In the gay marriage debate, the Labor Party and Greens want to silence public reason to impose their will on citizens.
They believe the state should rule the citizen, not the reverse. They regard the will of the people as a threat to their power. Thus, they seek to deny the Australian people the opportunity to engage in public reason on the question that forms the foundation of a healthy society: what is the meaning of marriage and family?
In the gay marriage debate, the Labor Party and Greens want to silence public reason to impose their will on citizens.
A leading family law and child-protection expert has criticised the teaching of radical gender theory in classrooms across the country, likening the “odd and unscientific” beliefs promoted by groups such as the Safe Schools Coalition to those espoused by Scientology.
Apart from race issues, the elites continue to press on with an assault upon men, and primarily white men. This is seen across the West and in many areas some clearly important, others of lesser importance.
In the EU Commission, the Commission’s budget and human resources chief, Kristalina Georgieva, said that if job targets for women were not met, then she would freeze job offers for men. If targets are not reached then sanctions will be imposed; “Sanctions are Coming’ European Union Bureaucrat Threatens to Freeze Job Offers for Men”.
Andrew Bolt has made stronger comments than I will make on this issue re: Malcolm Turnbull and his alleged promise to church leaders that the government would fund both sides of the debate. Thus, first, we hear that Mal denied that he made an “unambiguous” offer to fund both sides of the same-sex marriage debate to church leaders (The Australian, September 12, 2016, p. 4). He said that cabinet will decide whether the “Yes” and “No” cases receive tax payer support.
His current stated position (The Australian, September 13, 2016, p. 2), is that funding both sides of the debate would be “scrupulously fair”. Supporters of the “Yes” side worry that if things are “scrupulously fair” the “No” case might win. Hey, they know the meaning of “democracy” don’t they!
The latest in the Safe Schools program saga is that a Year 4 primary school student is “transitioning,” that is undergoing a gender transition, all with the help of the Safe Schools coalition. (The Australian, September 9, 2016, p. 7) A workshop will be held at the pupil’s class, and then the pupil plans to change to their new gender. It reminds me of some sort of frantic religious revivalist movement, or of the metaphorosis of insects. And it makes as much sense, since a child in Year 4, is in no position to be making such decisions.
This ideology, as has been noted in these pages, has been criticised by the American College of Pediatricians, claiming that the “Gender Ideology Harms Children”. We can add in the present context an important quote that was not noted previously, and which supports my remarks made above:
“A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.”
Basically, the Frankfurt School’s task was, as swiftly as possible, to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’.
Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
I went back to my old university to work in the library, or what remains of it. On the cement cylinder structures, whose name I never looked up (rotunda), I noted the left/socialists latest anti-Hanson pro-Muslim posters. This one was about eating Halal meat at a special anti-Hanson BBQ. I imagine that these young cubs would like to burn her at the stake, or at the mysterious cement structures, the fires fuelled by their moral righteousness and piety. But do the Muslims support their Leftoid values? In this article, we ponder that question.
I imagine that these folk, who are leading the charge for same-sex marriage will also get behind the next big thing after that: multiculturalism-based polygamy. Andrew Bolt notes in a recent blog “Polygamy Dating Site is a Warning: First Same-Sex Marriage, Next Polygamy,” Herald Sun, September 5, 2016, that polygamy will be the next big thing.
Chris Mitchell (“Amnesia Suits the Politics of Today’s Media Generation,” The Australian, September 5, 2016), notes that the crop of today’s progressives in the media are “publicly contemptuous of everyday Australians, those people who make up journalists’ audiences.” But do every day Australians primarily watch, say, the ABC and SBS? I doubt it, or at least not the ordinary blokes I know. The chattering class who vilify us produce their self-reinforcing bs for members of their own class to maintain group solidarity, as the sociologists would describe it.
Still, Mitchell makes some good points. Then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, was opposed to same-sex marriage right up to 2013 and no “progressive” accused her of “hate speech.” But oppose same sex marriage now, and feel the might of the courts dropped upon you. Why, the Marxist cubs will bash you and the system will do nothing about it, or, almost nothing.
How do the bits and pieces fit together? Why is it that the principles of the Marxists, best seen on university campuses, and the global financial elite so perfectly coincide? Both support open borders, one on grounds of “anti-racism,” the other on grounds of profit maximization. Everything the Leftoids do, such as seeking diversity, smashing the traditional family, and creating a Balkanised population, enslaved to a usurious debt economy, benefits the financial elite.
One would have thought that Marxist would be opposed to such an elite, above all else. Yet, their fanatical, insane, mouth-foaming anti-racist mania prevails over all else.
So, the Left must be no more than useful idiots doing, consciously, or unconsciously, the bidding of their financial masters.
Children, beware! Take even one step upon the collectivist road and you will be lost in a realm of ice and darkness.
of THE AUSTRALIAN
Helen Trinca claims ('Bringing a cutting edge to counterculture', 6/9) that Richard Neville and Martin Sharp engaged in the Sixties in' a cultural adventure that helped shape a generation.' My own impression is that they have produced very little of lasting value. I thought at the time that they were largely phoneys and I still do. Shocking the bourgeois by means of deliberate rudeness and ugly mockery is no big deal.
NJ, Belgrave, Victoria
of THE AGE
Sarah Gill claims that 'the hard right doesn't get equality' ('It's all about their rights', 6/9), but we conservatives in the tradition of T. S. Eliot and Russell Kirk distrust the concept of equality as a tool to achieve a fruitful, secure and peaceful political order. We prefer equity. Nor is it 'the reapportioning of rights' that we fear, but the destabilisation of Australian society by hare-brained schemes whose fanatical advocates appear unaware of the potential damage they threaten. We need free speech to expose their errors; we wish traditional marriage to be honoured for family welfare; and we want the constitution to favour no particular ethnic group over others.
NJ, Belgrave, Victoria
The great moral panic over the banana throwing incident, a few news cycles back, has now died down, and the chattering class have moved on to other things. But if white-woman-throwing-banana-at-indigenous-man is bad, which it is, then why is there not an even greater level of moral outrage over domestic violence against women issues related to Australian football? Wouldn’t-football-star-almost-kills-girlfriend be a domestic-violence issue? Shouldn’t there be national hand-wringing about this, and other incidents?
The latest incident involves an indigenous football star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Proud), who has been sentenced to five-and-a-half-years for brutally bashing his girlfriend, although he could be free as early as next October, due to parole eligibility: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/former-brisbane-lion-albert-proud-jailed-for-brutally-bashing-girlfriend/news-story/49cd5b0338d75a38883349f40f38122d.
Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet KGB agent defected to the West at the height of the Cold War. In the West, he tried to warn us – unsuccessfully – that the real threat from communism was ideological, through sowing the seeds of collectivist ideologies in the West, as detailed in, Love Letter to America
Ideological subversion involved seeing the West and its institutions as the enemy. Hence the West can be viewed as racist and imperialist while communist regimes have slaughtered hundreds of millions and are “pure” people. “American privilege” was pushed by the Left in the 1960s, but this has now morphed into “white privilege” and there seems to be no end in sight on the ride down.
In Australia today, very little is written by men opposing feminism, the gender agenda and the “end of men.” Even in the “Freedom Movement” many of the major players are female, and the issues associated with the implosion of masculinity, are not their concern. They may, indeed, support some aspects of the agenda, in an unthinking way.
Hence it is good that manhood has one interesting advocate, Bettina Arndt, whose article, first in a planned series of articles, seeks to restore balance and rationality. A recent piece “Always Beating Up on Men,” (The Weekend Australia, August 20–21, 2016, p. 17), points out that “domestic violence groups have built an industry on skewed figures.” She quotes Swedish politician Eva Solberg, who last year lashed out at the ideology that it is men, misogynist men, who are the cause of domestic violence. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project database indicated that at least half of domestic violence is carried out by women.
Nick Cater (“‘Diversity’ Now a Weasel Word for Gender Warriors,” The Australian, August 30, 2016, p. 12) wrote a good piece on the Safe Schools program and the gender diversity program. Some notable quotes:
“In a relatively short space of time the theory of gender fluidity has changed from a fringe academic obsession into semi-official government policy, thus demonstrating that today’s uncontested nonsense becomes tomorrow’s accepted wisdom. Under the guise of “diversity and inclusiveness” – the weasel words of contemporary morality – the notion that gender is decided by providence has been assigned to the sin bin of political incorrectness.”
“Feminists Decry Sex Change Proposal, (The Australian, August 26, 2016, p. 7), is one of those stories illustrating the paradoxes of our culturally diverse society. The Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner has recommended changes to the Births, Deaths and marriages Registration Act, so that men who self-identify as women, should be legally able to change their sex, even before having a sex change operation. If such changes are made, it will be as easy to change one’s sex as changing one’s name, and in principle, people could change their sex multiple times, even once a year, or maybe more.
Feminist groups have criticised the proposal, arguing that such reforms “legally erase the existence of female people,” and would undermine the protection of women under anti-discrimination law. As one feminist put it; “By allowing any person to self-identify their sex, it effectively redefines what ‘sex’ means under law….It stops being a reflection of a physical biological reality and becomes a social construct and a reflection of how a person subjectively feels about themselves.”
I was opposed to the same sex marriage plebiscite until reading Michael Kirby’s article “Parliament is the Proper Place for Enacting Laws,” The Australian, August 9, 2016, p. 12.
Kirby, the great dissenter on the High Court of Australia has no problem with unelected judges making law, and in fact he proudly proclaims: “The High Court of Australia in 2013 unanimously made it clear that the entire power to enact same-sex marriage in Australia rested with the federal parliament.”
Kirby doesn’t like plebiscites, saying that a “plebiscite, as a precondition to legislation, is a totally exceptional procedure with no foothold in the Constitution.”
NEW YORK, August 19 (C-Fam) “Facts – not ideology – determine reality,” the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) said in a warning http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children to legislators and educators about the dangers of surgical and medical sex change operations to children.
“Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse,” the physicians said, “Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.”
The group, which aims at getting parents involved in their children’s health and education about health, said, “Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one,” and that, “A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.”
To the contrary, the group maintained that human sexuality is a “binary trait” and said the XY and XX chromosomes that determine female or male sex are “genetic markers of health” not “genetic markers of a disorder.”
“No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex,” the statement said.
To which Wallace Klinck of Canada responded:
In my opinion “gender ideology” IS child abuse. If the courts put up with this sort of societally disintegrative nonsense and "Marxist” dialectical mischief then I would conclude that they are in collaboration with the revolutionary agenda—a particularly vicious variant of the insane ideological “equality” virus. What is inducing this “gender confusion” in pre-puberty or puberty youth anyway? They must be being subject to some very abnormal developmental psychological influences—or are being denied normal identity relationships. I certainly never had any doubts about my “sexuality”—such doubts or thoughts never even entered my mind. I am beginning to think that some people, mentors especially and victims alike, have too much idle time on their hands—and I am an uncompromising advocate of leisure.
University research teams, in their “wisdom” have recommended that the “Safe” Schools Program, which is really about teaching gender diversity, be expanded into primary schools. (The Australian, August 16, 2016, p.1) Then, children as young as five will be discussing cross-dressing and gender reassignment surgery. Children have already been involved in a “sex-change stories trial.” They appear to have been confused.
Most five-year-olds have not yet come to understand even the basic biology of sex. To be subjecting them to what is now a “politically divisive issue” is not merely unfair – it is a form of child abuse, contrary to international human rights, and parents will need to seek, as a class action a legal solution against all involved.