#samesexmarriage

Zip It or be Zapped

EE607F58-63C2-419F-8427-7C4C0E6A322F.jpeg

It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times

 

Totalistralian Open

894870B7-6251-4D72-B74A-106DB1837BF1.jpeg

From today’s papers – “Stacy Cole and his husband Brian Hewitt have travelled from Dallas, Texas for the first Grand Slam of the year but won’t be buying tickets to Margaret Court Arena after the stadium’s namesake expressed her views on same-sex marriage.”

CM thoroughly endorses their right to choose not to watch matches in it. What CM doesn’t endorse is the motive behind the action. The Margaret Court Arena was named after her for sporting achievements. Period. Just because she possesses different values on marriage is not an excuse to go down the path of vilification which seeks to remove the name. As they said,

I hope that the Australian Open takes the fact that her name is on his Court very seriously and maybe considers having another name because it does make us feel a little uncomfortable buying tickets to go in.

As John McEnroe would say, “YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!?” Uncomfortable? Perhaps the Australian Open can compensate them for their trauma. Had they stayed in Texas, would they have turned off the TV were any matches played on the Margaret Court Arena? Give me a break.

Stacy & Brian identify their same sex union as a traditional husband and wife sense. The 2016 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%. So the media are giving Stacy & Brian a platform to shove a message down people who voted overwhelmingly to support SSM in a plebiscite. What purpose does it serve? Surely victory is already theirs on SSM? They can toast the fact that all of Margaret Court’s activism on the NO campaign was fruitless and now a law confirms her lost cause. Yet the left can’t let go. True victory only comes when the enemy is completely crushed, humiliated and stripped of any accolades richly deserved for the manner in which they were awarded.

What the left consistently forget is that they only push the very people they are trying to bring around to their way of thinking further away. What can’t be argued with reasoned logic must be protested with threats or acts of force.

Welcome to the tolerant left. Margaret Court should be forced to watch her name being removed from the stadium for extra effect. Maybe the International Tennis Federation should retroactively strip all of her championships and prize money indexed with inflation? Setting examples is the only way forward for totalitarians.

National Re-education League (NRL)

53B04D0C-2E62-490C-B84A-4EEA429CD5BC.jpeg

Welcome to the world of assigned re-education.  The sanctimonious ritual of blatantly using a venue to promote one side of any debate. In Australia the NRL (National Rugby League) has decided to have Macklemore as half time entertainment at the Grand Final to sing  “Same Love”. For all the lame excuses as to how his song has zero to do with the same sex marriage (SSM) debate Macklemore has been on the radio waves in Australia banging on about the tweets he’s getting from white homophobes. If the “No” side gets up in this plebiscite I’ll have absolutely no sympathy because this finger wagging just has the opppsite impact of the goal it seeks to achieve. People just get tired of the name calling and in your face campaigning. Trump, Brexit, Merkel etc – if the onslaught continues people tune out and vote in secrecy. Then people are shocked? How clear can it be? I’ve yet to meet a person that likes to be on the receiving end of condescending talk

Let’s not forget I firmly believe in civil rights. That has never been in question but it’s the blatant propaganda that is tiring  (for most people). There is one issue which is clearly defined. This isn’t an election. We are not debating energy, housing, taxation, poverty or superannuation ahead of an election yet it’s day in day out. If indeed the “Yes” side has already claimed an emphatically victory then why not just give it a rest. No no  we must have the rainbow flags flown on the town hall, rainbow stickers on the work security gates and now the Finals – non stop

Why doesn’t the NRL have Kevin Bloody Wilson sing for the “No” case? Would the NRL allow a gospel choir group singing about “we are family” a la Aretha Franklin? Of course not.  There in lies the issue. Why can’t sports finals be just that instead of propaganda filled events.  Once again 99.999% of the population have already made up their minds over the subject so this is just senseless droning. PM Turnbull was on ‘The Project’ lamely submitting to the idea Macklemore’s just an entertainer and people are reading too much into his song.

To be honest – whether yes or no – the subject should be well and truly kept out of sporting events. It is the obsession with people claiming “free speech” therefore it should be fine.

OK I’ll be knocking on your door at 9:30pm with yes campaign leaflets and a ghetto blaster playing Macklemore on reasonable volume because it’s free speech and it isn’t disturbing the peace legally. So if you think it’s ok to re-educate me at the footy. I feel it’s ok to re-educate you at home. “Sorry, did I wake the kids?”

The idea of watching the game is to get away from the grind of work, stress, financial woes and so on. Now that sanctuary is being destroyed because indoctrination is part and parcel of everyday life. Shut up and submit!

If you do it for churches make sure you enforce it for every other faith too – no exceptions!

IMG_0887

In 2012 Denmark ruled that churches would be legally forced to marry gay couples regardless of the beliefs of many of the clergy. With Australia’s same sex marriage (SSM) debate on the table will parliament protect the rights of the church to decide on the way it chooses to conduct its affairs? If Australia votes in favour of SSM then we should accept society’s decision on the matter. Period. However, will churches be forced to do things against their will like Denmark? Why only churches? Shouldn’t gay people of the Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and any other faith be equally able to force their relevant house of prayer to conduct a gay wedding ceremony? It must be one rule for all, not just the soft target. Where are the activists demanding this? Exactly, nowhere to be seen. Given we live in a world where certain sandwich chains refuse to sell pork products to avoid offending certain customer groups perhaps we should insist that hardware stores refrain from selling timber and nails because it might offend Christians.

The question is not about whether gay couples have the right to marry. If they are allowed to do so is it fair that people who hold different beliefs to them (which does not equate to homophobia) be forced to do things against them? Surely the whole purpose of marriage is to celebrate love, togetherness and commitment. Will that day feel more special when you know the priest has a gun to his head? To reiterate – if we are to force one religion to tow the line, we must prepared to accept without question all other faiths to obey the law. No exceptions.

Same Sex Marriage – Shaming didn’t work before. Why now?

IMG_0633.JPG

Ahhh. Where have we seen this before? 2016 US election? Brexit? Yes. It’s the name and shame game. Make people feel that failure to vote “yes” in the same sex marriage (SSM) plebiscite makes Australia as backward as predominantly Muslim countries (which ironically are the same countries the liberal left will scream unwavering support if any criticism is thrown at them, despite their stance against homosexuality), a few former communist states and Thailand. The irony of SSM is the campaigning and advertising is probably the worst spent money ever. How?

If I asked all the Aussie people who adorned their page with “I’m voting yes” I’m guessing 99% had already made up their mind and nothing would change it. So any “No” campaigns should have slid like water off a duck’s back. The same goes for those in the no camp. 99% have probably made their mind up and no amount of “Yes” campaigning will change that. Posting memes which aim to shame people has the opposite effect by further cementing their “No”  vote.

I’m not confident this plebiscite will pass. No amount of tears from Senator Pratt, $1m from Alan Joyce, rainbow banners forcibly added on my blog draft page or friends telling people they have a moral obligation to vote Yes will have any effect. Why the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is charged with handling the plebiscite and not the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is beyond me .

Going a step further, we see that the ABS has sent multiple ballots to some addresses because of  outdated information of former tenants, rogue postmen have threatened to use torches to  throw out “No” votes they find and a government that introduced emergency laws to ban free speech on SSM. Personally I think the plebiscite fails but the more concerning thing about the SSM debate has been the attack on free speech. How?

Anyone that would seek to tamper with an official vote (mail tampering is an offence), vote multiple times or seek to get people who are in the “No” camp deregistered from the medical profession or think government leaders using tax payers to support the “Yes” cause only to influence an outcome indeed would place Australia in the right column which contain countries that in many cases don’t believe in democracy. Having emergency laws on free speech to curtail it in a way that would only punish the “no” side tells us all we need to know. A gay journalist can happily tweet he’d “hate f*ck the homophobia out of conservative politicians” and that is passed as a racy joke but if conservatives said they’d “hate f*ck the homosexuality out of a gay progressive politician” they’d be hounded into the courts.

Indeed Australia is rightly positioned in the above column. Just the heading of the study should be “rights to free speech” not “equal marriage rights”

Forcing voters to become eunuchs by slicing off their free speech

IMG_0862.JPG

Kiss your free speech good-bye. Australia is going straight down the slippery slope of Canada in seeking to shut down the expression of open legitimate debate. Labor Senator Louise Pratt broke down today after explaining the horrid episode of receiving an anti-same sex marriage (SSM) pamphlet when going to the shops with her 3yr-old son and his three fathers. Instead of refuting the content of the anti-SSM pamphlet with facts (and her own experience) she chose to break down and claim how she could not bear reliving the content. Yes, she played a victim. She got a consoling hug from a Greens senator. By her own admission she said that the “no” campaigners have already lost the argument and will lose the vote. If that is the case then why the tears? Get on the front foot and defend your beliefs Senator Pratt rather than run to the bosom of totalitarian protections. If the plebiscite is carried the “No” campaigners will accept democracy.

Now we will have emergency laws that will prosecute someone who expresses a legitimate opinion with fines of up to $12,600. Who decides what constitutes hurting someone’s feelings? The PM only last week said that “we can rely on the wisdom and decency of the Australian people to decide on same sex marriage.” Three days later these same people will be muzzled. Why do we need people policing citizens for holding legitimate beliefs? We can be sure that if pro-SSM people abuse Anti-SSM then nothing will happen. We already have a gay Fairfax journalist who spoke of hate-f*cking politicians who didn’t support SSM to drive out their homophobia. I would bet that he wouldn’t get charged under this new law. It only applies to the dinosaurs and their antiquated backward thinking. Activists tried to get a doctor struck off the register for holding a belief in traditional marriage. Archbishops have been dragged before courts and hotels threatened if they allow anti-SSM meetings to take place.

Shame on the Conservatives to roll over so easily on this subject. The sad reality is that most people made up their minds way before the vote has even taken place. I don’t need WordPress to adorn my blog page with rainbow flag backed buttons and I do not need Subway to tell me to vote SSM when I buy a sandwich. I don’t need Qantas to give me an acceptance ring and I certainly don’t need tax dollars squandered on one side of the debate only. I couldn’t care less with those who want to virtue signal with their Facebook avatars with “I’m voting yes”. Good for you. None of that peer pressure would convince me in anyway on which way I would vote. The beauty of a polling booth is that you can vote how you like. Yet this day and age is all about vilifying non compliance to activism

Yet our government shows its cowardice and even worse, contempt for the public. In an attempt to gag free speech people will be told what they can and can’t say. Holding beliefs which are perfectly acceptable on rational grounds will be policed and removed from the Newspeak dictionary. I am sure the Australian Human Rights Commission is rubbing its hands with glee to take more control of the nanny state.

Not supporting SSM doesn’t make one a homophobe but that is how the activists seek to mock and ridicule non-conformity. Ramrodding gender fluidity and cross dressing in kindergarten and primary schools is just another shift in removing the ability to protect traditional values. In the majority of cases, the best outcome for children is to have their biological mother and father as parents. It shouldn’t be seen as hateful to think like that.

Once again, bit by bit freedoms are being removed. California is looking to introduce laws to prosecute people for using the wrong pronoun. Do we seriously need the judicial system to be clogging up the courts with such petty matters? Canada’s M-103 and Ontario’s M-89. More laws to shut people up. It is appalling. Free speech is an absolute unalienable right. Just because one might not agree with another doesn’t make it hate speech. Yet our laws will ensure that anything outside of the newspeak dictionary will get people prosecuted.

People ask me why I left the Liberal Party of Australia. I say, “I didn’t leave them, they left me!”

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”