#whiteprivilege

Superintendent smashes secrecy surrounding Smollett settlement

What the Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said in this video is 100% correct. He said, “They wanted their day in court with TV cameras so America could know the truth. But no, they chose to hide behind secrecy and broker a deal to circumvent the judicial system.” Mayor Emanuel was also front and centre on Smollett’s unfair dragging of Chicago’s reputation through the mud and the damage his hoax will have against those who have real hate crime claims in future. Smollett has his slate wiped clean.

This is the perfect example of why identity politics is so poisonous. Here was a man potentially willing to make a claim against two innocent white people and jail them for up to 20 years for hate crimes not committed just to bump his salary and smear 63mn Trump supporters at the same time.  He still claims innocence! No morals, no ethics and in Emanuel’s words “is there no decency in this man?

Claims are being made by the media that George Soros donated $408,000 to a super PAC that supported Cook County State Attorney (SA) Kim Foxx’s campaign. While Foxx recused herself on conflict of interest grounds, the First Assistant SA Joseph Magats, who has served in the SA office for three decades, saidThe bottom line is, we stand behind the investigation, we stand behind the decision to charge him…The fact that Smollett feels that we have exonerated him, we have not. I can’t make it any clearer than that. So how does that weigh up to the dismissal of 16 felony charges? Smollett served two days of community service which can be seen here.

To think of the disrespect shown to the excellent investigative work and evidence filed by the police. Do we believe Jussie’s comments on the verdict, “I have been truthful and consistent on every level since day one. I would not be my mother’s son if I was capable of one drop of what I’ve been accused of”? What a fine bit of acting.

So much for dignity and respect of the rule of law to Americans. What a farce.

Dr Kerryn Phelps MP misdiagnoses the cancerous white patriarchy

Dr Kerryn Phelps AM MP posted the following graphic on Twitter to howl at the patriarchy on International Women’s Day (IWD). She posted these figures from a (pre-Channel 9) Sydney Morning Herald article from April 2018.  Most of the statistics above are inaccurate or misrepresented but when it comes to bashing middle aged white men, no-one dares questioning the accuracy when it comes to this demographic.

The basics.

1. Whites in Australia make up c.80% of the population. This is census data. No room for much conjecture.

2. Men make up 63% of all full time employment in 2018. In 2000 this was 75%. 13% of those aged 65 and over still participate in the workforce, 65% of those are men. This is down from 79% in 2000. By pure logic, if men were 75% of FT jobs two decades ago, stands to reason they’d have a higher chance of being in positions of seniority today.

3. We stick to the SMH’s definition of ”middle age’ of 40-60 which equates to 2.8mn white men, or 10.7% of the total population.

4. In the Australian Federal Parliament there are 150 lower house & 75 upper house seats. 225 positions up for grabs during election cycles (longer terms for senators). On Phelps’ SMH derived assumptions that means 160 of the seats are occupied by white middle aged males. 160 seats means that federal politics as a profession at present is only 0.0057% of their representative demographic. Phelps might reflect that 30 out of 75 senators are women, or 40% of the total. 60% are males. 17.5% of all Senators are white males over 60yo meaning only 32.5% of senators are middle aged white males.

30% of the House of Reps are women. Yet 17% of the white males in the lower house are aged over 60. So only 53% of our lower house is middle aged white male. Not 70%.

5. There are 2,185 stocks listed on the ASX. If 75% are run by middle aged white men then 1,638 companies fit Phelp’s parroted profile. 0.059% of the all middle aged white men run listed corporates. Although the average age of CEOs in Australia is around 54, or at the upper bound of the 40-60 cohort. Going back to point 2, the higher proportion of men in FT roles seems consistent with this. There should be no surprise.

6. There are 1,054 state and federal judges and magistrates in Australia. Of that, 63% are white men according to SMH. The actual figure is 62%, or 405. Close enough. So 669 members of the judiciary would fit the claim. To hit the top echelons of the judiciary requires long service. Even if we took the SMH at its word, 0.023% of the white middle aged male cohort would take those roles. Note 42% of judges on the High Court of Australia are women.

7. In our tertiary education system , APH notes only 21.6% of university academia in Australia were women in 1985. It rose to 39% in 2002 and is just over 50% today. Today tenured females at universities exceed tenured males. Over 50% of all associate lecturers and lecturers are women. Male senior professors make up 75% of the total. Their average age is well above 50. Senior professors are able to get a higher percentage of research grants because they are mainly in STEM fields.

8. There are 39 Vice Chancellor positions in Australia. 12 are currently held by females. 70% are males. 66% are held by white males. Phelps mistakenly thought that 85% were middle aged white males. In fact the article mentioned that 85% of Vice Chancellors were of Anglo-Celtic background. Still it sounds better if it attacks middle aged white males.

9. Phelps believes the claim that 80% of highest paying jobs are held by white middle aged males. Assuming that 85% of the population was white two decades ago and the Australian Government claims 90% of executive roles are full time roles with men a higher proportion of the workforce back then it should make for little surprise. It is representative.

Labour participation rate among males 15-64 is 82% vs 71.7% for females. Note in 1978 these figures were 85% and 50% respectively. The highest quintile of compensation was 48% of the total in 2017/2018. This quintile also paid 78.7% of total income tax. The top 10% of income earners paid 44.9% according to the ATO. The top 1% paid 16.9%. So the bottom 90% pay less than 56% of total income tax. Middle aged white men pay more tax.

10. Phelps the SMH article that says 80% of film directors and writers are white middle aged males. According to the Australian Directors Guild’s (ADG), ‘Gender Matters – women in the Australian screen industry‘ report, 21% of writers and 16% of feature films are directed by women. There is no “age” breakdown for either gender. 34% of documentaries since 1988 have been directed by women, 41% of producers and 37% writers. The in-house analysis by the ADG shows that teams with at least 50% female creative teams gets 58% of all funded projects. In 2017, the Australian Director’s Guild started a female scholarship mentor program.

In an industry that leans heavily to the ideological left, surely that is a self inflicted wound. In the arts and entertainment industry, the ability to source funds to make films is mostly based on a track record to convert that investment into box office revenue. The ability to write a movie script is based on the creativity of the author, regardless of gender. Page 8 of the report notes, “Anecdotal evidence indicates that women are far more likely than their male counterparts to underestimate and undersell their skills and abilities.” Supposedly this is caused by toxic masculinity?

Will striving for more politically correct measures improve things in the art & film world? America has been trying this path for quite some time now and the results have continued to drift lower and lower. More films but less revenue.

—-

Things have come a long way over the last 50 years. Yet some industries remain very skewed toward men, not because of some evil patriarchal conspiracy.

99.7% of bricklayers are men in Australia. 96.4% of truck drivers are men. 95% of miners are men. 93% of our fire fighters are men. 85% of our defence force is comprised of men. Isn’t this merely individual work choices rather than a deliberate plan to shun women in those industries?

Should there be a Royal Commission to find out why more women don’t want to be brickies, truckies, miners, firies, coppers or soldiers? Should we force quotas? That is what the ADF is now doing with disastrous results. The ADF missed its original gender targets so lowered them but missed by an even wider margin. The Air Force openly practices discrimination to such a degree that if the private sector adopted similar methods, the corporates would face harsh penalties and sanctions. Women in the ADF can achieve their service medal in half the time of men. Then they wonder why morale in the military is drifting lower every year. The irony is that almost 50% of women in the ADF surveyed think these affirmative action measures are meaningless.

On the flip side 98.7% of personal assistants are women98.4% of dental assistants are women94% of receptionists are women. 85.7% of special education teachers are women80% of cafe workers are female.  75.9% of nurses are female. Should we seek to redress the gender imbalance there? Men are 92% of the prison population in Australia? Should we equalize that?

Should we enforce quotas among politicians? Political parties place candidates who they think can win elections whatever their identity – gender, sexual proclivity or otherwise. If parties think women are the magic elixir to secure more terms in government, women will make up a growing proportion of the pre selection process. The patriarchy would be crazy not to run candidates that allow them to sustain their thirst for power.

Truth 1, Identity politics -1

Jussie Smollett gave us the perfect example of why identity politics is so poisonous. Here was a man potentially willing to make a claim against two innocent white people and jail them for up to 20 years for hate crimes not committed just to bump his salary and smear 63mn Trump supporters at the same time. Smollett appears to be exactly what he condemns.

Identity politics creates a marketplace for victimhood. CM made these very remarks as the #metoo market started to gain momentum 18 months ago. How many men have been wrongfully accused of crimes they haven’t committed? Has anything happened to those women who admitted they lied about SCJ Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting them? Are we just to believe all women? All LGBT without question? Do activists truly speak on behalf of all minorities? Of course not. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of women, LGBT and minorities are fair minded people. Most don’t tie themselves up in this nonsense.

Look at how quickly Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters & Nancy Pelosi jumped behind Jussie to condemn the racist MAGA lynch mob. No facts. Just feelings. More ammo to condemn Trump. Instead of openly apologizing to those they hastily condemned, they did the exact opposite – dishonorably deleting the tweets which showed them up for the double standards they clearly uphold (and we worry about Trump’s twitchy finger on the nuke button with knee-jerkers like this?!?). So out of touch are the liberals who blindly backed the false claim, that Jussie Smollett even lost serial SJW Alyssa Milano’s support. That’s a miracle in itself.

What of the $100,000s the Chicago Police Department was forced to spend to investigate a lie? What thought did Smollett give real victims of crime to divert resources away just to promote his own career? The CPD Chief was bang on the money with the selfish act.

Smollett’s Class 4 felony carries up to a 1.5 year jail term. If he is found guilty, he should serve the maximum penalty possible. Being gay or black should play no part in sentencing. All crimes should be equal in front of the law regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, sexual proclivity or any other identity marker.

On the plus side, Smollett has substantially undermined the identity politics industry. This, like Covington, will be a gift that keeps giving for libertarians. The numerous Democratic presidential nominees only showed how dysfunctional they are to champion identity ahead of character. This wasn’t about policy and praying for a united America. It was all about tribalism. All they did was make their base out to be fools.

Some suggested there be leniency shown toward Smollett in sentencing. There in lies the problem. The media are so desperate to run narratives that fact checking be damned. So frothing at the mouth have they become that anything will do if it can smear those who hold different opinions. How soon the repentant media forgot the promises over their mistakes surrounding Covington before their derangement syndrome got the better of them again.

The really sad part is that the media were so desperate that Smollett’s original hoax was true that they fell apart when it was found to be a lie. Disappointment when the narrative fails to back up subjective views. The mainstream media want disunity, discord and animosity to feed their ratings. Enemy of the people? Certainly not friends.

Perhaps the irony in all of this is that had Smollett truly cared to stage a believable attack he should have paid white actors to do it. The problem might have have been that they cost substantially more than the two gentlemen he paid by personal cheque (talk about leaving paper trails). Proves the old adage, “you get what you pay for.” False economy in a nutshell.

Had Smollett embraced libertarian values of meritocracy, hard work and opportunity he may have earned his pay rise legitimately. By embracing liberal values of perpetual victimhood by throwing 63mn people under a bus, he has now self-inflicted his own demise. Just desserts, even in prison.

Poverty shaming

Now poverty shaming is the next thing that must be stopped. Putting aside the parenting issues of spoiling teenage kids with $1,000 down jackets, are such school regulations truly necessary? What a condescending slap in the face for those supposedly in poverty to have the school openly show some sense of pity on them. Did the low-income parents ask en masse for this or was it the typical arbitrary decision driven by overhearing a school gate grizzle by one parent having a bad day blown out of proportion by the faculty to signal virtue? To put a question to the school faculty – would they prefer the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich? Seems like a lot of self-loathing rather than driving positive behaviours.

How many times have we seen the activists arrogantly categorize groups as one homogeneous voice. Do all lower income parents despise all middle class parents and vice versa?

What if a kid from a lower income bracket sweated over the holiday season as a casual worker and earned the ability to buy a Moncler jacket? Wouldn’t that be a great lesson? Surely something to be commended, encouraged and supported. Should the school take an inventory check on smart phones to make sure that some richer kids with iPhones aren’t memory shaming those with last year’s model of a Huawei?

Supposedly the school jacket ban idea was brought up because, “Poverty-proofing enables schools to identify and overcome the barriers to learning that children and young people from families with less financial resources face.”

Where does it end? Why not ban parents from dropping their kids off at school in any vehicle from a European luxury brand so parents don’t poverty shame other parents?  If the kids are supposed to learn how to break down barriers, won’t little Henry pulling up to school in the passenger seat of his mother’s Range Rover enforce the same poverty shaming problems when confronting Johnny alighting his father’s clapped out  Ford Fiesta hatchback as he would by wearing a Moncler down jacket? Best force the richer parents to drop their kids at the back gate to protect against the odds of Johnny’s deep seated envy getting triggered.

Or perhaps the school should up the ante and dispense with the poverty shaming edict and just mark the richer kids exams down by 25% to account for their supposed privilege.

Is it any wonder kids are becoming more neurotic when they have identity and ideology thrust down their throats rather than learn about respect and individual responsibility? Best make the kids that don’t fit the apparatchik’s value set share in collective misery.

Nike & Colin Kaepernick

7EB3D471-D052-4233-BB4D-E2C3C5F66DCC.jpeg

Ultimately consumers will vote with their feet (no pun intended) after Nike’s use of original kneeler Colin Kaepernick as its latest “Just do it.” campaign face. Arguing over who is right or wrong over this has become somewhat irrelevant. The kneeling debate is over 12 months old.

Nike is free to market how it chooses but must bear full responsibility for the firestorm it creates for itself. There is no doubt the social media impact will be huge and the marketing department might wax lyrical at the attention gained all it wants but the question is will the majority of it be positive? Virtue signaling for corporates is a dangerous game. More often than not it backfires.

CM has always held that corporations should stay out of politics because as much as they might profess a united face on certain issues, there is no way they speak on behalf of all those that work for them. The risk is creating an unfair working environment to those who do not wish to participate in the manner the corporate desires, even if they might privately agree. Coercing staff to openly tow the party line is tantamount to making them slaves if forced against their will for fear of repercussions in the workplace.

Don’t think for a second it doesn’t happen. Think of the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. If you had a rainbow flag screen saver you would have been cheered by the internal apparatchiks. Had you a “Vote NO for SSM” screen saver it is likely you would have been hauled in front of your manager and HR to explain your inappropriate workplace behaviour. The matter was a vote of democracy. What place is it for corporates to enforce one type of opinion on changes to the Marriage Act? 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. All that fanfare for less than 1,400 people.

We are already seeing people in the US burn Nike products to protest the company’s move.

4F2A07F8-BC36-4AB6-8CDE-DCE3E822DAD3.jpeg

In much the same vein as Democrat Party activists boycotting In-N-Out burgers for donating to the GOP, there is no real sense in die-hard NFL fans pushing to #boycottNike. What is the obsession with boycotts? Surely disgruntled fans can make up their own minds whether they’ll choose to buy Nike products or not. It is just more of the oppression obsession.

Nike will ultimately survive. The NFL has already seen ratings take a proper beating. The question is does this help? Probably not but Nike want to make a statement.

Knee jerk reactions where people burn football jerseys, season tickets, Superbowl pennants or Nike sneakers have become less and less about the subject protested about (Black Lives Matter) but more about people getting sick and tired of political correctness and social justice rammed down their throats on an almost daily basis. Even Buzz Aldrin is sick of the politically correct overtones in ‘First Man’ that went out of its way to delete scenes of an epic moment in America’s history – planting an American flag on the moon. Don’t forget Buzz punched a reporter who disparaged him in public. He said he is a “proud American

Sadly, many Americans feel their patriotism is under fire. That they should feel guilty for displaying Old Glory outside their homes. Maybe those loyal fans want to go and watch a NFL match to leave the financial, relationship, work, marital stresses behind. They pay money to unwind, not have political messaging paraded in front of them. Even if they think Black Lives Matter is a worthy cause, kneeling every match won’t make it sink in any deeper but dilute the message, as has been displayed by making Kaepernick the poster child.

Not all NRA members are cold blooded murderers. Those people that voted Republican in the last election aren’t all white supremacist, bigoted, racist Nazis any more than all those people that voted Democrat aren’t all whining, virtue signaling liberals.

Open debate is what is needed. Kicking people out of restaurants through open harassment, burning runners or boycotting businesses won’t fix a thing. Listening and debating the issues based on logical reason is the only way forward.  The only thing worth boycotting is the boycotters themselves. Sadly the lesson is unlikely to be learnt.

Naked chef faces naked stupidity

4141B676-23D0-458F-B681-14ED0BAD94F5.jpeg

CM is not a great fan of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver. He was the one threatening to leave the UK if citizens voted ‘leave the EU’ in the Brexit referendum. (Un)fortunately for most liberally minded celebrities who lay down ultimatums to their adoring fans, they ignored him and he’s still here. Hypocrisy anyone? However CM will defend him against left wing lunatics accusing him of cultural appropriation in the kitchen.

It’s probably harder to believe than making ‘punchy jerk rice’ but a UK Labour MP Dawn Butler said that Jamie Oliver must stop the cultural appropriation of Jamaica. The shadow minister for women and equalities, wrote,

I’m just wondering do you know what #Jamaican #jerk actually is? It’s not just a word you put before stuff to sell products… Your jerk rice is not OK. This appropriation from Jamaica needs to stop.

Factually we could say Jamie Oliver has culturally appropriated the Italians, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and a whole host of other nations’ with respect to their cuisine. Perhaps he should be forced to pay any monies gained from his success back to the countries he lifted these dishes from. Perhaps anyone who has bought his books should be hauled via drive thru kangaroo courts and summarily executed for brazen bigotry in the kitchen. Why not enforce state officials to monitor parents to ensure their children don’t develop a liking to culturally inappropriate dishes.

The Spectator wrote about other ridiculous events where evil whites plotted to allow people to judge for themselves whether they wanted to dine and consume their products.

Last year a burrito van in Portland was forced out of business after activists accused its two white owners of ‘stealing’ their recipes from Mexico. Soon afterwards, a list was circulated of similarly inadmissible behaviour entitled ‘(Alternatives to) White-Owned Appropriative Restaurants in Portland’. It named and shamed dozens of establishments and included suggestions of more acceptable places owned by ‘people of colour’. In February, the firm that runs the canteen at New York University sacked two white working-class men after they devised an African-American menu to celebrate Black History Month that was deemed ‘racially insensitive’ by a middle-class black student.

This politically correct nonsense needs to stop. Surely individuals can decide from themselves whether they can literally stomach a chef’s cuisine without him or her declaring white privilege before serving. Honestly how many actually care about this absurd nonsense? Probably less than 0.1% might get triggered.

Sure, one could argue that a Japanese chef adds authenticity at a sushi counter as does an Australian burning sausages on a BBQ. However when politicians think serving up such utter stupidity to constituents somehow creates value they only prove just how a lack of intelligence is completely inedible in any culture.

Given the current malaise in politics around the world is it fair to say there are more important fish to fry than accusing chefs of culinary expression.

N.B. CM would like to apologise if any kangaroos were offended by the misappropriation of their species in this article, including wallabies or any other animals identifying as kangaroos.

Senate Democrats take up the fight against the nomination of “XX”

0D16B5F7-6B08-4D1C-A333-05154911DE8B.jpeg

What planet are these people on? Without the pick having even been announced, “XX” was deemed to be sufficient enough for Senate Democrats to launch a campaign and fire up the Women’s March group to commit exactly the same mistake. Trump Derangement Syndrome has hit such epic heights that carelessness seems to be a chronic side effect. Not one person proof-read the document prior to the release? One could almost make the case that their hatred and inability to have a sane conversation about any topic such that even if a clone of Obama appointee Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated they would howl in protest. No wonder the #WalkAway movement is gaining momentum. A party that stands for such flimsy principles will fall for anything.

SC nominees have generally been selected by sitting presidents (no matter how much advice they may have received in making the choice). It is up to the Senate to confirm it. In a democracy if the yea’s beat the nay’s it is pushed ahead. Simple. Could the Democrats truly admit they favour SC justices that prioritize conservative values? Of course not. In principle, SC justices are supposed to be impartial and interpret the constitution. In practice it is not always a safe bet to say personal biases do not come out. We need only look at Sotomayor’s responses to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case to show how she was wilfully criticising the law and interpreting the way she wanted it to be rather rather than defend it for what it is. No doubt one could find evidence to suggest that conservative SCJs have shown personal leanings in the past. In any event, it is not up to the SC to change laws. That is the job of the Hill. It is up to voters to put in those politicians they believe will support their values and change laws to right what they see as wrong.

CM probably has as much read through on SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh as 99.9% of the population i.e. next to none. Yet the expert commentary is everywhere on why every congressman and woman needs to reject this nomination. So unhinged has the left become that the poor kids being stripped from mothers at the border has become seemingly yesterday’s news. If it wasn’t Kavanaugh the identical verbatim would have been spewed at any other nominee set forward. All of them must have been carbon copied. How soon the TDS switches gears from one outrage to the next. This is the type of double standard that infuriates the masses. After the SCJ appointment, what next?

If the Democrats truly have a hope of winning the mid-terms or 2020, they aren’t learning any of the lessons that led to the loss in 2016. The majority of people don’t want to be harassed, screamed at or labeled bigots and racists for holding even uncontroversial personal beliefs. The perpetual outrage is driving normal people to turn off the white noise. Maybe parents want to watch a Disney movie with their kids without having to make their way around an anti-Trump picket march much less be subjected to reviews about Dumbo being safe for kids for not containing racist elements. What on earth would possess Vice Magazine to think that it did?

Democrats alienating GOP voters is a given – after all they are deplorable. Yet for more centrist leaning Democrats, the rattlesnake snapping tail of its left must be causing consternation for a growing number of supporters about whether the party embodies any of the reasons they back it in the first place. The infighting is becoming all too self-evident.

Just think of 28-yo Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NY deposing an incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley. She turned on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her resounding  nomination win saying, “Unsurprising, but disappointing that @SenGillibrand didn’t even bother to talk to nor consider me before endorsing…You‘d think a progressive leader would at least be interested in how a no-corporate money Bronx Latina triggered the 1st NY-14 primary in 14 years on prog issues.” yet Gillibrand tweeted about Kavanaugh, “President Trump just announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to the Supreme Court. One thing’s already clear from his record: He can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.It is comical.

CM has said repeatedly til blue in the face that the best thing about a Trump win in 2016 is that it has woken people up to how much the vote counts. It doesn’t matter how racist, sexist, nationalist, disgusting or bigoted some may find him or his supporters, the reality is that decades of neglect by both parties has led to his creation. In spite of all the negative media calling into question his intelligence he is still the president and he is likely to get his SCJ picked. Doesn’t sound that incompetent? His opponent had the entire MSM on board, happily hid the fact she had the questions ahead of the debate, hijacked her own party, stole a nomination, buried evidence against her, financed a fake dossier, weaponised the FBI, had her hubby have a chance meeting on a tarmac with the AG ahead of the verdict on her emails and treated the election as a coronation and still lost. Incompetence? If it means enough to a majority of Americans they can exercise their opinions democratically.

If enough people detest his presidency they can cut him off at the knees by restricting his ability to govern at the mid terms and turf him out in 2020. They don’t need to protest on the streets or shout the average punter down. People get the issues. It is on a 24-7 news cycle. They want to vote in peace.

Ironically the Democrats only help him achieve his cause. Some say the mainstream media gave him a $5bn free media campaign in the lead up to the election. One would imagine he gets $10bn in free media every six months now – his tweets are global and when a London Mayor allows a Trump baby balloon to fly around London when POTUS visits only adds to how pathetic the grandstanding has got. A bigger reflection on the juvenile standards of the left than easily winning debates with reason, data and logic.

His defeat is a tragically simple affair – stop giving him hot air and he’ll plummet to earth. Imagine how many XXXX’s Democrats could give to the deplorables then. Sadly Trump is too good for ratings!