Bill Whittle speaks brilliantly on the concept of “unlearning” which afflicts our society. The less we say, the better. We will let Whittle speak for himself.
XYZ
This has been such a big week for wallies, that Wally of the Week, named after Everyone’s Favourite Muslim Apologist, Waleed Aly, (TM) for the first time has multiple contenders:
3) Michael Ebeid.
The evidence suggests that the SBS managing director has either made a giant stuff, up by not quashing any idea of producing a show featuring Zaky Mallah as soon as he heard about it, or he has no idea what is going on inside his own organisation. Extra points for his vitriolic denial-by-Twitter.
2) Penny Wong.
Doing nothing to disabuse the views of those Cold War isolationists who hold that middle-aged lezzos tend towards the ‘grumpy dyke’ stereotype rather than the ‘pillow-fighting snatch-shaver’ popular in mainstream media, Penny Wong did a reverse Latho on Joe Hockey outside a radio studio this week.
“I will get my Zaky Mallah show someday” … Has Mallah been reading The XYZ?
1) Zaky “my name brings ratings” Mallah
For being Zaky Mallah. Like Ebeid, he issued a denial-by-Twitter, then, perhaps after reading an article by The XYZ, he prophesied, “I will get my Zaky Mallah show someday.”
Zaky Mallah,
Take a bow.
The following article is from Andrew Bolt’s blog. It presents two pieces of footage, one in which a falsehood, or error of fact, uttered by a unionist, was corrected. The smear was that Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon “attended” a Liberal Party fundraiser, but it was pointed out that he declined the invitation. The second piece of footage shows the ABC rebroadcasting the smear, but without the correction.
Add this to the long list of examples of ABC left wing bias, and add it to the list of reasons why the ABC should be privatised.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_the_abc_rebroadcast_what_it_was_told_was_a_false_smear/
Why are Western feminists, the same ones who could work themselves up into a frenzy over a Prime Ministerial wink, and who see sexism and ‘rape culture’ everywhere they look in Europe, the US and Australia, so disinterested and silent about this real and actual culture of misogyny and abuse being perpetrated in the Middle East right now?
Here are just three accounts of the violence against women that have western feminists yawning. Read if you can bear it.
“According to their victims, the fighters, who come from societies that frown on sex before marriage, argue that the rape of non-Muslim women is justified by their religion. They habitually kneel in prayer before and after the act.”
“One girl said the man who raped her when she was 12 had claimed that the Koran gave him the right. He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before climbing on top of her. When it was over, he prayed again.”
“I kept telling him ‘it hurts – please stop’,” said the girl, interviewed by The New York Times in a refugee camp. “He told me that . . . he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me he is drawing closer to God.”
None of this has Age columnists composing hysterical pieces for Daily Life, bearing their breasts in public protest, or launching hashtag campaigns. There’s not even one of those ubiquitous, if useless, ‘awareness campaigns’ in sight.
No wonder many young women want nothing to do with the self obsessed sludge that passes for feminism in Australia, and elsewhere in the western world. Like environmentalism, and any number of the other causes around which activists typically cohere, Western feminism has been hijacked by Socialist fantasists who are interested only in politically correct victims.
Their silence both exposes and shames them.
Has the British Labour Party lost its mind, as well as its confidence, after the electoral drubbing the Tory’s handed it earlier this year? Reports over the weekend strongly suggest they are on the verge of handing leadership of the party to an ageing hippy called Jeremy Corbyn (he even still has the beard). So who will be his deputy, Russell Brand? Seriously. The Canberra press gallery were only too keen to join with their American counterparts in disparaging the candidacy of Sarah Palin in America a few a years ago, and are more than happy to go the full idiot on Donald Trump now, yet seem strangely incurious when it comes to Corbyn and his zany retrospective policies.
The Corbyn plan for Britain is for the State to once again own and operate things, such as the railways and energy. Not only is this staggeringly expensive (conservative estimates are nearing 200 billion pounds), but it will also mean a return to the sort of crap service and union run rorts we used to endure in the 1970’s and 80’s. And for good reason too – Corbyn is supported by a host of left wing unions, keen to get back to the good old days of strikes, stoppages, demarcation disputes, and unaffordable wage increases.
In addition to just about every Green Left fantasy you can think of, Corbyn has, in the past supported, and very recently in interviews declined to criticise, peace lovingly benign, if misunderstood, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA. For good reason has Corbyn been described as a left wing militant who seeks to restore socialist ideals, removed under Tony Blair’s leadership, to the centre of Labour policy.
Unsurprisingly, Blair warns that, with Corbyn as leader, Labour would be more than unelectable. Says Blair, “If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won’t be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation.”
As a shameless Tory I say ‘bring it on buddy, let the sunshine in, and give Jeremy the top job. Please’
I the first part: Political turn-coats come out of the closet over same-sex marriage I discussed the intriguing movement from hostile feminist and queer theories on marriage, and the disengagement of younger generations from the institution, to the rapid and persistent rise of the same-sex marriage movement, which seemingly coming from nowhere, has arisen to become one of the most dominant political issues of our time.
I find the movement for same-sex marriage quite an intriguing one.
What’s more, there are a number of questions that remain largely unanswered, or at least, insufficiently answered. They are:
1) Where did it come from?
And
2) What does the movement seek to achieve?
I for one am still unable to put my finger on exactly where the movement arose. It appeared to have popped up out of nowhere, in contradiction to broader social and political movements of the time. Yet, my hunch is that the same-sex marriage movement is actually linked to the previous movements which were critical of the institution of marriage and looked forward to its demise. This becomes clear with the increasingly lower rates of marriage among men and women, and same-sex couples, even when they are given the opportunity to marry.
Secondly – what does the movement seek to achieve? Well, despite all the rhetoric, it actually isn’t about marriage. Fewer couples continue to marry, and in cases where same-sex marriage has been introduce, very few same-sex couples have actually opted for it.
So if same-sex marriage is not about marriage, what is it about? I do not have a fully developed understanding of what this might be. However, the movement towards same-sex marriage, looking below the surface, continues in the tradition of the earlier feminist and queer movements to undermine the institution of marriage, and its existence as an institution independent of the state.
I have been shocked at some of the memes produced over the last few days calling for the prime minister to ‘recognise’ the love of same-sex marriage. Frankly, I couldn’t care less whether the prime minister ‘recognises’ the love between me and my wife, and most people seem to feel the same way. After all, it is none of his business.
It is strange that after sustained calls for the government to get out of people’s bedrooms, the same-sex marriage lobbiests are inviting politicians, bureaucrats and activists into the most private and intimate parts of their lives. Why?
Although I can quite put my finger on it, the questions need to be asked, and the conversation needs to continue, despite those who wish to silence any discussion and debate, slandering those with different opinions or misgivings as ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’
The jury is still out on what exactly is going on, and what the same-sex marriage movement actually seeks to achieve. This is still an ongoing conversation, regardless of those who think the matter has been settled – it has not.
Please let us know your thoughts on this topic.
It’s the XYZ.
Our ‘Quote of the Day, 15th of August, 2015:
“Male character to female – You stole my boyfriend’s sperm, now you might be pregnant with his baby” – in a scene from the forthcoming series of the Australian TV drama House Husbands currently doing the promotional rounds on channel 9.
And one wonders why Australian movie and television productions are so often such crap they could not be produced without taxpayer dollars or laws about Australian content on the small screen. The lamentable ‘House Husbands’ seeks to portray the complexities of modern families in an attempt to be edgy and relevant. It could be accused of normalising dysfunctional and morals free relationships, but as the quote above demonstrates, it is guilty of the far more serious charge of normalising stupidity.
It’s your XYZ.
SBS insiders have leaked documents to the XYZ which flip the whole scandal of a would-have-been-terrorist presenting his own show, on its head.
Though officially denied, it has been revealed that Mallah and SBS had been in advanced negotiations of the current affairs based show, with the pilot due for recording this Wednesday.
Issues arose when Mallah and the SBS team experienced unexpected editorial issues. An SBS insider revealed:
“We were plannning to focus on the Same Sex Marriage issue, then move on to allegations of a rape culture at the heart of the IS doctrine, then move across to condemning the vile sexist comments of Nick Kyrgios. We thought it was a great opportunity to show how misunderstood the Islamic community has been.
“We may have miscalculated, however, as Mallah was prepared to run with a completely different agenda, which, although we respect his multiculturality and his deeply held religious views, many on our team found to be, frankly, deeply at odds with most things we believe in and hold dear.”
XYZ understands that the unexpected conflicts led to a significant damage control exercise from both parties, although The People’s ABC is alleged to be in advanced discussions with Mallah.
Here are two of the most important articles on the web right now. The first is a summary by John Lyons, the Australian reporter who first broke the story, outlining his evidence that SBS was indeed “considering” airing a show starring convicted criminal Zaky Mallah. Although SBS Managing Director Michael Ebeid has been Tweet-denying it, it is clear that the word “considering” is accurate, despite one’s potential qualms with the initial headline.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/sbs-in-spin-over-zaky-mallah/story-e6frg996-1227484817434
And as Andrew Bolt’s headline points out, we are “funding a state media which promotes Islamism.” “Normalising the deviant and the radical Islamist. Treating the Australian nationalist as the person most in need of “educating.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/you_are_funding_a_state_media_which_promotes_islamism/
Add it to the list of state-funded media bias, and another reason to defund the ABC and SBS, both of whom are well past their use-by date.
XYZ.
Classless Guardian journalist, Van Badham, provides a glimpse into what passes for political argument among “progressives” with this piece of re-tweeted abuse. Before the usual blowhards crank up the faux outrage over Nazi allusions – the politicians so abused are Liberal ones, so that’s fine then, isn’t it luvvies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristineEwing7/status/632136888569081856
The format for the new SBS variety show hosted by Zaky Mallah, to be imaginatively called ‘The Zaky Mallah Show’, has been leaked to XYZ, and we can now reveal the running sheet for the first episode.
The show will have a community service focus, and seek to introduce Australians to a softer, gentler Zaky, who has promised management he will not wear his signature marijuana leaf cap. Zaky will take the audience through an interactive segment on ‘how to fill out your Centrelink form in Arabic,’ and provide some solid advice from his own experience on ‘how to make the ‘I’ word (Islamophobia) work for you’ in places such as shops, restaurants and when taking public transport. For this segment it is anticipated Keysar Trad will join Zaky in the studio.
It’s not all infotainment though. Keen to showcase the very best in Islamic extremism from the perspective of suburban Australia, music with culturally appropriate dance (i.e. none) will be provided by the Hizb ut-Tahrir choir, whilst the viewers poll is expected to be ‘Which female journalist would you like to see me bang on live TV?’ picking up the theme from one of Zaky’s signature tweets.
The finale is an interactive question and answer on ‘the Koran as interpreted and applied by ISIS,’ in which two young Islamic scholars will compete for the prize of a free trip, with flights and accommodation, to the southern border of Turkey. Featuring questions such as the correct length of the beard during Ramadan, and appropriate things to chant as homosexuals are thrown from the top of high buildings, the segment is sure to be a crowd pleaser, especially as the loser is ritually beheaded by the victor during the closing credits.
Zaky was said to be excited at the prospects of hosting his first show, and, when we caught up with him briefly, was wondering why the taxpayer funded Porsche van hadn’t turned up with his falafel and fries yet. SBS management refused to confirm or deny that they had outbid the ABC in securing Zaky’s services.
As the debate rages over same-sex marriage, the XYZ has been leaked sensitive documents from Labor and the Greens which reveal an alarming betrayal of their key supporter groups.
One Greens insider reflected: “We are at odds with the traditional custodians of this land, and they are really shocked to see us revealing our true colours.”
A source from within the Aboriginal community expressed his dismay that the Greens and Labor had betrayed them. “They promised us that it was our country, and our culture that was really important. And now they are imposing white imperialist notions on us. We find it racist and insulting!”
Stronger words were used from the GISM-Australia (Green Islam Movement). A fatwa was issued from a spokesman, ominously stating “The Greens have insulted the Prophet. We welcome their support in the Islamification of Australia, we could not do it without them, however their intolerance of key aspects of the Qu’ran is blasphemous, and racist. ”
Waleed Aly was unavailable for comment, while the peoples AFL is experiencing difficulties in issuing its statement on this matter with Adam Goodes.
The Weekend Australian has reported today that SBS was considering a plan to produce a television show staring convicted criminal and Islamist ‘celebrity’ Zaky Mallah.
Filming of the new show was intended to commence as early as next Wednesday, however the Federal Government is confident that production of the show will now not go ahead.
One wonders what additional evidence is needed to show that our national broadcasters are way out of touch and are not acting in the interest of the Australian public they are called to serve?
What is becoming crystal clear are the numerous occasions that the ABC and SBS are working to undermine our nation and Australian culture.
As we have said at the XYZ many times before, it is long overdue to defund the ABC and SBS, and let them compete in the market place like all other media outlets, rather than these propaganda machines having a billion dollar plus advantage over everyone else.
It’s the XYZ
The social contract theory has been the foundation of the liberal democracy since the Enlightenment. But are we contracting away too much to the State? And have we forgotten that the natural condition of the human persona is the will to freedom and self determination? How much will we willingly hand over to Nanny State, before we lose the very thing that makes us who we are?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who lived during the English Civil War and the tumultuous events that accompanied it, is generally attributed with the development of the social contract theory in the context of British philosophy – there are clear echoes of the theory, centuries earlier, in Socrates’ Crito. Hobbes had an essentially pessimistic view of human nature, and understood the natural inclination, or condition, of human beings to be inherently selfish. History, not less the present day, provides abundant evidence for this proposition! Hobbes set out his views in his (rightfully) famous work Leviathan (1651). Humans, he argues, are self interested, and motivated almost exclusively by self gain and personal happiness, by virtue of their very birth and existence – this is the natural, human condition. At the same time, however, Hobbes maintains that human beings are reasonable, having an intuitive rationality that serves to govern and modify behaviour. These two assumptions about the human condition – our inherent self centredness, and our reasonableness – produce the political theory of the social contract, for which Hobbes is best remembered today. The only way to escape the natural inclination to self gain at the expense of others, Hobbes argues, is for humans living in proximity to each other to voluntarily surrender some of their personal autonomy to the State, by contracting (or agreeing) to live under a set of common laws, for the common good, and by vesting authority to create and enforce those laws in an individual (a sovereign) or a group of individuals (a parliament) – the State. The State acts as a restraining force on the inherent selfishness of human nature – there are many things we would like to do, and which we know we would like to do, but do not and cannot do, knowing them to be illegal, and enforced by punishment. This can be as mundane as parking in a place marked no parking, to inflicting bodily harm on someone who has insulted us.
John Locke (1632-1704) further developed the social contract theory, albeit from a very different understanding of human nature. Locke maintained that the natural condition of the human being was one of personal autonomy – that each person was at complete liberty to live however he or she wishes, free of the interference of others. However this natural condition can easily dissolve into conflict, especially, in Locke’s theory, over property. Whilst every individual is, and ought to be, free to pursue happiness, this can easily degenerate into one person having dominance over another, and denying to the other personal freedom and happiness. In the natural condition, humans are vulnerable then, through the lack of a central authority, the lack of laws, and the lack of a power to enforce them. The best remedy to this, for Locke, is for humans to live together in a common-wealth, in which individuals, although autonomous, hand over some of their freedom to the State, in order for the State to make and enforce laws that foster a commonwealth for the greater good. The personal liberties handed over for this purpose should be, however, extremely limited, and as few as necessary to ensure the good order of the society together with the greatest individual freedom and happiness for all. The social contract was, further, only valid so long as the civil authority acted for the greater good of those who had contracted some limited rights to it. Locke’s emphasis on life, liberty and property profoundly influenced the development of the 1776 Declaration of Independence in America.
In the light of this potted history, a definition of the social contract theory can be ventured. It is an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state, the primary purpose of which is to make and enforce laws to ensure the greater good, this entailing the surrender of some personal liberties. The critical question now emerges. What personal liberties and freedoms must, or should, an individual surrender to the State, in order to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, and to ensure one’s own protection, and the protection of one’s own self and property, by virtue of the rule of law? In extreme forms of the social contract the answer is absolute – each person surrenders all of their personal liberties in their entirety, to the State. This results in an Orwellian, ‘Big Brother’ society. Such an existence is never attractive and requires some form of compulsion, in violation of the foundational theories of Hobbes, Locke, and also Rousseau, who followed them. For each of these three philosophers, the voluntary nature of the social contract is pivotal, and willing consent is a key component. In order to surrender the personal freedoms that are inherently mine, it is entirely necessary that I see the greater good to be gained, both personally and corporately, and willingly agree to the forfeiture of what is naturally mine. This goes to the heart of another fundamental conviction of Locke, in particular, that all human beings are born free and equal. The natural inclination has been, in civil societies constructed on these principles, for individuals within them to give, or to ‘contract’, as little as possible, the very bare minimum, of their personal liberties and freedoms (which are inherently theirs), to the State, in return for the provision of good government, the greater good, and the operation of the rule of law.
And this now brings us the situation in modern Australia. It would be easy, all too easy, to rage at the insipid intrusion of Nanny State into our lives over the past few years – from forcing us to wear helmets whilst riding a bicycle (be a good boy now and put it on will you), to airport curfews, pages of regulation around sidewalk dining and restaurant and pub opening hours, to public service advertisements telling us we are too fat, drink too much, eat too much, do not exercise enough, don’t walk our dog enough… and on, and on, it goes. That most useless and intrusive level of government, local councils, are serial pests. One council in Melbourne (unaffectionately known as the Peoples Republic of Port Philip) actually pays people to walk around smiling at passers-by, to enhance social capital and foster a sense of cohesion and happiness. Excuse me whilst I lean over and barf my guts out. Miranda Devine has described the lamentable situation beautifully at the link below, so I won’t repeat it here.
These manifestations of the Nanny State are alarming enough, but there is one thing even more so, and that is the docile, and vapid manner in which the citizens of the early 21st century have studiously surrendered, step by step and little by little, the one thing of theirs that is of most value and importance – their innate personal liberty. As Hobbes and Locke argued, although from different directions, the natural condition of the human person is one of inalienable freedom tending to self determination and the pursuit of happiness. We are born with a natural inclination to forge our own destiny and make our own choices in life, to reach for and aspire to our own goals, and fulfil our desires. We have nothing of more value to give in this pursuit than our very will to self determination. Even Karl Marx recognised this. So too does the Bible for that matter. And it is captured most eloquently in the famous second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), which is something of a synthesis of the entire Enlightenment project.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
What is happening in the 21st century is a gradual erosion of this majestic principle, and nothing less than the undoing of the Enlightenment before our very eyes. Rather than take up the ‘unalienable rights’ that are inherently theirs, the docile citizens of the Orwellian postmodernist world that is early 21st century Australia, are seemingly pleased to receive them from Nanny State like grateful cattle at feeding time. Rather than begrudgingly surrender to the State the bare minimum of our personal freedoms to ensure the good order of society and the maximum benefit for all in the commonwealth, we eat the crumbs of freedom that fall from the table of the State, dutifully accepting what the State will allow us to do and say, and then even have the stupidity to then thank Nanny State for according us worthy to feed on these dismal crumbs. Insidiously, the servants of Nanny State, and those who place the noose of political correctness around the necks offenders, together with the legions of professional offence takers in parliament, academia and the media, use the very language of freedom and self determination at will, whilst in fact denying this very freedom to any who will not baaa in unison with the rest of the sheep. Of course, the more you give, and are compelled, or shamed, or fined into giving, to Nanny State, the more Nanny State takes. Until the day comes that you find you have no personal liberty at all, or very little, beyond that which Nanny State permits.
The State does not exist to tell us how to live, where to live, who to live with, what to eat, drink, or smoke, nor to regulate the words we use. The State exists to enforce law and order, provide the essential services, and to do and enact for all, what is more expedient be done corporately rather than individually. Nothing more, nothing less. The principle outlined by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 On Liberty remains supreme. Mill saw this as a very simple matter – the State was involved only to the extent of preventing harm to others. Paternalistic interventions to save people from themselves, and to prevent people from making poor choices, are, therefore, no business of the State. To distill this into a very banal sentence that will make it very easy for Nanny State to understand –make the trains run on time, collect the rubbish, ensure the supply of electricity, and then get the hell out of our f***ing lives. Neither Hobbes nor Locke, although possibly Rousseau, would have used those words, but that’s the social contract I’m talking about.
Welcome to Australia: the world’s most over-regulated nanny state.
It’s the XYZ
Today, the “First Australians and the Traditional Custodians of the Land gave Parliament a traditional ‘bark petition’, a living document in both English and the chosen Aboriginal language of Pitjantjatjara.”
“The Aboriginal leaders and elders call for Parliament to respect the culture, heritage and teachings of the Aboriginal people, who see marriage as between a man and a woman.”
This will make things very interesting over the days to come. How will the diversity and inclusion police respond?
I can’t wait to hear what the Greens and Penny Wong have to say in response to this statement, but my hunch is that they will ignore it in line their usual patronising posture when ‘diverse’ communities say something out of line with politically correct dogma.
It’s the XYZ.
Source: The Marriage Alliance
Former Australian of the Year Adam Goodes, along with the AFL, has defended next year’s Australian of the Year Nick Kyrgios, who has been subjected to “racist” booing on-court in Canada.
The AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) found Wawrinka guilty of misconduct for inspiring racism.
Goodes explained: “Nick is a multi-cultural Australian, and for this reason his behaviour is beyond reproach. I agree whole-heartedly with the AFL that booing of Nick is racist in intent and urge everyone to support him in the face of this racist attack from that Swiss c*nt”.
Senor Kyrgios, when approached for comment, told the XYZ to go f*ck itself.
It’s The XYZ.
The XYZ has received a tip off from an anonymous source that extraordianry measures are being taken tonight to ensure compliance with the AFL’s openness and tolerance directives. Patrons are advised to take the necessary steps to ensure they fulfill their obligations toward maintaining public order and correct behaviour.
XYZ.
In a leaked document from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, XYZ has learned that Nick Kyrgios is to be named the next Australian of the Year.
Over the last few years there has been a decisive shift in the selection criteria for the top Aussie award, reflecting similar changes to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Once upon a time the Nobel prize for peace was awarded to those who had actually made a significant contribution to peace and harmony among the peoples of the world. Now, the peace prize is has become the necessary accoutrement for tyrants that the world hopes will turn good, the rich celebrity activist, or awarded to United States presidents that we hope will bring about peace and stability but actually bring about the opposite in their homeland and abroad.
In the past, the Australian of the Year award was given to exemplars of patriotic and self-sacrificial service to one’s nation, and a person with whom Australians could be united in mateship and fraternal love.
Not so since the appointment of Professor Tim Flannery and Adam Goodes. Sectarianism, community division and disharmony are now the key selection criteria for the highest Australian honour.
Runners up to Nick Kyrgios include:
