Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » human rights

Category Archives: human rights

Jason Wilson can’t stand Milo Yiannopoulos

This is probably going to be long.
It stems very much from a conversation I have been having with Jason over twitter where he insisted to me that his purpose with this piece was to be a reporter frankly I don’t buy that claim for a minute because the essay I am going to critique is anything but journalism. Its a far left polemic in defense of the left wing  ideology  that Wilson is so invested in.

DePaul University Tour Shut Down by Protestors, Lead by Self-Styled Free Speech Warrior Milo Yiannopoulos

This is the title is certainly not a good start. In the first instance it is so clumsily worded that you could be forgiven for thinking that Yiannopoulos was the one shutting down the university tour rather than the Black lives matter activists who were the interrupters. Hang on tight dear readers because the things only get worse from here on in. for those interested Milo put up the vision for the De Paul incident at nearly two hours long its a bit of a grind to watch but it is interesting in the context of this essay


Yiannopoulos and his fans once again did not prove to be as robust as their rhetoric.

 

At DePaul, the self-styled free speech warrior and his fans once again did not prove to be as robust as their rhetoric. When protesters arrived they begged for the intercession of cops, and cartoonish redpill tough guy Matt Forney complained about being manhandled.

What would you expect any speaker to do if their event was interrupted? Get the audience to beat up the hecklers? You can’t have it both ways when the police  are tasked with keeping order and they fail to do this it is reasonable to be less than happy about it.

Nevertheless, the event received the usual hagiographic treatment on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, and once again Yiannopoulos was able to portray himself as the alt-right’s courageous truth-teller.

Which begs the question “is Milo telling the truth here?” Personally I would say that he is  but lets see if  Wilson even explores that question here

He was fortunate, in a way. On his current US campus tour, alleged threats to his free speech, and the back and forth between Yiannopoulos and his antagonists have been the only thing sustaining interest in the whole enterprise.

Hmm lets see If you hive a hall or lecture space and have your ability to perform is compromised by “activists” then isn’t that by definition his free speech being denied?

I know because I attended a Milo event at which there was no left reception committee. When he appears unchallenged, the Milo show is the dampest of squibs.

At the University of Oregon, where I saw him, it was not clear that he was especially grateful for the platform, or the lack of interruptions.

“Your professors are cunts, on the whole,” he tells the mostly student audience in an almost-full auditorium, “limp-wristed, pacifistic, sandal-wearing weirdos.”

It goes on like this for hours – the epithets are relentless and the provocations artless.  Without hostile interruptions, Yiannopoulos’s act, which unfortunately relies entirely on him speaking, is a one-note affair.

So much for Wilson as a reporter!  So much for Wilson as the man with a handle on the online traditions of shit posting and mischief making .

The Oregon engagement begins, like the others, with a one on one interview. Tonight his interlocutor is the co-president of the local branch of Young Americans for Liberty, who are sponsoring the evening. Then comes an open question and answer session, and Milo finishes up by giving fans an opportunity to take selfies with one of the right’s rising stars.

Its a tour around many campuses and were it any other type of tour there would not be any complaint about it having a running order or even a script that if followed on any of the legs of the tour.

But right now, that’s a long way off. First, we have to wade through the redpill boilerplate that constitutes Milo’s political views.

“There is an assault in this country”, he informs his interviewer, “on straight white men”, waged by “middle class women and cucks.” In this case the latter is being used to describe male feminists, who “don’t need to be castrated, they’ve done it themselves.”

Moving onto rape culture, which he considers a myth, he asks, with a theatrical moan, “Is there anything worse than consent?”

Wilson makes no secret of his disdain for Milo’s opinions, as is his right, however he undermines his own argument here by not even exploring the possibility that Milo has both the facts and the truth on the side of his talking points here. Wilson simply accepts all of the feminist orthodoxies without a single question

These opinions are odious, of course, but in another way utterly banal. Most adults will find Yiannopoulos’s show exactly as transgressive as a dirty joke told by a racist uncle. He wants desperately to cause deep offence to the left, and with some campus-based comrades, he clearly succeeds. Others will struggle to muster an eye-roll. I’ve heard pithier put-downs of progressives on Australian bar stools.

Why are his opinions “odious” would be an obvious thing to follow the opening claim of this paragraph but instead of that Wilson goes for that old favorite of the progressive the ad hominiem argument. The thing is having watched a lot of Milo’s shtick in his you tube vids he clearly gets a good response to his talk, his interviews and debates all show him to be witty clever and generally amusing. He may not be funny to the cohort of Wilson and his friends but as they are  among the targets of Milo’s sarcasm, satire and wit it would be surprising if Wilson and his friends enjoyed being so mercilessly mocked.

So why are all these other people laughing?

After all, even if you agree with this stuff, there’s not much here that’s new. Milo described the alt-right, for which he as a kind of spokesman, as a group which is “young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies”.

But anyone who’s ever listened to Michael Savage or Mark Levin, or even waited around in a small-town barber shop has already encountered all of this guff at punishing length. If there’s a difference, it’s purely a matter of presentation.

Students of the art of humor will tell you that there are only a handful of proto -jokes and all of  the huge  lexicon of laughs derive from this small seed, so its not always what you say as much as how you tell them  Milo’s shtick works because he is a consummate communicator and his audience likes what he says. Wilson is simply unable to do likewise because of his own political baggage and intellectual  investment in left wing progressive ideology.

His core politics are similar to those of the mens rights movement – he hates feminists and claims they’re waging a war on the *real* victims, men. But everyone on the American right pretty much agrees with this. He calls lesbians names and questions whether there should be further Muslim immigration. But these are not novel sentiments either.

On the subject of feminism this interview with Dave Rubin explains far better  what it is about contemporary feminism that deserves scorn and strong criticism. Wilson’s vilification and character assassination is based on the faulty belief that Milo objects to the now achieved (in western countries) goals of first and second wave feminism.

For sheltered campus conservatives in provincial college towns, though, it all sounds terribly naughty, even revolutionary. Not because of what’s being said, which is “redpill”  boilerplate, but because of who is saying it.

Has Wilson not heard of the internet?

In an irony whose full implications escape his audience – who are not, on the whole, well-attuned to such things – his identity is the only real value he adds to an otherwise bog-standard litany of complaints.

Its seems to me that Wilson can not cope with the idea that am  man can be both Gay and conservative

The conservative ecosystem is variously populated by talk-radio mastodons; dessicated, reptilian columnists; and near-vegetative think-tankers with about as much charisma as their lanyards. In this Jurassic world, Milo can self-consciously promote himself as something disruptive and new.

For someone who claims to be a “reporter” his political allegiances are doing great deal of harm to his objectivity

Of course, he’ll say he’s also bringing glamour. But as has been  pointed out, the guy dresses like something out of a “Hey, kids!” PSA, or Poochie.

If Wilson’s profile picture is anything to go by Wilson would not qualify as  any sort of fashionista himself, that said though if one takes the time to review Milo’s various media appearances its clear that the man is actually quite good at dressing for the occasion, most serious events will see Milo wearing a well cut suit but on the current tour he can of course be more frivolous.

Tonight, in pink t-shirt, bling, gaudy trainers and lightly distressed denim, he looks like he’s beamed in from the “boys casual wear” section of a decade-old Macy’s catalogue. Only the buttoned-down Randroids who run YAL could think that his frosted tips and ostentatious indoor sunglasses are anything other than normcore-gone-wrong.

Its called dressing for the occasion Mr Wilson and playing the game of political performance. Frankly I would have thought that  asocial media pundit such as your self would understand that all politics is a performance art-form then again I can’t help thinking that Wilson would be lauding any “progressive” using Milo’s tactics here maybe this explains Wilson’s clear rancor  because he simply can’t get his head around anyone other than one of his fellow progressives being so able to exploit the social media the way that Milo so clearly does.

The really entrancing thing for America’s reactionary dweebs and young fogeys is hearing this from a gay, British man in his thirties, rather than say, Rush Limbaugh.

It means that for an hour or two, they can put aside their niche anxieties about creeping sharia, or who is using which public restroom, and imagine that they are part of something subversive.

What Wilson fails to understand here is that while his progressive cronies have long held the upper hand in social discourse on the campuses of first world universities  to be a conservative and to be openly Gay about it IS a subversive act just as much as being a communist was for my own generation

The bonus is that even in making this pitch, he comforts his audience with the knowledge that they don’t have to take the political demands of other LGBT people seriously. He drops hints that deep down, he hates queers as much as they do.

NO there is simply not any hatred for “LGBT people” in play here Milo does not “Hate Queers” either on the surface or deep down. His take on is is quite sane and very grown up He enjoys being a homosexual is the bottom line

One of his biggest applause lines in Eugene was the moment when he distanced himself from other gay men, averring that “the worst thing about being gays is other gays… They’re just such fucking fags.”

Its called being self deprecating and taking the piss out of your own subculture that Milo both endorses and celebrates

It’s all a bit like music hall for young tories: marginally risque but ultimately reassuring. It’s conservative all right, but not in the edgy way Yiannopoulos imagines it to be.

If only Wilson could understand that Conservatives are allowed to have a place in the polity that is not just to be the butt of progressive ire, and what Milo’s “Dangerous faggot tour” is really about is pointing out that conservatives no longer  have to be hiding  in the shadows of campus life any more, they don’t have to remain under the dishonest heel of political correctness  , kowtowing to the craziness of third wave feminist nonsense

In fact he’s just one of a long line of performers who exist to endorse the whole slate of garden-variety petty bourgeois prejudices. It’s dull work, I imagine, but there’s a steady market for those who can give it fresh nuance.

For now, he appears to be on a roll. From his start as a Breitbart writer and gamergate troll, he’s energetically barged his way into the dress circle of rightwing celebrity.

Those over tight progressive underpants are in evidence again with this claim mainly because I don’t think that an Ideological warrior like Wilson  cannot  imagine that any legitimate criticism of progressivism   is  possible. Nor do I think that Wilson has any understanding of Gaming or the Gamergate movement he so casually dismisses. I asked him on twitter if he was a gamer  and his response was to try to chnage the subject. so my guess is that his opinions all come from the likes of Anita Sarkesiain  and those of her ilk rather than him having any experience of the subculture or the experience of gaming

He now rubs shoulders with the likes of Ann Coulter, with whom he shares a performative, post-Trump antipathy to established movement conservatism. He’s successfully positioned himself as a member of the “alt-right”, a movement for which he drafted a manifesto which also functions as an apologia for the open anti-semitism and racism of that community.

Hmm I simply don’t see the antisemitism that Wilson is claiming, in fact most of the  antisemitism in the western polity comes form the left in their apologia for Islam and the Jihadists.something that I have seen Wilson himself flirts with on twitter where despite me giving him ample giving him ample opportunities to denounce the inherent bigotry of Islam he could not bring himself to admit that Islam is hateful to Gays or women.

(During the evening, he retails the anti-establishment sentiments which are themselves now de rigeur on the right, saying that “the Republican Party needs to be torn up, burnt to the ground and rebuilt”.)

The hustle has been competent enough to secure the greatest reward that a bogus generational spokesman can reap: a profile in the New York Times magazine. And now, he’s on a US tour, bringing his fabulous brand of bigotry to America’s universities.

If there is one thing that is fabulous its the way that Wilson portrays anyone who offers a counter to the “progressive narrative” as bigotry, Question the Black lives matter narrative and in Wilson’s  view its bigotry, Question the silly claim that one in five students will be raped and its bigotry,  In fact its seems clear to me he is just over invested in the “progressive” orthodoxy and he is terrified of having to rethink any of that he just digs his heels in and calls people names because its

In Eugene, around 350 prople show up (at DePaul, Breitbart claimed there were 500, but they have a habit of talking their employee up). A solid three quarters of those in attendance were men. Given Milo’s obsession with detailing what he sees the failings of women – especially feminists, lesbians, and those who aren’t thin – it’s no surprise that his events are such sausage-fests.

Would Wilson care if a Feminist had a predominately female audience or would he disparage a majority female audience as a  “vag-fest” or some other derogatory term of a cohort of women ?

Indeed, the passages of the evening in which he talks about the many women that he doesn’t like are one of the few times that a genuine emotion – disgust – rises to the surface of his camp repartee.

When he describes lesbians as “horrendous, quivering masses of horror”, described feminism as “cancer”, he’s practically spitting. It’s the kind of vituperation you don’t usually employ unless you’ve encountered a real threat.

Like so many on the progressive side of politics Wilson has no sense of humor and no understanding that the anti-lesbian shtick  is all part of Milo’s performance. As I have found in my own interactions with Wilson to him its  inconceivable that  any thing that a conservative says or does will not have some malign intention or purpose. Essentially he lacks any generosity towards conservatives and only sees them as a class enemy to be denounced.

I don’t know, or much care, whether Milo Yiannopoulos’s own contempt for women is a mask for fear. But he certainly appears to be answering to the fears of his audience.

This is utter rubbish from Wilson there is simply no reason to think that Milo has contempt for women nor does it follow that the audiences at his Dangerous faggot tour do either.

The sources of this disquiet are evident in the queues for the question and answer session, and later for selfies. It’s very clear in these moments that Milo’s core audience, his most devoted fans, are bewildered, young, reactionary, male nerds.

Once again Wilson shows his contempt for ordinary young men who have not taken up the progressive orthodoxy. That my friends is the core of the contradiction with in progressiveism It claims to be about inclusiveness and diversity unless you are a straight white man then you will be eternally the subject of scorn and derision

You get the vivid impression when you hear them talk that their antipathy to feminism has bloomed out of a much more intimate kind of frustration with the opposite sex. Unfortunately, they’ve come to the world’s worst source of dating advice.

Could anyone be more arrogant or more disparaging at a personal level than this? this is claim is all just an ad hom  fallacy writ large

During question time, men ask for and recieve counsel about how to deal with feminists challenging them in their personal lives, and Yiannopoulos commiserated with them about “the oppressive hegemony of social justice”.

Although I have not attended one of these events I have watched several on Milo’s and other you tube channels and this characterization of the Q & A session is simply wrong and the  questions and comments are as varied the people who attend

The whole ritual does no more than try to reverse the polarity of identity politics, insisting that actually, it’s white men who are oppressed. And the only way he can really make this case is to talk about class.

Wilson is correct that identity politics is a big issue for those who attend however in typical SJW style Wilson willfully misunderstands the arguments that are in play here.  The point is not to try to seize a better  place in the oppression hierarchy fro “white men” as he contends, but to dispute the entire social analysis of “oppression” that underpins the SJW  notions of identity politics that would demonize every one who is straight, white and male.

Thus, he talks about the “awful, awful, terrible, diseased, and damaged people lecturing and hectoring the working class” who have “rightly had enough of it”, and whose only hope of salvation is “President Donald Trump”.

Here I can to some extend share Wilson’s  concerns about the virtues of Donald Trump however I think that Wilson is sadly not detached enough  from his left wing obsessions to understand why Trump is popular. What that popularity boils down to is a rather refreshing refusal to kowtow to the conventions of Political correctness and if there is one thing that those on the right appreciate its anyone who will slash through the bindings that have come from identity politics and the deathly fear of giving offense, But to explore this topic in more detail I suggest that you go to this article which also looks at Milo’s Trump shows but it does so with a far more even hand.

The problem – apart from the fact that this is delivered in an upper-middle class British accent, and that his audience are mostly college kids – is that he’s not really offering the working class anything except the permission to dish out racial slurs and minimise rape culture.

To be frank I don’t buy into Wilson’s Marxist assumption that the audience are what would be “working class” or that Milo being English or “upper class” makes a blind bit of difference to  cut though to his audience. This is an audience who have grown up with the cultural diversity of YouTube and they simply do not care about Milo’s accent. Now would college students be what we in Australia would call working class because they (or their parents) are all paying to go to the colleges and that takes enough resources to place those audience members well and truly into the middle classes

He boasts about the scholarship scheme he’s set up for underprivileged boys, but he has nothing to say about the economy except hints of support for a Trumpian economic nationalism.

Why on earth does Wilson think that Milo should be any sort of economist?

In another hackneyed move, Yiannopoulos posits the “Working class” not as a product of structural economic inequality but as another kind of political identity, one that expresses itself in salty language and low-level sexual harassment.

Here I can’t honestly do better than recommend the Why people love Trump piece I previously linked to because it looks at the subject free from Wilson’s arrogant disdain for Milo and his audience.

This is the kind of caricature you can only believe in if you don’t actually know that many working-class people. Like every other right wing hack, Milo absolutely depends on the angst of wounded identity, and its quest for an alternative victimhood.

I am rather fond of arguing for a certain generosity when you discuss politics, that sort of generosity would have prevented Wilson’s unshakable urge to demonize anyone who is snot singing from the progressive play book as he does here. The thing that Wilson seems to miss entirely here is that its not about seeking “victimhood” at all its about saying instead that the labels and characterizations of the SJW narrative  are nonsense, broken and  or wrong.

The working class he spins fantasies about are exclusively white, because like every right wing hack, his principal concern is activating white male resentment. This rhetoric was developed precisely to divide the working class, and to keep them in their place.

The problem for Wilson here is that Milo is not working from the Marxist lens  that he himself see’s the world through. No is it about something as negative as activation of  anyone’s resentment. Its all about saying that we are all individuals rather than  just being elements in one group identity or another, its the classic libertarian positions that Milo is drawing on here, ones that value individual enterprise and self reliance. Sadly for a Marxist like Wilson this is just incomprehensible.

At one point Yiannopoulos offers something of a credo: “The only way to respond to outrage culture is to be outrageous”. It’s handy because it’s a good cover story for pursuing his real goal, which is no more or less than the getting of attention.

Milo makes no secret of his love of social provocation and were he of the left rather  than the right I am rather sure that Wilson would find this behavior to be praise worthy because  like a lot of lefties he thinks that social transgression belongs to his side of politics

But Milo Yiannopoulos is not outrageous, nor is he of himself especially dangerous. He’s just a wanker. When the Trump wave recedes, he may in time be regarded, along with the rest of the flotsam it deposited, as a curiosity. More likely, he’ll return to the mean and become one more right wing talking head in a perennially shallow talent pool.

Wilson is particularly humorless when it comes to anyone not from his own left wing tribe and here is a perfect example of his lack political generosity that puts him very much into the authoritarian left. Its obvious to anyone else that the title of Milo’s “Dangerous Faggot” tour is meant to be ironic and trangressive to the SJW tropes about the use of language as with the word “queer” Milo seeks to reclaim the word “faggot” here by taking what was a term of derision and making it something positive

The ideas he promotes are damaging, of course. He talks a lot about “the public square”, but the fruit borne of his adolescent attacks on feminism are likely to play out in more private spaces, where the most important negotiations about sex, consent, and equality happen.

But its not all of feminism that Milo rails against its just the man hating third wave feminism that has blossomed in contentment universities over the last couple of decades that actively seeks out offense and it is that brand of feminism that Milo describes as Cancer

God help the woman whose partner is a Milo fan. At the very best, she’ll have to listen to this horseshit on a loop. At worst, she’ll be living with someone who has the tools to rationalise selfishness, abuse, and even sexual assault.

Pardon me? Is Wilson really suggesting that being  a Milo fan is tantamount to being a wife beater? a rapist even? How shallow is Wilson?

What’s perhaps not considered often enough how much damage this nonsense does to those men who take it seriously. For one thing, it allows them to put off the day on which they grow up, and realise that the women who won’t sleep with them aren’t persecuting them, but making the kinds of choices characteristic of autonomous human beings.

No Jason that is utter  nonsense. Men who “listen” to the argument against the SJW tropes do not become monsters and its not at all about disaffection because these men can’t get laid. In fact there is no evidence at all that those on the right are any less successful at finding sexual  partners than Wilson’s fellow lefties. Nor is he correct to assume that those men  on the libertarian right don’t see women as anything less that fully autonomous individuals just like themselves   That he thinks otherwise is actually a sad artifact of his own collectivist thinking.

So as derivative as this whole enterprise is, it may cause problems. What’s to be done?

DePaul’s progressives had one strategy – protest – which I do not plan to gainsay. That’s a decision for local activists to make based on what’s happening on their campus.

So left wing “protest goo”d in Wilson’s mind

There’s been more than enough hippie-punching in recent months directed at those who protest at public events that attract the far right, and I don’t propose to add to it. Protesting serves many purposes: publicly articulating common positions, building comradeship, and making claims or counter-claims on public space. There should be more of it.

Unless of course its anti SJW  protest, then its bad and should be confronted.. Hmm OK

It’s true, though, that on those occasions like the night in Eugene, where he is not met by protesters, Milo seems forlorn. His schtick goes limp; he’s revealed as a one-trick pony.

When a young man, identifying himself as a feminist, spoke up against him, Milo whisked him onto the stage for an extended chat. Briefly, the evening was enlivened, though no one was enlightened, because Milo doesn’t argue in good faith. But he knows that the audience comes for the fireworks.

This bit of Wilson’s piece shows just how little this left wing warrior respects the core value of democracy which revolves around a robust exchange of ideas.  That Milo is willing to engage with and debate his opponents is not just “schtick ” its an example of his confidence in his argument. Nor is it ever the case that democratic discussions ore as one dimensional as Wilson implies here. There is simply nothing wrong or awry  for a polemicist to make their events entertaining with a little bit of drama. Wilson needs to lighten  up a great deal.

Absent opposition, it’s harder to convince supporters that he’s bravely overturning PC shibboleths and taking it to the SJWs.

Not in the age of social media it isn’t even if the event at Portland was lacking in “fireworks” ( it has been the exception rather than the rule for the “Dangerous faggot tour”)  all that it shows is that the SJWs there are rather less bolshie than at other universities on the itinerary

Perhaps the decision by students at the University of California, Irvine, to offer a counter-event to Milo’s visit offers a promising way to deal with this nuisance.

When it comes to the right, “ignore them and they’ll go away” is generally bad advice, but skipping the Milo show, and using it as  to build something positive sounds like something that could also build the left ahead of the Summer of Trump.

Thus Wilson ends with whimper  here rather than a roar but that is hardly surprising given that Wilson has done nothing but give us an an extended ad hominiem attack on both Milo Yiannopoulos and the young Trump supporters who have been finding the Gay man  so engaging. To Wilson they are just the class  enemy rather than men and women who have as much right as his fellow lefties to be involved with the issues and  debates  about their society. In fact Wilson’s piece is an almost perfect example of why Donald Trump is  more than likely to be elected President. What we are seeing here is a whole movement of young people who are refusing to see that the SJW emperor is wearing a fine well tailored set of threads. They are trusting their senses and they are daring to speak the truth about the regressive left’s saggy arse that is in the breeze on so many issues, Things like the Myth of “rape culture” and other third wave feminist tropes are being seen clearly and actively denounced, Likewise the  willful blindness about the ideology of Islam that I have found Wilson himself guilty of is something that more and more people are no long willing to accept, especially after the horrendous slaughter at the Pulse night club.  Finally though I just want to say that  this  essay is not intended to be any sort of personal attack on Wilson himself I  have brought this humble blog out of its hiatus in part because I want to demonstrate to Jason Wilson that I have read and understood his piece but mainly I wanted to substantiate my suggestion to him on twitter that the “Why people love Trump” is a far better piece of journalism than the missive I have been considering here.

Advertisements

At last after seven years of madness the country can draw a line under the Asylum seeker disarray created by Kevin Rudd

I must say that waking up to the news that the government has finally manged to secure the passage of a bill to reintroduce TPVs has really brightened my day.

“The crossbench shouldn’t have been put in this position, but we have,” the Motoring Enthusiast party senator said.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon also wrestled with the decision, but like Muir believed the amendments would give hope to thousands of refugees stuck in detention.

In return for their support – and that of the Palmer United party – the government agreed to quickly process the claims of 30,000 asylum seekers languishing in detention centres across Australia.

PUP leader Clive Palmer said that backing the legislation meant 1,500 asylum seekers – including 468 children – would soon be leaving Christmas Island.

But Labor and the Greens accused the government of using those children as a bargaining chip, arguing that the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, could release them at any time, if he wished.

Independent senator Jacqui Lambie – who opposed the legislation – attacked the government for keeping children detained for so long.

“These kids have been sitting there for 15 months, and you want a pat on the back? You’ve got to be kidding yourselves,” she said.

Particular concerns were raised about the return of TPVs, a Howard-era policy condemned by refugee advocates and repealed by the previous Labor government.

The government also agreed to increase Australia’s humanitarian intake of refugees and to give those on bridging visas the right to work.

Source

Now the government can virtually clear the legacy backlog of mendicants that we can thank the Labor party for creating way back at the beginning of the Rudd regime. Long time readers may remember when I  correctly predicted the subsequent flood of boats  Further despite voting against the bill in the Senate I very much doubt that any future Labor government will be rushing to repeal the legislation because they will not want to endure being thrashed for their stupid position of the issue for another  seven years.  Any one who looks back on the  this part of our political history must surely recognize that the whole problem is a consequence of the Labor party making a bad call and then being political cowards unwilling to undo their mistake or even admit that it was a mistake. All because the Labor party have been trying to court the very loopy left who support the Greens position on the Asylum seeker issues. That sort of thinking from the ALP is of course rather mad because there is no way that  a sensible ALP person can possibly sink deep enough into the slime of Green political idea  without alienating their center.

The thing that we should always remember is that the measure of the ALP’s position on any issue where it is at odds with the current government is not the posturings of Electricity Bill  Shorten and his motley crew but their answer to being asked “will you repeal it if you win office?” and my guess is that The ALP answer will almost without exception fudge it and make excuses and prevaricate because the last thing that they want to do is commit themselves to giving the public a very spiky stick to beat them with for the next seven years.

Fortunately the Rudd asylum seeker dance is now, finally ending

Fortunately the Rudd asylum seeker dance is now, finally ending

Brendan O’Neill on the new totalitarians, now policing even our private thoughts and word games

Hat tip to Andrew Bolt on this one:

Brendan O’Neill on the new totalitarians, now policing even our private thoughts and word games:

WHY is it bad to hack and expose photographs of a woman’s naked body but apparently OK to steal and make public the contents of a man’s soul?

This is the question that should burn in our minds in the wake of the Barry Spurr scandal.

For just a few weeks ago, when a hacker invaded the iCloud ­accounts of female celebs and ­rifled through their intimate snaps, there was global outrage… To peer into a woman’s most intimate moments was a “sexual violation”, said a writer for Guardian Australia…

Fast forward to last week, and some of the same people whose jaws hit the floor at the audacity of those who leaked these women’s private, unguarded pics were cheering the hacking of Spurr’s private, unguarded words.

Spurr, a professor of poetry at the University of Sydney, has had his private emails pored over and published by pseudo-radical, eco-miserabilist website New Matilda. In some of his emails, in what he has since claimed was a cheeky competition between him and his friends to see who could be the least PC, Spurr used words that would no doubt cause pinot gris to be spilled if they were uttered at a dinner party.

He described Tony Abbott as an “Abo lover”, referred to a woman as a “harlot”, called Nelson Mandela a “darky”, and used “Mussies” for Muslims and “chinky-poos” for Chinese. He now has been suspended by the university.

Many people will wince on reading those words. Just as we will have winced if we happened upon those photos of well-known women doing porno poses or ­engaging in shocking sex talk in videos shot by their boyfriends.

And that’s because these behaviours, both Spurr’s knowingly outrageous banter and the act­resses’ knowingly sluttish poses, share something important in common: they were private acts, not intended for public consumption. They were things done or said between intimates, far from the eyes and ears of respectable ­society. Yet where right-on commentators and tweeters stood up for the right of famous women not to have their private nakedness splashed across the internet, they have relished in the exposure of Spurr’s soul to the panting, outraged mob.

 

A most worthy argument from one of the lefties I truly respect.

Cheers Comrades

headline_new

Brendan O’Neill

A war that is unavoidable and sadly necessary

 Tony Abbott: the operation could take ‘many months’. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Tony Abbott: the operation could take ‘many months’. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Australia will send a military force to the United Arab Emirates to contribute to the US campaign of airstrikes against Islamic State (Isis) militants in Iraq.

In response to a formal request from the US for specific Australian defence force (ADF) capabilities, the prime minister, Tony Abbott, said Australia would supply 600 personnel – made up of 400 from the air force and 200 from the military, including special forces – along with equipment to the coalition force against the Isis movement.

Up to eight Royal Australian Air Force F/A18F Super Hornets combat aircraft, a Wedgetail surveillance aircraft, and a tanker and transport aircraft will be sent to the United Arab Emirates.

“In addition, the Australian Defence Force will prepare a special operations task Group as military advisers that could assist Iraqi and other security forces that are taking the fight to the [Isis] terrorists,” said Abbott. Military advice would also be provided to Kurdish Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq.

ADF personnel will be based in the US headquarters “to ensure close coordination” with the US and to support planning and logistics.

“We are not deploying combat troops but contributing to international efforts to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening,” said Abbott.

source

For once its possible to praise Bill Shorten for something because the on this occasion the opposition is sticking with the long standing tradition of solidarity with the government when our troops are deployed into harms way.  In fact with the exception of the far left Greens who have been predictably tacitly defending the IS Islamofachist killers in the northern part of Iraq there is an almost universal feeling in this country that going to war to stop the atrocities committed in the name of Allah. With the brutal murder of a British aid  worker fresh in our minds who could possibly think that there is any other choice but to go into northern Iraq and Syria with all guns blazing?

I rather firmly of the opinion that a predominately air based campaign will be more successful on this occasion than it was in the previous forays into Iraq. I think this for a couple of reasons. Firstly the current crop of Jihadis have very little willing support from the people in the territory they nominally control. This has to be a natural consequence of their brutality and continuing war crimes. Without some support from the population for their aims and methodology then all they have is fear from the people who currently live under their rule. While that is a good motivator for population compliance its not going to help them much in terms of defending the territory that currently occupy.  Secondly the local geography of dry desert mostly flat territory provides little cover and that means that vehicles  and men on the move are hard to hide form air surveillance and more importantly air strikes. If its moving and holds armed men then it can be taken out form the air.

I think that we can be pretty sure that the Kurds in the north will not tend towards the excesses of war that will alienate the Sunis who we want on our side n this war but I am far less confident of the Shia militias who may well be inclined to take some sort of revenge on the Suni population if they are perceived to be at all sympathetic to the IS Jihadis, this issue was front and center in the weekend news reporting out of Iraq on the ABC.

One thing that I don’t expect though is that there will be many IS Jihadists taken prisoner. Fanatics can not be trusted to be honorable  nor is it to be expected  that they will surrender when their situation is hopeless. Rule 303 is also likely to be applied by the ground forces that mop up as well. If many of them are taken prisoner its likely that bleeding hearts like the loopy Greens will want to see them tried by one court or another.  While that may suit the namby-pamby Greens I just don’t think that you want to give too many of these scumbags the venue to further promote their hateful ideology.

Its of course  too early to predict the result of this war but I don’t share the pessimism of  dyed in the wool extreme  lefties who are already wishing for failure here. Frankly failure is not an option because we have to excise the cancer from he middle east if any of us are to sleep well in our beds into the future the death cult has to be, well, killed as quickly and completely as we can do it. Fortunately there seems to be a quite broad range of nations who are willing to join into this sadly necessary task.

Cheers Comrades

If it moves and it has armed Jihadists in it blow it up even if they have hostages as Human shields which, sadly,  is likely to be the case

If it moves and it has armed Jihadists in it blow it up even if they have hostages as Human shields which, sadly, is likely to be the case

The real enemy within

Sadly too true Comrades

Recognise? What precisely?

KangarooNappingAnimatedByHeatherGillWith all of the talk of changing to constitution to “recognise” Indigenous Australians in the constitution I have been doing my darnedest to find out anything about what the proposed changes to the constitution will actually be saying, some sample of the proposed words would be good but instead all we get are vagueries and platitudes:

OPPOSITION LEADER Bill Shorten has warned against waiting “too long” to change the constitution to acknowledge indigenous Australians — and said any reform should be “substantive” and not tokenistic.

“I believe that the sooner our constitution gives just recognition to our First Australians, the better,” he told The Australian.

OK Bill but what does that mean? will such changes have any practical effects in the lives of any Australian?

“It is a historical wrong that must be made right. But it must be more than a token gesture — it must be substantive change”.

“Bipartisanship is critical for any referendum proposal to succeed. I’m prepared to work with the Prime Minister on this to make sure there is a political consensus on the timing and the content”.

If I’m not mistaken the “historical wrong” Shorten is referring to is the Establishment of the British colonies , firstly in NSW and later elsewhere, well personally I just can’t see such events in the sort of negative light that Shorten shines here.

Coalition indigenous MP, Ken Wyatt, who is leading the process, has been more cautious, saying any vote should only be held when “Australia is ready.”

Mr Wyatt, the chair of the cross party constitution committee, said: “We shouldn’t go too early but we shouldn’t go too late either and run the risk of missing the opportunity.

Err OK Ken but until we see the words no one will have the slightest notion of the virtue of what is proposed now will they?

Mr Wyatt’s committee is currently consulting on the wording to be taken to a referendum.

“The Committee is considering presenting a progress report in December and is not required to present its final report until 30 June 2015,” he said.

So does that mean that we are going to get nearly another year of these endless empty gestures trying to soften up the public for an as yet unenunciated change to the constitution?

Aboriginal Commissioner Mick Gooda has called for the referendum to acknowledge indigenous Australians to be held next year.

Delivering the annual Nulungu Reconciliation Lecture in Broome, Mr Gooda challenged the Prime Minister to hold a referendum before the next federal election and avoid endless rounds of consultation on the issue.

How typically undemocratic a notion from a minion of the left.

Joint Campaign Director of the Recognise campaign Tim Gartrell praised Mr Gooda’s “excellent contribution to the debate”.

“We’ve always said we shouldn’t wait a day longer than is necessary to make these important changes to the constitution,” he said. “This also means all the preconditions need to be in place. The momentum needed for success is growing every day. There are now more than 215,000 supporters who have joined Recognise.

215,000 supporters is notthat significant when you consider that we are a nation of more than 20Million people, in fact I would suggest that  215,000 supporters is barely even all of the “usual suspects”

Labor’s first indigenous senator -Nova Peris does not back Aboriginal Commissioner Mick Gooda’s call for the referendum to acknowledge indigenous Australians to be held next year, arguing it is better to take longer than get it wrong.

Senator Peris, who is the deputy chairwoman of the committee looking at options for recognition, said rushing the issue would be devastating.

“It’s imperative we do the work required to ensure this succeeds,” he said. “To risk failure in an attempt to simply rush the procedure would be devastating.”

Source

Well for once I agree with a Labor person about something! That said unless we have a very clear enunciation of just what words are to be added to the constitution and what the possible effect of that change could be then I for one will be campaigning against there being ANY change simply because those advancing the yes case are already being deceptive. You see I am old fashioned enough to think that there should be no laws on our statute books that privileges any individual on the basis of their race or ethnicity, or what they claim is their race or ethnicity. We live in the here and now, in a contemporary Australia whose laws apply equally to all with a blindness to race gender or ethnicity. Its not a perfect blindness to those distinctions but its close enough to sing its praises and we should resist any move that makes the law notice the colour of a man’s skin, the faith in his heart or even if he is a man. So many on all sides of politics espouse notions of equality and I think that if   we the public are being asked to agree with the proposition that some Australians are going to be considered “more equal” than the rest of us that we should just vote NO!

Cheers Comrades

hy

Being real vs Seeming to be real

Long term sandpit readers will probably have caught on to my generally unqualified commitment to personal autonomy. I hold to the classical libertarian ideal that an adult individual should not be prevented from doing anything as long as the realizing those desires does not impinge upon the liberties of any other individual. Thus when it comes to individuals who want to reconstruct or modify their body in novel ways it boils down to the usual question of any harm that they may be doing to others.

So this means that although I tend to think that those who want to change their appearance so that they have the appearance of a person not of their biological gender are addressing the wrong side of their gender dysphoria equation with permanent physical  mutilations rather than attempting to reform their mindsets individuals are of course entitled to do as they please with their bodies. What I don’t think  that they have though is a right to expect that their vanities must be respected.

“There are a lot of roadblocks, particularly when working with cosmetic brands or perfumes or those sort of commercial, corporate things. It’s been more difficult to break into that world than ‘fashion’ because it hasn’t been done before. They don’t have any market research, and people in that world aren’t risk-takers," she said. "You have to prove to them over and over that you are liked by people, you have a skill, and you can sell a product.” Pejic joins the list of a growing number of notable transgender women, including Orange Is The New Black star Laverne Cox and Lieutenant-Colonel Catherine McGregor, senior adviser to the Chief of Army, who have spoken publicly about transgender issues. "Congrats on publicly claiming your truth as a trans woman. You're now part of a resilient, beautiful & mighty sisterhood," Cox tweeted. It took the Australian model three-months to recover from the surgery and she now plans to continue supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community through activism and advocacy work. “My goal is to give a human face to this struggle, and I feel like I have a responsibility,” she said. “What's in between anyone's legs is not who they are.” Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/androgynous-model-andrej-pejic-is-now-a-woman-20140725-zwuu5.html#ixzz38aDJagnP

“There are a lot of roadblocks, particularly when working with cosmetic brands or perfumes or those sort of commercial, corporate things. It’s been more difficult to break into that world than ‘fashion’ because it hasn’t been done before. They don’t have any market research, and people in that world aren’t risk-takers,” she said.
“You have to prove to them over and over that you are liked by people, you have a skill, and you can sell a product.”
Pejic joins the list of a growing number of notable transgender women, including Orange Is The New Black star Laverne Cox and Lieutenant-Colonel Catherine McGregor, senior adviser to the Chief of Army, who have spoken publicly about transgender issues.
“Congrats on publicly claiming your truth as a trans woman. You’re now part of a resilient, beautiful & mighty sisterhood,” Cox tweeted.
It took the Australian model three-months to recover from the surgery and she now plans to continue supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community through activism and advocacy work.
“My goal is to give a human face to this struggle, and I feel like I have a responsibility,” she said.
“What’s in between anyone’s legs is not who they are.”

“I think from my teenage years, when I decided I needed to express my femininity, I was happy with the way I looked. But SRS [sex reassignment surgery] is kind of the last part – it’s sort of the icing on the cake,” she told Style.com.

Andrej Pejic has been chosen by Jean-Paul Gaultier to star in both his womenswear and menswear shows in Paris.

“It makes me feel freer than ever. Now I can stand naked in front of a mirror and really enjoy my reflection. And those personal moments are important.”

The model, who has been cast to star in Sofia Coppola’s remake of The Little Mermaid, is now listed as a female model with all of her agencies around the world. Her agents at Chadwick were among the first to list her solely in the women’s division.

The problem is though that the social aspects of gender are not the reason that humanity exists in the male and female aspect. We have male and female because that is what is  necessary to reproduce our species> We need both in full working order to make children. No surgical procedure can make a man into a woman, or a woman into a man . At best all that a surgeon can do is create  the illusion that an individual who was born one gender is the other. Frankly I think that it must take determined self-delusion for individuals like Pejic to believe they are a “real” woman.

There is also the question of the so called “fashion” industry and the way that it influences he way that our young people view and understand themselves. Its bad enough that young women’s self images are in the thrall of male  homosexual sensibilities and notions of body image and beauty but now they are going to be exposed to the example of Pejic pretending to be  a woman (which he can never be) and on top of the already unhealthy body images that young people are constantly bombarded with from the fashion Industry they now have  idea that being a woman is a manufactured  reality  to contend with and I for one don’t think that this is a positive development for society.

Cheers Comrades

simplezoom

Aussie citizenship and Jihadists are mutually exclusive

While many of my friends from the left are trying desperately to ignore the religiosity of the current situation in both Syria and Iraq those of us with functioning brains take these neo-barbarians at their word when they clam to be committing their atrocities in the name of Allah and in pursuit of the creation of a new caliphate. Frankly as long as Islam has such an agenda we just can not be sanguine about its goals and intentions. That we have a substantial number of Muslims on Australia is a consequence of history and I am more than happy to acknowledge that, at present, the majority of them are mainly interested in getting on with their lives like any other Aussie. However the religion itself is not like other faiths it is a totalitarian ideology that seeks to control/dictate every aspect of a believer’s life from what they eat, the way that they wash, the way that they treat their children and even the way that they beat their wives. Worst of all the faith commands the faithful to kill unbelievers, homosexuals and those who find reason and leave the faith. What this boils down to in modern Australia is that its only those who are only just nominally Muslim who we can see as no possible threat to the peace and harmony of Australian society.  Now with the news that 150 Australian citizens who hold dual nationality are probably playing at Jihad in the middle east  it seems utterly reasonable that if these young men  are going to take up the gun or the bomb against western civilization then  we should help them out in resolving their divided loyalties by revoking their Australian citizenship:

As part of the ramped-up security push, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said he was prepared to consider the British model that allows authorities to strip dual nationals of their passports, provided it does not render them stateless.

The power has been used to considerable effect during the Syria crisis, which has seen scores of Britons flock to jihad.

Mr Morrison said while the government was prepared to contemplate the idea, he labelled it an extreme measure. “Cancelling the citizenship of a dual citizen is a very extreme measure,’’ he said. “There are existing provisions within the citizenship act that deal with these sorts of things … and at this stage there are no formal ­proposals before the ­parliament.’’

The comments follow a recommendation by the federal government’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker SC, who recommended the government consider the measure.

“The INSLM is concerned that the concept of dual citizenship raises issues of divided loyalties and does not see why, as a matter of policy, an Australian citizen should also be able to be a citizen of another country,” Mr Walker said in his report, tabled in parliament this week.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop yesterday confirmed that about 150 Australians had joined the fighting in Iraq and Syria, among them Khaled Sharrouf, a convicted terrorist who slipped out of Australia ­illegally last year and is fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

source

This blog has even had its own brush with one of those playing the Jihad game a few weeks ago I was contacted by an ABC journalist about this post

because he believed that the person writing to me had gone to Syria to play the Jihad game  this contact was made subsequent to his wife being arrested at Sydney Airport when she tried to take materials to her husband  in Syria The ABC were even going to interview this humble blogger about the email correspondence  that I discussed in the post linked to above. The interview did not eventuate simply because the Journalist was concerned that it was hard to be definitive that the man I corresponded was the same person playing Jihad.  Frankly we just don’t want or need anyone who wants to spread Islam by the sword to be citizens of this country and the sooner that he and others of the same ilk are sent packing the sooner that our country will be a better place for the rest of us.

Cheers Comrades

If they want to  for Allah then they should just not be Aussie citizens

If they want to for Allah then they should just not be Aussie citizens

%d bloggers like this: