getting the middle over inertia – Page 3

The Janus Perspective

As the god of transitions and dualities, Janus is portrayed with two faces—one facing the past, and one facing the future. He also holds a key in his right hand, which symbolizes his protection of doors, gates, thresholds, and other separations or openings between spatial boundaries.

That is where we are – in transition. At least I desperately hope so!

At last the Western world, which I identify with as the best civilisation in this age, has awoken to the threat within its walls.

The erosion of identity politics, uncontrolled borders and hordes of refugees from alien cultures, the surplus of elites, declining educational standards, scant academic rigour and the dearth of strong politicial leadership has hollowed western democracies.

In 376 AD, a large migration of Goths and other non-Roman people, fleeing from the Huns, entered the Empire. Roman forces were unable to exterminate, expel or subjugate them… The Roman elites were beset by squabbling and in-fighting and the Roman Empire disintegrated.

Western polities are in the throes of an identity crisis which has enfeebled them, allowing more primitive, authoritarian cultures to infiltrate our institutions and values. Internal attacks on history, convention, institutions have been endured to their detriment.

We’ve been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatised
Senator DP Moynihan, c.1994, quoted by Tom Switzer, Weekend Australian 30 Dec 2023

The moral outrage displayed under the Black Lives Matter banner fuelled the looting, toppling of statues, burning of cars and widespread defiance and confrontation of police. The cause was the death in police custody of George Floyd, a drug using criminal.

Such was the righteousness of this outrage that Democrat Senators took a knee as did many sportspeople, virtue signalling their acceptance of guilt for somehow being the cause of the failure of a huge majority of black people to succeed in modern society.

A number of state governments began considering paying reparations for slavery 100’s of years ago, at the expense of current taxpayers.

This challenge to society occurred during the period that the #metoo phenomenon strengthened the cancel culture which had stifled freedom of speech in universities.

Over the last decade, the West has been inundated by floods of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. Many of these people have not been absorbed into society and are living informally in squalid conditions, contributing to huge welfare demands and a rise in violent crime.

The decades-long lenient immigration rules in the UK have resulted in a huge influx of Sout East Asians and Africans. Such is this impact that many churches in the UK have been transformed into mosques and Muslim radicals protest at military funerals. Curry and rice long surpassed fish and chips as the favourite food choice.

Decolonisation is a rallying cry of the progressive left, but it no longer means the freeing of former colonies, it means racialising and disparaging the historical legacy of Western civilization.
Frank Furedi, Weekend Australian 30 Dec 2023

2023 saw a swing to the right, with the election of right wing governments committed to crackdowns on migrants and stricter border controls. In Australia the rejection of the Voice referendum, knocked back a flimsy political virtue signal aimed at empowering Aboriginals by according them extra constitutional power.

There are clear indications that there is a strongly building conservative resistance against the ideology of multiculturalism and the rewriting of history from the viewpoint of non Europeans.

What a swing of the pendulum to the right will require is for the hitherto generally silent middle mass of the population to bestir itself and defy the attacks on freedom of speech and the the right to police public order.

It will require resolute, courageous leaders determined to hold a firm stance and withstand media pressure.

The incursion of identity politics into everyday business and social life must be resisted and diminished. The rights of parents to be informed and make decisions for their minor children must be unequivocally upheld.

It will entail the rolling back of recent liberties like illegal behaviour during demonstrations, the tolerance by governing bodies of bigotry and hate speech and increasing surveillance of society.

The hard edge of this civilizational conflict is in the proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Ukraine stands against the invasion by personal direction of a ruthless, totalitarian dictator. Israel stands against those that attack its people and seek its annihilation. It is a bastion of Western democracy, surrounded by autocratic regimes probably directed by Iran.

Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are autocratic regimes, superpowers that seek to subdue the influence of the Western world. They have a number of alliances and huge and extreme military arsenals. They operate clandestinely, funding cyber attacks and external terror groups while shaking their nuclear swords.

Israel opposes and counters Iran’s influence and confronts its proxies, Hamas, Hizbollah and the Houthis, with assistance from Western allies. Russia is assisted by Iran, China and South Korea in its war with Ukraine, who is backed by the West.

So the choice is coming closer and it is serious.

Who do you support?

The rewriters of history and seekers of reparations for slavery;

The defenders of invasions of their country and of the western constitutional democratic freedoms.

It’s just not cricket

Usman Khawaja is a nice guy. However, saying his shoe statement is not political is naive at least or cynical or worse. The way the whole thing played out in a typical woke episode.

A public figure, paid to represent his country, departs from the uniform to endorse a statement on his shoe written in the colours of a political entity.

That is a political action, like taking the knee or black power saluting during the national anthem.

Quite correctly, this act was prohibited.

The fact that he was allowed to wear a black armband is a weak, unacceptable, woke compromise.

In Khawaja’s context it is an individual political statement. It is clearly not a mark of respect, worn to honour the death of a family member or a universal icon, relevant to the sport.

The fact the the team administration and captain allowed the armband is how woke works and it is a failure in principle and integrity.

Where does the rot start? Right at the top – this is what Anika Wells the Federal Sports Minister said:

“As the federal sports minister, I have always advocated for athletes to have the right to have a voice and to speak up on matters that are important to them,”

I agree with that, so long as they don’t use their workplaces. They are employed as athletes to perform their skills before a paying public. They need to keep their personal, political lives separate.

The making of political statements can cause tension amongst cricket followers of diverse views. Usman acknowledges his intended ‘statement’ attracted abuse. The Minister and Pat Cummins and many others clearly support it.

What if the team members were required to wear LBGTI rainbow emblems on their shirts?

What if a sportsman chose to wear a black armband on 30 April – the day of Hitler’s death? Or 6 August .. the Hiroshima bomb anniversary or … you get the picture.

Use of the public platform to promote personal causes should be prohibited and sanctioned.

Keep politics out of sport.

And have the courage to stand up to impropriety.

Good News!

Contrary to popular belief, the world is not falling apart

It’s easy to think that the world is falling apart. Media driven fear demoralises us – particularly when young – and engenders terrible political decisions

The necessary media spotlight on conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza gives the impression of unprecedented levels of violence – it’s not, it’s unprecedented media coverage of conflict and other horrible incidents like crimes and natural disasters. So much so that media channels seem to promote such scenes to maintain followings.

But wait, take a look at the data:

Last year, 3,5 in 100,000 people died in war, in the 20th Century, there was an average of 30 deaths per 100,000. The world has become far more peaceful.

The data speaks to the constant barrage of contextless catastrophe and doom. Negativity sells, but it informs badly.

The same pattern characterises the climate change reporting. A pervasive and apocalyptic narrative draws together every negative event, ignoring the data. Fires, for example: the annual global burned area has been declining for decades with last year being the lowest on record.

Deaths from famine and floods have declined almost 50 fold over the last century.

The world has improved dramatically:

Life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900;

the almost universal illiteracy of 200 years ago has almost disappeared;

in 1820, 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty, now it’s less than 10 percent;.

This incontrovertible progress has been driven by ethical and responsible conduct, trust, well functioning markets, the rule of law, innovation and political stability.

We need to foster a climate that challenges fear-mongering and promotes optimistic yet critical thinking and constructive discussion regarding the future.

The authors have convened the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and their conference commences on 30 October in London. Follow the outcomes.

This is paraphrased from an article by

Jordan Peterson John Anderson The Weekend Australian 28 October 2023

This is the kind of talk you need to listen to. No doubt there will be muted and hypercritical media reporting on this movement – their methods, ethics and calling are under scrutiny, at last!

Say No

Generally speaking people feel uncomfortable objecting to something somebody says or saying “no”.

The desire for social acceptance and fear of causing disappointment or conflict lead us to agree, even when it’s against our best interests. Some of us were brought up with expectations of obedience. Saying “no” to a parent was exceptionally hard; an older sibling would likely give you a thick ear!

So we learned how to express our refusal: often by persistence, pleading, begging and tears. These tactics sometimes worked with Mum. Dad’s response was invariably: “what does your mother say?”

By saying No, I am challenging your power, intimating you are wrong and I am right, disappointing and inconveniencing you, embarrassing you.

The reluctance, discomfort and often fear of saying no is the playground of bullies. Standing up to our teacher, boss or parish priest is almost as difficult. But if successful, a “no” reaps rewards and enhanced respect.

The most challenging “No” of all, is the one you say after having said “Yes” many times before… when there is an expectation of “yes”

Hurt feelings, guilt, shame, embarrassment, sadness, anger and rage are common reactions to a refusal. Here in Australia, the rejection of the Voice referendum has seen all those emotions and more.

Saying no means we need to be able to discriminate – to be to tell the difference between different options and select the right one. We should also learn how to signal our position before being asked, if possible.

For some time I have been uncomfortable with the increasingly commonplace Aboriginal “welcome to country” ritual foisted on audiences; particularly the increased emphasis on this land being “ours”.

I believe it is commonplace before meetings in government departments and even in some churches.

These “welcomes” are not endearing Aboriginal cultural practices; they are in fact political statements which challenge the status quo in Australia.

High Court v Commonwealth 1993: … there is no justification for “the notion that sovereignty adverse to the Crown resides in the Aboriginal people of Australia”

The referendum message does not seem to have got through to the vociferous minority. The special treatment of people on the grounds of their ethnicity has been rejected.

Thirty percent of Australians today were not born here, they have different cultures – they are rightly expected to assimilate and contribute to our society.

The message is: You can say “No” to stuff you didn’t agree to, even the ‘touchy-feely ‘ ethnic and gender stuff.

Question the justification for unnecessary welcomes and cultural, ideological changes in your workplace.

Say ‘No”.

The absurdities of our kind

I was thinking of another rant about the Woke Religion and its priests, the Voice and the courtesies we insist are paid to tyrants who we permit to flourish. But I have ranted about most of that already, so I need a change of tack.

We have too much tolerance.

We tolerate teenagers who steal and wreck the most expensive cars for Tik Tok kicks.

We tolerate demonstrators who burn and loot in their righteous displays of outrage.

We tolerate shoplifters because we are too scared to arrest them in case they create a victimisation scene.

We tolerate and compensate governments who suppress freedom, eliminate opponents and yet proclaim democracy.

We allow men claiming they are women to enter womens’ prisons despite convictions for rape of females

We give girls drugs to stop their sexual development and allow them to have their breasts removed, sometimes withhout parental consent.

We tolerate the mass murderers we catch, providing lifetime accommodation in our prisons.

We shoot mad dogs and any dangerous animal.

We also train soldiers in ways to efficiently kill people our governments declare are enemies; often in cold blood.

My recommendation is that we re-institute the death sentence for murderers and serial rapists.

Their places in our prisons can be filled by those who wilfully damage property.

We must also stop meeting tyrants and refuse them entry into our world.

I believe that the deterrent effect of capital punishment for terrible crimes will reverberate and reset the respect for societal values that has disappeared.

Using my Voice

David Pocock was a great rugby player and I admire his impetus and integrity as a Senator. He recently called on Rugby Australia and all sporting bodies to support the call for a Voice in Australia.

I take exception to that – to me it’s like telling all sportspeople they must take a knee.

Consequently, I read the Uluru Statement from the Heart*. I regret that I was disappointed but not surprised.

I accept this document represents the views and beliefs of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and that these various indigenous peoples were the sovereign rulers of Australasia at the time of European colonisaion.

Sovereignty relates to power. So, prior to colonisation, the indigenous people had the power over the land. They certainly were not united as one people and battles were common ** and it is assumed sovereignty over land changed over time – that is the explicit nature of mankind.

Colonisation is an economic force and those who are technologically superior will prevail, by seduction or force or both. The colonised are suppressed until over time they are assimilated or rise up and overthrow the colonists. That is the history of mankind.

The Uluru statement infers that longevity of possession confers eternal sovereignty over the land and states that the indigenous people “must one day return thither and be united with …. ancestors”.

It is remarkable to note the religosity that surrounds this concept of custody and ownership of the land – it has permeated Australian social values and is pronounced at every major public spectacle. A remarkable public relations coup!

Attachment to the land and access to the graves of ancestors is not just an Aboriginal thing – but they have made it iconic.

It cannot be disputed that Aboriginals have proportionally higher representation amongst the incarcerated and that children are alienated from their families at unprecedented rates. There are protestations that “we are not innately criminal” which suggests that while there may be evidence they committed crimes or abuse, they should somehow be exonerated as the victims of rapacious colonists.

Whatever and wherever, there is a strong case for effective and cohesive actions to be taken to facilitate opportunities to escape the spiral of ignorance, indulgence, poverty and crime.

However, the guilt scars left by the treatment of the stolen generation are strongly etched in the Australian psyche and the Voice is possibly seen as a simple way to ease that guilt. Virtue signalling is very fashionable at the moment…

The statement talks of possession of the land i.e. ownership … does that not suggest that ultimately there must be compensation for historical dispossession at today’s values?

It seems that the Voice is saying: Show me the money…!

In the US, some local governments are contemplating compensating present day African Americans for the hardships of slavery. The Canadian government will pay A$3billion in compensation to hundreds of Indigenous communities for decades of abuse suffered by First Nations, Métis and Inuit children in residential schools. The Maori in New Zealand have wrung millions from the Crown in recent years, which is an enticing precedent.

In the African sub-continent of my birth, there is a great push by Nguni tribes for return or recompense for land they once possessed for a while, and they are not even of First Nations aristocracy, just recent tenants!

Let us be clear on what is being sought:“substantive constitutional change and structural reform….to empower our people…... a Makaratta Commission to supervise a process of agreement making between governments and First Nations”

This is needed to end “the torment of our powerlessness“

The indigenous people are seeking more power than that which they share with non-indigenous Australians.

This is a classic manifestation of Woke thinking: generate guilt and moral wrong by highlighting historical inequalities and injustices and impute the blame on the current electorate and demanding rectification by reconstructing society and its institutions.

This is a modern application of democracy based only on sentiment.

Looked at objectively, granting more power to Indigenous people will only differentiate them more and cost more, with no guarantee of upliftment.

Beneficial action to uplift segments of society does not require constitutional amendment it requires clarity of purpose, consultation and adherence to a course of action.

Before you vote in the referendum, think carefully about the implications and why you are doing it.

Is it just to show you are sorry or do you believe it is right to give more power (money) to a differentiated sector of the population, based on that difference?

And who will be next? L G B T Q I … ?

*Uluru Statement from the Heart referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF

** https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/indigenous-australian-laws-of-war-914

Rectitude

I suppose it’s the first 4 letters which generate in my mind a sort of carrot up the arse, stiff upper lip, holier than thou image .

I think maybe it was a desirable trait in the days of Queen Victoria, when it denoted a moral, conservative stance. Nowadays, it is a trait of the progressives who are awake to any opportunity to denounce.

It is also the armour of the petty bureaucrat, who will follow the letter of the law despite great injustice being the consequence. e.g.:your visa renewal is refused because you paid the wrong fee; you must quit your job and leave the country.

These thoughts have been kindled by a recent article on Celebrity Slavery*:

The fashionable pursuit of reparations from celebrities, who might shell out rather than run the risk of ‘cancellation’ and humiliation, smacks of extortion.

Certainly the latter suggests a commercial morality: a skeleton of a rich man’s ancestors is far more valuable and attracts greater media attention.

Much easier to apply leverage to an individual than governments of former colonies where there are many of the estimated 40 million people still in slavery.

Researching rectitude, I came across this graphic of virtues:

They seem pretty wet to me, grounded as I am in the more traditional cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude , justice and temperance.

Be careful, be brave, be fair and moderate in all that you do.

If you practise those virtues you don’t need to be woke, righteous, progressive or vociferous.

*Article by Peter Kurti, The Spectator, 21 January 2023,

A patsy or a grifter?

“Patsy” – American slang for somebody who has been set up to take the risk and the blame.

“Grifter” – con artist,scammer

There are a number of ways to attack a government other than in open Parliament and through the ballot box.

What better than a sex scandal ?

‘A sex scandal the party can be proud of. Another Barnaby but without the baby haha,’

Maybe somebody thought about that and made a plan.

So, around 4 a.m. one Saturday morning in March 2019, about a fortnight before a federal election is called, the female parliamentary aide who texted about a sex scandal, is found by security, lying naked on a couch in a minister’s office. Woohoo! Imagine the media potential – an Australian Watergate!!

She says she is okay, turns over and goes back to sleep, eventually leaving at about 10 am that morning.

Cleaners are sent in to clean the office, but find nothing suggestive of inappropriate conduct. (Seems a somewhat routine response for a serious place like a Minister’s office?)

The following Tuesday, explanations are sought from the woman and the man with whom she had entered the buiding as to the propriety of their entry so late at night. The woman raises sexual impropriety and reports to Police at Parliament. She hadn’t reported this before.

The man is dismissed for inapproriate entry to (not at) Parliament and another unrelated matter. I wonder why she wasn’t fired too? Passing out drunk and naked in a Minister’s office?

Some 2 weeks later an election is called by the Prime Minister. Two days after that, the complainant withdraws her complaint to the Police.

In October 2020, the media and a union raise questions about workplace culture in Parliament. A review ensues as there are other shaggy stories about after hours Parliamentary hijinks. The plot thickens…

In January 2021, the woman resigns after a meeting with a prominent journalist. Hmmm!

Two days after an interview is recorded for publication, the woman re-ignites her complaint first made 22 months before with the Police.

Former MP’s, Ministers and a Prime Minister are all tarnished by allegations about their parts in the piece.

A minister is obliged to apologise for calling the complainant “a lying cow” – talk about power!

A book deal for $325000 is offered.

Notwithstanding Police advice that the case is weak and the complainant unreliable, the Director Of Public Presecution decides to proceed. Did he jump or was he pushed?

The trial commences in October 2022. The complainant is not a good witness with inconsistent and improbable evidence. She takes a mid-trial break for mental health reasons and repeatedly weeps in public … something she said she could do again on tv, if required.

The jury is undecided and a protracted deliberation ensues. Fortuitously or unfortunately, a juror is found to have considered material extraneous to the trial and a mistrial is declared.

The plot gets thicker… The complainant goes to work for a former Labor Prime Minister!

But wait there’s more – both parties are now suing for damages, the complainant apparently while still under treatment for a mental condition.

No one has yet openly raised the possibility that the complainant is lying.

Other than her word, which is not convincing, there is no corroboratory evidence indicating sex occured.

Maybe her fragile nerves are a consequence of lies and the temptation of feminist fame and big bucks?!

Maybe she is a patsy, being manipulated by others?

There is big money and acres of potential scandal. Maybe she is a grifter…?

My money is on the former. I reckon she’s been inflated by others who see benefit in prolonging the chaos that has ensued.

It is important that you think about this matter which has extremely wide repercussions:

It probably contributed to the LNP election loss and downfall of a Prime Minister
Parliamentary security was demonstrated as culpably lax; there is a strong suggestion that late night shenanigans are not unusual.
The DPP’s initial decision to prosecute was improper, at worst by political direction, which indicates gross interference and dereliction of duty
The attempts to amend the Evidence Act suggest further political involvement
The civil damages suits are likely sponsored by wealthier parties than the man and woman. Cui bono?
There has been clear evidence of manipulation by the media

From a wider perspective, it is clear that our judicial system needs serious review.

Victims of sexual violence need to be better protected but not at expense of the presumption of innocence.
The Jury system is no longer fit for purpose.
The right to silence should be suspended by warrant based on substantial implicatory evidence. In other words, if a magistrate is satisfied that sufficient evidence exists to require explanation, he shall issue a directive requiring the person implicated to answer questions, perhaps in a closed court session.
Lie detector tests should be required for all witnesses.

My new windmill

Remember Don Quixote who charged a windmill as he believed it was an evil giant?

I identify with the old gentleman. I too am a bit bewildered by the modern world: hasty but easily confused, I take umbrage swiftly when faced with blind zealots cloaked in do-good deeds.

The new windmill we all must face is an evil giant, so big, we cannot see all of it – I beg you to believe this.

You will need great courage to defeat it because it is well entrenched and has many powerful and erudite supporters who believe that they are right.

I feel like someone in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s when the politcal system was perverted and Storm troopers set the moral tone, burning books and bullying, looting, then eventually exterminating Jews, Gypsies, Communists, the insane and mentally handicapped en masse: their own people. The silent majority let it happen then – will you let it happen now?

We have a greater threat than Storm troopers facing us now. We have a culture of do-gooders, armoured in virtue so as to be apparently unassailable. They are taking our values and history and perverting them, persuading us to join the lynch mobs to do the job.

No Church nor brave politician has yet been strong enough to withstand these insidious forces who quell dissent with floods of populist rage, causing timid buraucrats to act according to the mob’s demands to suppress, notwithstanding their own codes and commitments to freedoms and fairness.

Their rationale is that all must enjoy equal freedoms in today’s society and recompense for their struggles of the past. Redress must be instantaneous on mere request. Only victims’ views and claims are considered. It is disrepectful to oppose these views.

This You Tube video on the transgender phenomenon clearly manifests one of the workings of this evil modern day windmill – it horrified and enraged me. If you are not similarly affected, go away and revel in your ostrich ways!

Teachers and doctors and administrators and politicians permit practices because they cannot stand up to unsubstantiated claims, they go with the flow. The media who trumpet the virtue signals which mask the atrocious demands are the agitators who see profit in the flames of chaos in society.

We have a moral obligation to “stay woke,” take a stand and be active; challenging threats in our communities, protecting freedoms from erosion by allegation and mob support.

Ask your MP, school principal, class teacher, doctor the following questions:

do you believe that gender is a choice and has nothing to do with biology
are kids who haven’t even gone through puberty capable of making the decision to change their sex
should children under 18 be permitted abortions, puberty blockers and hormonal treatments without court order or parental permission

If the answer is yes, make sure everyone knows that fact.

Now is the time for them to nail their colours to the mast and take sides. Post the questions on websites, ask their associations what their positions are and publish their answers, silence or evasions.

Get the answers now before they are passed into law because there is no opposition. We are fighting for our values and our children.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

The debate over the referendum to grant a “Voice” to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia sparks many thoughts in my mind, most of them cynical.

Now I don’t have a vote in Australia, but I have paid taxes here for nigh on 10 years so should have one; thus I figured I am entitled to speak my mind.

My first thought is that these people do have a voice and representation by their own elected representatives. (Does this mean that democracy has failed them?)

My second thought is that the concept of a “Voice” for this poor benighted sector of the population is quite a funky meme-ish idea, likely to appeal to the shortspanofattention current generation. It is a crisp, simple virtuous PR vehicle, ideal for politicians.

My third thought is that the referendum is likely to be quite divisive, because of the modern propensity to factionise and label for easy meme-ing. The ‘aye-sayers‘ are inclusive, woke progressives and the ‘nay- sayers‘ are racist Tories.

Wait, it gets even more … rough-edged?

There are about 500 different Aboriginal tribes in Australia, each with their own language and territory and usually made up of a large number of separate clans. more than 250 languages and about 800 dialectal varieties

Which language will be used by the Voice? And will all agree on the words that are spoken? In New Zealand, there are still big money debates going on about the meaning of the Te Reo Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, thought to be clearly written in English.

The Indigenous population in Australia declined to a low of 74,000 in 1933 from an estimated 314 000 when the First Fleet arrived. About 12 000 were killed by colonists, the rest likely succumbed to the ravages of disease and by products of western civilization such as alcohol and despair.

A Voice will give 3.2% of the population additional power in Parliament – a 25% increase in that population since last census! It seems that aboriginal heritage is gaining flavour.

This portion of the population is the most poorly educated, unhealthy, socially destitute and criminal of all Australians. It is also diverse and disparate. It has a history of subjugation and some abuse, some of which may have been well meaning by the perpetrators but devastating for the victims.

Can we expect clarity, foresight and community interest from the speakers of the Voice? Will they be united and informed and representative of their electorate? Is that likely? Or will there be Boards and Committees and advisors and bureaucrats to give the Voice a neck and a head…? Lots and lots of money…!

It’s not a new political trick. In 1967 a referendum relating to Indigenous Australians, was called by the Liberal-Country Party Holt Government. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians.

Acts of Parliament have appointed Protectors of Aborigines and Aboriginal Protection Boards in the past, with little apparent success.

The persuasion for this campaign is founded on the wave of Woke thinking which is sweeping the old, democratic Western societies, which recently saw off ScoMo and the LNP.

The fact that the Aboriginal population suffers significantly less advantage in society is regarded as a consequence of a racist hegemony, enriched by its historical suppression and racism: massacres, dispossessions and stolen generations.

The guilty must now pay a penance which will (maybe) absolve them of this horrible taint of the past and make everything okay …. yeah, right!

My last thought is related to my antipathy to Woke-ism, which you may have detected.

Once the benighted Aboriginals have a Voice, will we not be bound by precedent to enshrine more power for the exclusive use of women, then the homosexuals, lesbians, transexuals, pansexuals, one knee cappers and sheep lovers, etcetera?

I will leave the allocation of body parts to a new age biologist!

While I am here I was wondering why there is no rainbow flag in Parliament and why no-one took a knee at the opening of that august body, soon to be given a new voice.