Backwards we go to windmills, then to cultural oblivion, and onwards to terrorising the enemy on the battlefield with our gender-nuanced battalions. Insanity is abroad. Fancy is replacing reality. Subversion and sedition are in the air.
Hence Dick (errant comma deleted) Di Natale can prance around offering people four-day working weeks. Where is Bill Leak when you need him? Governments can ruin and demolish cheap base-load power stations and replace them with costly intermittent power and think everything will turn out fine again. They can ban the (proven extremely safe) extraction of coal-seam gas if they are mad enough. They’re certainly mad enough in Victoria, in NSW and the Northern Territory. And don’t bank on the madness not spreading.
They can acquiesce to record exports of thermal coal, yet deny Australians the benefits of it for domestic use; while, at the same time, like blithering idiots, congratulate themselves for their contribution to saving the planet. The latest official Australian Energy Statistics (2016) show that coal exports (in energy terms) reached a record 11,081 petajoules in 2014-15. Compare this with 3,241 petajoules when the climate scare was in its pomp in 1990-91, two years after the IPCC was formed. Do those dancing on the grave of coal think it is being exported to Mars?
What a complete irrecoverable mess politicians, together with the chattering classes (and dragging along the gullible scientific-consensus conformists), have made of Australia’s energy generation. As a result of their reckless say-so, for the first time in our history, we have set out, by deliberate intent, to undermine one of our major competitive advantages. And, for what? For a big fat nothing. That’s for what. Atmospheric CO2 is rising steeply and will go on doing so as China, India and South East Asian countries propel and spew it out, using lots of Australian coal.
Fortunately, the chance of CO2 overheating the planet is remote so far as I can tell. There is no scientific evidence to speak of. A correlation which singularly failed to hold up over the past twenty years is not compelling evidence; except to those in an ideological straitjacket. Unfortunately, the pathetic and futile attempts to contribute to global reductions of CO2 emissions are already damaging Australia’s prosperity.
Switch to culture and to another deliberate intent; this time to rob us of pride in our past. Is it even imaginable, in a sane world, that the Leader of the Opposition would get up in parliament and claim without a skerrick of foundation that our forbears poisoned Aborigines’ water holes and gave them blankets infested with diseases? This is fake history broadcast to the world by someone who promotes himself as our would-be champion.
Think about his scurrilous remarks. What possible purpose do they serve except to engender guilt about an evil (non-existent) past in order to undermine our cultural self-esteem? And, ergo, with such an evil past, is it such a stretch to accept that a supremacist, intolerant, sexist, and barbarous medieval religious culture is the equal of ours.
Mind you, is it so surprising that the Left, everywhere in an unholy alliance with Islamists, would seek to weaken our cultural resistance? It is now at such a point that we meekly accept the threats from Islamists of the kind that forced Bill Leak to move home. And we actually discuss and fund ridiculous anti-radicalisation programs; apparently, if I have it right, to prevent Muslim youths from killing us. All the while, populations which produce the need for such programs are allowed to continue to come in. I must be missing something. Being sane is limiting, obviously.
Energy lost, culture lost, what would be left to lose but our very independence. “I don’t know if my troops scare the enemy, but by God, they frighten me,” said Wellington. Or did he? It doesn’t matter. The sentiment is the thing. We have expensive defence forces for one thing only — to deter and, when it comes to it, to kill the enemy. What better target for the left to undermine.
Recently, US General Robert Neller was berated by Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand over male Marines sharing pictures on Facebook of undressed women Marines. He played it with a straight bat. We have had similar brouhahas about sailors and troops behaving badly. Now, to be clear, we shouldn’t excuse bad behaviour but, at the same time, the military should not be used as an exemplar of polite societal interaction between the sexes. My memory, as distant as it is, is that young men, in whatever profession or trade, are not averse to looking at pictures of undressed women. That’s life in the reality lane.
My suggestion is that prissy ninnies like Gillibrand should view some war movies. I recently saw Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge. There were no women for men to interact with badly in the horrific battle scenes. And quite right too; the gory battlefield is no place for anyone, but it is most certainly no place for women. Let me quote Greg Sheridan writing in September 2011 when the Gillard government was in power. I have kept it handy because I think so well of it:
A nation that sends its women into front-line combat, into close infantry, hand-to-hand fighting and killing, is a nation that either doesn’t take combat seriously or doesn’t take respect for women seriously. This wretched decision to make all combat roles in the Australian military available to women moves Australia closer to both outcomes. It will make our military less effective, and less respected, and it will make women less respected as well. It is a decision born of a postmodern fantasy, a kind of derangement of nature contrived by ideology against reason, common sense, military professionalism and all human experience.
It is hard to add anything to this. It conveys, in my view, by inference, a perfect summation of the purpose of the military. And, though it formed no part of Sheridan’s argument, it puts hanky-panky into perspective.
Often, though not always, you find that those who favour windmills, who despise our culture, and who see the military as suitable terrain for social experiments in gender fluidity and feminism, are one and the same. They are of the modern left; the alt-left. They are delusional. Or, are they malevolent; or are they a bit of both? Can you imagine what George Orwell or any self-respecting socialist of not so long ago would have said of them?