What Is This Thing Called Knowledge Pritchard Pdf

Many politicians and bureaucrats systematically cause delays and unnecessary expenditure, and ignore reality. Even worse, many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical and ideological views. The following articles provide evidence. • By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 20 December 2017 • By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 23 October 2017 • By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 11 October 2017 More previous articles are linked below the most recent three.

Pardon me, Canberra, your hypocrisy is showing By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 20 December 2017 On November 30 the government announced the establishment of a royal commission into the financial services sector. In a joint statement, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison said the inquiry would consider “the conduct of banks, insurers, financial services providers and superannuation funds (not including self-managed superannuation funds). This will be a sensible, efficient and focused inquiry into misconduct and practices falling below community standards and expectations.” Did the Prime Minister and Treasurer shuffle about as they made this announcement? Did they seem shifty in their ill-fitting self-righteous clothing as they took to the moral high ground? Did they give a second’s thought to an independent investigation into parliamentary practices that fell well “below community standards and expectations”? Answer: not on your life. The sins of the financial ser­vices industry are one thing but, unlike their political masters, business leaders are governed by many layers of regulation and civil processes that offer recourse through prosecution, individual claims and class actions for suspected or proven misconduct.

Yet should anything threaten the Canberra collective, it simply closes ranks. After all, with so many privileges and the prospect of superannuation benefits beyond most Australians’ dreams of avarice, this cartel is impregnable. Take the citizenship crisis that began last July. It continues to shine an unwelcome light on politicians’ links to other countries. Australia’s Constitution expressly bans parliamentarians from being entitled to the rights or privileges of, or to be a subject or citizen of, a foreign power. Yet 10 per cent of the parliament has resigned or remains under suspicion for just that.

Oct 23, 2013. Read Best sellers eBook What is This Thing Called Knowledge? 068 by Duncan Pritchard PDF. Duncan Pritchard. Taylor & Francis Ltd. What is knowledge? Where does it come from? What kinds of knowledge are there? Can we know anything.

Meanwhile, Turnbull and Bill Shorten are locked in a standoff over which MPs whose citizenship is in doubt should be referred to the High Court. How dare they sit in judgment when they have tried to cover up the ineligibility of some colleagues, pushed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” agreement and scoffed at each other’s “carelessness” in a calculated attempt to deceive the public. It explains why Turnbull supporter and Liberal frontbencher Arthur Sinodinos has yet to be referred to the High Court.

Born in NSW to Greek parents, he may not be registered as a Greek citizen but neither has he renounced that citizenship and therefore may be lawfully bound by the policies and rights conferred by the Greek government. Shorten factional ally David Feeney claims he renounced his British entitlements in 2007, but neither he nor the British Home Office can find the papers. The same Feeney forgot to declare a $2.3 million house in his register of pecuniary interests. Yet Labor sheltered him. This is the Canberra culture. Do as I say, not as I do.

Take our jetsetting Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop. She claimed $1.2m in expenses last year, including a trip to Sydney for a film premiere and a day at the polo. She charged taxpayers $7000 for four trips to Adelaide that coincided with her older sister’s birthdays. The Herald Sun also found eight occasions when official business took her to the same city her beloved Eagles were playing away games.

Nothing to see there. Nor when Labor frontbencher Tony Burke was forced to declare two undisclosed separate stays worth thousands of dollars at Eddie Obeid’s luxury Perisher ski lodge in 2004 to 2006. Or when Burke took his family on a taxpayer-funded business class trip to Uluru during the 2012 school holidays, or used a family reunion entitlement to take four family members from Ballina back to Sydney during the 2010 school holidays. To be fair, he did repay $94 claimed as travel expenses to attend a Robbie Williams concert. In a seven-year period, Burke claimed more than $4.6m, or almost $60,000 a month in expenses. He is now manager of opposition business. But even this “anything goes” culture has limits.

When Labor senator Sam Dastyari allowed a Chinese government-linked company to pay off a $1600 travel debt, give him two bottles of Grange worth $1400 (disclosed as “two bottles of wine”) and meet a $40,000 legal bill, the obvious conflict finally became too much for him to remain on the frontbench and then in the Senate. That’s how low the bar is. No wonder Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” resonates so strongly with the electorate.

If companies gave false profit guidance the way governments promise a return to budget surplus, boards and management would face serious Australian Securities & Investments Commissions charges. If a business claimed it could deliver a new broadband network for $26 billion when the ultimate cost was about three times that, then those responsible would be sued for negligence. But not in politics. Politicians take big bets using other people’s money. They take credit for successes while taxpayers underwrite their mistakes.

This is a bad deal for taxpayers. The financial services royal commission is a rank political exercise that serves to remind us of the double standards and questionable competence of those who have commissioned it.

It will make recommendations that politicians, who thrive on populism and headlines and, whose priority is tenure, will implement. It’s the risk we run when our parliament consists of careerists whose real-world experience is limited to being a political staff member or a trade union official. It’s an unpredictable mix of ambition and dangerous ideology. It highlights a crisis in governance and a crying need to widen the gene pool of our elected representatives. What was once a noble pursuit of public service has being corrupted by mercenaries. If liberties have to be taken, the ends justify the means. Political parties may compete for the spoils of office, but ideologically their differences are blurred, and when push comes to shove they have demonstrated where their loyalties really lie.

And it’s not with the Australian people. ================ Australia’s broadcaster, ABC, is guilty of soft treason By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 23 October 2017 There is no point in maintaining the fiction that Australia is ready for war. Yet the Prime Minister made the fiction official when he promised war with North Korea if fat boy Kim fires at America. Kim Jong-un is determined to prove that his nuke is bigger than Trump’s, but seems doomed to premature articulation. The only thing worse than North Korea’s missile porn is the possibility that Kim will acquire nuclear power and make the West pay.

We had better hope his losing streak lasts because Australia’s military preparedness underwhelms and soft treason is rising through the ranks. Australia shares more than fiery rhetoric with North Korea.

We are neck and neck on global rankings for military capability. On this year’s Global Firepower ranking, Australia is listed 22 and North Korea 23 for military strength.

America leads the world but China is rapidly gaining. Given Australia rates below countries like Vietnam, Brazil and Thailand in military strength, one might expect the Defence Minister to make vast improvements in combat readiness her sole priority. It takes a long bow to contend that breast jobs and transgender surgery have a direct relationship to military prowess.

Yet last week the minister, Marise Payne, justified Defence spending more than $1 million in taxpayer funds on cosmetic surgery for troops. All that remains is to ditch Advance Australia Fair for I Feel Pretty. When Defence isn’t funding nips and tucks for troops, it’s busy banning boys from jobs.

The Australian Army banned male recruits in a majority of positions advertised in early August. The Daily Telegraph revealed that 35 of 50 jobs were available only to women.

Australian Defence Force recruiters were told that if they did not follow the women-only directive, they would be “re-posted”. Malcolm Turnbull and Payne are enthusiastic architects of ­diver­sity policy in the military. The trickle-down effect seems clear. Last year Chief of Army Lieutenant General Angus Campbell ­addressed a Defence Force conference on recruitment. He said: “The number one priority I have with respect to recruitment is increasing our diversity, with a focus on women and indigenous Australians.” He emphasised that his “goal of increasing diversity in the army” was urgent and exhorted members to “examine your ­‘energy levels’ for this task and see that they are aligned with mine”.

Campbell used a shopping study to propose varied approaches to ­recruiting women and men for the army. Apparently, men and women shop differently and Campbell said: “We can reasonably extrapolate these ‘sales’ issues to our ‘sales’ of army careers.” Once again, I Feel Pretty. If Australia was the world’s num­ber one military power, the transformation of Defence from a patriotic military to progressivist civil service might seem less problematic.

But I suspect the transformation would not occur under a government determined to make its military supreme. President Donald Trump is already seeking to restore US military might by ­advancing beyond Obama’s queer programs and habitual Islamist appeasement. Perhaps only one activity is more corrosive to the modern military than systemic social ­engineering. It is soft treason.

The latest attacks on Western forces is friendly fire aimed at our elite troops. In Australia and Britain, special forces soldiers are ­accused of war crimes and the left’s political-media class is producing prime propaganda for our enemies.

In 2008, human rights lawyer Phil Shiner accused the British military of war crimes, alleging soldiers mutilated and killed innocent civilians in Iraq. The tax­payer-funded BBC repeated the allegations. A subsequent multi-million-pound inquiry concluded what many Britons had suspected; the allegations were baseless.

As it turned out, the human rights lawyer who smeared allied troops as war criminals had been the vice-president of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. In a revelatory article for the Daily Mail, Dominic Lawson wrote that Shiner: “Enjoyed the acclaim from newspapers such as The Guardian, and the awards from like-minded lawyers: he was named solicitor of the year by the Law Society in 2014, even as some of the evidence about Shiner’s methods began to emerge, the Law Society Gazette wrote ‘In Defence of Phil Shiner’.” The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ­described Shiner’s cam­paign of war crimes allegations against British troops as “deliberate lies, reckless speculations and ingrained hostility towards the UK”. London’s The Telegraph ­reports that a legal associate of Shiner’s, Leigh Day, is now involved “in claims alleging members of the elite regiment executed unarmed civilians”. Australia, too, is enduring a protracted period of war crimes ­allegations directed at our elite troops. The most publicised case involving former SAS commander Andrew Hastie was timed with the Liberal Party’s public endorsement of his candidacy for the federal seat of Canning.

Despite the left media’s best efforts to discredit him, Hastie won the by-election. And after a two-year investigation, the soldier directly accused of wrongdoing was cleared by the Australian Federal Police. In July, the ABC chose to publish damning allegations about our elite forces. ABC staff introduced the material thus: “Hundreds of pages of secret defence force documents leaked to the ABC give an unprecedented insight into the clandestine operations of Australia’s elite special forces in Afghanistan, including incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children.” There are two pertinent questions. Does anyone at the ABC understand the meaning of non-state actor, jihadism and asymmetric warfare? Has Defence launched an official investigation into the leaks, given their potential to damage the reputations of Australian troops and compromise operations security? The SAS is being placed under intense scrutiny over operations against Islamist terrorists.

It is difficult to avoid observing that under Marise Payne’s Defence leadership, a culture of complaint has developed that undermines military cohesion, ­violates the principle of merit and punishes soldiers for courage under fire. Along with the numerous problems plaguing Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne’s submarine program, the Liberals’ traditional role in fortifying national defence appears to be fatally compromised. It should concern any prime minister, but especially one willing to go to war with a paranoid dictator hot for nuclear holocaust. ================== Beware creeping authoritarianism in Australia By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 11 October 2017 Green shoots of authoritarianism are sprouting in the nation’s capital as calls come for ­executives to rush to Canberra to receive lectures from senior politicians.

Scott Morrison’s “cry me a river” comment after hitting the top five banks with a special tax certainly sounded dictatorial, as did his cop-this announcement that delivered the banking regulator even greater powers to intervene in senior management through the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. It requires executives and senior managers to register with the Aus­tralian Prudential Regulation Authority. If the culture in some banks needs attention, that’s the preserve of shareholders and boards, not politicians. Rather than oppose the Treasurer’s proposals with a vigorous campaign objecting to this intrusion into bank management and explaining how it will weaken international competitiveness and lead to risk aversion, the industry association says the regime should be extended to all entities regulated by APRA, such as insurance companies and superannuation funds.

Energy companies also have incurred the wrath of Canberra. In a letter to seven retail electricity chiefs, plus the Australian Energy Council, Malcolm Turnbull said the companies’ various hardship programs were not enough.

Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Audrey Zibelman said the federal government would have no choice but to put more regulation on electricity retailers if they could not show how they were going to cut prices, especially to poor households. What the Prime Minister really means is that it’s fine for companies to profit handsomely from incoherent energy policies that predictably lead to higher electricity prices but, should the government lose votes as a conse­quence, they will be blamed and disciplined. As the companies’ revenue depends on taxpayer and consumer subsidies, they will obey. These days industry is careful not to upset its political masters. Most discussions occur behind closed doors. Publicly, business leaders such as Minerals Council of Australia chairwoman Vanessa Guthrie endorse the government’s policy direction.

While representing Australia’s extensive, high-quality coal interests, “which can deliver clean, affordable and reliable energy”, Guthrie says, “Our singular goal must be a more affordable, reliable electricity supply which meets our international commitments and our community’s desire for a lower environmental footprint.” All bases covered. That “lower environmental footprint” has distorted the domestic energy market, resulting in a possible gas shortage next year. Former Labor resources and energy minister and now gas industry adviser Martin Ferguson says the gas sector is being used as a political pawn and held to ransom to solve the instability created by short-term political decisions. After the federal government threatened to impose export controls, the major gas exporters agreed to meet the predicted shortfall, but on price, committed only to “reasonable terms’’.

Depending on what those terms are, a self-inflicted political crisis will be averted. But is coercing business for political ends to become the new policy normal? Well, when governments choose state corporatism over the efficiency of market forces, yes.

When the priorities are political, not economic, shareholder sovereignty takes a back seat. Increased corporate welfare and regulatory protection have empowered government, and captured and politicised much of big business. It gives credence to the notion that business operates under a “social licence”. This encourages morally virtuous social engineers in industry superannuation funds and elsewhere to push their latest environment, social and corporate governance fashions. The “one size fits all” mentality is socially driven and adds to red tape and distractions for management.

The media-left loves this form of collectivism. It promotes anti-capitalist ideas and beats into submission businesses that fear community reprisals from non-compliance. It explains why so many companies give uncritical support, however marketed, to perceived popular causes such as global warming and same-sex marriage.

Political correctness may be a topic of wonder and derision at family barbecues, but to the business elite, in language and in deeds, it is deadly serious stuff. German author Sebastian Haffner kept a secret journal in the 1930s in which he wrote: “There are few things as odd as the calm, superior indifference with which I and those like me watched the beginnings of the Nazi revolution in Germany, as if from a box at the theatre.” Like today, it was easier to accept the lived realities and adapt to them than to resist. When your and your organisation’s future are linked to being on one political side, you pay close attention to the new doctrines.

It shapes your behaviour. Haffner calls this “sheepish submissiveness”. “There was not a single example of energetic defence, of courage or principle. There was only panic, flight, and desertion,” he wrote. It may be melodramatic to draw parallels between 1930s Germany and contemporary Australia.

But there is no denying Canberra is warming to a culture of enforcement. And freedom’s champions are few. Today, all economic actions are seen through a political prism. The leadership of both parties is rapidly finding the allure of command more appealing than markets.

And, like those in Haffner’s box, we miss how this is ­affecting our own freedoms. Meanwhile, the political class uses capitalist prosperity to underwrite our social decay. ================ Previous articles • By Nick Cater, The Australian, 26 September 2017 • By A.Z.Mohamed, via The Gatestone Institute, 25 August 2017 • By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 23 August 2017 •. The modern environmental, or ‘green’, movement has shifted from overt care for the environment towards activist and economic damage, self-serving agendas and covert promotion of more sinister agendas, often supported, even driven, by politicians.

But opposition grows by the day as evidence and common sense start to prevail. Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow. • By Michael Bastasch, 26 November • Two articles: Nick Cater, then Greg Brown, The Australian, 21 November • By Steven Mosher, 18 October 2017 After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’ By Michael Bastasch, 26 November 2017 For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society.

Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less! Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. And others from issuing more apocalyptic statements. To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians: • Apocalyptic warnings on repeat A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.” “We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition. • The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.” Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.” “Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote. • Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passedand nothing happened Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved. Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” Charles lobbied U.K. Lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

• ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.” Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science. “I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article. • 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming World leaders meeting at the Vatican saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].” Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing.

Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming. But what he should really say is that the U.N. Conference is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warmingsince last year when the U.N.

Said basically about 2014’s climate summit. • France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos” When Laurent Fabius to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. Had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks.

Looks like the U.N. Is 65 days too late to save the world. • Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally. The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.” Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” • Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming? World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.

We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.” • United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth The year 2009 was a bad time for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC. According to Brown there was “no plan B.” Brown has been booted out of office since then.

• The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said. Well, it’s 2017 and no new U.N. Climate treaty has been presented.

The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers. • Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green Environmentalist write George Monbiot that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.” About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N.. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million.

Sorry, Monbiot. • Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition The U.N. Was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences. That a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N.

Is sounding the same alarm today. ============== Understanding the modern Green movement Two articles: Nick Cater, then Greg Brown, The Australian, 21 November 2017 How far into the ideological fringe must Labor venture to hold a seat such as Northcote in the Victorian parliament? Quite a bit further than Daniel Andrews has yet been bold enough to go, judging from Saturday’s by-election. No one could have done more than he to support the LGBTI community, short of making membership compulsory.

He has given anti-bullying bullies the run of public schools and banned religious instruction in the classroom. He has banned gas exploration, (all of it, not just fracking like those wimpy premiers in other states); he has set a 90 per cent renewable energy target; and a massive brown coal-fired power station shut down on his watch. He wants to make granny killing legal providing it’s consensual, proving surely that Andrews, by progressive moral standards, is a good man. Yet on Saturday Labor lost Northcote for the first time since 1927. It lost not by a little but by a lot.

An ungrateful 45 per cent of voters put the Greens’ Lidia Thorpe first. Thorpe will enter the next election with a comfortable 11 per cent buffer after preferences. Northcote used to be a workers’ suburb where Greeks and Italians bought cheap houses and concreted the front lawn. Now Northcote is the new Fitzroy North, its streets lined with sensible SUVs and the less ostentatious models in the Audi and Peugeot ranges. It’s 10 to 15 minutes from the University of Melbourne on one of those funny yellow bikes and is home to more psychologists (239) than plumbers (139). If the ­dripping tap drives you nuts, there’s always therapy. The Greens’ primary vote on Saturday roughly matched the number of adults with a university education (45.1 per cent) and the irreligious (46.9 per cent).

There are more psychiatrists than ministers of religion Last year’s census shows Northcote has the fifth highest number of same-sex couples of 88 state seats in Victoria. Seven out of 10 same-sex couples in Northcote, incidentally, are female.

More than half — 58 per cent — work in the public sector. The volume of sweat per hour of work is low. There are 10 times more teachers than truck drivers, and 20 times more university lecturers than bricklayers. It is hardly the sort of seat Ben Chifley would have recognised as Labor heartland, if indeed he recognised it as Australia at all. The changes have been so ­dramatic in the past 30 years that it is testimony to Labor’s adaptability that it held this seat at all. It has lost some skin in the process, however, as it has struggled to find common ground between disparate constituencies. How does one unite blue-collar, socially conservative tradies, post-industrial professionals and the immigrant populations in unfashionable ­middle and outer suburbs?

The task is almost impossible, particularly on the most contentious ­issues of the day — energy policy, transgender rights, asylum-­seekers, for ­example — where ­passions are so easily inflamed. As Labor has tried with varying degrees of success to tread a ­delicate middle course, its supporters have to feel less attached. When Bob Hawke won the 1987 federal election, almost half of voters described themselves as Labor partisans in the Australian Election Study. In last year’s election the ranks of Labor partisans had dwindled to less than one-third. What complicates things is that the political class deciding Labor’s future brings its own prejudices and assumptions to the table.

Its members are younger, generally speaking, than the general population, and inclined to have spent more time at university than is good for the human soul. One suspects they feel more comfortable grabbing brunch at Northcote’s Red Door Corner Store (“Dukkah Eggs were ­delicious cardamom poached pear ‘stunning’,” we read on Trip­Advisor) than at the Moonlight Cafe in Westfield, Broadmeadows.

These cultural tensions, for which food fetishes can be a surprisingly good proxy, have spared neither mainstream party. Labor suffered first with a breakaway to the Greens on one side, and the defection of the Howard battlers on the other. As the Northcote election shows, it continues to suffer.

Batman, once held by the stalwart Martin Ferguson, could fall to the Greens. Grayndler in Sydney’s inner west is, by broad consent, a Labor seat for only so long as ­Anthony Albanese contests it. Now those same tensions are straining the Coalition, driving wedges between partners and within parties. It has prompted the departure of the conservatively minded at one end and a smaller group at the other end who have attached themselves to the Greens. The same-sex marriage argument, which split Coalition voters roughly 50-50, was a gift for anti-conservative commentators, for whom anyone who disagreed with change was homophobic. The noisier commentators on what is sometimes called the alt-right misjudged the moment, too, imagining that the same-sex ­marriage plebiscite was to Australia what Brexit was to Britain and ­Donald Trump’s election was to the US. As it turned out, the result was not the popular revolt against the elite some had longed for.

The Yes vote prevailed in 133 out of 150 electorates. It prevailed in seats considered conservative, such as Kevin Andrews’s seat of Menzies (57 per cent Yes) and in unfashionable outer-suburban blue-collar seats, such as Forde in Queensland (60.5 per cent). In the federal seat of Batman, where Northcote sits, 70 per cent supported same-sex marriage in the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey. The survey confirms that they are civic-minded. Four out of five of them returned completed forms, compared with three out of five in Ireland. It debunks the confected theory of rampant homophobia and the debilitating cult of victimhood that flowed from it.

We also know Australians value freedom, with Newspoll reporting that 62 per cent of voters want guarantees for freedom of conscience, belief and religion. Parliament has a duty to honour that desire, not just because it’s popular but because it’s necessary. It is an obligation every bit as strong as the mandate they assume to change the Marriage Act.

Green voters are snobs, says Labor survey Greg Brown About 70 per cent of Greens voters in inner Melbourne are rich, dislike unions and think suburban people are backwards, ­racist and bigoted, Labor has concluded based on its own research. A six-month survey of Melbourne Greens voters has encouraged the Victorian Labor Party to give up on campaigning to most of them, arguing they do not share Labor values and are closer to the Liberals. Labor has dubbed them “Teal Greens”, with teal being a colour blend of green and blue. The party has decided to target the 30 per cent “Red Greens” in Melbourne’s inner city who are typically university students or Millennials starting their careers.

“Red Greens” are usually renters who are more likely to come from Labor families, while “Teal Greens” own expensive inner-city homes and have parents who vote Liberal. The qualitative research surveyed more than 50 Greens voters in inner suburbs such as Fitzroy, Brunswick and Clifton Hill, from January to June this year.

Party sources said the findings showed the biggest concern of many Greens voters was the ­notion of living in the outer suburbs that contributed to their ­interest in local planning laws. “Teal Greens” are usually highly paid professionals in two-wage households, are aged in their 30s and 40s and “look down on” ­people in suburbs, thinking they hold Australia back from being “tolerant” and “just”. After the Greens’ victory in the state seat of Northcote at the weekend, Labor faces a fight to hold inner-Melbourne federal seats such as Batman, Wills and Melbourne Ports. Labor thinks the broader boundaries of the electorates will help it retain the seats as they encompass modest suburbs as well as affluent inner-city ones. Victorian senator Kim Carr said: “The blue Greens are really the hardcore Liberal types in their attitudes, the red Greens are more sympathetic to our message. There is the homeowners and the renters big divide. “The homeowners talk about their sense of privilege and their sense of entitlement, their wealth is the natural order of things ­rather than good fortune.” Senator Carr, the federal ­opposition industry spokesman, said many “blue Greens” migrated into inner-city Labor seats from traditionally Liberal areas or from Sydney and Brisbane.

“These are traditionally Liberal voters that are moving into these areas. They are not Labor people,” Senator Carr said. “They claim to be progressive social values but we surveyed them and their biggest fear was actually being forced to live in Pascoe Vale and Coburg.

Their real anxieties are different to what they claim them to be. Their preoccupations are ­essentially material conditions, not with the state of the world ­environment.” The “blue Greens” traded on “snob appeal” and were closed to Labor, he said. Greens MP Adam Bandt said the claims were “fairytales” and voters were shifting because of Labor’s support for offshore processing and the Adani coalmine. ================== Climate change is ‘the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated’ By Steven Mosher, 18 October 2017 Presentation at International Conference On Population Control, Population Research Institute. October 18, 2017 () — Social scientist and author Steven Mosher called the global warming movement an enemy of the sanctity of innocent human life at an international symposium that began online Tuesday to address the anti-Christian nature of population control.

Mosher, long recognized as an expert in China’s domestic policy, started his address by explaining that the earth’s temperature has always fluctuated, sometimes dramatically. “I did a historical study of climate change in China, which shows that the climate in China 2,000 years ago was several degrees warmer than it is today,” Mosher said, adding, “And of course that was a long time before we started hearing about climate change and global warming.” The bestselling author, who went through a Ph.D program in Oceanography at the University of Washington, further noted that during the Jurassic period, the earth was 15 degrees warmer on average than it is today. Criticizing global warming fearmongers, Mosher said not long ago the same “experts” were frantically making the exact opposite claims. “In the 1970s the climate ‘experts’ were warning about a coming ‘ice age,’” he said. “Now it has flipped over 180 degrees to be global warming.” “The truth is, nobody really knows what’s going to happen to the climate in the future,” Mosher explained. “We’ve seen extremes of temperatures on the cold side and on the warm side that make any projection of one or two degrees pale in comparison.” Mosher spoke on “Environmentalism and Climate Change as an Avenue for Population Control.” The International Conference on Population Control is sponsored by the Lepanto Institute.

Its theme is “How Radical Enemies of Life are Pushing Their Global Agenda to End Poverty by Eliminating the Poor.” “We had global warming and ice ages a long time before human beings invented the internal combustion engine, and a long time before there were a million or us running around the planet giving birth to little ‘carbon dioxide emitters,’“ he quipped, quoting how climate change activists refer to children. Turning to his compromised colleagues, Mosher said too many are swayed by the government dole. “I’m really appalled at how the scientific community has sold out for big research grants and to get their name highlighted in the faculty journal and get invited to U.N. Conferences,” Mosher said.

“This is the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on the family of man.” Mosher accused “experts” of jumping on the global warming bandwagon because “they are well paid to do so.” “When you spend billions of dollars subsidizing research, you generally get what you pay for,” he charged. “The climate scientist who gets the million dollar grant and says, ‘After study, there’s really no danger of global warming,’ doesn’t get his grant renewed.” “But the guy who gets 10 million dollars for ‘finding’ global warming probably gets a hundred million after that,” Mosher illustrated. Mosher, who received the Blessed Frederic Ozanam award from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists for “exemplifying the ideal of Catholic social action,” mentioned that meteorologist has tallied government payouts related to global warming. Watts estimates $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion are “tied up in the climate hoax.” ‘s Marc Morano described the racket as the “Great Climate Hustle.” But even if the earth’s temperature is rising, Mosher says that does not translate into the doomsday predictions of Al Gore — that the state of Florida sinks into the ocean in a decade. “In my view, a little bit of warming is not necessarily a bad thing,” Mosher claimed.

“Even if the earth does warm in the next hundred years, I argue it will be a good thing for humanity.” A warming planet will open up land for much needed farming. If temperatures rise, “we will see Canada be able to bring vast areas of land under cultivation. We will see Siberia bloom. We will see food production go up,” Mosher said. “More people die in the winter of cold than die of heat in the summer,” he explained. “We’ll see mortality rates among the very young and the very old go down.

Lives will be saved,” Mosher said. “There will be less hunger in the world.” Other speakers at the conference include Child Advocacy attorney Lis York, LifeSiteNews’ John-Henry Westen, Human Life International’s Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI president Fr. Shenan Boquet, La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana’s Riccardo Cascioli, Italian economist Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Sacred Heart Institute’s Raymond De Souza, and Dr. Philip Chidi Njemanze. Mosher calls the current politically correct environment a billion-dollar a year “giant propaganda effort” against science and common sense.

“This is a myth of guilt,” he said. “This is a myth that drives population control. This is a myth that will decrease the use of energy that will literally kill poor people.” “This is ultimately about radical environmentalists (engineering) their idea of paradise before man,” Mosher charged, saying radicals believe that people “ruined it.” “They have seized upon global warming as an excuse to justify their war on people to promote abortion, sterilization, and contraception around the world.” Mosher emphasized that the ultimate goal of global warmists is population control. “They cheered China’s one-child policy from the very beginning,” he mentioned. The Q&A session then turned to Catholic leaders’ part in the anti-life global warming movement. “Catholic teaching promotes stewardship of the environment,” Mosher reminded listeners, “but some of the participants of recent Vatican conferences have a history of promoting population control (and) abortion. That’s in opposition to Catholic teaching.

I’m surprised they were invited to these conferences (and) given a platform by the Vatican itself to propagate views to directly violate Catholic teaching.” According to, president of conference sponsor the Lepanto Institute, pro-abortion population control activists have established a foothold inside the Catholic Church under the pretext of environmental protection. Now they are “actively working to undermine and subvert the Church and her teachings from within” in an “unprecedented attack.” Mosher agreed. “The radical environmental movement is using the borrowed authority of the Vatican to propagate its false view of humanity (and) its false view of the relationship between man and the environment,” he charged. Download Just The Way You Are Bruno Mars Mp3 Free. “Unfortunately, some in the Vatican are allowing themselves and the Catholic Church to be misused in this way.” The pro-life researcher and social activist questioned the motivations of those in the Vatican who would give pro-abortionists a voice.

“I’m afraid there are certain people in the Vatican who are more interested in winning applause from the world than evangelizing and getting as many people home to heaven as possible,” he said. Mosher quoted one Vatican guest speaker, former colleague Paul R. Ehrlich, who claims “the biggest problem that we face is the continuing expansion of the human enterprise.” Mosher quoted Ehrlich as saying, “Perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell.” Mosher criticized Ehrlich for his extremist view of population growth and for “comparing it to a cancerous growth. I can hardly imagine a more derogatory description of the human family than comparing it to a cancer cell,” Mosher said. “When my wife and I had nine children, we didn’t think that they resembled cancer cells.

We thought that we were new souls into existence, cooperating with God in populating this world and hopefully in the next,” Mosher commented. Mosher then took on worldwide abortion promoter Bill Gates. “Bill Gates tried to argue that he was only funding population control programs in countries where the population was increasing at three percent a year,” Mosher quoted, adding that he disagreed that high birth rates are a problem in the first place. “But I said, ‘Bill, there are only a few small islands in the Pacific where the birth rate is still that high.’” Then Mosher got to his point with Gates. “If you’re worried about high birth rate, cure childhood diseases, reduce the infant mortality rate, and the birth rate will come down naturally,” he told the Microsoft billionaire.

16 Tenses In English Grammar Pdf Sentences. “The reason why families in Africa still have four and five children is because they expect to lose one or two children to disease before they reach adulthood.” Mosher went on in his address to assert that climate changers have the solution all wrong. “This is all done under the false assumption that if you reduce the number of people on the planet you will somehow increase the number of seals and whales and trees and other things that the radical environmentalists seem to value more than human beings,” Mosher revealed. “What we need to have is continued economic growth, because once a country gets above $2,000 per capita, they have the resources to set aside natural parks and nature preserves and national forests and so forth.” “It’s poverty that’s the enemy of the environment, not people,” he summarized. “It’s poverty that leads the poor to cut down the last tree, as they have in Haiti, to build a house or cook their food,” Mosher pointed out. “It’s poverty that leads them to pollute the water that they need to drink because they can’t afford to dig a well or build a sewage treatment plant. It’s poverty that leads them to plant the last square foot of land because they can’t afford fertilizer or they can’t afford proper irrigation.” “Poverty is the enemy of the environment,” the human rights advocate said. “And we know how to cure poverty: You have the rule of law, you have property rights, you have an open and free economic system.

And once you cure poverty, people will take care of the environment.” But the radical environmentalists’ have it backward, Mosher claimed. Their “more people equals less of everything else” narrative is not true, he said. “More people as good stewards of the environment means more of everything else: more whales, more trees, more land set aside.” The author described the global warmist movement as “anti-people.” “Here we almost have a demonic hatred of our fellow human beings,” he said. “They cry copious tears over a mistreated dog or cat, but they ignore that 4,000 babies are being brutally killed — torn limb from limb — in wombs across the United States today.” “The other side of the evangelization coin,” Mosher said, “is allowing the human beings to come into existence in the first place.” Back on the subject of Catholic response to global warming threats, Mosher said the Christian response cannot be legislated. “The questions of how we should be good stewards of the environment are prudential questions that will never be settled dogmatically,” the Population Research Institute president concluded. Part of the Catholic solution is the Pontifical Academy of Science should invite as contributors “only people who were Catholic,” Mosher offered.

“If you do not have a Trinitarian worldview,” he explained, “then your position on many of these issues are going to be radically different than what the Catholic Church teaches.” Global warmists “are people who have radically different views of what humanity is,” Mosher said. “It makes a real difference if I think that mankind is only a little lower than the angels, created in the image and likeness of God. Paul Ehrlich believes that we’re only a little higher than the apes, and it’s necessary now to thin the herd. He believes that we’re only animals, (so) there’s no moral question to be answered; it’s just a simple question of numbers and power.” “Such a radical reductionist view of what human beings are should not be endorsed by the Vatican,” he opined. Mosher commented that after listening to some of the non-Catholic Vatican conference speakers, Pope Francis himself has talked about climate change as the cause of world hunger. “That gets the facts exactly backwards,” he said. “I think we need to go to Rome and talk and educate people.” Hichborn noted the significance of the issue today.

“Population Control is an agenda that ties together nearly every major cause of the anti-family left,” he. “Homosexuality, environmentalism, poverty reduction, foreign aid, and even mass immigration are connected to the population control agenda.” “For the sake of souls, lives, and the family, it is vitally important for everyone who calls themselves pro-life to stand up now,” Hichborn added. Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals. The outlook is dire. Scroll to end to view previous articles • By Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse blog, 14 November 2017 • By Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com, 5 November 2017 • By Jay Syrmopoulos, 13 July 2017 This Is What A Pre-Crash Market Looks Like By Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse blog, 14 November 2017 The only other times in our history when stock prices have been this high relative to earnings, a horrifying stock market crash has always followed. Will things be different for us this time?

We shall see, but without a doubt this is what a pre-crash market looks like. This current bubble has been based on irrational euphoria that has been fueled by, but now global central banks are removing the artificial life support. Meanwhile, the real economy continues to stumble along. This is the longest that the U.S.

Has ever gone without a year in which the economy grew by at least 3 percent, and many believe that the next recession is very close. Stock prices cannot stay completely disconnected from economic reality forever, and once the bubble bursts the pain is going to be unlike anything that we have ever seen before. If you think that these ridiculously absurd stock prices are sustainable, there is something that I would like for you to consider.

The only times in our history when the cyclically-adjusted return on stocks has been lower, a nightmarish stock market crash The Nobel-Laureate, Robert Shiller, developed the cyclically-adjusted price/earnings ratio, the so-called CAPE, to assess whether stocks are likely to be over- or under-valued. It is possible to invert this measure to obtain a cyclically-adjusted earnings yield which allows one to measure prospective real returns.

If one does this, the answer for the US is that the cyclically-adjusted return is now down to 3.4 percent. The only times it has been still lower were in 1929 and between 1997 and 2001, the two biggest stock market bubbles since 1880. We know now what happened then. Is it going to be different this time? Since the market bottomed out in early 2009, the S&P 500 has been on a historic run.

If this rally had been based on a booming economy that would be one thing, but the truth is that the U.S. Economy has not seen 3 percent yearly growth since the middle of the Bush administration. Instead, this insane bubble has been almost entirely fueled by central bank manipulation, and now that manipulation is being. And the guys on Wall Street know what is coming.

For example, Joe Zidle says that this bull market is now in Joe Zidle, of Richard Bernstein Advisors, is arguing that the bull market has entered the bottom of the ninth inning. “This is a late-cycle environment,” Zidle said on CNBC’s “” recently.

“In innings terms, they’re not time dependent. An inning could be shorter or they could be longer. It just really depends,” the strategist said. This bubble has lasted for much longer than it ever should have, and everyone understands that a day of reckoning is coming. In fact, earlier today I came across an article on that contained an absolutely remarkable quote from Eric Peters “We are investing as if 1987 will happen tomorrow, because it will,” said the CIO. “But we need to be long, or we’ll be out of business,” he explained, under pressure to perform.

“So we construct option trades that are binary bets.” Which pay X profit if stocks rally, and cost Y if markets fall. No more and no less. “What you do not want is a portfolio whose losses multiply depending on the severity of a decline.” That’s what most people have today. “At the last stage of the cycle, you want lots of binary bets. Many small wins. Before the big loss.” “ Are we at the start or the end of the ‘Don’t know what I’m buying’ cycle?” asked the same CIO.

“No one knows.” But we’re definitely within it. “When their complex swaps drop 40%, and prime brokers demand more margin, investors will cry ‘It’s not possible!’ But anything is possible.” The prime brokers will hang up and stop them out.

In case you don’t remember, in 1987 we witnessed the largest one day percentage decline in U.S. Stock market history. When it finally happens, millions upon millions of ordinary Americans will be completely shocked, but most insiders know that the other shoe is going to drop at some point.

In particular, watch financial stock prices very closely. Last month, Richard Bove issued a about bank stocks One of Wall Street’s most vocal bank analysts is troubled by the rally in financials. The Vertical Group’s Richard Bove warns that the overall market is just as dangerous as the late 1990s, and he cites momentum — not fundamentals — as what’s driving bank stocks to all-time highs. “If we don’t get some event in the economy or in politics or in somewhere that is going to create more loan volume and better margins for the banks, then yes, they would come crashing down,” Bove said Monday on CNBC’s “.” “I think that the risk in these stocks is very high at the present time.” It isn’t going to take much to set off an unstoppable chain of events. Our financial markets are even more vulnerable than they were in 2008, and the right trigger could unleash a crisis unlike anything we have ever seen in modern American history. Unfortunately, most Americans keep getting fooled by the artificial boom and bust cycles that the central banks create. Right now most people seem to have been lulled into a false sense of security, and they truly believe that everything is going to be okay.

But every time before when the market has looked like this a crash has always followed, and this time will be no exception. * * * is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his. His new book entitled is available in paperback and for the Kindle on.

================= The Economic End Game Continues By Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com, 5 November 2017 In November of 2014 I published an article titled In it I outlined what I believed would be the process by which globalists would achieve what they call the “new world order” or what they sometimes call the “global economic reset.” As I have shown in great detail in the past, the globalist agenda includes a fiscal end game; a prize or trophy that they hope to obtain. This prize is a completely centralized global economic structure, rooted in a single central bank for the world, the removal of the U.S. Dollar as world reserve currency, the institution of the SDR basket system which will act as a bridge for single a global currency supplanting all others and, ultimately, global governance of this system by a mere handful of “elites.” The timeline for this process is unclear, but there is some indication of when the “beginning of the end” would commence.

As noted in the globalist owned magazine The Economist, in an article titled the year of 2018 seems to be the launching point for the great reset. This timeline is supported by the numerous measures already taken to undermine dollar dominance in international trade as well as elevate the International Monetary Fund’s SDR basket. It is clear that the globalists have deadlines they intend to meet. That said, there have been some new developments since I wrote my initial analysis on the end-game strategy that I think merit serious attention. The end game continues, faster than ever before, and here are some of the indicators showing that the “predictions” of the globalists at The Economist in 1988 were more like self-fulfilling prophecies and 2018 remains a primary nexus point for a re-engineering of our economic environment.

Using The East To Dismantle The Petrodollar As I mentioned in last week’s article, there has been silence and often dis.