Monday, August 15, 2022

Delayed gratification is just not my style, and that’s OK

The story below is one womnan's story of how generalized her inability to delay gratification is. I found much the same in my research. I found that there is a consisent tendency to delay or not delay gratification. It is not a wholly consisent tendency. Some alleged indices of delay of gratification do not correlate with others so we have to be careful which index we use if we want to show a consistent tendency. But the consistent tendency does exist.

Parenthetically, I must say I share the lady's difficulties with toast

I was standing in my kitchen impatiently waiting for my toast to pop up. It had been in there for hours, and I was hungry.

“It’s been less than a minute!” my partner said. “Be patient!”

I was not patient. I hovered irritably for another few seconds before pushing the button and retrieving my toast.

“Wow,” my partner said. “You really are a one-marshmallow person.”

“Marshmallow shmarshmallow,” I told him, smothering my warm bread in butter and Vegemite and cramming it into my mouth.

Still, I knew what he meant. In 1972, psychologists at Stanford University gave groups of four-year-olds the choice of eating one marshmallow now, or two marshmallows later, to test their ability to delay gratification. I was not included in the study, but if I had been, I’d definitely have eaten the one marshmallow straight away. I am genetically incapable of waiting for anything. Two marshmallows might be better than one, but waiting for a marshmallow is far worse.

I know that being able to delay gratification is an important life skill, but it is a skill I have never mastered. Whenever I want anything, whether it is a marshmallow or an answer, it feels exceptionally urgent. I’m unsettled and agitated until the marshmallow is in my mouth, or the question answered.

The upside is that I get my needs met pretty quickly. The downside is that I make rushed decisions, and frequently annoy other people.

“Couldn’t this have waited until morning?” Mum will ask tiredly when I call her late at night to ask a pressing question. And yes, I probably could have waited until morning to ask whether my old bedspread is still in storage, or what her plans are for the holidays, but then I would have been thinking about it all night. It is so much easier to just get it done now.

“Why didn’t you wait for your appointment?” my hairdresser will ask, shaking her head as she contemplates my uneven fringe. I wanted to wait, I really did, but my hair was too long, and the scissors were in my bathroom, and a week felt like an eternity.

I am genetically incapable of waiting for anything. Two marshmallows might be better than one, but waiting for a marshmallow is far worse.

I am fascinated and awed by people who calmly wait for marshmallows. My elder daughter, for example, will realise she needs a new pair of shoes, and not buy them for weeks, or even months. She will think, “No biggie, I’ll get them later,” and park the desire in the back of her mind.

This is sensible and mature but it is not how my brain functions. My brain thinks, “I need a new pair of shoes.” Within minutes I am online, browsing through catalogues until I find a pair that will suffice. Often, I realise down the track that I would have found a better pair had I taken my time, but that is the price I must pay to eat my marshmallow now.

I have tried over the years to learn to delay gratification, with very minimal success. I once put a jumper on lay-by, way back in the days when Buy Now Pay Later was several inventions away. I paid a deposit, arranged to pay the jumper off in instalments, and left that beautiful jumper in the store.

It did not go well. I thought about the jumper all the way home, and in bed that night as I tried to sleep. I thought of how soft it was, how it would complement my jeans, how much I longed to wear it. The next day, I returned to the store, paid off the lay-by and never attempted that exercise again.

The Stanford marshmallow study found kids who could delay gratification grew into smarter, more competent adults than those who could not. (I know this because I skipped to the conclusion.)

Follow-up studies have questioned these claims and I’d like to add there are advantages to being a one-marshmallow person, which the Stanford team failed to note. For one thing, I’m extremely punctual. Whether I am meeting a friend for lunch, going to a movie or catching a flight, I will be there on time, if not early. I simply can’t wait a second longer than necessary.

For another, I never agonise over decisions. I like having issues resolved quickly, so if there are several options I’ll just pick one that looks okay and stick with that. I won’t spend hours debating which sofa to buy, or which holiday destination to visit, or which movie to watch. I’d rather have one good-enough option sorted now than a better option further down the track.

“A marshmallow in the hand is worth two in the bush!” I tell my partner.

He shakes his head. “You know that’s not actually true? Two marshmallows in the hand are worth twice as much!”

But I am not listening. I am too busy eating the froth off my cappuccino. It’s my favourite part! I always have it first.


According to Science, This Woman Has The World’s Most Beautiful Face

She may not be attractive in your opinion, given everything you know about her now. But in the eyes of science and new study reports, she has the world’s most beautiful face.

Why does she have the world’s most beautiful face?
The woman’s facial features are near-flawless, based on scientific standards. Researchers discovered years ago that people love symmetry and find it sexy.

“I would claim that symmetry represents order, and we crave order in this strange universe we find ourselves in. The search for symmetry, and the emotional pleasure we derive when we find it, must help us make sense of the world around us, just as we find satisfaction in the repetition of the seasons and the reliability of friendships. Symmetry is also economy. Symmetry is simplicity. Symmetry is elegance.” — physicist Alan Lightman in The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew.

A British cosmetic surgeon, Dr. Julian De Silva, did the most beautiful face study using images. He assessed the woman’s face with digital-mapping technology.

Her face was close to perfect with 91.85% symmetry. The research got done in 2016 using the Greek Golden Ratio of Beauty of 1.618. The technology measured the distance between her chin, nose, eyes, and lips. It then assessed her entire face to produce a score of 92%. Who is the woman?

It’s Amber Heard


Casual Sex = Failure

Sex, after consent, is rarely an act of emotion. It’s almost mechanical. It’s depressing for women. After casual sex the man can just walk away. The woman is left wondering, confused, lonely and unsure what such automated sex means, if anything. She expected more.

INSTITUTIONAL BRAINWASHING: Over multiple generations, young people are raised to believe sex is sinful.

Eventually men and women got sick of it. They wanted freedom at about the same time the pill became available.

Covid let up and people went sex crazed. There’s lots of sex in the 2020s but much of it is bad sex. Bad sex for men is, “oh well.” Bad sex for women is really bad. Aside from disappointment, wondering if I’m good enough, there can easily be real physical pain.

EMOTIONAL QUOTIENT: Lots of men still have trouble expressing emotions, let alone understand that women want an exchange of emotions.

THE CLOCK: Women are more invested in having a committed relationship than men. Many women want to have a family. Lots of men don’t. Women may consent to bad sex just in case he might be a keeper. When he reveals he’s not, that hurts.

IF ONLY MEN KNEW THIS. It isn’t taught anywhere. He may as well be from another planet.

Women have a brief time span to find a decent, loving man for a committed relationship. Many evaluate men not only as a loving man for her but a potential good father. They nurture the relationship toward those ends. That can be not fun for women at all.


Since the US and its churches don’t believe in sex ed, we have a population learning about sex from porn, free and on their phones. We stumble into marriage in spite of a 50% divorce rate. This whole scenario is out of control.


MARK LATHAM fears for Australia's future as entitled young sooks claim they've been BULLIED when told how to do their job:

Something strange is happening in Australian workplaces - even here in the NSW Parliament on Macquarie Street.

It is now classified as 'bullying' to tell an employee their work is not up to scratch and they need to improve. It is now regarded as 'harassment' for a boss to lose their temper and blow up in reaction to staff incompetence.

It is now so touchy-feely that no staff meetings can be held before 10am, when everyone has completed their 'carer responsibilities' for the morning.

The younger generation has responded to these entitlements with a 'you can't talk to me like that' view of their employer.

Consultants are everywhere conducting workplace reviews that encourage and enable staff to be snowflakes, perpetually offended, upset and complaining.

In the NSW Parliament, the recent Workplace Review has cost a small fortune in taxpayers' money, even though, in establishing the process, no specific problems were identified in our building.

Emails were sent to staff in our One Nation office but none saw the need to participate in the consultant's review.

Ironically, one received so many emails he felt bullied to participate.

I thought the review was a waste of money with an entirely predictable pre-scripted outcome, so I never agreed to be interviewed. I'm interested in solving real problems in NSW, not ones invented by Snowflake Lefties.

Every MP should be responsible for their own office and staff – that is why we elected them. Instead, the new trend is to establish special Complaints Officers (as they now have in Macquarie Street) to add to the culture of complaint and dobbing.

The Parliamentary Workplace Review is being released on Friday, and undoubtedly it will make findings of a 'toxic culture' and recommend that everyone go on training courses (run by other consultants at further taxpayer expense).

I don't see it myself.

Before getting into parliament, I worked as a staffer for two fairly volatile politicians: Bob Carr and Gough Whitlam.

Gough would explode like a volcano, his body shaking, his teeth grinding with anger. But a few minutes later he would come around to my desk and say, 'What are you working on now, comrade?' and give me a friendly hug.

I took this to be his way of letting off steam. Busy people in public life who work hard, come under pressure and expect perfection in their work standards, are likely to go off when things go wrong.

I never thought for a moment Whitlam was disrespecting or harassing me. A mature, sensible worker would immediately know that.

Ultimately, taking offence is a choice, and I chose never to be offended. I recommend this for the younger Snowflake Generation: to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.

Most of all, I worry that the woke 'respect at work' agenda is diminishing our standards and performance as a nation.

If incompetent staff are allowed to survive without anyone being allowed to point out their failings, then many more businesses are going to go broke, many more governments are going to mess up public policy and many more public agencies are going to be out-of-touch and incapable of meeting community needs.




Sunday, August 14, 2022

Yellowstone? It’s the conservative syndrome, stupid

Frank Furedi below rightly points to the pervasive view among our Leftist elite that conservatives are psychologically defective. Research alleging to prove that has been going on since 1950 and I spent 20 years critiquing it, from 1970 to 1990.

Basically all the research concerned bent over backwards to prove its point and I was routinely able to show the big holes in it. If you know your psychometrics, the faults in such research are often glaring. Let me give an example by making a few comments about the Canadian article Furedi highlights -- called “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact”,

It purports to tell us about political conservatism. But it doesn't. I quote from the body of the article itself:

"socially conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority"

Respect for authority is conservative? The way the Left swallow "expert" pronouncements about global warming, the wonderfulness of homosexuality and the importance of transgenderism, I would have thought that respect for authority is a hallmark of the Left. You either conform to Leftist shibboleths these days or get "cancelled". No deviation from the party line is allowed: A very authoritarian system. And was Communism conservative? It was certainly very authoritarian.

And in any case respect for authority is an overgeneralization. There is basically no such thing. Different people respect different authorities at different times. A prime example is SCOTUS. For many years conservatives condemned it becauseof its rulings on homosexual marriage, abortion etc. Now the worm has turned and it is the Left who are furiously condemning SCOTUS and trying to undermine it. There is no doubt that SCOTUS is a major authority but that has nothing to do with respect for it. Respect for it is entirely due to whether its rulings favour the political Right or the political Left.

And the lack of coherence between attitudes that allegedly express attiutude to authority is borne out in the research in question. We read

"scale reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68".

That means nothing to the layman but to a psychometrician it means that the items in the questionnaire showed little correlation with one-another. It shows, in fact, that the questionaire was not suitable for the use it was applied to. A research instrument is normally held to have a minimal reliability of .75. Reliabilities in the .60 range show the scale to be suitable only as the preliminary form of a research insrument, not to be used until further refined

I knew what I would find before I looked up the article. I immediately went to the details of the measures used and knew that I would find junk. It's a common feature of such articles. So the article proves nothing about conservatives or anybody else. The journal editors were very indulgent to publish it, but no doubt they liked its conclusions

As far as Hollywood, Netflix and the American cultural establishment are concerned there is little point in taking conservatives seriously. They are seen and represented as basically hillbillies and rednecks who feed on a diet of kitsch and trashy reality shows. That is why the don’t know what to make of Yellowstone – one of the most watched cable series in the US.

Even the most bitter critic of conservative values cannot dismiss Yellowstone as trash. TV Guide refers to it as “prestige TV for conservatives” before adding that “prestige TV is for liberals”. TV Guide’s commentator correctly notes that “in the genre of conservative prestige drama, Yellowstone is almost alone”. That’s because Hollywood patronises conservatives to the point it seriously believes that conservatives lack the taste and artistic sensibility to appreciate prestige drama.

In the main, cultural critics have responded to Yellowstone by not responding to it. Since they are not interested in engaging with people who are not like them, they have ignored a program watched by tens of millions. Writing in Vanity Fair, one commentator wrote “Here’s to Yellowstone, the Most-Watched Show Everyone Isn’t Talking About”. The few critics that have bothered to review it can barely hide the contempt for a modern Western that extols traditional virtues and avoids the woke cliches much loved by Hollywood.

Writer Kathryn VanArendonk was seething with anger when she described the show as “a desperate and threatened appeal to American identity and white masculinity”. She acknowledges that she feels anger towards John Dutton, the main character in the show played by Kevin Costner, since he is “so blind to his privilege”.

That Yellowstone has become caught up in America’s culture war was acknowledged by The New York Times this week. One of its commentators, Tressie McMillan Cotton, noted “while liberal audiences mostly ignore it, this soapy conservative prestige television juggernaut is gobbling up audience share”. In an attempt to account for the culturally polarised reception to this show, she drew on academic expertise. As one expects, her expert, Clayton Rawlings, asserted that conservatives are narrow-minded people with limited cultural interests. He added that in contrast to liberals, “conservative audiences do not consider reading, watching or listening around a mark of status or identity”. Evidently prestige television is not for them.

Tragically, McMillan Cotton, like America’s cultural oligarchy, cannot maintain a distinction between art and politics. She treats Yellowstone as if it is a political advert for the Republican Party. She warns that the “show shares a problem with Republican Party electoral politics: Neither offers a compelling vision of the future”. Almost imperceptibly, the fictional characters in a television drama are denounced for their lack of political vision. From her perspective the conservative folk who inhabit Yellowstone are just as bad as the ones that vote Republican. “They buy guns and hoard stolen power” is her concluding remark.

The cultural establishment that dominates the media landscape in the Anglo-American world actually believes conservatives are both aesthetically and morally inferior to people like them. In their fantasy world, the people not like them are in search of simplistic black-and-white answers. In private conversation they refer to people who watch Yellowstone as rednecks, Nascar dads, tabloid readers, who are likely to be crass, materialistic simplistic, sexist, racist and homophobic.

That is why Hollywood, Netflix and the television media tend to portray conservatives as unpleasant and not very nice people. Like Mr Garrison in South Park, they are not only small-minded and racist but are psychologically messed up. In typical conservative fashion, he refuses to acknowledge his emotional and psychological issues. Like many other fictional conservative characters, Mr Garrison is in denial.

Homer Simpson is a blue-collar conservative. Therefore, the producers of The Simpsons felt obliged to portray him as a bumbling and insensitive husband and father, who over the years has turned into a self-aggrandising fool. Fortunately, Homer’s psychological deficits are compensated for by his daughter, Lisa, who because she is very liberal must be portrayed as sensitive and emotionally literate.

The media is particularly unkind to conservative women. The abusive mother Adora Crellin in miniseries Sharp Objects is one of the most repulsive characters you are likely to encounter on your screen. She is cast in the role of a small-town, Southern conservative woman, whose Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome has led her to poison and kill daughter Marian.

But it is Sue Sylvester in Glee who more than anyone else offers an over-the-top caricature of a right-wing conservative woman. Her authoritarian personality coexists with a profound sense of personal insecurity and unrestrained narcissism. She exudes malice. That she calls for the abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts, one of the left’s favourite federal arts agency, signals that her politics are not only wrong but also sick.

As far as media culture is concerned, conservatives possess unattractive psychological characteristics. Typically, conservatives are portrayed as mediocre and undistinguished characters who possess outdated and often, repulsive sentiments. Predictably, woke media culture can draw on academic experts, particularly psychologists, to reinforce its anti-conservative prejudice.

If the numerous research papers recently published in psychology journals are to be believed, conservatives are sexually repressed, lacking in empathy and intensely conformist.

The invention of the unimaginative, humourless and intellectually challenged conservative originates from the 19th century. At the time, JS Mill, the 19th-century liberal philosopher, described the Conservative party as “the stupid party”.

He took great delight when he went a step further and stated that his attribution of intellectual inferiority was not merely directed at the party but also at people who possessed a conservative outlook. When criticised for his remark, Mill replied that “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative”.

In recent decades, Mill’s verdict about the inferiority of conservatives has been recast in the language of psychology. Numerous so-called studies have published research purporting to prove the intellectual inferiority of conservative people. An example of this form of tendentious research is the study published by two Canadian academics a decade ago. Titled “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact”, it suggests that stupid simpletons go on to become prejudiced right-wingers.

Some psychologists claim their research shows that socially conservative people feel more insecure than liberal. Others have discovered that liberals are far better at reorganising their thoughts in flexible ways than conservatives. Advocacy research claims to have discovered that “religious conservatives make poorer moral decisions than liberals”.

Some psychological studies have concluded liberals and conservatives differ in cognitive style. As you would expect, liberal cognitive styles are far more attractive than those of their conservative peers. “Liberals are more flexible, and tolerant of complexity and novelty, whereas conservatives are more rigid, are more resistant to change, and prefer clear answers,” argues one paper. Liberals also possess greater “neurocognitive sensitivity” to cues than their far more rigid conservative counterparts.

The representation of conservatives as less intelligent than their left-wing counterparts is frequently communicated by “research” on the so-called conservative syndrome. The flattering hypothesis of this syndrome is that conservatism and low cognitive ability are directly correlated.

A commentator in progressive magazine Mother Jones wrote in 2014, that “10 years ago, it was wildly controversial to talk about psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Today, it’s becoming hard not to”. As it happens Hollywood has been talking about this for a very long time. Through its alliance with advocacy research, it has succeeded in constructing a stereotype that deprives conservatives of any redeeming features. That is why it has to either ignore or lay into Yellowstone.


UK: Rishi Sunak blasts 'political correctness' among authorities who are 'scared of calling out' Asian child sex gangs as he promises new life sentence for groomers

Rishi Sunak has said that 'political correctness' is standing in the way of tackling child sex grooming gangs.

The former chancellor blasted authorities who are 'scared of calling out the fact that there's a particular group of people who are perpetuating these crimes'.

If he wins the Tory leadership contest, Mr Sunak vowed to force police to record the ethnicity of those involved and promised new life sentence for groomers.

An inquiry revealed that police failed to tackle widespread abuse by south Asian men in Telford for fear of looking 'politically incorrect'.

In an interview with GB News, the prime ministerial hopeful said: 'I have two young girls who are nine and 11, and I think for too long we just haven't focused on this issue.

'It's a horrific crime. It's far more pervasive across the country than actually we all realise.

'We all know the reason that people don't focus on it. It's because of political correctness and they're scared of calling out the fact that there's a particular group of people who are perpetuating these crimes, and I think that's wrong, and I want to change that as prime minister.'

He added: 'I want to make sure that all police forces record the ethnicity of those involved, which currently is not done because people don't want to do that.

'I want to create a brand new life sentence for those involved in grooming with very limited options for parole because I'm not going to let political correctness stand in the way of tackling this absolutely horrific crime.'


Woke Airline Policies Threaten Safety, Workers Say
Hiring practices driven by diversity are 'a recipe for disaster'

Southwest Airlines Co. is basking in accolades for its “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) efforts, award-winning customer service, and record-breaking quarterly revenues.

Behind the scenes of that rosy picture, heartaches are afflicting Southwest, called “the airline with Heart” because of its heart-shaped logo and a corporate culture steeped in “The Golden Rule,” treating others the same way they’d like to be treated.

But eight current Southwest employees, including three minorities, told The Epoch Times that “woke, leftist” DEI policies, as implemented, have tarnished the cherished Golden Rule principle, fractured a once-cohesive workforce, and, ultimately, may put safety at risk.

Faced with pandemic-related staffing shortages and pressure to add minorities, the company has changed the way it hires, trains, and disciplines workers—mostly to benefit less-qualified new hires representing the diversity rainbow, the employees say.

One Southwest flight attendant, a Hispanic female, said: “They are compromising safety for the sake of race, gender identity, and sexual preference … They’re risking people’s lives because of agendas.”

Southwest, one of America’s largest air carriers, didn’t respond to messages seeking comment.

Similar issues have spread industry-wide, according to 10 airline employees who agreed to be interviewed. Four are pilots and six are flight attendants; most have 20 or more years of experience. All of them, including two American Airlines pilots, spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs.

While no one thinks the policies are causing an imminent threat of a plane falling out of the sky tomorrow, all of the interviewees agreed that each time a standard is lowered, or a less-qualified employee is hired, the risk that something can go horribly wrong inches forward a notch or two. In an industry that depends on a near-miracle integration of people, machinery, and computers, even a few deviations can culminate in catastrophe.

Still, some employees worry about what could happen if current trends continue to stress out and distract safety professionals. Said one flight attendant: “It’s a recipe for disaster. I just hope I’m not at work when it happens.”

Us-Versus-Them Mentality

While promoting diversity sounds like a great idea, the inclusionary policies have actually become exclusionary at Southwest, employees say. Disparate treatment has divided their ranks into two distinct camps: those with “desirable” or “approved” personal, social, or political characteristics—and those without.

Minorities or people with leftist political views, varying gender identities, and alternative sexual orientations appear to be given wide latitude. This “protected class” is allowed to bend or break rules, and new hires in these classifications may be given extra chances to pass required skills tests, the employees said.

At the same time, veteran workers—especially those who are white, heterosexual, and conservative—find themselves in the crosshairs for almost anything, including making a personal statement of religious or political beliefs, the Southwest workers said. Even minorities can be shifted into this targeted group if they espouse personal beliefs running counter to causes that the company supports.

“There are two sets of standards: One for us and one for them,” said an experienced flight attendant.

One of her colleagues said: “The company is trying to eliminate anybody who does not agree with their agenda. The last few years, anybody who speaks up against them, they want gone.” That flight attendant said she had no problems at work until she posted her Christian religious beliefs on her personal Facebook page, along with her support of President Donald Trump. A coworker reported the posts to Southwest, and the flight attendant said she has faced repercussions ever since.

She and others say the targeting of conservatives is common—and they point to the recently publicized case of fired Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter as a prime example.

‘Targeted Assassinations’ of Conservatives

Last month, a federal jury in Texas awarded Carter more than $5 million after finding that Southwest wrongfully terminated her and that her union didn’t live up to its duty to represent her. The company fired Carter after she expressed her pro-life views to a union leader via social media and opposed the union’s pro-abortion activism.

The company supported the union’s political activism, Carter’s suit says, by accommodating work-shift changes for union members so they could participate in the Women’s March on Washington, D.C., in January 2017. Marchers were protesting Trump’s inauguration; one of the primary sponsors of the event was Planned Parenthood. Southwest also showed “solidarity” with the protesters by bathing its airplane cabins in pink lights on some D.C.-bound flights, Carter’s lawsuit says.

Documents in the case revealed that some union officials and political activists were singling out dissenting Southwest employees for “targeted assassinations,” meaning that they would try to get the company to fire them, using the company’s social media policy as a bludgeon.

In an interview with The Epoch Times on Aug. 8, Carter, who lives near Denver, Colorado, said she can’t believe that some leaders of Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, who helped set her up to be fired, are still working for Southwest.

Carter also validated her coworkers’ concerns about the disparate treatment of employees who dare to oppose leftist agendas. “I think there are a ton of cases out there just like mine,” she said. Terminated employees from Southwest and other airlines have been continuously contacting Carter for help after learning about the July 14 verdict in her case.

Carter spent five years fighting in court; she thinks she was one of the first casualties of the erosion of Southwest’s unique corporate culture, which she witnessed during the latter part of her 20-plus years at the airline.

“We all loved our jobs; we all loved each other—our CoHearts, that’s what we called each other,” Carter said, pointing out that the airline’s stock ticker is LUV, a nod to its birthplace at Love Field, Texas.


Gender behind bars: Housing trans prisoners is not straight forward

Tanveer Ahmed

As a psychiatrist who visits jails, I’m concerned about biological men being placed in women-only facilities. We’ve been through heated debates about the trans issue in elite sport and in our schools, but prisoners are not a group that is flush with advocates.

Biological female prisoners are some of the most victimised people on Earth. The vast majority experience sexual abuse or physical violence, chaotic upbringings, foster care and many descend into drug abuse.

The policy self-declaration of gender identity hurts biological women. Yet it has been adopted in the bulk of Australian jails as an established norm in our criminal justice system, even though the principle has not yet been incorporated into common law.

This is not just the case in NSW, where the Daily Telegraph confirmed this month that there are three trans women in jails, but also in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT. Western Australia has no clear policy whereas South Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland assess inmates on a case-by-case basis.

Definitive, uncontested figures about the size of the trans prison population are not available however a lawyer writing in Lawyer’s Weekly in November 2020 estimated that there may be as many as several hundred trans inmates in jails around the country. Whatever the number now, you can bet it will go up in parallel with the cultural zeitgeist. If referrals to a single gender clinic can go up by a factor of eighty, as they have done in Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital between 2011 and 2021, you can guarantee some of these individuals will filter through into our jails, especially given the markedly higher rates of mental illness trans people suffer, which automatically put them at greater risk of committing crimes.

Although jails have mostly adopted the policy that an individual’s declared gender identity should take priority over their biological sex, this is widely contested. One reason the policy should not be adopted is because it prioritises the wishes of those who identify as transgender over the rights of others, particularly biological females, not least their right to single-sex facilities. Why should the interests of a trans minority be put ahead of biological women? Why should the trans tail keep wagging the dog?

Sex remains the single biggest predictor of criminality. Ever since such statistics have been collected, for over a century, males make up around eighty per cent of offenders. But when it comes to sexual crimes, the figure is above ninety per cent.

The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that biological males who identify as trans women retain male patterns of criminality including a much higher risk of committing acts of sexual violence in jails. Furthermore, recording trans women as anything other than biological males has the potential to skew future data on criminality.

Female prisoners can be physically violent but much like society in general, aggression in women-only prisons is more likely to be relational, taking the form of damaging gossip or exclusion.

The environment in jails, especially among males, acquires a primitive edge. Inmates often organise themselves into tribes, often linked to their ethnicity. There are the Lebs, the Kooris, the whites, and the Islanders. Those that don’t fit neatly into the designated tribes try to make changes to do so. Inmates feel under threat and act in more primal ways. Conversion to Islam is one such way to ensure a degree of protection.

While the NSW Department of Corrections says that it considers security risks and assault-related crimes of the inmate, reserving the right to overturn the policy, the probability remains that trans women are at a much higher risk of committing a sex-based crime in jail. Britain’s the Prison Service estimates that trans women are five times more likely to carry out attacks in women’s prisons.

I don’t suggest the issue is clear cut. It never is with the trans debate. The calculus changes further if the inmates have had or are planning to have reassignment surgery.

I have assessed several clients who identify as trans women. None were incarcerated. All were terrified of being placed in male prisons for fear of being attacked. I am sympathetic to such fears. International studies show higher rates of trans females being attacked in male-only prisons. As a result, civil rights groups, such as the Human Rights Commission, are usually at the forefront of those advocating for inmates to be incarcerated according to their gender identity rather than their biological sex.

Yet just last month, the state of New Jersey opted to alter its policy of treating its inmates on the grounds of their chosen gender identity in response to the discovery that a trans inmate, Demi Minor, had impregnated multiple inmates. Minor, who is serving thirty years for manslaughter, was housed in a women’s prison, following a court case mounted by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of another transgender prisoner who successfully sued the New Jersey prison administration in 2019 for preventing her placement in a women’s jail. Other US states and Britain are now reviewing their policies given the spiraling growth of the trans category in the wider population.

In a recent paper for British think tank, Policy Exchange, lawyer and feminist Maureen O’Hara outlined some of the risks I have alluded to, arguing in her conclusion: ‘All trans-identifying prisoners should be housed within the prison estate which aligns with their biological sex or housed in a separate unit which does not form part of the women’s estate if being housed in the general men’s estate is considered unsafe for them.’ Granted jails are overcrowded, and resources limit the extent to which the special needs of trans prisoners can be met with unique facilities, but such a recommendation should be strongly considered within our criminal justice system.

All people, even those who face serious charges or are guilty of serious crimes, should be treated with dignity and compassion but it’s time to reconsider housing prisoners based on their self-declared gender. By doing so we are the placing the rights of trans-identifying male-bodied offenders above those of women in fear of male violence.




Friday, August 12, 2022

Fascism: Left, Right, or Neither?

An article under the above title will appear in a forthcoming issue of The Independent Review. A summary of it follows

Where does the fascism of Mussolini’s Italy fall in the spectrum of political doctrines? Italy’s fascist government conducted a policy of partial socialization of private property, total collectivization of consciousness, and large-scale redistribution of wealth. Therefore, even if fascism was theoretically conceived by its founders as not belonging to either the Right or the Left, its practical implementation showed that the whole building of fascism gravitated toward the right flank of the Left.

You can however download a preprint in PDF. I give an excerpt below from it

Fascism: Left, Right, or Neither?

Although it was short-lived from a historical perspective, its basic ideology and practice have confounded political scientists until the present day. There is no consensus among various political and academic circles (sociological, historical, and economic) regarding its place on the political spectrum. Fascism has become the most controversial politico-economic doctrine, for which no answer has yet been found that would satisfy all interested parties.

The reason is that fascism was theoretically conceived as a compromise between liberal capitalism and socialism, and as such, was deemed to possess the properties of both doctrines. One of the disputing parties has the opportunity to exaggerate the features of individualism in fascism and to assert its belonging to the reactionary form of capitalism. Another sees the features of collectivism and classifies fascism as a kind of socialism. Finally, the third argues that fascism occupies its own unique niche on the political spectrum: it is neither the left nor the right.

The unprecedented ambiguity in defining and understanding fascism was, first of all, the result of vicious interspecific struggles among different socialist currents. In particular, the initial response to the phenomenon of fascism predictably came from the communist camp in the inter-war period. It also marked the beginning of the direct and thoughtful falsification of the nature of genuine fascism. Bolsheviks insisted that fascism did not dismantle a capitalist state. They asserted that fascism was the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie, which had captured the state’s machinery.

The Marxist-Leninist arguments were as follows: The fascist core consisted of former social-chauvinists, reformists, and revisionists, who, in Lenin's words, “went to the right” and therefore are agents of the petty bourgeoisie. It follows, then, that fascism is a counter-revolution organized by this reactionary class stratum. Trotsky (1932) stated, “Italian fascism was the immediate outgrowth of the betrayal by the reformists of the uprising of the Italian proletariat.”

However, the identification of fascism with the petty bourgeois counterrevolution turned out to be a rather unconvincing and to some extent emotional explanation. Indeed, as a subclass that did not receive due attention in Marxism, except that it had to disappear from the face of the earth because of the concentration of capital tendency, could arrange a counter-revolution? Surely other, more powerful and understandable forces described by Marxism had to be involved. Of course, the Marxist ideologues immediately found such counter-revolutionary forces. Bulgarian communist Georgi Dimitrov (1935) asserted that “fascism in power was … the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” Furthermore, he stated, “Fascism is the 4 power of finance capital itself.”

The communist camp began discrediting fascism on several fronts. They did not accept a mass character of the fascist movement; they described bourgeoise of all ranks as a driving force of the fascist counter-revolution; they theorized about various forms that fascism could take in different countries and assigned all authoritarian regimes to fascism, except the Soviet one. Such lines of thought have remained unchanged for years and were reinforced after World War II, as the Soviet Union and Western allies were victors, and the Left had an opportunity to write and rewrite history at will.

Marxists tried hard to camouflage the actual features of fascism, producing several conflicting explanations of the phenomenon that all insisted the doctrine has nothing to do with either socialism or the worker movement. Reverberation of the Marxist approach can be found in many scientific treatises on fascism and its place on the political spectrum that appeared after World War II

It is truly amazing the way the Left distort reality to support the Marxist view of Fascism. You can see it in summary form in that well-known Leftist rag "Wikipedia". Wikipedia says Fascism was Rightist on two main grounds: Its authoritarianism and its nationalism. The first ground is a real laugh. Without a doubt the most authoritarian form of politics is Communism. So is Communism Rightist? Its authoritariansm in fact identifies Fascism as Leftist

The second focus in Wikipedia is on Fascism's Nationalism. That argument has better traction because modern-day Leftists reject Nationalism. But Leftists did not always do that. Hitler was born in the 19th century (1889) and in the 19th and early 20th century, many Leftists were nationalist. One of the most fervent 19th century nationalists was in fact Friedrich Engels, the collaborator of Karl Marx. So the nationalism component of Fascism was thoroughly Leftist in its day. Wikipedia deliberately ignores history.

For a fuller historical treatment of Fascism, see my extensive article on the subject


Trump Raid Brings Us One Step Closer To Civil War

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeeds, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice... Thomas Paine, The Crisis, December 23, 1776

The shocking FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida has escalated America’s 21st century crisis and, as we predicted in our four-part series “The Coming Civil War” made a civil war all the more likely.

Right now, one thing, perhaps the only thing, keeping America from devolving into civil war is the refusal of conservatives to emulate the city-burning violence of the ANTIFA cells in Washington, DC, Portland, Oregon and Seattle and the BLM organizers across the country.

What it will take to release that cork from the bottled-up rage on the Right is unknown, but we must assume that conservative tolerance for injustice and oppression is not infinite and that the unjust arrest of former President Donald Trump would certainly be an incitement to violence from his supporters.

And maybe that’s what Democrats and their Deep State allies want.

Some wise observers have suggested that Democrats and their allies on the Left would like nothing better than an excuse to follow-up the J6 witch hunt with a more general crackdown on conservatives. There’s a certain logic to that analysis, because the Left has never been stronger than they are now, while at the same time the 2022 midterm election threatens them with losing the power they corruptly seized in the 2020 election.

It would be entirely logical for the Left to provoke the confrontation now when they are in complete control of the government and all the levers of power and means of state violence.

What’s more, having seized all the levers of power and means of state violence they have completely corrupted the law enforcement and judicial institutions that might have restrained them just a few years ago.

If reports are to be believed, the raid was prompted by complaints from the head librarian of the National Archives that the former President had taken classified materials from his office in the White House to his home in Florida.

This is a completely specious justification said Kash Patel, a former top Trump administration official, who told Breitbart News back in May that a report claiming classified materials were found at Mar-a-Lago is misleading and that the documents were actually already declassified by then-President Donald Trump, but the classification markings had not been updated.

“Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves,” Patel told Breitbart News.

However, as our friend Ben Weingarten wrote in his latest column for Newsweek, the specific legal grounds for the raid, like the grounds for the coming indictment, are really beside the point.

Trump's crime, wrote Mr. Weingarten, was and always has been, that he threatened The Regime's power and privilege—in so doing, representing tens of millions of Americans who The Regime considers an impediment to its total control, and who it holds in utter contempt.

That's all the "predication" The Regime needed to pursue him from the day he emerged in Trump Tower to declare himself an unprecedented political force, and, since, treat all manner of like-minded Wrongthinkers the same.

The pretense of the rule of law is gone, said Weingarten, and to delude oneself into thinking otherwise after the two-tier, Soviet standard of justice we have seen applied again and again over the last six years would be dangerous folly.

Having suffered what it perceived to be a near-death experience in the election of Donald Trump, Ben Weingarten concluded The Regime must now show that anyone and everyone from the lowliest of non-violent January 6-ers held in pretrial detention to Trump himself can, and will, be crushed if they dare to not submit.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the raid of Trump’s home represents “another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents,” while noting that people like President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden “get treated with kid gloves.”

“Now the Regime is getting another 87k IRS agents to wield against its adversaries? Banana Republic,” DeSantis said.

Banana Republic it is, and if we don’t repel it now, a Banana Republic is what we will become.


Hispanics shift right

By Rick Manning

When a prominent researcher leaves the far-left Center for American Progress and lands at the much more conservative American Enterprise Institute, it is something that makes you scratch your head.

When that researcher is the co-author of the 2002 book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority” which predicted that the browning of America was destined to create an unstoppable Democrat majority, you sit up and notice.

But when the author, Ruy Teixeira, is telling anyone and everyone that the Democrats are losing the middle class, it forces you to question what is happening and why?

Market Research Foundation has been at the forefront of the shift of blue collar voters with special focus on Hispanics from the reliable left to their new status as swing voters who have increasingly rejected big government policies and those who care more about race than prosperity.

Big change is happening, and our friends at Market Research Foundation are all over it. Click here to learn more about their research that has predicted the shift that manifested itself in Mayra Flores’ victory in a Texas border congressional district special election in June. ?


Gender clinics in danger of legal suits

Lawyers say Australian gender clinics may face legal action following news that Britain’s Tavistock clinic is facing a major medical negligence law suit from youngsters who claim they were “started on a treatment pathway that was not right for them”.

The legal action may have significant implications for several Australian gender clinics based at children’s hospitals across the country, where Tavistock’s contentious practices have played a strong influence in treatment.

Leading compensation law firm Gerard Malouf & Partners is exploring the prospects and feasibility of a similar class-action lawsuit in Australia.

In Britain, The Times reports that 1000 families are expected to join the medical negligence lawsuit, which is understood to allege that the gender-identity clinic “rushed” some young patients into treatment.

The Tavistock clinic is accused of recklessly prescribing puberty blockers with harmful side effects and is also alleged to have adopted an “unquestioning, affirmative approach” to children identifying as transgender.

The clinic is to be shut down after an independent review, led by Hilary Cass, found it was leaving young people “at considerable risk” of poor mental health and distress, and was “not a safe or ­viable long-term option”.

University of Queensland law professor Patrick Parkinson, who was involved in a landmark British High Court ruling that prohibited children under the age of 16 from consenting to puberty-blocking treatment, said the prospects of similar action in Australia were “very likely”.

“I’m expecting to see it here, I’m expecting to see it against hospitals and against individual doctors. Sooner or later, this is going to end up in the courts as a negligence issue,” he said.

“I think Australian gender clinics apart from Sydney are probably less conservative and less cautious than the Tavistock was. The decision of the British government raises serious questions about the continuation of the model in Australia and really justifies a major inquiry being set up.”

Professor Parkinson said the British government and the National Health Service lost confidence in the model of treatment that Tavistock promoted.

“The results of the closure of Tavistock is going to be that a mental health approach will be the first line, and I suspect that ­puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones will only be prescribed as a last resort in the most serious cases where psychotherapy does not prove to be effective,” he said.

Queensland paediatrician Dylan Wilson said he believed several young adults around the country who had been injured as result of being prescribed puberty blockers or hormone treatments as minors might have recourse to the courts.

“One hundred per cent there are children who have been harmed,” Dr Wilson said. “Even if they think it was worth it at the time, there are children who have suffered infertility and sexual dysfunction as a result of treatments and they may only be realising that now.

“If you’re puberty-blocked at an early stage, there are inevitable consequences. You can’t not be infertile if you’re puberty-blocked in the very first stages of puberty.”

Dr Wilson questioned the standard of care in gender clinics that take a gender-affirming approach. “The standards of care have never been held in high regard outside of gender clinics themselves,” he said.

“They publish their own ­papers and they say the paper we publish is evidence that what we’re doing is right. “They write the guidelines and they say ‘We’re following the guidelines’. “These are not internationally accepted guidelines.”




Thursday, August 11, 2022

Archbishop of Canterbury condemns gay marriage, but Anglican bishops remain divided

Welby is showing some spine in the matter. He might make a good Cantuar yet. He even seems to believe in God, not always guaranteed in the Anglican episcopate. Runcie clearly did not

The head of the Anglican Communion attempted to reinforce the church's stance against homosexual marriage this week, but the move was squashed by outcry from various bishops.

The controversy came to a head during the ongoing 2022 Lambeth Conference — a rare meeting of Anglican Communion bishops from around the world.

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) — self-described as "a worldwide fellowship of orthodox Anglican Provinces and Dioceses within the Anglican Communion" — came to the conference with the gay marriage ban firmly on their agenda.

"We often feel that our voices are not listened to, or respected," South Sudanese Primate Rev. Justin Badi told The Church Times. "Today, in Canterbury, we may be ‘gathered together’, but we most certainly cannot ‘walk together’ until Provinces which have gone against scripture — and the will of the consensus of the bishops — repent and return to orthodoxy."

He continued, "The Communion is not in a healthy condition at present, and only major surgery will put that right."

They were bolstered in private, if not publicly, by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. The archbishop, by the nature of his office, is the most senior cleric in the Anglican Communion but holds limited powers of governance on his own.

Welby met with the GSFA in private on July 29 and offered to write a letter backing the traditional view of marriage, according to Anglican Church journalist George Conger. A call was scheduled for the conference — a sort of vote amongst the bishops to endorse or abandon proposed belief statements.

The next day — after word got out about the push for a formal rejection of homosexual marriage — the conference was threatened with chaos.

Many bishops reportedly stayed seated and did not receive the Eucharist during the mass. Protests against recording votes on church calls arose, and eventually, the conference ceased keeping track of individual bishops' decisions.

The call to reinforce Lambeth 1.10 was eventually dropped.

However, there was no demonstration against the archbishop nor the conference, and proceedings continued.

Despite the fervor, Welby made good on his promised letter, released to the faithful on Tuesday.

"I wanted to write this letter to you now so that I can clarify two matters for all of us. Given the deep differences that exist within the Communion over same-sex marriage and human sexuality, I thought it important to set down what is the case," Welby wrote in his letter.

He continued, "I write therefore to affirm that the validity of the resolution passed at the Lambeth Conference 1998, 1:10 is not in doubt and that whole resolution is still in existence. Indeed the Call on Human Dignity made clear this is the case, as the resolution is quoted from three times in the paragraph 2.3 of the Call on Human Dignity."

The archbishop went on to point out that the 1998 statues cited did not make mention of sanctions or exclusions based on obedience. Welby said that the "Pain, anxiety, and contention" caused by Lambeth 1.10 was "very clear."

He concluded, "To be reconciled to one another across such divides is not something we can achieve by ourselves. That is why, as we continue to reflect on 1 Peter, I pray that we turn our gaze towards Christ who alone has the power to reconcile us to God and to one another."

Anglicanism has been fracturing for decades over gay relationships, women's ordination and other issues. Those rifts blew wide open in 2003 when the New York-based Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire.

The year prior, the top U.S. Episcopal legislative body, or General Convention, voted to authorize gay marriages in their churches.

In 2009, Anglican national leaders in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and other church provinces helped create the Anglican Church in North America, as a theologically conservative alternative to the U.S. Episcopal Church.

Anglicans, whose roots are in the missionary work of the Church of England, are the third-largest grouping of Christians in the world, behind Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.


Hostile Environment: Tech’s DEI Disaster

An exploration of the unhinged workplace culture gripping the halls of our country’s most important companies

At this point, most people have internalized a sense the tech industry is run by crazy people. In fact, the industry is run by cowards terrified of a very small fraction of their employees — a legitimately crazy subset of political activists with many friends in the activist (establishment) press. For the last couple years, we’ve spent a great deal of time criticizing tech leadership for ceding authority to the deranged excesses of cultural authoritarians. But there’s a larger story we haven’t yet explored: what about the greater majority of tech workers, terrified of being targeted by their most unhinged colleagues, who just want to do their jobs?

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason and a weekly guest on The Hill’s YouTube show, Rising. She guests today for Pirate Wires with a wild exploration of the hostile workplace culture increasingly normalized in the halls of our country’s most important companies.


At the Amazon fulfillment center where Leonard works, auditing how other employees on the floor pack boxes, everyone walks under a rainbow arch of balloons each day of Pride month, which is celebrated each June.

The rainbow balloon arch wasn’t a total shock to Leonard. Amazon has forced affinity groups on its employees, both those who work in warehouses and those who sit at desks all day. There’s PWD (people with disabilities), BEN (Black Employee Network), Indigenous@Amazon, and BPP (Body Positive Peers). There’s Glamazon, which Leonard says is for LGBT people.

Most of the warehouse’s Pride activities are relatively innocuous, but silly — dress-up contests, for example, and morning briefings reminding people how to be a good ally. Company-issued notices placed on bathroom stalls talk in glowing, over-the-top terms about Amazon’s commitment to queer employees and, just a column over, remind fulfillment center workers that their bags will be X-rayed when they leave the warehouse to go home. “I couldn’t care less who the folks over there loading trucks at the ship dock like to sleep with,” says Leonard. “Not my business.”

“Maybe if I was a two-spirit polyamorous noncomforming whatsit I could celebrate my sexuality on the company dime,” Leonard snarks, noting that he’s a heterosexual guy who’s put off by all this stuff. “Seems like a real double-standard.”

He’s far from alone in feeling this way. Few people dispute that it’s a good thing that more gay people than ever before can safely mention their spouse at work, without fear of being discriminated against or being cautioned to shut up. But there’s a big difference between rightful, overdue expansion of civil liberties, and where we’re at now.

Many employees of tech companies, both large and small, express frustration with work time being diverted to mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) sessions and Ibram X. Kendi talks; anger at being hassled to join affinity groups — employee groups for people to gather with others who share the same identity or characteristics — or waste meeting time declaring their pronouns; discomfort with managers sounding off about police brutality or the recent Dobbs abortion ruling. They point to a broad sense that work has become the land of extracurriculars, as if it’s freshman orientation on a college campus or a summer camp and you have to pick an activity schedule.

Harry, who works at a fully-remote expense management software company, says a whole DEI bureaucracy has sprung up in the last few years including “cultural events” around “ridiculous things like ‘the rich history of AAPI mixology.’” (Names have been changed throughout to protect people’s anonymity; company names have been noted where possible.)

With “explicit pressure from management to put your pronouns in your Slack profiles and your email signatures” and “company-organized ‘safe space’ and ‘coping workshops’” (featuring therapists!) in the wake of the Dobbs decision, Harry’s learned not to push back. When he lodged dissent a few years ago, it yielded nothing; he learned to lay low.

Sandy, who works for the email marketing company Mailchimp, says after the Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, “everyone was posting about it in various slack channels, talking about it as if it was something that would cause you not to be able to function at work.” The company matches certain charitable donations, like those dealing with racial justice and LGBT issues — including the nonprofit Drag Queen Story Hour. “I don't feel comfortable saying I don't want to contribute to these things because I don't agree with them,” says Sandy.

The company has chosen to provide its services, free of charge, to certain organizations — like racial justice organizations, in the wake of a newly reinvigorated Black Lives Matter moment that started following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020. But such generous pro bono provisions only go one way.

Until recently, Kasey worked for a company based in Santa Barbara that makes doctor-patient portal software. If you make the foolish mistake of using the word guys in Slack, “a slackbot would pop up and tell you to use a more inclusive term,” she says. People on her team would get 45-minute lectures on Fridays by what’s termed “equity groups” on topics like proper pronoun usage.

The worst part, she adds, is that the software was actually really good. The company was “KILLING it.” She’d watched it progress from summer 2020 until recently, when “the woke [stuff] happened, then their competitors passed them and innovation fell behind.” She didn’t end up leaving because of wokeness, but because the product was suffering — which is a related issue, she notes, if company resources are being frequently diverted to glorified HR efforts in lieu of improving the product. “Far more effort was spent on pronouns than on what we were paid to do.”

“My big concern is that DEI is driving away employees who lean more conservative culturally and politically,” says Abby, who adds that she’s a leftie with some “libertarian sympathies.” “I might not agree with their world views, but we didn't hire them for those, we hired them for their skills.” At her 1,200-person company which does single sign-on authentication, “it’s not one individual or group of individuals doing anything extreme, rather it's the perception that there's some institutionally correct way of existing, even if that way runs contrary to your beliefs.”

Sam works for GitHub, an internet hosting/software developing provider with sub-5,000 employees. A three-hour meeting was held for employees on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death. Affinity groups are robust, holding biweekly hourlong meetings, for queer people, black people, and women. “Microsoft made all their subsidiaries’ employees watch a series of videos featuring legal scholar and author Kenji Yoshino about covering and allyship, and how we shouldn't make people feel like they need to hide their true selves because he used to feel like he had to hide the fact that he was a gay Asian,” says Sam. “Covering is always bad, [Yoshino] said, unless you hold certain types of views, then you may want to just accept the way things are and keep your head down.”

“I'm shocked they haven't ended up with an Antonio Garcia Martinez type situation where a small group of employees Slack-bully someone into getting fired,” Sam says. “I know it's coming.”

Two former tech employees’ names popped up as I chatted with today’s disillusioned workers, one fired from Apple, the other from Google, for being purported misogynists.

James Damore is widely regarded as the original workplace-wokeness whistleblower, though he landed in that spot accidentally. While lonely in China, he wrote a document that he circulated internally at Google, where he’d been an engineer for four years.

Calling Google’s culture an “ideological echo chamber,” Damore argued that disparities between men and women in tech roles could be partially explained by biology — something advanced by prominent clinical psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen. He circulated his memo internally in July 2017; Gizmodo published a leaked copy of it on August 5; Damore was fired two days later.

He pursued a National Labor Relations Board complaint, then a class-action suit, then private arbitration. He now lives far away from Mountain View, and doesn’t do many speaking events or TV appearances.

More here:


Biden’s 87,000 new IRS agents may be short-lived

By Rick Manning

President Joe Biden and ‘conservative’ Democrat Joe Manchin’s alleged inflation fighting legislation passed through the Senate this past weekend. It will be surprising to many Americans that the inflation fight includes hiring 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents, who are supposed to squeeze $200 billion out of their pockets over the next ten years.

Senate Republican Mike Crapo (R-ID) reports that the Biden inflation bill will make the IRS, “one of the largest federal agencies — larger than the Pentagon, State Department and Border Patrol combined.”

The magnitude of the expansion cannot be overemphasized. Currently, the IRS has just over 78,000 total full time employees doing all of the business of the Agency. This number will be dwarfed by the newly incoming 87,000 enforcement agents. Just the seating charts will be a logistical nightmare.

By comparison the entire Border Patrol only has 19,500 agents. With the immigration crisis at the border, perhaps Biden is planning on auditing the under the table earnings of the millions of newly arrived illegals to make them think twice about their choice to invade our country, but somehow I don’t think so.

But there is a snag in Biden’s plan to audit America into oblivion. Congress revisits the appropriations for the IRS at least once a year through the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. Due to Congress being completely broken procedurally, this appropriation bill is often passed as part of a Continuing Resolution (CR) or by an Omnibus bill each of which lumps multiple spending bills together.

To pass a CR or Omnibus bill doesn’t require 51 votes, but instead needs the magical 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Meaning that 41 GOP Senators can lay down a line in the sand and simply just say no to this dramatic expansion of the Internal Revenue Service by refusing to fund it.

Ending Biden’s weaponized IRS enforcement army before it ever gets hired should be a non-negotiable part of the upcoming government funding negotiations. After all, the best way to stop an infestation is to stop it before it spreads.


Activist historians — a monumental waste of space

Our last visit to Hobart was a few years ago, but I remember it well. The waters were a bright blue, the views breathtaking, and the scenery spectacular. The locals were friendly, the beer taps were flowing, and the pubs abundant. The seafood was incredibly fresh, the restaurants diverse and plentiful, and the wines scintillating. But something was not right.

Even a delightful high summer day, the heat mitigated by a gentle sea breeze, was not enough to dispel the onset of melancholy. Morose and listless, I returned to the apartment.

By late afternoon, I had lost interest in our plans for the evening. A sleepless and restless night followed. By next morning, my despondency had given way to a burning anger at a monumental and longstanding injustice, the source of which I could not identify.

For several years I wondered what troubled me so. But thanks to the Hobart City Council, I now know the cause of my angst. It was the fact that the city’s named statues feature white men exclusively. Yes, all seven of them. As The Australian reported this week, the council will deliberate on a report which has found the city has too many monuments to “Caucasian males”.

The catalyst for this epiphany is a statue in Central Hobart of William Crowther, a nineteenth century naturalist, surgeon and premier. In 1869, he was accused of decapitating the corpse of an Indigenous man, William Lanne, for anatomical study. The council has all but decided the monument will be removed, which conveniently opens the way for a cultural purge of other colonial figures.

If it accepts the report’s recommendations, the council will decide on a policy for further statue “additions and removals”. Mind you, that’s not to say all seven statues will be toppled. For example, former premier Albert Ogilvie’s statue is likely to have the backing of the city’s Greens councillors. As the University of Tasmania website notes, the former Labor premier was “sympathetic” to the Soviet Union in the mid to late 1930s.

As for the remaining statues, well, decolonisation. No more being confronted with the monument to Abel Tasman, the first European to reach what was known as Van Diemen’s Land. No more steeling oneself when passing by King Edward VII’s likeness. Question the activists who parrot this nonsense, and you will be accused of waging a culture war. As for the council’s meek acceptance of this mantra, how does it sit with the organisation’s vision statement as outlined in its last annual report? You know, “We resist mediocrity and sameness”?

Citing numbers compiled by Monument Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that 38 monuments across the country are dedicated to Captain James Cook. But if activists have their way, that number will fall. According to Nancy Cushing, an associate professor of history at the University of Newcastle, every statue should be assessed as to its relevance every 50 years or so.

“People say if you take down a statue you are changing history, but I don’t quite see it that way,” she told the SMH. “Statues manifest a set of beliefs held at least by some people at the time they were erected.”

The latter may be so, but nonetheless to remove statues, especially ones that date back to the colonial era, is to remove historical objects from the landscape. And increasingly the motivation for doing so is not to change history – that would be impossible – but to change our interpretation of history to suit a militant narrative.

In any event, you might assume the historian’s default position would be to preserve historical statues as opposed to assigning them a use by date. Maintaining their existence does not prevent academics from rigorously and objectively reassessing the legacy of the people they depict.

But apparently that is no longer the case. If you want to know where the discipline of history is heading, I suggest you read Cushing’s essay ‘#CoalMustFall: Revisiting Newcastle’s coal monument in the Anthropocene,’ which this year was awarded the Australian Historical Association’s Marian Quartly Prize.

The subject of her paper is self-evident, a monument that was erected in 1909. To my mind, the display is innocuous, but not to Cushing. Its presence, she writes, “silently contradicts the weight of scientific opinion which indicates that continued reliance on burning coal will lead not to wellbeing but to cataclysm”.

She imagines the monument being wrested from its base and thrown into the harbour by protesters. “Even without such a violent intervention, it is timely to consider what is to be done with a memorial to a substance which is now known to be an agent of irreparable harm to the planet.” The urgent situation justifies what Cushing calls “activist histories”.

You will be relieved to know she does not call for mob intervention. Instead Cushing wants the monument shifted to a museum. The original would be replaced with a “counter-monument” to “manage the grief associated with the exposure of coal’s role in the slow disaster of climate change”.

And her parallels aren’t exactly subtle. “As was the case with Jochen Gerz and Esther-Shalev Gerz’s 1986 counter-monument against fascism in Hamburg [Germany], the coal counter-monument would soon be covered with a ‘conglomerate of approval, hatred, anger and stupidity’”.

Cushing also envisages a counter-monument on the coastline where Newcastle’s former gaol was built in 1816. “From this position, a counter-monument would be visible to locals and visitors including the crews of the bulk coal carriers waiting to enter the port, and like the gaol in its time, offer up a warning to observers that behavioural change is necessary to avoid dire consequences.”

Excuse me, but is this a history lecture or did I walk into the drama class by mistake?

As for Hobart City Council, its ‘Community, Culture and Events Committee’ will today decide the fate of the Crowther statue. If it adopts the report’s recommendations, it will spend $20,000 on removing and storing the bronze component while retaining the plinth. Another $50,000 will be spent on “interpretive elements onsite”.

The result? Well, you could say these grand plans resemble the councillors who are in favour of them. A total waste of space.




Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Data Show Gender Pay Gap Opens Early

Note that the figures below are based on what degrees people got, not what sort of job they actually went into. But nonetheless what goes on is pretty clear overall. Women tend to flock into certain jobs where they are most biologically fit -- such as nursing, teaching and childcare -- and the high level of supply in those jobs tends to drive the prices (wages) in those jobs down

Broad new data on wages earned by college graduates who received federal student aid showed a pay gap emerging between men and women soon after they joined the workforce, even among those receiving the same degree from the same school.

The data, which cover about 1.7 million graduates, showed that median pay for men exceeded that for women three years after graduation in nearly 75% of roughly 11,300 undergraduate and graduate degree programs at some 2,000 universities. In almost half of the programs, male graduates’ median earnings topped women’s by 10% or more, a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from 2015 and 2016 graduates showed.

At Georgetown University, men who received undergraduate accounting degrees earned a median $155,000 three years after graduation, a 55% premium over their female classmates, the analysis showed.

Men who completed law degrees from the University of Michigan earned a median $165,000 three years after graduation, compared with $120,000 for women.

And men who graduated with a dental degree from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio earned a median $140,000 three years out, compared with $103,000 for women who got the same degree there.

The data, compiled by the Education Department using graduates’ federal tax records, provide evidence that pay gaps between men and women often form earlier than is widely perceived. Nationally, women across the workforce earn an average of 82.3 cents for every dollar a man earns, according to the Labor Department.

Economists who have long examined pay gaps between men and women cite the so-called motherhood penalty—referring to the perception that mothers are less committed to their jobs—and say this affects hiring, promotions and salaries.

Determining why those gaps appear earlier isn’t simple. The federal data don’t account for such factors as recipients of the same degrees seeking different types of jobs and career paths, some of which pay far more than others. Studies have shown that men tend to negotiate salaries more aggressively than women, and women at times shy away from ambitious goals for fear of being unprepared. Even when women and men have identical academic credentials, women sometimes choose lower-paying career paths, pursuing a passion rather than a high paycheck.

The median pay for men from the California State University, Fullerton, nursing master’s program, for instance, was $199,000 three years after graduation, compared with $115,000 for women. The school said that is largely because women in the program gravitated toward nurse midwifery, which pays less than specialties like anesthesiology.

Researchers also say that discrimination, despite laws against it, remains a factor in the gender pay gap at all career levels.

The data don’t cover every student. Nationwide, about 55% of undergraduates, 40% of master’s students and 70% of professional school students receive federal loans or grants, Education Department data show. While that represents a large share of graduates at some schools, it covers only a fraction at other programs—particularly bachelor’s degrees from wealthy universities with generous scholarship aid. The Education Department also didn’t release figures for many small programs.


Signs of insanity around us

We are confused and adrift because our moral guideposts have gone missing, ripped out from under us by the Marxists calling themselves the “Great Reset”. Every parameter of our morals and values, things we have learned in our churches, schools and at our parents’ knees – literally, everything we have held dear – is being destroyed. History is being rewritten. Our bedrock is crumbling into shifting sands, and we are responding with either anger or denial.

It’s no wonder we feel like we’re going nuts.

Evil has invaded our country. We see incredible hostility on a daily basis. There is so much hate-filled rhetoric on the news and among acquaintances and family, that we tend to turn it off and back away.

People you know are uttering things you never thought you’d hear them say, and they can’t/won’t explain themselves in a rational way. If you asked them to defend their argument, they can’t. They just spew a mantra of learned derangement, if they answer at all.

The media hypes stories of theft and robbery, killings and maimings 24/7. This seems to get worse, more frequent, not better every day. Have another dose of horror with your coffee.

We are the bad guys for denying the existence of 58 genders; it makes US the haters, we are told. What happened to “follow the science”?? That little mantra also goes out the window when we are demanded to believe that men can give birth and provide all that is physically necessary therein. Whatever.

It is un-American for the Census to count how many American citizens live here, but the 2020 count made sure to catch as many illegals as possible. Russian interference in elections is bad, but voting by illegals is good. Border security ($5 billion) is too expensive, but free health care and housing for illegals ($1.5 trillion+) is just fine.

Our illegitimate government showers the Fascist dictator of Ukraine with trillions, but denies our own military what they need, to fight AND to live through their life-altering injuries sustained in our service.

Bidens (and Clintons AND Obamas) went to bed with the crooked Ukraine government, financed bio-weapon labs there, blackmailed its leader and that is somehow ignored (or accepted??), all day every day. Let Trump place a phone call the Ukraine president and ASK about those offenses, and it is worthy of impeachment. Daily, it seems, the current ‘resident and his Congress perform impeachable offenses but, since Trump left office, the word has not been whispered in those hallowed halls.

The party that says there is no such thing as gender, and whose SCOTUS nominee cannot define a “woman”, demands female candidates for public office and special healthcare “rights” (murder of the unborn) for women. Our children are being physically and chemically castrated in our own public schools, and parents are not even in the loop! This is pure Luciferian construct. Incredible!

Unbelievable! We are utterly incredulous. Again.

Illegal aliens are welcomed into our country by the millions, carrying every kind of disease known to man. (Of course, we don’t know what they are. Yet.) But Americans lose jobs and freedoms if they do not submit to an untested treatment, which has proven to be killing millions. “My body, my choice”, anyone?” Let’s not even mention the incredible amounts of lethal drugs like Fentanyl gushing into every state, while American citizens are prohibited from buying tested and effective remedies such as Ivermectin.

People are being held responsible for things they never did, stuff that happened before they were born – like slavery – but those committing crimes every day are being held responsible for nothing, notwithstanding video and/or eyewitness evidence of their crimes.

On this note, while it is NOT OK to execute murderers, it’s just fine when they kill innocent Americans. Attempted murder doesn’t even rate temporary incarceration or a trial. The entire act of a deranged Leftist trying to kill Congressman Lee Zeldin was caught on camera, but the perp was out of custody in two hours. Don’t forget, too, that under this New World Order, killing babies is somehow a human right, a necessary part of a woman’s (pardon me, “baby-maker person’s”) health care freedom.

And, oh, yes. Those evil law enforcement professionals are labeled fascists for trying to stop the anarchy, because, somehow, being arrested and held accountable violates the rights of the criminal.


Our Constitution and its body of law, on which we have depended to enjoy the finest form of government in history, has been thrown out. We are staring totalitarianism in its Luciferian face. Those forms of governance (socialism, Marxism, Communism, whatever) have killed millions around the world, but the Globalists want to try again.

After decades of undercover efforts to bring us to this point, we are facing the demise of our country. Now it is visible, the rot is all around us, and many of still can’t bring ourselves to believe, OR to work against it.

OK. I am somehow “racist” for pointing all this out. Heck…I’m in good company: Calling Covid the Chinese flu after its country of origin is racist, too. (“French” fries? “Italian” seasoning? “Greek” pastry? How far is this going? If I like all of the above, am I a hater??)

This insanity is invading every aspect of our lives. It is making us incredulous. We want to hide or run, or just deny. We just want it to go away, but it won’t, unless we acknowledge it, and realize what this turmoil is doing to us and our country.

Acceptance must precede knowledge which precedes the power to stand and fight. If we are going to be able to deal effectively to get our republic back, I repeat, we must act.

Many don’t want to get involved in activism because what is out there is just too crazy to believe, and too frightening to consider.

However, if you value your freedoms, IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY THE BLESSINGS OF LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY, you will open your mind to reality, take a deep breath, and jump in. The water’s NOT fine, but it is navigable, and the only danger comes from NOT swimming with your pack. We do not have a choice.

Take heart. WE are far more numerous than THEY, because WE are the Constitutionalists, who want to save our freedoms. “Our pack” is no longer defined by a party label, “R”, “D”, “I” or any other. If you approach members of your community with the simple choice of which they support – the Constitution or Communism – you will raise the flaps of the tent, and expand your group to include a great many who have been frustrated, trying to find their old party allegiances. WE, who believe in our Constitution and the blessed life it has given us, ARE a vastly larger group than those who crave totalitarian control.

There are local action groups in counties and towns across the country, doing great work. They consist of members of all former political parties. More groups are forming every day, in every state. Join arms with your friends and neighbors and get involved. Form a Freedom Pod and learn what is happening in your own town. You might be surprised, but you will be armed for action, with understanding. Knowledge is power.

First priority, secure the November 2022 elections. Without that, we will be at a serious, perhaps fatal, disadvantage.


No Wonder We Lost Trust in the Expert Class

Victor Davis

For years, European policymakers had assured the world that the relatively rapid “transition” to “green” energy was the world’s preordained future—regardless of the costs.

Accordingly, many European Union governments followed the advice of green experts. They eagerly shut down coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to transition immediately to “renewable energy.”

Most citizens were afraid to object that in cloudy, cold Germany solar panels were not viable methods of electrical generation—especially in comparison to the country’s vast coal deposits and its large, model nuclear power industry.

As a result, German government officials warn that this winter, in 19th-century fashion, families will have to burn wood—the dirtiest of modern fuels—to endure the cold. And there is further talk of “warm rooms,” where, like pre-civilizational tribal people, the elderly will bunch together within a designated heated room to keep alive.

Sri Lanka may be the first modern nation to adopt deliberate policies that have led to mass hunger and bankruptcy. The government, for a variety of reasons, listened to foreign advocates of back-to-nature organic farming, specifically outright abandonment of highly effective synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

The result was endemic crop failure. Cash crops for export failed. Widespread hunger followed. Without foreign exchange, it became impossible to import key staples like food and fuel.

Sri Lanka once had a per capita income twice that of nearby India. Now it cannot feed or fuel itself.

Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisers, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the woke darling of the “environmental, social, governance” movement, and in that way draw in unlimited Western woke investment.

Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide.

Recently, a group of 55 distinguished pro-administration economists assured us that President Joe Biden’s massive borrowing and new entitlements agenda were not inflationary. In September 2021, these economists with 14 Nobel Prize winners among them declared that Biden’s inflationary policies would actually “ease” inflation.

Last month, inflation spiked to an annualized rate of 9.1%.

None of these “blue chip” economists have offered any apologies for lending their prestige to convince Americans of the absurd: that inflating the money supply, spiking new government spending, incentivizing labor nonparticipation, and keeping interest rates artificially low would not cause inflation.

In late July 2021, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed that the Taliban takeover “was not a foregone conclusion.” He bragged that 34 provincial capitals were still in Afghan government hands.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin nodded in approval. Less than a month later, the entire Afghan government collapsed. The American military fled in its most ignominious retreat in over 50 years. Milley had been parroting Biden’s earlier prompt that a Taliban victory after the American evacuation was “highly unlikely.”

On the eve of the 2020 election, news accounts revealed some of the lurid contents on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop. Emails and photos began to incriminate the entire Biden family for leveraging millions of dollars from foreign grandees for access to a bought Joe Biden.

Fifty retired intelligence officers, however, without evidence, swore that the laptop’s appearance could be due to “Russian disinformation.” Yet after authentication—Hunter Biden himself never denied the lost laptop was his—few, if any, of those marquee “experts” apologized for their election-driven dissimulation.

At the height of the massive 2020 enforced quarantine and lockdowns, some 1,200 medical and health “professionals” signed a petition claiming that thousands of left-wing protesters should be exempt from the very quarantine they had insisted on for others.

The experts absurdly claimed that denying tens of thousands the right to break quarantines to protest in the street was a greater health threat than COVID-19.

FBI Director James Comey doggedly pursued the “Russian collusion” hoax. At one point he hired the discredited Christopher Steele to supply the FBI with information from his fantasy dossier.

Once called to account, on some 245 occasions before Congress, Comey swore that he could either not remember or had no knowledge about the questions asked of him.

His successor, FBI interim Director Andrew McCabe, admittedly lied on four occasions to federal officials. Special counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller himself swore under oath that he knew nothing either about the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS—the twin catalysts for his entire investigation. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith admitted to altering a federal court document in efforts to convict an innocent suspect.

All these depressing examples have one common denominator: Elite experts and degreed professionals massaged and warped their knowledge to serve ideological masters, rather than the truth.

In the process, they caused untold damage to their country and fellow citizens. They disgraced their profession. They tarnished the scientific community. And sold their souls to ideologues.

Is it any wonder why the Western public has lost confidence in their degreed and credentialed elites?


A resolute enemy of political correctness

Laurence Fox – the British actor cancelled for famously flopping over in exhaustion after being dismissed as a ‘white, privileged male’ by a BBC audience member – has spent his banishment defending liberty.

It is a war waged in the digital realm and fought with mobile phones, Tweets, and virtual armies of followers. Those who can move public outrage in the direction of politicians claim crucial victories in the Culture Wars. In the absence of genuine conservative parties, personalities such as Fox find themselves defending Western Civilisation alone – like the Battle of Thermopylae, but with more barbarians and fewer handy cliffs.

The latest battle took place during the high-profile arrest of Darren Brady, a 51-year-old army veteran. Police showed up at Brady’s door after a social media user accused him of causing them anxiety for retweeting an image of Pride flags arranged into a swastika. It is a common meme that draws attention to the increasingly intolerant, bullying, and authoritarian nature of fringe activist groups. When a version of the Gestapo showed up on Brady’s doorstep, they rather proved the point.

Fox was also briefly suspended from Twitter for the post. Speaking on TalkTV, he pointed out that Brexit flags had been turned into swastikas by Remainers without a peep from the media, while the Union Jack was compared to Nazi flags during Jubilee celebrations. Fox posted the meme as a ‘social experiment’ to show that some flags are more equal than others…

While praising the original Pride movement for seeking equality, Fox described the current LGBTQ+ ideology as a Trojan horse.

‘This is a movement which is hostile to gay people, it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of women, it encourages and promotes the mutilation of children, it hates free speech, it will ruin your job, and it will remove you from your job if you don’t bow down in worship to it. It is an ideological hell-storm.’

When the police arrested Brady, they lectured him in front of his neighbours about his ‘crime’ of causing anxiety to a stranger on the internet – which can only mean that the police officer involved has never been on social media.

Death threats are issued over trivial disagreements, while packs of trolls hunt down accounts with the aim of having them suspended or bullied into silence. It is a ruthless jungle of both creativity and abuse – tilting more toward the latter in recent years – caused by the clashing of global cultures and encouraged by heavily biased platform operators who delete people mid-debate. As for causing ‘offence’, it is a physical impossibility to put up a post that doesn’t cause offence. Even videos of adorable pets have hundreds of furious replies from animal welfare activists triggered by the ‘distress’ of a puppy posing for a photo.

‘Someone has been caused, obviously, anxiety based upon your social media post,’ said the arresting officer – to which the correct response is, ‘So what?’

The veteran was handcuffed and shoved into a police van. Evidently, Tweets are more important than knife crime to Woke Cops who can be found doused in glitter at Pride parades while in uniform. Footage of the arrest shot by Fox went viral as it was happening, turning it into a matter of public interest. Harry Miller, the Chairman of the Reclaim Party and ex-policeman, was also detained. Harry has been working tirelessly with Fox to end political policing and help those who are hounded by ideological zealots.

‘We have a rule that we only punch up. So, I’m less interested in those small fry officers, I’m much more interested in the toxicity that is being poured out from the college of policing, that is being adopted by constables, that is being taught by these officers, and I am also much more interested in the power vacuum that is being left by a disinterested Home Secretary and government. It is absolutely shocking that we, as a very small group of people, are basically doing the job of the Home Secretary. We are doing the job of the government. We are small, but we are fierce,’ said Harry.

Fox said of the event:

‘People in this country should not fear their doors being knocked on for sharing a meme, that’s not how we operate. I don’t want a politicised police force. Every single one of our foundational national institutions has been totally captured by this horribly divisive ideology.’

Had this arrest happened in the silence of anonymity, no one would have done a thing to stop it. Instead, the sheer weight of public pressure caused by Laurence Fox’s personal fame caused the police a fair bit of ‘anxiety’ – so much that the Hampshire Police later had to cancel the ‘hate crime awareness courses’ that led to the arrest.

It was a victory for freedom won in the Left’s battleground of social media. According to Harry, they have been contacted by many old-school police officers who want to see the end of this terrifying era of ‘thought crime’.

Interviewed on Sky News Australia’s Outsiders, Fox said, ‘Two people turned up and stood up to the police, and we have just changed the entire precedent of the British legal system in a week…’

He added that it should serve as a reminder to people around the world that it is possible to stop the tide of anti-freedom policing, remembering that it wasn’t Fox or Harry that achieved the change – it was the subsequent outrage of ordinary people.

Regardless, it takes a measure of bravery to stand against the forces of Woke. Fox has decided to take on the government, its institutions, the bureaucracies, international bodies, his celebrity peers, mainstream media, and the wrath of a brainwashed collectivist youth – all at the same time. He must win, or he has no future.

‘Bravery’ and ‘politics’ are two ideas rapidly separating since the rise of cardboard cut-out ministers. Policy is increasingly scripted in the bowels of international bureaucracies, smuggled across the Channel, and then regurgitated on the Prime Minister’s letterhead. The direction of social order is dictated by Tik Tok, Westminster is frequently herded around the chamber by activist Tweets, while elected representatives fear a viral Facebook meme far more than the fury of disgruntled constituents.

This talent-less backwater of surviving MPs who are yet to be caught throwing parties, touching things they shouldn’t, or shagging each other’s spouses, tick all the ideological virtue boxes but fail to notice the structure of British law collapsing around them – even after they’re crushed under a falling beam. We have reached the point where you’re likely to make more progress with the pigeons shitting all over the pavement outside than you are with the suits and stilettos inside.

It is no wonder that Laurence Fox is able to pick up a pitchfork and reshape policy with a few good prods.

As Leader of the Reclaim Party, he is involved in twin projects Reclaim the Media and The Bad Law Project. The latter is particularly interesting in the modern age of increased ‘compliance’ and social coercion to blindly obey the demands of authority. Conservatives are wrongly told that they must follow bad laws rather than engage in the English tradition of questioning, challenging, and disobeying fits of political nonsense.

Australia has the same problem as Britain. Our conservatives are weak and rotten, sitting in the corner of Parliament turning green. The people who once voted for them have no idea what to do – trapped between nostalgia and mounting economic pressure. When they want to speak out, they find rainbow barbed wire fencing off the public square.

Bad laws are inescapably tied to social justice because laws based on ‘offence’ are invalid and unenforceable by definition. The more resources funnelled into policing them, the more obvious their incompatibility with basic civil liberty becomes. They are, as the Bad Law Project states, ‘political ideology disguised as law’. Given that society is split more-or-less in half by politics, ideological laws serve as an attempt to use state-sanctioned intimidation to settle political debates.

Right now, we need political heroes ready for battle, and in that respect, Lozza is a legend.