When intelligence is trumped by gullibility.

Regular reader of this organ will have realised that our assertion is freedom to choose and follow (or not follow) a religion is a very important principle, with the only caveat that doing so doesn’t impact on others’ freedom to live.

Therefore, if one chooses to believe that your prophet visited the moon on the back of a winged horse, you are most welcome to. If, however, you also believe that you must slaughter non-believers, we’re going to disagree quite robustly.

It could be argued and has been by various parties that not believing in a creator is also an act of faith; proving a negative is a particularly difficult task after all.

There are those who feel that a belief in something for which you have little to no proof other than the word of a third party (i.e. the definition of “faith”) is a form of mental illness. There’s certainly an argument to be made there but, given that existential questions of creation are unlikely to be solved to a high degree of scientific proof and we’d need to solve the problem of infinite regression, we all live with that unresolved internal discussion. We generally function on a day to day basis however.

Some religious adherents clearly are suffering from a dangerous delusion though and are a danger to themselves and/or others. When your religious beliefs require you to act out the crucifixion on Easter weekend, self-flaggelate for Ashura, murder Cathars for having the wrong version of Christianity or fly planes into tower blocks, there’s clearly a problem of the mind that is impacting physical reality.

Consider then what mental illness might look like from an atheist regressive progressive point of view;

New York lawyer self-immolated in protest against climate change.

Full disclosure; I have no evidence of what David Buckel’s religious views were at the point of death but, given his acceptance of two of the key tenants of the Cultural Marxist agenda and the extremely rare instance of anyone only believing one or two of the dozen or so must-believe doctrines, we’re guessing he didn’t believe in a creator.

Chances are he probably said, “Oh God” or “Jesus fucking Christ” at some point quite soon after flicking the flint on the Zippo though.

Bill’s Opinion

Unless he was an extremely modest polymath, it’s a safe assumption that the gay and trans rights lawyer David Buckel did not have a full and detailed understanding behind the science of climate change.

Yet he’d fully-accepted the impending doom of climate change as a solid fact based only on the testimony of third parties, like an illiterate peasant in medieval Britain blindly following the village Priest’s encouragement to join the crusades to liberate Jerusalem from heathen rule.

Perhaps he was suffering from an underlying mental illness, but perhaps the religiosity of the climate change pantechnicon and its followers is indistinguishable from religion?

Either way, the outcome is that he’s toast.

The best women are men part 2

He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.

Ayn Rand

The above quote is often summarised as, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

Consider then, the logical and ethical knots the UK Useful Idiots Labour Party is currently tying itself into;

Hundreds of Women Plan Mass Resignation from Labour Over Trans Ruling

For decades now, the party has been running a policy of women-only shortlists to select candidates to fight parliamentary seats. This has resulted in their current ratio of MPs; 101:129 female to male.

Let’s pause for a moment to question again whether equality of outcome is really our preference compared to equality of opportunity. Exhibit A in our proposition that all women shortlists perhaps might not result in the most stunningly intellectual representative for the voters;

Unedifying viewing, isn’t it. Consider whether, in a purely merit-based system of democracy, Diane Abbott would have a) ever been elected as an MP in the first place, or b) been continuously re-elected since 1987.

But back to all “women” shortlists.

The progressive types at Labour HQ decided a few months ago that the definition of “women” included anyone who identified as a woman. Let’s just expand that a little; they don’t need to dress like a woman, have been living as a woman for any period of time, have any medical assessment to confirm their transgender status and certainly they do not have to even consider any kind of hormonal or gender reassignment procedures. Quite simply, if they say they are, they are.

What could possibly go wrong? No, seriously, what could possibly go wrong with redefining fundamental existential nouns with meanings that have been universally understood for the entire history of the species?

Bill’s Opinion

We’re back to the dilemma du jour; the desire to not hurt one group’s sensitivities is being rudely interrupted by, oh I don’t know, let’s call it reality.

The progressive view is that history will judge as dinosaurs those raising the fact that humans are dimorphic. The alternate to this future is, of course, that the progressives are illogical to the point where they can only be suffering from almost clinical levels of cognitive dissonance or are simply mendacious.

 

When Hollywood is your moral compass….

Consider the possibility you may be quite lost.

Clementine “the other gift that keeps on giving” Ford* has been given some more column space this week. It almost feels wrong to pick her thoughts to pieces as she makes it so easy for anyone with half an hour on Google and a semi-curious mind.

In fact, sometimes her arguments are so irrational, illogical, easily disproved and emotional that one wonders whether she’s Australia’s equivalent of Henry Root. If she isn’t a parody, what remains of the sub-editorship at the Sydney Morning Herald legacy press ™ should probably resign and find a profession in which they have some level of competence.

The word salad we’re amused by this week is here; the real problem with women in film.

As is her idiom, the argument meanders around a little, never quite lingering on a specific point long enough to find a kernel of fact or objective truth. Fortunately, we can complete the unfinished task for her.

The key issues she raises are the following;

  • Women are underrepresented in the big budget, blockbuster films.
  • When they are in these films, they are more likely to be scantily clad and not say much. They are certainly not going to be depicted as intellectuals in the STEM subjects.
  • Disney movies have started to use titles that don’t have female names such as “Princess” even when the lead character is a Princess.
  • The paying public prefer it that way. This is a bad thing.

Let’s be somewhat reductive for a moment and summarise what dear Clementine is (in the words of Cathy Newman) trying to say; “people prefer to watch films of which, for ideological reasons, I disapprove“.

Perhaps I’m guilty of building a strawman here, so let’s look at those key points again.

Imagine the negotiation between a couple with a disposable income large enough to allow them to pay a babysitter on Saturday night, head out for a bite to eat and catch a film at the cinema.

Let’s assume the wife is of La Ford’s Third Wave Feminism persuasion (statistically unlikely, by the way; only 23% of American women even identify as “feminist” and far fewer “radical“) and she would like to see the Oscar winning movie, A Fantastic Woman.

On the other hand, the husband has spent his working week risking his life in a blue collar job (males are privileged enough to suffer 93% of the deaths in the workplace), being hectored about the patriarchy and watching as Women In Leadership quotas are applied to the roles above him. His entire waking moments these days seems to consist of being blamed for all societal ills and told he is part of the problem due to three personal attributes completely beyond his control, namely; skin colour (white), gender (male) and sexuality (heterosexual).

It may be understandable if he chooses not to pay to watch a film about the dire life of a transgender man living in Santiago, Chile on his day off.

So they compromise and watch something with superheroes or a crime thriller.

La Ford’s issue with Disney films has a simple explanation too; in recent years, Disney has found that childrens’ films with female names in their titles don’t do so well. This can be tested as a hypothesis by taking the list here, sorting by gross revenue (adjusted for inflation) and rating. After the two 1950s classics, Cinderella and Snow White, the next female titled film is the still ambiguously-titled Beauty and the Beast at Position 15. Next is Pocahontas at Position 20 then Little Mermaid at 25.

Disney is a business. Calling a film “Princess Sparkle” sells fewer tickets. It’s almost as if, I dunno, a film branded as female is more attractive to half of the population than the other half.

Perhaps the claim that Hollywood sexualise female characters is the most amusing. Does this come as a surprise to anyone?

Since when has the entertainment industry not been about sexualising females? Read the lyrics of Coward’s Don’t put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington for a veiled reference as to the venality of the profession.

The British joke punchline, “…..said the actress to the bishop” hints at the perception of a continuum linking the professions of actress and whore.

The surprise is that anyone honestly believes Hollywood has any moral basis to its works and the industry has any incentive to depict women in ways that fit the narrative of Third Wave Feminists such as Clementine Ford.

Bill’s Opinion

A common mistake by those on the left is to confuse what they feel should be reality with what is actually the case.

People are voting with their wallets and this greatly disappoints Clementine Ford.

It gets worse however; the Oscars have been increasingly picking box office failures as their Best Film Winner.

Which may explain why the public have, in droves, stopped watching the Oscars ceremony.

They’re watching something but it isn’t the virtue signalling of the luvvies.

If Clementine Ford’s opinions were popular, she wouldn’t be writing unedited OpEds in a free to read legacy newspaper with declining readership and revenue.

To stay with the film references, The Sydney Morning Herald’s annual readership figures are one of the most rapidly declining series since the Police Academy sequels.

* Herpes is the original gift that keeps on giving. Draw your own conclusions.

“Not diverse enough”

Have a guess what today’s headline is describing. Go on, give it your best shot.

We’ll start you off with a few options;

  • An exclusive golf club with an outdated dress code,
  • A 200 year old London gentlemen’s club,
  • The executive team running a FTSE100 company,
  • The government cabinet of ministers,
  • The shadow government cabinet of ministers,
  • The board of a charity with somewhat “progressive” credentials,
  • The nominees for a prestigious movie awards event,
  • Henry, the mild mannered janitor?

Nope, it’s the awfully-right wing London Pride carnival.

A quick history lesson for the younger readers; London’s “Pride” was originally “Gay Pride”, and started in 1972 on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village, New York. The riots were a response to Police brutality during a raid on a gay bar and are seen as a key pivot point for gay rights.

Language and definitions are useful milestones on the journey here. From the Wiki page on the Stonewall Riots (emphasis added);

Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Those that did were often bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. At the time, the Stonewall Inn was owned by the Mafia. It catered to an assortment of patrons and was known to be popular among the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: drag queens, transgender people, effeminate young men, butch lesbians, male prostitutes, and homeless youth.

All of those groups in italics were comfortable enough to be grouped as “gay” for the purposes of the subsequent civil rights activism which resulted in discriminatory laws to be repealed. i.e. the LGBTQI movement of today would have just the one one letter, “G”, back then and the “LBTQ and I” folk would have willingly got right behind it.

Bill’s Opinion

What started out as a civil rights movement in the 1970s has been incredibly successful. When the gay rights movement is compared with other civil rights struggles (Blacks in the USA, Catholics in Northern Ireland, for example), it’s clear that the key goals of the movement have been achieved in a remarkably short time period.

When many individuals can agree on a common goal, they naturally self-identify within a group; that’s the “gay” part of gay pride, an individual’s sub-category of gayness is less important whilst the main shared goal is still being pursued.

Perhaps though, when the shared goal has been attained and the consensus can’t agree on a compelling replacement, the group will fracture back down to the individual level. At the lowest level of analysis, we are all ultimately sitting in our own unique subset at the intersection of a myriad of Venn Diagram circles. Finding critical common unaddressed needs, gripes and complaints across very diverse individuals is actually quite rare in most circumstances.

The current trend is for this fracturing of previously large groups into much more tightly-defined smaller groups, hence the continued proliferation of letters each year on the LBGTQI continuum.

This should be actively encouraged by any sane individual who loathes identity politics because the natural end of the road for this trend is that we are all considered a minority; the individual is the world’s smallest minority.

Shark jumping is a new Olympic sport

Elite sports teams should be mixed gender, according to “a rising star” in the current Australian government.

Linda Reynolds would like a parliamentary debate on the subject, paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

Presumably she’s already solved the problems of national policy on cheap energy generation and security, the complexities of the tax code, affordable health care, the creeping pension Ponzi and updating the school curriculum to ensure a future-ready workforce so has got time to spare for this important topic?

Perhaps we can help shorten the debate with a couple of pertinent pictures;

Exhibit A, the largest elite Australian female rugby player, Violeta Tupuola.

Violeta weighs in at a solid 99kg.

Exhibit B, her likely opponent next time she plays against England, Kyle Sinkler;

Kyle has been cutting back on the pastries recently and has trimmed down to an anorexic 124kg, over 25% heavier than his new Australian opponent. That will make for an “interesting” contest at scrum time.

Let’s give a little more context. Here is the lightest man on the current England squad, Danny Care;

Danny currently weighs in at 88kg, or just 11% lighter than the biggest Australian female player. They play in very different positions on the field, Violeta is selected for her power and bulk, Danny for his nimbleness and speed.

What other facts could we bring to the debate?

How about looking at the delta between some of the current men’s and women’s world records;

100m sprint – 0.91 seconds

1,500m – 24.07 seconds

Raw deadlift – 155kg

Long jump – 1.43m

That trend continues for every world record. There is no Olympic sport where women outperform men, including air rifle shooting, an event where it isn’t obvious that a larger body or greater aerobic capacity would be an advantage.

It’s almost as if human beings are, I dunno, a dimorphic species selected over an incredibly long time by natural selection to perform different tasks…..

To return to the article;

However Marnee McKay, a lecturer in musculoskeletal physiotherapy at the University of Sydney, doubted mixed gender teams would suit contact sports.

She said her researched showed that from 12 years of age, “males and females are fundamentally physically different in terms of speed, power and coordination and balance”.

She said tests demonstrated males were stronger than women but females were better at tasks that required fine motor skills. Dr McKay said mixed gender teams could work for sports like lawn bowls.

“But rugby league? No. I cannot see male and female professional athletes competing across all sports as a blanket rule.”

Dr. McKay is risking the Twitter mob pile on by bringing such inconvenience irrelevancies like scientific facts into the debate.

Bill’s Opinion

If there is a parliamentary debate on this proposal, Australian taxpayers should all send an invoice to Linda Reynolds totalling the consequent wasted salaries and building power expended during such a pointless exercise.

The best women are men

Remember the transgender Aussie Rules player trying to play in the women’s league?

(Hannah Mouncey, not to be confused with a bricklayer from the 1970s)

Well, “Hannah” Mouncey has just been given the green light and is eligible to compete as a woman.

Readers outside Australia will probably find coverage of the league on satellite television channels or via the watch again facility on Australian tv channel seven. I’m sure most matches will be fun to watch but there will be an extra frisson of vicarious adrenaline rush if they show footage of the recently-female “Hannah” smashing in to an originally-female player.

See also; Fallon Fox.

Team Australia – World Policepersons

Two former Australian Defence Force Academy cadets are claiming they were discriminated over their transgender status.

Reading the article in the link may be difficult for some readers, this is due to the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald is quite imprecise in the language used throughout. Depending on one’s point of view, this confusion may be thought to be due to either a genuine desire to be sympathetic to the two subjects OR to deliberately cloud the truth.

After some re-reading, it becomes clear that a female (now called Joel) and male (now called Sarah) both joined the Australian armed forces as a woman and a man. Quite soon afterwards, they announced that they were “transitioning” to the opposite gender.

It should come to no surprise to anyone who has ever met a human that this this caused significant issues for all concerned.

For example, the woman now known as Joel found the physical training regime of her male colleagues somewhat inconvenient, as she was the only one running around with a large pair of functioning mammary glands tightly strapped to her chest. It takes some re-reading to realise that the issue was due to the fact that she was training alongside men, not women. It’s not clear from the article whose choice that was.

The selected quotes throughout the article reek of cognitive dissonance or at least an unhealthy lack of self-awareness.

Some favourites;

“I don’t know what person in their right mind would think, ‘oh great, I’ll join the Defence Force for a free transition’.”

“It would be much easier to work in a civilian capacity and save money and transition than it ever would socially to try and transition in Defence.”

Or, in English, “I joined an organisation which demands the highest physical strength, fitness and discipline standards along with a strong esprit de corps resulting in a lethal and highly-effective defence service to the nation. Apparently, being confused about one’s gender dilutes this somewhat“.

The man now know as Sarah seems similarly confused about the purpose of the military;

Miss Bowley said when she joined the ADF in 2011 she was overcompensating with extreme masculinity.

“I was so masculine I was described as the epitome of aggression,” Miss Bowley said.

“I went so far to prove to everyone and myself that I was masculine.”

But that changed after she attempted suicide twice.

Again, this might be translated in to vernacular English along the following lines, “Imagine my surprise to discover my employer was less than impressed, after hiring me in part due to my aggression, to discover I wanted to wear dresses and be known as Miss Sarah. Unreasonably, they felt this might be an unhelpful diversion in the field of combat“.

This is quite an interesting point and one which our diligent journalist, Kimberley Le Lievre, has either accidentally missed or deliberately missed;

Both Miss Bowley and Mr Wilson were medically downgraded against their wishes and despite their physical ability. A spokeswoman for Defence said members who were transitioning gender were not automatically downgraded.

Sounds terribly unfair, doesn’t it? Except, at the time, transgenderism had its own DSM-5 category as it was considered primarily a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. This was amended in May 2013 to merge the categories of transgender and depression to infer that people who are transgender and depressed are depressed regardless of their transgenderness not necessarily because of it. Regardless of where one stands on this assertion, it’s clear the Australia Defence Force were acting on current medical advice by diagnosing both subjects as medically-unfit.

Another hilarious quote;

“You might identify as male but you might say ‘hang on a minute, I don’t fit all of those’. That’s going to lead you to question things.”

Again, the last thing a fighting unit requires in battle is someone who is living in an existential flux status. You want to trust the person fighting next to you implicitly, if you know they don’t feel comfortable in their skin, one assumes that trust is going to be reduced.

And;

“Any organisation that has more diversity does better.”

That’s a claim with highly-dubious scientific sources but, even if proven correct in the world of commerce or pubic sector administration, I’d be willing to bet the defence budget on the fact that there isn’t a single corroborating study for fighting forces, especially ones that have fired live rounds any time recently.

Lastly, this gem;

“It was the scariest thing I’ve done, to be honest,” he said, of coming out while in the defence force.

Let’s have a moment’s silence for those who gave their lives on the Normandy Beaches while we consider the relative scariness of experience.

Bill’s Opinion

Being transgender is a personal tragedy for those concerned. The suicide rates within that demographic are the highest in society and do not drop for those who have the reassignment surgery.

These people should be supported and helped but with the realisation that, but for a recent capitulation by the APA, the professional opinion was agreed that they were suffering from a mental disorder, not some magical third gender yet to be explained by science.

Let’s support these people but for fuck’s sake keep them away from live weapons and in no way give them responsibility for the defence of anything so important as national security.

Meat is murder, cheese is rape

An Australian vegan was offended by a British ham and cheese sandwich this week.

I know, it sounds like the setup to a mediocre joke but, no, the offence was actually taken by the protein-deficient antipodean.

That vegans don’t eat, wear or use animal products is an incontrovertible fact. That they go around in a constant state of high offence that others do may be news to many of us.

Firstly, let’s remind ourself of the basic flow of offence when it occurs;

1. An external stimulus (words, pictures, sound, etc.).

2. The recipient mentally processes this.

3. The recipient then chooses to take offence (or in most cases, doesn’t).

4. The recipient loudly proclaims their new state of offence to the world.

5. The world continues to spin on its axis, the laws of physics are maintained, water still flows downhill, nothing of any consequence changes.

Imagine for a second, though, what it must be like to live in this state of constant offence; Joey Armstrong claims to be highly-offended by the sight of a “murdered” pig combined with “raped” cow milk processed into cheese.

This claim was made inside the BBC’s Broadcasting House, London. To have arrived there from Australia, Joey will have travelled to his nearest international airport, hopefully in a taxi that did not have leather seats, through the departure lounge replete with retail outlets selling leather products and multiple food outlets offering many meat items.

On the plane, he would have been unlikely to have avoided smelling and seeing the food choices of his fellow passengers; the clichéd “chicken or fish” option leaves little chance of an offence-free flight.

At Heathrow, he will have doubtless caught a whiff of the delicious toasted ham and cheese croissants sold by Pret á Manger just after the security checks. Then, into London, he’d be challenged to find a carriage on the Piccadilly Line or Heathrow Express trains without passengers wearing leather shoes, belts and jackets. There might have even been a bacon sandwich consumed in front of his crying eyes.

After such a traumatic journey, exiting at Oxford Circus station isn’t going to be much of a relief; he’ll have to pass yet more dead animal-wearing pedestrians, dead-animal flesh outlets (cafés) and, even when safely in the bowels of the BBC, he may have to witness a cold meat selection in the Green Room before the interview.

The poor chap will then have to experience it all in reverse on the way home to his vegan utopia homestead.

With so much offence and trauma being incurred, it’s a wonder Joey can still function enough to have a coherent conversation. Oh, hang on…..

Bill’s Opinion

One of two things are happening here, either;

  1. Joey is deeply offended and traumatised throughout most of his waking moments but somehow manages to function in a state of excruciating mental suffering, or
  2. He’s making it up and is a lying shit.

Lastly, who else is enjoying the irony of an Australian vegan called Joey Armstrong; a “Joey” being the name for a baby kangaroo and strong arms being the last thing one ever associates with pasty weak vegans.