Today is a day that will live in infamy.

It is a day when the Leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, officially abandoned any vestiges of belief in individual freedom, small government, and free markets, and replaced them with the dogma of the polls. A “leader” who has spat upon party processes, and the wishes of his parliamentary team, and unilaterally declared himself God.

It is a day when our “Glorious Leader” has revealed himself to be little more than a delusional and mentally unstable individual, desperate to ram his own distorted worldview down the throat of an unwilling party. One who has placed his petty personal ego above the good of the country. One whose paranoid rantings, and deranged obsessions – if unchecked – will be the death of us all.

On this day – the day where the entire edifice supporting the lie behind AGW has come crashing down, the so-called “science” exposed as little more than manipulation and deceit – he has betrayed all. The Liberal Party has made many bad choices in the past, but nothing rivals this on the scale of the pure evil that has been unleashed.

This CPRS is – without a shred of doubt – the worst policy implemented by an Australian government since the Whitlam era (or, as some commentators have stated, since Federation). The misdeeds of Hawke/Keating pale in comparison. It is a program whose vile tentacles shall reach into every household, every workplace. Tentacles shall suffocate business, destroying jobs, and slowing the economy. Which will raise costs for struggling families by over $1100 a year. Which will do nothing for the environment. And which we shall not be able to rid ourselves of.

I must stress this last point – once implemented, so deeply engrained will the ETS be, that it will be nigh on impossible to get rid of.

So. What actually happened?

As you are aware, the Partyroom met to decide whether to accept the Rudd-Turnbull “compromise”, deciding whether we should sell out the country to save Turnbull’s precious ego. By the time the meeting adjourned for Question time, it was clear things were not going well for the Cap & Traitors. Andrew Robb’s passionate speech against the ETS (and, if I may gloat briefly, it was my tweet that broke this news before any other source did), received with unprecedented cheering, swung the tide. During question time, Mr. Turncoat’s support evaporated. When the meeting reconvened, it became clear without any doubt that Mr. Turncoat did not have the votes in the partyroom. A clear majority of the partyroom stood up for Australia. By  41 speakers to 32, the mood of the party was clearly, clearly against any grubby ‘compromise’.

So what did Mr. Turncoat do.  Did he graciously accept the will of the partyroom? Did he act like a true leader? Or did he channel his inner toddler and engage in the mother of all dummy spits?

Anyone who knows the deeply flawed character of this man, or has had any experience with his erratic behaviour, his temper tantrums, and his crazy schemes, knows the answer: he engaged in the mother of all dummy spits. When the Senators were forced to briefly leave the meeting to attend a vote in the Chamber, he unilaterally declared victory, and “stormed out”. He actually declared the results of a vote – without holding a vote. And did this when the Senators were not there.

This is mindboggling.  It is the behavior you would expect from a paranoid dictator, or a banana republic strong man, not that of a leader of a major party in Australia. To declare you had won a vote without actually holding the vote, when it is clear you do not have the numbers, is just beyond words, and demonstrates just how removed from reality the delusions of Mr. Turncoat are. It is an offence that strikes at the very core of parliamentary democracy. So bad, so unprecedented, so surreal, is this, that I half expect Ashton Kutcher will appear any moment, announcing we were all punk’d! The whole situation would be almost funny if it were not true, and if the future of our country did not hang in the balance.

As a result of this treachery, from this day on, The Dishonourable Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP will wear his leadership as a crown of thorns. Despised by all in the partyroom, irrespective of their position on the ETS, he is a dead man walking. It is only a matter of time before he is deposed. None of the factions support him (perhaps the only thing they are all in agreement on), and he has remained in the job to date solely because no-one else wanted the job. Despite the lack of credible other candidates, however, after today, one thing is clear:

Malcolm Turnbull must go. And he must go now.

It did not have to be this way. Mr. Turncoat did not have to make this a leadership issue. He did not have to stake all on forcing the party to sell out. Simply calling for a delay of a few weeks until after Copenhagen, so we would have known what the rest of the world does, and denied Prime Minister Rudd a grandstanding exercise, would not have hurt in the polls. If anything it would have benefited. This was the compromise Senator Minchin tried to offer him last night, which, with his usual hubris, the Great Man opposed. Indeed, even if worst came to worst, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, coupled with tax cuts and the like, could have been proposed, a solution that would have appeased the Green lobby a lot more (it would have actually done something, unlike Rudd’s CPRS), and not wreaked this economic devastation. But no. He was determined to enter the gutter, and drag the whole party along with him.

There is no longer any room for doubt. He is the greatest traitor the Liberal Party has seen, a Manchurian candidate who seems hell-bent to destroy the party, and all that we have worked for, from the inside. To anyone who cherishes the Liberal Party, and what it stands for, there is only one course of action. Malcolm Turnbull must go. He is a cancer, which, if not excised, will destroy the Liberal Party. This is no longer simply a battle for the soul of the Liberal Party, it is a battle for its very survival. Mr. Turnbull is so dedicated to recreate the experience of Sampson, to destroy himself, and destroy the Liberal Party in the process, that there is no other option for us. He must be destroyed.

Already, the devastating effects of this are starting to be felt. Just look at the current by-elections. Despite the very strong campaign run by William Street (a tribute to our State Director, who leads the strongest campaign team we have in a decade), people are simply not turning up to support the party in Bradfield. I hear of similar problems in Higgins, where, with even a very strong candidate in Kelly O’Dwyer, our rank and file supporters are simply refusing to show up. Why support a party if it stands for nothing, after all. And this is but the thin edge of the wedge. Unless stopped, Mr. Turnbull will ensure that there will be no rank and file left. He will take down the party with him. Whether the  spill motion tomorrow is successful or not (and with such short notice I doubt Andrews, Abbott or any other potential candidate would have the numbers), this must happen soon.

The time for compromise is over. Turnbull must be removed from office. Let the message be crystal clear: those who work for, support, or do anything to bolster Malcolm Turnbull are collaborators on par with the Vichy. If they have not resigned by now, then they deserve no quarter. And the time of reckoning is upon us. I single out for particular attention some of the self-proclaimed conservatives for whom I have the most contempt. We all know who they are. Those who loudly proclaimed their conservative beliefs, who were elected to stand on a conservative platform, and who, when push came to shove, betrayed us. It is this betrayal that is the cruelest cut of all. If they do not do the right thing, then their time shall come.

Like with any story, along with the villains, are the heroes: those who stood up for truth and righteousness. And when the day of reckoning arrives, they shall be richly rewarded.

In particular, I wish to note the contribution of Dr. Denis Jensen, and Senator Cory Bernardi. Long before opposing the ETS was popular, they stood up for principle, at great personal cost. Dr. Jensen, at great risk to his own career, has steadfastly spoken out in favour of true science from the outset. Similarly, Senator Bernardi, one of the most promising and inspiring young members we have, has consistently put truth and principle above naked ambition, again, at great cost to his own parliamentary career. These people are true heroes, to whom I bow down without reservation.

Similarly, the other members of the Coalition who have stood up against the ETS, despite the inordinate pressure put upon them: I do not know the names of all 40, but can clearly say they deserve an honoured place in Liberal Party History.

To those who supported Malcolm Turncoat, however, let this message ring loud and clear. Your days are numbered. We will remember this come pre-selection time. Freedom will ultimately prevail, and you will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: If you voted in favour of this monstrosity, then you have no place in the Liberal Party. And if you do not do the honourable thing, and march straight down to Sussex Street (or your state’s equivalent) and join the Labor Party, then any true liberal WILL dedicate the remainder of their lives to ensuring you shall hold no other position of office within the Liberal Party, shall be thrown out at pre-selection, and shall be consigned to the dustbin of history. At the end of it, you will be reduced to a shallow husk of a person, occasionally turning up on the ABC and in the Fairfax press, whining and mewling on how unfairly you were treated, but ultimately, a nobody.

This is how it will be. There is no question.

This is the greatest litmus test of all time. You either stand for freedom, or you stand against it. You either vote for principle, or sell us all out. There is no grey. There is no compromise. It is simple, black & white. So if you are an MP: whatever you choose, we will not forget. We will remember your actions, and you shall be held to account. All decisions have consequences, and you shall be forced to pay for yours.

If you are a member of the party, or even purely a supporter, there is only one course any true believer in freedom can take: involve yourself in the Liberal Party as much as possible, to ensure these traitors will never be re-elected to their seats. Do everything in your power to transform our party, so it returns to the great creature it once used to be. Dedicate today and tomorrow to emailing all MP’s & Senators urging them to depose Mr. Turncoat. There might not be a great replacement waiting in the wings, but anything is better than Turncoat as leader. He must go. There is no other choice.

Cap & Traitors: your days are numbered.
Malcolm Turnbull: your political career is over.

Righteousness shall prevail.

I know it’s bad form to simply plagerise someone else’s writing and put it on your own blog, but I just had to do it this time.

William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University, writes:

An expert commission of African leaders today announced their plan for comprehensive reform of music band U2. Saying that U2’s rock had lost touch with its African roots, the commission called for urgent measures to halt U2’s slide towards impending crisis.

“Our youth today are imperiled by low quality music,” said Commission chairman Nelson Mandela. “We will be lending African musicians to U2 to try to refurbish their sound to satisfy the urgent and growing needs for diversionary entertainment at a time of crisis in the global music and financial sectors.”

Concerns about U2 have been growing in Africa for a while. One Western aid blogger testified to the Commission that his teenage kids found U2’s music “cheesy.” The Mandela Commission proposed that U2 follow a series of steps to recover its Edge:

1) Hire African consultants to analyze U2’s “poverty of music trap”

2) Prepare a Band-owned and Commission-approved Comprehensive U2 Reform Strategy Design (CURSD)

3) Undertake a rehabilitation tour of African capitals to field-test and ground-truth proposed reforms

4) Subject all songs to randomized experiments in which the effect on wellbeing of control and treatment groups is rigorously assessed.

Mandela expressed optimism that the Commission’s report and proposed reforms had come in time to stave off terminal crisis in U2, and restore its effectiveness in the 80s arena rock field.

Hehehe.

(posted late Monday Evening)

One of the contributors to Boing Boing recently wrote about “internet addiction”. According to the post, it is a “real problem”. Apparently 20% of all addicts in the Illinois Institute of Addiction Recovery check into their rehab center for “Internet addiction”, staying “at the Institute for 30-90 days, paying up to $1200 a day …to  follow the same treatment program that alcoholics and sex addicts go through”. If you are in any doubt you may be afflicted, there’s a test you can do to see if you are an “internet addict”

Internet addiction, sex addiction, gambling addiction… the list goes on. It seems every vice can be an “addiction” today. And I say what codswollup. What utter rot.

As you probably know, there is nothing I detest more than our present societal trend to strip away individuality, and create the conformity of the average . To get everyone to regress to the mean. I have written about this a few times previously. And this is perhaps the most insidious example of it.

Because by classifying all that our current political ‘elite’ deem “vice” as an “addiction” – a “medical problem” that “can not be helped”, what does this say about our society?

Because what is “addiction” these days? Little more than the feeble attempt of some people to take action, then eschew all responsibility for it.

This goes to the very core of it.

Because if something is an ‘addiction’ then it is obviously not your fault. You are not to blame for your actions, you can’t be asked to take responsibility – you are an ‘addict’. It is a ‘medical’ problem. And so, it is always something else’s fault. You have a character vice, it is because you are addicted’ it is a “disease” that you need treatment for.

I do not deny that much of my opinion on this matter is driven by Thomas Szacz (I believe I am the only person in the history of the universe to give The Myth of Mental Illness to a significant other and think it romantic), but whilst I do not agree with all his conclusions, I think he does raise a valued point. In that we now use quasi-“medical” excuses as an excuse for our own behaviour. To allow us to commit actions, and escape the consequences.

It is for this very reason that there is little I hate more than people who tell me they are “trying to quit smoking” What horrid kind character does that? Either quit, or do not. Do not say you are “trying”. Make a decision and stick to it, and do not blame external forces for your own internal failures.

And so, as we as a society stigmatize all those who are ‘different’, as we continue to preach this mantra of ‘addiction’, what is the final result? A society where individual responsibility matters naught. And this is what I am combating against.

So either embrace your vices, or renounce them. But at least accept them as part of who you are. Do not – ever – seek to blame “addiction” for your own deeds. For if you do, it is simply yet another dagger into the heart of the concept of individuality that makes life worth living.

UPDATE: Apparently I am not the only person in the universe to have gifted Szacz as a gesture of romance. So, yeah, that pretty much shatters any notion I had of being a unique individual. Thanks, thanks oh so much…

To continue in the vein of promoting sound discourse and solid political debate, please find below a guest post by David Leyonhjelm, Treasurer of the Liberal Democratic Party, on the upcoming Higgins & Bradfield byelections. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it is certainly worth all true Liberals reading:

The outcome in the Bradfield and Higgins by-elections on Dec 5 is not in doubt. Both are safe Liberal seats and with Labor not standing, a win by the Liberal candidate is a foregone conclusion.

Of more interest is the interpretation the Liberal party seeks to place on its victory. Will there be any lessons that may be relevant to its quest to return to government?

Among the eclectic group of minor party and independent candidates, there is one party that stands out – the Liberal Democrats (LDP).

Describing itself as the true liberals, it is Australia’s only consistently ‘small l’ liberal party. The LDP’s policies include low taxes, reduced regulation, less government interference and an end to the nanny state. It opposes the Emissions Trading Scheme on the grounds that it will increase taxes as well as being bad policy, irrespective of opinions on human contribution to global warming.

Liberal voters who would like to nudge the Liberal Party in the direction of genuine liberalism can help send a message by voting 1 for the LDP and 2 for the Liberal Party. If enough voters choose this option, the Liberal Party will be obliged to reconsider some of its less than liberal policies. Who knows, it might even regain its enthusiasm for individual choice and personal responsibility.

I have always felt it my duty on this blog to report all things of interest to freedom fighters, both in Australia and in the US. In this vein, as some of you may know, Cr. Nick Adams is in the US on a ‘freedom tour’.

Please find below a show-reel of some of some of his appearances (unfortunately the  “simply the best” one is no longer online), and a rather rousing speech he gave at a recent gathering to anti-tax protesters. Freedom is a good thing

UPDATE: I neglected to link to Nick’s webpage. You may find it here. It’s quite well made.

And so we have the latest publicity-seeking, money-grabbing hussy/tart willing to bare all about a political affair to the media.

For a reported $200,000 Barmaid Michelle Chantelois detailed to the Seven Network & New Idea details of a relationship she had with Premier Rann (who was at that point single), including sordid details about them having sex on his office desk in parliament &c.

Perhaps I am somewhat old fashioned, but I do believe it is a horrendous breach of etiquette to ‘kiss and tell’ in this manner. If you want to have an affair with someone, at least have the good manners and decency to keep it quiet.

I have little interest in commenting more upon this, other than to express my disgust the actions of Mrs. Chantelois, and to express my sympathy to Premiere Rann. Yes, he might be a horrible premier, but he should at the least be judged on his performance as such, and not have his private life splashed across the front page.

I will only add a few extracts of what I wrote previously, after the Della Bosca “scandal” broke:

“Through breaching the trust and privacy of Mr. Della Bosca in such a manner, whatever lasting shreds of doubt you could have had about her moral character evaporated. The fact that Mr. Della Bosca also broke vows is irrelevant in being able to objectively state that her actions in going to the media were morally reprehensible (and one suspects the possibility that Belinda Neale is far more pragmatic about such things to a degree that trust wasn’t actually broken). I am just sickened by this. This was a clear breech of trust that nothing in the story she presented is justified.John Della Bosca was betrayed in the cruelest way possible.

I see no reason why having an affair should disqualify you from public office. None at all. We elect people in politics to govern. We do not elect them to be our moral leaders. Becoming an MP is not the same as becoming a priest. We do not – and should not – elect people on the basis of moral virtue. The only grounds for being elected or removed from office is your ability to do your job. And while I think Mr. Della Bosca should be thrown out of office, this is for the sole reason I think he is incapable in his job description. And not because of what he does in his private life.

I find it a disturbing trend in society at the moment that we expect our politicians to live lives free of sin. To be models of purity and virtue. To be angelic role models in their private lives. And if they ever show any signs of frail humanity and weakness, we tear them down. Such an attitude of unrealistic expectations can never be good for government. We either end up with unrepresentative puritans, or persons who are forced to lie and conceal themselves from the public – what sort of an incentive for honesty is there? And then blackmail becomes an active political commodity. More dangerously, fostering such a mentality that politicians are almost super-human beings means we trust them ,and government ,with far too much power. A society where politicians are ‘role models’ is a dangerous society for liberty indeed.

It would be better for all concerned if we understood and accepted our politicians as humans, with all their flaws. We removed the pedestal from under them, and accepted them for who they were. We did not rip into our opponents for personal failings, but rather focused on the issues at hand. And, as technologies are destroying traditional information model, I have hope that such things will gradually occur.”

Ahh the Greens. Everyone’s favourite communist party. Hardcore Marxism cloaked behind trees and cuddly animals –  what’s there not to love?

One thing I will say for Greens members, in all seriousness, is that whilst I may disagree with them on most ideological issues, I genuinely do like and respect the commitment their rank and file has to honesty and solid political possesses. Starry-eyed dreamy ideologues perhaps, but I respect that. They have ethics.

Indeed, the Greens have long prided themselves on transparency, on grassroots democracy. They have long berated the major parties for their preselection process, and made much political gain out of their claims to rank and file postal ballots for their preselections. They pride themselves on letting locals decide who their candidates are, and not having persons imposed upon them from above. And I do appreciate them for it.

Which is what makes the events of the last few weeks so much more horrendous and despicably scandalous.

What am I referring to? I know I should have commented on this previously, but it was difficult to track down willing sources. But now that that has been done, I may proceed (as I think no-one else has covered this). As you would know, the Greens nominated Clive Hamilton, Godfather of internet censorship, and all round crypto-communist, to be their standard bearer in the Higgins by-election.

In a seat the Greens stood at least somewhat of a chance of winning, this surprised me, to put it mildly. Why choose someone who wasn’t a local, who had no grassroots connections, who had no link to the area?

Then I came across this Crikey article on how the Greens selected candidates. How they were all ‘transparent’. ‘Local’. ‘Democratic’. And something struck me as just quite a bit off. The article stated that Clive Hamilton “fronted a selection panel, comprised of the state branch and members of the local Stonnington Greens. He was then interviewed for one hour and 15 minutes and the next day was told he was preselected.”

Um. Excuse me?

This immediately set off a number of red flags for me. Faced a panel? Only one hour fifteen minutes? This was somewhat odd. So I thought I would investigate and find out more, find out exactly what this ‘selection panel’ was.

The result of my investigation? The Victorian Greens Head Office trampled over good process, spat on every principle that they claimed they stood for, and are just as undemocratic as those they berate. And local members are furious.

What actually transpired was a secretive process, where local members were not consulted in the slightest, and instead a process was created where Bob Brown’s office imposed what was to occur.

Let us think about this for a minute. Mr. Hamilton was selected by a ‘panel’. Yet who made up this closed doors “panel”? I can exclusively reveal, a mere 6 members. Only two of them were locals. Again, Six people, of which only two were local. The panel included Brown devotee Sue Plowright (Head Office State Convenor for the Greens) & Sue Pennicuik, a member of the Victorian Legislative Council and another Brown darling)

Just think about this for a moment. There were only two locals on a panel to decide who the local candidate should be. Does no-one else find this scandalous? This is a process that makes the Sussex Street Machine look positively transparent and grassroots by comparison!

It gets even better though – the other candidate (in true Soviet style a patsy candidate was put up to preserve the illusion of democracy)* didn’t even know that Hamilton was for internet censorship – so the whole issue wasn’t even discussed! It really is tragically farcical, if you come to think of it.

Let me stress in no mean terms: in this instance, the Victorian Greens hierarchy proved that they do not care about their members, they do not care about their principles, they do not care about anything other than returning favours to mates.

So. As you hear the Greens talk , astride the high horse of hypocrisy, remember this. It is not that they are no better than the rest of us, in reality they are worse. They base their decision on top down, Head Office impositions. The few brave members willing to speak to me have been sidelined already for opposing this near fanatical, dictatorial control that Senator Brown’s** office seems to have down to the last miniscule issue.

In their defence, the Greens members I have spoken to are genuinely outraged by this. And for good reason. It is a complete travesty of everything they stand for. Yet what have they done about it?

So my question to Greens members is this – are you truly a grassroots party? Do you actually believe what you preach? If so, then disavow this travesty, and actually stand up for principle.

*I should note that I was told that the other candidate did believe he was a genuine candidate. Perhaps he was. I think, however, that the cynics/realists amongst us know how these things work

** One of the sources I used in creating this story was of the opinion that Senator Brown was actually opposed to Clive’s nomination. Personally, I think the evidence stacks up against this point (considering the history of the relationship between Senator Brown & Clive Hamilton, and knowing how the Victorian Greens division works). However, in the interests of transparency and openness, I do state this fact.

UPDATE: Another person has contacted me distancing Brown’s office completely from this decision, and dumping everything on the Victorian Division, which they claim is no-where near as close to Brown as I was previously led to believe.

UPDATE 2: Thank you to Pollbludger & Vexnews for the links! Vexnews has additional information worth reading.

I tend to quite like the theater, but rarely get the chance to attend. In the last year, I’ve only attended one performance, which was rather enjoyable, but very much would like to attend some more.

So – anyone want to watch a performance with me? I might even throw in a free drink for you afterwards as an added incentive to stomach my company.

I was thinking – the DC-based Shakespeare Theatre Company offers $10 tickets to persons aged 35 and under, and are about to start with As You Like It. I have never seen As You Like it in full, so would quite like to attend. As theatrical performances are generally best enjoyed in company, would anyone else here like to watch it with me?

Now, I should note, I am a rather harsh critic of theater. Once, after storming out of a Sydney Theater Company’s production of Self-Esteem during interval in utter disgust, I ceremonially burned all the playbills I could lay my hands on (see photo). And, like pretty much every modern performance of The Bard, I expect it this will be God-awful. I am especially suspicious as this adaption is set “in the Golden Age of Hollywood”. However, a poor production does not equate to a bad evening. In some cases, it can even accentuate it, as you can have great fun sneering and feeling superior afterwards.

So – anyone interested in keeping a slightly mentally unhinged Australian company for an evening?

(Note: crazy stalkers need not apply)

I am perfectly well aware it is intellectually unfashionable these days to wax lyrical of the beauty of books and libraries. Books apparently are no longer meant to be viewed for their aesthetic appeal, and if you do so you are somehow viewed as an intellectual poser, uninterested in the real meaning behind books.

Quite frankly, however, I do not care. I like libraries (and bookshops). I like being in them. I like their very essence. I like the air. Whenever at school I was feeling poorly, I would just have to enter the library and immediately all was right with the world. If I end up surviving until home-owning age, my first plan will be to construct a proper library.

With that in mind, I came across this compendium of some of the world’s most beautiful libraries. Here are just three examples:

What a place to be in is an old library! It seems as though all the souls of all the writers that have bequeathed their labours to these Bodleians were reposing here as in some dormitory, or middle state. I do not want to handle, to profane the leaves, their winding-sheets. I could as soon dislodge a shade. I seem to inhale learning, walking amid their foliage; and the odor of their old moth-scented coverings is fragrant as the first bloom of the sciential apples which grew amid the happy orchard.
— Essays of Elia. Oxford in the Vacation

Of course, at USYD we had the magnificent architectural glory of Fisher Library…