To The Age Labor frontbench MP Linda Burney claims that there is "enormous support" for enshrining a proposed Aboriginal voice in the Constitution ("MPs warn of failure in campaign", 31/7). Is she engaging in wishful thinking? If in any referendum the "No" case is properly financed and supported by the government as well as the "Yes" case, it is most unlikely that the referendum will succeed. There are too many good arguments against which remain unanswered. If Scott Morrison and his colleagues are having second thoughts on this matter, good on them! They will be wise to insist that the interests of all Australians need to be consulted and respected.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave
To The Australian Former High Court chief justice Robert French simply ignores the cogent arguments which have been brought up against any kind of amendment to the Constitution favouring the Aborigines ("Voice of reason is not beyond us", 31/7). He states, correctly, that "recognition is a fact". That is true and that is where it should end. However, he adds that recognition in the Constitution "would reflect an existing national growth of respect for our First Peoples." He does not say how or why; and there is reason to suspect that popular affection for the Aborigines is actually waning a little as more and more Australians become aware that "the Aboriginal industry" is engaging in selfish demands at the expense of the rest of us. French concludes that "the creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit." That is dreamtime stuff! Australia is deeply split on this issue and thus any referendum appears doomed.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
A psychologist friend once cynically said to me that “humans are 99 percent rat!” Reflecting upon this after years in the cultural wars, I feel that he was being hard on the rats. The level of mind-numbing conformity among progressives is stunning:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/28/democrat-opposition-immigration-controls-surges/
“The Democrat Party’s opposition to any and all controls on illegal and legal immigration has surged for decades leading up to the 2020 presidential election, analysis reveals. Analysis of polls and surveys from the 1980s to this year, conducted by Georgia State University’s Zach Goldberg for Tablet Magazine, finds that Democrat voters who once supported, by a majority, some forms of immigration controls now tend to oppose national borders in favor of mass illegal and legal immigration. Between 2014 and 2019, Goldberg finds that Democrat voters who called illegal immigration a “somewhat” or “very serious” problem facing the U.S. declined by 30 points. A year into former President Obama’s second term, about eight-in-ten Democrat voters said illegal immigration was a problem compared to today with only about half of Democrat voters saying this. Even with the most Democrat-centric plans — like providing amnesty to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens in the U.S. so long as they learn the English language — support has fallen quickly. In 2006, about 85 percent of Democrat voters said they would support an amnesty that mandates illegal aliens learn English. In 2013, that support fell to less than 70 percent. Likewise, in 2002, about 62 percent of Democrat voters said large influxes of foreign refugees and immigrants was a “critical threat” to the nation. Fast-forward to 2018 when less than two-in-ten Democrat voters said mass immigration was a “critical threat” to the U.S. The increasingly open borders, mass immigration agenda of Democrats — driven primarily by white liberals, as research has found — has put the party in-line with the big business lobby that favors an amnesty for illegal aliens, an increase in legal immigration levels to keep U.S. wages low, and more temporary foreign visa workers to replace Americans in white-collar jobs.”
A great article by Brett Stevens who calls the Left out on climate change, which is being used as their latest political weapon for global communism. He invites the Left to follow through the so-called “logic” of their position:
http://www.amerika.org/politics/how-to-fix-climate-change/
“Now the Left comes to us, worried facial expressions wide, asking what should be done about “climate change.” We can tell them the same thing that conservatives have for decades: All of our problems are caused by relying on quantity over quality. This reflects an inner mental disorder to humanity. Our suggestion is first to make our society sane again, which requires undoing a great deal of Leftist programs. For example, we should dismantle the consumerist system by ending our entitlements programs; we should slash government and regulations; we should empower private suits on behalf of the government; most of all, we should become self-sufficient, which ends a ton of pollution. We are not the ones advocating for people to fly around the globe, import products from far away in cargo ships which are massive polluters, or to have unlimited immigration. We wanted to save you from all of this. We would have busted unions, so that offshoring/outsourcing did not happen. We would have avoided globalism. We wanted to avoid the UN. We opposed welfare programs. Had you listened, the world population would have remained lower and we would not be having this discussion.
Some of your writers have been pursuing the line that the Antifa are domestic terrorists. It sure looks like Don Trump has been thinking along the same lines:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/27/president-trump-considers-labeling-antifa-an-organization-of-terrorpresident-trump-considers-labeling-antifa-an-organization-of-terror/
“President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is considering labeling the far-left activist group Antifa a terrorist organization. “Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA, the gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats, a major Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others),” Trump wrote in a tweet.
With progressives still clinging to the “Russia stole the election from Queen Hillary” mantra, it is ironic to see the amount of material showing that Google itself is the great election meddler.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/24/dr-robert-epstein-googles-ephemeral-experiences-manipulate-people-on-a-massive-scale/
“Dr. Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Google’s latest tactics in election manipulation and how to combat them with host Alex Marlow. Dr. Robert Epstein appeared on Breitbart News Daily this week alongside host and Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow to discuss the current state of Google and how the company could use its technology to influence voters. Host Alex Marlow discussed Epstein’s research saying: “I think you put out some pretty hard data on how many votes you think were moved in the 2016 election and I think you estimated it was over two million or so, is that not the case?” Epstein responded: “Well it was at least 2.6 million and it could have been as many as 10.4 million depending on how aggressive google was in using the various tools they have available to them to shift votes. I can’t pin it down exactly but I know it’s in that range.”
It is good to point out the inconsistencies of the socialists, whenever we see them. Take US geriatric socialist Bernie Sanders, not to be confused with Colonel Sanders of the fried chicken fame:
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/socialist-bernie-sanders-schooled-by-a-quick-lesson-on-minimum-wage_07232019
“Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders was recently schooled by a lesson on minimum wage. After raising the minimum wage of his staffers to $15 per hour, the socialist cut everyone’s hours. “Breadlines Bernie” found out on his own what a disaster liberal policies can be on a person’s personal finances. After cutting hours to make good on his $15/hour pledge, Sanders was mocked by both sides for his inability to understand simple mathematics and economics 101. “Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders announced this weekend he will cut staffers’ hours so that they can effectively be paid a $15-an-hour minimum wage, prompting mockery from critics who say the move is more evidence that Sanders’ plan to raise the national minimum wage is hypocritical and would only lead to less work and more unemployment,” reports Fox News.”
It may be possible for a perpetual committee of green bureaucrats to electrify Australia with a vast but flimsy spider-web of power lines connecting consumers to wind turbines, solar panels, lithium batteries and pumped-hydro batteries. In this wonder-world, electric scooters and mini-cars will be mandated and demand rationing will be imposed. But this costly, ramshackle UN dream-come-true will never be competitive with nearby industries in China, India and Japan using a powerful backbone of reliable low-cost nuclear, coal, gas and diesel power, decorated with bits of green tinsel to placate the energy commissars of the UN. These Asian tigers will get their coal from Mongolia, Indonesia and South Africa, their oil and gas from the Middle East and their uranium from Asia, Canada and Africa.
Affirmative Right site has some occasionally good articles, but a lot that I disagree with. On the positive front, there has been a series arguing that monogamy is needed as the foundation for society, for Western civilisation to survive. Beyond the usual conservative argument centred around the production of children, there is also the aspect of sexual satisfaction, and not a lot of this occurs under the feminist regime:
https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/07/monogamy-and-survival-of-west-part-four.html#more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7LN14IpVy0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB7qKbZWoWk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY
“Is there a fundamental right to monogamy? The male desire for sex and female companionship is a natural biological instinct, like eating or sleeping. If a man is unable to satisfy this fundamental impulse, he loses his powers of concentration and becomes unproductive. Eventually, he is forced to drop out of society or lash out. A growing underclass of unmarried men will inevitably lead to massive civil strife and social disruption, including bloodshed. Expecting these men to just exercise self-control is both unreasonable and absurd. Lifelong celibacy has never worked, not even for the Christian church, which degenerated morally and intellectually because of it. Imagine the agony of the inferior male, who is forced to endure a life of unwanted bachelorhood, his libido mercilessly titillated by a liberal society that allows women to dress as scantily-clad ****** in public. In reality, it is only the liberal totalitarians who must practice self-control; their nihilist and self-destructive obsession with feminism, multicultural policy and immigration from the Third World are more akin to the dancing and flagellation manias of the Middle Ages than the beliefs of rational men. If it is in society's best interest to ensure that all men reach their full innate potential, then society must provide the necessary conditions allowing men to exercise their right to monogamous family life whenever they so choose.”
Yes, along with Antifa, the Left has generated its usual band of violent protestors:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/animal-rights-activists-australia-domestic-terrorists-new-south-wales-a9015346.html?utm_source=reddit.com
“Animal rights activists who invade farms to stage protests will be hit with huge new fines in measures announced by Australia’s south-eastern state government after they were branded “domestic terrorists” by the region’s deputy leader. The New South Wales (NSW) government has introduced on-the-spot trespassing charges of $1,000 (£565) for each “vigilante” caught illegally entering private farmland. The new rules, which come into force on 1 August, could also see individuals charged up to $220,000 (£124,000) and corporations up to $440,000 (£248,000) for any major violations of the Biosecurity Act. “Vigilantes who are entering our farmers’ property illegally are nothing short of domestic terrorists, NSW deputy premier John Barilaro, in remarks widely reported by Australian media. “Our farmers have had a gutful. They don’t deserve, nor have time, to be dealing with illegal trespass and vile harassment from a bunch of virtue-signalling thugs.”
Kiss your tasty steak goodbye, because it simply consumes too many resources, and to keep the Third World population numbers exploding, food will need to be distributed according to the Marxist principle of equality.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html
“Americans will need to cut their average consumption of beef by about 40% and Europeans by 22%, for the world to continue to feed the 10 billion people expected to live on this planet in 2050, according to a new report. That means each person could have about a burger and a half each week. This calculation comes from the World Resources Institute, a global research nonprofit that supports better use of natural resources to sustain a growing population. Its research looks at agriculture, the climate crisis, poverty and gender, among other topics. Its final "Creating a Sustainable Food Future" report released Wednesday takes a closer look at the gaps in food production and global demand and makes several concrete recommendations on how to prevent a catastrophe. Eating less beef is one such suggestion in the 568-page report. About 9.8 billion people will live on the planet by 2050, that's up from 7 billion people in 2010. Demand for food is projected to outpace population growth, increasing by more than 50% as people's incomes in the developing world are expected to increase, according to the report. The demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise even faster, by nearly 70%. The global demand for ruminant meat, meaning beef, sheep and goat, is expected to be even higher, at 88%. But to keep up with food demands overall, the report predicts farmers are going to have to produce 56% more crop calories than in 2010 -- and that means that land nearly twice the size of India will be needed. Closing these gaps is "harder than often recognized," according to the report. The authors suggest there are several ways to keep people from starving and to keep the climate crisis at bay, but the most impactful way to do this may be to cut the consumption of ruminant meat.”
I have not seen this movie, and base my critique on just the shorts that I have seen, but that is enough for me to despise it. I doubt that I could sit through these politically correct deconstructions without exhibiting toxic masculinity, radiating it in all directions, like a skunk, but proud of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bms6Hba-3A
https://www.dailyherald.com/entlife/20190726/art-of-self-defense-examines-satirizes-toxic-masculinity
This movie, like almost everything excreted by Hollywood today, has a politically correct N. W. O message, this time that, masculinity is toxic. Thus, a weak male goes to learn karate to defend himself from thugs, but the entire self- defense scene is toxic masculinity. There are females involved in it, but pass over it, they are all oppressed by the patriarchy too. Conveniently, the karate sensei is white, and there would have been a bit of a racism paradox if Hollywood had taken an Asian sensei, but they never make things hard for themselves, just like all criminals are white Nordics, with the lighter the phenotype, the eviller. “Director Riley Stearns says he didn't realize he was making a perfect movie for 2019 when he started writing "The Art of Self-Defense" four years ago. But his darkly comedic riff on toxic masculinity starring Jesse Eisenberg as a timid and "weak" man who takes up karate just kept becoming more relevant. The Harvey Weinstein allegations broke during the shoot in 2017 and the #MeToo movement became a phenomenon. "It was kind of weird that this idea that I had been feeling was very personal to me was really starting to spread into a direct discussion," Stearns said. "More and more people are relating to the film in ways that I originally wouldn't have intended, which is hugely humbling and very interesting to see."
The Epstein controversy has led to the resurrection of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy, that some less than desirable things have happened to a number of people who may have stepped on Billy the Goat, and Hillary’s blue suede shoes. Look, let the iconic Rolling Stone tell it:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/jeffrey-epstein-clinton-conspiracy-theories-twitter-863446/
https://www.rt.com/usa/465068-clinton-body-count-twitter/
https://twitter.com/clintonmurders?lang=en
“On Wednesday night, NBC News reported that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who is currently awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy, was found injured and semi-conscious in his cell with two abrasions on his neck. While initial details were sketchy, sources at Metropolitan Correctional Center, the prison where Epstein was being held, suggested to NBC News that the injury was possibly the result of a failed suicide attempt, though investigators have not yet ruled out that another inmate may have assaulted him. et on social media, one explanation alone dominated the conversation: the Clintons did it. On Thursday morning, #ClintonBodyCount was one of the top trending topics on Twitter, with many speculating that Epstein’s injuries were the result of an attempt on his life that was orchestrated by his former friends. A list circulating on social media of supposed Clinton “victims,” or people who had purportedly had some connection to Bill and/or Hillary Clinton who had died by suicide. A Daily Beast story published that morning reporting that Epstein had visited the White House a number of times in the early 1990s only added fuel to the fire. Another rumor that spread on Twitter focused on former Westchester County police officer Nicholas Tartaglione, another MCC inmate convicted of having killed four men involved in a drug trafficking ring, who reportedly was brought in for questioning regarding Epstein’s injuries.
We have been covering the dangers of AI, something the good men who do nothing have, naturally enough, been doing nothing about. But, this is a hard one to act on because technology is harder to oppose than finance, covering us like the atmosphere. But, it can be deadly:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/26/robert-epstein-power-of-ai-is-too-dangerous-to-be-controlled-by-china-or-google/
“The power of AI” is “too dangerous” to be held by “any one entity, any one government, any one company,” declared Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, during a Thursday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak. Mansour noted the unavoidable integration of programmers’ and developers’ biases into their algorithms, highlighting a Monday-published Financial Times column addressing the phenomenon of values embedded within programming code: Computer algorithms encoded with human values will increasingly determine the jobs we land, the romantic matches we make, the bank loans we receive and the people we kill, intentionally with military drones or accidentally with self-driving cars. How we embed those human values into code will be one of the most important forces shaping our century. Yet no one has agreed what those values should be. Still more unnerving is that this debate now risks becoming entangled in geo-technological rivalry between the US and China. The fusion of political biases and financial interests with Internet search algorithms — and with AI — via technology companies and governments is a far-reaching matter, explained Epstein. Centralization of power related to internet search — and more broadly, the dissemination of information — is dangerous, cautioned Epstein.”
I have founded a moment of crazies who are hoping that God delivers an Old Testament-style punishment to humanity by throwing rocks (actually hailstones: Joshua 10:11), just like in the good old days. Some of these rocks are getting mighty close, and it is only a matter of time. I suggest repenting now to avoids the rush later:
https://www.livescience.com/66043-giant-asteroid-flyby-surprises-astronomers.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190727-ls
“A large asteroid just whizzed past our planet — and astronomers weren't expecting it. Ranging in size from 187 to 427 feet (57 to 130 meters) wide, the space rock named 2019 OK snuck up on us Thursday morning (July 25). It swung as close as 45,000 miles (73,000 kilometers) from Earth, what one astronomer told The Washington Post was "uncomfortably close.". If the asteroid had actually collided with Earth, the crash would have caused devastating damage, Michael Brown, an associate professor in astronomy at Monash University in Australia, wrote in The Conversation. Astronomers in Brazil and the United States separately discovered 2019 OK a couple of days ago, but it's surprise visit was only announced a couple of hours before it passed by. "The lack of warning shows how quickly potentially dangerous asteroids can sneak up on us," Brown wrote. And though this asteroid "is not a threat to Earth right now," other such near-Earth asteroids can be. For example, back in 2013, a meteor snuck up on us and exploded over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk; that blast was stronger than a nuclear explosion, and the resulting shock wave shattered glass down below and injured more than 1,000 people. The Chelyabinsk meteor was much smaller than 2019 OK, spanning about 66 feet (20 meters) across. Both the Chelyabinsk meteor and 2019 OK snuck past astronomers' devices and paid surprise visits.
Having worked in IT, at the basic plebe level of programming, I was interested to see an article about my fellow low-level workers,
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/i-was-a-computer-programmer-i-know-computer-programming-the-indians-programmers-the-treason-lobby-wants-to-import-are-no-alan-turings-theyre-just-cheap/
“The House of Representatives recently passed H.R.1044, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. It’s now in the Senate’s Judiciary committee and could be voted on by the full Senate by September. Javanka is said to favor it, so the chances that President Trump will veto it (as he should) are probably low. The adjective “high-skilled” is misleading—intentionally so, of course. The immigrants being favored by this act are lower-middle-class drudge workers, mainly computer programmers, most from India and China. They know languages like JavaScript, which anyone with above-room-temperature IQ can learn in 24 hours, or PHP and C++, which I’ll allow are harder but which a few months in trade school will get you capable at. I know whereof I speak. I spent much of my working life doing the kind of work—commercial computer programming—that these immigrants are being brought in to do. It is, indeed, not rocket science.
Does anyone still have their two bob watches? Nah, I thought so. Not to matter, because we have the multicult, in all its diverse splendour.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/3-sunni-muslims-imprisoned-for-firebombing-australian-shiite-mosque/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/australia-sunni-muslims-plotted-jihad-massacres-at-cathedral-and-train-station-finally-firebombed-shia-mosque
“Three Sunni Muslim men were sentenced on Wednesday to prison terms of 16 and 22 years on convictions including engaging in a terror act by burning down a Shiite mosque in the Australian city of Melbourne three years ago. A Victoria state Supreme Court jury convicted Abdullah Chaarani, 28, Ahmed Mohamed, 26, and Hatim Moukhaiber, 31, in May over the firebombing of the Imam Ali Islamic Center in December 2016. No one was injured. Mohamed and Moukhaiber had both denied any involvement. Chaarani admitted his role, but argued he had been part of an act of protest, advocacy or dissent, but not terrorism. They each faced a potential sentence of life in prison. Chaarani and Mohamed were also found guilty of attempting to commit a terror act over a failed attempt to burn the mosque down two weeks earlier.”
Wow, a fragility epidemic! It is enough to make even the hardest of men, well … fragile.
https://www.smh.com.au/education/really-disastrous-the-fragility-epidemic-that-could-change-australia-20190726-p52b3j.html
“Jonathan Haidt has a prediction. In the not-too-distant future, Aussie backpackers will no longer be found exploring far-flung corners of the world. The decades-old tradition of setting off with a backpack and a one-way plane ticket will likely be too daunting for a generation who have been sheltered from any kind of risk by their parents, and too alien from the world they have built themselves online. "I have no data on this, but I am going to predict that it's going to become less common," said the New York University social psychologist and co-author of the bestseller, The Coddling of the American Mind. Professor Haidt was in Australia this week, adding his voice to growing concern about the threat posed not only to children, but to the rest of society by parental over-protection in the middle classes of the English-speaking world.”
We received this via the magic of email, but there was no source reference. however, the material is terrific and should be read and thought about. “First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers. The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection. Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low. The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost. As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence. The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future. Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist. Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand. The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
Bringing you all of the latest transgender news fit to print, comes this tragic story of discrimination as a trans-woman, with intact male parts, sought to get a certain service that women desire, but runs straight into the brick wall of prejudice. Again, caution to all Christian ladies who are easily offended, and I won’t blame you for popping out and getting a nice cup of tea, and maybe some tasty Monte Carlo biscuits to dip in the hot tea, and missing this one:
“If a penis is female, does it enjoy human rights? A Canadian trans woman, Jessica Yaniv, who retains intact her boy bits, believes she’s entitled to a Brazilian wax. Rejected by 16 beauticians in Vancouver, including migrant women working from home with children, Yaniv trotted off to a human rights tribunal. Some of the beauticians paid money to make her go away, some still face the prospect of being branded hateful transphobes and ordered to pay fines. Ignored by most mainstream media, this has Twitter transfixed as the #WaxHerBalls case. British comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted: “It’s a sad state of affairs when a lady can’t have her hairy balls waxed.” All of which gives the impression it’s nothing more than the latest grotesquery of social media. But Gervais has detected a fundamental question of principle that Victoria’s politicians — and Anglophone elites generally — seem mostly oblivious to. An Andrews government bill allows a self-declared trans man or woman to go back in time and alter the sex on their birth certificates, even if they’ve had no surgery, no treatment, no change at all, apart from a stated wish to make their debut with a new pronoun. The bill is back before parliament next month. “It’s seen as the next civil rights issue — oh, now we have gay marriage, on to the next thing,” says Holly Lawford-Smith, a young University of Melbourne philosopher and lesbian writing a book on radical feminism. But there are stirrings of civil war in what’s called the LGBTI community, and angry sniping over who qualifies for an entry pass to women’s sport, toilets, dorms, prisons and, yes, the waxing studio. For the Yaniv case is seen not as an aberration but a logical extension of pick-your-own-gender into the anti-discrimination apparatus. If blokes can become official sheilas in the blink of an eye, what happens to the rights, protections and political culture inspired by feminists and gay activism?”
