Hong Kong protests gain muted support from Australia's left leaning press and intellectuals

Australian press, political class and intellectuals have, for years, bent over backwards to explain and excuse the totalitarian regime that currently oppresses the chinese people.

Despite their denials, this behaviour is founded in fear - both personal and national.

The chinese government has proved to be vengeful with a long memory.

This failure to call out fascism is also founded in the puerile but widespread desire in the left to see a communist regime surpass the capitalist USA.

We need to keep maximum scrutiny and public pressure on the chinese government to respect the values that we hold dear. If you don't know what values I am talking about, then you are part of the problem....

https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-turned-blind-eye-to-deeply-offensive-threat-from-china-20190618-p51ytn.html

The nostalgia for the hunter gatherer...

Ways of life part 1 – original affluence

This article linked at left is suffused with a longing to return to the garden of Eden, despite the fact that any humans offered a taste of civilization abandon their hunter-gatherer life in an instant.

Such freedoms result in unpredictable change - good and bad.

Those with power (whether sanctioned by ballot or not) are always drawn to the simplest explanation:

"Your freedoms are leading us all to disaster. We am taking away your freedom for all our benefit."

Where have I heard that before..... "accept these commandments now .... in the interests of a promised land...."

France compromises freedom in the face of terror

It is a grievous failure of the state whenever liberty is compromised in the cause of safety.

The constraints on freedom of speech, assembly and association by the French government are betrayals of the most important principles. 

When these freedoms are exercised, all citizens have a clearer view of who they live beside and what may need to be done.

The search without warrant is a undesirable but minor extension of an existing power and, while we retain an open society, abuse by the state should be apparent. 

Ethnic profiling is a specious complaint made more and more frequently by groups (even in Australia). In effect, it is a demand that police ignore intelligence and refuse to act on information that an offender was "dark skinned" - or that the greatest terrorist threats correlate with the Islamic commitment (and indeed even with visitations to particular Islamic groups). 

All governments tend to act in the interests of the governors rather than the governed. 

European governments are showing a growing tendency to act on all sorts of supranational issues without democratic mandate. 

Democracy only constrains this when an active citizenry demands honesty, openness and freedom. 

We must remember that most European governments at this time, wish to conceal from the people that their immigration policies have combined with their anti-assimilation policies (misnamed as "multiculturalism") to turn many European suburbs into toxic ghettos. 

In these testing times, what we need, more than ever, is complete freedom of speech, assembly and association as well as complete honesty and openness from government.

As I write this, the coverup over the New Years Eve attacks near Cologne station is being revealed. Again the same pattern of denial - firstly of the facts - and then of the linkage to the policy of uncontrolled acceptance of huge numbers of young males from mysogynist cultures.

Internationalism loved by the left even when it is a disaster

To the left, nationalism is so toxic that they bend over backwards to defend anything international under leftist control
- even when it they admit it has "committed policy blunder after blunder", selected 3 lesders in a row facing criminal charges, "is often dictatorial and often wrong".





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/love-it-or-loathe-it-world-needs-the-imf/news-story/2f7101bddee95c7da84f8535e07401e6

Every increase in safety is at the cost of freedom.

If we protect fools from themselves, we end up living in a fools paradise. Unfortunately, some health advocates have no idea of this trade off, or have no respect for freedom.

Medical evangelists see third hand smoke as a new way to control us.

Just when you might have been thinking the tobacco prohibitionists are a bit hysterically unbalanced along comes an article that warns that the danger isn't just to high volume smokers, or occassional smokers, or those who might inhale the odd waft of second hand smoke, but to babies through third hand smoke. The article puffs up speculation as conclusion: "new findings" "surfaces contaminated with nicotine, putting infants at risk." Then the potential risk is extended by reference to other unsourced "studies" showing that THS (ohh yes, the acronym makes it sound so much more official) can damage DNA.

At least, the Medscape article provides a link to the actual study. One hopes that at least some readers will follow the link to find that the study involves 5 mothers and their babies. Yes, 5. The "study" found only that substances were detectable in surfaces and bloods. No indication that the levels were consistent with damage. The study was also published by a site, Tobacco Control that exists to spin research on this topic alone.

Tobacco consumption is a very well known and documented risk, but the fanaticism around second hand smoke, and now it seems around third hand smoke leads to shoddy science and calls for ever increasing and unwarranted social control.

Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us

In response to Steven Benko's Article: "What Charlie Hebdo says about laughter, violence, and free speech":
You say “Any whiff of censorship”.  Proposals in Australia from Finkelstein  read very similarly to Putins blogger laws.  Much more than a whiff !!!

You say “Most cherished beliefs and figures lampooned”. In Melbourne on Christmas eve, the "Life of Brian" was on National TV.   You would have to scrape the barrel to find someone threatening let alone harming for ridicule of Christianity.  Indeed, lifted academics do it all the time !  Do you remember “Piss Christ” exhibited by no less than the National Gallery in Melbourne.  The totally gutless art community would never try that with any other religion.

“Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us” is not “odd advice”, but a sadly forgotten maxim attempting to make exactly the “Charlie Hebdo point” that there is no equivalence between verbal expression and physical violence.

The dangerous concept of “verbal violence” has become “accepted wisdom” in our society and is creeping into our laws.

The failure of intellectuals to see the dangers that they have unleashed through the rejection of the “sticks and stones” distinction is stunning:  If I feel hurt by your words, then my violent response is understandable. e.g. if a husband feels hurt by a wife’s dismissive comment, then a back hand across the mouth is understandable ? If a child, hits a child after being teased, it is understandable?  If a citizens hits a protester with a “hurtful” banner, it is understandable?  If a muslim sees a cartoon......

I would suggest that instead of learning from your daughter, you started to take responsibility for teaching her that violence is not an acceptable response to verbal inadequacy or a thin skin..... or she may grow up into a world, where speaking her mind may end her life.

You say "Laughter and violence have two things in common: first, they are both non-verbal; second, both occur when words fail".
Philosophy and stupidity have 2 things in common: the letter “s” and their prevalence in universities.

Expanding government to encompass the common good commonly leads to nogood

China defends it's actions in terms of the common good for the people. Mao Zedong (and incidentally, the Aus Greens) took it one step further and used the common good of future unborn generations as a rationale for oppression of current citizens. The common good is an infinitely flexible concept.

Upping the ante in the fight for free speech

Upping the ante in the fight for free speech
Why spiked wants to make freedom of speech the great cause of 2014.

Free speech needs to be rudely and constantly defended.

Discussion Summary:

Politicians criticising the ABC or reducing its funding are not a threat to freedom of speech. 

Decades ago we had a national broadcaster worth defending. In those days, most ABC journalists attempted to report news with minimal bias. Today, the ABC wraps virtually all it's product in editorial spin and has become a political player. If ABC is widely trusted, it should have no problem getting its users to fund it. In wanting to sell off the ABC, I am not anti-freedom, just anti-free-loading.

But the ABC supports artists who would not be able to earn a living otherwise.

Everyone from car makers to baby makers, from paint sprayers to rap sayers - none of them can last another day unless the government grows another teat and suckles them. The arts teat has permanently infantalised it's industry at tax payers expense. Tell those 'rent seekers' to earn their way by pleasing someone who earns.

The Marionette’s Lament : A Response to Daniel Dennett by Sam Harris

The Marionette’s Lament : A Response to Daniel Dennett
by Sam Harris, neuroscientist and author

The sense of free will is an artefact of the immensely complex decision-making machine (a la Skynet becomes self-aware) that we have evolved. Evolution favoured constant and careful simulation of options before every action - giving a "sense" of free will. Similarly, evolution favoured brains that were more committed to actions - machines that hold an unshakeable (aka irrational) belief that their existence has "meaning".

Darjeeling: Separating the Gorkha

We watched and listened to a large and long Gorkha separatist march through Darjeeling.

The local police (who wear military style uniforms and carry automatic weapons in addition to large batons) were out in force.

Women comprised the first 100m of the march chanting in unison slogans supplied by the sole male in the centre with a megaphone. The men followed up.
Around Darjeeling, many shops display "Ghorkaland" prominently above their shops. During the recent strikes, virtually all businesses in Darjeeling either shut down voluntarily or through social pressure. Tourist trade tanked and many parents reassessed their enrolment in prestigious local schools.
Luckily for us, the ensuing tourist season saw economics trump culture, and a peace deal was struck providing relative calm.

Will money terminate us ?

Fiscal policy is the use of government revenue collection (taxation) and expenditure (spending) to influence the economy.

The best analogy I can think of for present day economic systems is .....

Analogy 1: "The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."

Economic system behaviour is:

• increasingly detached from national or even international policies;

increasingly detached from any tangible assetts in the sense that asset values are a tiny component compared with (imaginary) promisary values (i.e. money).

increasingly "gamed" by internal relationships and strategies in a multiplying number of markets dealing in promisary symbols (money and investments)

Suggestions about "pulling the plug" are derided by the economic cognoscenti.

Fiscal policy ? This is the fantasy that the larger you make the economic footprint of a national government, the more you gain control of a the national economy.

Analogy 2: The bigger the cancer, the easier to manage the health of the patient.
The reality is that the patient is only healthy if the myriad of complex interlinked body systems are healthy. The healthy body is much more likely to be able to compete in a violent and chaotic world environment.

The role of governments ?

Analogy 3: Governments should be the body armour of each citizen, balancing minimal restriction with the maximum protection against external and internal threats. Exposing citizens to the most reality that they can handle to inculcate resilience, independence and productivity.

In the absence of such citizens, SkyNet deserves to win.

In Defence of Freedom of Speech (Chris Berg)

Berg blends a very well referenced history of freedom of speech with a developing argument in favour of free speech as a fundamental right rather than a necessary attribute of an effective democracy.

The two examples of the title receive no great emphasis in the text, but serve merely to bookend the millennia in which this debate has surged back and forth.  The selection of milestone examples is excellent both in terms of their illumination of key differences in underpinning philosophies and their resemblance to aspects of the current debates.

Philosophy is revealed more as an endlessly repeating conversation than a developing argument. Participants in these conversations (including oneself) are often revealed as woefully ignorant of the precedents and historical background of their views – and the opposing arguments.

I very much doubt that proponents of laws based on the United Nations Human Rights documents are aware that the speech restrictions written so broadly within them were included at the request of totalitarian regimes.


The book primary focus is to illuminate the historical sequence of ideas and political developments that echo today in the new international onslaught on freedom of speech.  The arguments, even those openly supported by Berg, are put very briefly.  For instance, Berg only allocates a few sentences to assert that freedom of speech should be considered a right because this is the current majority view.  Those arguing for limits more commonly omit mention of this "right" and argue limitations based on the harm principle.

Contrary to Berg, I continue to agree with Bentham, that all human rights are philosophical “nonsense upon stilts” and with Mill, that all rights must have utility.

Extreme tolerance (not approval) of diverse viewpoints in a society is both an index as well as a mechanism for cultural health and robustness.
There is a natural accretion of power to any organization that grows in size.  All power affects the balances between opposing interests, so a growth or creation of any power source (social or technological) affects individual power - most commonly to diminish it.  The fastest growing powers in the world are no longer the much maligned multi-nationals, but governments.  Governments have a natural tendency to govern rather than serve their people.
Limiting government power is the main strategy in defence of freedom.

Language is a key battleground in governing the way the people think about their freedom.  Freedom of speech therefore, becomes a key underpinning of all other freedoms.  Philosophers, such as Milton and Mill, as well as writers, such as Orwell, Bradbury, all knew this.
The fight for the use of the term “chairperson” over "chairman" was primarily conducted through persuasion and was one small political step in realigning our thinking about the role of women.  The use of the term “asylum seeker” instead of “illegal immigrant” is also one of many small political steps seeking to realign our thinking.  The difference is that it is the government that is effectively making the term illegal in the Australian public debate.
Limiting government power to control speech is the main strategy in defence of freedom of speech.

We have lurched a long way into a world where many people define freedom as merely the right to do what the government says is legal.  Many people are frankly surprised that anyone should argue for a limit to government - as long as it is making more and more laws that they agree with.

Berg’s book is a timely reminder of how long it has taken for freedom of speech to gain even partial acceptance, and how quickly it can be lost.

Obama supporters exaggerate his 2nd term mandate

Obama won a second term as President of the United States with a margin of 51% to Romney's 47.2%.

(source: Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote.  Red=Republican  Blue=Democrat)

This win was a little less than his first term win of 52.9% to McCains 45.7%.

Nevertheless, since the election, the collectivist bias in the US press and in Australia, has become more and more strident in declaring that the President has a mandate for doing whatever he likes.  This includes an increase in the use of executive orders to circumvent the current laws (e.g. immigration and gun control).

Western Democratic systems are suffering from a number of dangerous tendencies clearly despite being clearly articulated by analysts over centuries:

• "winner takes all".  The belief that majority (even if only 51%) has the moral right to implement any policies it desires, regardless of the size and passion of the minority opposition. 
  In 1788, John Adams named this inherent flaw in democratic theory as "tyranny of the majority". 
  It is both sad and bizarre that leaders from Obama to Morsi act as if the passionate opposition of a very large minority is illegitimate and can be crushed using whatever means are available.
• failure to manage. The prime purpose of government is to manage the issues that might interfere with the freedom of individuals to pursue their interests.
  
  Increasingly, governments are encroaching on the very space that they should be protecting.  Special interest groups are continually emerging to ask for governments to erect a new safety net below their special type of risk.  Government willingly accepts the additional responsibility but then insists on controlling the risk by regulating for all citizens.
  
  In 1233, Tocqueville identified a second inherent flaw in democratic theory in terms of a never ending accretion of government rules which end by extinguishing the very freedoms that democratic governments were created to protect:
  
  "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  (Book Four, Chapter VI)

Why say "charity" instead of "entitlement" or "safety net"

"Charity" links the act to the motivation - love, care.  "Safety Net" is the language of political hacks.  So called charities have now begun to refer to people that they help as "clients". 
Language is the substrate on which we communicate and construct ideas.
To recast charity as a business client relationship is to deliberately remove any sense of gratitude to the people paying for the charity and replace it with the sense of entitlement that a purchaser of services would have.

The law provides no moral compass and is a set of arbitrary rules riddled with inconsistencies. 

Wealth is accumulated by the quaint principle of property rights which have generally been a shared value as well as a commonly violated value in most societies since.  A recently defunct social experiment attempted to regard property as theft and the leaders in its major remaining adherent, China, seem to have been very personally successful at property theft.... perhaps not quite as large as Gina.  But who would know ?

The argument that "entitlements, wealth and power are all creations of law" seems to be a variant on Obama's well known "you didn't build that"  line.  You don't own that.  Any thing you have is the gift of the law.

I look at it the other way. The law is the record of the messy battleground fought by a range of cultural groups attempting to exert power over other cultural groups.  You only have what you have fought for and won. 

If the left had unfettered power, Gina's wealth would no doubt be expropriated without compensation to pay for Craig Thomson's legal defence, and any mention of it would be prohibited by Stephen Conroy's thought police.

Luckily, we still have some checks and balances in Australia and there is both a vestige of support for property rights and for freedom of speech, so the left must chip away at them slowly. 

The key point is that rights are only as good as your ability to defend them.  Control the the language and a right can be redefined as a wrong - and a charitable gift can be redefined as the entitlement of a client.

Scared western leaders deny fear motivates their sensitivity towards muslim icons

Politicians and leaders around the world are visibly intimidated by the violence of the muslim mobs whipped into a frenzy by a cartoon here or a YouTube clip there.

They then lie to their people by denying that their cowardice is motivated by fear.

If our leaders, with all the apparatus of the state to protect them, are scared, then it is no wonder that the ordinary citizen feels terrified to speak out.  It is the scared silence of the citizen that is the immense danger for society.

Politicians and leaders shout their condemnation of the speakers far louder than their defence of speech.

Offices are bombed, people are killed and our politicians all but say "Look what your speech caused."

The corollary of this is the unstated shared knowledge that a small proportion - but a large number - of muslims resort to violence quickly and easily, and openly oppose freedom, not only in their families and communities, but for all others.

"You should know this, so don't say anything that will excite them."

Politicians and leaders say they have equal sensitivity for all religious icons, and yet I remember a large number of direct attacks on other religions that did not elicit much interest - in fact politicians were sometimes the attackers.

A start of a collection from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the serious to the trivial....

Piss Christ exhibited by state funded galleries in the US and Australia.  No one killed, but there was protests and the work was vandalized a few times. Nevertheless, the New York Times reviewer thinks it is serious art and it made lots of money

Piss Mohammed ?  Would ANY gallery in the world display it ?  Would Christie's auction house sell it ?  Would New York times magazine review it as art ? I am even too scared to put a mock up of it on the page.....  Honestly, would you be courageous enough ?  Does this not say that the extremist are winning ?

Tod Sampson, advertising guru and panelist for popular Australian TV show Gruen Transfer, the thinks it is funny to sell T-shirts infer that "white" people make him nervous.	Which groups are privileged against such ridicule ? Christians make me nervous ?  Not likely to be a problem. Black people make me nervous ?  Aboriginals make me nervous ?  Most likely a lot of criticism. Muslims make me nervous ? An incitement to violence ?
The Book of Mormon (musical) reviewed by NPR as containing "unprintably blasphemous bit of faithful-baiting".  As it's performance was on at the same time as the "Innocence of Muslims" reaction, it has been cited in many articles and cartoons.	The Life of Brian ? Quite a bit of peaceful protest and criticism, but overwhelming international acceptance. The Book of the Prophet (the musical).   It is safe to imagine it. After all there is plenty of rich material in it for satire and send up ! But, do anything more than imagine ?  How long do you think you would live ?  Artists are as scared as I am, and continue to only pick on the "soft" targets.
Previous BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, openly admitted that different religions were treated with different sensitivities due to the threat of violence: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’	If one of the most respected world media organisations is intimidated, what chance has the average world citizen....
Parody of what look like Kung Fu monks where their pepsi has been inserted into their central iconography.	Parody of madrasah where inmates worshipped using Pepsi ..... Are you scared enough yet ? Or are you still trying to convince yourself that this is all because buddhists do not deserve respect, and muslims do ?
Pussy Riot walks to the front of a church during a service, puts on terrorist style balaclavas and takes over  invoked the name of the Virgin Mary, and urging her to get rid of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and to "become a feminist".	Boy or girl band Pussy Riot walks to the front a mosque during a service, puts on  in terrorist style balaclavas and takes over invoked the name of the Prophet, and urging him to get rid of Ahmadinejad and to "become a feminist". Imagine a group of very brave girls or boys in ANY muslim dominated country OR almost any cowering free country doing this ? If they did would the music celebs support them from prosecution from "hooliganism" ? Do you seriously believe that they would have got out alive ?
-	-
-	-
-	-
- still looking around....  songs, cartoons, etc etc	-

In Victoria Australia, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (2001) makes it a criminal offence to "severe(ly) ridicule" a person because of their religion.  But it does not prevent the ridicule of the religion itself.  So you should be free to say what you like about the religion of mormons, islam, christianity, scientology, etc, but not to severely ridicule those who believe.

This creates a bind, because Islam itself can be read any old way like the bible.  It is really the huge number of fanatics themselves that make the religion so dangerous.  Thus the above law is so dangerous because, like the examples above, it is so selectively applied to stifle criticism of looneys.


If someone "severely ridicules" an obvious looney carying a placard saying "Behead

Moves are afoot to respond spinelessly to the above intimidation by criminalising ALL so called "blasphemy" or so called "hate speech".

Unfortunately many religious leaders have an obvious attraction to rolling back a couple of hundred years of the growth of freedom.