Federal, state and territory leaders have today thrown their support behind the Territory’s resolution to become a state by 2018. This is exciting news.
This announcement comes off the back of the release of the Federal Government’s White Paper on Developing Northern Australia, which sets out a “vision to unlock the great potential and opportunities of the north.”
The Northern Territory has a population of only 243,000, yet its area (1.09 million km2) is equal to the area of France, Spain and Italy combined.
There is the potential to further develop our great nation, and the opportunities in Australia’s north are both exciting and immense.
We will continue to report on how these opportunities unfold.
Watch this space!
Developing Australia’s top end
It has been great to see over the last week the drive and enthusiasm that there is to develop Australia’s top end. Australia’s north is a massive and largely untapped resource, ripe for growth and development.
Federal, state and territory leaders have today thrown their support behind the Territory’s resolution to become a state by 2018. This is exciting news.
This announcement comes off the back of the release of the Federal Government’s White Paper on Developing Northern Australia, which sets out a “vision to unlock the great potential and opportunities of the north.”
The Northern Territory has a population of only 243,000, yet its area (1.09 million km2) is equal to the area of France, Spain and Italy combined.
There is the potential to further develop our great nation, and the opportunities in Australia’s north are both exciting and immense.
We will continue to report on how these opportunities unfold.
Watch this space!
Federal, state and territory leaders have today thrown their support behind the Territory’s resolution to become a state by 2018. This is exciting news.
This announcement comes off the back of the release of the Federal Government’s White Paper on Developing Northern Australia, which sets out a “vision to unlock the great potential and opportunities of the north.”
The Northern Territory has a population of only 243,000, yet its area (1.09 million km2) is equal to the area of France, Spain and Italy combined.
There is the potential to further develop our great nation, and the opportunities in Australia’s north are both exciting and immense.
We will continue to report on how these opportunities unfold.
Watch this space!
XYZ pledges to re-open ‘ABC shops’
The ABC has announced today it plans to close its ABC shops in a step to move sales online.
The Australian newspaper reported that about 300 jobs will be lost, “amid plummeting CD and DVD sales.”
The XYZ pledges to re-open retail stores in the wake of the ABC’s announcement in order to serve the needs of Australian public.
The editors of the XYZ stated that “once the Federal Government restores the balance to Australia’s tax payer funded media, and provides the XYZ with half of the ABC’s budget, we will take steps to reopen the retail branches.”
“We will be able to return ABC (or XYZ shops) to viability with fresh ideas and innovative products.
Obviously, if a business is unviable, the market hath spoken, but at XYZ, we believe the missing ingredient in making the ABC shops successful was people in charge who actually believe in the free market.”
It’s your XYZ
hat about 300 jobs will be lost, “amid plummeting CD and DVD sales.”
The XYZ pledges to re-open retail stores in the wake of the ABC’s announcement in order to serve the needs of Australian public.
The editors of the XYZ stated that “once the Federal Government restores the balance to Australia’s tax payer funded media, and provides the XYZ with half of the ABC’s budget, we will take steps to reopen the retail branches.”
“We will be able to return ABC (or XYZ shops) to viability with fresh ideas and innovative products.
Obviously, if a business is unviable, the market hath spoken, but at XYZ, we believe the missing ingredient in making the ABC shops successful was people in charge who actually believe in the free market.”
It’s your XYZ
BREAKING: Flannery prediction verified to be true
After weeks of trawling through transcripts of former ‘alarmist of the year’, paleontologist, and all round climate good guy, Professor Tim Flannery, the hardworking research team at XYZ (actually this reporter himself really), has finally located a Flannery prediction that can be said to be 100% bona fide verified to have come to pass and ring true. Never mind all that crap about rain not falling where dams were, Sydney running out of water, and Perth being the 21st century’s first ghost town… Trawling through the transcripts, we found this piece of authenticated Flannery foretelling.
The moment came in an interview with then ABC presenter Maxine McKew, just over ten years ago. Spake Flannery, with biblical like majesty – “well, you can’t predict the future.” Yes Tim, indeed, a piece of wisdom to savour, and perhaps to take note of.
(PS – XYZ notes that the Lateline inquisitor on this occasion, Ms McKew, who conducted the interview somewhat like a devotee before a statue of Buddha, went on to become a successful, and then spectacularly unsuccessful and somewhat embittered, Labor party MP… not that ABC presenters are biased or anything).
ke Flannery, with biblical like majesty – “well, you can’t predict the future.” Yes Tim, indeed, a piece of wisdom to savour, and perhaps to take note of.
(PS – XYZ notes that the Lateline inquisitor on this occasion, Ms McKew, who conducted the interview somewhat like a devotee before a statue of Buddha, went on to become a successful, and then spectacularly unsuccessful and somewhat embittered, Labor party MP… not that ABC presenters are biased or anything).
Australian left goes feral: Refuses to accept blood on its hands
Bill Shorten sparked outrage last night among Labor and Green true believers, by not just affirming Labor’s support for the Coalition policy of boat turn-backs, but acknowledging the moral case, indeed the superior moral case of the policy, in that it saves lives.
From the transcript of Shorten’s interview on the ABC’s 7:30 Report last night:
“Labor wants to defeat the people smugglers and we want to prevent drownings at sea. Therefore one of the options which we believe has to be on the table, if we’re given the privilege of forming government, has to be the option to turn back boats. It’s not easy, though, because it involves the admission, I think, that mistakes were made when Labor was last in government,”
These words echo those of Labor’s immigration spokesman Richard Marles, earlier in the week:
“Despite best intentions, a terrible loss of life took place on Labor’s watch. We did not get it right then but we are very clear now about making sure we don’t repeat those mistakes.”
The XYZ would like to make 3 things crystal clear:
1) This is exactly the case the XYZ has been making in its first two months. On June 16, 2015, we wrote:
“When the ALP won power in 2007, the number of refugees held in detention could be counted on one hand, and none of them were children. Under the Howard Government, Australia had had the highest immigration and refugee intake it had ever had.
The measures which were taken to achieve this result were harsh, and caused suffering, but they provided a strong enough deterrent to prevent more suffering from occurring had it not been done. Nothing short of these measures could have achieved this.
The removal of Howard’s Border Protection regime by Labor, strongly supported by the Greens, directly caused the death of over 1000 people who drowned trying to come here in unseaworthy boats.
Australia’s refugee and immigration quotas had to be reduced in order to cope with the 50,000 refugees who arrived here illegally in Labor’s two terms. Now that the Liberal Party has restored order to the immigration program, (again at great cost, sometimes fatal, to the unfortunate refugees involved,) Australia will once again be able to help more people.”
2) Naturally, many on the left refuse to accept this moral case, accusing Shorten of chasing the racist, redneck vote. On June 24 we made the case that progressives simply don’t get that it is possible for strong border protection to a) work, and b) not be motivated by racism:
“When conservatives highlight the need for orderly immigration to maintain broad support for its size and scope, “progressives” seize on this as code for; “We know you are afraid of black and brown people, so we will make sure fewer of them have the chance to come here.” It is as though the broad desire to keep the intake of new people in to this country orderly, could not possibly be a genuine, reasonable view.”
3) It is for this reason Labor cannot be trusted to maintain a strong border policy. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton rightly tweeted that “Labor giving themselves the ‘option’ to turn back boats is what they promise at every election.” And again, the XYZ made the case:
“There is.. an important distinction between when a conservative and a progressive talk tough on these issues. Conservatives strongly believe in the sanctity of national sovereignty, and they understand the dilemmas involved in making tough decisions and imposing unquestionably harsh rules in order to save lives. Progressives, on the other hand, give the impression that they are mouthing things they don’t really believe in, but they know they must say in order to remain viable. This is why they think we are being racist- because deep down, they are cynical toward the idea of strong borders, of the nation itself.”
Left wing Australians went feral last night. They went feral because they don’t understand that strong border protection works, saves lives, and helps more people. But most important of all, they went feral because they cannot handle the acknowledgement that policies which they supported cost the lives of 1,200 people, and that the collective left in this country has blood on its hands.
“Labor wants to defeat the people smugglers and we want to prevent drownings at sea. Therefore one of the options which we believe has to be on the table, if we’re given the privilege of forming government, has to be the option to turn back boats. It’s not easy, though, because it involves the admission, I think, that mistakes were made when Labor was last in government,”
These words echo those of Labor’s immigration spokesman Richard Marles, earlier in the week:
“Despite best intentions, a terrible loss of life took place on Labor’s watch. We did not get it right then but we are very clear now about making sure we don’t repeat those mistakes.”
The XYZ would like to make 3 things crystal clear:
1) This is exactly the case the XYZ has been making in its first two months. On June 16, 2015, we wrote:
“When the ALP won power in 2007, the number of refugees held in detention could be counted on one hand, and none of them were children. Under the Howard Government, Australia had had the highest immigration and refugee intake it had ever had.
The measures which were taken to achieve this result were harsh, and caused suffering, but they provided a strong enough deterrent to prevent more suffering from occurring had it not been done. Nothing short of these measures could have achieved this.
The removal of Howard’s Border Protection regime by Labor, strongly supported by the Greens, directly caused the death of over 1000 people who drowned trying to come here in unseaworthy boats.
Australia’s refugee and immigration quotas had to be reduced in order to cope with the 50,000 refugees who arrived here illegally in Labor’s two terms. Now that the Liberal Party has restored order to the immigration program, (again at great cost, sometimes fatal, to the unfortunate refugees involved,) Australia will once again be able to help more people.”
2) Naturally, many on the left refuse to accept this moral case, accusing Shorten of chasing the racist, redneck vote. On June 24 we made the case that progressives simply don’t get that it is possible for strong border protection to a) work, and b) not be motivated by racism:
“When conservatives highlight the need for orderly immigration to maintain broad support for its size and scope, “progressives” seize on this as code for; “We know you are afraid of black and brown people, so we will make sure fewer of them have the chance to come here.” It is as though the broad desire to keep the intake of new people in to this country orderly, could not possibly be a genuine, reasonable view.”
3) It is for this reason Labor cannot be trusted to maintain a strong border policy. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton rightly tweeted that “Labor giving themselves the ‘option’ to turn back boats is what they promise at every election.” And again, the XYZ made the case:
“There is.. an important distinction between when a conservative and a progressive talk tough on these issues. Conservatives strongly believe in the sanctity of national sovereignty, and they understand the dilemmas involved in making tough decisions and imposing unquestionably harsh rules in order to save lives. Progressives, on the other hand, give the impression that they are mouthing things they don’t really believe in, but they know they must say in order to remain viable. This is why they think we are being racist- because deep down, they are cynical toward the idea of strong borders, of the nation itself.”
Left wing Australians went feral last night. They went feral because they don’t understand that strong border protection works, saves lives, and helps more people. But most important of all, they went feral because they cannot handle the acknowledgement that policies which they supported cost the lives of 1,200 people, and that the collective left in this country has blood on its hands. Leftist media ‘independent’?
I had a chuckle when I stumbled across the Age newspaper’s website this morning.
Emblazoned with pride under the Age banner is this:
“Independent. Always.”
Independent from what? Free thinking, perhaps? Independent from corporate interests? Independent from the ”progressive” zeitgeist? Independent from chardonnay socialist moralizing?
The friends of the ABC also make use of this “independent” claim, and again I ask, ‘independent’ from what? Taxpayer funding, left wing bias?
These of course are rhetorical questions. The Age and the ABC’s claim of independence are simply a posture, and an imagined one at that. They are no more ‘independent’ than any other media outlet. And they should stop pretending that they are. Nevertheless, allow me to translate what these organisations mean by independence:
“Severely constrained thinking that conforms to the progressive zeitgeist, and smugly calls anyone who doesn’t: A ‘bigot’ and in dire need of their awareness to be raised.”
Looks like I’ll be spending quite a long time in ‘re-education camp.’
Independent from what? Free thinking, perhaps? Independent from corporate interests? Independent from the ”progressive” zeitgeist? Independent from chardonnay socialist moralizing?
The friends of the ABC also make use of this “independent” claim, and again I ask, ‘independent’ from what? Taxpayer funding, left wing bias?
These of course are rhetorical questions. The Age and the ABC’s claim of independence are simply a posture, and an imagined one at that. They are no more ‘independent’ than any other media outlet. And they should stop pretending that they are. Nevertheless, allow me to translate what these organisations mean by independence:
“Severely constrained thinking that conforms to the progressive zeitgeist, and smugly calls anyone who doesn’t: A ‘bigot’ and in dire need of their awareness to be raised.”
Looks like I’ll be spending quite a long time in ‘re-education camp.’ How I learned to stop worrying and love petrol
I found this a very interesting article.
It discusses the environmental benefits petrol has brought to the world and to humanity, and how it has contributed enormously to improving human health and our standard of living.
Among these benefits are the removal of the starvation period at the end of every spring; the removal of huge piles of horse manure, and the associated stench and disease, from large cities; the concentration of crop farming onto the best soil on the planet; and the subsequent reforestation, return to nature, or less intense farming, of vast swathes of dangerously overused land.
When one considers what is the point of industrialisation, exponentially powerful technology, and scientific breakthroughs, much of it comes down to the rather mundane task of growing, transporting, storing and eating food. The Industrial Revolution has benefitted humanity because it made it easier to keep humans alive. It has benefitted humanity, and the planet, by allowing the planet to support more humans utilising less land.
When we consider the next frontier for humanity – space – the endpoint of all the efforts going into researching, developing, creating and applying new technology; and the vision, resourcefulness and bravery of of the people who will travel into space in order to tame it; will likewise be the rather mundane task of keeping humans alive in an environment away from earth, whether it be on another planet, or the ships used to get us there.
My favourite moment in this article is the following observation:
“To most of us, the notion that we can have our cake and eat it too is mind-boggling. Yet, in many respects, this is what petroleum products in general and modern transportation technologies in particular have actually delivered.”
We have been conditioned to balk at the site of heavy industry and concrete jungles, but keep in mind that every aspect of this is designed to make our lives better. If it doesn’t make our lives better, a free market will ensure that it either fails, or finds a way to improve so that it does make our lives better.
In the words of “the Doc,” if you put your mind to it, you can achieve anything.
WA Government plans to teach Islam
It was reported yesterday that the Western Australian Government is “planning an extensive campaign to improve the community’s understanding of Islam and Muslims.”
Western Australia’s minister for Multicultural Interests, Dr Mike Nahan, described WA as a successful multicultural community, but more needs to be done to reduce the tension.
Dr Nahan stated that “Islam is a peace-loving religion, a major part of our multicultural society, and we need to encourage and understand, and have the community understand that.”
I think WA’s plans to improve the public understanding of Islam is an excellent initiative, and perhaps the good minister could kick off the program by informing himself about the teachings of Islam?
For instance, that Islam’s understanding of ‘peace’ is most likely radically different to his own; that Islamic teaching encourages various forms of deception towards non-Islamic communities, notably, the technique know as ‘taqiyya’. Perhaps the minister should also study the leading schools of Islamic jurisprudence that demand that girl’s genitals be mutilated.
The good minister could do with also acquainting himself with the life and teaching of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed: A man who ordered the slaughter of hundreds and married a 6 year old girl.
As state schools begin to move away from traditional ‘religious education’ towards ‘comparative religion’, a comparison between the life and teachings of Mohammed and Jesus of Nazareth could be quite educative.
So all in all, I absolutely agree with Dr Nahan. Australia needs to learn more about Islam. Much more.
I think WA’s plans to improve the public understanding of Islam is an excellent initiative, and perhaps the good minister could kick off the program by informing himself about the teachings of Islam?
For instance, that Islam’s understanding of ‘peace’ is most likely radically different to his own; that Islamic teaching encourages various forms of deception towards non-Islamic communities, notably, the technique know as ‘taqiyya’. Perhaps the minister should also study the leading schools of Islamic jurisprudence that demand that girl’s genitals be mutilated.
The good minister could do with also acquainting himself with the life and teaching of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed: A man who ordered the slaughter of hundreds and married a 6 year old girl.
As state schools begin to move away from traditional ‘religious education’ towards ‘comparative religion’, a comparison between the life and teachings of Mohammed and Jesus of Nazareth could be quite educative.
So all in all, I absolutely agree with Dr Nahan. Australia needs to learn more about Islam. Much more.
Read if you are “ableist” to..
The vocabulary police were flourishing over the weekend over at the Age, with the frequently delusional Ruby Hamad on the job. Off the playlist in Ruby’s car were the otherwise “progressive” Elvis Costello, John and Yoko, Bruce Springsteen, and even Madonna. The latter’s socially unacceptable crime was to sing the outrageously offensive line “Crazy for you.”
Ms Hamad is generous enough to recognise a degree of social and historical context, and, in news that will be a great relief to the artists concerned, does not believe either of the four offenders are “bad people.” Messrs Costello and Springsteen, together with the ghost of the late Mr Lennon, will, no doubt, be grateful, however, that the strongest condemnation is reserved for the blatantly “ableist” language shamelessly employed by Madonna in her 80’s hit “***** for You.”
A distressed Ms Hamad wrote: “Out of all the songs on this list, this is the only one that features a problematic word that is still widely and flippantly used. I confess, when it comes to dropping unconscious ableist language from my everyday vocabulary, it is this (along with ‘insane’) that I most struggle with.”
XYZ has very high editorial standards and would never stoop to using an “ableist” term in a gratuitously offensive way, but we strongly suspect most punters out there will find the very delicate Ms Hamad, in a word, “crazy.”
http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-culture/four-classic-pop-songs-with-problematic-lyrics-20150715-gicsih.html
Ms Hamad is generous enough to recognise a degree of social and historical context, and, in news that will be a great relief to the artists concerned, does not believe either of the four offenders are “bad people.” Messrs Costello and Springsteen, together with the ghost of the late Mr Lennon, will, no doubt, be grateful, however, that the strongest condemnation is reserved for the blatantly “ableist” language shamelessly employed by Madonna in her 80’s hit “***** for You.”
A distressed Ms Hamad wrote: “Out of all the songs on this list, this is the only one that features a problematic word that is still widely and flippantly used. I confess, when it comes to dropping unconscious ableist language from my everyday vocabulary, it is this (along with ‘insane’) that I most struggle with.”
XYZ has very high editorial standards and would never stoop to using an “ableist” term in a gratuitously offensive way, but we strongly suspect most punters out there will find the very delicate Ms Hamad, in a word, “crazy.”
http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-culture/four-classic-pop-songs-with-problematic-lyrics-20150715-gicsih.html Sarah ‘Sea Patrol’ outrage over asylum seeker boat
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson Young was today reportedly outraged that she had been denied a prime tweeting opportunity by the Federal Government’s callous refusal to confirm or deny the existence of an asylum seeker boat off the coast of Western Australia.
After traveling all the way to the Mediterranean in search of a suitable opportunity to live tweet a high seas incident involving asylum seekers, the Sea Patrol enthusiast was left a distressed and forlorn figure on home soil, with fully charged iphone in hand.
Source: The Australian
Iran: nuclear deal – still hates America and will support terrorists
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran stated in a televised speech on the weekend that the historic nuclear deal reached last week will not change Iran’s policy towards the United States. Iran’s leader has pledged to maintain the nation’s anti-American policies. “Our policy against the arrogant U.S. government will not change”, Mr Khamernei said.
Furthermore, the Ayatollah stated that Iran would still support its allies in the Middle East including the terrorist group Hezbollah, “Palestinian resistance groups [read: terrorists groups such as Hamas] and the Syrian government. Dialogue with Washington, may however continue on other issues “if the US carried out its obligations under the deal in good faith.”
These statements made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stand in stark contrast to the gushing praise President Barack Obama has had over recent days for the nuclear deal and the Iranian regime, a regime which still regards the United States as a sworn enemy.
President Obama’s foreign policy seems to consist of simply imagining that enemies are no longer enemies, and that by imagining this is so, it will come true. This was his strategy with Cuba, whereby he was quick to brush away any concerns, stating that we are beyond the petty tensions and disagreements of the past.
Raul Castro wasn’t quite so optimistic, and made it clear that all was not ‘peachy’, and that America would still have to accept Cuban communism.
Evidently, President Obama doesn’t seem to feel the need to be ‘on the same page’ when he talks with his diplomatic counterparts, because he can simply imagine that enemies don’t exist and people do not hate America and the West.
And hasn’t the world become a much safer place since President Obama was elected in 2008?
The world has indeed become a much safer place, if you simply imagine that it is so.
Photo by Desmond Kavanagh 
es. “Our policy against the arrogant U.S. government will not change”, Mr Khamernei said.
Furthermore, the Ayatollah stated that Iran would still support its allies in the Middle East including the terrorist group Hezbollah, “Palestinian resistance groups [read: terrorists groups such as Hamas] and the Syrian government. Dialogue with Washington, may however continue on other issues “if the US carried out its obligations under the deal in good faith.”
These statements made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stand in stark contrast to the gushing praise President Barack Obama has had over recent days for the nuclear deal and the Iranian regime, a regime which still regards the United States as a sworn enemy.
President Obama’s foreign policy seems to consist of simply imagining that enemies are no longer enemies, and that by imagining this is so, it will come true. This was his strategy with Cuba, whereby he was quick to brush away any concerns, stating that we are beyond the petty tensions and disagreements of the past.
Raul Castro wasn’t quite so optimistic, and made it clear that all was not ‘peachy’, and that America would still have to accept Cuban communism.
Evidently, President Obama doesn’t seem to feel the need to be ‘on the same page’ when he talks with his diplomatic counterparts, because he can simply imagine that enemies don’t exist and people do not hate America and the West.
And hasn’t the world become a much safer place since President Obama was elected in 2008?
The world has indeed become a much safer place, if you simply imagine that it is so.
Photo by Desmond Kavanagh XYZ Viewer Poll: What crazy $&!? will Q&A pull tonight?
After flirting with Islamic State sympathiser Zaky Mallah, and then resorting to giving air time to a pre-pubescent child, readers are invited to nominate who will provide the ‘gotcha’ moment on tonight’s Q&A. Or, in the absence of a present day (as opposed to long retired) Coalition politician being actually present for said gotcha moment, who might be enlisted by the ABC producers to say how ‘scared’ the Prime Minister makes them, and how dreadfully difficult it is to live in the Australia of the early 21st Century, not knowing when, or with what savagery, the budget of their ABC might be arbitarily cut…
Never mind world hunger, the conflict in Palestine, or the ebola virus, we’re taking about cuts to their ABC!
But we digress. Who will provide tonight’s moment to remember – apart from the grammar and logic challenged Jacqui Lambie, who will surely have some wonderful moments to shine, even if no one present, or watching, has any idea what the $#&% she is talking about? Will it be:
(a) Uthman Badar, on why honour killings are not so much of a danger at all, really,
(b) The unborn foetus of Kim Kardashian, too scared to enter a world in which Tony Abbot is PM,
(c) Lord Voldemort – he’s back, and prepared to be on next week’s panel… so long as there are no muggles in the audience,
(d) Lawrence Krauss, because the ABC are only too keen to get him, as long as he wants to slag off at the Christian and Jewish (only) faiths,
(e) Dr Anne Aly, who sees something “nice” about ISIS, but can’t find much at all to say that would be “nice” about Mr Abbott.
Your pick!
Never mind world hunger, the conflict in Palestine, or the ebola virus, we’re taking about cuts to their ABC!
But we digress. Who will provide tonight’s moment to remember – apart from the grammar and logic challenged Jacqui Lambie, who will surely have some wonderful moments to shine, even if no one present, or watching, has any idea what the $#&% she is talking about? Will it be:
(a) Uthman Badar, on why honour killings are not so much of a danger at all, really,
(b) The unborn foetus of Kim Kardashian, too scared to enter a world in which Tony Abbot is PM,
(c) Lord Voldemort – he’s back, and prepared to be on next week’s panel… so long as there are no muggles in the audience,
(d) Lawrence Krauss, because the ABC are only too keen to get him, as long as he wants to slag off at the Christian and Jewish (only) faiths,
(e) Dr Anne Aly, who sees something “nice” about ISIS, but can’t find much at all to say that would be “nice” about Mr Abbott.
Your pick! Why sportspeople are heroes
Sportspeople have had a bad run, lately. Aussie surfer Mick Fanning’s close call with a shark last night is just one of a number of close shaves or actual tragedies to afflict our sporting representatives in recent times. A great deal of concern was directed toward Aussie cricket opener Chris Rogers, who retired hurt after experiencing dizzy spells while batting at Lords last night, suffering the delayed effects of a blow to the head in the the first innings. Given the tragic death of his teammate Phillip Hughes last year from a similar blow, it was understood that they could not be too cautious. Aussie wicketkeeper Brad Haddin had a close call with a family member this week. Footballers Nick Riewoldt and Tom Hawkins lost one of theirs, while one old coach has contracted a terminal illness, and another was murdered by his own son. And this is just a preliminary list.
If any positives can be brought out of these recent or near tragedies, it is that the way in which the sporting community, and the general public at large, has supported these people and their families in times of great distress has been remarkable. A lot of attention, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly, is given to sporting stars when they fail to meet the very high expectations we set for them. But their humanity, and the humanity of the normally fiercely parochial sporting public, has shone through with flying colours this year.
It is a good time to reflect on the position of sports stars in our society. I for one don’t think they are overpaid. They have relatively short careers, during which they do terrible damage to their bodies, and they give up the opportunity to have a normal private life. The fact that they receive such high salaries and high glory are a reflection of simple economics – they are brilliant at something which a lot of people will happily pay money to watch, and a reflection of human nature – we are drawn to attractive, charismatic characters who excel at dramatic or difficult acts.
These factors need little elaboration in explaining why their falls from grace can often be spectacular – strong egos, brilliant people, great success coming at an early age, leading to rash decisions. Plus, it sells newspapers. I think they also help explain why the Left is more prone to detracting the achievements of sporting heroes, whether it be to beat up stories of sexual misdemeanour, (and tragically detracting from real acts of sexual and physical violence,) or to undermine the whole concept of sport as a whole – it fits the pattern of a suspicion of competition and competitive natures, jealousy of successful and talented people, and the complete inability to comprehend the fact, and the almost instinctual desire to negate it, that nature distributes ability, and thus success, unevenly.
The one argument against holding up our sports stars too highly which I struggle to conclusively deny, is the argument that the real heroes, the doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, firefighters, cares, soldiers, are not given the respect, adulation, or financial reward they deserve. This is a vey good point, and frankly, I agree. To the extent that this argument can be countered, it comes down to this:
Sporting heroes, and, I do not use the term “hero” lightly, are an example of the best the human race has to offer. They risk life and limb for their profession, but this does not make them heroes. They are role models, however imperfect, to our youth, but this does not make them heroes. What is admirable about a sporting hero is the ability to make the correct decision, at a moment’s notice, under great physical and mental stress, and carry it out successfully.
Sports heroes have character. They display it in spades.
Let me give one example. Much was made of Michael Clarke’s bravery last year in a Test Match in South Africa, when he batted on against one of the fiercest bowling attacks in world cricket, to score a century and help win the match. But it wasn’t the fact that he played on, through injury, at risk of further, long term injury, that makes him brave; that makes him a hero. He knows what he is getting himself into when he plays the sport, and at the end of the day, cricket is not a life or death thing. What singles this act out as heroic was the context in which it was performed. Australia had just won a series, at home, against the English, after several years of disastrous and embarrassing failures. No-one would have thought less of the Australians if they had folded to the world class South Africans. But Clarke understood that everything he had worked so hard to build was at stake in that match, that if he didn’t make a stand right there and then, it could all be lost and Australian cricket could sink to the doldrums again.
So he put his body and his being on the line for an idea.
This is what makes Michael Clarke a hero, brave, and an example to us all. The character he displayed, and continues to display, is an example of the good, of the greatness, that humans can achieve when they are prepared undertake great risk, in order to achieve great reward.
Let me give one example. Much was made of Michael Clarke’s bravery last year in a Test Match in South Africa, when he batted on against one of the fiercest bowling attacks in world cricket, to score a century and help win the match. But it wasn’t the fact that he played on, through injury, at risk of further, long term injury, that makes him brave; that makes him a hero. He knows what he is getting himself into when he plays the sport, and at the end of the day, cricket is not a life or death thing. What singles this act out as heroic was the context in which it was performed. Australia had just won a series, at home, against the English, after several years of disastrous and embarrassing failures. No-one would have thought less of the Australians if they had folded to the world class South Africans. But Clarke understood that everything he had worked so hard to build was at stake in that match, that if he didn’t make a stand right there and then, it could all be lost and Australian cricket could sink to the doldrums again.
So he put his body and his being on the line for an idea.
This is what makes Michael Clarke a hero, brave, and an example to us all. The character he displayed, and continues to display, is an example of the good, of the greatness, that humans can achieve when they are prepared undertake great risk, in order to achieve great reward. Gender Bender at Australian Universities
Boethius was schooled in the primitive 1980’s when university students actually attended lectures, as opposed to listening to them online mid afternoon after breakfasting, and when books were things you held in your hand and could write in, rather than words on a screen; so it would be fair to think of him as a rather old fashioned type. Old fashioned enough, in fact, to want to tick the box marked ‘male’ when prompted for his gender on a form of some description, and old fashioned enough to expect only two categories to feature on said form, male and female. Old fashioned enough also to be astounded that, in order to complete the simple question asking for one’s gender, students at university these days are presented with a form resembling the Senate ballot paper at the last federal election.
As the Australian reported on the weekend: “What’s the deal with kids these days?” with 58 gender categories to choose from, sexual and gender identity are part of the Zeitgeist. Ask Josh Han, the queer officer with Sydney University’s Student Representative Council. “It’s about deconstructing societal views of what it means to be a man or a woman,” he says. “If you only have two genders, there are limited interactions. But if you have a diversity of gender identities you don’t have these closed categories. It means you can have way more than 58 gender categories. Among those 58 options, first listed on Facebook, are bigender, gender questioning, gender variant, pangender, intersex and 26 versions of trans, transgender and transsexual. Plain old male and female didn’t make the list.”
This was seriously astonishing news to Boethius, as was the existence of a “Queer Officer” on campus. Presumably there is also an Intersex Officer, a Gender Curious Officer, a Pangender Officer, and so on. The Pangender Officer would have his / her / its / their / them work cut out, for, as Boethius subsequently learned, ‘Pangender’ identifying people are pronoun shy, and easily offended. It must be excessively awkward, too, for lecturers these days. How is a well meaning, progressive, and left leaning academic type, earnestly wanting to do and say the right thing (and not have his or her arse sued off) to know into which of the 58 (or more) gender categories a questioner in his / her / it (or insert preferred pronoun here) class falls? Moreover, how does one know which name the person of unknown and unspecified gender might prefer be used in class at that time, and at that precise moment in their development as a person of undetermined gender, subject as they insidiously are, to the oppressive force of social stereotyping that, cruelly and shamelessly, labels those born with a penis a ‘boy’ and those born with a vagina ‘girl’?
The Australian finds another earnest student type to offer this piece of wisdom, on names: “Kyol Blakeney, the president of Sydney University’s SRC, says these are important issues. A lot of people who transition have a chosen name that is different to their legal name. If they go to class and their legal name is called out it can be horrifying for them.”
Horrifying indeed. The damage inflicted on fragile minds, who have lived in the world long enough to make it all the way to university, by the malicious use of the name inflicted on them by callous parents at birth is a perverse thing indeed. So names are out, as are pronouns, and there is definitely no resorting to unenlightened and infantile insults like stereotyping people as ‘male’ or ‘female’ in the classrooms of today. God knows what happens when the very practical, and natural matter of toileting arises… but let’s not go there today. Boethius is beginning to marvel at how anyone can actually be enrolled in a course of study at Sydney University these days, let alone visit a campus crapper. The graduation ceremony must be a real blast too – Boethius could just picture the festivities – bearded man with plentiful chest hair steps forward and strolls excitedly across stage in high heels to collect a degree in cultural studies awarded to ‘Amanda’ as the assembled hall of students break into a frenzied show of jazz hands.
As they say in the classics (actually ‘Dirty Harry’), ‘that’s one crazy f…ed up world.’
Photo by TGlamorpuss Photo
sly astonishing news to Boethius, as was the existence of a “Queer Officer” on campus. Presumably there is also an Intersex Officer, a Gender Curious Officer, a Pangender Officer, and so on. The Pangender Officer would have his / her / its / their / them work cut out, for, as Boethius subsequently learned, ‘Pangender’ identifying people are pronoun shy, and easily offended. It must be excessively awkward, too, for lecturers these days. How is a well meaning, progressive, and left leaning academic type, earnestly wanting to do and say the right thing (and not have his or her arse sued off) to know into which of the 58 (or more) gender categories a questioner in his / her / it (or insert preferred pronoun here) class falls? Moreover, how does one know which name the person of unknown and unspecified gender might prefer be used in class at that time, and at that precise moment in their development as a person of undetermined gender, subject as they insidiously are, to the oppressive force of social stereotyping that, cruelly and shamelessly, labels those born with a penis a ‘boy’ and those born with a vagina ‘girl’?
The Australian finds another earnest student type to offer this piece of wisdom, on names: “Kyol Blakeney, the president of Sydney University’s SRC, says these are important issues. A lot of people who transition have a chosen name that is different to their legal name. If they go to class and their legal name is called out it can be horrifying for them.”
Horrifying indeed. The damage inflicted on fragile minds, who have lived in the world long enough to make it all the way to university, by the malicious use of the name inflicted on them by callous parents at birth is a perverse thing indeed. So names are out, as are pronouns, and there is definitely no resorting to unenlightened and infantile insults like stereotyping people as ‘male’ or ‘female’ in the classrooms of today. God knows what happens when the very practical, and natural matter of toileting arises… but let’s not go there today. Boethius is beginning to marvel at how anyone can actually be enrolled in a course of study at Sydney University these days, let alone visit a campus crapper. The graduation ceremony must be a real blast too – Boethius could just picture the festivities – bearded man with plentiful chest hair steps forward and strolls excitedly across stage in high heels to collect a degree in cultural studies awarded to ‘Amanda’ as the assembled hall of students break into a frenzied show of jazz hands.
As they say in the classics (actually ‘Dirty Harry’), ‘that’s one crazy f…ed up world.’
Photo by TGlamorpuss Photo Who is the bigot?
Whilst the ABC, The Age / SMH, and The Guardian, were obsessing over some comments by obscure Catholics in relation to traditional concepts of marriage (i.e. that marriage generally involves people of the opposite gender), the real bigots and haters were on their way to Sydney.
Strangely, the calls to ban this particular preacher, so as to ensure no one’s feelings were hurt, seem to have been missed among all the outrage over the true atrocity that was the Speaker’s five grand trip to Geelong. Curiously too, the story seems about as popular on the ABC as a pork sausage at an Eid meal.
Happily XYZ, with access to taxpayer funds about $1.1billion short of those provided annually to our news shy rivals over at the ABC, are on to the story!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/islamic-preacher-wael-ibrahim-has-compared-same-sex-marriage-with-marrying-a-reptile-or-a-stray-dog/story-fni0cx12-1227440483600
It’s your XYZ.
Strangely, the calls to ban this particular preacher, so as to ensure no one’s feelings were hurt, seem to have been missed among all the outrage over the true atrocity that was the Speaker’s five grand trip to Geelong. Curiously too, the story seems about as popular on the ABC as a pork sausage at an Eid meal.
Happily XYZ, with access to taxpayer funds about $1.1billion short of those provided annually to our news shy rivals over at the ABC, are on to the story!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/islamic-preacher-wael-ibrahim-has-compared-same-sex-marriage-with-marrying-a-reptile-or-a-stray-dog/story-fni0cx12-1227440483600
It’s your XYZ. ABC – “What’s the Enlightenment?”
BREAKING NEWS: Government MP George Christensen appeals to obscure eighteenth century movement known as “the Enlightenment” in supporting his appearance today at a Reclaim Australia rally in Queensland.
The renegade MP, whom opposition leader Bill Shorten had accused of “stirring up trouble,” and others insisted should be banned from appearing at the rally, further appealed to obscure concepts such as “freedom of speech” and “freedom of assembly” during the course of his speech, and resorted to quoting a hitherto unknown French philosopher known as Monsieur Voltaire, in a move that had reporters present from the Guardian and ABC frantically resorting to Wikipedia.
“What’s next?” an anonymous ABC source asked, off the record, “the Magna Carta?” Viewer Poll: What do you find “nice” about ISIS.
Dr Anne Aly, the go to academic on matters of global terrorism for the Fairfax press and the ABC, said at a counter terrorism conference during the week (we’re not making this up, really) – “And I think we have to get our heads round the fact that there might be something nice about ISIS that these people are attracted to.” In the spirit of Dr Aly’s wish, we present tonight’s reader poll:
Notwithstanding that it’s quite hard to get one’s head around a concept if it is separated from your shoulders by a blade wielding fanatic, what do you find “nice” about ISIS?
1) That they have brought back public executions in a big way?
2) Their very pragmatic approach to social cohesion – do as we say or die?
3) Their contribution to fashion, in making the entirely black burqa the must have item of clothing on the streets of Raqqah?
Over to you.
It’s your XYZ.
Notwithstanding that it’s quite hard to get one’s head around a concept if it is separated from your shoulders by a blade wielding fanatic, what do you find “nice” about ISIS?
1) That they have brought back public executions in a big way?
2) Their very pragmatic approach to social cohesion – do as we say or die?
3) Their contribution to fashion, in making the entirely black burqa the must have item of clothing on the streets of Raqqah?
Over to you.
It’s your XYZ. Rhetoric and reality
Yesterday’s Reclaim Australia rally exposed the disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from particular political groups, and the reality of their actions.
The ‘high moral ground’ the progressive left claims for itself, and their so called ‘anti-racist’ acolytes, showed the disconnect between their rhetoric and their violent behavior as they attempted to storm the police line and barricades at yesterdays ‘Reclaim’ rally.
These groups claim a monopoly on compassion, generosity, and anti-violence, yet show in reality, they represent everything but.
While there has always been a gulf between the ideals we hold and aspire to, and the reality of life and human frailty, something seems to be different with the contemporary left. Post-modern relativism has enshrined this gulf, so that now, what is regarded as compassion is not generous and loving service given by oneself, but deeming that someone else’s resources should be used to fund welfare or a preferred political cause.
Whilst the disparity between rhetoric and reality shown by the reclaim counter protests yesterday is so visible ‘blind Freddy’ could see it, we wait to see whether the Reclaim movement matches rhetoric with reality. Whilst groups such as ‘Reclaim’ and the United Patriots Front state that they affirm democratic freedoms and multi-racial society, how they respond to fascist and other unsavory elements remains to be seen – however I was pleased to see yesterday that UPF members told in no uncertain terms, a rather infamous neo-nazi who had been at a previous protest, and appeared emblazoned in the media , that he was not welcomed at the protest. Of course, replacing one tyranny (leftism) with another (fascism) is not the solution to our current social and political problems.
Reclaim and others must continue to show that their rhetoric matches reality, and to affirm that they represent the concerns of Australians, and not something else which their opponents, the left is so adept at doing.
It’s your XYZ
These groups claim a monopoly on compassion, generosity, and anti-violence, yet show in reality, they represent everything but.
While there has always been a gulf between the ideals we hold and aspire to, and the reality of life and human frailty, something seems to be different with the contemporary left. Post-modern relativism has enshrined this gulf, so that now, what is regarded as compassion is not generous and loving service given by oneself, but deeming that someone else’s resources should be used to fund welfare or a preferred political cause.
Whilst the disparity between rhetoric and reality shown by the reclaim counter protests yesterday is so visible ‘blind Freddy’ could see it, we wait to see whether the Reclaim movement matches rhetoric with reality. Whilst groups such as ‘Reclaim’ and the United Patriots Front state that they affirm democratic freedoms and multi-racial society, how they respond to fascist and other unsavory elements remains to be seen – however I was pleased to see yesterday that UPF members told in no uncertain terms, a rather infamous neo-nazi who had been at a previous protest, and appeared emblazoned in the media , that he was not welcomed at the protest. Of course, replacing one tyranny (leftism) with another (fascism) is not the solution to our current social and political problems.
Reclaim and others must continue to show that their rhetoric matches reality, and to affirm that they represent the concerns of Australians, and not something else which their opponents, the left is so adept at doing.
It’s your XYZ
The ABC And the Great Bronnie Chopper Ride Saga
Let’s get one thing clear straight away – the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter outrage is worthy of widespread condemnation, and represents a blatant misuse of taxpayers money. Good then, I think we’re all agreed on that. What Madam Speaker was thinking, hiring the gold plated version of fast aerial transport for a short trip along the M1, is a mystery to me. Perhaps the good lady just wanted to get in and out of Geelong rather quickly, and without risking the ordeal of parking her Commonwealth issue car on the streets of Corio. Perhaps she just couldn’t bear the prospect of driving all the way there along a multi-lane freeway at 80 kmp/h in obedience to Nanny State’s road laws. Whatever.
One could dwell also, in this connection, on Wayne Swan’s flippant use of taxpayers money to get to and from sporting events during his time as Treasurer, but Swanny was never much one for watching the dollars, everything fiscal he touched seemed to end up blowing the arse out of the bottom line – so there’s not much fun to be had there, especially when Swanny reminds you, as his rather forlorn looking presence does each time the camera pans the green benches during Question Time, that his stint as ‘the world’s greatest Treasurer’ left the nation with generation gap defying debt. Some have made reference to the methods of transportation favoured by another speaker of fond recent memory, the oyster fancying Peter Slipper, but there is a dearth of ALP types wanting to remember with any great fondness the many times they lined up with Comrade Gillard in defence of Speaker Slipper.
So Bronnie got slammed, and there was no one, not even someone in a blue tie, willing to say she hadn’t made a mistake, done the wrong thing, behaved a little stupidly, and all of that. By Sunday, only the ABC was continuing to show excessive interest in the whole affair, compiling lengthy reports on its (lavishly taxpayer funded) news boards, with detailed side by side timeline comparisons of the Slipper case vs the Bronnie case. This was so, even though, in the big scheme of things, $5,000 of taxpayers is not really a huge amount in the multimedia Disney World that is the ABC – it would be hard pressed to fund just a few words of the opening sentence of an episode of Media Watch at the rate presenter Paul Barry is reportedly paid to produce fifteen minutes of television a week.
But I digress… the ABC has a penchant for becoming obsessed with particular issues that, somehow, always seem to have potential to cause maximum embarrassment to the conservative side of politics.
Exhibit A – when the Coalition won the last election, promising to stop the boats, the ABC suddenly became excessively interested in the arrival of asylum seeker boats, creating a whole website (and no doubt enlisting an army of eager interns) to keep the score of boat arrivals, despite having ceased reporting on the matter at all under the previous regime (in fact, we have some sympathy for the ABC here, the way the previous government had completely lost control of the borders, one would need a whole second 24 hour news service to keep up with the rate of illegal arrivals, were one to report on them all).
When the boats actually did stop under the new government, however, the ABC was left with an empty website, with no need for the expensive computer generated icons, or its expensive and cleverly designed software, and with nothing to fling in the government’s face. God knows how much of the taxpayers moolah was squandered on that attempt at a political gotcha. And talking of gotcha politics, I wonder what it costs per episode to produce Q&A? More than a few helicopter trips to and from Geelong I expect. In fact, if you had the annual Q&A budget to burn on anything you wanted, I expect you could pretty much buy the helicopter itself, and take as many trips in it as you like.
So let’s all be sufficiently outraged at Bronnie’s misuse of choppers – I know I am, if I was going to blow five grand on a trip somewhere it would not be to Geelong. But if the ABC really wants to start going blue in the face over what constitutes a waste of taxpayers money and demand the spending stop, then my generous advice to it, with the longsuffering taxpayers of Australia in mind, would be – bugger the five grand ride in a chopper, sell the bloody chopper!
d there was no one, not even someone in a blue tie, willing to say she hadn’t made a mistake, done the wrong thing, behaved a little stupidly, and all of that. By Sunday, only the ABC was continuing to show excessive interest in the whole affair, compiling lengthy reports on its (lavishly taxpayer funded) news boards, with detailed side by side timeline comparisons of the Slipper case vs the Bronnie case. This was so, even though, in the big scheme of things, $5,000 of taxpayers is not really a huge amount in the multimedia Disney World that is the ABC – it would be hard pressed to fund just a few words of the opening sentence of an episode of Media Watch at the rate presenter Paul Barry is reportedly paid to produce fifteen minutes of television a week.
But I digress… the ABC has a penchant for becoming obsessed with particular issues that, somehow, always seem to have potential to cause maximum embarrassment to the conservative side of politics.
Exhibit A – when the Coalition won the last election, promising to stop the boats, the ABC suddenly became excessively interested in the arrival of asylum seeker boats, creating a whole website (and no doubt enlisting an army of eager interns) to keep the score of boat arrivals, despite having ceased reporting on the matter at all under the previous regime (in fact, we have some sympathy for the ABC here, the way the previous government had completely lost control of the borders, one would need a whole second 24 hour news service to keep up with the rate of illegal arrivals, were one to report on them all).
When the boats actually did stop under the new government, however, the ABC was left with an empty website, with no need for the expensive computer generated icons, or its expensive and cleverly designed software, and with nothing to fling in the government’s face. God knows how much of the taxpayers moolah was squandered on that attempt at a political gotcha. And talking of gotcha politics, I wonder what it costs per episode to produce Q&A? More than a few helicopter trips to and from Geelong I expect. In fact, if you had the annual Q&A budget to burn on anything you wanted, I expect you could pretty much buy the helicopter itself, and take as many trips in it as you like.
So let’s all be sufficiently outraged at Bronnie’s misuse of choppers – I know I am, if I was going to blow five grand on a trip somewhere it would not be to Geelong. But if the ABC really wants to start going blue in the face over what constitutes a waste of taxpayers money and demand the spending stop, then my generous advice to it, with the longsuffering taxpayers of Australia in mind, would be – bugger the five grand ride in a chopper, sell the bloody chopper! The Left’s Urge to Purge
Why is this story from Breitbart important?
It is a fair call to describe the growing momentum to purge America of any Confederate symbols as hysteria. The argument that the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism in America holds some merit. The argument that it is inappropriate for this flag to represent a State government, or to be flown at government buildings in America, also holds some merit. But it can be argued that the Confederate flag has taken on an identity distinct from its slaveholding roots, associated with a spirit of larrikinism and a distinct, gruff Southern identity. The attempt to taint other symbols with this brush, and the argument that these symbols are inappropriate full-stop, and must be purged completely from both public and private life, crosses the line between acknowledging and taking responsibility for injustices of the past, and deliberately erasing a people’s culture under the pretext of tolerance.
The (Nazi) Swastika is rightly censored, given its direct connection to an explicitly racist and genocidal ideology. It is curious why the Communist Hammer & Sickle, given its association with the worst mass murderers of the 20th Century, even worse than those of the Nazis, is not rightly taboo, too. One might also ask why the ideology which has led to the enslavement of more people in human history, Islam, is not taking more responsibility for its own violent history. So there exists a confusing double standard as to which symbols of hate, slavery and mass murder are within the bounds of reasonable society, and those which are not.
Since the Charleston massacre in June, the purging of a number of historically important figures and symbols has been flagged. In Memphis, Tennessee, the city council has voted to exhume the body of Confederate General, and one time KKK leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the body of his wife, to be moved from a public memorial to a private graveyard, and to move a statue of him as well. The Fleur-de-Lis, the state symbol of Louisiana, has been the subject of a “it should be confined to a museum” discussion, given that it was used to brand runaway slaves in the 1700’s, even though it has an entirely different meaning nowadays. While it must be stressed that these stories are still unfolding, what is clear is that the urge to purge America of any symbol considered “racist,” no matter how tenuous the link, exists, and is building momentum.
This is important because there is a growing mindset amongst the coastal progressive elites, (no let’s face it, it has existed for decades,) that the Americans of ‘flyover country’ are backward, racist, white rubes, who are stupid and have no culture. This mindset revealed itself in the subtext of President Obama’s comments about “bitter” Americans who “cling to guns and religion.” Scarily, it is now being said brazenly, most notably recently by several celebrities who openly declared that they “hate America,” and “hate fat white Americans.”
What these recent outbursts suggest is that progressives are feeling empowered to speak openly about what has until now, been only a bigoted undercurrent amongst progressives toward mainstream America. When taken in the context of the steadily growing urge to purge, one has to ask an important question:
Where do you draw the line between having a frank and open discussion about crimes committed in the past, lingering symbols of those crimes, and how to effectively take responsibility for those crimes; and systematically purging the history and culture of a people? If the approach being taken now toward symbols of the Confederacy had been taken immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the result would have been another civil war. It was recognised that despite the bitter, catastrophic fighting, the war had been a dispute between friends, and a heartfelt desire for reconciliation was expressed. No more, it would seem.
This mindset is being reflected in Australia. What was once an undercurrent is now a steadily growing movement which holds a ‘black-arm-band’ view of history. In the US, Thanksgiving and Independence Day celebrations are being described as racist. This year on Australia Day, ABC and SBS news bulletins went so far as to announce that “both sides of the debate” were presented in events around Australia.
There is a big difference between recognising the dispossession of a people, taking responsibility for it, but accepting the incredible achievements in creating one of the freest and richest nations in history; and decrying the moment of its founding as “Invasion Day.” This goes beyond the bounds of a frank and open discussion in order to heal the soul of a nation. It reveals the true intention of such arguments- an intense cultural attack, designed to destroy the identity of a country, and the people who inhabit it.
Dinesh D’Souza discusses the idea that it is easy to dispossess a people of all they have once you have convinced them that everything they have, they have at the expense of the dispossession of another people. Even more serious, one should consider arguments surrounding the concept of “Cultural Genocide“:
“Cultural genocide extends beyond attacks upon the physical and/or biological elements of a group and seeks to eliminate its wider institutions. This is done in a variety of ways, and often includes the abolition of a group’s language, restrictions upon its traditional practices and ways, the destruction of religious institutions and objects, the persecution of clergy members, and attacks on academics and intellectuals. Elements of cultural genocide are manifested when artistic, literary, and cultural activities are restricted or outlawed and when national treasures, libraries, archives, museums, artifacts, and art galleries are destroyed or confiscated.”
If symbols such as the Confederate flag are to be removed from public life, it is absolutely essential that a sense of proportion, relevance, and extreme caution, is maintained at all times.
The (Nazi) Swastika is rightly censored, given its direct connection to an explicitly racist and genocidal ideology. It is curious why the Communist Hammer & Sickle, given its association with the worst mass murderers of the 20th Century, even worse than those of the Nazis, is not rightly taboo, too. One might also ask why the ideology which has led to the enslavement of more people in human history, Islam, is not taking more responsibility for its own violent history. So there exists a confusing double standard as to which symbols of hate, slavery and mass murder are within the bounds of reasonable society, and those which are not.
Since the Charleston massacre in June, the purging of a number of historically important figures and symbols has been flagged. In Memphis, Tennessee, the city council has voted to exhume the body of Confederate General, and one time KKK leader, Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the body of his wife, to be moved from a public memorial to a private graveyard, and to move a statue of him as well. The Fleur-de-Lis, the state symbol of Louisiana, has been the subject of a “it should be confined to a museum” discussion, given that it was used to brand runaway slaves in the 1700’s, even though it has an entirely different meaning nowadays. While it must be stressed that these stories are still unfolding, what is clear is that the urge to purge America of any symbol considered “racist,” no matter how tenuous the link, exists, and is building momentum.
This is important because there is a growing mindset amongst the coastal progressive elites, (no let’s face it, it has existed for decades,) that the Americans of ‘flyover country’ are backward, racist, white rubes, who are stupid and have no culture. This mindset revealed itself in the subtext of President Obama’s comments about “bitter” Americans who “cling to guns and religion.” Scarily, it is now being said brazenly, most notably recently by several celebrities who openly declared that they “hate America,” and “hate fat white Americans.”
What these recent outbursts suggest is that progressives are feeling empowered to speak openly about what has until now, been only a bigoted undercurrent amongst progressives toward mainstream America. When taken in the context of the steadily growing urge to purge, one has to ask an important question:
Where do you draw the line between having a frank and open discussion about crimes committed in the past, lingering symbols of those crimes, and how to effectively take responsibility for those crimes; and systematically purging the history and culture of a people? If the approach being taken now toward symbols of the Confederacy had been taken immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the result would have been another civil war. It was recognised that despite the bitter, catastrophic fighting, the war had been a dispute between friends, and a heartfelt desire for reconciliation was expressed. No more, it would seem.
This mindset is being reflected in Australia. What was once an undercurrent is now a steadily growing movement which holds a ‘black-arm-band’ view of history. In the US, Thanksgiving and Independence Day celebrations are being described as racist. This year on Australia Day, ABC and SBS news bulletins went so far as to announce that “both sides of the debate” were presented in events around Australia.
There is a big difference between recognising the dispossession of a people, taking responsibility for it, but accepting the incredible achievements in creating one of the freest and richest nations in history; and decrying the moment of its founding as “Invasion Day.” This goes beyond the bounds of a frank and open discussion in order to heal the soul of a nation. It reveals the true intention of such arguments- an intense cultural attack, designed to destroy the identity of a country, and the people who inhabit it.
Dinesh D’Souza discusses the idea that it is easy to dispossess a people of all they have once you have convinced them that everything they have, they have at the expense of the dispossession of another people. Even more serious, one should consider arguments surrounding the concept of “Cultural Genocide“:
“Cultural genocide extends beyond attacks upon the physical and/or biological elements of a group and seeks to eliminate its wider institutions. This is done in a variety of ways, and often includes the abolition of a group’s language, restrictions upon its traditional practices and ways, the destruction of religious institutions and objects, the persecution of clergy members, and attacks on academics and intellectuals. Elements of cultural genocide are manifested when artistic, literary, and cultural activities are restricted or outlawed and when national treasures, libraries, archives, museums, artifacts, and art galleries are destroyed or confiscated.”
If symbols such as the Confederate flag are to be removed from public life, it is absolutely essential that a sense of proportion, relevance, and extreme caution, is maintained at all times. Amateur photographers converge on Melbourne’s CBD for no apparent reason!