EQ vs IQ

Mainstream media or better known as…

The mainstream media (MSM) can’t contain themselves. So deep in the cesspit of their own making that clickbait seems to have replaced responsible journalism for good. CNN’s Jim Acosta may well have the answer as to why a growing number of people view the MSM as the enemy of the people. When several journalists openly call for the doxing of school kids, where are the repercussions? What happened to unbiased, objective reporting?

The recent Lincoln Memorial showdown between a Native American Nathan Phillips and a Covington Catholic High School student, Nick Sandmann, perfectly fit a media narrative – Trump supporting, MAGA hat wearing, white Christian youth actively seeking and attacking a frail old indigenous man. Lost on the media were the earlier chants of the Black Hebrew Israelites calling the kids, “crackers, faggots and pedophiles.” Of course obscenities are a one way street if those attacked tick the wrong identity boxes.

Why doesn’t the media get that everyone is a potential movie producer these days? The truth eventually gets out, sadly after a lot of damage has been done. Does the MSM not get that persistent lying has pushed trust in the media to record lows?

If one watched the entire clip, the ‘activist’ Nathan Phillips went looking for a fight to conflate his agenda. He has been an activist for many years over a multitude of causes. Most activists have little or no tolerance for different views or opinions.

CM, like most of us, don’t know Nathan Phillips (or Nick Sandmann for that matter) from a bar of soap. Does being a First Nation’s person give him a free pass from polite discourse? If someone banged a drum in your face without provocation, would you rank your level of disapproval proportionate to the aggressors identity? Does donning a MAGA hat automatically mean the wearer is a racist or a bigot?

Yet the media perpetuates these falsehoods. The editorial boards of the MSM need a serious class in journalistic ethics. For all of the promises inscribed on the mastheads, few if any live up to their motto. While some came out after to apologize for jumping the gun, time and time again they face no recriminations for their actions.

Is it right that Sandman received death threats? What if some nut job actually tracked him down and took his life? Would the media take responsibility for their fictitious reporting or just plead an honest mistake. You know the MSM has screwed up when even CNN demands retractions.

We are approaching dangerous territory. Identity politics has become so poisonous that there will come a time when the dam will inevitably burst. Even if some think Covington students are out of touch with modern America, does the MSM truly believe they are setting a high watermark for integrity and an higher moral authority to show them the error of their ways?

To turn the argument on its head, had Phillips been white and wearing a MAGA hat banging a drum in front of indigenous school kids, the media would have been spot on in identifying the aggressor. Sadly they played the man and not the ball.

Gillette – the best a man could get

Queue yet more corporate driven politically correct garbage in an attempt to shame customers with respect to the #METOO bandwagon. In the 35 odd years CM has been shaving, not once have I reflected that a 3-day growth over the weekend is somehow fueling my inner toxic male. Were the real motives for my Movember antics designed to raise awareness around male suicide or actively triggering my inner misogynist?

Did the Gillette marketing team actually research facts or consult a handful of hairy arm pitted feminists in the internal coffee lounge? Since when did Gillette become the self imposed arbiter of public morality?

As far as CM is concerned you’ve lost a customer. I’m in need of a new razor so look forward to using Schick from here on. Hopefully it won’t use its brand to issue sermons completely unrelated to anything I or 99% of men who have proved over millennia they’ll gladly put their lives on the line to protect the fairer sex. To be clear, CM is not for a second asking people to #boycottgillette. That’s up to individuals to choose. The message to Gillette is to keep your politics to yourself. Stop politicizing razor blades, especially at the prices charged.

Imagine if the Titanic’s heavily bearded Captain Smith decided to let toxic masculinity take charge and let all the women and children drown in the Atlantic? Surely in the interests of equality countless men needn’t have died. Where are the feminists praising his sacrifice?

Toxic masculinity is the new buzzword. In April last year, CM wrote of the University of Texas claiming deep mental health issues were driven by men being men.

Seems a bit odd in the struggle for gender identity and equality that only masculinity is deemed a problem.  “MasculinUT” is being organized by the school’s counseling staff and most recently organized a poster series encouraging students to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” The program is built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles to “act like a man”, be “successful” or “the breadwinner.” Arise the unsuccessful breadlosers. The question is whether the UT Counseling and Mental Health Center (CMHC) will offer post-graduation counseling when these students realize the real world doesn’t operate that way?

In 2017 CM wrote about the domestic violence stats against men.

“The US National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS)conducted in 2010 showed that 25 million men had claimed they were victims of some form of sexual violence by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Shocking to be sure but the statements in a rather one-sided piece from Heather Jo Flores in The Independent with respect to Me Too.  were of particular interest:

Men, it’s not our job to keep reminding you. Remind each other, and stop abusing. It’s as simple as that. Until men speak out against men who abuse, this will never stop. How about y’all post “I ignored it and I won’t anymore” instead? Because #hearyou doesn’t cut it. Just hearing us doesn’t cut it. Taking action, speaking out, and showing zero tolerance for abuse is the only way through. Silence enables. Be the change..So why do men need to have multiple victims come forward before anybody says a damn thing”

If Flores opened her eyes she might see that we are exactly as she claims we are not.  For much of the utter rubbish men may brag about amongst themselves (e.g.bro-culture), talking up how they conducted street justice is never one of them. Take a look at the multiple social experiments on domestic violence which show random men stepping up to defend women they have never met who look to be in trouble. (Even former Australian PM John Howard intervened in a domestic violence situation last week aged 79). That is taking action. Immediate. No looking the other way. Men are hardwired to protect women. It is instinctive. Far from toxic. In the reverse, no one defended the male being attacked in the same video. If anything males smirked, some feeling sorry for him, 

CM is reading Jordan Peterson’s ‘12 Rules for Life’ at the moment and the opening chapter logs the behaviour of male vs female species in nature. Lobsters are about as toxic as one can imagine when it comes to masculinity and femininity. 750mn years of evolution. Same patterns that are hard wired.

Perhaps Gillette should dispense with nasty climate change inducing steel razors wrapped in plastic and invest in a line of hormone blocking drugs that prevent facial hair growth. That way they could prevent toxic masculinity and sterilize men at the same time.

Failing to grasp capitalism

7fe0f17d-a5b6-42f7-b14e-37730747cdd1

Good to see that the alarmists have moved the “saving the planet” argument to repairing 5yo washing machines. 35 years ago, repairing a VHS deck was worth the money. A new deck would set one back multiples of the repair. Can one honestly say they would bother repairing a 5yo deck when the replacement is likely to be near as makes no difference the same, if not cheaper than the repair?

Did the BBC think to measure that a brand new washing machine might consume a quarter of the electricity and half the water of a 5yo one? Over 100s or washes it would pay for its own environmental footprint many times over.

Perhaps the regulators trying to gather momentum behind this ‘grand’ proposal  might let the free market determine whether people would bother to repair a broken appliance based on cost. If they felt compelled to revive a 5yo for the cost of a replacement then so be it. Chances are, like flat screen TVs, capitalism will have brought the cost of a like for like new LED 4K to a quarter of what it cost 5 years ago.

Perhaps Brussels can establish an entire building dedicated to subsidized repair jobs. Spend billions in infrastructure to cater to a question no one is asking

The EU regulators are trying to force manufacturers to make appliances last longer. If a consumer wants to buy a cheap Chinese made fridge and run the risk of it dying too soon, why stop them? If another shopper thinks paying 3x for a fancy Made in Japan fridge on the basis it might last longer, why not let them choose?

Going by the EU directive surely car makers should offer 20 year warranties. Although doesn’t it contradict the push to eradicate fossil fuel sales by 2040. Doesn’t forcing child slave labour in Africa to mine the cobalt to go in batteries propose deeper ethical questions?

Ultimately market forces can quickly determine whether repair is feasible. No need to mandate makers to build equipment that consumers aren’t demanding.

Rest assured people! The EU once launched multi year study on whether water rehydrated or not. Instead of accepting it, the EU introduced laws which prosecuted companies that claimed its water products did! Go figure? It’s journalism like this that makes one think they’re all eating Tide pods.

Saving a 52yo convicted wife-beater

B5E3B88D-2F16-4476-B0C2-EC71BA3A0DED.jpeg

Remember the self made movie starring heroine Elin Ersson preventing a plane taking off unless a man being cruelly deported was deplaned? CM always thought it was a bit odd. To be deported from a country like Sweden would likely mean one has to be a pretty unsavory character given its long standing forgiving social justice bent.

It turns out activist Ersson wasn’t rescuing who she thought she was. It wasn’t the 26yo Afghani man who’d lived in Iran for 20 years in safety she boarded to save on behalf of his parents but a 52-yo convicted wife beater who had just been released from jail so he could be deported. Which country would truly wish to welcome someone with such abhorrent values to settle? If it can’t pass Sweden’s often lenient smell test (we’ll get to that) on immigration it is probably a sign that it won’t pass anywhere else either.

Fuller story here.

N.B. Sweden has a national election on September 9th this year and the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats (SD) are polling at 25.5% according to an August Sentio survey, vs the incumbent Social Democrats at 21.1%. CM has written about the Sweden Democrats before. This was a banned commercial.

Is it any wonder the party is gaining traction when left wing politicians like  Barbro Sörman tweeted the difference with migrants commiting rape is that Swedish men culturally should know better. She tweeted “The Swedish men who rape do it despite the growing gender equality. They make an active choice. It’s worse…” When contacted by a local newspaper for clarification she replied, “Take a picture of Sweden as an equal society, where all are nurtured in equality. Then you can say that if you are brought up in it, you make an active choice to not be equal, rather than if you are brought up in a society that is not equal.” How can apologists take such views?

The Gatestone Institute highlighted some of the outcomes of migrant crime in Sweden in June 2016 alone. The list is long but here are some of the crimes which seem so lenient and moreover question why some people wouldn’t be deported for committing such acts.

June 8: Three Somali men in their 20s, who locked a 14-year-old girl in a room and took turns raping her, received very lenient sentences — and all three avoided deportation. Two of the men got two and a half years in prison. The third, who was also convicted of drug-related crimes and drunk driving, got three years. After serving their time, they will all be allowed to stay in Sweden, even though they are not Swedish citizens.

June 14: An exceptionally lenient verdict against a rapist from Yemen caused emotions to run high in Mariestad. Maher Al Qalisi attacked a 13-year-old girl, knocked her off a bicycle, knifed her in the face and raped her in a park — yet, he only got 18-months’ probation and will not be deported. Al Qalisi claims he is 17 years old, even though his Yemenite passport says he is 20. If he had been tried as an adult, he would certainly have gotten a more severe punishment. Prosecutor Jonas Lövström was disappointed with the verdict: “It is my firm belief that he is older than 21.”

June 28: An Eritrean, who raped a Swedish woman in a public restroom in Sundsvall, gets to stay in Sweden after being sentenced to one year and four months in prison. The Swedish Migration Agency apparently did not feel he could be sent back to his home country. The mild sentence was given because he claimed to be only 19 years old.

Surely Ersson might reflect on how hard it is to get deported in the first place before hijacking a plane to protect the wrong man. Maybe question why there are now as many as 55 “no-go zones” spread throughout several Swedish cities where the police have little or no ability to control rising rates of violence which is putting a huge burden on over-worked police officers. Is it any wonder many are choosing to quit the force in record numbers. The Police Union had a website Polisliv (Police Life) which allowed police to air grievances anonymously because a growing number lost faith in the National Police Commissioner. The site has since been closed.

Take on a child by acting like one too

4CB52B2B-9BC7-4865-99F4-FF5EC6AAA141.jpeg

Just another stunt that will dreadfully backfire and all but guarantee a 2018 mid-term red wave and 2020 re-election. Even if many believe that he deserves litttle or no respect, do sensible people honestly think treating a foreign leader with such disdain helps in trying to correct behaviours or win over his fans? Have they thought it may alienate more centrist liberals who don’t want to be associated with this type of childish stuff?

It stinks of the spreadsheet that came out ahead of the Brexit referendum which listed leave supporters as Putin, Trump, BoJo, Farage etc  as a way to disparage them while listing Remain with Obama, EU leaders, 300 leading economists, the President of Australia (we don’t have one!) and the National Union of Students. It was in every sense of the word to belittle would be Leave voters by trying to ridicule their intelligence. Look what happened. Poke fingers, call voters bigots limit reasoned debate then watch the voting booth deliver the exact opposite of that intended.

Yes one can argue it is freedom of speech and expression. Yet they’re handing him even more free media coverage which only helps his cause and highlights the double standards. Trying to get the “baby” out of office won’t happen if they dumb down to his level at every possible occasion.

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

Austria proves again why the EU needs to listen more and talk less

1748D53B-0CCF-4375-ACBF-C5F27753AA3B.jpeg

God gave us two ears and one mouth so that we’d listen more and talk less,’ so the old saying goes This is what the EU gets for trying to bully its member states. It wasn’t long ago that EU President Jean-Claude Juncker was telling Austrians that if they democratically elected Norbert Hofer of the right wing FPO then the EU would remove Austria’s voting rights and cut off any transfers. Well the Austrians have voted for a conservative anti-immigrant party (which wants a programme to get immigrants to assimilate with the local culture) with a 31yo leader, Sebastian Kurz. His People’s Party garnered 31.4% (+7%) of the vote with the far-right wing FPO coming in second at 27.4% and incumbent Social Democrat Party coming in third with 26.7%. The Greens will probably not make the cut off of 4% to make a party, So once again the EU has had yet another major repudiation of its totalitarian ideals.

CM has been making the point for ages that forcing one’s beliefs onto others must be done in a way that listens to the other side. Otherwise it delivers results like Trump. It seems the EU hasn’t learned a thing.

So what have we had?

-Le Pen garnered 1/3rd of the French vote (double the best ever achieved by Front National),

-the far right Freedom Party’s (FPO) Norbert Hofer still managed 46% in Austria farcical re-run presidential election),

-Geert Wilders’ 25% increase in seats for the anti-immigrant PVV in The Netherlands,

-the surge in the Sweden Democrats to the top of the recent polls, Elections in 2018.

-Italy’s referendum which turned into a backdoor vote to oust PM Renzi. Elections in 2018 likely.

Brexit (although PM May is handling negotiations in true British efficiency – Fawlty Towers ring a bell?),

the Swiss handing back a 30yr standing free ticket to join the EU,

-the AfD in Germany getting 13% of the vote (Merkel may have won but it was her party’s worse showing in 7 decades)

…these don’t look like promising trends for an EU which is already badly listing. Despite ample warnings the EU refused (and still refuses) to change its course or exercise due care. It just issues more threats.

While the left openly voices its rage at these ‘right-wing’ parties growing in support, they never bother to seek reasons why. The right are generally just dismissed as racists, bigots or worse.  Major party loyalty has never been worse. The fabric of the loyal party voter base is wearing thinner. Take Australia’s One Nation Party led by Senator Pauline Hanson. The popularity of the mainstream LNP and Labor Parties is at record lows. One Nation is now 10% of the vote from 2% several decades ago. While some parties may claim their loyal base has abandoned them the stronger case to be made is the clear shift of the parties away from their once faithful constituents. Why?

Incumbent governments seem to cower at receiving negative news from the 24-7 polling cycle that is social media. Being careful to avoid inviting attack, they pander to all of the socially acceptable agendas – climate change, gender fluid bathrooms, laws clamping down on free speech, open borders and afffirmative action.

However political correctness is clearly not the answer as these results across Europe and elsewhere show. People are sick of the brow beating by socialist activists. Tired of the constant protests and social justice bleating. The NFL might find that most of its fans are against police brutality but they aren’t wanting a weekly lecture in grievance politics with the price of entry or their cable TV channel. Growing weary of the idea that it is ‘free speech’ and anything against those ideals are deemed ‘hate speech’. It is not to deny some positions are not necessarily palatable but in the marketplace of free speech, ridiculous positions can easily be disproven. Better to give extremist voices a chance to talk and invite public opinion on them at their own peril. Shutting it down forces it underground., making it inherently more dangerous.

Too many mainstream political parties are moving off the policy reserve that defined them so their once loyal followers are actively seek ones that will. While Hanson’s One Nation or Senator Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives may not tick every box to existing LNP voters, they cover enough of the positions that matter to them that they’ll tolerate some of the more out there ideas. It is not uncommon to hear the left complain at One Nation’s is growing popularity at the expense of the Greens but it is a devil of their own making.

So will the EU listen to the Austrian call? Will it pay attention to the Hungarians who voted over 98% against accepting forced migrant quotas? Think through the logic. If you were an asylum seeker, would you think your chances of unincumbered settlement would be best placed where 98.4% of the population doesn’t want you? It is irrelevant whether we think the Hungarians are insensitive brutes not to extend a welcome to those that are legitimately in need. It is their country and their democracy has spoken. If Brussels assumes to dictate to Hungary how it wishes to protect its culture and whatever it holds precious, why shouldn’t the EU have the same rights to enforce income tax, housing benefits and anything else it sees fit? Of course it is a preposterous notion.

It will not be long before the EU will be front and center on Greece. Let us not forget that the EU colluded with Goldman Sachs to ‘fiddle’ the accounts to make Hellas much prettier optically than it was. Was this pig without lipstick it wouldn’t have gained acceptance to the club. So the EU is not in a position to claim innocence over a deliberate ploy to ram-road the Greeks into its federal state yet have no qualms treating it with disdain. Talk about double standards.

In all seriousness the treatment of the Greeks by the EU is despicable beyond words. So for all of the left’s blind love for the EU and its socialist agenda, 36% of Greeks live below the poverty line and 58% of the youth are unemployed. So for all of the EU’s shared sense of purpose and equality, that means many can’t access affordable healthcare because it is generally provided by corporates and when you lose a job you lose the healthcare. This means many are forced to use A&E of major hospitals which are now overcrowded and understaffed as more doctors are leaving to seek better fortune for their services elsewhere.

If that wasn’t enough, mothers who had given birth were being restricted from taking their new-borns home if they couldn’t pay the hospital fees. While the government has banned this practice they have introduced new laws to allow the seizure of assets (e.g. homes) if debts are not settled.

Shortly, the Greeks are coming up for discussion over its debt position and austerity. With just months left before Greece’s latest lifeline expires, officials directly involved in the country’s bailout say they don’t have the stomach for contingent aid program when the current one expires in August 2018. While the EU and Athens are battle worn after 7 years of this knife edge rescue,  Greece will need to show it can go it alone but it’s eurozone creditors will be reluctant without further strings attached.

Here is betting that the EU doesn’t heed the lessons that have been ringing loud and clear for years. Sincerely hoping Greece leaves the EU and lets market forces revive its economy. Better to die on its feet than live on its knees.