Monday, June 23, 2025

In which the pond offers a quad bet ... the bromancer, the Lynch mob, the Caterist and the Major ...

 

The way the pond sees it, King Donald has greatly improved his chance of being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. 

After all, Henry Kissinger was awarded the gong after bombing the shit out of Cambodia (and Obama was awarded one after doing SFA for peace). 

So in helping bomb the shit out of Iran, King Donald surely has enhanced his appeal to the committee. Peace, if you like, is very much his warmongering profession.



Certainly not King Donald ...but the pond’s opinion isn’t what appeals to the pond’s correspondents, it’s what the reptiles in the hive mind at the lizard Oz think, and here early in the Monday morning there was much turbulence.



Triumphalism was pretty much the go …

Joe, the lesser member of the Kelly gang, celebrated with...

DECOY FLIGHT, MONTHS IN PLANNING
Operation Midnight Hammer: how the US ambushed Iran
This was a complex and high risk mission involving 125 US aircraft and 75 precision guided weapons.
By Joe Kelly

Shelby Holliday and Lara Seligman marvelled in...

‘CLOSELY HELD SECRET'
Element of surprise: US strike on Iran began with a ruse
A feint to the west drew attention, while stealth bombers and subs maneuvered for the attack.
By Shelby Holliday and Lara Seligman

Jamie Walkier was astonished in...

INSIDE STORY
Deception, precision, chutzpah: how US destroyed Tehran’s nuclear fantasy
The US strikes employed Russian-style maskirovka to deceive the Iranians, Chinese-like precision in execution and all the chutzpah the North Koreans could ever muster to land a potentially lethal blow on the ayatollahs in their stony bastion.
By Jamie Walker

Michael Green advised he had no brain in...

Risk-reward analysis made Iran strike a no-brainer
Imagine a nuclear-armed Iran supporting the kind of attacks Hamas conducted on October 7 and one can immediately understand why Israel, the US and Australia simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
By Michael Green

Other reptiles were assigned the job of hectoring Australia for not demanding an immediate in on yet another bloodletting.

Simplistic Simon cried out ...

ANALYSIS by SIMON BENSON
Canberra’s silence will ring out loudly in Washington

Australia’s foreign policy is becoming increasingly confused and domestically focused as Canberra refuses to endorse the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

He was backed up by an admiring duo ...

Israel-Iran conflict
Fog of dialogue: Albanese a shy ally to US
The Albanese government has refused to endorse Donald Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities while issuing a broad call for de-escalation.
By Greg Brown and Ben Packham

Jennings of the IPA fifth form was also on hand to remonstrate

Canberra out of its depth as US, Israel remake Middle East
Any call to urge ‘dialogue’ shows how disengaged Australia has become. Richard Marles continues to weaken our military while the rest of the democratic world is waking up to the threat.
By Peter Jennings
Contributor

There was a slight hesitation in one header, but not in the thrust the celebration of the war mongering and the desire, neigh the need, to get in on the act:

PIVOT OF HISTORY
Nuclear obliteration: US destroys Iran sites, fears war will escalate
Donald Trump has threatened further attacks on Iran if it strikes back against the US after he ­unleashed his country’s most powerful conventional weapons to destroy the rogue state’s nuclear program.
By Ben Packham, Joe Kelly and Ellie Dudley

Some fearful malcontents might be off reading the likes of Anne Applebaum, ranting away in her substack Trump has no strategy, Not in Iran, and not anywhere else.

....Unfortunately I don’t have any confidence in the judgement of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose recklessness and fanaticism has already led to thousands of unnecessary deaths in Gaza. He has also used the war to continue his assault on Israeli democracy, recently firing the chief of Shin Bet, the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, in what felt to many Israelis like a step too far. I don’t trust him not to ignite a broader war, I don’t trust him to moderate his use of violence and I certainly don’t think he cares what kind of Iranian government emerges from this attack.
Nor do I believe that President Trump is interested in the fate of Iran, the future of the Middle East, or anything except himself. His primary motive is to make sure that, in any given encounter, he is “winning.” This is the philosophy that determines his policy on Russia, on tariffs, on Harvard, or on deportations: not what’s good for America, but what’s good for Trump. Before launching this attack he made no attempt to consult Congress, or to build support among the public. He has cut or eliminated US-funded broadcasting into Iran, so the US can’t easily communicate with Iranians, let alone influence what happens next. I don’t believe he has carefully considered what he will do if Iran strikes back, or if the regime strengthens, or indeed if the regime collapses. Perhaps others around him have.
I find that rational people have trouble accepting this absence of forethought. Everyone wants to believe in the existence of a three-dimensional chess game in which the American president has some secret long-term strategy. But he never does.

Oh Anne, Anne, if only you read the bromancer in the lizard Oz, everything would be clear, albeit in a weirdly irrational way ... and best of all, it only took three minutes, or so the reptiles said ..



The header: Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu change the course of the Middle East, While Iran can still do nasty things its rulers now understand that, unlike in the past, these will come with a big cost.
The caption for the tremendous collage, albeit uncredited: In a short address to the nation, Donald Trump said the three nuclear sites were ‘completely obliterated’ as he blasted Iran as the ‘bully of the Middle East’; Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the strikes as a ‘pivot of history’.
The mystical command: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The bromancer was pretty much onside from the get go ...

Like many presidents before him, Donald Trump has undertaken the hardest task in geo-strategic conflict – transforming the Middle East.
He has not done this as a frolic or an adventure. As Trump himself said in his later short speech, for 40 years Iran has been killing Americans and chanting “Death to America! Death to Israel!”
Trump agreed with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran could not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Pretty much the whole civilised world would agree on that proposition. Even the Australian government, so mealy-mouthed it can barely say boo on this or any other subject, repeatedly cites the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile programs as grave threats.

The reptiles offered a minor distraction in the form of an audio insert ...




Oh there were a few saucy doubts and fears ...

But before we get to the big geo-strategic equation, there are two operational questions which are critical. Were the Americans successful in destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities, especially those at Fordow, but also Natanz and Isfahan?
Trump says these facilities were completely demolished. Iran says damage was relatively minor. It’s a critical question because of the obvious implication for Iran’s ability to reconstruct, or not, its nuclear program.

But how the reptiles loved the kit and their animated graphic celebrating it ...



The bromancer's fears were swept away ...

Given the number of bunker buster bombs the Americans used on Fordow, it’s hard to see how anything could survive intact.
Secondly, perhaps even more importantly, where is Iran’s 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent? Was it moved before Israel’s strikes, or early in that process? Do the Israelis, with their superb intelligence penetration of Iran, know where it is, but aren’t telling us at the moment?
Uranium enriched to 60 per cent is very nearly weapons grade. If the Iranians retain 400kg of that, the possibility that they could, perhaps with some outside help, eventually use it to produce nuclear weapons remains real.
If there’s any kind of military action Trump would take, it’s the kind he took against Iran. There is no suggestion of US ground troops or prolonged US combat deployments. The action served a fundamental US security interest, namely preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It was accomplished from the air using technology which only the United States possesses.
For its part, Iran, despite the devastation of its military leadership, and with Israel having taken out something approaching half of its missile capacity, hit back straight away with missile barrages against Israel, some of which struck.

The reptiles helped out with another graphic ...



The bromancer ended with pious hope ...

Iran has three possible means of retaliation – missiles against Israel, or against US forces in the Middle East, or US friends in the Middle East, such as the Gulf states; military campaigns by Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Shia militia in Iraq; and terrorism, especially against American targets.
It’s likely Iran will try all three. But it’s not as if the US and its allies have not faced such Iranian actions before. Tehran’s ability to strike with all three of these tools is much diminished. Its most powerful proxy, Hezbollah, was devastated by Israeli strikes and seems reluctant to re-enter the battle. Palestinian proxies for Iran, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are not in a position to launch new strikes against Israel. The Houthis will fire more missiles but get very few through Israel’s defences. If the Houthis start attacking international shipping again they will be hit very hard by the Americans. And Syria, Iran’s chief state ally, has collapsed, which means Iran can no longer resupply Hezbollah easily.
The Shia militia in Iraq are the most intact of the Iranian proxies. They could attack Israel or attack Americans in the region. But the proxies will be less obedient to an Iran which no longer looks as though it’s winning the regional struggle, which won’t have resources or clout to help the proxies in the way it could formerly.
For decades, Iran has been attacking Israel and the United States through proxies and through terrorism. What retaliation there was from Israel and the US was only ever visited on the proxies or the terrorist groups, never on Iran itself.
The Iranians have disastrously over played their hand. The Hamas October 7 terror attacks on Israel changed Jerusalem’s strategic calculus, changed what it regards as acceptable risk. Similarly, Trump has now told Iran “the bullies of the Middle East” that they must make peace of face future consequences more damaging than even the strikes of the last week. In Netanyahu and Trump, Iran now faces leaders who will make Iran itself pay for actions it directs through proxies, terrorists or missiles.
There are still a lot of nasty things Iran can do. But its rulers now understand that, unlike in the past, these will come with a big cost.
Trump and Netanyahu calculate that imposing these costs on Iran will ultimately achieve a more stable Middle East.
Hopefully, they’re right.

Roll on ethnic cleansing and the new genocide ...



The pond then zoomed over to the extreme far right ...



The pond ignored the many other candidates to zoom in on the Lynch mob:



The header: Has Donald Trump flipped the script and become a neo-con? The US President wants to avoid war at all costs, but his action has deepened a tradition his base thought he would end.

The caption: US President Donald Trump was critical of Ronald Reagan’s lack of “backbone” in 1987. Picture: AFP

The mystical injunction: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Captain Bonespurs had found his Melbourne uni muse, with a goodly bigly four minutes of musing:

There is a tension at the heart of President Donald Trump’s world view: he wants to be tough and avoid war at all costs.
That tension got resolved over the skies of Iran this weekend. He went with war. In doing so, he has deepened an American foreign policy tradition his base thought he would end.
The tension was the product of two halves of his adult life. He spent most of the 1970s in his 20s when he imbibed the consequences of American weakness. It began with creeping defeat in Vietnam and ended in the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis.
Along the way, Trump’s future party lost the White House to Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan. Arab-engineered oil shocks and Japanese neo-mercantilism laid the American economy low.

Cue a snap celebrating a war Captain Bonespurs managed to defer his way out of, some five times, Defeat in the Vietnam War in 1975 was one of the first signs of US weakness for Mr Trump. Picture: AP



You know, because nothing says first signs of US weakness than draft dodgers evoking the bonespurs clause ...

Details, shmetails, the Lynch mob took a different view: 

Trump’s distrust of nefarious foreigners was forged in that decade.
It has never left him. Even Ronald Reagan’s success in bringing America to the brink of Cold War victory did not sate the real estate magnate.
In 1987, Trump took out a full-page ad in The New York Times denouncing Reagan’s lack of “backbone” in the face of an exploiting world.
Rarely, however, did his tough-guy rhetoric translate into calls for a more muscular foreign policy. And thus, we enter the second half of his career, beginning in about 2004, as the Iraq War went pear-shaped.
Since then, we have seen Trump adopt positions that the anti-American left and assorted anti-Israel realists have touted: “America should leave the world alone. Who are we to tell others how to live?”
“Dumb wars” on behalf of ungrateful Muslim populations realised neither jihadist approbation nor American strategic advantage.
The catastrophic consequences of Barack Obama’s war “from behind” in Libya (2011) followed hard upon by the horrors of the Syrian civil war, reinforced the neo-isolationism of the soon-to-be president Donald Trump.

Cue another defeat, this one organised by Captain Bonespurs, and passed off to the man from Scranton, A first-term Trump deal with the Taliban fighters required the US to leave Afghanistan. Picture: AP



The Lynch mob was still waiting for real action:

A signature foreign policy of his first term was a deal with the Taliban requiring the US to quit Afghanistan (incompetently executed by his successor). Millions of young women were abandoned to their Islamist fate.
Sure, Trump would do some tough things, such as killing Iran’s Qassem Soleimani and targeting Houthis. But the era of US-led wars of Muslim liberation, of escorting girls into classrooms, were over.
Tuckerism, the technical label for MAGA’s retreat from war and pretty much all global moral obligations, just about held together in Trump 1.0.
It took nearly as great a battering as Fordow this weekend, however. Trump’s forceful joining with Israel in its war on Iran deepens a long tradition in American foreign policy. It is one Trump was elected in 2016 to end. He hasn’t.
Consider the wars that constitute that tradition. In the post-Cold War era, the United States has committed significant military force abroad at least 11 times: Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994-95), Iraq (1998), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Iran (2025).

At this point the reptiles helped out the Lynch mob with a graphic ...



The Lynch mob decided that all this amounted to a crusade, or perhaps a jihad, but in one way or another , some kind of holy war to save Muslims:

Whether Trump admits it or not, he is now complicit in a de facto war for the liberation of Muslims from bad government.
All but two of these campaigns (Panama and Haiti) were not conceived and fought with this rationale, or hoped for consequence, in mind.
We used to call this neo-conservatism: American hard power exists not to be garrisoned but to spread liberal values. It is optimistic about foreigners, especially in the Middle East. Neo-cons think Arabs and Persians are capable of democratic government. There is a tragic irony in a progressive left sneering at this optimism.
Trump has long disavowed a values-driven foreign policy. He determined to humiliate rather than help Ukraine resist Russian aggression. He claims to hate everything the neo-conservatives stood, and (a few) still stand, for.
But if his bunker busters tip Iranians into open rebellion against their rulers and, possibly, into something less vile than millenarian theocracy, he will be a neo-con in all but name.
What Trump says, it turns out, is less significant than what he does. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Trump has made himself as central to the fate of the Middle East as any of his post-Cold War predecessors.
He has done so, as did they, using military force for high moral purpose: the defence of a beleaguered liberal democracy (Israel) and the possibility of something better (in Iran).

Indeed, indeed, not to mention the high moral purpose of enabling (and distracting from) an ethnic cleansing and a genocide, and the throwing of Ukraine to the sociopathic dictator Vladimir the Impaler, but never mind, cue a snap, US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson.



Strangely the pond was reminded of the doctrines as expounded over the ages ...



The Lynch mob was sympathetic to the bone spurs man's plight ...

Every president since Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) has wrestled with a tension that is now Trump’s to resolve: between wanting to avoid material costs but having the hard power to realise huge moral gains.
A president who, we are told, knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing, could not, ultimately, resist the allure of a moral foreign policy.
“For decades,” said George W. Bush in 2006, “American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting stability in the Middle East, yet these policies gave us neither.”
How remarkable that the anti-Bush Trump should now share his assessment.
Trump was elected to “drain the swamp” at home. Instead, it is the fetid swamp of faux-stable Middle East despotism, starting in Tehran, that may be the first to run dry.
Timothy J. Lynch is professor of American politics at the University of Melbourne.

So much winning ...



Luckily the careening, cratering Caterist was on hand to offer a distraction, an old reptile standby, a staple part of the diet, a goodly dose of renewables bashing ...



The header: Bowen boasts the great energy transition is on track – what could possibly go wrong? The true test of an energy system is not how it performs at peak supply, but whether it can ride out the trough, especially the late afternoon demand spike as solar fades.

Note the sinister smug smirk on that arch villain, captioned Chris Bowen speaks at Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Picture: Jason Edwards

There's absolutely nothing new here, and so the pond could romp through the whole thing, a bit like putting on a tired, worn out old coat, while doing the best to avoid lumpy bits of black mould.

The entire point was hopefully to avoid war mongering in the middle east by indulging in war mongering on renewables:

For the record, Australia’s East Coast states hit net zero on Wednesday June 11 between 6pm and 7pm. That is to say, net-zero wind or solar-generated power was available in Queensland, NSW and Victoria as a cold, calm weather system settled over the continent.
It was a low point in a day of spectacular under performance by the renewable energy industry. In the 24 hours from midday June 11, 620 GWh of electricity was consumed on the National Electricity Market of which, 375 GWh came from coal and 91 GWh from gas. The so-called “renewable” component – wind, solar, hydro and batteries – was just 25 per cent, well short of the Energy Minister’s 2030 benchmark.
“Yes, the 82 per cent target does have challenges,” Chris Bowen told ABC’s Insiders recently. “I’ve never suggested that it’s a linear line and it all happens easily, or it’s all automatic.”
Challenging is one way of putting it. Delusional would be another. Either way, the task of supplying electricity when it’s needed to an economy that depends upon it is getting harder by the day.

At this point the reptiles decided to distract by reverting to other forms of war mongering, Sky News host James Macpherson reacts to Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s criticism of Israel’s actions amid the conflict with Iran. “As if you are going to condemn Israel for taking out nuclear facilities which have been used for years to threaten wiping Israel from the map,” Mr Macpherson said. “Zero moral clarity.”




Wrong call, reptiles, roll on the ethnic cleansing and the new genocide as a form of moral clarity.

Now back to the war on renewables ...

As the sun set on June 11, output from weather-dependent generation fell to a trickle and the Australian Energy Market Operator was willing to accept electricity, however dirty the price.
At 5.05pm, AEMO issued a forecast lack of reserve notice for Queensland – the energy equivalent of a flashing red light. It warned there wouldn’t be enough spare capacity if the largest generator failed.
Eight minutes later, a high-voltage connection failed at Belmont substation, 11km southwest of Brisbane CBD. AEMO issued a non-credible contingency event alert, a second red light signalling an expected grid failure that could lead to outages. Fortunately, none occurred.
This wasn’t a freak event. It’s part of the daily drama of powering a grid on a wing and a prayer using ageing base-load generators. The average age of the 14 surviving coal plants is 36. Nine were built in the last century. The oldest, Yallourn in Victoria, was commissioned when Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister.
The average age of gas generators in the National Electricity Market is 24 years. The good news, sort of, is that the first grid-scale gas generator built in 15 years is about to come online, two years late and more than $1 billion over budget. The bad news: the 660MW Kurri Kurri plant isn’t connected to the gas network and will run on diesel.
A grid that relies on ageing generators with limited redundancy is living on borrowed time.
Bowen’s boast that the NEM was running on 46 per cent renewables in the December quarter was a crafty piece of cherry-picking. Electricity demand drops in late spring and early summer, a period of stiff breezes and lengthening daylight.
The June quarter last year told a different story: a colder-than-average start to winter (like this one) and a drop in wind output reduced the renewable share to 30.8 per cent.
The distinct aroma of cooked books wafts from ministerial corridors as Bowen turns to creative accounting to portray failure as progress. AEMO is already shifting the goalposts by promoting a figure it calls “renewable penetration” – the amount of renewable energy “at any moment on any day.”
Thus, we learn that 75.6 per cent of electricity is already renewable, or at least it was at 1pm on November 6 last year, when the eastern states basked in warm, sunny, late-spring weather. It’s the energy equivalent of inflated grain yields in Chinese propaganda extolling Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
The true test of an energy system is not how it performs at peak supply, but whether it can ride out the trough, especially the late afternoon demand spike as solar fades.
This month’s drama, far from exceptional, shows a system running on borrowed time.
Bowen appears to be whistling to keep his courage up, telling David Speers that 15GW had been added to the system since Labor took office.

The very same snap of the demonic ogre heralded another contribution from Jimbo, this time attuned to the war on renewables, blathering away to petulant Peta,  Liberal Senator James McGrath discusses the recent decision by the NSW Nationals to dump their net zero commitments. “We’ve got to get energy policy right, we’ve got to make sure that we don’t crash the economy,” Mr McGrath told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “We do want to reduce emissions. “We have also got to remember that Chris Bowen is the one who’s in charge of it at the moment, and he’s the one with his reckless renewables, who’s actually forcing up people’s power prices.”




Others might be reading arcane nonsense over at The Conversation, such as Global warming is changing cloud patterns. That means more global warming.

Hah, to the Caterist, that's all poppycock, and inspired by Jimbo and petulant Peta, he got incredibly technical, as only a climate science denialist, renewables hater can ...

“That’s three Snowy Hydro schemes added in capacity,” he said. Yet no number of wind turbines could have spared us this month’s on a windless continent facing a cold start to winter.
Battery storage provided brief relief, contributing up to 4 per cent of power in some states in short bursts of just over an hour. The Snowy pumped hydro scheme may come online one day. Yet based recent experience, we’ll be relying on gas and coal well into the future – unless Bowen plans to increase storage capacity by 7700 per cent, the amount needed to run a renewable-only grid for a single winter day.
The ruinous privileges granted to renewable energy investors over the past 20 years have misallocated tens of billions into fickle energy sources, diverting capital away from gas and coal – the only legal baseload options in nuclear-phobic Australia.
Reluctantly, the Albanese government concedes that peaking gas will play a vital role firming intermittent power sources. Yet Victoria’s limited gas generation was pressed into baseload service this month when half the 1480MW capacity at the 50-year-old Yallourn coal plant was lost to a mechanical fault.
Nine newspapers reported that 81 per cent of Victoria’s annual gas allocation was burned in just three days. It was a desperate measure. The average age of the state’s gas generators is 25. At that stage of life, turbines suffer degradation, fouling and corrosion. They lose efficiency, become expensive to run, and are increasingly prone to outages.
Worse, Victoria’s entire gas fleet consists of Open Cycle Gas Turbines – cheap, fast-start units designed for short bursts, not sustained output. They are no substitute for Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs), the long-distance runners of gas technology.
Elderly OCGTs emit up to 900kg of CO₂/MWh – on par with average black coal plants. CCGT units emit just 375–500kg/MWh.
Obtaining natural gas in Victoria is fraught. The state government’s ideological hostility to gas has led to the toughest drilling restrictions in the country. Victoria once powered the nation with Bass Strait gas. Now it’s a mendicant state, begging Queensland for LNG while banning exploration at home. Instead, it plans to build a gas import terminal to buy gas on the world market.
Victoria’s energy future borders on the absurd. To cut emissions, it will import gas chilled to −162C, transported and re-gasified in an emissions-intensive process, to generate electricity in the most carbon-intensive form available.
Meanwhile, the federal Energy Minister declares that victory is imminent in a system lurching toward collapse. He insists the great energy transition is on track, and we’re at the cusp an era of clean, cheap and abundant power. What could possibly go wrong?

The only oddity in all this was that the reptiles left off any tag identifying which lobby group the careerist Caterist was representing. 

Was it something to do with Ming the Merciless? Was it some other bunch of fossil fuel lovers? Who knows? The reptiles resolutely refused to provide a clue.

Such a relief only to have to think about the extinction of the planet, a very grand form of genocide.

And so on this very busy day to a bonus featuring Major Mitchell, who dropped in from the golf course to give the mad Mullahs a hard time ...



The header: Journalists turn blind eye to Iran’s intent,Those tut-tutting on social media about Israel’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities and rocket launchers seem to misunderstand the Iranian regime.
The caption: Author and academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert. Picture: Aaron Francis

There's pretty much never been a bombing the Major hasn't enjoyed and this time was no different ... perhaps it's his love of golf traps ...

As more people get their news from social media, it is no surprise experienced journalists and academics have sided with Iran against Israel’s operation Rising Lion launched on June 13.
No surprise either that news the United States had dropped bunker buster bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites, including the secret facility under a mountain in Fordow, also came on social media when Donald Trump announced it on Truth Social.
Trump also hit Iran’s facilities at Natanz and Isfahan.
Despite all the hand-wringing on our ABC by journalists such as Raf Epstein on Insiders on Sunday morning, Trump did the right thing.
Iran, once a thriving country with thousands of years of proud Persian heritage, is led by fanatical clerics who hate women, reject the democratic West, publicly advocate for the destruction of Israel and openly support Adolf Hitler and his Final Solution.
People tut-tutting on social media about Israel’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities and rocket launchers seem to misunderstand the Iranian regime. They believe tiny Israel with only nine million people in a country one tenth the size of Victoria is bullying a country of 90 million people in a land a third the size of Australia.
They discount attacks on Israeli civilians by Iran’s proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis – over the past two decades and ignore 40 years of public statements by Iranian leaders promising to “drive Israel into the sea”.
Keyboard warriors who are trying to speak truth to power should ask why a country with huge oil and gas reserves languished with a national annual GDP of only $600bn in 2023, compared with little Israel’s $770bn. Australia’s stands at $2.7 trillion.
They could also ask why Israel has an early warning missile alert system but Ayatollah Khamenei has spent nothing to warn his people of attack. Yet he has found tens of billions each year to arm his proxies to keep attacking Israel.
Sceptics of this line could start by reading Kylie Moore-Gilbert, the Australian academic imprisoned in Iran from 2018-20, in The Australian Financial Review last Wednesday, or tracking down her interview on ABC Radio National last Tuesday. She described the repression in 2023 of Iran’s Women Life Freedom movement that received no support from local Hamas backers such as academic Randa Abdel-Fattah.

Odd that the Major should be citing the ABC, but never mind, cue an interrupting snap, Kylie Moore-Gilbert speaks during a rally in support of the Woman Life Freedom movement that is fighting for women’s rights in Iran. Picture: Aaron Francis



The problem for some might be that having no time for the mad Mullahs didn't mean having a lot of time for the barking mad Zionist fundamentalists, who themselves have a decidedly odd view of women, but never mind, back to the Major ranting away ...

To get a good idea what the most displaced people in the region think about the attack on Iran, The Free Press sent reporters out to ask residents of places long part of Iran’s axis of resistance: Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.
The Gazans quoted blamed Iran for the damage inflicted on their home since October 7, 2023.
In Lebanon, “still reeling from the months-long clashes between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah, most residents we interviewed wanted nothing to do with further escalation”.
The heaviest criticism came from Syrians, victims of now deposed Bashar al-Assad, long propped up by Iran: “Praise be to God, we hope this gangster regime ends,” one Syrian is quoted as saying.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has virtually admitted he has two goals. Only those ignorant of Iran’s history would criticise Israel for wanting regime change. But as Netanyahu said on Friday, it is up to Iran’s people.
Left-wing commentators in Australia have cast doubt on Israel’s second goal – destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They liken it to Iraq’s non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”.
Regular Nine newspapers’ pro-Islam scholar Amin Saikal was rolled out in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on Friday to argue Israel has nuclear weapons and is hypocritical about Iran’s desire for them. Yet Israel has never used them. Israelis feel sure Iran would.
While doubt remains inside the US intelligence community about how close Iran is to weaponising its enriched uranium, sceptics need to read what the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said and ask why Iran has been enriching so much uranium to 60 per cent when only 3 per cent enrichment is needed for power generation.
David Horovitz, founding editor of The Times of Israel, and former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, is no right-wing warrior – he has criticised Israel’s Gaza strategy and has superb political, intelligence and military sources.
He told Times readers on June 18 his sources believe Iran is closer to a bomb than Netanyahu has publicly admitted.
It’s also worth just looking at what Iranian politicians themselves have said.
MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, on May 15, 2024, quoted Iranian politician and academic Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani speaking to Iran’s Roydad 24 News.
He claimed Iran had already achieved nuclear weapons but was not announcing this “so as not to frighten its allies Russia and China, or the world”.
MEMRI on October 16 last year quoted an interview with Jaber Rajabi, a former adviser to the late president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“Iran is afraid to conduct a nuclear test. It is trying to find a place to test the nuclear weapons outside Iran’s borders,” Mr Rajabi said.
There is no hard evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Its cat and mouse game with the International Atomic Energy Agency may indeed be a strategy to make its enemies think it is. Yet enriching uranium to 60 per cent would be a very expensive ploy if a bomb was not being planned.
The IAEA censure of Iran the day before Israel launched its June 13 attack is explicit: Iran has enough enriched uranium now to make nine bombs.
Consider, too, the words of the Ayatollah and those closest to him.

It's perhaps unfortunate that the reptiles should have slipped in a reminder of what an epic clusterfuck the Iraq war turned out to be, but they did, An Iraqi woman walks past a portrait of Iraq’s top Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Picture: AFP



That certainly didn't phase the Major. He'd hit his sweet spot and was on song  ...

On March 21, one of the Supreme Leader’s closest confidantes, Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, denied the Holocaust, saying “all the stories about the Holocaust are a complete lie”.

“England invented the Holocaust to compensate the Jews.”
Khamenei himself, celebrating Iranian rocket strikes on Israel on October 1 last year, said: “Every blow to the Zionist regime serves humanity”
“The Al Aqsa flood operation (Hamas’s October 7 attack) … was a correct and logical move, carried out in accordance with international law and the rights of the Palestinian nation,” he said.
That’s how Iran’s supreme religious leader sees a massacre of 1200 innocents in their homes and at a dance party for peace.
Reza Taghavi, a former member of Iran’s parliament and now a member of a committee that sets guidelines for Friday sermons across the nation, told IRINN Television on October 24 last year that German chancellor Adolf Hitler’s approach to the Jews was right.
Zionists “must be persecuted, deported and killed everywhere”, he said.
A 2021 study by the US Jewish Anti-Defamation League found the Iranian senior, middle and elementary school curriculums full of “incitement to hatred of Jews and Israel” that “strenuously militarises young people, indoctrinating them for war’’.
Reporting of this conflict has been skewed by media hostility to Donald Trump. Yet Israeli sources make clear they believed there were other ways to destroy Fordow.
The US has seen through 20 years of failed diplomacy on Iran. Most Sunni Middle East states will privately approve.

Um, is it wrong to note that the Sunni middle east states are no better than Iran when it comes to women or murdering journalists or slave labour or such like? Or that Zionist fundamentalists are much like the Islamic fundamentalists they deplore? 

Roll on the ethnic cleansing and the new genocide, and let's hope that the government manages to avoid yet another bout of war mongering, inspired by a deep dive into the reptile hive minds at the lizard Oz ...

And so to round out the day with the immortal Rowe ...



It's always in the detail, and what a fine form of nose art there was, a Nobel prize winning pose to help the pilot in his mission ... and how touching he has a Vlad tatt ...




Sunday, June 22, 2025

In which the pond does the usual Polonial prattle thing, fudges the dog botherer and Dame Slap, and scores a little tariff heat with the Bjorn-again one ...

 

The pond was deeply moved during the week to read of Benji's enormous personal suffering, detailed in the Graudian in Netanyahu stuns Israelis by describing ‘personal cost’ of Iran war – postponing son’s wedding (The sub-heading provided a clue to the fun - Israeli prime minister prompts furious backlash for remarks in front of missile-struck hospital at height of Iran conflict).

The pond was vastly amused by this week's Hydeing, delivered in The internet’s nastiest gossipmonger has been exposed and guess what – he wants his privacy. (Again the clue to the fun was in the sub-header, If you’re not familiar with Tattle Life, congratulations. It’s a site that subjects women to relentless scrutiny, and lo and behold it’s run by a spineless man).

The pond was browsing The New Yorker and came across this outing by Katy Waldman … James Frey’s New Cancelled-Guy Sex Novel Is as Bad as It Sounds, With a status-obsessed comeback book, the author of the fabricated memoir “A Million Little Pieces” attempts to rebrand. (*Archive link)

A cancelled guy sex novel? Why it sounded just like what the reptiles would be reading in an after-hours moment, and it turned out that Katy did to it what the pond would like to do with the hive mind ...

The opening: The author page of “Next to Heaven,” James Frey’s new novel, breathlessly notes that Frey “was called America’s Most Notorious Author by Time Magazine and the Bad Boy of American Literature by The New York Times.” The copy does not discuss where this reputation came from—cigarettes? Motorcycles? You imagine Frey holding up a liquor store while delivering some close-to-the-bone truth about contemporary life that no one wants to admit.
But, of course, Frey’s offense was less glamorous than that. In 2006, he got caught for having fabricated parts of his addiction memoir, “A Million Little Pieces,” in the hopes of making his life seem more cinematic and intense. (In that respect, at least, the source of his infamy—a tendency to self-mythologize—can be found on his new author page.) Oprah Winfrey, who had chosen “A Million Little Pieces” for her book club, dressed Frey down on national television. He kept writing but largely withdrew from the public eye for a couple of decades, amassing a fortune as the founder of a book-packaging outfit, and then as the C.E.O. of a video-game company. Now Frey has rebranded himself as an early victim of cancel culture and seeks redemption in a media environment that he believes has finally caught up to him and his adventures on the post-truth frontier.

And so on, and what a relentless savaging it was:

I have wrestled with a Frey-like dread through the writing of this review—I’m afraid that I’ll describe his book and no one will believe me.

Waldman made the attempt to describe and what a description:

The whole book is like this. On the walls of Billy and Devon’s house are “paintings by Picasso, Warhol, Lichtenstein, De Kooning, Richter, Ellsworth Kelly, Basquiat, Cecily Brown, Mark Grotjahn.” Their house has “a movie theater. A home gym. A yoga studio . . . a game room filled with vintage video games and pinball machines . . . ” In her bathroom, replete with “black-veined Calacatta marble counters,” Devon applies “La Prairie and Orogold creams and beauty products, Azature nail polish, Jean Patou Joy perfume,” and her “pale-pink Chanel spaghetti-strap dress” hangs on “her taut body, skin soft and tan and glowing, sun-streaked hair falling over her shoulders, deep shining blue eyes offset by the dress and the skin and hair.” Frey named Bret Easton Ellis as one of his inspirations for “Next to Heaven,” and surely the collapse of foreground and background here is intentional. The woman, the countertops, the clothes, and the jewels are all one fetish object, one undifferentiated fantasy.

And so on, and while at The New Yorker, the pond was bemused by an attempt by an Australian to visit the now fully fascist country, as detailed in How My Reporting on the Columbia Protests Led to My Deportation, As an Australian who wrote about the demonstrations while on campus, I gave my phone a superficial clean before flying to the U.S. I underestimated what I was up against. (*Archive link)

But enough already with the Kafka komedy on the full to overfllowing intertubes, it's soporific meditative Sunday time, and who better to help with the desire for a prolonged stay in bed than prattling Polonius?



The header for the alleged four minute read: Paul Keating fires potshots in the battle of ideas, Paul Keating’s views on security are heard widely. But it’s only reasonable to expect he will be challenged on them.

The caption for vulgar youffs who can't remember the 1990s, Paul Keating at his Potts Point office in Sydney. Picture: John Feder

Polonius decided to take on the French clock lover, which is a bit like a gnat taking on a cut-throat razor, but he opened with a splendid thrust worthy of our Henry.

In his book On War, Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” And, in a sense, debate over policy is the continuation of war by peaceful means.

The pond was disappointed that Polonius didn't reference Sun Tzu's Art of War, perhaps with a quote describing what he was attempting:

“When you surround an army of Keatings, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”

With that out of the way, Polonius got down into the ruck and the maul:

On Thursday The Australian ran an article by Paul Keating titled “Marles’s ceding of power to US a dark day in history”. The reference was to the Defence Minister Richard Marles’s address to The Australian’s Defending Australia 2025 summit held on Monday.
The Marles address was a considered analysis of Australia’s strategic situation. He defended the Albanese government’s defence policy and made some criticisms of what Labor had inherited from its Coalition predecessor.

Now the pond noted Keating on Thursday providing conclusive proof that Marles was a dickhead - a notion that Victorian lefties confirmed to the pond, while also reminding the pond of Marles' deeply weird addiction to collecting snow domes ... like a wannabe extra in Citizen Kane.

Perhaps Polonius is also a collector of something ...

Marles made this point, which is a reflection of Australia’s foreign affairs and defence policy since Federation in 1901: “In terms of our own defence capability needs, our risk is not so much the invasion of the continent. We are fortunate that we are an island nation surrounded by oceans, but on the other hand we are deeply reliant on our sea lines of communication. The supply of the country – almost all of our liquid fuels are imported by sea, but also through export revenues. And so that is our strategic risk. It’s the disruption of those sea lines. It’s the coercion that could result because of the disruption of such sea routes, it is that, and the stability of the region in which we live.”

At this point the reptiles interrupted with a snap of the snow dome man fellow travelling with a hive mind reptile and some crow eater...Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, with The Australian’s Editor-in-Chief Michelle Gunn and Premier of South Australia Peter Malinauskasat the Defending Australia summit this week. Picture: NewsWire / David Beach



Then Polonius plunged into the past in a way that would have made our Henry proud. 

Banality heaped upon banality:

There is nothing exceptional in this. In 1914, Labor leader Andrew Fisher declared that Australia would support Britain in its war against Germany to the last man and the last shilling. Fisher and his successor Billy Hughes understood that, as an island continent with a small population, Australia could be conquered through an interdiction of its sea lanes. Sure, in 1916, Labor divided over conscription for overseas service and Hughes split from/was expelled by Labor. He continued as prime minister leading the Nationalist Party. But Labor continued to support the war effort even though it opposed conscription. After all, Imperial Germany was a Pacific force at the time.
In 1939 Robert Menzies, then United Australia Party prime minister, declared war on Germany and dispatched Australian forces to the northern hemisphere. Labor, led by John Curtin, was not in favour of forces being sent overseas to fight with the Allied forces. But Curtin supported the Allied cause.
When Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, which started the Pacific War, Curtin, who became PM earlier that year, worked hard to develop a military relationship with the US. It became a formal alliance under the Liberal Party government led by Menzies in 1951.
Australia joined the UN force, led by the US, in 1950 to protect South Korea from attack by communist North Korea. Australia’s commitment was motivated, in part at least, by a wish that US forces would remain active in the Pacific. This mission was broadly successful. A similar motivation underpinned the Menzies government’s decision in 1965 to send military forces to support the US in its defence of South Vietnam against communist North Vietnam. Menzies believed if Australia supported the US in Vietnam, the US would be more inclined to support Australia if there were hostilities between Australia and Indonesia, led by ultra-nationalist president Sukarno.
The decision of the Howard government to support the US in Afghanistan in 2001 and in the Second Gulf War in 2003 had a similar motivation. As to the First Gulf War in 1991, I remember Keating phoning me to advise he had supported in cabinet the Hawke Labor government’s decision to send a naval taskforce to the Persian Gulf. He added that he had opposed the dispatch of the army or air force.

What, no mention of Polonius's record as a 'Nam hawk of the first water? 

Come to that, no mention of the Singapore triumph in the second world war?

Never mind, time for a reptile AV distraction, At the "Defending Australia 2025" conference in Canberra, defence leaders, strategists, and senior officials tackled the mounting security challenges facing the nation. With rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific and the possibility of a second Trump presidency reshaping global alliances, discussions centred on Australia’s preparedness, its role within AUKUS and Five Eyes, and the future of its alliance with the United States. Speakers included Dr Michael J. Green, Michael Pezzullo, Olivia Shen, the Hon Angus Taylor MP, Professor Peter J. Dean, Dennis Richardson AC, and Hon Joe Hockey. The event highlighted the urgent need for strategic clarity, technological capability and increased investment in national defence as Australia navigates a more volatile and unpredictable world.



Now note the fine dissembling distortion in Polonius's next gambit:

Of the military engagements mentioned above, Labor opposed only Australia’s commitment in Vietnam and the Second Gulf War. 

And yet ...

Curtin supported the Allied cause

Perhaps Curtin had a better notion of where the action might be than Pig Iron Bob? Oops, that bloody Singapore affair again, with the guns pointed just the right way (for a thrashing).

Never mind, Polonius was busy lathering up the notion that there might well be a war with China, and before Xmas if the bromancer has his way ...

In view of this, Marles’s speech in Canberra was consistent with Labor’s policy for most of the past century and a bit. Yet, in his response, Keating described the conference as “sleazy”. Apparently he was concerned “the guests invited to the conference were chosen and assembled according to the paper’s view of their collective propensity to subjugate Australia’s interests to those of the United States”.
Yet South Australian Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas also spoke at the conference.
But there were other targets. Keating attacked former Labor PM Julia Gillard and defence minister Stephen Smith along with the Liberal Party’s Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott for agreeing to host US military forces in Australia.
After his speech, Marles responded to a question from Chris Uhlmann as to what would be Australia’s response “if China takes Taiwan by force”. Marles referred back to his speech, adding “our continent is more relevant to great power contest now than it’s ever been before”. He then referred to Australia building up “our defence capability”. That was all.
Keating responded to Marles’s remarks, stating: “Monday’s statement by Defence Minister Richard Marles that Australia’s geography and continent would be crucial to any United States prosecution of a war against China will go down as a dark moment in Australia’s history.” But Marles did not quite say this. Keating went on: “Labor and its grassroots will not support Australia being dragged into a war with and by the United States over Taiwan.” Yet no one in Labor or the Coalition is advocating a war between the US and its allies and China.
However, historically, both sides of mainstream politics have supported governments intent on ensuring that Australia’s sea lanes and now, flight paths, remain open.
Keating’s views on security are heard widely. But it’s only reasonable to expect he will be challenged in the battle of policy ideas.

Um, it ain't so much a battle of policy ideas, so much as whether we should be treating China as the main enemy when we have an authoritarian state as our notional ally (see treatment of Australian dissenters above) ...





And now to the pond confession of a Sunday failing.

The pond simply didn't have the heart to go full Australian Zionist News Daily with the dog botherer, though it was all there in ...

Albanese’s retreat from moral and strategic reality
We could be a formidable diplomatic voice in the Middle East, but under Labor we are not.

The best the pond could do was offer up the closing passage:

...Iran’s sponsoring of terrorism has troubled the Middle East and Western interests for almost 50 years since the Islamic Revolution. And across the past two decades the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons aspirations have been a constant and escalating concern, despite efforts by the UN, Europeans and Americans to rein them in with agreements, sanctions and threats.
This was already a strong and concerning undercurrent when I worked for Downer two decades ago, visiting the region regularly, including Tehran. Experiencing the sophistication of Iranian society along with the draconian social measures and palpable intimidation of the population, while meeting their dour, extremist leadership, was an extraordinary experience.
In those days Iran had been assigned by George W. Bush to the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. We visited them all.
To see what North Korea could be with freedom you only have to look south across the 38th parallel; Iraq’s potential post-Saddam Hussein is obvious, held back by terrorism and the Sunni-Shia divide; while Iran’s Persian endowment and modern incarnation are still there, suppressed under a medieval theocratic dictatorship.
Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab Gulf states have long been almost as exercised about Iran as Israel has been.
If the regime in Tehran is incapacitated or toppled, it will not only be Israel that can embrace a less ominous future. Lebanon and Syria would be able to rebuild governing structures with less manipulation from the Iranian catspaw of Hezbollah. Gaza could be more easily resolved with funding, supplies and edicts from Iran to Hamas cut off; likewise with the Houthis in Yemen.
Barack Obama claimed to have solved the Iran nuclear problem a decade ago (just like he claimed to have cooled the planet) resulting in Iran gaining access to more than $US100bn in frozen assets. Tehran also took $US1.7bn in payments from the US in exchange for these undertakings and the return of US hostages.
And yet here we are, with conflict under way. Iran continued with its nuclear program regardless.
Yet Wong and Albanese still talk about dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation. That Australia would not have strong views about the opportunity to eliminate this nuclear threat once and for all defies comprehension.
The moral dimension overlaps with the strategic. In just the past 20 months, Iran has funded and enabled the Hamas atrocities against Israel; funded and co-ordinated the Hezbollah attacks on Israel from the north; funded and directed the Houthi missile attacks on Israel from Yemen; and directly attacked Israel with missiles and drones.
Even in the current conflict Iran has responded to Israel’s highly targeted attacks on Iranian military and strategic targets with missile assaults on Israel’s urban centres to kill and maim civilians. This week it hit a hospital – yet there is less international outrage than Israel received when it was falsely accused of bombing a hospital in Gaza.
The Iranian regime uses “morality police” to arrest women for failing to wear veils, with 22-year-old Mahsa Amini infamously dying in police custody in 2022. Other young Iranians have been jailed for up to 10 years for daring to dance.
Human rights groups report that more than 340 Iranians have been executed in the first half of this year, many for drug offences but others for political crimes. Ethnic minorities are persecuted.
While all this has been going on, what have Albanese and Wong been doing? They have been demonising Israel.
For a politician who boasts about his love for “fighting Tories”, Albanese sure fails to take up the cudgels against murderous, intolerant and genocidal outfits and regimes. Maybe Albo would be more agitated if Hamas or Iran attacked collective bargaining.
Albanese, his cabinet members and his US ambassador, Kevin Rudd, have mocked and abused Trump through the years. And they have publicly scoffed at calls from his Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to increase their defence spending.
Yet for all this, a principled stand in the Middle East might have made them useful. Instead, they played to the anti-Israel protesters, Muslim voters in key electorates, the intolerant Greens and the anti-Israel, anti-US cohort at the UN.
The Albanese government has wantonly let down Israel and washed its hands of a defining moment in Middle East diplomacy. It also has let down the US just when we need to reinvest in that relationship. In doing so, it has let down Australia.

The AI hive mind of the lizard Oz will have us in some kind of war, come hook or by Murdochian crook, by Xmas, preferably in company with Zionists intent on ethnic cleansing or in company with a fascist state...



Similarly the pond failed to take up Dame Slap's super offering about super ...

Labor’s super-duper fibs on super tax revealed
If Labor lied about what it was saying publicly about new taxes in 2022, what is it planning behind closed doors in 2025 that it won’t tell us about?

Now there's a deeply paranoid mind at work, and the only relief came in the form of a snap, Sir Humphery Appleby, played by Nigel Hawthorne in the British sitcom Yes Minister. Picture: Supplied



Supplied? 

It's a cheap arsed, soft focus thingie that looks like it was taken from a VHS copy of the show ... but to be fair, it did evoke the quality of what Dame Slap was offering ...

Could Chalmers have been getting advice from Wayne Swan, his political mentor, the former Labor treasurer and the man who was appointed chairman of industry super fund CBUS the year before?
Swan has certainly been a big backer of Labor’s tax changes to super that will patently benefit industry super funds such as CBUS. Extra money will almost certainly flow to these funds from people closing down their self-managed super funds.
While industry funds and SMSFs hold illiquid assets, the size and diversity of industry funds mean their members can easily get liquidity to cover the new tax by selling units in the fund. The poor schmucks who put their hard-earned money into an SMSF, on the other hand, will more likely need to sell underlying assets – say a house or a farm – in the fund to get cash to pay the new tax.
Swan has been a wonderfully reliable ally to his protege Chalmers, attacking those “millionaire retirees” who, he says, use superannuation to avoid taxes.
Swan, of course, is a member of a parliamentary defined benefits pension scheme that has been estimated to give him an annual pension, indexed to inflation, of more than $300,000. Is Swan saying that superannuation of more than $3m is too much or is a tax rort? We ask this because the capital value of a pension that gives Swan a government-guaranteed (risk-free) amount of more than $300,000 a year, indexed to inflation, would be vastly more than $3m.
Labor will say that events from 2022 are of no interest now, given the May 2025 election. Surely that retrospectively cures Labor’s 2022 lie to voters.
That may be true. Even if the Liberals had been halfway competent at the last election and exposed Labor’s duplicity, it most likely would not have changed the election result. But it is the job of an alternative government to expose when the current mob is lying to voters.
It is a given that governments and those in opposition work on major changes over a period without necessarily announcing those changes. Policy changes should be done carefully. But Labor’s flagrant duplicity in 2022 raises the obvious question: if Labor lied about what it was saying publicly about new taxes in 2022, and what it was simultaneously planning in private, what then is it planning behind closed doors in 2025 that it won’t tell us about?
Leopards don’t change their spots. A party premised on a class war against the wealthy might be planning to tax the unrealised profits of your home. How much will Labor decide is too much for a home? One that’s worth five million? Ten million? Labor’s carefully planned super tax subterfuge may not be as clever as Chalmers thinks it is.

The pond is so over the AI-generated reptiles spewing the same repetitive super garbage every super day of the week.

For the sake of the long absent lord, give it a super-long rest.

What a relief it was to see that the Bjorn-again one had again returned to the fold, in a brave, bold, bigly bid to beat against the tariff tide ...




It was a humble three minute read, so the reptiles said, but they gave it the full presentation:

The header: Freer trade is still overwhelmingly good even for rich countries, When the world’s poorest countries are better off, the whole world is a stronger, more stable place. Reform, not protectionism is the path forward.

The caption: Freer trade is a win-win. Employees are pictured producing down coats at a factory in China's eastern Jiangsu province. Picture: AFP

The mystical injunction: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond always welcomes the climate science denialist, especially when things are hotting up around the world.

The poor old Poms have been under the gun - 30 degrees! - as noted in the Graudian ...

Inter alia ...

...This week, much of Britain enjoyed an unbroken run of 30C days and we were all yanked back to that distant country – the one in which we sat in hot classrooms clad head to toe in polyester, wilting to LP Hartley’s The Go-Between. “In the heat,” wrote Hartley, “the commonest objects changed their nature,” and no matter how many summers we’ve been through, this fact seems to surprise every time.

...The English dream is not of nice weather but of any weather that provides a pretext to talk about it. This week, on top of the thrill of the heatwave, the Met Office gave the nation more fuel for its pastime with a warning that in the current climate, the chances of Britain experiencing 45C heat in the next 12 years have risen to 50/50. (In 2022, temperatures hit 40C for the first time on record.)

The Yanks were also into the heat in a big way, without a clue about climate change thanks to electing a Cantaloupe climate change denying Caligula.





They've still got a weather service? 

Time for King Donald to do something about that, on the basis that if it isn't reported, it isn't happening, it doesn't exist, and that sweat on the forehead is just melting ice ...

Sadly the Bjorn-again one wasn't on his usual climate-science denying jag and seemed to have a problem with tariffs ...

Around the world, people are waking up to the benefits of freer trade. 

Say what? When is someone going to break the news to King Donald and minions of the Navarro (* Archive linkand delusional Lutnick kind ...

They've been a hot mess of tariff announcements, and even better US Supreme Court declines to fast-track challenge to Trump tariffs, but do go on ...

After years of free-trade fatigue and growing protectionism, most Americans now say the US should pursue global free trade, while the EU is striking free-trade deals as fast as it can and even regional geopolitical rivals China, South Korea and Japan have agreed to greater co-operation.
The threat of a global tariff war has driven many to the conclusion that everyone is better off when countries specialise in what they’re best at. This rosy view is a stark contrast to the vision of trade as a zero-sum game that other countries have won.
Yet the downsides of free trade are real; images of the US Rust Belt have come to stand for the adverse effects of free trade, not only with American voters but also globally. Kilometres of once-mighty factories were silenced and once-proud communities devastated when corporations shifted their manufacturing offshore.
Both things can be true. The benefits and costs of free trade policies don’t fall equally. Wealthy countries benefit relatively less from freer trade, and parts of their workforce carry a disproportionate burden. But, despite this, peer-reviewed research by Copenhagen Consensus economists shows that freer trade is still overwhelmingly good even for rich countries.

It wouldn't be a Bjorn-again piece without a bit of self-promotion, so take it away ...



The pond regrets that it refuses to link to X, but it does have a 'toon handy, a reminder of the beasts going at it ...



Vibrant times, as the Bjorn-again one carries on ...

The researchers’ economic model investigates what happens if we expand global trade by 5 per cent. There are real and substantial costs. Across the entire world, for all workers and into the future, the present-day cost would be almost $US1 trillion ($1.5 trillion). That comes from adding up the impacts to the wage packets of affected workers who lose their jobs or have to downsize to lower-paid roles, or end up abandoning the workforce.
Ninety-two per cent of that cost occurs in developed countries. After all, this is where most import-exposed markets are. It is where wages are highest and workers are most at risk from cheaper or better products from poor countries entering rich countries. These losses are real;$US1 trillion is a vast sum to anyone.
But we also need to remember the substantial benefits of free trade. Indeed, the same shift in which factories left former industrial centres also drove incredible economies of scale and allowed consumers everywhere to buy cheap and often fairly well-made products from huge box-stores.

The measure of the Bjorn-again one's delusion? US President Donald Trump. Any government would be foolish to ignore the much larger benefits of free trade, despite their substantial costs - particularly to the wealthier nations. Picture: AFP



Foolish? That's the best the Bjorn-again one can summon up for the Cantaloupe Clown Carnival?

And there's a lot more fun to come ...



Why such sour words for a King who has taken up the climate science denialist challenge? Why listen to all this moaning and sobbing and keening and wailing, when he's just the right Bjorn-again man for the climate change challenge?

Middle-class Americans gain an estimated 29 per cent of their purchasing power from foreign trade. In other words, the average middle-class American can buy nearly one-third more for each dollar than if there were no trade. The effect is even bigger – 62 per cent – for the poorest 10th of American consumers.
When we count the benefits of free trade in the rich OECD countries, these are much higher than the costs: $US6.7 trillion. In total, this means a $US7 return for each dollar of costs. Yes, governments should work harder to help the workers who would be most hurt by freer trade, but even after addressing the nearly $US1 trillion in costs, there are more than $US6 trillion in benefits to be enjoyed across the rich world. Any government would be foolish to ignore these much larger benefits, despite their substantial costs.
Perhaps even more important, the research shows that free trade is hugely beneficial for poorer countries.

And so to the final snap, A woman sits in front of an electronics store in Hanoi, Vietnam. Free trade is hugely beneficial for poorer countries. Picture: AFP



Build the wall, build the wall, protect the hermit kingdom ...



Then came a final plea, currently with about as much chance of winning as a snowball currently trying to carve out a life in Death Valley ...

This is why it is a tragedy that politicians have abandoned the multilateral free-trade agenda altogether: freer trade can generate huge gains for the world’s poorest countries. When the world’s poorest countries are better off, the whole world is a stronger, more stable place.
The world’s low and lower-middle income countries that are home to four billion people will suffer some costs from freer trade, but these are relatively low at $US15bn. Yet their gains from freer trade would be a fantastic $US1.4 trillion in benefits. Because the poorer world’s economies are much smaller, this is a much bigger deal. And because their costs are much lower, each dollar in cost delivers $US95 in benefits. That’s an astonishing return on investment.
In a world grappling with inequality and economic uncertainty, freer trade remains one of the most powerful tools for shared global prosperity. While its costs – particularly in developed countries – are real and must be addressed with smarter, fairer policies, the benefits are too significant to ignore. With nearly $US7 in returns for every $US1 in cost for rich nations, and an extraordinary $US95 return for poorer countries, freer trade is a win-win. The path forward is not protectionism but reform to ensure the gains of trade are not only greater but are also better shared.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of Best Things First.

What a foolish, wretched fop he is, apparently unaware of how things work in the new Murdochian world ... 

Is there any upside? Well the pond still has fond memories of that parade, the most enjoyable moment in a tiresome week ... (not to mention the ennui induced by Melbourne weather).



And so to a few 'toons to help the Bjorn-again one celebrate his new reality, beginning with an oldie but a goodie ...