#activism

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Woodie Guthrie, that evil white supremacist

It is unlikely that Woodie Guthrie ever channeled his inner racist when he penned ‘This land is your land‘. Yet native rights activist Mali Obomsawin said his lyrics,

…as they are embraced today evoke Manifest Destiny and expansionism (‘this land was made for you and me’). When sung as a political act, the gathering or demonstration is infused with anti-Nativism and reinforces the blind spot.

Just to clear the air, the lyrics (also sung by African-American Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings)

This land is your land, this land is my land
From the California to the New York island
From the Redwood Forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
And saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me , a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun comes shining, then I was strolling
In the wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land…”
So it is hardly anything more than Aussies celebrating in our own national anthem the words, “our land abounds in nature’s gifts of beauty, rich and rare”
Although Obomsawin contends,

This land ‘was’ our land, through genocide, broken treaties, and a legal system created by and for the colonial interest, this land ‘became’ American land. But to question the legitimacy of American land control today instantly makes one the most radical person in the room–even in leftist circles. And because Indigenous critiques of this country are so fundamental, our voices are often marginalized to the point of invisibility.By critiquing ‘This Land Is Your Land,’…I don’t mean to imply that Guthrie himself promoted conquest, but the song is indicative of American leftists’ role in Native invisibility

As Alyssa Duvall points out, “How do these people not walk into more telephone poles when they’re so busy watching out for racism, overt or covert, everywhere?”

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross can stay

It is amazing that activists can be up in arms over a near century old monument that honours 49 dead WWI soldiers in Maryland. It required the US Supreme Court to vote 7-2 to keep it there. No prizes for guessing who the dissenters were.

The Peace Cross was erected just after WW1 to honour those that sacrificed their lives for the country. It was the brainchild of mothers of the fallen. Most likely they were all Christian mothers.

The protest was that it didn’t properly represent the religious beliefs of all those that had fallen in WW1. In that sense activists were offended by the government’s endorsement of religion plus the reality that the cross is maintained with taxpayer funds.

Monica Miller, a lawyer representing the American Humanist Society, argued the memorial should be moved to private property or modified.

Leftist activist Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,”

Her Liberal sidekick Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with, “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross.”

Justice Alito said, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both of whom are Jewish, ruled in favour of keeping the cross.

Almost 100 years ago it is likely that 98% of those that died in WW1 were of Christian faith. If one visits a memorial with individual gravestones anywhere around the world, the religion is always reflective of the person who sacrificed their life.

How is it that people can become so triggered by a stone structure that honours those that gave up their lives to protect the very freedom they enjoy? Why can’t people respect the values of the time? What is the obsession with rewriting history so some intolerant people can feel assuaged of bereavement they’ve never suffered personally?

Grievance Studies hoax

What a surprise in today’s academia. Three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable politically correct jargon (wrt gender equality, white supremacy, LGBTQI) and developed ridiculous conclusions with the aim of placing these ‘peer-reviewed’ pieces in high-profile journals. At the time of exposing the hoax 7 journals succeeded in being published, 7 were in the approvals process and only 6 were rejected.

Just goes to show that some journalists are happy to publish anything provided it fits a narrative, no matter how ridiculous the content. For instance;

Some of the papers accepted included, Western astrology was viewed as imperialist and sexist. It argued female astrology be implemented by science faculties.

Another paper titled, Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon‘ which postured whether dogs suffered from oppression based upon perceived gender.

Yet another paper, ‘Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation‘ argued that men objectifying women during the act without her consent were perpetrators of sexual violence.

As Yascha Mounk correctly pointed out,

[this] doesn’t just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals. This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the “privilege” of white students.

Grievance is an industry underpinned by political correctness. Forget rational thought and debate. Just publish whatever fuels the grievance that rationalizes the irrational. Some of these hoax pieces (unsurprisingly) have been taken down. Just proves activism for what it is – as long as they don’t find out we can keep banging the drum of perpetual victimhood.

Boycotters’ bluster

CM was not a fan of Israel Folau’s tweets on homosexuals, fornicators, sinners, adulterers etc. Yet CM defends his right to say it. Come to think of it, CM has never sought moral guidance from the controversial Wallaby rugby star. Nonetheless Folau thinks CM and many others are destined to burn in hell too. Yet he is protected by the Constitution of Australia whether we like it or not. That supersedes an ARU contract.

We now hear that if his contract is sustained, several players have threatened to boycott the side if he is selected.

That’s their choice. However the threat sounds so much like all of those Hollywood celebrities who promised to leave the country if Trump was elected. Pretty much every single one remains in the US. Even Jamie Oliver, the Naked Chef, said he’d leave the UK if Brits voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. He still lives in a £9m mansion in Hampstead, London. Idle threats. Here is betting every player threatening to boycott Folau will end up putting lucrative player contracts ahead of virtue signaling when pressed to make a stand. Which is hypocritical. If they stand for nothing, they’ll fall for anything.

Folau had very similar views publicized ahead of the Same Sex Marriage (SSM) debate when he first caught the ire of social media opinion. He was on record for telling team mate David Pocock of his beliefs on the matter leading into the plebiscite. Pocock still played with him and there is plenty of footage showing both embracing after tries were scored even when SSM was legislated.

We live in a society that is constantly threatening free speech. Folau’s comments may well cost him other endorsements. That is the market price he bears for holding his deeply devout Christian views in a society too afraid to say anything controversial. He never called for the murder of these groups. Only that their ultimate destiny was decided by God as written in the Bible.

Hypocrisy in the way the West deals with (certain) faiths is rife. The tragedy that was the Christchurch terror attack has led the Canterbury Crusaders rugby team to reconsider its name so as not to offend Muslims. Devout Muslim Sonny Bill Williams even played for the side after his conversion to Islam. Didn’t seem to phase him and he didn’t protest once. Although he did take exception to having Bank of NZ sponsorship displays on his uniform as it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Did we call for an inquisition? His religious beliefs were protected.

Where have those same activists been to bully The Saracens in Middlesex to select a more palatable name for the sake of countless victims of Islamic terror? Nowhere and most wouldn’t find any links between the two. No one in their right mind ties the Saracens or Crusaders as inciting hatred against the religions of either. They’re rugby clubs – period. 99.99% get that. Yet activists make out the majority leans the other way.

Izzy Folau May have offended some with his tweets. Everyone gets it. Many have just dismissed it with a roll of the eyes. Surely their lives have moved on without so much as a skip in the beat.

Yet we live in a world where some see offense and outrage in everything to the point of demanding litigation to protect hurt feelings. Canada even introduced a bill (C-16) compelling speech where jail terms for the incorrect use of a pronoun are a punishment. It is a slippery slope.

We should be careful what we wish for. The free speech noose will only tighten and eventually we won’t be able to speak our minds or the truth. That’s when society splinters.

Best let the Folau’s of the world make grandiose tweets and let society judge on an individual basis rather than trying to force our value sets on others. Do we honestly think we can force Folau to repent? If his contract was rescinded would he suddenly give up the teachings of his faith? Not a chance. We need to accept the views of others, even those we disagree with.

Do we truly believe the overwhelming majority of homosexuals/fornicators/sinners/adulterers a) believed Folau’s tweet or; b) were deeply offended? Or did most shake their heads and chuckle at his views?

CM is surprised that white Christian missionaries haven’t been chastised for converting so many Pacific Islanders, including Folau, to become devout followers over the centuries. Surely that must follow.

Vegan activists need caging more than goats

Well done to the lunatic vegan activists whose harassment led to the closure of The Gippy Goat Cafe in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria. 8 people have lost their jobs as a result of a legitimate business not being able to operate because of the weak application of laws from the judiciary based on toned down charges dispensed by law enforcement. It makes you wonder how theft, trespass and threats of violence don’t rate a mention with the police. At the very least these activists should be forced to pay for the redundancy costs and years of lost revenue caused by their actions. Why should the owners lose a business they invested in all because of the intolerance of the radical left? How much were the activists fined each? $1 for biosecurity breaches! What a farce.

This is what the owners had to say yesterday,

The Gippy Goat Café has decided to close, today will be our last day. We would like to thank our dedicated staff, our social media followers and loyal customers for your unfailing support but we do not have the heart to continue the café. This was not an easy decision to reach, however for the sake of our health and safety and that of our families and staff we feel that it is regrettably the best option.

Our staff and customers have been subjected to nearly 4 months of constant harassment, vile statements and threats from the abusive vegan activists. We have personally been subjected to an appalling stream of threats of extreme violence against ourselves, our family, our staff and even their families. Our staff have been subjected to daily threats and harassment by phone, and we cannot in good conscience ask them to continue working under such a condition. Our social media and review sites have been subjected to false information and artificially poor ratings. The courts have proven to be ineffectual, the enforcement agencies declined to prosecute to the full extent, so, to the thieves, trespassers and activists; you have won. Rejoice in your victory: eight good people are now without a job, families no longer can enjoy the good food and open space, and children can no longer interact with our animals. Society is the loser; the anonymous bullies, hypocrites, lawbreakers and self-professed paragons of moral and social justice have won. Please know that your ignorant indignation, lust for outrage and the false reality you inhabit through your social media streams will prevent you from effecting any positive societal change – only harm to real human beings – and you only have yourselves to thank.

Our farm will continue to operate as before, but is no longer open to the public. We are truly sorry for any disappointment this may cause.

John & Penny

We can be sure that if John & Penny trespassed onto one of the vegan’s properties, these activists would demand the stiffest penalties by dispensed the courts. So typical with the radical left, only their voices have legitimacy.

Scab?

Here is an article written by a Year 12 student, Joanne Tran, who didn’t want to be a truant and strike for climate change. She makes valid points.

In the old days workers who didn’t join the picket lines were called ‘scabs’. Good on her for standing up against the herd. No doubt the activists will scream an adult helped write that piece. Even if that turned out to be so, doesn’t that perfectly describe the argument of why kids shouldn’t be used as political pawns to promote one’s agenda? Unless it’s one’s own.