In memoriam of the Brave

 

In fields where poppies bloom, they lie, The valiant souls who dared to try, For freedom's call, they stood so tall, Their sacrifice, our nation's pride.

Through tumultuous times they strode, With courage, in the face of woe, Their legacy, a beacon bright, Guiding us through darkest night.

Their blood, the ink on history's page, A testament to courage's gauge, For liberty, they fought with might, And in their memory, we unite.

Eternal vigilance, our creed, To honor those who bravely lead, Their sacrifice, a sacred trust, For freedom's cause, we must adjust.

Leaders, heed this solemn call, Invest in defense, stand tall, Against all threats, both near and far, Protecting peace, our guiding star.

Let us speak with voices strong, In harmony, a nation's song, For love of country, freedom's reign, In unity, we find our gain.

With respect, we forge ahead, A society by bonds of thread, And in our hearts, let patriotism soar, For those who've given all and more.

(Assisted by ChatGPT)

Of babies and bathwater.

Disinformation, misinformation, tech giants, and censorship have suddenly become the singular issue of the day. Illegal immigrants arriving magically on Australia's shores, the record level of migration, the dirty tricks played by Labor ministers relating to Brittany Higgins, and even the cost of living issues have been replaced in the headlines. I guess that seems to be justification enough. Yet today's talking points are about Elon Musk and Jacqui Lambie's calls for an 'X-odus'. 

The issue is being presented in such naive terms that it is hard not to react. As presented it is a simple case. Do we want wanton violence pushed by Social media to unsuspecting innocent users? Why should these high-tech billionaires corrupt the minds of the innocent? 

It is hard to argue that the violence shown on social media is healthy for anyone. Even a short sojourn through the pages of X or Meta shows many videos portraying violence, sometimes wanton violence. Youth seem to capture fights with multiple assailants ganging up on a single victim, or one on one fights, or even just accidental capture of an unprovoked attack on a passerby. Then of course there are the demonstrations with large mobs screaming slogans at pedestrians who happen today to be Israeli, or even just 'look openly Jewish'.  Then again there is the footage of terrorist attacks and war in action. At a less direct level, there is the precursor of violence. The full-throated exhortations by so-called 'preachers' to denigrate, vilify and demean a race, a religion a people and quote the Koran that condones their murder. 

So yes, there is widespread violence, threats of violence and incitement to violence on Social Media.

But then again these are not confined to social media alone. You can see the same in our Newspapers our televisions and of course plenty of violence in our movies. Violence is not confined to social media. Yes, many will counter, that there are better controls on our media, with some well-defined rules as to what can and what cannot be shown and at various time-slots. Social media seem to have an exemption as they are not classified as 'publishers'. Of course the publishers would like to level the playing field and have social media also classified as publishers. And maybe so. I will leave that argument, for another occasion. Yet it will not solve the problem given that wanton violence is everywhere in our 'publisher ' media too.

The sudden focus on a single video of a terrorist attack on a Christian bishop however seems strangely convenient. Convenient? Yes, convenient. Just last year the government tried to introduce legislation that would have given widespread power to some media bureaucrats to censor social media.  In response to a request for public commentary the government received some 25000 submissions against the legislation so the government reluctantly shelved its implementation

Given this history, many are suspicious that the sudden vilification of social media following the recent terrorist attack is being used to soften us up for another attempt at this legislation. Certainly the government has not asked for many equally offensive videos to be removed from social media. On ABC television there is still a video showing an indigenous assailant stabbing a police officer and in trun being shot by a second police officer. This video is similar in violent content to the stabbing of the Christian Bishop. So what standard are they really pushing?

Censorship is a difficult area, We have a wide range of views regarding what should or should not be censored. I too have my own limits and find much of what I see,  and pass through quickly, on X beyond my limit. Yet censorship has a cost. We should be very cautious about our willingness to censor speech/video we do not like. Any laws that prevent speech/video we personally do not like will end up restricting our access to information that we need. One does not have to think too far back to our recent Pandemic handling to realise the types of abuse governments will use to prevent us from accessing information they do not want us to have. Consider these questions regarding the recent COVID-19 pandemic

• Did COVID-19 come from a lab? 
• Are the vaccines safe? 
• Did the masks work? 
• Were lockdowns necessary? 
• what is the cause of excess deaths? 
• Does Ivermectin work?

All these questions have been taboo, and really remain taboo even today. Yet consider if we had had the chance for open discussion and consideration of these questions. We would have greater trust in our Police and our government, and our society would be better prepared for any future pandemic. So the consequences of censorship are very serious indeed. 

The possibility of abuse of censorship laws is the major argument against such censorship. 

So let's avoid censorship and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

'The Most Secure Election in American History'

In an in-depth article published in The Gatestone Institute John Eastman raises a range of issues that put a lie to the oft-quoted statement that the 2020 Presidential election was "The most Secure Election in American History"

The article is rather long and well worth a full read, but here is a summary of the key points. (Note I have used Copilot AI to assist with this)

"The article raises concerns about the 2020 U.S. election and highlights specific issues:

1. Legal Challenges:

   • Texas Lawsuit: Texas filed an action in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
     • Allegations: These swing states’ election officers violated election law, potentially impacting the election outcome.
     • Specific Violations:
       • In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger unilaterally changed signature verification rules, rendering them unconstitutional.
       • Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar, eliminated signature verification statutes.
       • In Wisconsin, election officials set up drop boxes and ran a ballot harvesting scheme.
   • These legal challenges question the integrity of the election process.

2. Pennsylvania’s Vote Discrepancy:

   • Records indicate that there were 120,000 more votes cast than the total number of voters in Pennsylvania.
   • The margin of victory in Pennsylvania was only 80,000 votes.
   • This discrepancy raises concerns about the accuracy of the vote count.

3. Georgia’s Signature Verification Change:

   • Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s rule change undermined signature matching requirements.
   • The alteration may have affected the validity of ballots.

4. Wisconsin’s Ballot Harvesting:

   • Human drop boxes were set up in Madison, Wisconsin, which violated state law.
   • Some ballots lacked complete witness signatures.
   • These irregularities warrant scrutiny.

5. Overall Concerns:

   • The elimination of protective statutes may have facilitated fraud.
   • The article underscores the need to address these issues to ensure election security and restore public confidence.

In summary, John Eastman’s article critically examines the 2020 election process, highlighting potential vulnerabilities and urging further investigation."

Did Israel Carpe the Diem?

A few days ago I speculated on the range of options Israel had for their response to Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel. (see my earlier Carpe Diem )

If you listen to the mainstream media it was 'ho-hum'. More significantly if you listen to Iran's comments it was also 'ho-hum, nothing to see here, not even a scratch'. So is this true?

Perhaps we should take a short detour and revisit Iran's attack. There is no doubt Iran's was a large scale direct attack on Israeli territory. Over 300 projectile weapons were directed at a wide range of military and non-military targets within Israeli territory. They included ballistic and cruise missiles, and drones. By all accounts a large majority of the drones were shot down even before they reached Israeli air-space, and virtually all the missiles were shot down without hitting their targets. The only injury reported is of a single young girl hit by shrapnel resulting from the destruction of one of the missiles.

Most significantly Israel was assisted by the US, UK and Jordan in directly shooting down the drones and missiles, and ground assistance (radar intelligence) was also provided by Saudi Arabia and UAE. The willingness of these Sunni states to join in protecting Israel from the Iranian attack is notable.

In many respects, Israel's success in repelling Iran's attack was already disarming for Iran. A miracle according to the account below.

After the large-scale attack by Iran, Israel's response seems minor. While Iran's attack was a major television extravaganza with extensive coverage by all media. Direct footage of projectiles being destroyed over Israel, including quite dramatic footage over the Al Aqsa mosque. 

In contrast, the attack on Iran was not covered widely at all. There were some reports of explosions around a military base in Isfahan. Iran reported they had shot down a number of drones. We also heard some sites in Syria and Iraq were bombed. No casualties were reported. Israel has not commented on its attack, at all. This allowed Iran to downplay the attack as insignificant. But is this true? Perhaps not.

Several reports have emerged that praise the strategic success of Israel's attack. The video below titled

No one could believe this happened! Finally Israel's supersonic missiles broke through Iran defense!

highlights Israel's success in penetrating Iran's air defences. 

I guess time will tell, but so far Israel has -

• successfully defended its territory against a direct attack by Iran with over 300 projectiles
• forged a de-facto allegiance with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE against Iran (this will not be publicized but when it came to action they were there )
• penetrated Iran's best air defence and bombed selected targets within Iranian territory in one of their largest cities
• demonstrated its defensive and offensive superiority
• allowed Iran to walk away from further aggression without losing face

All round not too bad.

Carpe Diem

Are we at the crossroads? Can we take the opportunity granted by recent unwelcome and unprecedented events to correct for the evil that we have seen seep into our world community? Is it time to seize the day?

The unwarranted launch of 300 airborne weapons by Iran aimed at both military AND non-military targets in Israel has opened a door. A door that was heretofore shut due to the likely condemnation of Western World sensibilities. Had Israel attacked Iran directly even despite the multiple attacks instigated by Iran against Israel but committed by its puppet armies, it would have been regarded as provocative and condemned. 

However, after the massive attack on Israel directly from Iran the game has changed. This was the first direct attack on Israeli territory from Iranian territory. The shadowboxing veil has been dropped, at least for this attack. Iran was trying to provide a disproportionate response to Israel's attack on a senior military personnel meeting in an annex to Iran's embassy in Damascus. Israel's attack had been a serious blow & embarrassment to Iran. For Israel, these were very valuable military targets, in particular one of the organisers of the Oct 7th Hamas massacre.

After Iran's attack, Israel has vowed to respond. No doubt Iran had expected this but hopes it is 'proportional', or limited. And the Western World has again lectured Israel about its likely response calling for it to be 'restrained'. Some of Israel's allies have threatened (USA, UK) and even ceased (Canada, Belgium) arms shipments. So much for so-called 'allies'.

Yet, having survived the massive attack by Iran, virtually unscathed, Israel has a singular opportunity to attack Iran without incurring the condemnation of the Western World. Of course, no matter what it does there will be some countries that will condemn it, but there is a clear moral right for Israel to respond.

There are many ways that Israel could respond. They can be broken into three categories

1. A short sharp proportional response  A relatively mild but sufficient response to show that it will always respond to an attack. This would be a response against military infrastructure only, but of sufficient intensity and value to give Iran a 'bloody nose'. Given Iran's attack had been thwarted any successful destruction of military bases would be a lesson, proving Israel to be more capable than Iran
2. A consequential economic attack A militarily simple but economically consequential attack on Iran's critical infrastructure. This could be oil pipelines, Oil refineries, oil export terminals, electricity power stations, water supplies, maritime terminals, etc. While these are soft targets, and not strictly military they would expose Iran's vulnerability and most importantly enlist the Iranian population into condemning the Islamist regime.
3. An all-out re-establishment of deterrence As a final option, Israel could go 'disproportionate' with a direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and eliminate a major threat to the entire Middle East and the World. A successful attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be welcomed by the world, and would, if successful, give Iran more than just a bloody nose, it would seriously embarrass the regime and elevate Israel. It would also prevent a potential nuclear catastrophe should Iran develop multiple nuclear weapons or even if not deployed would prevent Iran from being elevated above its neighbors as a nuclear weapon state.

While option 1 would most likely be allowed to pass without another attack from Iran, the other options would most likely have further consequences. The most likely being another barrage of rockets from Hezbollah, perhaps a full war, or even force Iran into a direct open war with Israel. 

There are high costs to any of these options. Although no immediate response to the first, it will leave Israel weaker and encourage further adventurism from Iran. In the long term maybe the higher cost options are preferable.

If Churchill had won the day in the early1930s and the Allies had attacked Germany before it built its formidable army, it would have saved 50 million lives!

In that case, Chamberlain won and the world lost.

Today Israel's decision may also have a heavy price.

Of course, these are nothing more than guesses. But we will see in the coming days.

 The consequence of this latter would be I see a couple of different approaches;t can respond by attacking military infrastructure

Uncontrolled immigration causes social division!

In what has proven to be a prophetic presentation, a younger Douglas Murray pinpointed the consequences of uncontrolled immigration. In his Oxford debate some 10 years ago on the topic "Immigration is Bad for Britain", Murray spoke of the dangers of uncontrolled, rapid immigration.

He noted that 

• Before the rapid immigration that started in the 1990's Britain was a far more homogeneous and socially united country
• Despite there being some immigration benefits there is a downside as well. Some studies prove that the cost of migration is greater than the benefits they bring
• The greatest cost is the impact on social cohesion. The introduction of large numbers of individuals who share a different set of values than the rest of the country invariably leads to divisions and competition between conflicting values
• As a result values that defined what it meant to be British including, the institution of Western Judeo-Christian moral code, the belief in Law and Order, and the institutions of Parliament, have been gradually whittled away with competing ideas from cultures that do not share these value.

Given what has happened to Britain in the past 30 years his words are prophetic.

British culture is not what it was, and Britain has indeed lost its social cohesion.

This is a warning for many people in the world where rapid immigration has created enclaves of people with values different from the countries they have adopted.

Nothing highlights this breakdown in values more than the recent anti-Israeli marches with many migrants (first or second generation) not only protesting against Israel but openly condemning and even burning the flags of the country which they had adopted.

Douglas Murray saw this coming, we should have listened!

(If you wish to hear the whole debate see it here ; 

 

Who is to blame?

We have seen this story before. A bank robbery has gone wrong, the police have the bank surrounded with the 4 would-be-robbers holding twenty hostages. The police negotiator using his best patient and compliant manner has offered food, and has calmed the trigger-happy gunmen. The barter is simple, they want their freedom in exchange for the freedom of the hostages. As always it is a long and complex negotiation. Lots of pizza is delivered. The delivery man is an undercover cop, who sizes up the locations of the gangsters, the hostages and the layout. The SWAT team is already on site, ready and eager to get their hands on the bastards, but the negotiator holds them off feeling he can avoid bloodshed. 

It has taken 10 hours and everyone is tired and edgy. A gunshot rings out. Something has happened. The SWAT team is given the go-ahead to bring the stand-off to an end.

Flash-bangs, gun fire, sniper action, and all is over in just a minute. The result?

All gunmen were shot, 18 hostages were safe, but one hostage had been shot by one of the robbers, and another was shot and killed when a SWAT team member aiming at a gunman accidentally shot a hostage.

So who is to blame for the death of the hostage? Not who caused the death but who is to blame? The law is clear on this. If someone is killed during a felony the perpetrator of the felony is responsible and will be charged with murder.

So why am I raising this?

Apply this to the recent accidental deaths of aid workers in Gaza. Who is to blame? Israel has accepted that it was responsible for the deaths, and has taken action to punish the perpetrators. But who is to blame for the deaths?

In a court of law, it would be Hamas. So it should be in all our minds. Had Hamas not broken the peace on Oct 7, none of the deaths would have occurred.

World opinion is being manipulated for various reasons that I won't get into here. So all the more we need to maintain moral clarity. In Gaza there would be no civilian deaths, no widespread damage to infrastructure, no upheaval in the daily lives of citizens and no food shortages had Hamas not started a war by massacring innocent civilian Israelis and taking many hostage. Hamas started the war, and every death including the death of the aid workers, is on their head.

At last, excess deaths are being investigated

Change comes slowly, but sometimes it does eventually come. In an Australian first, the Australian Senate has voted to establish an enquiry into the sudden and dramatic increase in excess mortality in recent years. From a baseline of -3% in 2020, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has reported excess mortality of excess mortality of  1.6% in 2021, 11.7% in 2022, and 6.1% in 2023. These relatively small percentages represent very large numbers and are statistically significant. The variation in mortality is normally very low. 

While this is being investigated in Australia it is not just an Australian phenomenon, it is worldwide. 

I have posted on this many times so I won't repeat the background. Please review these posts if you have not been following the story; Why are our leaders ignoring the unexplained rise in Non-COVID mortality?, and Examining Excess Mortality Beyond COVID: A Call for Open Discourse - updated 3 October, and Excess deaths debate 16 January

In any case the following link to Ben Fordham's show on Radio 2GB gives a good background.

It is late, but well worth doing. After all who knows what new demon is being cooked up in Virology labs around the world. We need to understand what has happened and make more sensible decisions next time.

Global cancer concerns

Cancer has been in the headlines of late. That may be somewhat of a limp opener, given for many of us touched by the dreaded disease it is never far from our thoughts. Yet when two members of the British Royal family are diagnosed with cancer withing weeks of each other, it is not exactly normal. Sure it could be just a coincidence. Maybe. But is it? Hasn't cancer suddenly had a resurgence? It seems more prominent people and more young people are being diagnosed with fast-developing and advanced cancers. Now admittedly I am somewhat conditioned, due to my scepticism, to look for anything that blames the mRNA vaccines, so take my 'gut feel' with a healthy dose of doubt. But it seems I am not the only one noticing this.  

Dr John Campbell recently posted a short video on the subject on Youtube titled "Global Cancer conerns"

In the video he raises the question 'Why is there a surge in cancers?" and "Why is it not being actively investigated?" Good questions indeed.

And then I also came across this article in Trial Site News, "Cancer in USA Down in 2020, Then Surges After Mass Vaccination—Is there a Connection?

Coincidence? Mmm. there seems to be a lot of smoke. Let's watch this space.

Bird-Feeders gone Wild

In an earlier post I re-printed a poem called the Bird Feeder. It tells the story of how a well-intentioned act , the installation a bird feeder to attract birds to a garden, leads to a whole chain of unexpected and unwanted consequences. A humorous opening setting the stage for some observations it then goes on to describe how government payments, allowances, and concessions serve as perverse incentives. Perverse in that they encourage the wrong type of behaviour. It is well worth a re-read and if you haven't please do. You will have a laugh and I am sure you will nod in agreement. (see the Bird Feeder).

So why am I talking about bird feeders? Simply because of the open southern border of the US. Of course, we know that the US with its high standard of living is incentive enough for the mass 'invasion' of migrants from many of the poorer countries around the world. One would have thought that the existence of an open border would be incentive enough. But no, it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous!

Democrat cities have placed even more bird-feed on the table. You may have heard of some of these but the 'authorities' have tried to keep the wide range of incentives hidden. No wonder really, once you have read the list.

Courtesy of  The Howie Carr Show we have a whole list of the incentives that illegal migrants receive. I am not quite sure if these incentives apply in all states or just some. Irrespective the fact that they exist anywhere is bad enough!

Here is a summary of the list, but please follow the link to the story at FREEBIES FOR ILLEGALS: A Comprehensive List , for the full list and a more in-depth description of the context.

"General Welfare Costs for Illegal Aliens:

• Free hotel rooms at $150+ a day.
• Three meals a day at $64 per person per diem.
• Free on-site medical & dental services (including condoms).
• Special diet for Ramadan.
• Free same-day dry cleaning w/free pick up & delivery.
• Free housekeeping twice a week.
• Free cell phones, chargers/charging ports.
• Free tablets, IPads.
• Free clothing, new & used.
• Everyone got new free winter coat, gloves and shoes.
• Free toiletries (tooth paste, deodorant, special “ethnic” shampoos, skin cream, aspirin, tooth brushes, feminine products).

For the Children

• Free diapers, wipes, diaper pails, cribs, bassinets, playpens, baby bottles, baby formulas, free car seats, free new mother bags, playrooms for young illegals w/free toys & books which must be replaced often because of destruction."

That is a lot of bird seed indeed! The motivation of the Biden administration is rather transparent. It seems they have gone all-out to 'massage' the electoral balance by an infusion of illegal migrants. 

Did Americans vote for this? Hard to say, as many Democrats have spoken about this policy at various times. So maybe, without realising the consequences, many Democrat voters did like the idea of Open borders. However, like the Bird Feeder, now that they can see the consequences I am sure that a majority have changed their minds. This is sure to be a critical issue at the upcoming election!

Climate zealotry destroying Europe's economy

In a most inciteful article in the Gatestone Institute, titled Germany's Murder of Europe, Drieu Godefridi exposes the economic consequences of energy policies driven by the Climate Catastrophe dogma. Given a few observations in unassailable logic these policies will cost Europe dearly without leading to any reduction in Global Temperatures.

The arguments are as follows; -

• If Europe reduces its emissions to zero, while the rest of the world continues to increase them, the effect on the climate will be zero.
• The projected investment to save 0.03% GDP per year , amounting to €1.5 trillion per annum would do absolutely nothing for the climate of Europe with India and China, and others , increasing their emissions.
• "The Paris Agreement is obsolete and to pretend otherwise, as the European Commission is doing, is misleading, irresponsible, and not even scientific."
• The widespread acceptance of climate catastrophism is leading to Europe's impoverishment
• Climate change could be solved by innovation over the coming decades. But if Europe has expended so much of its resources on counterproductive emission reduction efforts it will not have the necessary funds to invest in such research.

Many see the logical absurdity of many climate-driven policies. Yet the juggernaut hurtles on. The Russia- Ukraine war has perhaps brought many to the realisation, but we have yet to see rationality take over.

Gaza’s death toll is Hamas propaganda!

The New York Post is calling out the failure of the world's media in applying the pub test to Hamas' claimed Gaza civilian casualties. Indeed there is much to question. Abraham Wyner in his article Hamas is almost certainly lying about the number of deaths in Gaza points to the suspicious 'straight-line' rise in casualty numbers reported by Hamas. Is it likely that exactly 275 people were killed each day? Certainly does not pass the pub test.  And of course if Hamas is lying about this, then what else are they lying about? 

 

Surprise, surprise! A terrorist organisation that sends rockets at civilians, or commits vile atrocities, also lies. Who would have thought it!

Yet it seems that the rest of the world's media repeat lies without question. What happened to the analysis? To questioning? 

Indeed as another story from the NY Post put it in a follow up article (Hamas’ Gaza death toll stats are pure fiction — yet world media and leaders like Joe Biden still use them to smear Israel) ;

(This is ) a devastating lesson on the credulity of the world media and the gazillion politicians across the globe who’ve been repeating the stats as if they meant something — with no less than President Biden then falsely charging that Israel’s tactics are “over the top.”

Thank goodness there is at least one media organisation willing to look for the truth and then have the guts to publish it as they see it. We need many more.

Questioning the Climate Catastrophe dogma

Is the wind changing on Climate change zealotry?  It started with the Russia-Ukraine war when much of Europe realised that renewables plus imported gas were not a very practical way of powering a modern economy. As a consequence, we have had rapid and concerted moves to refresh old coal mines, import gas and coal from sources other than Russia and renewed investment in nuclear. Green parties in several countries have re-classified nuclear energy as,  lets call it, 'Green', but I am not sure whether they actually called it 'renewable'. I guess this is no worse than advocating the burning of wood, be it re-constituted shaved, pulverized and compressed, but still plain old wood to you and me, as a renewable resource. After all, it does renew even if it happens to take decades or even hundreds of years. Of course, the same argument could be used to classify coal as renewable, but then again the periods are admittedly an order of magnitude longer.

So perhaps it is not surprising, that the 'science' behind the Climate Zealotry is also under pressure. Articles that question the very basis of Climate Change are beginning to break the defensive wall that has prevented even minor criticism of climate catastrophist dogma. The most recent that caught my eye is a rather in-depth article in the Epoch Times. The title is provocative enough Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data.  The article lists several scientists who signed a petition called the European Climate Declaration, sceptical of human-induced global warming.

A small move but significant in its very existence.

The Electric Con Explained - William Levin

In The Electric Car Con Explained William Levin exposes some inconvenient facts for the Climate Change zealots who are promoting electric cars as a solution to car emissions.

Here’s a short summary (courtesy Bing) but please follow the link above for the full article.

• The U.S. car fleet accounts for only 1.0% of global energy demand (5% x 19%), which is projected to decline to 0.8% by 2050.

• Even if the U.S. transitions to 100% electric-powered cars, the maximum climate impact in 2050 would be a mere 0.2% reduction in global CO2 emissions from the current electric grid.

• This impact could increase to a maximum of 0.5% if solar, wind, and hydro can power 60% of electric demand, which is unlikely due to practical challenges.

• Government mandates to switch to electric cars lack a factual basis for a significant impact on global CO2 emissions.

• While Levin acknowledges that EVs have their place, he notes market distortions caused by subsidies and regulatory force are problematic, especially when EVs don’t suit most personal-vehicle needs outside urban areas.

¹Read more from American Thinker

 

 

 

 

 

Pandemic Overreach exposed

It started with a trickle now it is a flood. Whichever way I turn to read I am finding increasingly frank criticism of vaccine safety, vaccine mandates, vaccine death rates and even investigation of excess deaths.

Here is a collection of links to relevant articles covering my recent readings.

• Mandatory COVID vaccines for police and nurses unlawful, says Qld Supreme Court
  
• Australian Senate Votes to Investigate Alarming Excess Deaths, Spotlight on Senator Babet's Initiative
  
• New Zealand Court of Appeal Rules Defence Force's Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Unlawful
  
• Large study funded by CDC identifies rare COVID-19 vaccine risks
  
• Frequent COVID Boosters in Immunocompromised ‘May Be Causing More Harm Than Benefit,’ New Review Suggests
  

I guess we should not be surprised as many of us have been railing against the authoritarian approach taken by our leaders in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. So now, after the peak has passed we are finally being drip-fed the truth. The overreach by authorities who mandated vaccination is now recognised as being in conflict with our 'human rights'. And the even worse overreach in claiming 'safe and effective' when in fact it was an experimental 'vaccine' that did not have the usual level of testing for such vaccines. Unfortunately, this story is playing out too slowly with authorities still resisting full and open investigation of what happened. The Australian government, despite promising it would fully investigate the management of the pandemic, has established a review but with severe restrictions on its scope. Quite the opposite of what it had promised. No doubt many countries are dong the same trying to shield the guilty parties. And of course the vaccines are still being actively promoted in some countries. Fortunately many have seen the light and stopped this. 

There is a lot coming out on vaccines. In one recent tweet, quite well documented, but I have not gone through it, the tweeter, The Vigilant Fox claims 

" In fact, Rancourt and his fellow scientists found in their analysis that all-cause mortality INCREASED every time the COVID-19 shots were deployed.

Follow the link to access the full tweet.

If that were not enough we have the "White Clots" syndrome that has been observed since 2021-2022, which may well be caused by vaccination and may be related to 'excess deaths'.  I guess we will find out over time.

Palestinians speak out against Hamas!

Following Hamas's Oct 7 massacre of Israeli's civilians, and the consequent war between Hamas and Israel, much of the Western world has seen noisy, intrusive & disruptive, 'mostly peaceful', anti-Israel and antisemitic demonstrations. Large crowds have expressed their support for the civilian victims of the war as well as support for Hamas' genocidal call "from the River to the Sea ". 

In a crowd of thousands. no doubt some were only there to support civilian victims, but, given the genocidal chants, many were there to support Hamas. These 'useful idiots' justify their support for the murderous terrorists by blaming Israel, Zionists or just Jews for the supposed "occupation" of Gaza, forgetting that Gaza had not been occupied since 2005. Or worse still accepting Hamas' call to remove all Israelis, and Jews from "the river to the sea". This widespread antisemitic tidal wave to what was a blatant unprovoked attack by Hamas is a shameful betrayal of the "never again' mantra following the defeat of Nazi Germany 80 years ago. 

So much for the Western democratic world. But how do the citizens of Gaza feel? How does the Middle Eastern Arab world feel about the war? It is difficult to know as Hamas still controls much of what comes out of Gaza. If you were to publish something they don't like, the punishment would be painful and permanent. Nevertheless, word is slowly coming out. It is just a trickle but it has started.

Here are a couple of Youtube videos recording the views of the Arab world. It seems many of Gaza's civilians are not happy with Hamas 

The first is titled UNRWA Accused of employing Hamas - Palestinians turn against HAMAS

And another short one, titled Elderly Gazan woman accuses Hamas of stealing aid in rare criticism

and finally Gazans Speaking Out Against Hamas

As Israel disarms Hamas I expect more voices will be heard. 

The elimination of Hamas as the governing force in Gaza is the best chance for Gaza's civilians to have a peaceful & prosperous life.

Why is the CSIRO lying to us?

Our ever-zealous Minister for Climate Change, Mr Chris Bowen, is incessantly reminding us that Nuclear is the most expensive source of energy. Is this possibly true? Well, it seems not. A recent short YouTube video titled More misinformation from CSIRO on Nuclear calls out the lie, or should I just call it 'disinformation'. 

Chris Bowen's justification relies on the CSIRO's Annual Gencost report that does indeed claim Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy. The problem is that the CSIRO did NOT investigate the nuclear option with the same objective analysis it provided for Wind and Solar. It based its costings on a single SMR (Small Modular Reactor) with a large development cost. However, it did not consider full-scale Nuclear or indeed small-scale Nuclear, which has many implementations around the world. Tried and true technology, available and with predictable costing. In fact, CSIRO did not even explore the nuclear option with experts in the field. They relied on input from renewable energy providers and even government bureaucrats. 

If that weren't enough, the CSIRO has also been caught 'misinforming' us about the costs of the pumped hydro technology. This time understating the cost of such technologies.

Again a short video of the senate hearing provides the background. The video is titled CSIRO’s GenCost is Just a Wind and Solar Fairy-tale! and covers the incisive questions by Senator Roberts. Thank you senator for speaking up.

So there you are. It seems our CSIRO is no longer a respectable objective presenter of scientific research, but an advocate of a preferred technology and willing to tilt the objective truth to push an agenda. Shame! Shame!

Will Thorium be the magic bullet?

In my post of almost a decade ago, "What the heck is Thorium? I covered the key reasons Thorium is a potential magic bullet to enable low-cost, safe abundant clean energy to power the world.

The summary from that post was as follows;-

Summary from "What the heck is Thorium"
Nuclear power can generate base-load power without CO2 emissions at low cost.

However Nuclear power suffers from; -

• safety risks
• proliferation of materials which can be used in WMDs
• generation of high volumes of long lived highly radioactive waste
• supply is limited   

Thorium nuclear power can also generate base-load power without CO2 emissions at even lower cost than Uranium based nuclear power.

Moreover the Thorium LFTR design addresses all the downsides of Uranium reactors.

Thorium LFTR ;-

• is relatively safe

• generates much lower volumes of waste, with lower radiation and shorter life

• safe from proliferation as waste is limited and NO Plutonium is produced

• the supply is abundant and projected to last >1000 years.

For all these reasons Thorium seems to measure up to the hype. It holds the promise of clean low cost energy for an energy hungry world."

In a range of subsequent posts I covered various aspects of the development of Thorium rectors. See Thorium nuclear update, Thorium nuclear experiments in Europe, and Safe nuclear passes first hurdle! 

So what is new? A new nuclear reactor design that can use Thorium fuel as well as existing nuclear waste. The new reactor design called the Dual Fluid reactor was invented by six collaborators working in the Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics in Berlin. In February 2021, the six inventors, along with the existing team, formed Canadian company Dual Fluid Energy Inc. which is to commercialize the design. The reactor has not been built yet, so much can go wrong. After all the Thorium magic bullet has been imminent for decades. 

Here is an infomercial on the technology; -

Given the recent energy stresses in much of the world, the rush to renewables is being downgraded in favour of baseload technologies, coal, gas and most importantly nuclear. Nuclear holds the most promise as it is the only scalable low emission energy technology. So it is not surprising that Thorium and the new Dual Fluid Reactor will generate great interest.

Exposing media lies about Israel's humanitarian support of Gaza's civilians

If you listen to mainstream media you will hear many claims about how Israel is conducting its war against Hamas and its neglect of Gaza's civilian population. Claims that Israel is preventing access to drinking water, preventing access to hospitals and preventing aid from reaching civilians. That is ignoring the wild claims by Hamas apologists that Israel is perpetrating "genocide" against Gaza's civilian population, that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians.

Yet Israel has gone out of its way to provide access to media with the facts on the ground. While during the "fog of war" listening to just one side is always fraught, after many wars and reviews by international organisations, including the UN, Israel has proven itself a credible and responsible country. 

In a recent YouTube video, Eylon Levy describes the support Israel is providing to Gaza's civilians. Titled Israel-Hamas war: 67 killed in Rafah raid, Eylon Levy gives Israeli govt. update | LiveNOW from FOX

It can be seen here

I have printed below the relevant parts from the transcript; - 

Humanitarian update

Yesterday February 12th,160 humanitarian Aid trucks entered the Gaza Strip via Israel's Kam Shalom Crossing.160 trucks. Additionally. 23 trucks were inspected at Nitsana and entered Gaza through the Rafah crossing which means 7 times more humanitarian aid is entering Gaza through Israel than Egypt.

Reports suggesting that Rafah is the main crossing for humanitarian aid or even the only crossing, as I saw in the BBC, are simply in opposition to the dry facts. Any allegations that Israel is restricting the entry of aid to Gaza are similarly detached from reality. Whether through ignorance or, dare I say, in some cases, malice. In total, since Hamas used the Gaza Strip as the base for the October 7 Massacre, 235,000 tons of humanitarian aid have entered the territory aboard 12,775. trucks. All this data is available on Kogatz mini-site (?). And we remind you, according to our intelligence estimates, Hamas is hijacking up to 60% of that Aid and video footage of Hamas gunman on top of those trucks has been circulating widely. Those 235,000 tons include 155 tons of food. including the flour that allows Gaza's 15 Industrial bakeries to produce 2 million loaves of bread, rolls and Pita breads every single day. Those deliveries include 21,460  tons of water. Again since the start of the war over 24,000 tons of shelter equipment. and nearly 17,000 tons of medical supplies. That's quite apart from the field hospitals whose construction in the Gaza Strip we have facilitated.  

Just in recent days the IDF helped deliver over 20 oxygen tanks and other medical equipment to the Alamal hospital in Khan Yunis. despite. its abuse by terrorists as a military hideout. by all possible accounts, Israel is exceeding its obligations to facilitate the delivery of Aid to the Gaza Strip. International donors that want to see more Aid enter Gaza should simply send more. We're ready to facilitate it. They should also work urgently to replace UNRWA so that UN agencies that are not in cahoots with Hamas and covering up for Hamas can do a better job delivering the aid that is already entering the Gaza Strip.