was all over. They were in shock. Finality can do that to a chap, no matter how tough and battle hardened he is.

2) Burden of taxation. Surface appearances can be very misleading. Joe standing on the street looking at the oil refinery exclaims, “They are great, and look at all the people they employ, and they pay tremendous amounts in taxes. Nothing can knock these guys over.”

It can take years before the brute force of burdens become manifest in shutdowns. What happens is, firms stop allocating capital for maintenance. Needless to say, any expansion plans are scrapped. They run their factories as they are until the costs exceed earnings and then they shut-down. Now, this is very suggestive about the oil refiners. Also:

Scoop: Victoria, energy production is crippled; energy firm pulling out (3/8/09)

“City sources and acquaintances in the city have informed me that an energy company has decided to abandon its Victorian Plant. It is walking away from it.

“It means that Victorians will not only face what happened last summer, blackouts covering numbers of suburbs of long duration, and killed Victorians. They now face a ‘brown-out’, an outright cessation in production in existing capacity by a large factor.”

And concluded with:

“In case any bright spark says, ‘but someone else could take it up’, the answer is: no-one will step in and sink their capital just for the sake of watching it destroyed by politicians and bureaucrats.”

Sources have informed me it’s now ‘red-hot critical’ for the firm. They are keeping it at rumour level, but shutdown and walk away decision time is approaching fast.

Again: late today, I caught a snippet about firms shifting production overseas and will import goods instead.

Next, I have acquaintances who have set up production overseas, because after extensive investigation they found out they could not do it in Australia under the burdens imposed on firms. One of them has invented a new product, which has gone into production overseas and will be scaled up to full production by the end of the year.

It is a product that is inexpensive to buy and it will be produced in tremendous volumes. The capital to labour ratio is very  high, meaning employees will earn high wages. I am familiar with the capital required and I assure you, readers, the only reason why the investment will not be sunk into Australia is due to the tax and regulatory burdens. So, how much more in proposed investments have been set up overseas? Australians are genuinely being made poorer, and this before a carbon tax!

I fully understand why entrepreneurs are making these decisions. Substantive, extensive discussions with them spell out why. They don’t like it, either do I - and I empathise with them, as they gentlemen know full well. Neither do genuine liberals. Modest Australians don’t and why should they: they are being hit hard by this; some were saying this on the radio today! Neither do patriotic union officials. Mr. Jackson and Dr. Shostak don’t, it’s transparent in their Brookesnews articles. Horrified is really the accurate adjective to evince the stance of all mentioned.

The only thing that will stop the rot is politicians getting off the backs of capital, off markets and this means free markets and the economics to match. Needless to say, the RBA  must be cured of its rotten “monetary policies” with a return to sound money permanently. It really is appalling going through all the cases, current and present, because in them you see how much damage is inflicted.

What, Mr. Eltham, the above does is expose more holes in your two articles. The second thing it does is indicate what genuine, sound free market economic theory does. It explains reality and this is what the work of theory is.

Anything less than theory is not even a hypothesis, it is a work of fiction. What I have summed up in cases is attestation to the fact it is theory, and this evidence is written in blood. Blood, Mr. Eltham, of Australians! You, Mr. Eltham, should carefully ponder this and to reinforce this:

Not only is there no theory in the Right and their ‘think tanks’, CIS, IPA, Quadrant, and HR Nicholls Society. They don’t give a damn about what they pretend to explain and they don’t even have a clue about it full-stop. They don’t give a damn about Australians and Australians full stop and, knock me down with a duster, there are days when what is the difference between them and the hard Left seems a blurr.

Ray Evans, Des Moore, Hugh Morgan, Ken Phillips, Chris Berg, Michael Kroger, Professor Sinclair Davidson, what a freak show of callous cretins. Gee, David Brown might be given a “job” in the IPA, playmate to Chris Berg and Andrew Kemp. Together, they can have fun in their spare time writing more disgusting ‘articles’ using big coloured crayons on nice, shiny sheets of butchers’ papers.

Eltham, some of their vile rubbish has been examined on this site and it is worse than vile. I’ll link some of the articles in the next item, the summary statement. It will give you some insight, for sure.

Top End food bowl ruled out by Rudd government taskforce, The Australian (8/2/10)

The new order of Australia, States and Federal, Komissars and “Leadahs” - Left and Right. The Right are responsible for bringing this about. The Left would have been smashed ages ago but for the Right. Oh, and readers, we will be posting more items on Vic. Crime Inc. tomorrow, viz the STO, and also how the Right used a backdoor route to being imposing capital destruction through carbon taxes, RECs. Had intended posting them today, but the item below was more pressing, noting that thug, Malcolm Turnbull, crossed the floor to support the carbon tax euphemistically called ETS. All rather gername to this indeed.

No dams aroundAustralia. No agriculture, no production in anything. Welcome to the emerging nightmare the Left hold as the ideal and moral condition for all. Just ‘Deah Leadahs’ and Kommissars. In view of this, what it means, coercion and the overthrow, the complete overthrow of inalienable rights and the complete destruction of capital, it is time to brush up again on what Socialist paradises are really like.

Thank You, Glenn Beck, for Exposing Communism’s Evils

“My family’s nightmarish experience in the Soviet Union was followed by a providential escape from totalitarian hell. We were among the lucky ones, the ones who got away. The United States gave us a safe and protected home — a home of unbelievable material well-being (in comparison to Soviet starvation) and human liberty. I will never forget the awe I felt experiencing my first taste of freedom….

Both of my grandfathers were exterminated by Stalinist terror. Both of my parents, Yuri and Marina Glazov, were dissidents in the former Soviet Union. They risked their lives for freedom;

Now try to imagine me sitting in the company of left-wing “intellectuals” in the West who think they are oppressed… one radical feminist… lecturing me sternly about how women in the West are oppressed because they wear bikinis on beaches… she explained to me that this represented the way capitalism objectifies women… decapitates them as human beings. I remember asking her what she thought of female genital mutilation and honor killings in the Muslim world.Another colleague of mine… once complained to me about how we are being “attacked” by Pepsi commercials….“the capitalist machinery practices the politics of exclusion. By trying to pretend it offers us choice, it actually negates choice.”

My mom’s father was executed by the Soviet secret police. He did not have the luxury of being oppressed by Pepsi commercials.

“The tortures included laying a man naked on a freezing cement floor, forcing his legs apart, and then an interrogator stepping on his testicles…

“As a very young boy, I learned that these intellectuals were “leftists.” I remember witnessing how they tried to prevent my parents from drawing attention to communism’s mass crimes and to the brave souls who were fighting for freedom…

“… we encountered a strange species: intellectuals in the universities who reviled my parents for the story they had to tell. For the first time in their lives, my father and mother confronted an intelligentsia that was hostile to them. Back in Russia, dissident intellectuals risked their lives when they pronounced one word of truth about the horrible history (and reality) of their country under communist rule. In America, most of the intellectuals who surrounded us scoffed at the importance of real intellectual freedom…”

Prepare: The Revolutionary Holocaust

“A groundbreaking hour long special where Glenn Beck takes us back in time to examine the roots of socialism and communism and the evil that followed. We all know about the horrors of the holocaust where the pure evil Hitler inspired claimed the lives of millions of innocent people. But most do not know about the millions upon millions of lives lost in a different genocide of the Ukrainian people under the Stalin regime. This special also takes a look behind the iconic fashion symbol of Che Guevara showing that the myth doesn’t tell the story of the man who was a blood thirsty killer. We meet a family who saw first hand what a monster the man was. They know the cost of communism and you will too when you hear their story, and who can forget about Mao Zedong? A leader responsible for 70-million deaths during his reign. All communist. All killers. We will show you things you’ve never seen but need to.”

Damian Kolody, Filmmaker: He is also working on compiling a video archive documenting eyewitness testimony from the few survivors left of the 1933 Famine in Ukraine, which he hopes will serve in educating the public about this tragedy.

And, on the above link, what a black irony this is:

Reaction to the film, The Soviet Story, in Latvia

“BEING burnt in effigy on the streets of Moscow by nationalist hoodlums must count as a kind of Oscar if you are a Latvian filmmaker whose aim is to expose modern Russia’s blindness to the criminal history of the Soviet Union. The ire of Young Russia’s protest outside the Latvian embassy this week was directed at Edvins Snore, whose film “Soviet Story” is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past.” -THE ECONOMIST“

Open Letter to Cardinal Archbishop George Pell

If the Cardinal Archbishop of Australia, George Pell, has any nerve, he will excommunicate both Rudd and Abbott, condemn any of other denominations fast and broadcast the reasons so fast the bastards wouldn’t know where to hide.

George, you know me. Good. Well, George, I’m telling you, they are not Catholics and Christians, they are anti-Christians. George, you are an ignoramus in economics. The Archbishops and Bishops are no damned better. Some are bloody worse. It’s too late for you on this score, but you are not, consequently, armed to face what you will have to face as the Pastor to Australians.

You will have to pastor to men and women and their families, whose freedom has been usurped entire. And, immiserated into the depths of Hell. This is what is coming George. Suffering brings no one any closer to Christ and Trinity. To the contrary, it can turn Saints too into the worst.

The Left and the Right, George, if they get away with their vile garbage (it isn’t free market economics and common law George) you will be faced with something you will wish you were never confronted with before. You will have no answer for the walking dead. What, honestly, will you be able to say to them? Too bloody right George.

George, what course do you really have but to deal forthrightly, as Cardinal Archbishop, with those rotten common bastards. And, George, be sure of it, the hard left get away with what this push is all about and the Church will be trampled on anyway. You don’t protect anything under a vicious ‘government’, not a thing George.

Second reply to “Sally”. Sally took exception to the item on what recent developments within the “Wilderness Society” actually discloses. She put a mighty case in comments, ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘drivel’. In reply, in comments, the invitation to write an article rebutting the claims, including the claims set out in the linked article on the hard Left fronts, is generously, unstintingly extended to “Sally”.

If she does send an article, it will be published uncensored, unabridged, uncut, un-edited, un-expurgated. As any reader will agree, it’s a fair offer given generously. It’s more than can be said of the likes of:

- Greg Lindsay of CIS.

- David and Rob Kemp, Michael Kroger, and their juvenile pansies “patsies” John Roskam and their IPA Review editor Chris Berg.

- Des Moore and Ray Evans, of the HR Nicholls Society.

The day these two clowns, Des Moore and Ray Evans (and Greg Lindsay and the rest at CIS & IPA) confess the truth that they won’t give genuine Liberals oxygen in their HR Nicholls Society online magazine stuffed with classics written by them and their pals on labour markets, much less publish fine genuine free market economists Mr. Gerard Jackson and Dr. Frank Shostak, is the day I eat my panama hat and, with carbon taxes courtesy of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, well, I fancy I will be snacking on it as it is.

In fact, the likes of Moore and Evans are so busy, as many more sources are telling me, smearing Jackson, they don’t have time to publish alternative, genuine Liberal sources. What a “bummer”. Their whole, hard slogging year cranking a Turing machine, as it is also for their mates in the IPA and CIS, is so, so demanding they are too bug.rd to handle any more material. Which brings me to Professor Keith Windschuttle.

Professor Keith Windschuttle, no doubt, is worn out running Quadrant Magazine as a PR platform for Professor Sinclair “Sinkers and Sunk” Davidson, Ray Evans, and Des Moore. No man on earth can find the energy to identify genuine free market warriors after a day and every day like that, interrupted by lunch. What a “bummer”.

The Australian Greens is a treacherous hard Left front. Bob Brown confessed all in a Senate speech in 2008. For now, articles already written on it will not be linked and no new necessary analysis put. I have no wish to influence reader’s at all and neither to commit faults that Sally so eloquently put as concerns. They are all for the next two items on this.

The entire manifesto for the hard Left’s front, the Greens, as read in the Senate and into Hansard of May 2008, is reproduced in “Continued” uncensored, unabridged, uncut, unedited, unexpurgated, entire, whole, unvarnished, intact and perfect. Jeepers, and there are those who call me a mean bastard! I’m wounded -aargh, dribbles in death throw - throwing down a tinny is a death throw - the beer runs out.

The honest, unvarnished truth straight from the diseased Left’s Greens and Wilderness Fronts, through their parrot, Bob Brown:

(Continued)

The Federal Liberal Party is following the Victorian Liberal Party down the electoral tubes, and Liberal members are not responsible for this.

Tony Abbott’s immigration policy, lobbed Saturday morning, has proven the final straw for some Australians. Consider the concerns:

Modest Australians are very irritated by the ‘balkanisation’ of Australia through the euphemistically named  ‘policy’ of ‘multiculturalism’ as it is. The concern is rather understandable, balkanisation multiplied and intensified by open, mass immigration. Rubbing salt into injury is the risk of a flood of undesirables.

Next, there is a deeply felt concern over the implications for employment and pay rates. This concern is not mistaken either.

Impact of mass immigration on labour markets: wage rates and the prosperity of modest Australians

The war for free markets is not over, but in order to win it means, for instance, killing the asinine nonsense the Right put up as the case for free labour markets and restoring what was missing in it, economics. Indeed, capital theory does not even exist for them. Then, for the good of the Liberal Party and Australia, the Right has to be smashed too.

Since the height of  pay rates is decided by the ratio of capital to labour, unless capital accumulation is occurring, mass immigration points to falling pay rates. The modest Australian understands this intuitively and, therefore, is saying that they are worried they will see their pay rates fall, and will be made poorer. Now as a matter of fact, the argument of the HR Nicholls Society does reduce Australians to:

What is holding Australia back economically is high pay rates. They don’t explain this assertion. From asserting, Australians are paid too much, they conclude that pay must be slashed. It is, indeed, the only conclusion that emerges from all that they said and wrote. They simply want to slash pay.

You can hide a sore thumb, but you can’t hide what they decided will be done to Australians. The ACTU really did not have to do much, the Right did the job for them. This defeated Howard in 2007, but the election was already lost in 2005.

In arriving at their claim, they committed the major fallacy of indeterminacy, which is hilarious. For while Des Moore, Ray Evans, Hugh Morgan, Michael Kroger, David Kemp, Peter Costello, Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott and Senator Nick Minchin refused to use Jackson and other accurate material, marginal productivity theory is in the two textbooks set for undergraduates. (The Right extol Costello as an  economic genius?)

Though those textbooks are rooted in the myth of perfect competition, the theory is unavoidable. Begg, Fischer and Dornbusch  (McGraw-Hill, 1984)  introduce it (pp 151-153) with a heading in big, bold, red ink:

The Marginal productivity of labour and Diminishing marginal Productivity

Funnier still, it has a short summary in big bold red ink that says, beyond some combination of capital and labour , productivity falls, - decreasing marginal productivity, called diminishing returns. It deteriorates, pages 222-224 is a paraphrastic expansion ending in big, bold, black ink:

wage = marginal value product of labour

Perhaps it was because Jackson, the rotten spoiler, used it and worse, with deadly accuracy, that convinced Evans and Moore, with a heady contribution from Morgan, to write their own expurgated economics textbook.

Labour is not cheated in free markets. Employees take home full payment they earned in production for the labour services they have delivered.  Due to the Right, the ACTU safely and successfully ran the lie, in free markets labour does not receive the full value of its product and free markets means employees will be cheated. Never mind the truth, and never mind all those given a 100% pay cut called unemployment, eh, Sharan Burrow, who gives a sod about them?

Even better, another matter Ray Evans and Des Moore got completely wrong, the labour cost curve is derived from the market prices for labour. These two geniuses held, employers stand out in the street with a billboard flashing prices. They bid prices up until they obtain all the labour they need.

Des Moore should adhere to his convictions. Can we expect to see Des Moore on the footpath, dressed in a billboard, waiting for punters to bid up the entry fee to the $20 he has fixed, or even higher, to his soiree featuring Viscount Monckton? He’s throwing in a grand spread of bread and butter that his ‘missus’, Desi, is sweating in the kitchen over. They, obviously, found out illegal immigrants expect to be paid, what a nerve!

It never occurred to these geniuses to take even one single, ordinary step and consider, entrepreneurs cannot combine factors of production in a price vacuum. The nonsense that they do is due to the the extension of the myth of perfect competition, monopoly, but it is not nearly so incompetent as what that lot fathomed. They conceded to the ACTU two other major falsehoods, as well as many sundries:

Firms make profits by forcing wage rates down below their market prices.

In other words, firms make profits by working capital at a loss. They hit earnings by destroying themselves. We know Hugh Morgan did in destroying WMC (and he still can’t figure out why investors were upset), but no entrepreneur and investor subscribes to the notion.

Secondly, firms exercise power over employees. Rubbish. Marginal productivity theory kills this notion stone dead. But the root fallacy is indeterminacy.

One of two things can happen because of  an immigration flood. In the absence of capital accumulation at least sufficient to prevent rates falling below prevailing rates, very many Australians will be made poorer. Or, some Australians will not be, because effective minimum rates are in force, while others are given a 100% pay cut called unemployment.

There is a problem. Before this one more recession we did not have to have, because of the RBA’s rotten monetary policies, how high was unemployment running? What about employees working far fewer hours, restricted to casual, short hours. On the official statistics, they are counted as employed? How many Australians were diverted from the unemployment statistics by various government schemes, before the recession hit?

I recollect in the 1980’s some on the Right, and some in associations such as the Business Council of Australia asserting that for economic growth immigration has to by increased by a large factor. The aim should be a population of around 30 odd millions to 40 odd millions.

The consumption fallacy is the pin of the aim. Yet, in labour markets, the Right committed another falsehood, simply adding labour increases productivity. Tony Abbott and the rest ran this line, as well as another falsehood: free markets will increase productivity.⁽¹⁾ The Rudd Cabinet runs these nostrums as the ‘reason’ for some of its measures on ‘education’ and employment ‘policies’.

Yes, the modest Australian for very good reasons opposes  ‘open-door’ and mass immigration ‘policies’. This, at a time when instead of capital accumulation, The Left and the Right are ’shoulder to shoulder’ behind policies that halts capital accumulation  - government spending and policies that destroy capital, ‘greens policies’.

Tony Abbott’s policy entails additional hardships 

They are only some of the problems modest Australians face. Investment in supply and energy has been killed by both Right and Left. Housing prices have been sent through the roof not only because of RBA’s monetary policies, but also by “Green policies” and additional taxes by which the Right and the Left have:

Constricted house building, eradicating altogether housing that those on the most modest means can pay for.

In Tasmania, for instance, homelessness, with some sleeping in cars and a council supplying tent sized winter sleeping bags for very many more, is a terrible toll thanks to the politicians and their destructive policies. It’s a very serious problem in Tasmania. How bad is it on the mainland? What will be the impact of mass immigration on all this?

Australians’ evulation of Tony Abbott’s policy

Let’s turn to some modest Australians’ assessment of Abbott’s policies in the Herald Sun. Readers called Abbott a “moron” and worse. Not only did they call him names, some declared they will not be voting for the Liberal Party at the next State and Federal elections. Well done, Tony Abbott. That’ll show Rudd how to really wipe out parliamentary seats.

Here’s a few:

“reg of monty Posted at 11:17 PM January 22, 2010
I can’t decide whether Tony Abbott is an evil genius or a total moron.” Or what about an absolute hypocrite? Was it only last week he wanted to turn the boats around? What makes you think he wont do another 180 next week? Do the libs have any lasting policies?

“Damien of melb. Posted at 11:24 PM January 22, 2010
Tony Abbott is a Moron of the first order where is he planning to house the mad     rush this will cause, cities will expand eating away already depleting farm land. Build cities in the outback where farming is not viable. Typical T. Abbott starts talking an hour ahead of his brain kicking into gear. I was planning to vote liberal not now after this stupidity.

“at a loose end Posted at 11:24 PM January 22, 2010
very good point raised by Chris of Too crowded…there has been no alternative to vote for on the topic of immigration since Pauline Hanson was lost to politics.”

[Herald Sun, 22/1/10, Immigration the key to boosting population growth, says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott]

Here’s the result of a Gallaxy poll:

Poll shows Aussies want immigration capped

“Two-thirds of respondents - 66 per cent - think the Federal Government should cap immigration rates. Of these, 72 per cent of Australians polled favour an immigration cap, while 55 per cent of those who live here but do not consider themselves Australian also favoured an immigration cap.

Leading immigration expert Dr Bob Birrell said…”

Radio phone-ins, en-masse

Saturday and Sunday on the Radio, callers flooded switchboards. Was melt-down avoided, and not because of the sheer number of callers? Comments included:

Balkanization.
Open door to undesirables.
Mass unemployment.
We are being completely savaged in our living standards.
What hope for my children.
They really hate us: Kill off Australia, kill patriotism, kill prosperity with ‘green policies’ and mass unemployment.

This is only a fraction of the scathing comments callers made. It’s not racism motivating the reaction. Many callers stressed:

Germans, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, Asians, French, rather a long list really, have enriched Australia. They made the point that these people either share the same values, or have escaped brutal regimes precisely to enjoy the values of a capitalist Australia in which not ‘positive law’ of politicians, but common law is the rule of law.

They are the words of modest, patriotic Australians. Australians are, at bottom and to use a Rush Limbaugh-ism, hard wired for freedom. They not only know something is terribly wrong with what the Right and the Left are doing. Modest Australians are fingering some of what is dangerously wrong with ‘policies’.

Tony Abbott and the Right are serving the hard Left. Along with the likes of Julie  Bishop and Helen Kroger, when were Liberal Party members told the Goons were incarnated and elevated to Parliament?

Tony Abbott cannot but be Eccles, “Yup, yup, yup. it’s alright folks. Foin, foin, foin. Er, foin.”

He is the perfection of all the qualities prized by the Right, including contempt for Australians and their inalienable rights. Closed, and, in his chilling anti-intellectualism, stupid.

The stupid don’t merely commit mistakes and blunders that only hurt themselves. Their stupidity contains a nasty edge which is why they are stupid, cruelty. They inflict pain on others and are blind to, that is exactly what they do. When they are informed of it, they not only pretend they haven’t.

They ignore the fact and protest to the contrary that they have been ‘more than generous’ to others. Indeed, over many years now the right have vociferously protested their innocence by smearing and slandering genuine Liberals. No answer to criticism and challenges, just smears and sneers. Peter Costello did just that in his “dummy spit”.

Costello protested his selfless concern for Australians. Bawling out how hard he “worked for Australians” draws attention only to whether he had. Well, then Peter Costello, show all that ‘hard work”. Where is it?

In the mean-time, there are enough who can walk Peter Costello through the graveyards of firms, and firms choking to death on hospital beds. Firms ruined with the ‘regulations’, ‘tax laws’, and intensification of ‘anti-cartel laws’ he rammed down as Treasurer. This, before reflecting on the RBA and also what has followed from its ‘policies’, an overvalued currency that, as Jackson suggested, could be hollowing out production.

Funny thing is, Jackson is dead right. I have case examples of this, one of which is large-scale and current. But Professor Sinclair Davidson, still struggling with the Laffer Curve (last sight he was tied up trying to spot one), arrived at one of his many unreasoned, off the cuff conclusions. Davidson knows that even if a currency is over-valued, it cannot have that impact.

His reason is fallacious. I’m here to say, Professor Sinclair Davidson doesn’t have a clue and what on earth he pumps into students at RMIT is something one dare not ponder, there are enough frights as it is. Rubber balls bounce:

Will the exchange rate kill manufacturing

The Right don’t give a stuff about what they have done to others and what they continue to do. This is in contrast to the treacherous Left, who are deliberate in their aim to inflict pain and worse on Australians. The Right inflict pain and believe they are good. They consider their actions benevolent. Abbott comes up with a “benefaction” every day, straight off the cuff, for which we mere oafs should be grateful for.

He is a complete idiot.

How many Liberal Party votes has Tony Abbott destroyed?

Thousands, tens of thousands, or any multiple of tens of thousands? Extrapolating from the electoral success of the Right in Victoria, and from the impact of the Right’s demolition of the fight for free labour markets on the 2007 federal election, a good guess is in the hundreds of thousands of voters.

Well, in his office, besides “thinks”, one thing is clear, Abbott is engaged in a song writing contest with Rudd on the theme of, “Ode to Deah Leadah”. They are locked in mortal combat to have their version entrenched in the Constitution. What a horrific fight it is too.

Footnote

(1) When labour markets are freed, there can be an initial rise in productivity, because labour can now be freely combined with capital. But as unemployment is eliminated, unless capital accumulation is occurring, productivity falls, as the theory of marginal productivity explains.

The phenomenon, therefore, is not a contradiction. It is a short-run phenomenon.  Jackson carefully explained this in his Labour Market Wars and in articles on Brookesnews.

Even though it also the conclusion that follows from even the perfect competition myth rooted set textbooks for undergraduates, the Right in Parliament stood up, armed with the ‘classics’ written by Ray Evans and Des Moore, with a heady contribution from Hugh Morgan, and more from the IPA and the CIS,  and declared:

“Free markets means rising productivity.”

Now, the ALP did not attack them when they adhered to the only truth they did manage to come to grips with, free markets clears unemployment. Mind, it is not clear how they managed to stumble upon it. Indeed, something curious indicates something else (it will be raised in another item  - we shall leave them sweating until then).

The ALP disemboweled them when they strayed from that single point. The best evisceration came in the Senate, for the obvious reason, Senate proceeding give members the time and the room for each Senator to have a lengthy go. And, did ALP Senators go at ‘em.

As with every other line of attack the Right get wrong and don’t so much blunt as melt like butter, the ALP sat back, absorbed the worst the Right could manage, let them exhaust themselves with wind, then stood up and hit each of them in the solar plexus.  It’s acid in the mouth but, to confess, it sure is fun listening to ALP Senators shred them. They are welcome to shred them and often.

Oh, the Right claim to work. Well, ALP Senators, not necessarily all, but enough do work. You can tell.

They go in armed. ALP members use guns to advise them, and the motivated to dig out even more material. They are fully briefed on possible opposing positions, which are fully analysed, and on how to counter them.

ALP members (yes, the ALP has real duds too inc. Rudd, Wong, Garrett), apply themselves to what their advisers supply them. They seek out the advice and apply themselves to thoroughly digesting it. When they go into the Senate, they have the Right fully covered and are ready to smash them.

The rotten thing is, if it were genuine Liberal talent holding the seats, they would not only be fully armed. Armed with the impregnable free market case, and fully briefed on the flaws, errors and falsehoods of the Left’s positions, they’d reduce the Left to little, bloody heaps of mince-meat splattered all over the furniture, the carpets and the walls.

The only thing left to do would be to bring in the fire hoses and flush the mess out of the whole damned place.

Even better, the Left knows it is exactly what would be done to them should genuine Liberal talent come to the fore.