How Twitter Thuggery Works.

Fantastic medium but it has limitations. Especially that it has so few number of characters that profoundly vague statements get a run, lies get a run and some strange and misleading comments can get a very good run.

Take this for example from a well known Anti Live Export campaigner out of Tasmania. Well known but not very well regarded. Even many animal welfare groups are wary of this person known for rants & facts free jolly word trots. (Below is that person's tweet with all identifiers removed)

That statistic is ball park correct. Exact number we don't know but consider it accurate for the sake of argument. The suggested remedy to the problem? Apparently it's simple ban all live export, even between the states & make all slaughter happen close to the paddocks where live stock is grown.

There's just a few problems with that & if you're Intellectually Bankrupt and you want to win a Twitter Point at all costs you probably prefer the fact there's not enough room to provide fuller facts.

Here's some of the problems...

1. Not sure there's 60 hours of NO feed and water. I'd like that independently confirmed & verified. I can imagine prior to trucking stock are yarded & hopefully "emptied out" that's standard practice so livestock aren't overly fouling truck floors and slipping over in their own mess. I don't think livestock would be yarded at the wharf without feed & certainly without water. 
2. "There's nothing moral or ethical about that" - That's a moral claim & an ethical claim. I don't think the person quite understands the definition of both and that both mean somewhat different things. If there is an ethical claim then there is a process to alter the process in place, rather than just, as they say "hashtag crap". There is no attempt to cite exactly which code of ethics has been breached, None. Only a dominating assertion without any backing, proof or citation. It's beginning to look like an opinion that somewhere between rant and chant. But lets go to the biggy.
   The Moral Claim - You cannot make a moral claim without citing the Moral Law you regard as the authority and the standard you believe has been breached. Otherwise what you have is a stated opinion and as we know many opinions are not based on facts, they're based on feelings or pre-suppositional likes & hates. In other words unless you can cite the Moral Code you're using for the Moral Judgement you're just spreading an opinion without any foundation.
   If for some odd reason you think you possess the entire where with all to make grand moral judgements and others don't well you're either claiming to be God or the gate keeper of all moral judgements (which I'd suggest takes a form of deluded madness to accomplish) or you're deliberately embarking on a cunning pathway of deliberate deceit.
   You cannot make up a moral code or claim people who are decent know what's moral without outlining how you arrive at that statement and qualify it by explain exactly what defines a person as "decent" in your mind. And in doing so you are again only citing your OPINION not total universal truth.
   This is what's called Moral Relativism. It implodes with any sort of scrutiny so quickly thrown grenades on twitter fool the person posting and some reading. Closer inspection reveals the poster has thrown a grenade pin and is hiding in the intellectual foxhole with the grenade.
3. What's wrong with animals being transport interstate? Fact, nothing if its done properly. If the poster regards all instate live export to be immoral and requires immediate ban then the entire Tasmanian Pet Industry will have to be closed. No more pets can be transported. Its over.
   The reply may be that this is different and pets are transported humanely. I don't doubt they are, I'd argue that proves that live export can be done humanely as I always have. I'd have to ask if the issues is that slaughter is involved, is the poster a vegan activist?
   If THAT is the case then its a fair chance the poster is not about animal welfare at all, they're about animal liberation...which is a twisted philosophical cult & really is anti meat.
   But if Live Export is cruel then a ban must include ALL animals. I'd love to see that campaign crank up, about you can import pets from the mainland but they must be chilled or frozen.
4. Local slaughter & processing may well be better for the local economy, but if it's not viable, if it cannot compete then it either closes or it has to be massively subsidised by government. That's a great sentiment but its not sustainable and we do live in a Free Market Economy.
   If some customers want to buy their own livestock, ship it to the mainland, slaughter & process it then ship some of to back to Tasmania they have to do it at a profit, in fact that is the only reason they're doing it. Unless we start paying meat workers 3rd world country wages it's very unlikely most Australian abattoirs will stay open. Due to the very small margins involved the only thing that will keep them open is large turnover. Trouble is the J Curve on profitability is not based on huge margins & as such abattoirs are not known for being great investments. This is why the live trade to Asia & the Middle East is so big. It's not producers trying to sell over there to destroy a local abattoir or crush a local union, it's overseas buyers wanting live because they have a much lower processing cost than us allowing them to sell good Australian product to their domestic buyers who otherwise cannot afford to buy it.
   
   Its what happens in a free market economy. Looking through a truth prism you'll find the same decay that set into the Australian Car Industry which arguably was never able to stand on its own two feet & had massive subsidies for decades. If the Socialist Protestors want all abattoirs subsidised by the Government, go cost it out. That is an economic disaster waiting to happen.
   
   This is why there's an old phrase "If Socialists understood economics there'd be no Socialists"
   
   There are 6 meatworks in Tasmania I know of, 7 if you count one on King Island. 2 are on the skids now and if they haven't closed yet they probably soon will. Economic viability...it's a thing.

The latest truth bombs that the poster cam out with were probably unintentional but highlighted what is being dealt with. There was quite a rant on "vegan diets for dogs" how they were possible and were highly moral & ethical. Same poster said that they did not approve of any animal products.

What that means is we don't have an Animal Welfare protestor we have an Animal Liberationist. That's cult of zealots that often hide amongst the Animal Welfare people. The vegan protestors refer to "lapsed vegans" as those who need help dropping animal products properly and often use as a derogatory remark the descriptor "welfarists" those whoa re Animal Welfare supporters but not yet decent enough to be Animal Liberationist Vegans.

Still these are the facts you can hide when you thrown grenade pins on limited character number platforms like Twitter. The other trait they often use of note is baiting techniques so as to provoke a slap back comment allowing the rabids to claim an offensive attack and wave the victim card.
It wouldn't be so sad if it weren't so clumsily obvious.

I don't claim there's a mental disease or condition there, I'm not a clinical Psychologist or the like, but there is a pattern of behaviour and its rather truth free, agenda driven and quite disturbing.

Look and see for yourself and if a claim of any sort is made don't be afraid of posting "Claim noted, please cite source" or "citation please"

What Some Women Say - Mind Blown

Okay, this kind of blew my mind because it blind sided me. Didn't see this coming.
I had a conversation which went like this...

Me - "So sometimes do you feel intimidated by men in a discussion even when it's clear you're correct & he is not"

She - "Yes sometimes"

Me - "So its not easy debating some men then?"

She - "Yes it's hard sometimes"

And I don't know why I asked this, it just came out...

Me - "What about women with a similarly determined & opposing view is that any easier?"

She - " Sometimes, but mostly its even harder"

Me - "Any particular issues worse than others"

She - "No, only one that really gets ugly is anything feminism related, we can cop a sort of gender shaming thing. I know men can cop gender shaming in some man vs woman issues too but for us its a different variant, it's still guilt based  but its elevated as if we're traitors. If I try to de-gender it and push for men & women to solve things it helps but it's not always possible. Can get a little icky

Mind Blown. Then it got bigger.

She - "So in your blogs, who replies or emails the most? Men or women & which blog got the most replies?"

Me - "I dunno, its mainly me venting my spleen. More people have contacted me than I expected, I'll go look. Does it make a difference?"

She - "Probably not, I was just curious"

Well then I was curious. I went and looked. The blog that got the second most emails, private messages or posts was the one on is Agriculture in Australia a hot bed of sexual harassment.

https://seriouslythinkforaminute.blogspot.com/2018/12/is-agriculture-serious-sexual.html

15:1 in favour of women. All supported the blog and were questioning how feminism had negative aspects that have pushed a negative pendulum into very unfair territory.

The blog with the most replies, emails or private messages to date was actually the one about the RSPCA & Live Export.

7:3 with Men in front. All but one in support of the blog but the one against said "despite those facts you are wrong"To put that in context though the Live export one sort of went mini viral for a while & has had (as I type) 27,106 views. The Sexual Harassment one hasn't been up any where near as long & has had 213 views.
Live export has had roughly 100 times more views but in actual plain numbers the Sexual Harassment has had nearly half the actual messages Live Export did.

So what does that mean?
I have no idea, something or nothing...more likely can't make any conclusion on the small numbers involved. Doesn't account for every person.

My only issue is whether or not women are hesitant to speak up because of men or because of men & women. For me it's not a gender issue where we have to pick a gender side.

To me any gender disadvantage is a Society Issue and we all, men & women need to fix something that is wrong, unfair or negative.

Perhaps best done by seriously thinking for a minute and (to steal from Ben Shapiro and others)...remember that its Facts not Feelings that must prevail. It should never be about power, empowerment or power shift. It should be about encouraging people to go for it, to grab the equal opportunity that most of us support & take for granted.


Stick with the facts, side with the facts. Simples.

Late Edit - Any blog to do with Rural Education seems really close to 50:50 but don't ask who use the strongest language. 100% were in favour of the blogs opposing cuts to rural education so I got something right ;-)
Haven't check all the others, as noted before, most of them were just me venting my spleen but staying fact based is essential.

The UNAUSTRALIAN BANK

This one struck me a bit & had to get my head around the fact it wasn't April Fools Day & probably not an elaborate hoax. I hope its a hoax gone to massive new level, but no.

This is the story about a bank that has the latest in integrating Social Virtue Signalling into their publicity campaign. And there's a number of groupings they oppose & declare they will not lend to.

Primarily its about creating noise, colour & movement in the still space of promoting a bank. Right now banks have a serious reputational problem ad fair to say we probably trust used car salesmen & politicians more...or the same. In recent years more people are waking up and considering shifting to credit unions and for some its an easy jump. For those with small businesses with over drafts or borrowings its not so easy.

So what did "Bank Australia" do? Well this is a screenshot of the video so it won't play but you can seek it out with the help of Google.

Has the bank had a history of lending to exporting companies?

No.

Is the bank a recognised lender to primary producers & feed lotters that are involved in the supply chain of Live Export?

No.

It's a plain and simple Promotional Stunt to try and bleed off some of the angry customers of the big banks into their own ranks. And that's fair, that's business but you'd think that maybe, just maybe a bank you entrust with your money can be trusted to actually do some fact based research into Live Export.

They haven't. They've gone straight to the misled heart strings and plucked away hoping no one will notice that what they've done is based on deception & deceit. And for younger metro based bank customers it probably will work, especially those who are too sloppy & lazy for the facts and wish to just get amongst the noble tribe of ethical people...(despite the real facts).

So what else have they heralded as wrong?

Not known as industrial lenders to the Petroleum Industry, you can get a car loan there and buy yourself either a Prius or F350 Monster Truck no worries at all. Bit odd. Claim to avoid the customers you haven't got nor ever can get on ethical grounds then dodge it for a car loan.
Weapons? Why are weapons so bad? I don't think this bank lends to the Australian Government to bankroll military spending, never has, never will. More defective ethical virtue signalling. As nearly all gun crime is committed by criminals with illegal firearms bought on the black market or stolen just wondering which banks bank roll that illegal activity?
I'm assuming as a result there will be no armed guards involved in any part of Bank Australia's operation at all, ever. It would be ethical hypocrisy otherwise. If they do employ an armed security firm with armoured cars etc, its 100% logic they will not be customers of the bank...on ethical grounds. Is your money still "clean" Bank Australia?

Tobacco? How's that work? Have you ever had cause to lend money to the tobacco industry?
It's a legal and regulated industry. Why refuse to do business with legal lawful businesses, how is this discrimination that actually is more about elevating your brand whilst smearing another even allowed? I expect that one day marijuana will be legalised, I expect Bank Australia WILL lend to it but not Tobacco or if not Bank Australia will come out very shortly & say that they will not lend to any Marijuana Growers if & when it's legalised. Waiting...

Gambling? Who lends to gambling anyway? Who gets a loan approved to go to the casino?
No bank.

Its a legal industry so if ethics are the only grounds then Bank Australia will no doubt lend to anyone wanting to shut casinos with advertising campaigns. Anyone who has any sort of interest in the racing industry or supports any sort of wagering platform.
Waiting...

What they do invest in...
Individual Customers - Ahhh so does every bank

Housing for people with disabilities - which bank bans that practice?

Affordable Housing - Well good but it has to be financially sustainable because you're selling a product, loans and to stay competitive your loan requirements and returns won't be far off your competitors

Renewable Energy Projects -  Which bank refuses to do this?

Not For Profit Organisations - Not-For-Profit status via incorporation allows a group of people with a shared purpose to, as a group, be recognised as a "legal entity" who can own, buy, sell, borrow just like a person can. Every bank lends to for profit & not for profit entities IF the business case is sound.

But still ths bank marches on with a misleading public relations campaign that unfairly demonises LEGAL, LAWFUL, LAW ABIDING BUSINESSES in order to rake I a few more accounts.
Its every grubby & unbecoming of an institution we call a bank and in every way makes them as worthy of mistrust like many other banks.

And sadly when questioned, there is no answer or explanation that makes sense. Just a tactical reply that keeps this bank steady on its course of Intellectual Bankruptcy.

Yes, there is irony here, one very real Un-Australian Bank is named Bank Australia.
Boycott them, I will & I will promote boycotting them because they need only facts to know Australia is the World's Best Practice in Live Export, that there are only Statistical Outliers in porr treatment. If Australia bans Live export Qatar has already said it will not take our chilled and they will import Live from Somalia & Sudan (no ESCAS AT ALL) and/or South America meaning an extra 5 weeks at sea...with NO ESCAS at all. In fact consider the ethical conundrum, by removing Australia as a Live Export supplier a greater Animal Welfare threat will be created and you remove the biggest ethical/humane participant in the worldwide trade.

Ethics? Where?

Is Agriculture A Serious Sexual Harassment/Assault Danger Zone?

Lets start with the truth grenade first...

" YES YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS NOR TO CREATE DECEPTION FOR ANY REASON "

Yes, now back to the title/question - came to me because the person asking me is, like me, Anti-Sexual Harassment/Anti-Sexual Assault but they're not from Agriculture & I am. I was asked if it's true that Agriculture were such a bunch of animals or not. In fact I was asked how many of the farmers are disgusting sexual predators...

I said I wouldn't have thought the "93% of women in Agricutlure had experienced Sexual Harassment" was correct or hoped it wasn't. Said I'd have to wait for facts because if things are that bad then it is without any knowledge or understanding on my part that it was that the case. It is a seriously disturbing claim/statistic.

The stat cited was the one cited at the #ustoo lunch presentation that was organised by the RRRW Network, which later in one speech was referred to as the "metoo/ustoo movement". I found the stat, I found some of the speeches and spoke to some who were there. Its since been repeated by a number of people on Social Media & the written press.
Here is what I learnt.

The stat of note that paints agriculture and more generally the majority of men of agriculture potentially as sexual harassers & vile predators was that "93% of women..." in agriculture had experienced sexual harassment.

For what it's worth, 1% is unacceptable. It doesn't matter what the severity is nor the amount. The number and the severity are 2 completely separate aspects and both should be zero. 93% represents a disgusting level more acceptable in herd of vicious animals. It's a glaring indictment and utterly appalling.

So next, go find the stat & how it was arrived at.

It was referred to as "research" so there must be a research paper. I found it and still going through it but first glance is glaring & worrying.

It was "research" from a 2015 PhD thesis by Dr Rachel Skye Saunders. It was also used to form a foundation plank of her book that soon after went on sale. She is deemed a Sex Discrimination expert, a paid speaker & a paid consultant on the topic.

So, the God-send is it's got to be peer reviewed research, with proper methodology, interpretative mapping of data to guide the assessment of the data & it must have academic supervision. It has to be backed up & others have to publicly agree with the method of the conclusion & agree with the conclusion. That's how t works...right?

I'm not even going to touch that, I'm looking solely at the stat that now paints people in Agriculture at seriously high risk of abuse due to the extremely high number of abusers and predators...possibly.

The researcher interviewed 107 women but in another place it states 101.
Irrelevant but let's press on...
You read for yourself...here's a quote from Page 4 which shocked & appalled me...
" Supporting the central argument are key empirical findings from the 107 interviews that form part of this study.

Of the 84 rural women interviewed, 73% reported having experienced unwelcome, sexualised behaviour in their workplace. For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment.

70% of women in the study also described having observed a female colleague suffering from incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace. "

I was so shocked because not only is it appalling in nature, the magnitude of the problem is devastating to any reasonable person. But the numbers intrigued me.

1) "Of the 84 rural women interviewed, 73% reported having experienced unwelcome, sexualised behaviour in their workplace."

73% of 84 rural women interviewed is 61.32 individuals. I'm not sure how .32 of an individual asserts a position that applies to some 44.700 individuals according to the A.B.S.

Perhaps there's a sensible explanation to the anomaly but this is a stat claiming extremely serious & unacceptable behaviour.
2) "For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment."

I was not actually sure how many individuals were "within this cohort" at first. It seemed to be less than 107 people. That's not many people to make a pronouncement upon everyone in the industry.

Its a statistic that's been touted several times in the press and on the talk circuit since. That "93% of women in agriculture have experienced sexual harassment"

I read the report/thesis, all 355+ pages of it and there it was in a table on page 58

So now we see that "For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment" is based on the answers of just 14 individuals.

Whatever happened to those 14 individuals is unacceptable no matter where it sits on anyone's perceived "seriousness spectrum" if there is one
Appalling & unacceptable whatever it is/was.

However the use of the 14 interviews to produce a stat that 93% of women (out of roughly 44,700) in Agriculture have experienced sexual harassment is demonstrably wrong and intellectually bankrupt as it casts a false, distorted & misleading accusation on Agriculture as a workplace.

Much of the thesis I don't have any problem with. But making massively significantly claims based on such a small sample number of people? No thanks.

Claims that affect people across an entire nation, a reputation of an huge industry claimed to be shockingly degrading based on 14 people. No Thanks.

Its a big conclusion from such a small data set.

But then this on page 271...

 

 I do not in any way support nor excuse the sexual harassment of anyone, anywhere. One instance is one too many.

With that firmly in mind the PhD Candidate has, since the thesis, made the comment, nay repeated it as have others that "93% of women in agriculture have experienced sexual harassment" when it was based on a minimum 14 individuals.
That sort of conclusion is unacceptable & deceptive.

This is hardly a case of research conclusions made cautiously. The author went on to write & sell a book & currently makes income from talk circuit where this claim is used.

I am in favour of anything that reduces or hopefully prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault in ANY workplace or anywhere else. But I cannot support the intellectually corrupt conclusion that paints an extremely horrible picture of the majority of people in Agriculture.

Agriculture is currently under a huge attack on many fronts. Recently Agriculture has been lobbed grenades saying farm dams contributed greatly to global warming along with the other claimed culprit...animal production. Then there's the attack on not just Live Export but farm animal production as well as the use of Glyphosate.

I notice 2 of the people who have been very vocal against Live Export have been journalist Tracey Spicer & WA Ag. minister Alannah McTeirnan. Both of whom were at the #USTOO event where the author of this thesis made the false & misleading comments about Agriculture. Just an aside I'd hope.

The claim, whatever the truth maybe is intellectually corrupt.
I'm in favour of anything that reduces, prevents or eliminates Sexual Harassment & Sexual Assault in but I am not in favour of misleading stats from inconclusive data set that paints many males in Agriculture as sexual predators.

As I cited elsewhere the unintended backlash has begun where two primary producers (of different genders, irrelevant as it is) have said they will no longer hire women because they want incidents to stop & especially if there's risk of litigation to them for failing to provide a safe workplace.
#metoo had some unintended & unfair repercussions, seems #ustoo might too.
In a small regard, its already gone sideways & some of the prominent players haven't even noticed.

Aust Bureau of Statistics says there are currently approximately 44,700 females employed in Agriculture. (**)
If you interview 14 individuals & the answers from 14 people then form a claim that covers & applies to a total 44,700 individuals...well that's deserving of a full & unreserved retraction and apology.

Fully. Those who have quoted the Statistic, that smears Australian Agriculture, must also renounce the claim & apologise. If not then its not unreasonable to regard them as anti Agriculture enablers.
The conclusion that applies to the total number of individuals or 100% (44,700) was derived by interviews derived from 14 individuals which represents 0.03% of the total.

Yeah that's deceptive & if you're aware of it you are possibly an irresponsible fool or a liar or both, maybe something different but it's not helping Agriculture and it's not dealing with facts.
Very dangerous.

Even is the "93%" stat was derived from interviewing 107 individuals it is still too small a sample size to make a claim about 44,700 total. The 107 would represent 0.2%.

Still very dangerous. This is Identity Politics in action. My bet is there will be no retraction or apology, the stat will be used again future. A hierarchy in the "movement" will evolve allowing some to ascend to a lofty position or two whilst women will find it harder to get jobs on farms & men will be smeared unfairly. That's my bet, I'm damn keen to be wrong. Not far away we'll find the Greens &/or Labor party stoking this Identity Politics tactic.

At best, the culprits will use the stat less but still no apology or explanation.
We'll see...

** http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Dec+2012

Below is the link for the entire Thesis.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/647dfc77-90a3-4644-b1bb-5b06ae1d86c9/1/full_text.pdf

(This was written early November 2019 in the hope some would come to their senses & it wouldn't need to be published, however...)

Standards in Political Office, What's Changed?

One theory is as good as another, perhaps. Or perhaps somewhere between 2 or more theories is the real truth.

One is that in older days, because of the society being more religiously minded, less people in office did dodgy things, didn't sleep around, take advantage of the office. Possible to an extent but standards were still breached in days of old.

Another theory is possibly more likely. It goes along the lines that people aren't really that afraid of potential penalties when contemplating wrong doings, they're more likely to be wary if the likelihood of getting caught is very high.

We see fines increased in order to try & curve certain offences, yet offences still occur. If breaking rules is highly likely to get you caught within minutes even the most hardened opportunistic thief will reconsider. Yes it seems right that its not the penalty that stops a person, its the higher likelihood of getting caught.

I think this is part of the problem we're seeing in politics with political scandals.
Right or wrong wasn't considered, they just thought they wouldn't get caught.
Once getting caught was likely and the humiliation or shame brought upon ones self & close ones was high, transgressions seemed less likely.

We're in a very "clever" age where people think they're far more clever than the law keepers.
Same goes in positions of political power.

If the politicians likelihood of being caught is high, the chance of transgressions is lowered.

Parties have all had great performers that had toxic private lives. All parties.
Many were given a huge allowance due to their political abilities. In the end voters suffered and the party suffers.
There seems to be no party whip ruthlessly twisting an ear to point of removal, explaining the landscape and the results of ignoring a one off warning to "pull your head in".

If politics is to improve & standards are to rise then the likelihood of being caught has to be high & the penalties have to be massive. Like full denial of future pre-selection. Yes the person can go independent & be a serious fly in the ointment but standards should be set & maintained. Transgressors should go under the bus, not get a go behind the wheel or a different seat on board.

Scandals still happen, always will but they need to become more rare & that means make detection extremely likely and the penalty crushing.

Whilst Labor remains socialist controlling & Lib/Nats become less religious then its time for a MPs Charter that sets out standards & that scandals will be a political career death sentence.
I know it will be cried loud that its a transgression of freedom. Rubbish. Don't Like It Don't Join.
We as a society should set the behaviour tone for the Parliament  & if someone doesn't like that, they're free to not seek pre-selection

Why is it we as a nation aren't setting the boundaries for those that govern us?
Its absurd & frankly dangerous, more so now we have a history of hung & near hung parliaments.

And if ever there was a time for a Parliament to be well stocked with people with high levels of Statesmanship & Nationhood focus its right now.
Process is paramount because that will guide the culture and reduce the drop in standards

WALabor Govn & the Live Export Crisis

 

And Crisis it is. Last week or so of Federal Parliament there were several attempts to push through a bill with the new cross bench to Ban Live Export. 2 attempts that narrowly failed. In fact the first attempt IF JUST ONE Conservative MP had fallen crook we would be now looking at an export landscape where Live Export would be illegal.

The meeting at Katanning earlier in the year was quite rightly a Crisis Meeting. And make no mistake, the WA Agriculture Minister took the opportunity to claim "Barnaby is not your friend" and then say we farmers need to take the positive opportunities to seek out alternatives in readiness for the phasing out of Live Export.

There was no bipartisan support for live export. None.

There was change course now & if you're upset blame Federal Coalition Government.

That was not Pro Live Export and in recent days I was told Alannah MacTiernan was now supportive of Live Export. My first thought...seriously? Early April 1st?

I was sceptical because I knew what the 2017 WALabor Party Platform was. Anti Live Export.

I also knew what Darren West MLC had said on twitter when I quizzed him what does "transition" really mean...

So what do I do, make an assumption or go ask? I asked, on a Sunday of all days, 3 WA MPs I knew from the 3 largest parties. And here it unfolded. One of the conservative MPs replied first (before I asked the other 2 ) and here was that reply...

"I think their approach is not our issue. We don’t like it but have no control as a State. Therefore avoiding the issue and political flak. "

The aim is to stay in a circling pattern, make profoundly vague comments when pressed, one way or the other depending on the audience & wait for Federal Labor to drop the axe & WALabor gets off Scott free, delegate blame elsewhere. Job done.

I asked the other 2 MPs was this the case, with one being a Labor MP who wouldn't be named anyway in the world, so they all remain nameless and you can decide for yourself if you want to believe this or not, I don't mind nor care. Hopefully you'll go find out for yourself. I mean that, don't take my word for it, find out for yourself, but the other MPs said they agreed with that assessment.

No here's the oddity, the bigger oddity. WALabor is now claiming it achieved what the Barnett Government couldn't do, brought about a solution to the GST distribution. No, that's a fact...I mean its a fact they're claiming that win falsely.



 

How did the State Premier & Labor fix the Federal issue of GST but can't help Live Export because it's a Federal issue not a state one? How does that begin to be reconciled?

Does that not strike you as very odd?

They somehow stepped into a Federal GST issue and solved it but some other Federal issue like Live Export they can't because its a Federal Issue. Both have parallels, both are Federally governed issues but both affect WA massively and these are not the only 2 "federal issues" the WA Governments of either stripe have stepped up about.

Facts remain. Its still a part of WALabor's Party Platform. Their election Policy. Live export is to be 100% transition to processed here, exported chilled...or in other words BAN ON ALL LIVE EXPORT.

Federal Labor has the exact same party platform. The same policy. BAN ON ALL LIVE EXPORT.

So either Alannah MacTiernan supports the ban or she supports the trade.
If she supports the trade it means she opposes WALabor & Federal ALP Policy
If she opposes party policy she can say so & lobby the Feds with full voice that the ALP party platform is wrong and is not fair nor in WA's best interests.

She can, she hasn't, she doesn't, she won't.

They're hoping the Ban comes, they can claim it among those that oppose the trade and amongst those that (sensibly) support Livex they can utter "It was a federal issue and as a state government there was nothing we could do about it, the federal parliament decided" Fact - whatever you hear from WA Labor MPs or supporters, it remains WALabor & Federal ALP policy to "Ban Live Export"
Ignore whatever tactical replies and profoundly vague comments you get, they both oppose live export. WALabor have a strategy & they're carrying it out right now.
So you believe everything Alannah tells you?
Maybe you can...

 

So, are you sceptical about WALabor being supporters of Live Export? Think Seriously.

Don't take my word for it, go research all you can, check all the facts you can find, talk to you local MP and any other MPs you can think of. See what stacks up and what's hollow words of fake dust in distracton.

Only some people need fear facts. The rest of us need to find them & put them against all the claims

Footnote - If you forget everything just remember this when it comes out that its a Federally Governed issue (like GST) and not a State issue...seemed  pretty state issue when exporters here in WA were raided by state officials. Yeah funny that.

Seemed a pretty state issue when the Minister was meeting with exporters, WAFarmers & the PGA

Seemed a pretty state issue when the minister has made any comment, press release, decree, verdict or opinion on the need for producers to get ready for "phasing out" of the trade.

Seemed a pretty state issue when WALabor committed State Funds to local processors to help increase & improve the chilled trade (in line with the WALabor party platform)

Why did they not say to all those stakeholders at every opportunity "It's a Federal issue, not a state one so we can't do or say anything"? Why not? Perhaps it didn't suit the narrative needed at the time or the strategy.

For a Federal issue, bit odd how much was in the STATE WALabor Party Platform (Page 53)

Not just Animal Liberationists who are shape shifters it seems.


Political Parties Gender Balance

Here's a situation where facts & common sense go out the window & the Post Modernist Marxists and other fact free Letfists drop the trolley and let loose with things that make no sense but support their ideology...which is damaged with nonsense.

I'm told women make up 50% of the population (slightly more I think) therefore 50% of MPs & Senators should be women.

Why?

I'm told because that's fair & equal and right. Because its a moral issue...but life isn't like that.
Here's why expanded.

1. Why is it the real push for quotas or equal gender representation is only in very high paying white collar jobs. In Parliament, in the Senate, in Media organisations in front of the camera, on Blue Chip Company Boards, in successful company's CEO positions?
2. Why is gender equality not sought in plumbing? In roadworks, truck driving, shearing, fishing, oil rig workers, tyre fitters, mechanics. How come the "equality" doesn't apply here with companies forced to employ 50:50, that is on the basis of gender first, merit second?
3.  What about female dominated workplaces? Is there outrage at the low number of men working in teaching, child care, nursing, retail, dress making? Do we enforce a quota on them or boycott places with single digit man percentages? Are they lacking equality, is it a Woman's Club, are men deliberately & unfairly excluded on the basis of the gender?
4. What do we do where the pool of candidates in one gender is extremely low but we need to employ a large number of people? Open a new school, there are 120 teaching positions, various admin roles, maintenance, gardeners etc. Number of applicants comes in as 98% women but we need 50:50?
   Say there's total 200 staff for easy figures, with the lower number in one gender pool and assuming you want the best people for the job to be the best school you have a very big problem. If you want the very best in their field, the say top 20% performers then with a large female pool you have better chances, but with a very low male pool you may be inclined to take whoever you can get if gender balance is a priority. You've just prevented your school from being the best it can be. You had to employ some sub standard applicants because you need "gender balance".
5. How big are the pools in any job? We don't know. If 8 people run for pre-selection & only one is a woman should she get the job because you need gender balance? If there was 4 men & 4 women is it toss of the coin or a woman might have to get it in order to get a 50:50 amongst all the electorates or what? Looking at each of the two major parties, we don't know the gender make up of applicants for pre-selection, we don't know the gender make up of the pool of potential candidates.
6. I'm still waiting to see if there's an instance of a person getting a job because they were man or woman because or if there is case of someone not getting the job if they're man or woman. Would that be unfair?  I think it patently would be wrong.
   Yet with quotas, that's exactly what happens, someone gets a job because of their gender and someone misses out because of their gender.

This is why we need equal opportunity and not bypass everything and go to equal outcome. We don't do this for all industries so why do it for one...which is in the public limelight, is highly paid & can possess or access power & control? And that might be it, "The Struggle".
There is no effort nor struggle to get 50:50 women train drivers or east/west truck drivers. The pool of candidates is probably not 50:50 with the same number of "top 10% operators" in the field. In many case using a quota either by stealth or by forced design means a loss of work standards because one gender has so few people in the pool to choose from.

I know a few retired female shearers who, 20 years after retiring can probably still shear better, faster, quicker than a very young me could at my peak. They would get the job over me because its equal opportunity and if you don't have the best shearers you can get, you're losing money and possibly losing the occasional shed. I wouldn't get a job. That's life. But if you're a contractor running 2 teams, 4 or 5 shearers in one team I don't think half the shearers will be female. Can't be. They need the fastest & cleanest shearers they can find and gender is irrelevant. The pay is the same & its productivity based so there's no pay inequality. Well there might be, men might on average earn more than women do in shearing. But on average male shearers might shear between 30 and 50 sheep a day more...who knows but you get paid what you earn. It might be the other way round, the few women who shear might be really damn good & shear a few more on average...they get paid for what they earn so gender equality doesn't apply. Want it? Earn it.

These are some of the many faults within Gender Equality, if approached too casually it will remain an inequality & may even backfire on women...and men. Why is gender an equality measure without also using left handedness as an equality measure. Why aren't we using red headedness as a measure?
You'd think the most fairest way of employing is to do it without taking gender into account, make it genderless. Apparently not because there are those that push for equal outcomes not the fairest way of equal opportunity.

It must be equal opportunity and if only 2% of applicants in a field are male or female...that's life.
If an employer selects the best people for the job...that's life.

Do you really think that a company is going to pick a sub standard man over a much better qualified and capable woman when there's performance, efficiencies, profit, shareholder returns and money at stake? Seriously?

When there's a 50:50 split in the respective pools and they all display equal average skills and profit potential well then we can expect to see close to equal gender outcomes, but that's not life.
Its a socialist dream and against the conservative ideal of "Want it? Earn it"

Until then this is a hijacked issue by social justice warriors who need "The Struggle" perhaps to elevate themselves in a new fighting hierarchy. Do we regulate society so stay at home parent households is 50% men and 50% women?

Going straight to the outcome gives a result to the crafty & conniving. It denies choice and creates false guilt and in some industries will gravely lessen productivity.

The Struggle seems to be more about power & control. Otherwise there'd be a fight to have 50:50 gender balance in the taxi industry.

In the meantime if less than average ability women go into positions of the political parties, or truck driving jobs to make up the numbers accusations of token women or quota queen will arise. Amongst those who'll no doubt cop it are people who are less than capable and sadly also those who are well & truly capable. That's an equal outcome of false criticism I'm not pleased with.

Can a woman do the job of a man? Yes, if she can do the job better. Can a man do a job better than a woman? Yes, if he can do the job better. It's about employing the best people for the job, not who's gender aligns with a twisted PC commitment.

Kerryn Phelps et al & The "Sensible Centre"

Yes, what the heck is the "Sensible Centre" ?

Well sensible is subjective and Kerryn applies it to the version of Centre that she thinks exists and she belongs to. Yes, she is saying she is "centre" and she is "sensible" possibly implying any & all others of whatever centre are not sensible. She's gone into Identity Politics straight away & as people do when they go Identity Politics she's also created the Hierarchy. At the top is...her. Also in her group are her fellow "sensibles" (arguably sensible)

One thing is for sure, her centre has many Leftist aspects. One think is for sure it seems Liberal defector Julia Banks is largely on the same Hymn Sheet and largely on song with Kerryn Phelps, the true extent will unfold in time. One other thing that has already unfolded is that Kerryn Phelps was in close contact with Malcolm Turnbull during the Wentworth election and probably since.

Its also now known that Liberal defector Julia Banks who is not yet through her first term in Parliament was a big Turnbull supporter. In the weeks prior to her resigning from the Liberal Party and going to the cross bench we now know she was consulting with Kerryn Phelps.

Imagine that, a person still in her first term office was consulting with another person who hadn't at the time actually entered the chamber as a MP. Yes, the same Kerryn Phelps that had been working quietly with Malcolm Turnbull.
Yes straight after Kerryn Phelps first speech upon entering the Parliament Julia Banks couldn't get down the front quick enough to hug & congratulate Kerryn's appointment. In fact she raced down one direction, saw it was too slow, raced back up past her own seat and went the way Julie Bishop went. Not walked, more like bolted.

This not looking like a new cross bench this is looking more like the Liberal Left who were trounced and are beginning to think about leaving to join "the sensible centre". Well one member and possibly 3 others before the end of the week. Negotiations will turn white hot & some will gain some great incentives to stay on. Some may still defect to the cross bench where media attention, power & control will be on offer in spades.
Thing is the "sensible centre" looks remarkable like code for "independent centre left" not at all conservative nor centre nor of the right.

Identity Politics will be a hall mark if they're more left than they prefer to admit.
Watch and see.
Julia Banks being a big Turnbull ally will probably have been in consultation with Malcolm over resigning. We'll see.

So Malcolm being probably the most leftist Liberal PM ever has attained full sniping ghost status and probably will be implicated in the Liberal Party's massive unravelling since he went to New York.

Prince Machiavelli would be very impressed.

Malcolm is not putting the nation's interest first.
Neither was Julia Banks.
It remains to be seen if Julia & the new Cross Bench do put the nation first because of late "Nationhood & Statesmanship" have eluded the Parliament generally and so far are looking very absent from the current Lower House cross bench.

I expect that Equal Outcomes will be pushed ahead of Equal Opportunities. That will be co-joined with a version of Identity Politics that will create it's own protected hierarchy that will be entirely made up of most of the cross bench and the Labor Party when it suits.
Think Bob Katter will be marginalised by the new Hierarchy that's coming.

The new "sensible centre" will in fact be a "neo-centre left" that is centred on identity politics and very leftist in nature.
A corrupted form of feminism will be one plank & if it's not careful it will successfully become counter productive to women by being focused on equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.

I'll watch with interest but I can firmly state I am very much in favour of Equal Opportunities but very much against bypassing that to achieve a short cut to Equal Outcomes.

I'll get the pop corn ready. I have a fairly good idea of the "sensible centre's narrative" & who will be painted unfairly as the victim & the villains.

WA's Voluntary Assissted Dying

Its begun again and there is a Select Committee that has compiled a report but legislation is probably not going to be put forward until late 2019.

That's where its at & by the way the report is 600+ pages long.

So soon we'll be asked where we stand & what we want so there's a couple of responses...

a) Glad we're being asked what we want. That's democracy.

b) I or the opposing view...one of us won't get our way. That's democracy.

c) Sometimes good things get legislated, sometimes bad things do. That's democracy.

d) Sometimes bad legislation isn't dropped, sometimes it is, sometimes good legislation gets dropped...that's democracy.
For all its faults I wouldn't want to be without democracy.

What I very much don't like is this being used as a vehicle to expand or attack a worldview whether its a religion or opposition to religion. I'm expecting that people of faith will be expected to enter into the debate with whatever view they have, (influenced or dictated by their religion or not) but argue from a secular basis. This is very much the way to go as it's pointless citing Christian Scripture to make a point when some people will never be Christians. Some of them are non Christians and some might be ANTI Christians.

Similarly I expect those who are atheists, agnostics, Humanists, Utilitarians to cite facts relevant to the issue & not cite their worldview or philosophy to make a point. When either side does this its an argument from authority that the other side may never ever agree to concede to.

Similarly whilst someone shouldn't cite in context exegesis of the Bible, people shouldn't cite out of context interpretations of any holy scripture. Nor should anyone use it as a vehicle to denigrate or pot shot at a world view they dismiss or dislike.

We do not live in a theocracy, there is no religion run government, no one is ramming the Bible down anyone's throat. That's a false premise.

Some people will have a view on the sanctity of life and that's possibly a self found premise or it's influence by their religious faith. Either way that's every bit as valid as anyone's view but if we're to look at a controversial issue like Euthanasia, Capital Punishment or Abortion (the big difficult three) then we have to look at them whichever way we want but present in the secular fashion.

Its not a vehicle to push a religious view (even if it comes from there) nor is it a vehicle to lampoon a religious view even if you disagree with it...I can go the religious pathway if either a religious or non religious person pipes up...but whilst I might win an argument from that angle it won't deliver an outcome that's fair to all.

You watch, its coming and I expect to hear the words happy clappers, god botherers, religious nut jobs, sky fairies.
Good chance of hearing the words sinners, killers, suicide, murder, God haters and the list goes on.

If there's to be a proper cogent argument, its going to be bloody difficult to keep anyone's worldview out of it but that has to be everyone's aim

On the big difficult 3...
Its always difficult.

Huge amount of back ground information is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/($all)/702507C2CB8742824825818700247E53?opendocument

The Select Committee Report is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/71C9AFECD0FAEE6E482582F200037B37/$file/Joint%20Select%20Committe%20on%20the%20End%20of%20Life%20Choices%20-%20Report%20for%20Website.pdf

So Barnaby Joyce...

Yes Barnaby Joyce popped up in the news again & a good friend who's of a different political bent than me contacted me. As always a cordial exchange, even when we disagree we don't get disagreeable. Who won? Dunno, who cares?

Friend - So I suppose you heard Barnaby Joyce is in the news this morning? He won pre-selection for the seat of New England. What's the go there for goodness sakes?

Me - Ahh ok, no I didn't know that but yeah I guess he ran, process was run and he was chosen. What's the issue?

Friend - Well after all his goings on you'd think they'd tip him out?

Me - Why?

Friend - Well after all those allegations you'd think the Nats would have the decency & the good sense to throw him on the tip don't you think?

Me - Well no not really.

Friend - Why the hell not? Are you completely mad?

Me - Mad? Possibly if so I probably wouldn't know but that's not relevant. What's relevant is I don't know what he did or didn't do. I know some allegations were made but never made public, no charges have been laid & the Nats process deemed it all to be "inconclusive". So if he's not proven to have done anything one way or the other, beyond reasonable doubt it's not really blind natural justice to push a penalty on him just for penalty sake. If the pre-selectors thought he was the best person to stand and his selection is in the best interests of the Party, the NSW Nats party then so it is.

Friend - I can't believe you're defending him

Me - I am not defending anyone, nor attacking anyone but I am defending the rights of all our citizens to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. That's not defending guilty, that's defending citizen rights to a fair hearing or if need be a fair trial. We cannot short circuit due process and convict people just because. There's a reason there is no Star Chamber in this country.

Friend - Yeah but you got to admit, its on the nose?

Me - Ignore this is concocted but imagine I went public and said "Do not trust Mother Teresa, she stole from me, she is a thief. Tell everyone not to trust her at all. Thieving woman" What would your response be?

Friend - I'd say you're talking rubbish end of story.

Me - Possibly. Effectively I made a claim without evidence that could potentially harm anther person's character and your response was not to ask for facts to back the statement up or contact the authorities it was just to respond in a dismissive way...a dismissive way that makes a claim "that's rubbish". Either way NO facts used, presented or exchanged. Do we convict & clear all charged people this way?

Friend - OK I see your point.

Me - That's all I hope for, disagreeing is your choice but staking a premise that conflicts with another needs facts and evidence as the blind justice pivot point to see which side on the scales rises and falls.
I dunno what he did or didn't do. I know allegations were made but I don't know where, what, when & why. I just know one person made a claim and its was found inconclusive. Not to say it did or didn't happen just that some one decided there's no definite answer.

Friend - So where do you sit with #metoo movement then?

Me - Simple, all allegations need to be taken seriously. All complainants need to be supported in coming forward and we should encourage anyone in coming forward. We need to hear their story & it needs to be test at arms length, independently by the system and let the system judge the result without fear or favour. Just on provable facts and evidence. That's not always what #metoo does.
In the Kavanagh case in the US the #metoo thing cranked right up and said women don't lie about these things, a woman must be believed no matter what. Well turns out one woman who claimed to have been raped subsequently admit she'd never met the guy.
Yes bad guys get convicted, sometimes bad guys get off but blind independent justice must be the process we defend & insist on.

Friend - What if a woman can't prove it then?

Me - Then that is a tragic thing but we must convict people "beyond reasonable doubt" not with reasonable opinion. Yes good people become victims and get no justice sometimes, male & female, adult & child but we cannot abandon due process & let in even a subtle lynch mob.

Friend - See what you mean but are you happy about Barnaby getting pre-selected?

Me - To be honest...2 words, staggering indifference. Pre-selectors made the decision, not my electorate, not even my state. Their call. He's a special envoy for the drought, so while he's there keep him working flat strap. I don't know if someone ran against him or if there was if they were better electorally or not. Barnaby is Barnaby. It is what it is.

Friend - You got to admit that #metoo is the best thing to happen lately?

Me - Depends on what you think its doing lately. Its caused 2 primary producers I know to decide to vow to not to employ any female back packers on their harvest & seeding workforce because there's a thing called Vicarious Liability. Its where its possible for an employer to be prosecuted or penalised if a worker is sexually assaulted by his/her co worker and the victim says the employer failed to provide a safe workplace. Saddens me to think things have descended to a point where this is a thing So instead of solving the problem some employers are delivering women a barrier to employment because its safer & easier. It's counter productive to fairness, equality & safety...and yet those two farmers are not changing their minds now.

Friend - So what's your answer?

Me - Well raise standards for sure. Support victims when they come forward. Help them to understand if they make an allegation it needs to be done properly with supportive yet independent process where an outcome is derived solely by evidence to ensure if a person is found guilty it's guilty beyond reasonable doubt...not gut feeling.

Friend - Yeah but will that work?

Me - Most of the time it probably will. Some victims will not ever get justice. This is the way its always been though & we can't go down the path way where unfounded allegations are enough to convict or defame people. Life's tough, life is hard but we must be the best we can be by sticking to blind natural justice.

Friend - In my opinion he shouldn't have been selected.

Me - Well that's an opinion, your opinion and respect your right to believe whatever you want. Me, I'm still stuck on staggering indifference. He's not charged nor convicted of anything. Irrespective of what may or may not have happened, no evidence means no charges or prejudice.
Fact remains the Federal Parliament lacks statesmanship & nationhood as primary drivers. That goes for all parties. When those 2 things left the building the decline quickened.
That's just an opinion so...

Friend - No we totally agree on that.

Me - Yeah but I haven't got the answers to that though ;-)

Is #metoo good or bad or...

Anything that helps reduce sexual assaults is good. Anything that reduces sexual harassment is good.

The #metoo "movement" went through a toxic & damaging phase where it was counter productive and frankly I haven't looked at the US phenomena for a very long time...but I do know some things.

I agree with the Ben Shapiro line of thought, name a perpetrator, state the offence and I'll very much support any victim justice. Not sure about Shapiro's idea of castrating & then jailing the guilty. I'll have to think about that although first thought is that's fine.

But if you make an allegation, name the person but not the detail then I cannot stand by that because its not how the rule of law & nature justice operates in the West.

Consider this false scenario yelled all over main stream media and insert your name where you see *INSERT NAME HERE*

"I want people to know that * INSERT NAME HERE* stole from me and you should not trust them at all, not ever for being a cold, heartless thief"

Is that enough to convict someone in court? No & rightly so.

Is that enough to convict someone on Social Media? For some it is, for some it's enough to have doubt about that person's character and yes it probably might result in some sort of legal action like defamation etc.

Bottom line is, without saying what was stolen, where and when whilst proving it you have tarnished someone's integrity...or potentially tarnished their reputation.

You cannot do that. The #metoo movement did do that or at least some people attaching themselves to the movement did.

The other problem is sexual harassment in the workplace. Yes it has to stop...in the workplace or anywhere but what is it? If there is any touching involved its pretty straight forward, but is flirting ok? Many people have married or had romances with co-workers.

Unwanted advances are sexual harassment? I'm sure they potentially can be but lines can be very blurry and among other things some employers are already worrying about productivity and reputational risk if there's a sexual harassment claim in their workplace. Not to mention any suffering it might cause people whether its true or not.

2 primary producers, different businesses, different districts (and although its irrelevant, different genders) said if it gets much worse they were only going to employ males.

This happened in the USA when some state passed a law regarding the equipment needed for workplaces that had disabled workers. Small shop front business found it easy. Any large business or factory it got hugely expensive with one factory need to install nearly a million dollars of modifications across their factory & the work yard when the disabled person was up front in a office doing data entry. Since the law came in the employment numbers of people with a disability plummeted noticeably.

So yes good intentions can have unintentional negative effects.

I'm also wary of stakeholders carving out a living as "experts" in the field of sexual harassment. I'm sure they're more knowledgeable than me on the subject but if they tout statistics or data that isn't scientifically collected and interpreted properly using sound methodology and peer reviewed...well its just an "experts" opinion on fallible data. That's not how we are supposed to make decisions.

This why I will quickly stand by anyone who does things properly, but if naming and not detailing allegations properly is to become some sort of norm we have a very big social problem ahead of us. We are gifting a free card to anyone willing to falsely smear another.
That is not how justice works.

Nor should it.

Yes I'm sure some people will get off the hook, they probably do everyday but unless proof and evidence convicts a person an allegation has to swept aside.
Its how our courts work much to the disgust and chagrin of the Leftist activist who really do embrace Post Modernist Marxism.

Who are the Alt Right & Why Infiltrate NSW Young Nationals

Start firstly with what is Alt Right?
It's Alternative Right & has a few key planks in what they believe that are common to most of the Alt-Right.

One thing for sure is they're not really from the Left nor are they Conservatives but in a twist of irony they do share some traits with the Left. However I don't expect them to be holding ideological hands anytime soon.

Alt Right is a greyish movement but the main reason it might try to infiltrate the Nationals via the NSW Young Nationals is probably a lot simpler than you might think. It's because as a movement, they are at times very loud but incredibly small. There aim is to come in and swing the Nats over. It really was only a matter of time before they got kicked out. It really was a plan that was never really going to last. I mean there's silly and then there's moronic. They tick the latter with this "plan"

Alt Right believe broadly in 3 common things.

1) It strongly rejects all notions of God/faith/religion
2) Strongly advocates White Supremacy Politics
3) And clearly wants the subordination/suppression of the individual to the will of the collective (or the state)

So in short these 3 facets are not Conservative Values At All.
Alt-right are not Conservatives.
Alt-Right is not of the Left but ironically it shares more traits with the Left than Conservatives.
One of them is a real biggy...
Race Based Identity Politics - The Left does this too, but while the left often calls for more things that favour ethnic minorities, the Alt Right calls for things that favour their ethnic majority. These are 2 sides of the one coin. Race Based Group Identity Politics where the Individual is set aside and things get group oriented. Neither wants the individual, irrespective of the race or cultural background to improve. They want their chosen group to benefit at the expense of others & the state to help control it.

Both the Left & the Alt-Right reject the Conservative ideal that race doesn't or shouldn't matter, that "all men are created equal". Both don't like matters of race put aside, both don't like individuals being allowed to flourish.

Both want the subordination of the individual to the will of the collective or the state.

You might think that sounds ultra right wing like fascism. Well it does. Except remember Fascism is actually from the Left. You can look up its philosophical founder, the Italian Socialist Philosopher Giovanni Gentile. He's pretty much the father of Fascism which he declared was the purest form of Socialism.

"But Nazis were fascists & they were ultra right wing" you might say. Well they were National Socialists. They believed in full & total state control of all things (Socialist) and it was based on country/cultural identity (Nationalism)

Now Nationalism is not in itself evil. Churchill, Roosevelt & Ghandi were Nationalists...keen on improving their own respective nations. Hitler was a mad man so you can call him anything at all really, but he was a fascist & that's National Socialism in their case. So ironically again Alt-Right, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism are all very keen on wiping away the individual, advance their chosen collective and having the state very much run everyday life.

You can see how neo-Nazis & some Alt Right can cross paths and find agreement.

Both the Left & the Alt Right are opposed to Conservatism.

There's another obvious difference with the Left & Alt-Right, the Left is huge and the Alt Right is tiny in numbers. Both seem to be the safe harbour for those who like to be subversive and opposed to conservative values.

The Nationals in Australia however are a Conservative Party. It was only going to be a matter of time before they were spotted in the Nationals (or NSW Young Nationals) ranks and be expelled. They were never going to be allowed to stay once spotted.
I think it was their aim to hopefully infiltrate, co-opt a few members with possibly a delusional view to annexe the entire party one day.

Sorry but for many reasons plus that, they are what's known as "a special kind of stupid"

Why fear a debate on population targets for the Nation?

Dick Smith is in the news, not the main news but getting some air time. He's talking about the population numbers in Australia. Its heartening to see more people willing to talk on climate change, bullying, bullying in Parliament, female representation in Parliament and the effect of many other previously 2nd, 3rd or lower tier issues.

There is with all these issues pressure to shut people down of an opposing view or to rail against them personally in order to shut them down. Another ugly facet of the Identity Politics weaponry. It's very counter productive, its very adversarial centred and its intellectually bankrupt...and just plain wrong.

Forget the person presenting a view, stick to facts not feelings.

Here's the thing, in most things economical, there's pendulum swings & cycles but more often there's J curves. Clear & present growth with beneficial return until a point when things plateau or decline.

In the case of population numbers, after World War 2 and for a generation or two the nations that had high immigration ended up with strong growth in their economy. Jobs were plentiful and many people sought jobs eagerly and were less than fussy than perhaps some are today.

Today though we're not in a post war position. If anything we may be in a pre War economic expansion perhaps consolidation phase perhaps approaching the plateau of the J curve before the fall. Added into that mix is the increasing amount of automation. Even in Agriculture labour saving systems are rapidly becoming the norm which will reduce jobs in the regions. Internet is making it easier for people to do business with & from the bush but most of the new jobs won't be in the regions. People need health services and they certainly are better in the cities and large regional centres, but try coaxing med students to think about a career in central Queensland or central WA.

We are seeing now a growth in over the internet medical consultations on some things.
We are seeing a lot more natural centralisation. We're seeing more automation in cropping, we're seeing some farming systems going away from employed staff. One person with one modern header can do a lot more than 2 or 3 people with 3 average harvesters 30 years ago. Road trains are more common than the 1970s & 80s when there were very few farm owned prime mover/semi trailer grain haulers. Those bigger operators would now be road trains or contract road trains. Even the contractors have greater tonnages per driver. less jobs.

So there's not a huge work force required in the bush. Jobs growth there is still there but it'll specific and small in scope.

In the cities, there are many jobs of today that won't be there in great numbers in 20 years let alone 100. Many will disappear completely. Added to this is the vast number of people studying in social science degrees that really have little or no job prospects at the end.

We're training people to end up unemployed or at least leading them to job desperation.

In any economic pursuit there is sustainability, there are J Curves and there are points on the J Curve where re-invention or re-direction of resources is needed as the life span of a economic pursuit diminishes.

Population has to be looked at. Can we sustain 100 Million citizens in Australia in 100 years time?
All very well to say technology will answer many of the problems that haven't even arisen yet.
Its a great thing to have hope. In economics and national stability we see & know what a steady as she goes, she'll be right approach can bring.

It's not all gloom & doom, its not a doomsday scenario that's necessarily playing out but it will be if we don't discuss what population targets we aim for. Climate change your chosen battle to get triggered on? Can't go there without a sustainable population goal to aim for & to keep.

What about food security? Can't be triggered & signalling on that without making a discerning judgement on a sustainable population goal.

Economic outlook, national security, foreign trade, balance of trade...really need to look at a sustainable population goal.

Its a fear of the leftist that it means closed borders because there are many of the left who want fully open borders. Borders have worked for society throughout the ages for many sound reasons. Good fences mean good neighbours. It also means economic stability without full state control.

If we're to really future proof our nation and our planet with finite resources at some point we do have to set population goals. Can you imagine how China would be going today if they'd set an 6 child policy for families for 50 years?
Their one child policy was chock full of heart ache and serious damage to married couples. It wasn't the answer or it was an ugly response to a problem but had everyone been told to have as many kids as possible and their population been allowed to explode...

Right now China is buying lots of land in SE Asia to grow rice & other commodities. Jungle communities are disappearing and land clearing is going full steam. Timber is being exported and the rice is then exported back to China at very low cost.

Oh did you think there was going to be a huge market for Australian rice & other grains from China? There will be. But where ever possible they will go for the cheapest grain. If China is playing at the margins to pick up grain properties in WA its time to wake up. It will be state assisted business people who grow grain, export it like their own luggage and THEN sell it in market places will no tax can be gathered by the Australian Tax Office.

Its a complex matter but how China operates now is a result of how they're responding to their out of control population numbers which are not sustainable. When population gets out of control the other problem is life itself seems to become less sacred. Life is cheap.

Yes a discussion on sustainable population goals is not just wise, it's imperative despite the oddly emotional triggering it will cause some people. Getting it worked out properly will not be politically left nor right, getting it right will be conservative by nature. Keeping the political left & the political right out of it will be a huge task.

But our population J Curve is moving and the current rate of growth is not sustainable over the next 100 years.

We have to make it a political priority if we are indeed to leave our heirs & descendants a viable chance.

Future proofing is central to survival and survival is completely dependant on a sustainable population.

But gee it gets some people loud angry and willing to play the Identity Politics tricks to shut down debate.

Why we shouldn't ban hate speech...or should we?

Most of the so called hate speech is rantings from idiots or bigots but should we ban them?

I hate Broccoli - expresses a hate, is it hate speech?

No I was told, its an opinion, its not inciting hate.

I hate Broccoli and you should too - I just incited hate, is it hate speech.

No I was told, its a vegetable not a person.

I hate broccoli and you should too as well as hate those who grow it, sell it & profit from it, they should be stopped - Is it hate speech yet?

No I was told that although I'm trying to tick all the boxes its a bizarre opinion worthy of discussion only to derail & dismantle it for the ridicule it deserves.

Why can we not as a society discuss anti Semitic hate speech then so we can dismantle it and show it for the horrid evil it is?

FWIW I neither love nor hate broccoli, it conjures up feelings of staggering indifference. Served on a plate I'll eat it neither loving it nor hating it, its nutritious fuel. I encourage people to eat it...because its good for you.

Should we ban Nazi speakers from overseas though? If they're likely to incite violence or recruit followers we should deny them visas, more so if they have a serious criminal record. The convicted US Traitor Chelsea Manning was convicted to 35 years jail for breaking the law. This person's views are not important but if this person wants to come to Australia for a speaking tour then no, entry should be denied. Let Chelsea Manning in we have to then let in a convicted criminal with a history of violence who wants to speak on killing Jews and/or other minorities.

On the matter of hate speech, if we ban it we risk sending it underground where it can then resonate with the dispossessed, those who feel betrayed, disenfranchised or for some reason push outside the fringes & margins of society. Then it picks up followers whether they understand the dogma of hate or not, most likely the subversive nature of the hate against society is a huge attraction.

It serves no purpose letting a hate group build numbers whilst mainstream society goes about life unaware of the growth of some forms of extremism.

I have never had the inclination of reading Mein Kempf or Mao's Little Red Book, but I think if they're banned they will gain some attraction. I think we should challenge hate speech and its sad that ABC Programmes like Q&A don't do the usual topical issues & run them through a panel but also grab some nuts and bolts hate speech issues and test them under fire on the belly to see what falls out.

We are in an age where the subversive is very popular amongst young people, its attractive...even when its counter productive to all involved.

Che Guevara is a pop art image nowadays. He's on shirts & posters when he was a mercenary, most likely a psychopath and wanted to bring in full socialist state rule. He was prepared not to argue for it, he was only ever going to get his vision by killing to get it.

Ned Kelly has become a brand too, but fact is, he was a killer. Had the train not been warned he would have killed an awful lot more. It would have been an outright massacre. Yet we only recall his stand against oppression, he's an iconic hero to many. He was a thief and an unapologetic cop killer.

No we shouldn't ban hate speech. We should ignore it and when it rises up society should sit down and dismantle it, inspect it & explain to the world what the hate speech really is.

Broccoli is ok. Killing minority groups is not. Revising murderous thugs as being bandits for freedom is wrong on every level.

The perfect answer isn't here yet. Banning hate speech may actually cause more problems and give indefensible ideas more followers.

How to deal with modern day Nazis effectively

With the rise of Nazis in more recent times we've also seen a rise in radical groups on the other side of the spectrum, the Antifa. Followers of Antifa declare themselves as the strong opposition of Fascism hence their name being a shortening of "Anti-Fascism".

But if we're to deal effectively with Nazi followers these days there's a number of things we need to do up front. We need to define criteria to ID who or what is a Nazi these days.

Reason being is there are many so called Christian churches that have departed from Christian Scripture. In essence it means there are some "Christian" churches that ignore, omit, reject or rewrite the Word of God.
They're claiming to be Christian but they clearly are not.

Same thing happens with the word "Nazi".
Some left leaning folk use it as a slur against people of differing views and some extremist folk embrace the description...but are they really Nazis at all?

Some might be but some definitely are not.|
For example, some outlaw gangs embrace the Nazi symbols. Mongrel Mob in NZ do, yet they're definitely not white blood that the depraved Nazi dogma of WW2 wanted kept pure. In a parallel universe where the Nazis won WW2 and ruled the planet the Maori gang members would not find any sanctuary with the 3rd Reich. They more likely would be put to work or put to death. I assume they picked up on the symbolism to further frighten the horses & be as subversive as possible.
The are organised crime gangs, possibly very brutal but not actually Nazis

What about KKK are they Nazis? Well they're definitely a depraved dogma but some of that they point to the Bible as justification even though the Bible does not point any reason to hate people of a different language, race or faith. In fact it implodes for them badly in so far as Christ Himself is very much opposed to hate of one's fellow man of ANY race.
Weirdest irony is KKK are very against what they think are foreign races, black, Asian, Mexican and even Jewish people and Jesus Himself was of course, a Jew.
KKK are probably just race extremists primarily and secondarily of a Nationalist bent but not NAZIs

Why is a Nationalist not a Nazi? Well in short, there's a number of Nationalists who were not NAZIs such as Roosevelt, Churchill and the list goes on for miles. Was Hitler a Nationalist? Yes, he was but he was National Socialist, that's what NAZI actually means.
He was Nationalist in that it was Germany all the way, even when he annexed nearby countries, it was Germany who was the Fatherland. Nationalist all the way. Sadly he was so Nationalist he wanted to seek world domination.
That's the first half of National Socialist, what about the 2nd half?
He was very much a type of socialist in that it was Totalitarian, where the State owns everything, everything is the State and there is nothing outside the state and everything within the state is controlled & directed by the State.
Nazis were in fact a form of Socialism that's called Fascist.

Anyone thought to be overly right wing or severely racist is regarded and called out as Nazis or Fascists. Oddly more often its left or extreme left wing like Antifa that tend to define who is a Nazi and/or Fascist.

Nazis & Fascist were not in favour of capitalist economy, they are solely set on total state control of everything. This is every thing the right leaning people of this planet are actually against.

For Trump (and I'm not defending or aligning with Trump) to be a Nazi &/or a Fascist he merely has to be in charge and rich. Oddly he's conservative not socialist. So pretty hard to a Nazi (National socialist) if you're not a socialist/fascist. He is Nationalist, but many people are.

Add to this many say Fascists & Fascism cannot be of the left, that ultra right wing.

It isn't, research it.

The philosophical founder of Fascism was in fact the Italian socialist philosopher Giovanni Gentile who really is consider the father of Fascism and indeed he believed fascism was the ultimate form of socialism.

Sadly terms like Nazi & Fascist have turned into slanging terms & demeaning labels just as "troll" has. It can be used effectively even if its patently false.

The so called Ultra Right aren't very conservative at all. Quite often they're race extremists, but they're not actually Nazis but sadly they decide to connect with Nazi history possibly because of the brutal genocide dished out to non Caucasian races. I don't think the Ultra Right, the neo-Nazis, white supremacist groups are left or right wing...I thing they're racist thugs, they're not all conservatives or left wingers.

To be a fascist a person would have to be a nationalist socialist.
There's more of those traits in the left extremist camps.

Sad irony is the fact that Fascism is of the left, not the right. Nazi-ism is of the deranged & perverse Left extremism.

Amazing how many people are fooled into thinking Fascism is of the left.
20 minutes of research into Gentile and his teachings will spell this out clearly & precisely...only rejected by ignorant and committed left.

So, how to deal with modern day Nazis? Out debate them...and the mega racist extremists of any stripe, but its actually more accurate to call a leftist a fascist.