Don’t mention the war

I have memories. They may be, as Clive James suggests, unreliable, but I can’t erase them.

One memory is of people often saying “it’s a free country” in response to either a suggestion that they’ve said something offensive or that someone was doing something not illegal but outside of the norm.

It must be two decades since I last heard that retort, TV re-runs and YouTube videos of Hancock’s Half Hour notwithstanding.

What I mean is, “it’s a free country”, was said all the time, by people in the pub, the local market, outside church, in the newsagents.

You pulled a face when they said “Paki” when referring to the cornershop owner Mr Patel, originally from Bombay, India? “It’s a free country”.

Someone raised an eyebrow at a risqué joke? “It’s a free country”.

What about the girl who has moved in with her boyfriend, or the teenage lad down the road who’s just confirmed what everyone had known since he was in Primary School; that he’s gay? “It’s a free country”.

If I were to speculate on the reason it was such a common catchphrase, I’d guess it was a reaction to our opponents in the Cold War. The things we said weren’t policed by government in the way the Russians were. it was a point of pride.

We don’t hear it so often, if at all now.

Perhaps there’s a reason for that.

Here’s a few news items to contemplate:

Woman arrested for silently praying in public.

Pregnant woman arrested for Facebook post.

Comedian can’t perform to a sold out theatre.

Film not allowed to be shown in UK cinemas.

This trend is self-sustaining. The political theory of the Spiral of Silence suggests people increasingly self-censor when they perceive their views are outside the Overton Window.

So what topics can we no longer express that perhaps we might have done in the recent past? Let’s call this test the LinkedIn filter; i.e. would I be prepared to hit the 👍 button on an article on this topic for my professional network to see? If the answer is no, it would seem we can no longer discuss this in public.

Here’s a list to get us started:

  • Asylum seekers waiting to cross the English Channel have passed through at least three safe countries already. Why did they not claim asylum in one of those?
  • Openly funding the Ukraine response to Russia is a highly risky tactic for the west and has likely delayed the inevitable diplomatic solution.
  • Some cultures are inferior to those originating in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Islam, in particular, is still desperately needing its version of the Renaissance to arrive.
  • Most of the world’s governments wet the bed over Covid and then failed to admit it when the data was clear in April 2020 and carried on self-harming for over a year.
  • Trans women, particularly the most vocal in the media and social media, are nearly always acting out a sexual fetish, autogynophobia. Their human rights do not trump those of actual women.
  • Stereotypes are often rooted in truth. There’s a reason the Lebanese in Sydney have a reputation for corruption, for example, or Nigerians in London are wildly more successful than Afro-Caribbeans.
  • The gender pay gap has multiple causes, duh patriarchy is unlikely to be a significant one. In fact, we never talk about it when I attend the local Patriarchy Chapter secret meetings.
  • The best way to equalise the gap between Australian aboriginals and the rest of the population is to treat them equally – equal laws, no subsidies to live in remote locations, removal of at risk children, etc.
  • Polyamory is yet another con trick, like third wave feminism, resulting in unhappy and regretful humans.

Bill’s Opinion

There’s loads more verboten topics to go on that list. I may pin this post on the main menu and keep updating it. Feel free to suggest a few in the comments.

Merry Christmas to all my readers!

Fear and self-loathing in Oz Vegas

Apologies for both the interval between posts and the thematic repetition today. I tried to write about something else but the idea that the west hates itself just keeps popping up everywhere.

Let’s forget the self-saucing outrage pudding that is the Whinger and Ginger royal schism; it has an element of western self-loathing but, frankly, a plague on both their houses.

Australia is more amusing however, as it prepares for its traditional festive fun of convincing itself it doesn’t deserve to exist.

One of the half dozen legacy media organisations, TV channel Ten, has publicly announced its new policy of not making reference to Australia’s national holiday, the imaginatively named Australia Day (January 26th).

Imagine RTÉ boycotting St Patrick’s Day, Canal Plus giving Bastille Day a miss or an American TV channel ignoring July 4th. Their boycott announcement would be a virtual suicide letter.

For those who previously hadn’t given enough of a damn about Australia’s national day to find out what it celebrates, here’s the cliff notes; it marks the 1788 landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove. So, not the first arrival of Europeans on the continent, nor the “discovery” of Australia by Captain Cook, but the start of the first European settlement.

Ok, the settlement was a penal colony so, regardless of how the incumbent residents felt about it, not the most auspicious of starts for a nascent nation. History doesn’t care about your feelings though, to misquote Ben Shapiro. That’s yer actual history, Australians, own it.

Those who would boycott Australia Day refer to it as “Invasion Day”. They have a fair point, of course. Things definitely went rapidly downhill for the locals when the British and Irish arrived.

At this point, we could spend a few hundred words describing the historic and ongoing injustices against the aboriginal population, including the modern trend of people fraudulently claiming an aboriginal identity for the kudos and financial rewards available to them in (particularly) eastern city metro areas.

It’s not really the point though, is it? January 26th, 1788 wasn’t the day that started; that was probably more likely to be 19th April, 1770, when James Cook made Australian landfall on a mission specifically to find new lands for Britain. That’s when the Aboriginal people’s future was set.

Bill’s Opinion

The raison d’être of the boycott is a rejection of the Australian history. The date of the national day doesn’t matter at this point; it might as well be Christmas Day or a randomly-selected date from the calendar.

The people who don’t like Australia’s history don’t like a national day that celebrates a significant date in Australia’s history. It probably wouldn’t matter to them what that date was.

Ultimately, they will get their way; the Australian national day will move from January 26th.

How do I know this? Because they are fighting against people who value a feeling of national unity, nationhood. Eventually those people will realise, like the mother of the baby presented to King Solomon, a national day that divides a nation can’t continue forever.

The only real question is, will those boycotting January 26th get behind the new day and come together to celebrate Australia the nation at that point?

I don’t think so. I don’t believe that’s how this ends. See the previous post for reasons why.

Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

Eventually, our decline becomes difficult to wilfully ignore. On a personal level, the inability to fit into a favourite pair of trousers is a harsh and obvious indicator of change.

At a national level, articles such as this are a sign we’ve lost our confidence and have done a deal with those who wish us harm.

There is an undercurrent of racism about the negative coverage of Qatar during the World Cup, the first to be held in a Muslim nation.

Western sensitivities around banning alcohol, homosexuality and demands around worker’s rights have a ring of moral colonialism.

Does it? Sensitivities?

That second sentence smuggles the concepts of killing migrant workers through negligence and jailing gays in the conversation under the cover of our differences over alcohol. Moral colonialism indeed.

Dr Tanveer Ahmed goes on to equate dressing as a crusader with wearing Nazi uniforms.

Again, really?

Can you name another culture in the world that would invite immigrants to their country and then provide column inches for such self-loathing in their national newspaper?

Would China allow it? Nigeria? Qatar? Argentina? Singapore? I don’t think so.

Here’s another article to consider, bemoaning the decline of New Zealand, particularly in the quality of its education. The statistics comparing it to Singapore are damning. Even if the Kiwis woke up to the problem today, it’s a multi-generational effort to reverse the decline.

In the UK, we talk of a managed decline since the days of empire, a melancholy acceptance of a slow fall down the world rankings since the war.

It’s worse than that though, as the title of this article infers; Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly”, is how a Hemingway character describes his process to bankruptcy. Perhaps we are in the suddenly stage of our cultural decline.

Britain has been here before, of course. A thousand years ago, we had this pathetic notion of paying off the Vikings to leave us alone, the Danegeld.

But, as Rudyard Kipling wrote, “…once you have paid him the Danegeld, You never get rid of the Dane.

We’ve lost our cultural self-confidence and now our guilt over the past is preventing us from progressing in the future.

Those who would do us harm have noticed this and, like Dr Tanveer Ahmed, they are keen to exploit our insecurities.

Also, as Douglas Murray points out in The War on the West, many of those who would do us harm are us. We’re doing it to ourselves.

Cultural relativism doesn’t stand up to historic or logical scrutiny.

For example, murdering wives on their husband’s funeral pyre is not just an aspect of culture, it’s immoral. Fortunately, those nasty colonial British were culturally insensitive enough to ban it. It’s not clear whether Dr Tanveer Ahmed thinks this was an intervention too far.

Slavery has been the default condition in every human culture forever. The first time in history it was banned was 1833.

When did Dr Tanveer Ahmed’s culture ban slavery? Well, if he identifies with the Islamic world, not until the 20th century. Perhaps he would prefer to identify with the country of his birth, Bangladesh. If so, maybe he could visit some clothing factories there and let us know his findings.

Bill’s Opinion

My Christian faith is not particularly strong, but I’m very grateful for the benefits accrued to me by those who came before us with that strength of faith. Perhaps I am a cultural Christian.

The Victorians had a concept of “muscular Christianity” underpinning much of their global endeavours. We could cynically suggest it was convenient to have a justification of morality to explain why they imposed Common Law on the colonies, but Indian widows benefit from it today, nonetheless.

We’ve since replaced our faith with atheism and lost our confidence in the superiority of our culture along the way.

How do we reverse this cultural decline? are we too late?

Perhaps we could make stronger counter arguments to the cultural relativists. Maybe it’s time for us to seek our own reparations; the abolition of the global slave trade cost Britain dearly.

We not only had to pay compensation to the slave owners but the Royal Navy acted as the oceanic police for a century to close down the trade, both in the Atlantic and the Indian oceans.

There are people alive today in Britain who lost family members at sea in battles with slavers and the entire British economy had a brake on progress during that time, relative to those nations that were late in banning the trade.

If a politician could show their working to calculate a figure, they’d get my vote if they vowed to send some invoices to other countries. Let’s get that dialogue started, rather than taking domestic lectures from Bangladeshis on the negative impact of colonialism.

Wendyball’s revealed versus expressed preferences

As I regularly tell my kids, don’t listen to what people say, pay more attention to what they do.

The Wendyball World Cup is about to kick off in Qatar. Millions of dollars will be spent on mysteriously expensive, nasty nylon replica national shirts, manufactured on the cheap in Asian factories.

If the merchandise supply chain of the competing national sporting bodies has no modern slavery issues, perhaps we might look at the labour practices of the host nation, Qatar.

According to the Guardian, reprinted by SBS, perhaps 6,500 foreign workers died in the construction of the stadia, infrastructure and general upgrades in the country.

To be fair to Qatar for a moment, the Guardian wouldn’t be my go to media source for any story involving integers greater than ten, as they spent the last three years trying to convince us a bad cold had a case fatality rate equivalent to the Black Death.

So let’s split the difference; say, about 3,000 died. What did they die of? Cardiovascular and respiratory issues. i.e. heatstroke. Unsurprising considering it’s still 35 degrees in the middle of the night there.

Also, the Qatari labour laws give employers rights over the workers that would make a Medieval king blush. Employers can prevent immigrant labourers from switching jobs and can cancel residency permits. Don’t like the working conditions? How about I send you home to Bangladesh tomorrow?

The Qatari treatment of the Wi-fi password people also falls well short of the western standard of acceptance and celebration. It’s illegal to be homosexual in Qatar.

So, as you can imagine, the international outrage has been intense and the coordinated responses have been significant and tangible, in line with earlier precedents such as those against the 1980 Moscow Olympics following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or the global response to South Africa’s Apartheid regime.

A reminder of those two precedents; 66 countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and South Africa had pariah status on the international sports stage for several decades. In fact, the boycott gifted New Zealand their first rugby World Cup win in 1987.

So, as we’ve mentioned, equivalent boycotts are currently planned in response to, effectively, working to death several thousand dirt poor men from the sub-continent and jailing gay men and women.

Well, when when say boycotts, what we mean is the cities of Barcelona and Paris aren’t going to put up a big screen in a park. Spain and France are still sending their teams.

Australia have gone much further than most countries though, as you would expect from a country never shy to bask in the cheap glory of virtue signalling; the team made a video condemning Qatar.

Some commentators have described this as “powerful”. Obviously, it’s not as powerful as staying home and sitting the competition out, but we are sure the next batch of Bangladeshis to be worked to death this month appreciate the thought.

Although it’s fair to accuse the Australian wendyballers of not really caring enough about dead Asians or jailed homosexuals to skip a World Cup, they at least can’t be called hypocrites; it looks like Football Australia haven’t yet got round to filing a statement declaring their supply chain is free of slavery issues. (To see quite how pointless the register is anyway, read our previous post about it).

Interestingly, the domestic football code, Australians Rules Football, has filed one. It’s obviously a lot easier to be sure you’re clean if you don’t get to play overseas.

FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland. My preferred search engine isn’t showing a Swiss government modern slavery register. Hands up who isn’t surprised.

Bill’s Opinion

Remember all those players kneeling on the ground in countries around the world after the death of Saint George Floyd? That was because something something black lives.

What colour are Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nepali and Indian construction workers after a 12 hour shift in 50 degree heat?

We don’t take directions from the moral compass of soccer players for a very good reason. They are happy to spend a hashtag here and half an hour to make a video there, but missing out on a pay day is a cost they aren’t prepared to pay.

Oh, and ironically, Football Australia has a policy and protocol about playing in extreme heat. Shame it doesn’t apply to the building of the stadia the team plays in.

Is it cos I is black?

The Sydney Morning Herald gave a laptop to another intern with nothing much to say, again. The result is a classic “everything is racist and you’re all racists” OpEd and yet another demonstration of Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism.

My phone pings. A friend request from the guy I went on a date with. I feel a sense of dread as I flick through his photos. My shoulders tense and rise to my ears before I let out a sigh of relief – he has friends of colour.

Friends of colour.

Stop. Before we go any further, let’s get some context on the author. Exactly where on the Dulux scale of Reykjavik to Kinshasa skin tone is Emma Sullivan sitting?

I admit to having a mild case of deuteranopia, but I’m seeing a very light olive colour there, a skin tone I can usually achieve by the third day of a beach holiday. So, in certain conditions, could I be your friend of colour?

The older I get, the more I find myself scanning the crowd to find faces like mine.

Really? What a strange thing to do, let alone write down and publish.

Being half white and growing up in a very Anglo-Saxon suburb, this hasn’t always been the case. In high school, I clung to my white privilege as it allowed me to laugh off comments like “you’re not really Asian” or “you don’t count”.

Search no more; we have found the Rosa Parkes and Nelson Mandela Australia has been looking for. “Let my people go”.

In an attempt to show us what other cultures looked like, our school even took a busload of teenage girls to Footscray “to see how refugees and migrants live”. I remember the squeals and grimaces at the markets as we walked past skinned ducks and ox tongue. Tiny noses being turned up at the sight of lunch.

Just girls on the bus? Well, this gives away a little more detail; not just white privilege, but single sex (therefore most likely privately) educated privilege. Do we have some underlying guilt feelings going on here?

But, when almost half of Victorians are either born overseas or have a parent who was born in another country, why do I run into large groups of people out socially where every member is white?

I’m going say the quiet part out loud here; is it because you’re the daughter of upper middle class rich parents, so you don’t hang around with the working class, most of whom have at least one mixed race relationship in their families?

I’ve noticed this most when out in affluent suburbs. From my experience, these people often to end up in workplaces full of their (white) high school peers – creating a vicious cycle that can shelter people from other cultures, and make them close-minded.

Told ya.

I’ve felt it when those around me refuse to use chopsticks. When my culture becomes “too hard” for them, it stings. No one is an expert at their first try – it’s the effort that counts. It’s about the willingness to learn and the eagerness to understand.

What a thing to be upset about in a world where the Uyghurs are in concentration camps.

I’ve felt it when people say they’ve “done a country” after visiting the tourist traps over a week or two. The word “done” is framed as if a country can be ticked off. We’re taught to not judge a book by its cover – so why do it after a fleeting glimpse at other cultures and countries?

Ok, you’re going to hate the context my friend Jako and I used say “done a country” back in our youthful days then. Probably wise I keep the details to myself if I ever meet you.

I don’t think it’s about implementing other cultural practices or rituals into our daily routines. It’s about allowing space for more than what you know.

“Please can more of you swipe left on my picture now?“

Bill’s Opinion

Pure projection. “I don’t see many non whites while I’m out in my chi chi bistros with my old school friends. Therefore you’re all racist”.

Oh do fuck off.

Also, a reminder of the ever accurate law:

Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism is that the most heartfelt journalistic extrusions will be demands for how society must be re-engineered so that, come the Revolution, the writer herself will be considered hotter-looking.

There were three in the bed, and the little cuck said….

Paging Desert Sun, could Desert Sun please come back to the interweb? This really is his subject area, not mine:

Sexologist Tamica Wilder opens up about living with boyfriend, husband and kids (h/t the Ryan Long Boyscast podcast).

A leading Australian sexologist has opened up about living, until recently, under the same roof as her husband, their two sons, and her boyfriend.

Which makes one wonder who the leading Australian sexologist is?

On this week’s episode of the Parentkind podcast, Tamica Wilder – who is based in the Byron Shire…. Of course she is, where the fuck else in Australia would she be living?

When I met the father of my two kids, one of the first sentences that came out of my mouth was, ‘Yes, I want to be with you, and it won’t be just you’,” the 37-year-old recalled.

The father of her kids must smile wryly at that shared memory.

“I was very clear from the beginning of our relationship that I had polyamorous or open-relating values, and that was something that was a non-negotiable in terms of my relating style.

“Relating style”…. That’s a new synonym for a much older adjective we’d all recognise.

“And so that kind of flung us into a whole world of not fully understanding what that meant at the time, and it really seemed like the more freedom and agility we gave each other, the closer and closer we became.”

(Bold mine) Let’s come back to this in a while, shall we?

….Tamica met Rob* at a 2018 festival in northern NSW, Australia. “I met this person who’s my partner now, and I came back home to the father of my kids, and I told him all about this person that I’d met. And I’d said, ‘I’m not willing to not see this person again. There’s something there with us, and it’s a thread that I want to follow,’” she said.

“Hi honey, I’m back from the festival and I got you a present!”

And so [Rob and I] kept relating, long distance, for a while, and then he eventually moved down to Melbourne and into our family home.”

Which sounds rather like, “let him move in or see your children half as much as you currently do”.

It was also important, she explained, that she, Rob and Harry have “lots of conversations”.

As the Boyscast points out, those must have been almost as bad, if not worse, than letting Rob bang your missus.

You can skim through the next ten paragraphs of bullshit justifications for shagging around until you get to the money shot:

Ultimately, she moved with her two sons up to the Byron Shire, where they now live together with Rob.

How’s that the closer and closer we became thing goin’ for ya?

Bill’s Opinion

The common theme one finds with articles trying to normalise polyamory is that they always finish with one or more parties getting no sex and/or evicted.

It’s analogous to articles bemoaning the lack of true socialism.

But, apparently, you’re the closed minded bigot for thinking monogamy and the family unit are the best societal solution for humans.

Give me back the Berlin Wall

….Give me Stalin and St. Paul
Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don’t like children anyhow
I’ve seen the future, baby
It is murder

At some point in the last few decades, we seem to have lived through what Leonard Cohen predicted in the song quoted above, The Future: There’ll be the breaking of the ancient Western code.

One important aspect of that ancient western code was that children mattered more than any other demographic and we should sacrifice for them, not the other way around.

But consider three significant points of evidence in the argument this is no longer our code:

1. Abortion.

It’s always happened, true. From secret potions to beating of bellies to coat hangers and back street arrangements. In countries where it was made legal, the argument was that, if it no longer carried a criminal offence it might be made safe, early and rare. Those words were much used in the campaign during the original Roe vs Wade ruling.

Early and rare seem to have been dramatically forgotten in subsequent years, however.

Approximately 1 million abortions are performed annually in the USA of which, up to 18,000 are in the third trimester. Let’s hope they were at least safe.

2. Lockdown.

For two years, most countries went through several phases of closing the schools and shutting their children away in bedrooms to be educated remotely. School and community sport was banned, as was playing in the parks or even meeting with friends.

We all knew this would impact the most vulnerable kids, those without computers and parents at home, those with abusive family members, those with emotional and mental health issues. But we did it anyway.

Why? To save them from a disease we knew didn’t pose any material risk to the young. We sacrificed those at the start of their lives for the sake of those at the end of theirs.

3. Transgender.

We’ve accepted fiction as fact and figures of authority have presented this to children.

Quite reasonably, many children have now acted upon this lie and genuinely believe they are born in the wrong body and, worse, this unhappy situation can be ameliorated by a mixture of powerful drugs, life changing permanent surgery and the rest of society going along with this charade.

A study of 81,000 teenagers discovered 2,200 thought they were a different gender to the one everyone in the world would have said they were if asked about 10 years ago.

A not insignificant proportion of these confused kids are going to physically act upon these thoughts by taking drugs, slicing bits off themselves and acting out a cosplay fantasy of their new gender.

We can be bloody certain this will not improve their happiness at all.

Well done, everyone. Seriously, well done.

Bill’s Opinion

Golda Mier famously said of the Arabs;:

“We will only have peace with [them] when they love their children more than they hate us.”

I believe that quote is relevant today but it needs a slight modification to reflect our pathological self-loathing:

We will only have peace when we love our children more than we hate ourselves.

Preferred pronouns: murderer, killer, psycho

Australia doesn’t have many serial killers or mass murderers. Well, not if one excludes South Australia from the census, anyway.

One of the recent cases involves this person:

“A NSW woman convicted three times for homicide has been arrested again in Sydney.”


In the same news outlet, a report of a child abuser who breaks the gender stereotype for that crime as she is female:


Bill’s Opinion

Imagine looking in from the outside on a society that panders to the whims of triple murderers and child abusers by changing the language and cultural norms of thousands of years. What conclusion might one draw regarding the sustainability of that society?

I have no proof that Reginald Arthurell and James Tubbs aren’t genuinely deeply convinced they were born female in male bodies, or whatever version of the several explanations we are offered for transgenderism, but I do know that the very last people I’m prepared to offer the benefit of the doubt to have been convicted of murder and sexual assault.

Presumably, at some point in the recent past, Catie Mcleod, Audrey Conklin, Michael Ruiz and Emma Colton were summoned to a briefing at Holt Street, Sydney and received instructions on the new style guide for News.Com.Au, requiring their copy to be filed using the preferred pronouns of anyone they write about, regardless of the likely credibility of such demands.

Such a briefing must have occurred as this switch in language is now consistently applied throughout the publication. No journalist is going to get off the spike if they refer to Arthurell as “Reginald” or male.

Meanwhile, 99.9% of people read the reports linked above and feel a visceral disconnect from the words and reality. We read the report of “female” Regina and think, “Fuck off. He’s an evil piece of shit who is taking the piss out of us. He even chose a female name with such an obvious double-entendre rhyme as part of his sick joke. Whoever writes this crap must know this too, so why do they pretend down is up and black is white?“.

Perhaps we should applaud this self-destructive writing from the media. The more they insist on ignoring reality, the fewer of us believe anything they report.

Manchurian OpEds part liǎng

Do you hate your country? Do you despise it’s history? Do you believe it was founded on dishonest principles by people who were evil? Is this loathing so great that you wish to see our enemies thrive and our country decline?

Ridiculous questions, right?

Most, if not almost every citizen of a first world country would not agree with the sentiments above. Sure, your country has a mixed past, with shameful episodes but, judged against its contemporary peers, most people would suggest the balance is tipped towards a favourable report card.

To sustain that level of self-loathing (or loathing of your country) would require a deliberate effort to ignore the relative positive differences between your day to day life and most other places in the world and, almost as importantly, the relative differences between your life and those of every one of your ancestors.

Walter Duranty was one such exception. He deliberately misled the public (and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for it!) about Stalin’s reign of terror. History should judge critically those useful idiots who are prepared to wilfully ignore mass murder and state-sanctioned famine for the vague promises of a future utopia.

A quote, possibly falsely attributed to Duranty but certainly used by other apologists for the Soviets explains, “In order to make an omelette, you have break a few eggs”. The correct response to which, is of course, that offered by George Orwell and Panait Istrati, “Where’s the omelette?”.

Or, more specifically, “where’s the omelette you made by murdering 100,00,000 humans?

We examined in the previous post how a supposedly objective finance newspaper in Australia is prepared to publish, without challenge, several hundred words imploring us to change our institutions and way of life, written by sources highly likely to be under the direct control of the Chinese Communist Party.

It gets worse, though. If our problem was just one compromised editorial team on one newspaper, we might not have such a big problem.

The chances are, our universities are riddled with people under direct or indirect influence of the Chinese Communist Party. An obvious Manchurian Candidate would be Professor Golley of the ANU.

The short version of the linked story is she relied heavily on CCP propaganda disguised as independent research to downplay the brutal humanitarian crimes being committed agains the Uighurs. When confronted, she then doubled down on the apologist standpoint.

Let’s pluck some quotes, in her own words, offered as her defence:

So that’s where I used my academic judgement, I’ve spent my whole life peer-reviewing articles. I read it and thought that there many points that make sense to me.

Because the article you referenced was so favourable to the CCP it should have made you consider its source and authenticity. “Inquiry” being the keystone of academia, after all.

“I know more about <the Uighur region> Xinjiang than Pompeo, I don’t want to sound cocky but I know more than what 99 per cent of Australians know about Xinjiang.”

Consider the possibility you don’t know more about morality than 99% of Australians, however.

“There are all sorts of fuzzy lines between what constitutes forced and what constitutes choice – what if 30 per cent of Uighers are choosing to work?”

She really said that out aloud.

Professor Golley said she still did not know the authors of the paper but defended their right to submit the paper to her anonymously via proxies saying they would be “persecuted” if exposed.

No alarm bells were harmed in the receipt of this anonymous report.

When the names come out there will be some Chinese names in the list and people will immediately assume that they’ve been subjected to Beijing’s orders when it might be the case that that’s just how they see the world and then they’ll be persecuted – they’re going to be labelled spies.”

People living in a country with an appalling human rights record tend to be loudly and publicly sympathetic to the regime. This should not be a surprise to someone whose career has been built on detailed knowledge of an authoritarian regime. A curious mind might ask questions, however.

Last year ANU was the victim of a massive data hack, with China considered the culprit. But Golley said she had seen little evidence of any foreign interference at the ANU. “There’s some evidence of it, we don’t know how widespread it is,” she said. “This is another example of needing to be very clear-eyed about the facts.”

Quite right, it was probably Bhutan or Andorra.

She said she had never been paid a single cent by the Chinese Communist Party but that had failed to stem an avalanche of “hate mail” “close to death threats” telling her to “f— off, you communist spy,” and calling her a “shill” for China.

This feels like it could be easily proven by listing the source of all research funding from which she’s benefited, and while we’re at it, the funding for the various international conferences she’s attended. I’ll wait.

“I feel so misjudged, if people knew me, I just want the best for the Uighurs,” she said.

Even those who have benefited from free “family planning services” or the 70% who didn’t choose to work.

She said her motivation for presenting the paper was a concern that academic freedom is being stifled in Australia but she is also concerned that exaggerating China’s human rights abuses could backfire if it emerged they were overstated.

We can all be concerned about academic freedom. Based on the evidence in front of us, she is still able to qualify for research grants and can also have her opinion written in national newspapers, one might conclude Australia isn’t the country stifling free speech. Who can name a country that is? Bueller? Anyone?

She also urged Australians to consider its own genocidal past against Indigenous Australians, saying while it did not justify abuses in Xinjiang it was not “completely irrelevant either”.

Straight out of the CCP playbook. Can anyone guess which we should consider more urgent, a crime committed 200 years ago by people long dead and crimes being committed right now by living humans?

“Sovereignty was never ceded,” she said of the British settlement of Australia as a penal colony in the late 1700s. “I’m revolted that the Australian War Memorial doesn’t have any memorial for the Frontier Wars.”

But is she revolted about the genocide and continuous human rights abuses by the CCP over the last seventy years to the present day? Not so much.

Bill’s Opinion

There’s almost no point being shocked or disgusted by the treasonous self-loathing of these people. You won’t change their minds.

Professor Golley hates you. She’s hates the country and system in which you live. She would be the first to denounce you to the secret police if the People’s Liberation Army ever marched into Australia.

She knows she is right and you are too stupid to be anything other than wrong.

Keep paying your taxes, as she needs to spend a few more years researching why Common Law and individual freedoms are not as righteous as the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.

As for her academic freedom, here’s two recent sources suggesting most of our institutions are riddled with CCP influence; Spectator and Washington Examiner.

Finally, there is a special place in hell reserved for those who try to draw moral equivalence across generations.
People who looked like you did something terrible 200 years ago so how dare you criticise an actual living human for doing something terrible in the present”

So, Debbie McGee, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?

The circling of the drain leading us down to the cesspool of stupidity continues to pick up speed. The evidence for this is contained in this classic example of Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism.

That law states; The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

I’m not going to fisk the article in detail because it is both repetitive and boring. I hope you’ll agree I’m not doing it a disservice with the TLDR version thus:

On dating apps and websites, men can often be very creepy. Sometimes this manifests itself in an expressed preference for specific physical features and racial stereotypes. Some men find Asian women attractive.

That a journalist has spotted the phenomenon of creepy men on dating sites is not particularly interesting, at least it’s a break from “reporting” celebrity Twitter spats. What’s more curious is the reasons offered and the people offering these reasons.

At the risk of being a little cruel, I do need to illustrate the reference to Sailer’s Law with some pictures. These three academics have provided explanations as to why some creepy men on Tinder prefer Asian women:

And these women have complained about creepy men on Tinder:

I think this might be some kind of Woke Purity Test that we’re not supposed to notice what is immediately obvious to anyone with eyes, or if we do, we’re not supposed to say what we see.

The first picture is of Dr. Michelle Aung Thin, who doesn’t present any empirical data to support her claim that men who find Asian women attractive do so due to “Oriental stereotypes in historical and popular culture”.

Our second picture is of Dr. Sophie Loy-Wilson, who claims men find Asian women hot due to well documented “racism against Asian women in the 19th and 20th centuries”.

The third picture is of Dr. Shawna Tang, who has managed to get inside the mind of the man who murdered workers and bystanders in an Atlanta massage business, and can categorically state it “was evidence of Asian women being the subjects of sexism and racism, which could be traced back to colonialism in Asia”…. as opposed to his well-documented struggle with evangelical Christianity and a sex addiction. Probably no need to bother with a prosecution and trial then, eh?

Bill’s Opinion

Anyone who has ever dated other humans will know there are a bunch of bloody weirdos out there, of both all genders.

It is somewhat unfortunate the three academics who claim to know for sure why some men prefer young, pretty, lithe Asian women all look like they’ve fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch face first on the way down.

I’m sure it’s just one of those strange serendipitous coincidences these academics aren’t hot yet they are certain the reasons some men like cute women can be blamed on something something Hong Kong brothels during the Opium Wars.

I suppose we’re not allowed to call it racism when (comparatively) rich white men are targeted by young women in bars across Asia as highly-desirable future spouses?

In the meantime, if you find your fingers hovering to swipe right on a profile of a cute woman on your hook up app of choice, don’t comment on her ethnicity. Say she looks like she’s got a great personality or something.