peopleswing to the right – Page 3

More weight!

The last words of Giles Corey as he was judicially crushed to death in an attempt to get him to answer to charges of witchcraft. He was 81 years old.

He defied the sheer madness of a society that tolerated in the name of God and the law, widespread, hysterical allegations of witchcraft. Such perverted zealotry was deemed appropriate by many.

“The Crucible” is a play about the 1692 Salem witch trials, including that of Giles Corey, written by Arthur Miller. Its themes are as relevant today as they were when aimed at the Communist witch hunt in the US in the early 1950’s.

Some girls were seen dancing in the woods by a minister in the rigidly conservative Puritan society of Salem in Massachusets. They pretended they were under spells and witchcraft was blamed. They began naming people as having communed with the Devil and influenced their behaviour.

Suddenly a vehicle was found by some to settle scores, old and new. Others came forward and alleged bizarre behaviours. A zealous minister interpreted and prosecuted the allegations. Hundreds were accused, arrested and tried on allegations that could not be proved. The mere fact that many alleged the influence of the Devil was accepted as truth.

Those denounced were arrested and required to admit their connection with the Devil or deny it and be hanged. Most did and saved their lives but lost their estates; nineteen men and women did not and were hanged. Giles Corey, 81, was squashed to death.

It was like reading accounts of today’s woke mobs baying for policemens’ or Jews’ blood or the credence given to the gender dysmorphia hysteria of teenage girls. It sheds light on the reality of mass psychogenic illness, which are very real behaviours with no known physical cause, a form of social influence, which defies our understanding.

… but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom…
The Crucible, Act 2

What is so frightening about social media today is the immediate identification by millions with reports of situations. One consequence is a cacophony of ‘me too’ howls which generate so much noise that they are almost impossible to deny. Substantiating the truth is no longer relevant. The mere noise of the mob causes knee jerk political response.

Protestantism was mass resistance to the existing Church’s iron grip on society, the Inquisition, suppression of challenge and direction of government. Ironically the idols and ritualism of Catholicism were rejected and the swing went to the rigid strictures of Puritanism which added zeal and the same belief that the Devil was ever present. The pendulum swung but the iron rule of the Church prevailed.

We see now the rise of ultra right wing nationalism across the western world. Apparently a reaction to the huge influx of Arab and African refugees and the campaigns of woke movements such as #metoo and BLM, which pillory historical figures and values and call for reparations and bending the knee in acknowledgement of white patriarchy guilt. Mere allegation is sufficient for substance of wrongdoing.

Just like in Salem in 1692.

Serious splits in society have formed and we will be pressed to answer whether we agree that taking the knee is a good thing or face consequences.

I hope I will say: “More Weight!”

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”.

A question of balance

Terror tactics are horrifying and repugnant causing us to recoil. They are used when conventional warfare: i.e. soldiers fighting soldiers, is not pragmatic.

The terror tactics used in Rhodesia during the time of its ‘liberation’ war included the murder of unarmed non-combatants in pitiless, gruesome fashion. This included the execution by shooting of headmen and many tribespeople “pour encourager les autres” accompanied by mutilations, abduction and rape. It included the execution of survivors of a passenger aircraft they had shot down; the murder of missionaries including the bayonetting of a 6 month old baby.

Of course, Europe had its own terrorists like the Red Army Faction which engaged in a series of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, bank robberies, and shoot-outs with police.

Governments also use terrorism. In World War II, the Nazis executed villagers in reprisal for attacks on them by resistance partisans.

The Japanese Army is estimated to have executed millions of Chinese and Korean civilians during the same period.

Let us not omit the ultimate terror tactic deployed by the US on Japan in 1945 – the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed over 200, 000 people.

Neighborhood reduced to rubble by atomic bomb blast, Hiroshima, 1945.

Sadly, terror tactics clearly have some “legitimacy” in societies across the world.

This somewhat shatters our moral high ground when considering the Hamas massacres of Israeli residents and indeed the Israeli retaliation and the US support for it.

There is some distaste for the Hamas tactic of hiding amongst the “innocent” population, but it is a brutally clever tactic. Why should non-combatants not share the fight in a liberation struggle?

Of course, this type of thinking means that the only tactic to stop this type of warfare is eradication and suppression – obliteration will buy a few years until new ideologists fire up the youth of a new generation. Unavoidably, non-combatants will also be obliterated.

We can express our horror and repugnance, but we can not condemn the morality if we too are guilty.

It goes without saying that terrorists should be stopped before they attack.

But, how is this possible?

One answer which many will not like, is universal surveillance: the continuous monitoring of every meeting, conversation and movement of ….. everybody.

Don’t be alarmed, surveillance of communications and movement is commonplace in the military and security industries, including the police. Many private houses and vehicles already have security camera systems which track you whenever you pass by; you are watched in supermarkets, bars and train stations. Internet traffic is monitored and filtered by service providers.

Why do we still need a warrant to monitor criminal activities? AI bots can monitor and notify suspicious behaviour for investigation, in real time as it happens.

It will be far more effective in stopping terrorists and criminals than analysis of historical data, so what is the downside?

After all: “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”!

I wrote this poem for a poetry class some years ago.

Screen

Everyone everywhere should be screened

Let the camera capture

your face, your life, your ups and

downs.

And hers and his and theirs.

All must be screened – t’will

make us feel safer and happier, until

we think about

Who screens

the Screeners.

Look at the screen

be obscene and herd:

you’re on tv!

This is our new morality

I was on tv

did you see me?

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.

Odds and Ends

For some time I have been trying to work out what are the essences of Conservatism and Liberalism in politics.

Liberal politicians aim to maximise the transfer of wealth from Capital to the general population; Conservatives aim to increase the ability of business to generate wealth which in turn generates benefits to the population.

It would be easy to say Liberals are populists who succeed by appeasing the masses with new benefits and Conservatives are dedicated to preserving the wealth of the elites. Still a class war then…

The mission of both left and right wings is to be perceived as the greatest benefactor. If the Left take too much from the wealth generators, the economy falters and the voters suffer, if the Right do not give enough they will be abandoned, even if the economy is booming, although that can be a major attraction.

So recently in Australia, the Conservatves lost out in the election, despite “protecting” the economy during Covid: it was skilfully portrayed by the Left as arrogant and mysoginistic.

In the US the Liberals (Democrats) are seen to be too progressive with new rights and change, despite giving huge economic benefits, while the right (Republicans) are resistant and supportive of Trump who while personally offensive, appeals as a champion of conservative rights.

This is in my view is where the main battle in the World Woke War will be fought.

Moving on…

While Rugby remains my main affection, it has not been that exciting in recent years, despite skills seeming to improve.

The introduction of the TMO and on screen reviews is a contributor. Referees are no longer instinctive and decisive. The TMO should be reserved for reviewable foul play to be actioned after the game.

The other issue was the expulsion of Israel Folau, in my view one of the greatest rugby football talents ever. This is part of the Woke wave, along with the taking of the knee, welcomes to the country and the promotion of indigenous causes, support for the Voice, etc. which saw administrators kissing a number of arses to maximise their virtue signals.

They forgot that they are paid employees not elected representatives of players – they need to ensure that their utterances have the support of all players or shut up!

On the other hand…

I must say that I have really enjoyed the FIFA Womens’ World Cup matches that I have watched. I confess that I resented the intrusion of females into what I saw as male sports. I recant and am now a supporter, even of female rugby, although I cringe at the crunch of some of the contacts on those soft female bodies….

For men, it was sort of manly and glorious to be injured; a spot of claret endorsed manliness, a badge of glory – what is the significance for women?

There is no denying that they can be just as tough and their blood is also red but it is somehow uncomfortable. Vestiges of mysogyny?

Just to round it off..

I am glad that there seems to be backswing against transgender men being permitted to compete in womens’ sports. I don’t think they should be allowed in womens’ prisons either or in their toilets.

Who would think I was once threatened with deportation for my liberal views?

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,

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.

The mysteries of sex

Hopefully the title has lured your interest and you read on. This is about an older man’s resistance to change and opposition to the incursions of identity politics into history and life as we know it.

Back in the day, say 1960’s and 70’s when Germaine Greer was shaking the tree and ruffling the entrenched privileges of patriarchs, a “trannie” was a transistor radio.

Now there are arguments between medical philosophers in “The Lancet” about politically correct gender terminology

The streaming company Twitch recently said it would use the term “womxn” in order to be more gender neutral in its language.

“But LGBT communities online called the change transphobic because it suggested trans women were not women.”

I think I grasp most of what the LGBTQ anagram stands for.

A 2011 survey in the US suggested LGBTQ’s make up about 10% of the population. Of course each group are all different with different demands and there are variations within each grouping e.g.: Transgender people may identify as heterosexual (straight), homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual, asexual, or otherwise, or may decline to label their sexual orientation.

This has become quite confusing for some of us. What do we call these people, other than saying ” one of those LGBTQ types... “?

I have a few suggestions which might help:

The tensions over who can use which toilet could be eased by renaming public conveniences as urinals and non-urinals and by increasing the number and privacy of toilet cubicles which could be open to anyone.
Allow males into breast feeding/ baby care rooms only to change nappies (that will keep them out)
Instead of ‘people with vaginas‘,or ‘people who menstruate’ congenitally heterosexual women could be re-labelled as wombmen
Trans males who have had surgery to acquire female conformation could be called ginamen
Trans females who have had surgery to acquire male conformation could be called cockerelles
Female Bisexuals could be callen whimen, males could be bisons
Unaltered transgender people could be called cocktoos

I would like the word gay to be returned to its original usage, describing happy, merry and frolicsome behaviour. I get that queer and other labels may be unacceptable, so maybe they could be called otherlovers. In line with that, pansexuals could be called anylovers …

No hurt is intended but if it is felt, it certainly couldn’t be more than the hurt felt by the the world of women who have been told they no longer can be called females or ladies and must change their nomenclature.

Of course sarcasm doesn’t help other than to perhaps signal discomfort at the disproportionate reactions in social media against those who question the rationale or proposals advanced by identity politicians or proposals that the whole be changed to accomodate tiny minorities.

New Human Rights

It has been some time since 2042 when duty to community prevailed over individual rights.

After the almost impenetrable smog of fakenews in the early 2020’s, there were many hard fought court actions seeking ways to promote the truth. The right to the truth was first espoused in the Senate Impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump and later entrenched in the AllNations Declaration of Rights of 2031.

Now in 2060 it has long been accepted that there is great harm to society for an individual to fail to disclose the truth. The historical sacrosanct right to silence had led to far too many injustices; tragedies which could have been avoided; vicious murderers, rapists and pederasts who escaped liability to strike again and again.

Ways to obtain the truth from alleged criminals are strictly controlled and are under direct supervision of a judge who only orders the administration of truth serum after clear supporting evidence of involvement in crime.

The veracity of elected representatives including the Universal Head of State is monitored by truth sensor apps which display signs if speakers are deliberately not accurate in what they say.

It has become very difficult to prevent the actual truth from disclosure. Marketing was prohibited. Information is accurate and individuals easily obtain relevant information they require, tailored to their needs from GlobalTruth, Google’s successor..

Many of the old rights contained in the United Nations Declaration in 1948 have become obsolete and removed or changed over time.

GlobalRule which was enabled after Universal Surveillance meant privacy was obsolete; warfare became impossible as hostile intent was soon detected and could be stamped out by WorldForces and human tragedy could swiftly be addressed.

The universal carbon tax had effectively extinguished global warming. Universal Basic Income had diminished the poverty gap and world population was declining. Famine was extinct.

Death from disease was eradicated and human longevity increased to 120 years placing great burden on the WorldCommunity to produce sufficient food.

Since the rebellion of the middle-agers, refusing to serve the mandatory 30 years as pioneers on New Australia (Mars), finding more living space on Earth has become impossible.

Global Rule has eliminated conflict: wars are no more and the Global Surveillance Judicial system has made crime almost impossible – so our numbers are no longer reduced by the death sentences on major criminals or banishment to outer planets.

However, quality of life had declined and community costs to support the elderly increased exponentially after 130 years of age.

The dominant duty to community ethos over individual rights had led to universal acceptance of mandatory euthanasia.

The celebration of life of a family elder has become a major rite of family culture and is keenly anticipated.

I accepted mandatory death and cremation at 133 years of age, long ago. Nevertheless, it is quite startling to think that next year I will reach my Celebration Day.

I will sleep happily knowing my ashes will feed an apple tree in our family orchard.