Christchurch and its implications
In the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch killings the western world was rightly and understandably shocked and grieved. The killings seemed an inexplicable and horrible act of violence upon innocent citizens.
The act was indeed, horrible, grievously so. But inexplicable? Definitely not. Many have publicly foretold the emergence of such violence, including these columns. Such violence is a horrid and tragic consequence of politicians not doing their job properly – specifically, listening to their electors and endeavouring to address their concerns.
The degeneration of society into ‘tribal’ groups of disaffection clearly indicates, and has indicated for some time, a degree of ill-health in society. For too long have politicians of all persuasions poured bromides over the problem. Tragically two weeks ago a part of the festering sore erupted.
In the days after the killings politicians in Australia and New Zealand have been falling over themselves in sanctimony: public and most patronising displays of posturing and public distress, supplications in mosques and politically correct media grab statements of political determination to stamp out the scourge of ‘right-wing’ extremism. After years of political neglect, failure and leadership, I find such arrant hypocrisy extremely difficult to digest.
Compounding this hypocrisy is the bringing to bear of pressure upon social media by governments of the western world to ban sites and conversations of ‘right-wing extremist and white supremacist’ groups. The governments of Australia and New Zealand are particularly rapid in their approval of such knee-jerk policy.
Let me pose two very obvious questions:
- What constitutes a right-wing extremist group?
- What constitutes a white supremacist group?
The answers are seemingly and equally obvious – there is some most vile muck and vitriol on the internet. But this vitriol plays in all manner of directions.
Let me pose a further two very obvious questions:
- What constitutes a left-wing extremist group?
- What constitutes a globalist militant group?
The old saying: One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter applies.
How far to the right, or left, do you go before you start banning and censoring citizens? Who is going to take charge of the censorship?
As noted above, there is some pretty vile stuff
out there in cyber-space. There is also some puffed-up but pretty insipid stuff out there. I have read much of this and can confirm to its sometime idiocy and sometime vileness – both left and right. However, how much of it and to what extent the authorities
able to ‘censor’ without breaching our rights and freedom of expression is moot.
Quite obviously the government has perhaps a legal obligation to shut down sites that explicitly call to arms, to political violence and to other matters of a criminal nature. But closing sites for differentiating between cultures and races or for sharing or expressing personal views and opinions, is another step too far down the road to totalitarianism.
For example, our security thought police quickly closed down or blocked contact with several sites I look at. This of course made me look more broadly across the spectrum and found more sites thus affected. I also noted very quickly that all reference to Tarrant’s ‘Manifesto’ were curtailed, restricted or banned. Owning a copy of same in NZ is punishable by gaol. How bloody stupid can our authorities get?
Telling me what not to read is of course a spur to do so. It took me and hour or two to find a copy but I have downloaded a pdf copy of the manifesto which I have glanced through. Some of it makes for interesting reading, some of it not so. But in the journey to find it, I am grateful to the authorities for introducing me to some very dark and interesting areas of politics which I otherwise would not have heard of, let alone found!
Let me declare my own credentials on this matter. I have always and quite openly described myself as a moral conservative and a political freethinker. I have strong views on certain matters which I consider are inadequately expressed in the contemporary political forum. My politics are therefore well outside the mainstream of political parties and movements, most of whom I hold in contempt. I express my opinions in these columns openly and sometimes in provocative language. Does that necessarily mean that I should be regarded with official suspicion as possibly having sympathies that might be regarded by some as being extreme? Bollocks.
To some, my views are extreme. Jolly good. So what? You have the right to agree, disagree, respond, ignore or just switch channels.
However, whatever my views, my right to hold and express them is enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Australia is a signatory and under whose terms we all should enjoy:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Let me summarise: Thereby we all have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We have the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to receive and impart information and ideas through any media.We also have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
As ever we can learn from history.
In the early 1950s and in the context of international tensions, the Communist Party of Australia was perceived by many as a national threat. The then Menzies Liberal government proposed banning the party. The proposition was put to referendum. On the 22nd of September 1951 the people of Australia rejected, albeit narrowly, the proposition. Even the Young Liberals voted against the proposition on the principle of free speech. It would appear that our forefathers knew and respected this principle.
Have we, however, not learnt anything from history? Of course not, because today’s post post-modernist world has no history!
To this end, the authorities truly are, in my view, silly bastards – they will only drive political lunacy underground. It would do us no harm to remember that, once in place, regulations are hard to remove. I also offer the observation that politicians, of any shade, would prefer to operate without opposition. Most would likely ban their mother if it would make life easier for them. My view is simply to trust them with nothing – least of all our liberty.
The post-Christchurch policy reactions by governments in Australia and that of New Zealand are, in my view, ill-conceived. They smack of policy on the run, they smack of the very populism politicians decry and they smack of politicians taking full-advantage of an international tragedy to ram-rod through policy without adequate consideration.
Finally, the whole sorry story amply illustrates the shocking quality of our politicians.
A Trenchant Reminder
I am about to make myself extremely unpopular.
We all accept that events on Friday in New Zealand are shocking. They are shocking. We are all saddened and we should all take much time to reflect on the question – Why?
I would now like to remind readers that, on Friday 15th of March, the same day as the Christchurch shootings – the Christian Post headlined its front page with the following: 120 people killed, 140 homes destroyed by Nigeria Fulani since February.
On the 5th of February this year the Post headlined: 480, mostly Christians, killed in Nigerian ‘military massacres' from 2015-2017: NGO report. 
Do we hear about it in our mainstream media? Do we care about it? What are we going to do about it? Nothing!
No virtue signalling. No token horror. No flowers. No tears. Nothing.
Why? Because we are so smug, so utterly racist, so politically correct, so anti-Christian, so indifferent and so self-satisfied and preoccupied with our own little irrelevant lives to really give a damn.
What about the thousands of other Christians persecuted, tortured and murdered across the world, from the Coptics in Egypt to Christians in the Lebanon, Pakistan, India, China …? But that’s OK – it’s only black-men killing more black-men. Who cares?
But let a white man disturb our own moral comfort zone we double-down in paroxysms of virtuous rage and indignation. That shouldn’t be happening here. This is absolutely shocking. Yes it is! Quite shocking.
But what is even more shocking, sickening in fact, is the sight of politicians and community leaders falling all over themselves in public horror – “look at me I’m really horrified – I’m taking my shoes off in a mosque – elections, who said elections - I’m kneeling down in a mosque – mea culpa - ” then fronting the television cameras and publicly making knee-jerk pronouncements about banning visiting speakers, gun control, better policing, better intelligence services, more money for cultural re-education and so forth ad nauseam without any proper forethought, consideration or consultation. A wise man thinks before he speaks. A politician ‘is’ – because he speaks.
The spectacle of public distress and solidarity is as solid as a brothel in tin-pan alley. If we were genuinely concerned about the state of man in this increasingly dysfunctional world we would do more than take flowers to a police crime-scene, or join hands in a candlelight vigil singing Kumbaya.
But then, we are after all, a nation of superficial bourgeois hypocrites, wherein appearance is more important than substance.
If we really want to make a difference, if we really want to take refugees, if we really wanted to help those wanting to escape from their various “multicultural” shit-holes, there are many hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world, unwanted by their Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist and totalitarian hosts that would surely welcome the opportunity to live amongst us.
Where were you Julie Bishop?
 Fulani one of the largest ethnic groups in West Africa [approx 38 - 40 million] bound by language, culture and Islam.
I’ve always found Stephen Fry an entertaining actor even though I disagree with the direction of his social activism. Last weekend he flew into Sydney to deliver a lecture at the Dangerous Ideas Festival, having done so he flew out the following morning. The size and value of his ‘environmental footprint’ on our fragile global gasses is a moot point, but never mind, such is the world of environmental hypocrisy.
The thrust of his lecture was that ‘Liberalism’ is dead. His answer, in a nutshell, was that we should all be nice to each other, stop arguing about petty matters such as gender and identity politics and that we all should be better than we are. Fair enough, but hardly profound.
I note in his comments however that even the liberal progressives are beginning to accept the reality that the very ethical, political and social construct that they have done their best to destroy is on its last legs. At long last the legions of commentators foreshadowing the grave plight of ‘Liberalism’ – perhaps the noblest intellectual and moral legacy of Christendom – might be getting their message across.
‘Liberalism’ is a social construct based upon, in large part, trust and mutual respect; personal civility; the rule of law; duty and obligation; freedom of speech, expression and religion; a clear sense of identity; an innate sense of spirit and an appreciation that we, as individuals, are not the centre of the universe.
None of the aforementioned attributes accurately describe our society. For forty-plus-years we have resolutely ignored the most obvious signs of encroaching decay. We ignored them because we were too dumb to recognise them, to bone-idle to do anything, too cowardly to stand up for what we believed – or perhaps we were just too damn greedy, Godless and self-centred we couldn’t give a continental toss.
So sad is our plight, so dim our intellects, we have to be told by an overweight celebrity actor that our existing social foundation sucks!
I have made reference to two words in this short piece which will, I know, be jarring to many of you – the first was Christendom and the second Godless! Shock horror! Not the dreaded R….. word!
Let me again restate what I mean by these terms. I have defined and I used the term Christendom to refer to: “the religious and secular body of Christians of the world subscribing to the shared values and ethics inspired by Jesus Christ and exemplified by Western Civilization. . Note: I use the word ‘secular’ to mean a-religious, indifference, exclusion or rejection of religion or religious considerations. [Mirriam Webster].
I use the word Godless to mean the outright denial of a Being or Spirit [or beings] beyond ourselves, beyond the here and now, that should be the source of, or inspiration for, moral authority.
In the context of these words I do not mean tub-thumping religious zealots. They are as anathema to me as they doubtless are to you. No one individual is correct in the debate about God – and extreme religious bigotry can have dreadful consequences. But this is not the Godliness to which I refer.
I refer to the private acceptance of the ‘idea’ that there is something deeper within us, our Soul if you like, that if neglected, leads us into a spiritual and social desolation wherein we become fixated upon ourselves, our problems and our desires. My ‘idea’ of Godliness transcends religious specific faith but is rather an encompassing whole wherein all faiths, formal or private, co-exist. The fact that I am a most imperfect Christian does not exclude other faiths – far from it. My idea of Godliness is a plea to awaken the spirituality that exists within us all.
Stephen Fry got one thing dead right – we all deserve to be better.
The disconnected and well-heeled slime of Sydney’s overly affluent porcine community in Wentworth have chased their lesser Australians further into the barren wilderness of political chaos.
A supreme irony arising out of the dénouement of the whole sorry and sordid Turnbull saga is that the Wentworth result may be seen in some quarters as a triumph for representative democracy. This theory holds that the candidate should truly reflect the views of his or her electorate. In the case of Wentworth – Bingo! Turnbull was a merchant-banker billionaire and narcissistic socialite with the scruples of an alley cat. His successor is a ‘squillionaire’ and narcissistic socialite; former Gate Keeper of one of Australia’s wealthiest, most impenetrable and closed shop unions, the Australian Medical Profession, and is possessed with the political scruples of an alley cat.
The ripugnante e narcisistico porco have truly elected one of their own and to hell with the national good.
One can imagine the Monday morning parade of sleek, Porsche driving and face-lifted matrons of Rose Bay and Vaucluse at the hairdressers, positively gurgling in faux English vowels with news and gossip about Saturday night’s party – Amelia Dahling you should have seen.... before, being ‘very busy busy people’, rushing off to meet their personal trainers and other assorted gigolos.
This porcine swill, completely lacking in understanding or empathy with the real crises confronting this country have not the comprehension as to the situation of the common man. They didn’t even have the spine to go the whole hog [Oh! So sorry Rebekah Dahling!] and vote the Labour party in. The wealth and privilege of these elites inoculates them from the consequence of their actions. They have no idea of electricity prices or the societal effect of ill-considered immigration or the real problems facing our primary industries. The closest they’ve ever been to a small business is a trip to the deli in the ‘village’ or perhaps their dealings with the ‘little man' that comes and cleans the windows.
May this swill have little time to enjoy their pyric victory! They have delivered us into a distinctly Australian twilight of liberal democracy. The reckoning is coming. This shambolic political theory, a construct of centuries past, can no longer meet the exigencies of today’s world let alone the demands of future societal good order. In my view it should now be graciously pensioned off before it is unceremoniously tossed into the latrine of political failure.
 Repulsive and narcissistic swine
Poor Bloody Australians – can’t play tennis; can’t play cricket; can’t play rugby – can’t govern ourselves.
I shall not waste my energy or tire your patience by recapping the shambles of this week. Those that know shudder and those that don’t know – well, you really don’t want to know. Suffice it be asked - how many Prime Ministers in eleven years – who cares, who's counting?
What a shoddy, shambolic and shameful example of collective political masturbation in action! Ego, hatred, hubris and jealousy were all on public display in abundance. The only positive that can be extrapolated from this mess is the departure of the most pernicious, unpleasant, self-serving Prime Minister that this country has ever had the misfortune to endure. He will not be missed - by anyone – and history will judge him for the maleficent swine that he is.
The real tragedy is however the future of Australia’s once proud civic and political society. Unless the new Prime Minister can pull rabbits out of hats the Labor Government in waiting will be given carte blanche to re-engineer this country. Granted, much of it now needs re-tuning, but the excesses of their millenarian zeal doesn’t bear thinking about.
In the meantime the great Australian unwashed – that’s you and me Sport – sit on our backsides doing bugger-all and perfectly content to watch it all happen. Remember, we voted this bunch of tossers into parliament – all of them – whichever party, whichever state and to Canberra – and we’ve allowed them, over the years, to systematically foul our country.
I have some sympathy with the lads and lassies that tossed a handful of bricks into the plate glass electorate office windows of one of the political buffoons the other night. I know you shouldn’t do that sort of thing – ‘not cricket old chap’ – well we can’t play cricket remember! And those lads and lassies felt strongly enough about the situation to do something. Action Directe – political violence – an expression of extreme political disquiet.
Well they had the courage to do something – better than us that remain on our arses. You don’t like the system – well look into the mirror. That ugly bastard staring at you has it in his or her hands to change it - peacefully.