Delusional, Malevolent or Both?

leftoid with signBackwards 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?

30 thoughts on “Delusional, Malevolent or Both?

  • Rob Brighton says:

    Are they mentally deficient or intellectually dishonest?

    Either science is the tool used to measure and judge such things or it isn’t and if it isn’t what do we use instead?

    Perhaps the AGW “chicken little’s” would be seen as more reasonable if that were so, but no, they pick and choose which of the emperor’s new clothes to wear that supports their current world view.

    No wonder they are considered charlatans.


  • pgang says:

    I remember being taught in primary school in the seventies that Australia ‘struggled with its identity’. It was the first time any of us had been faced with the proposition that we had to have some sort of mystic ‘identity’ as Australians, and more so, one that we were told that we couldn’t even grasp. For a while I tried to grasp this ungraspable identity. It went on through high school where we told that Anzac day had a history of confusion. Whereas before it had just been about honouring blokes who had suffered in the old days. I still haven’t grasped the ungraspable identity, but of course now I realise there is no such thing, and there never was a problem. I just like living in Australia and I like our way of life and our geography. I like our history and I like what the English did here. I find that it is superior to everywhere else I have been. It may not be superior for much longer, but at the moment I’m still the Australian I was when I was 7.

  • ianl says:

    > “They are delusional. Or, are they malevolent; or are they a bit of both?”

    Quite a lot of both, actually.

    > “Can you imagine what George Orwell or any self-respecting socialist of not so long ago would have said of them?”

    Orwell has a ready-made answer. “I wrote 1984 as a satire, not a manual !”

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    How are we ever going to address these Australian problems with a Lefty leader like Malcolm Turnbull. We might have hoped that the recycled Whitlam Labor warhorse James Spigelman as ABC Board Chairman would be replaced with someone aware of bias in the ABC. But Malcolm sees no bias in the ABC so why would his friend, his new appointee Chairman Justin Milne, be able to see bias in the ABC. “I don’t know that there really is a bias” he is reported as saying.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Mind you, is it so surprising that the Left, everywhere in an unholy alliance with Islamists, would seek to weaken our cultural resistance?

    I do not believe that to be true. There is an anti-totalitarian Left, represented by the journalists Nick Cohen and the late and great Christopher Hitchens which will not have a bar of that.
    But when one is singing from a concealed hymn sheet, then the presentation of antiscientific garbage at least becomes understandable. For example:

    Fortunately, the chance of CO2 overheating the planet is remote so far as I can tell. There is no scientific evidence to speak of…

    Global Mean Sea Level Rates
    CU: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    AVISO: 3.3 ± 0.6 mm/yr
    CSIRO: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NASA GSFC: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)


    NB: I have in the past on this curate’s egg of a site, been accused by local identities of being boringly repetitious by repeatedly trotting this out. But I have only ever done so in response to boringly repetitious, patently pro-fossil fuels, anti-renewables AGW denialism of the sort featured here.
    Did I say repetitious? That too.
    Like it or not, CO2 is a proven heat-trapper of a gas. And the planet is warming, spelt W-A-R-M-I-N-G.

    • Tricone says:

      Perhaps I’m the pro-hydrocarbons person which you hate so much you try to conflate me with Holocaust denial. God knows why. You benefit from the so-called “fossil fuels” as much as anyone else in Australia. Perhaps more if you’re in receipt of government funding. I’m very proud of my role in improving everyone’s lives with the most efficient sources and storage of energy ever developed.

      I’m certainly not against “renewables” , which usually seems to mean those perennially fattened turkeys wind and solar.

      I’m just against giving them public cash, I’m against the truly evil nobbling of better energy in order to make these turkeys look good, I’m against the technically illiterate but constant boosterism for wind and solar in the Australian media (they are very behind the rest of the world who are far more cynical and realistic behind the platitudes). I’m against the destruction of the grid in order to facilitate this backwardness, I’m against the crippling of Australia’s economy to fund this corruption.

      But no, I’m not against renewables. I’ve even made a few bob off them by replacing their bearings, a big job and about the only truly “renewable” (constantly) thing about wind turbines.

      And drilling geothermal wells of course.

      All the best, and keep turning to the right , as we say in the oil patch.

    • Jody says:

      Christopher Hitchens was ONCE of the Left but when he moved to the USA he came to despise the Left and all it stood for. I’ve read many of his books.

    • Anthony Cox says:

      Co2 increase is predominantly natural; the whole reason for worthless renewables is human CO2 is supposedly destroying the climate but that is wrong because CO2 increase is natural and there is therefore no reason for renewables.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Another great piece Peter.

    No need to wonder about the motivation of the left though. While the armies of the useful idiots are blissfully unaware of it, all activities aimed at weakening western societies have the one single goal: Destroy western culture and build upon its ruins the borderless, nationless, perfect utopian society, expertly and benevolently managed by those qualified for the task. What a diabolical, “noble” notion and how terrifying. Both Islam and the secular left are executing an identical agenda with the same purpose so their temporary alliance makes perfect sense. An intriguing question is when will the two entities openly acknowledge that ultimately only one or the other can rule the whole world, so one must be totally eradicated as part of the endgame.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    What else you believe sort of undermines your credibility Ian.

    Did you forget?
    I didn’t!

    You claimed in here that warming caused cold because the cold was transferred high in the atmosphere, where I pointed out that in those regions there was neither sufficient air and no weather.


    But you just continue with your benighted opinions. I love the humour of it all.

    • Jody says:

      Actually, I’d be really surprised if you laughed at anything as it is certain you have no sense of humour. Ergo, your “ha ha ha” is a sign of derangement. I think you have also got a handle-bar moustache which you can twirl to accompany your ‘ha ha ha’.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    The alliance between the Islamists and the mongoloids of the left reminds me of the pacts between the national socialists of Germany and the international socialists of the soviet union.

    In time we in the west will, like Roosveldt, fund one side to defeat the other.

  • ianl says:

    The resident trollster (every website has one) has avoided commenting on the effects of eustasy, isostacy and plain old widespread, ongoing deltaic deposition and subsidence (New Orleans suffered terribly from that); nor is there sensible comment on the indefinable issue of the beginning of this particular period of sea level rise. NOAA itself agrees that this is now decelerating even though atmospheric CO2 levels are slowly increasing. It would be an absolutely amazing coincidence if this period of sea level rise started at the same time satellite monitoring did, rather than as an early adjunct to the long, slow thaw following the last glacial epoch and interrupted by various events such as the MWP and LIA. These points are critical. Unhappily some of the various organisations that analyse satellite data also avoid these exact points, because, one may perhaps think, useful answers are not yet known.

    El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) oscillations are known to be at least 11,000 years old and while contributing to periodic temperature spikes and troughs are of themselves *not* affected by CO2 levels. How a rise in global land/atmospheric temperature of 0.8C over 150 years causes oceanic abyssals to heat and expand is another true mystery. It takes around a millenium for complete ocean turnover; an increase of 0.8C in land/sea surface temps in 150 years is quite trivial. The 0.8C measurement is of itself right on the edge of measurement error – which could go either way, depending on proxy accuracies.

    The “heat-trapping” properties of CO2 are weak and of little import as CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas. The big one, both by sheer atmospheric volume and chemical bond affinity for infrared radiation, is water. That’s spelt W-A-T-E-R and it’s truly a demonic compound. To save the planet, it needs to be thoroughly reduced, if not outright banned.

    In short, the general panic is informed by gullible hysteria. That does not mean measurements and analyses should be abandoned but hysterical panic is always extremely destructive. My best estimate is that gullible hysteria has well and truly won.

    Arm waving doesn’t demonstrate anything but delusion. Similarly with ad homs.

    • mburke@pcug.org.au says:


    • ian.macdougall says:

      The “heat-trapping” properties of CO2 are weak and of little import as CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas. The big one, both by sheer atmospheric volume and chemical bond affinity for infrared radiation, is water. That’s spelt W-A-T-E-R and it’s truly a demonic compound. To save the planet, it needs to be thoroughly reduced, if not outright banned.

      And for good measure: “Arm waving doesn’t demonstrate anything but delusion. Similarly with ad homs… “

      Ad homs. Like say, ‘resident trollster’?

      However, my battle is not against ad homs, but against hypocrisy.

      But re the CO2, we might ask here: weak relative to what? True, water as droplets and vapour clearly has considerable effect on the overall heat content of the atmosphere, vapour trapping heat and droplets reflecting it. It also precipitates out as fast as it goes in, which is why the sky is not permanently dark with clouds, at least not in most places. But not so CO2. The natural processes that remove it from the air (mainly photosynthesis in green plants) are relatively slow, which is why its atmospheric concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa and Cape Grim observatories (which many climate ‘sceptics’ want closed down) is rising: now 400 ppm, from a long term stable base of 350.

      It must always be borne in mind that our sister planet Venus, which has an atmosphere of almost 100% CO2, is the hottest planet of all in the Solar System: hotter even than Mercury, closest planet to the Sun. It is also true that the human population of this Earth is flying blind on this GHG issue. We can only speculate on what surprises might be in store for us as we gaily saunter (or should that be stumble or blunder?) down the fossil carbon path.

      It is also interesting to compare CO2 with CFCs and their experimentally-confirmed potential to degrade the atmospheric ozone layer and thus admit more ultraviolet radiation. There was no argument there; not even from the CFC and refrigeration industries. The threat was perceived as real, the political cost of opposing reduction in CFC use rapidly evaluated by the most interested parties, and the Montreal Protocol of September 1987 against their use put into place very smartly.

      But Big Money has got its hooks into the world’s deposits of fossil carbon, which are also best assumed to be the only ones the planet will ever have. The faster they can be put through the furnaces, up the smokestacks, and the profits trousered, the better according to the fossilcarbonistas and their media shills. Meanwhile, everything must be done to stifle renewables and to prevent them from taking off, for they are threatening fossil carbon profits, or even (shock! horror!) becoming more attractive than fossil carbon as an energy source: as the numerous articles attacking them on this ‘conservative’ site make abundantly clear.

      And so, any questions about CO2 raised by fossil carbon sceptics such as myself must be summarily dismissed. And terms and big words used like ‘eustasy, isostacy and plain old widespread, ongoing deltaic deposition and subsidence’ that are terribly confusing for a simple soul like me. And daunting, too.

    • Jody says:

      Ian is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours and I am to mine. We don’t all have to agree with each other!!

      • ian.macdougall says:

        Thanks Jody. Well said.
        I came across this comment on QO’s rival site New Matilda today, which I repost here without further comment.

        SirJohn Ward · Managment Consultant at Multiplex Group
        Are you confused by the issues of alternative energy and climate change?
        Here is why.
        The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim MD, PhD recently stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now”, he said.
        In July 2016, Nicholas Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of world GDP each year. The IMF indicates that if governments stopped world fossil subsidies of $5.6 trillions per year, it would benefit world GDP a year by 3.8%.
        How did the Fossil Fuel Industry react to this knowledge in 1980?
        The Global Climate Science Communications Plan, written with the direct involvement of fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil (then Exxon) and Chevron, detailed a plan for dealing with climate change that explicitly aimed to confuse and misinform the public.
        How did Governments and Fossil Fuel Industries collude?
        There is collusion to bring about World Government subsidies of $5.6 trillions per annum (according to the IMF calculations), to create the illusion of low costs and reliable coal generated electricity, and to manage, resist and delay the growing threat of investment in renewable energy as competition to the dominance of the fossil fuel sector.
        There certainly has been a climate hoax that continues today. It is the four decades long campaign by the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to deceive the public by distorting the realities and risks of climate change.
        Why do taxpayer funds subsidise the Fossil Fuel Industry while coal and oil giants pay virtually no tax?
        Malcolm Turnbull has been subsidising the fossil fuel industry with (the IMF estimates) $1,712 per Australian a year or $41 billions of taxpayer funds. This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration. The IMF calculates that Australians subsidisations to the Fossil Fuel Industry account for hidden adverse costs spread out across the states and the ATO, that ultimately, permanently come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
        Why Does the CEFC cause offence to the Fossil Fuel Industry its institutions and the IPA?
        In 2013 Tony Abbott addressed the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). “I want to assure you” he said, “that the coalition will repeal the carbon tax, abolish the Department of Climate Change , and abolish the Clean Energy Fund. (CEFC)”. That was his intent. However, the Legislature (Parliament) twice refused to allow the Executive’s Bill to abolish the CEFC Act to become law. To undermine the purpose of the Act;
        Former Chief Justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson on ’The Rule of Law.’
        The High Court is given jurisdiction in matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. This jurisdiction cannot be altered or taken away by Parliament. It confers on the High Court the power, by making certain forms of order that historically followed judicial review of executive action, to compel officers of the Commonwealth to act according to law. The expression ‘officer of the Commonwealth’ includes the Prime Minister and Ministers, and all public servants. The effect of the provision is; no one is above the law. Thus government officials must exercise their powers according to law. If they do not, then, in the last resort, the High Court may order them to do so The Constitution, which is the basic law, itself declares that the government must obey the law, and gives the High Court the jurisdiction to compel such obedience.
        That jurisdiction cannot be removed or modified except by constitutional amendment.
        Parliament, if acting within the limits of the powers assigned to it by the Constitution, may change the law. The executive government must obey the law. That is what the rule of law means.”


        • Tricone says:

          Governments subsidise wind and solar, which after forty years, still can’t exist without subsidy.

          Coal, oil and gas , with all the imposed taxes, royalties and compliances are net payers. Simple as that.

          Any attempt to argue the opposite is to divert public attention from the waste of wind and solar.

  • Meniscus says:

    More clear evidence here debunking the global warming extreme cyclones myth:


    How do the likes of Bandt get away with spreading such garbage? And how do the rest of them get away with doubling down on it again today? Is anyone in the media going to challenge them with the facts?

  • ianl says:

    For those who may be interested, the final (?) AEMO Report on SA going black in September 2016 is now available in PDF format:


    dated March 27, 2017. The AEMO commissioned a 3rd party Canadian engineering consultancy for this. This removes most of the suspicion of Australian political interference, at least in my view. Others may disagree, of course.

    • ianl says:

      Sorry, after reading the Report I need to qualify that statement. It (the Report) is equivocal, fence-sitting and generally of little value as it tries to please the current political zitgeist. I have no doubt the Scope of Work instructions from the AEMO to the Canadian consultancy constrained their analyses.

      In effect, we have a summary comment to the effect that the SA system needs more synchronous units (exactly what these may be is deliberately undefined) so that there is more time to load shed – ie. decide which people to drop off the grid first.

      The newly installed AEMO CEO Audrey Zibelman then opines on the need of a “flexible network” that can respond in “real time and truly real time.” Again, no hard definition of this vacuous arm waving. No engineer she, just a PR puff piece.

      This is just treasonous B/S. Load shedding is the way of lotus land now.

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    Why don’t you add something constructive or witty.

    Doggerel suits.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    You’re right about us all having opinions.

    I object to continually having the opinions of the benighted rammed down my throat.

    Stick to doggerel, mate.

  • ian.macdougall says:


    “I object to continually having the opinions of the benighted rammed down my throat.”
    Which reads as:
    “I object to continually being confronted online by the opinions of people I disagree with.”
    Ah well. Life wasn’t meant to be easy.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Life is easy Ian.

    I can change and adapt to new data and revelations that challenge my opinions.
    Neither you or Jody have changed one iota as climate change is shown as a scam and that Donald Trump is implementing or attempting and will go on attempting to implement his policies, the policies he took to an election.

    Just look what he’s done to the climate scam yesterday. Spectacular.

    And it is nice to see you don’t challenge the idea either of you is benighted.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Sorry Keith. The election of that ignoramus Trump on about 25% of the US vote does not prove that AGW is a ‘scam’.
    Trump has also opened up a new political fight by attacking wildlife protection laws, foreshadsoing the right of gun hunters to shoot wolves with cubs and hibernating bears. It is reminiscent of Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior coming out in favour of strip-mining all the national parks, on the basis that all the signs were there for the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and the the commencement of His Kingdom; which would make national parks totally irrelevant, and mean a whole new political order.
    That is real benightedness if you ask me.

Leave a Reply