Diversity

How well do you know your pronouns, bigot?

IMG_0880.JPG

How well do you know your gender pronouns? To be honest I was unaware of what they were. I had to look them up. After all laws in some parts of the world will make it a criminal and jailable offense to knowingly call someone by the wrong pronoun. Will the government be posting gender pronoun indoctrination reference sheets to all citizens? Will we have Gender Police roaming the streets like the Saudi religious police who enforce blasphemy laws?  How will governments be able to write to citizens using “Dear Sir/Madam”? Unless they add another page making sure all other variants are included. The above table is but a fraction of the number of pronouns there are.

Google’s banner when searching for ‘gender pronouns’  list – gender neutral, 4chan, they, non, non-binary, agend, personal, respect gender, different, LGBT, table English, neopronouns, inclusive, special snowflake, muh, non conforming, genderque, more than two and so on. Vanderbilt University for instance has wall plaques for staff which denote their preferred ‘pronouns’. At what point did people’s sense of self esteem become so fragile that governments are prepared to fall for it and introduce made up language and make laws to enforce it? Learning the times table was hard enough. Honestly, are people expected to learn Ne, Ve, Ey, Ze, Zie or Xe and all the variations? How psychologically weak must someone be to protest at being incorrectly referred to?

Yet this is the world we are creating. Gender fluid schools, cross dressing, penis tucking and chest binding for primary school students…the list goes on. Boys in Victoria will be allowed to wear uniform dresses to school. The same Victorian government is proposing that medical staff at schools be given the right to dispense drugs such as the contraceptive pill to girls as young as 11 without parental consent. Ottawa has introduced a law – Bill 89 – which gives the state the right to dispossess parents of their children who question their child’s identity.

All the while we are told identity politics is all about ‘inclusiveness.’ How can one have inclusiveness if these minority groups wish to remain openly and proudly exclusive? If we were truly striving for inclusivity then race, religion, gender identity, sexual preference and so on would not be barriers to anything. Why do governments even need to  consider changing public documents? What if you don’t identify as male or female and fly into a country where the customs entry card only lists M or F? Are they right to refuse entry or if they arbitrarily note you as male when you identify as something else? Will you protest at the customs official’s ignorance?

Progressive? Most people probably couldn’t care less what some people identify as. Next time I fly Qantas I am going to identify as an 11yo 4th gender African Wahhabi with dwarfism so I can fly at 50% off and see how far I get. Who are they to deny me? To get what I am on about listen to this interview on this very subject of ‘identity’ and the lunatic aruments made. Anyone who disagrees must by definition be a racist, sexist bigot and prosecuted. Sadly in the real world I have the worst identikit imaginable. I check all the wrong boxes which makes me the suitable target for all of this irrelevant nonsense.

Still to those that must identify with a different pronoun ask yourself – how incomplete is your life to feel that this will some how give you some sense of recognition you were lacking when referred to as he or she? Perhaps I should congratulate you in being able to get authorities to buy into this politically correct rubbish.

I’ll stick with my instincts rather than fall for a Harvard study because it is from Harvard

IMG_0858.JPG

Harvard University is without question one of the top schools globally. It has an enviable reputation and having that on one’s CV is hardly a hinderance. It is a status symbol.  In a discussion over global warming an individual was trying to legitimize climate alarmism by citing a Harvard University study. Harvard by the way is ranked top 5 worldwide in Environmental Science. The study as it turns out had been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency responsible for allocating 24% of science funding that had been raked over the coals by the US Senate for gross mismanagement, fraud and waste. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.

It is often a tactic to cite supposedly credible bodies to legitimize and seek to win an argument. However at what point do we view Harvard’s stance on climate change as balanced? On Harvard’s own climate change page it is littered with a predetermined view. It is not to doubt the intelligence of the professors and scientists within the university but intelligence and ethics do not have to be mutually inclusive especially when it comes to procuring funds.

One has to wonder that the  NSF, which dispenses 24% of all university grants (some $7bn) is best positioned to fulfill this role given its past. As the Harvard climate page reveals there does not seem to be much attention paid to the alternate view. The offshoot of that is if the NSF wants to get ‘green policy’ outcomes, best pour funds into those schools that will help give the results they’re after.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that “two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

While I do not pretend to be a climate scientist by trade or study, fraud is fraud. The supposed beacons of virtue such as NOAA, IPCC, the CRU of the UEA have all been busted for manipulation of data to fit an end cause. The lack of ethics in certain cases has been so profound that had many of these scientists been in financial services they’d have lost licenses, paid multi billion in fines and served jail time. One person commented that too few in financial services have been locked up. I replied name me one scientist busted for fraud and misuse of public funds has seen the inside of a jail cell, much less fined or barred from teaching? The answer – NONE

I don’t need to possess a degree in astrophysics or science to determine poor ethics generally mean the science papers put forward should be viewed with deep skepticism. Yet we’re constantly told that the science is settled. How so? If one has to lie and deceive in order to scare us into action, how can one say that it is legitimate work? In fact I have been at pains to mention that the scrupulous acts of a few only ends up undermining potentially credible work conducted by others. Yet climate change has become a purely political issue and there is no question that sourcing funding dollars is easiest met when supporting alarmism. After all why would people want to throw dollars at skeptics who may come out with an alternative view? Don’t debate it. Some have suggested sceptics are like pedophiles and even more extreme views have suggested jail sentences. When people think that the only way to win the argument is to jail non believers you can be absolutely sure that the data is completely flawed in that it can’t stand on its own as an argument. Hence the manipulation to try to bully the movement onwards. Some Aussie universities (state funded mind you) are refusing a climate think tank being established on their campus for possessing an alternative view. You have to worry if universities, the bedrock of free thinking, are trying to ban it. Then again if kindergarten schools are being taught they are gender fluid and cross dressing is acceptable then you know there is a more sinister movement at work.

It was no surprise that Hurricane Irma has become Trump’s fault. Alarmists drew any data possible to connect Global Warming and hurricane activity despite the IPCC claiming several years back it  has little supportive data to prove it. So expediency is put before principle. Hopefully if no one has seen the IPCC climb down perhaps we can still convince them we can save the planet. All the meantime the IATA forecasts air travel will double in terms of passenger numbers between now and 2030 and SUVs top most vehicle sales in major markets.

To add to the farcical care factor for climate change by the masses The Australian noted, “On June 30 2017, after 12 years of “advancing climate change solutions”, the Climate Institute is closing its doors in Australia, a victim of the “I’ll ride with you but won’t pay” industry. You would think that Cate Blanchett, so happy to appear in the institute’s ads, could have taken the hat around her Hollywood A-list mates, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, Emma Watson and Brad Pitt, to tip in a few hundred thousand a year for the cause….But alas, the caravan has moved on and the greatest moral challenge of our time is now the Trump White House. For celebrities who fly eyebrow groomers to the Oscars, climate change is kinda yesterday. Still, to humour the faithful and to keep the dream alive, the 10th anniversary of Earth Hour was celebrated last Saturday night. You didn’t notice?”

When I was a staunch opponent of Greenspan’s reckless monetary policy in 2001 and said his actions would lead to a financial calamity in 6-7 years, many laughed at me. I bought gold at under $300. People thought I was mad as did the Bank of England. Barbs were frequent – “how could you possibly possess the intelligence of Greenspan? Back in your box!” I was told. Of course as a contrarian by nature, speaking out against pervading group think was met with a constant wave of ever increasing vitriolic criticism. Of course the simplest thing would have been to roll over and join the band wagon but I stuck to my guns. GFC was the result. In all that time, people used to shame my thinking by citing Harvard or other Ivy League studies on new paradigms. Indeed many of the brains behind the CDOs which eventually brought the financial sector to its knees were brainiacs from the Ivy League. In the end my instincts were bang on. Nothing to do with education levels.

The same arguments were hurled at me during Trump’s presidential campaign. Many people defriended me because my data kept showing to me he’d win. I am not American, I can’t vote but casting my own instincts ended up being a no brainer. Not once were credible arguments made to counter why Trump could win. People would post NY Times polls, CNN polls and so forth to legitimize the argument. Then say I was blind, stupid, bigoted, racist and the usual leftist identikit used to demonise a view. Group think is so dangerous. What it is doing is suppressing real views which show up in the polling booth.

Everywhere I read, the media wants to throw Trump to the wolves and run the lunatic, racist white nationalist card. For 9 months now. To be honest I think he will comfortably do two terms because the media has learned nothing and anything he does is vilified. Most Americans aren’t looking to him for spiritual guidance. He is vulgar and his manner is far from conventional and sometimes not very fitting of the office he serves. However he gets no credit for anything. The latest UN sanctions on North Korea are in large part because Trump has told China to get on with it. Trump said on national TV that he wants “China to sort it out and to stop delaying otherwise we’ll do it for you”. Yet the media is drumming WW3 rhetoric.

Same goes for the Paris Accord. What a stroke of genius. Let France, Germany and other nations pick up the tab for their ‘green policy’ madness and make up America’s renewable shortfall. It is kind of ironic that none of these nations ever pick on China, India or Russia which make up 50% of CO2 emissions for their lack of adherence to actually doing meaningful things to abate climate change albeit signatories to the UN accord. I argue it is like NATO in reverse. US pays a way bigger share into NATO, why not collect a refund via other nation’s virtue signalling which actually helps America First by making other nations less competitive. Brilliant.

DACA – many Americans, including 41mn on food stamps, will welcome the removal of illegal immigrants from their country who in their view are siphoning their ability to get out of poverty. DACA to them isn’t about not being compassionate but realizing that a $20 trillion deficit and loading more onto an overcrowded system isn’t helping. Once again regardless of what people think of Trump he had the fewest white voters and largest share of black and Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain. Hardly the result for a white nationalist, racist bigot. At the current rate if the Democrats run Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other identity politician against him in 2020 they’ll lose. The mid terms won’t be as bad as many calling. The one midterm already returned a Republican despite massive Hollywood support even ferrying voters to booths.

Transgender in the military. I spoke to two dozen US military personnel last month to ask their opinions. The 100% response was, “we think it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to fund sexual reassignment surgery while serving including several years of rehab and ongoing drug therapy…it is taking the p*ss…we serve our country because we love it and we don’t have room to support social experiments to protect freedom!” There was no real issue of transgender per se rather a problem of providing funds in n already tightly allocated budget for such medical expenditure. Several even spoke of the stupidity of LGBT pride day in the armed forces. What has the ability to fight got to do with what goes on in the bedroom? One said “if we had a heterosexual pride day” we’d never hear the end of it.

So when you communicate with the real people you find the truth if you are prepared to listen. The beauty of social media and indeed Google (which happily acts as a Big Brother on what it considers acceptable) is that many people reach for articles they probably haven’t read properly and use them as ways to ram home an argument because they carry a brand name. Harvard is a wonderful institution but as we’ve seen it has run into questions of conflicts of interest.

I happen to think that social media is having the opposite effect on brainwashing to tell the truth. 99.9% of what I see posted has little thought to it. The more people I speak to the more they are ignoring noise. Many people share articles without putting some basis of why they post it. In many cases people are too afraid to face a doxxing or backlash. Bring it on. To me if you post things in the public domain then be prepared to invite criticism. On my site I do not censor, cut off or delete readers. They are free to come and go as they please. I only request they keep profanity to a minimum.

So in summary, the idea that we bow down to venerable institutions to seek guidance is as flawed today as it ever was. I’ll gladly stick to gut instincts because to date they have worked so far. Having said that I should put a disclaimer that was always plastered on financial services product, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance”

Bible-bashing bakers refuse same sex wedding cakes…and those for atheists, racists and others

IMG_0606.JPG

A Colorado bakery has won a Supreme Court case which revolved around their rights to refuse making a wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of their religious beliefs. However backward the bakery’s views may appear to many of us, why would the gay couple want a shop like that making a cake for their wedding in the first place? Surely the negative publicity on the back of it may well put the bakery in receivership or severely damage custom. Talk about a potentially self inflicted wound. Isn’t that just desserts if the bakery suffers because people exercise their distaste by their lack of patronage? What if the bakery had lost? Should the owner face a multi million dollar punitive damages suit and jail time? In all honesty how emotionally damaged were the gay couple?  Gays wedding aren’t the only things the cake shop bans by the way,. At what point do we draw the line on a breach of civil rights? The hurdle seems to keep getting lower.

If a Michelin 3-star restaurant refuses your young kids because they might spoil the ambience, have your kid’s civil rights been breached? Should gentlemen only clubs be banned? Why would women want to hang out in a club full of stuffy old men smoking cigars and drinking brandy? If the club charges its members sufficient dues to provide that atmosphere which breaks no laws then why the fuss? They set the rules. They’ve a right to such a club if they don’t harm anyone else. ‘Curves‘ is a female only health club. Is it right that men are banned from joining? It’s a club that discriminates solely on gender. Maybe the club wouldn’t be of interest to most men but it is openly discriminating yet no complaints are made.

Quite frankly the bakery may be petty minded but surely any business should have the right to choose who they wish to serve under their own guidelines. Turning away good business is rather absurd but it happens. Take my attempts to open a stock trading account in Japan last week to be denied the right for being a foreigner. It is not something I plan to take up with the Supreme Court here in Tokyo to fight for my rights to have an account. I’ll just suck it up and find another that will. Quite frankly if I managed to be able to open an account at the foreigner-unfriendly broker I probably wouldn’t want to trade with them anyway. The reality is probably more tied to the broker’s worry that the foreigner may not speak Japanese causing lots of angst so easier to ban the lot. Instead of asking my Japanese level, they turn me away. This isn’t the first such incidence.

Surely if the gay couple won this case, they would most likely place the wedding cake order elsewhere. Seriously what is the upside to order it at the bakery in question other than to humiliate them further? What of the death threats made to the bakery? Have activists reacted to this or forgiven it under the ‘serves you right, bigots!’ banner?

Was 1st in SEO CEO’s actions to demand the resignations of people who voted for Trump given the same media coverage? The CEO was actually violating labour laws. He also extended this to ceasing business with any clients that voted for Trump. Personally it is a narrow minded view but if he so chooses to cut off business it is his right to do so, in so far as he has shareholder approval to do so. A Melbourne bookstore has been criticised online after warning people who “vote no” in the upcoming same-sex marriage postal vote to never visit their shop again. Is that any better than the baker?

There seems to be no charge of a bile-laden homophobic rant by the baker. In fact the owner said,

I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got…But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”

Whether we believe the bakery of not for the depths of their fervent religious beliefs they are protected under the law. The Supreme Court ruled in the baker’s favour. If people don’t like the law then they should change it. Still if people want to go ahead and ban the rights of bakers from refusing gay customer requests for wedding cakes, then they should be prepared to accept Curves not having the right to exclude men from their women-only aerobics classes and tell the Michelin 3-star restaurant to provide high chairs and a children’s menu. Still don’t complain when your plans to propose to your partner when some baby is screaming in the middle of dessert get ruined.

Title IX – 2000% jump in sexual violence at US colleges in a decade but the stats reveal much more

IMG_0855.PNG

US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been in the firing line as the media interpret her words to defend both sides in discrimination cases as code for wanting to roll back Title IX. Title IX was introduced in 1972 prohibiting sex discrimination in all education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The law itself does not mention sexual violence, but its interpretation by the courts puts the onus on schools to make sure they address it should such claims be filed. Let’s get this straight from the beginning, sexual violence in any form is inexcusable. According to the Office for Civil Rights (which is part of the Dept of Education) in the last decade, sexual violence claims in tertiary educational institutions have soared 2000%. Seems an extraordinary growth rate. In absolute numbers sexual violence on US campuses numbered 177 reported cases in 2016. In 2016 there were 20.4mn students in colleges in the US or 8.7 sexual assaults per 1,000,000 students or 0.00087%.

In FY 2016, sex discrimination claims comprised 46% (7,747) of all complaints received in the year, as compared to 28% (2,939) in FY 2015. The majority of Title IX complaints received in 2016 (6,251) were led by a single complainant alleging discrimination in schools’ athletics programs. Complaints involving discrimination based on disability status comprised 36% (5,936) of all complaints this year; race or national origin discrimination complaints comprised 15% (2,439). Age based discrimination was 3% (581).

In Fig 7 above OCR’s staffing level has consistently declined over the life of the agency even though complaint volume has significantly increased. OCR’s staffing level at the end of FY 2016 was 563 (FTE), marginally above the all-time low in staff levels since 1980, when the Department of Education separated from what had until then been the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The number of staff in OCR today is almost 12% below its staffing level 10 years ago (640); about 29% below its staffing level 20 years ago (788); and more than 50% below its staffing level 34 years ago (1,148).

In FY 2013, OCR received 9,950 complaints and resolved 10,128 total cases. In FY 2016, OCR received 16,720 complaints and resolved 8,625 cases. Estimates are than FY 1985, OCR received just 2,199 complaints—nearly 87% fewer than what OCR now receives in a typical year. Even examining the last several years, from FY 2011 to FY 2016, annual complaint receipts increased by more than 113% and 188% since FY2006.

While not condoning any form of discrimination (whether sex, race, gender or any other form) does it not strike one as rather odd that the figures have jumped so high in such a short period? Most of these laws are over 40 years old. Has racism or sex discrimination all of a sudden jumped from the woodwork?

The 2016 OCR paper states clearly, “Finally, with this year’s annual report, we mark the end of eight productive years in the Obama Administration of securing equal educational opportunity for students. While numbers alone can never tell the full story, the 76,000 complaints we handled, the 66,000 cases we resolved, the more than 5,400 resolution agreements we reached, and the 34 policy guidance documents we issued between 2009 and 2016 speak volumes about ongoing student need and this agency’s service to our school communities.”

This statement almost reads as a failure. Surely the mark of a successful OCR would be to see a reduction in the number of claims. It almost reads as if the OCR wants a higher number of claims to justify its importance. Is it really rational to think that students became 113% more harrassed than 5 years prior? Considering that 80% of sex discrimination claims were made with respect to equal opportunities in athletics, most sports are split by gender – track & field, soccer, American football, boxing etc. Note these 6251 claims weren’t about sexual assault but sex discrimination. Was this possibly an issue of transgender students complaining that they weren’t allowed to play sport for teams that now reflect their gender identity?

If one reads the media one could be forgiven for thinking that most of the Title IX issues were sexual assault related.  They are not. As DeVos made clear, processes at colleges in dealing with sexual violence are often inadequate and there needs to a commitment to ensuring the evidence backs the claims. Do people really have a problem with being innocent before proven guilty?

Let us be clear. The defence of civil rights is just. However the global shift towards public grievance and identity politics is borne out by these statistics. Obama allocated an extra $131 million in 2016 to the OCR to help hire another 210 workers. They’ve hired 19 so far.  We live in a world where Google is censoring what it sees as ‘inappropriate’. We have UC Berkeley deciding to enforce a 50% limit to attendance to a lecture by Ben Shapiro. What we are looking at here should concern people. Safe spaces, trigger warnings and micro aggressions are all terms that have spawned in recent years. Is it any wonder that claims to offices like the OCR are skyrocketing. Why get ahead through hard work, diligence and  exceptional ethics when you can get to the front of the line by complaining you were hard done by. Too easy!

Get Up! should Get Lost!

IMG_9205

What sort of society do we live in where people view GetUp! as a credible action group driving worthy causes? Dr Pansy Lai starred in a “No (to same sex marriage)” advert. She expressed a point of view. People don’t have to agree with her conservative thinking but does it require Get Up to run a campaign to get her deregistered from the medical profession? Does expressing support for traditional marriage somehow impact her ability to tend to patients? Unlikely.

Why doesn’t GetUp check to see whether her patients leave her practice in droves or new ones beat down her door for treatment before imposing its own warped justice system? 6,000 signed the petition to get her dumped. She even received death threats. It’s appalling. I can only imagine GetUp were slightly dismayed she wasn’t white so they could crank up the bigotry-o-meter. GetUp saw better of it and retracted the petition. It doesn’t excuse the fact they intended to ruin someone’s life who didn’t agree

Let’s not forget the results of the 2011 Census where 0.03% of the population identified with being husband and wife in a same sex relationship. Yes. 1,338 people only. Seems strange that 4x as many people wanted to bury a doctor than same sex couples actually told the government they viewed themselves in a traditional sense of marriage.

As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” 

This push for identity stereotyping has to stop

IMG_0496

What is with the progressive push to add extra identities for passports, drivers licenses and other official documents? What is this huge push toward exclusivity preached by groups that plead for inclusivity? What is wrong with accepting biology for what it is? You’re born as male or female. You just are. It isn’t political. Whether a man chooses to identify as a 6yo girl is irrelevant. Honestly how much is one’s life going to change by being able to specify an identity?The reality is that hardly any of these people are ‘true’ victims other than in their own minds. The best example of true victims that wanted anything but to be stereotyped can be found on a wall at the Auschwitz museum in Oswiecm, Poland. An identification chart is on prominent display. It marks the deliberate labeling of people’s ‘identities’. One might be a Jew, a homosexual Jew, a political Jew, a gypsy, convict, political prisoner and so on. That your ultimate treatment may vary on what you were identified as. Everyone of these identity seekers today possessing absolutely superior human rights than these people murdered at the hands of true Nazis should visit the hall of pictures. Beautiful families and children who did nothing wrong other than to be Jews.

Look for Reina Kohn. A gorgeous 5yo child who perished. If you don’t weep at her murder there is something wrong with your moral compass.

IMG_0498.JPG

Look at the picture of Abraham Feiler. Look at the fear in his face. Murdered for being identified as a Jew

IMG_0499

You mean to tell me that fighting for the right to allow minorities to jail people for using the wrong pronoun (such as that being mulled in California) is in anyway comparable on a victimhood scale vs Abraham Feiler or Reina Kohn?

Time to wake up and end identity politics for good. The reality is that 99% of people have no issues with minorities having the same civil rights as others.

While Australia enters the same sex marriage debate, the 2011 Census highlighted same sex couples as 0.7% of total relationships. Those identifying as husband & wife in same sex couple relationships was less than 0.03%. It is a rounding error. Yet the debate over it is nothing short of sickening in the way it seeks to vilify those who think differently. People saying that you can’t cheer a gay sportsman like Ian Thorpe and then reject SSM. Then we have the Sydney Council spending $100,000 on the “Yes” campaign and Zero on the “No” campaign. Is that in anyway a sign of government respecting all views? Or only the ones that matter.

Yet everyday there is a new fight for some sort of social injustice and safe space trigger warning pushed by people who are so far removed from proper hardship as to beggar belief. Like I said to people when the Fukushima reactor melted down. The further away you get the more hysteric people become.

When Victoria’s Premier rejects a social justice cause it has to be bad

IMG_0822

Marxist Victorian Premier Dan Andrews is well known for his social justice work. However when he rejects the idea of a growing number of councils in his state shelving Australia Day you can be rest assured next to no one supports it. On the list of pointless things in Victoria it ranks below the plan for solar powered trams in Melbourne. By the way rainfall in Victoria averages 9-18 days every month.

Moreover if the largely Green-led local council movement to dump the celebration of Australia Day is of such national importance why don’t they coordinate it and announce it at the same time on the same day? After the shock value of the first mover, all following councils making the move show just how lacking in cohesion they are as a party of shared values, something becoming ever more evident at the national level. As ever these councils, some who claim their residents are not well educated enough to know better, show that it is all about them.

It doesn’t end there. Socialist Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has just referred the statue of former NSW Governor Lachlan Macquarie (responsible for turning NSW from a penal colony to a free settlement) to her indigenous council for discussion on whether it should be removed for the hurt it may have caused those 200 years ago. She’s been Lord Mayor for 14 years. Surely it should have been raised in that time were it such an affront to aborigines. Why now? What about those poor Irish convicts who were forced to build many of the structures still standing in Sydney today? Where is the Irish convict panel to hear their grievances??

Is the highly successful Macquarie Bank going to be forced to change its name or remove the ground floor mini museum which has artifacts from Gov Macquarie’s time in its HQ shop window in Sydney? Will Macquarie University be forced to change its name to North Ryde University? Street names? Where does it end?