How bureaucratic dark matter is swallowing our wealth

How bureaucratic dark matter is swallowing our wealth, by Kurt Wallace.

At every turn businesses are weighed down by red tape that prevents growth, discourages job creation, and sucks resources away from productive activity. Adding to the burden is the unknown nature of regulation that requires businesses to constantly be involved in researching regulation and the intentions of multiple regulators. …

Parliament delegates the power to create regulation, allowing regulators to expand the red tape burden without the restriction of having to pass legislation through parliament. …

Looking at just five regulators in the banking and finance sectors the report finds 75,976 pages of regulatory dark matter … eight times larger than the legislation passed by parliament that grants powers to these agencies. This means, that for every page of legislation we can expect eight more pages to be added by the regulators.

A large amount of regulatory dark matter is made up of quasi-regulatory documents including regulatory guides, bulletins, and information sheets that clarify and interpret official regulations.

These documents combine to create a mountain of material weighing down on businesses. While they may lack official legal status, these documents cannot be safely ignored as they provide insight into how the regulator intends to enforce regulations. Guidance material may assist businesses with understanding existing regulation, but they also contain an additional level of interpretation.

The power granted to unelected bureaucrats has contributed to Australia being ranked 77th out of 140 countries for the burden of government regulation by the World Economic Forum. Agencies are faced with the incentive to expand their power and size through rulemaking that is unchecked by direct democratic accountability.

This has seen public sector employment increase from 12 to 15 per cent of the workforce over the last five years.

Peace Time: Elusive Virtues

Peace Time: Elusive Virtues, by Jim Dunnigan.

Why do some parts of the world seem to defy efforts to achieve any degree of unity and peace? Not just for years or decades but for generations and as long as anyone can remember.  The worst of these nations (like Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia) seem to actively avoid peace, prosperity and unity and finding solutions for their problems seems futile.

But when you step back and take a closer look you find that all these countries have lots in common, aside from being “failed states.” All are largely Moslem and all have serious problems with governing themselves. This spotlights the fact that Moslems in general and Arabs in particular have developed a peculiar relationship with democracy in an attempt to cure these longstanding problems. The list of failed states grows longer if you include those who, on paper, maintain their unity but are chronically chaotic and unpleasant (0r worse) to live in. These include Sudan (and the recently created South Sudan), Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, most African nations and, in the Americas, perpetually chaotic Haiti. …

Moslems tried and discarded socialist dictatorships (modeled on the Nazis not the godless Bolsheviks) after the World War II. There followed a democracy movement that grew after the 1960s as many more Moslems were able migrate to the West. … A majority of Moslems still think democracy is the best form of government, but a quarter of Moslems also believe that democracy may be unsuitable for Moslem countries at this time. This disappoints and confuses many Moslems. They can see that democracy creates superior results where it has been established, but the process of getting democracy to work reliably is a lot harder and more difficult than many Moslems originally believed. This is largely because of some unique problems in Moslem states.

One of these intractable problems is opposition from some Islamic conservatives. This is made worse because many Arabs believe what Islamic terror groups preaches, that the world should be ruled by an Islamic religious dictatorship, and that this must be achieved by any means necessary. That includes using lethal force against non-Moslems and Moslems who don’t agree. This sort of thinking has been popular with Islamic conservatives since Islam first appeared in the sixth century. Since then, it has periodically flared up into major outbreaks of religious inspired violence that serious damages the nation it occurs in.

That’s not the only problem. Arabs, in particular, sustain these outbursts with their fondness for paranoid fantasies and an exaggerated sense of persecution and entitlement. For example, most Arabs believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks were not carried out by Arabs, but were a CIA scam, to provide an excuse for the West to make war on Islam. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. troops in Iraq were amazed at the number of fantastical beliefs that were accepted as reality there. Currently it is popular to believe that ISIL was created by Israel and the United States and ISIL continues to survive because of continued supported by Americans and Israelis.

Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world, and always has been. …

In Iraq and Gaza we see how the Islamic radicals react to democracy. They call it un-Islamic and kill those who disagree with them. The Arabs have to deal with this, and in Iraq they are. In Gaza they aren’t. But the violence in Iraq has revealed another Arab problem. Even if you remove religion from the equation, not all Arabs are keen on democracy. In Iraq, the Sunni Arab minority believe it is their right (or responsibility) to run the country. This is a common pattern in Arab countries. One minority believes they are rulers by right, and that democracy is an abomination and un-Islamic (or at least inconvenient for the ruling minority). This is the pattern in nearly every Arab country.

Yep. And ending cousin marriage might help.

Of course our delusional elite think that Islam is the religion of peace, and so Islamophobia is ridiculous.

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump agree on at least one thing: America’s currency problems are hurting workers.

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump agree on at least one thing: America’s currency problems are hurting workers. By Robert Scott.

Elizabeth Warren released an “American jobs” plan recently. It includes several trade and manufacturing policies intended to benefit American workers and companies. Wall Street responded with righteous indignation, which suggests she may have hit a nerve.

One element of her plan most likely explains Wall Street’s angry reaction: a call to tackle America’s overvalued dollar. …

The president gives lip service to complaints about the strong dollar. He says that China has given itself a “tremendous” competitive advantage by weakening its currency. But his administration, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — a Goldman Sachs alum — and a team of Wall Street veterans, does nothing in response.

Several economists have estimated that the dollar must fall by roughly 27 percent in order to rebalance trade flows in three to five years. Such a revaluation is possible, however, and there are different means to accomplish this.

One option is federal intervention to buy foreign currency assets, which would address the misalignment driven by flows of overseas public and private capital. Or, the United States could impose a withholding tax on the profits and dividends earned by foreign investors, both public and private. …

The executive branch could also negotiate directly with its trading partners to realign the dollar against competing currencies, a precedent set by previous Republican administrations. In 1971, President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent import surcharge that coerced allies into raising the value of their currencies. And in 1985, Congress passed tariff legislation that provided leverage for President Ronald Reagan to negotiate the Plaza Accord, yielding a 30 percent drop in the dollar’s value.

Close, but still not getting to the root of the problem. The US dollar is uniquely overpriced because it is the world’s reserve or trading country. The whole world trades in US dollars. When Australia buys oil from Saudi Arabia, it has to pay in US dollars. This creates a demand for US dollars that bids up the price of the US dollar. Hence US workers have a price disadvantage internationally — but the US government and private banks get more free stuff because they manufacture US dollars, so they don’t talk about that 😉

Understanding The Left

Understanding The Left, by the Z-Blog.

The not-Left really does not understand Left at all. People outside the Left continue to believe, for example, that the Left has good and logical reasons for the things they do …

The Left is not reasonable or even thinking through this stuff. There was no meeting at the NY Times back in the late Obama years where it was decided that they would run Emmett Till stories every time black crime became a national story. There was no meeting among the heads of Big Media to agree upon a strategy of pushing the Russian collusion hoax after the election. The Left is not motivated by good or logical reasons. …

Instead, it is better to think of them as a school of fish. When you watch a school of fish … it appears as if they are coordinated in their actions. It’s as if one of the fish is the brain, operating in secret communication with the rest of the school, to have them dart left or right through the water. It’s almost as if they were designed to be of one mind. We know, however, that there is no conspiracy of fishes secretly controlling the school using secret communications. …

That’s how the Left operates like a highly coordinated religious cult. They are tuned to react to one another.

This is why facts and reason are useless weapons against the Left. People in the [US second amendment] community have all had the experience of carefully explaining the facts and arguments of gun control to their lefty friend or relative. They nod along, seeming to understand what has been explained. The next time you see them, it is the same old shibboleths, as if they have no memory of the last conversation. The reason for this is the very definition of who they are is their membership in a civic religion. …

That is the power of Progressivism. It is a self-contained, self-validating shared reality for the adherents. It’s why so few people break from it. More important, its immune system has evolved highly complex defenses against the way in which the Right prefers to debate. Those appeals to facts and reason are quickly turned into fuel to energize the believers into huddling closer in common defense. It’s how the Left maintains its power. It has turned the enemy’s best weapons into fuel.

It is why engaging with the Left is a tactical error. …

The authentic alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy will have to evolve in the shadows and evolve its own immunity from the weapons of the Left. Instead of being attracted to confronting the Left, it will have to be repelled by it. The decisive weapon will be never manifesting in a way that allows the Left to anathematize it. Instead of playing the role carved out for them by the Left, the successful dissidents will seem formless and inexplicable. The people in charge will never see them coming.

Hard to believe, but it may be correct. The left have built up a set of PC fantasies, yet lefties appear to be immune to facts or logic. Sadly, they control much in our society — so what is the best way to counter them?

Sign of the Times? Bakery Wins $11-Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Oberlin College

Sign of the Times? Bakery Wins $11-Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Oberlin College. By Taki Theodoracopulos.

An interesting tale from the ground zero of political correctness, US liberal arts universities. First, the background:

Oberlin College has gained a reputation as one of the nation’s most insanely progressive institutions of higher learning…

In November 2016, three black Oberlin students were arrested after one of them used a fake ID and shoplifted from Gibson’s Bakery in nearby Elyria, OH [ohio]. The owner’s son, a white man named Allyn Gibson, followed the students out of the bakery and engaged in a physical altercation with them. As part of a subsequent plea deal, the black students pled guilty and signed statements declaring that the altercation was not racially motivated.

Naturally, none of this stopped Oberlin’s students, nor some of its faculty, from insisting that the event was racially motivated. Egged on by [a] … white female teacher named Meredith Raimondo, the bakery became the site of ceaseless public conniptions about white supremacist croissants or some such hysterical nonsense. Raimondo reportedly belched loudly from a megaphone during the “protests” and distributed flyers calling the bakery “racist.” …

Meredith Raimondo, Dean of Students

The bakery’s owners filed a defamation lawsuit, and last week a jury ruled in their favor to the tune of $11 million — which will potentially be tripled after a hearing on Tuesday regarding punitive damages. The jury found Oberlin and Ms. Raimondo guilty of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

So, the PC mob got their comeuppance. But how and by whom  is even more interesting:

The Jury Hated Oberlin, by John Hinderaker.

Among other facts in the case, student protesters, accompanied by the Dean, handed out leaflets accusing Gibson’s of being “racist” because the store’s employees caught an African-American Oberlin student shoplifting a bottle of wine. Does that make sense to you? It didn’t make sense to the jury, either. …

Today the jury returned its verdict, assessing another $22 million [Correction: the jury assessed an additional $33 million, which will be reduced to $22 million–twice the compensatory damages–under Ohio law] against Oberlin, roughly the maximum amount allowed by law. The jury also assessed the Gibsons’ attorneys fees against Oberlin. …

Legal Insurrection has been all over this case …:

“In my view, the main significance of the jury’s verdict is that it shows how normal people react when they are exposed to today’s campus leftism.

You cannot sell to a normal person the idea that it is “racism” for a store to catch a student stealing a bottle of wine, and call the police, merely on account of the student’s skin color.

Social justice warrior culture is insane, and is properly judged as such by normal people, who — luckily for them — tend not to encounter it often. The jury’s reaction to the demonization of Gibson’s bakery is, I think, a good indication of how most Americans will respond if, and when, they realize how depraved the Left has become.

SJW Logic Vs. Common Sense, by David Bernstein.

Here’s Oberlin’s litigation position, from its court filings: “Gibson bakery’s archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests. The guilt or innocence of the students is irrelevant to both the root cause of the protests and this litigation.”

Get that? Whether the students accused of shoplifting had actually been shoplifting or not was irrelevant to whether it was fair to accuse the store of racism etc for detaining the students as shoplifters. The fault lay with the bakery owners for daring to actually stop and prosecute shoplifters!

This is the kind of b.s. that gets you A’s at Oberlin with a certain type of SJW professor, but that normal people rightly think defies common sense. But it can pay off in academia. A very prominent law professor got an Ivy League job after writing a silly book which, among other things, argued that whether the Al Sharpton-promoted Tawana Brawley hoax was true or not was besides the point, because the real issue was whether society was silencing African American girls like her who surely had something bad happen to them.

The precedent might spread:

It should be apparent that there is a tremendous store of resentment built up in the general public (otherwise known as the “jury pool”) over how left-fascist university administrators (also known as the “defendants” and “deep pockets”) have bullied and intimidated conservative students and faculty members. There are numerous potential paths to liability involving these SJW schools, from tortious denial of constitutional/civil rights, to contract/employment actions, etc.

Oberlin College administrators were in even deeper than reported in case against family bakery, by Twitchy.

Oberlin administrators said they’d consider resuming business with the bakery if the bakery would agree to not push criminal charges on first-time shoplifters; that would solve the “profiling” problem.

Even worse, the lawsuit alleged that “credit was given to students who attended the protest in lieu of classes, and administrators bought them food to support them.”

Either identity politics eventually ends, or civilization as we know it ends. My money is on identity politics failing, perhaps in the next decade. The place to watch for a change in the tide are the US liberal arts colleges.

Hong Kong’s protesters find ways to outwit the surveillance state

Hong Kong’s protesters find ways to outwit the surveillance state, by Shibiani Mahtani.

The moment the 25-year-old protester got home from demonstrations that turned violent – tear gas still stinging her eyes – she knew what she had to do: delete all of her Chinese phone apps.

WeChat was gone. So was Alipay and the shopping app Taobao. She then installed a virtual private network on her smartphone to use with the secure messaging app Telegram in an attempt to stay hidden from cyber-monitors …

Protesters used only secure digital messaging apps such as Telegram, and otherwise went completely analogue in their movements: buying single ride subway tickets instead of prepaid stored value cards, forgoing credit cards and mobile payments in favor of cash, and taking no selfies or photos of the chaos.

They wore face masks to obscure themselves from CCTVs and in fear of facial recognition software, and bought fresh pay-as-you-go SIM cards.

And, unlike the pro-democracy movement in 2014, the latest demonstrations also have remained intentionally leaderless in another attempt to frustrate police.

The future of protesting against Big Government.

2 Million Hong Kong Protesters Tell Us China Can’t Be Trusted, by Andrew Bolt.

I hope Paul Keating watched these amazing protests in Hong Kong. Maybe he’ll apologise for last month calling our intelligence chiefs “nutters”.

Keating, the former Australian prime minister who now earns plenty from a Chinese bank, wanted those chiefs sacked for warning that communist China is a menace. …

Democracy there is now a joke. China essentially handpicks the territory’s chief executive by selecting the 1200 electors who chose him or her.

Now Hong Kong’s rulers want to extradite people wanted by mainland China to face its rigged courts, giving China effective power to intimidate almost anyone in Hong Kong, including foreigners.

This is what brought nearly two million residents — a quarter of Hong Kong’s population — into the streets in protest yesterday.

Alex Jones offers $1M reward as FBI investigates child pornography planted on his Infowars server

Alex Jones offers $1M reward as FBI investigates child pornography planted on his Infowars server, by Dave Altimari.

The FBI has informed Alex Jones someone planted child pornography on the servers for his Infowars website and on Friday the controversial radio host offered a $1 million reward for any information leading to an arrest.

Federal authorities have been conducting a child pornography investigation for several weeks after they reviewed emailed threats made against Jones that contained links to child pornography websites, according to his attorney Norm Pattis. …

Pattis said he was notified a few weeks ago by the company that is reviewing all of the emails Infowars receives that there were 12 suspicious ones that appeared to be threats against Jones but actually contained child pornography.

“These were emails that if you, me or one of your workers had opened we would have been subjected to five years in federal prison,” Pattis said.

No wonder he’s paranoid.

Reality is Not an Option

Reality is Not an Option, by E.M. Cadwaladr.

In a world in which gender is a characteristic entirely at the whim of the individual – how does one determine the gender of a corpse? Does a corpse have the gender it thought it did when it was alive, or does it cease to have a gender when it ceases to have the power to choose one for itself? …

Progressives have choked the Western world nearly to death with just this sort ontological goo. Let us suppose we see a statistic that claims that women make less money than men for the same work. Since the state of being male or female is purely at the discretion of the individual, then it would appear to the logical mind that discrimination by gender must also be, in a way, at the pleasure of the victim. After all, if you’re a woman you are entirely a woman by choice – your mere physiology having nothing to do with it. To avoid discrimination, why can’t one just self-identify as a man during working hours, and be a woman, or whatever fantastic gender one prefers, in one’s spare time?

If the left has its way, and all the white people in America are made to pay reparations for the chattel slavery of bygone days, will Rachael Dolezal, who pretends to be black, pay her share – or will she reap the benefits of her self-defined identity? Can one “feel like” a black person for tax purposes alone? …

The beginning of our present course certainly looked innocent enough. It began with a naïve, hopeful, desperate assumption that all of us are absolutely equal. Or, to reach only a little further back, it began with a tragedy. It began when the advancing Allied armies exposed the Nazi death camps at the end World War II, and everyone across the West rightfully recoiled in horror. People concluded that we had better not let a thing like that happen again — which was a laudable sentiment. Liberals (and yes, I do mean liberals — not today’s degenerate progressives) decided that, to avert the possibility of future genocide, we had to throw out any evidence that any person might have a genetic edge over any other.

This was no minor adjustment. Before the war, almost everyone understood that different peoples, races, and cultures were just that — different. They understood that genders were binary — and different. People were allowed to see what they actually saw. The people of the rest of the world, from South America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East — still understand perfectly well that all people are neither the same nor compatible with one another. It is only we in the West who have had this counterintuitive and utterly false idea pounded into our heads. …

The belief, at its strongest in America, that the individual should be judged on his or her own merits is the rational remedy for blind group hatred. Making everybody equal every which way by mere wishful thinking isn’t.

As soon as people started to believe that everybody isn’t merely equal before the law, but that all groups of people must be equal every which way, we made enemies with an ocean of inconvenient facts. Instead of the slow, methodical practice of ferreting reality from nature (we used to call this science) people began to tie their beliefs to what they thought would be nice.

It would, of course, be nice if homosexual men didn’t engage in pedophilia at an alarming rate compared to heterosexual men — but they do. It would also be quite nice if blacks had, on average, about the same IQ scores as whites or Asians — but they don’t. It would certainly warm our hearts if Islam really were the religion of peace — but fifteen hundred years of history and the uncounted dead of virtually every culture that has ever come in contact with Islam say otherwise.

When people detach themselves from hard, unpleasant realities they get very good at creating and maintaining flexible narratives. When facts are banished, reality just is what you want believe. …

The bitter irony produced by all this this fanciful cognitive gibberish is that, in a world in which people are in a constant state of competition for official pity, all that was good at the beginning of the liberal project has been wrecked or overturned. What is “equality before the law” when some people are entitled to extra protections under hate crime laws? What is “basic human decency” when, to be a victim, one must identify a group of people as oppressors and revile them publicly as a class? …

Slavery, the Holocaust, and all the other tragedies of the human past were never a just reason to plunge ourselves into this suicidal faux-egalitarian nightmare. There isn’t the slightest evidence that illiterate third-worlders or a tattoo-defaced generation of the sexually confused are inclined to be either tolerant or productive citizens.

The Future Of Men & Marriage Is Bleak

The Future Of Men & Marriage Is Bleak, by Suzanne Venker.

With Father’s Day upon us, the time has come to address as a nation what Heather Mac Donald noted earlier this year is “the greatest social catastrophe of our time”: fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is the No. 1 cause of nearly all social ills we face. We can’t afford to ignore it any longer.

To be clear, father absence is the more accurate term, since fatherlessness implies that men have become “deadbeat dads” — nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, this faction exists, as do “deadbeat moms.” But the two most significant threats to a father’s presence in the home are divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

It’s the breakdown of marriage, in other words, or the collapse of the family, that results in father-absent homes. Whether you feel its pain directly or not, it affects you. “Families are the building blocks of civilization,” writes Genevieve Wood at the Daily Signal. “They are personal relationships, but they greatly shape and serve the public good. Family breakdown harms society as a whole.”

Indeed it does. And how, exactly, did the family fall apart? When we stopped valuing men and marriage.

There was a time, believe it or not, when marriage was highly valued. Ergo, the majority of Americans married. They even looked forward to it! It was an honorable mark of adulthood to leave one’s family of origin and build a family of one’s own.

Then came feminism. “And with it,” notes Dennis Prager in his “Fireside Chat” on marriage and children vs. career, “the notion that ‘a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.'” …

Since this narrative first took hold, America has undergone a sea change with respect to men and marriage. Marriage began to be viewed not as a given but as a possible accompaniment to a woman’s otherwise more important and exciting independent life — and men went along for the ride. What choice did they have? Then, sometime later, America upped the ante with a full-scale war on men and, more recently, with an attack on men’s very nature.

Men and boys have heard this message loud and clear, and as a result have stepped back or stopped trying. Boys are failing to grow up and make something of themselves because they lack fathers who can help them do just that. They lack fathers because America has made it clear that men are superfluous and even dangerous to women and children. …

Women don’t want to marry unemployed men or men who have no purpose. But women do want children and will go to great lengths to have them in unconventional ways. Thus, children (boys especially, since girls will still have their mothers) will remain fatherless, and the cycle will continue.

“The elites are absolutely unwilling to send the message that fathers are as important to their children as mothers,” Mac Donald told Carlson. “Their tongues are tied — they refuse to say it. It’s one of those truths that’s being completely denied by elite culture. Why? Because it violates the feminist nostrum that women can do it all.” …

It has been 50 years since feminists first began to make the claim that women don’t need men, and by every statistical measure we are worse off because of it. How much longer are we willing to stay silent?

The straight-talking senator teaching unis a thing or two

The straight-talking senator teaching unis a thing or two, by Janet Albrechtsen.

Stoker is Queensland through and through. By choice, not by birth. Stoker was born and raised in Sydney’s west; her father was a plumber and her mother did the books. Stoker moved to Brisbane as a young lawyer 12 years ago and hasn’t left.

She is no-nonsense, straight talking, her positions firmly premised on commonsense principles. …

This week, the mother of three girls under five hit a nerve at Sydney’s sandstone university. …

Stoker was questioning Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency chief commissioner Nick Saunders about specific provisions under federal laws that require universities to embrace academic freedom.

Academic freedom ought to be in their DNA, not our laws. Nonetheless, this is where we are today. Understanding what is at stake, Stoker raised a number of concerns with Saunders, including many university policies that prohibit “offensive” comments.

Saunders said he was uncomfortable with Stoker’s examples. “They certainly do not fit with the concept of a university being a place where ideas are contested and debated,” he said, agreeing to examine policies that undermine the legal obligations of universities to uphold academic freedom.

What seems to have gotten up [University of Sydney vice-chancellor Michael Spence’s] nose is that Stoker also mentioned an address last September at the University of Sydney by Bettina Arndt, who challenges claims of a “rape crisis” on campuses. Feel free to agree or disagree with Arndt. But not at Sydney University. Security had to call in a riot squad when protesters became violent and abusive towards students who wanted to listen to Arndt’s views.

Saunders agreed the behaviour of protesters breached the university’s code of conduct, and appropriate action was needed. That hasn’t happened. Instead, Spence told the SMH there is no problem with free speech on campus. He has accused those on the left and right as being as bad as each other.

This is a most disingenuous assertion. The world is a polarised place, to be sure. But where is the evidence of right-wing protesters trying to shut down events of political opponents on campus? Spence’s claim of both sides being as bad as each other was rendered comic when, in the same SMH article, feminist Eva Cox suggested we might need “short-term bans”, including at universities, to stop discussion of particular issues.

Way to shut down free speech. Way to make a martyr, too. Drive lunatics underground into dark places where dopey ideas are not open to challenge.

Stoker wrote to Spence on Monday: “I hope you intend to provide evidence of your assertion that ‘the conservatives are as bad as the progressives’ when it comes to campus misbehaviour. My research has found only evidence of the ‘left’ shutting down the ‘right’s’ right to speak.”

Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed. By Allum Bokhari.

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.) …

Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters.

The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful.

If you are reading this, you are probably a “hate agent” in Facebook’s estimation.

To the left, “hate” is like cooties — you catch it by any contact, no matter how fleeting or irrelevant. The way it’s trending, Facebook will classify you as either in the PC camp, or a hater. You will be ranked, just like in China’s social credit scheme, and your access to online “privileges” will be meted out accordingly. No pressure!

Australian Aboriginals: Then the academic do-gooders appeared

Australian Aboriginals: Then the academic do-gooders appeared. By Geoff Sherrington.

My interaction with some of our aborigines started at Pt Keats in 1960. In later years as I worked in the mining sector, frequent visits to our operations at Jabiru (as we named the town we built) and Tennant Ck where we had mined for decades caused normal and inevitable interactions as we employed local people and naturally shared resources like school, swim pool, social club.

At first, around 1974 for a few years, Jabiru was a non-racist place as we visitors exchanged life stories with the locals, be they cattle station imports or local aborigines or fishermen. We were visitors, me from Sydney, they were locals, blokes were blokes and women were women. It was accurate to use “harmonious”. We were treated to mythical tales of sites with painting, wax sculpture and so on at what are now named “sacred” sites and are often barred to white people.

Then the academic do-gooders appeared. They seldom sought out the miners who had set up some workable local protocols over the prior few years. They spent a lot of time promising future benefits and riches to the local and regional aborigines. Land Councils were given some unexpectedly strong powers, some at the expense of the miners and their anticipated new wealth.

Relationships quickly soured as the professors from Canberra promised cargo cult rewards while preaching hate of the white people who they said had repressed aborigines. Old stories of massacres were revived, some newly exaggerated. In less than a decade, hate replaced harmony. Concessions made by us as miners became expectations, with the cost going up at every turn.

From about 1986 to 1992, as a part-time task, I was Pres or VP of the NT Chamber of Mines, with a near monthly commute from Sydney. The post involved a lot of communication with Canberra as the NT was not a full State. This post exposed me to a great deal of what really happened behind the scenes in aboriginal affairs. It was dominated by white people with far left views using token aboriginal leaders who lacked the education and intellect to lead, but were cunning enough to take advantage. It was a poisonous sham.

To the extent that this Top End NT experience extrapolates to Australia overall, so much damage was done in this phase of my close familiarity until the mid 1990s that reversal and recovery are simply not possible in under a new generation. There are can be no new ideas for improvement because all of the classical structures have been tried and found wanting. The damage is deep and can be summarized by three catch phrases: grog, cargo cult and propaganda with leftist hatred.

The big lesson is that ALL legislation involving race is RACIST. There can be no progress until all of it is repealed for a clean slate restart.

Yep, that about sums it up. When Bill Wentworth was Aboriginal Affairs ministers in the late 1960s, the situation was entirely different from now. Today, aboriginals are mined for federal money and ideological gains by leftist activists. Great for the left, too bad for the aboriginals.

Greens Senator speaks at extremist event, media silent AGAIN!

Greens Senator speaks at extremist event, media silent AGAIN! By Lucas Rosas.

Last month Greens Senator for NSW Mehreen Faruqi spoke at a public protest against Mark Latham organised by Socialist Alternative, a group that wants to violently overthrow the government and implement a totalitarian socialist state. …

For those unaware Socialist Alternative is the largest, best organised, and in recent years best-resourced political extremist group in Australia today. They openly call for the division of Australia into rival groups and the stirring up of a civil war leading to a revolution that they believe will bring them to power. Once attaining this power they plan to implement a totalitarian Marxist state where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to belong to a non-government political party and the freedom to own property will all be abolished. They also intend to abolish the flag, the constitution, the parliaments, the defence force, the police, the judiciary, the concept of gender, our nation’s borders and the idea of the nation of Australia itself. …

Yet Senator Mehreen Faruqi was happy to associate herself with them at a protest they organised to oppose the “extremism” of One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham who at that time had just been elected to the NSW upper house.

Ignorance is no excuse here. Senator Faruqi was speaking in front of a giant sign that said “Socialist Alternative” on it and was speaking alongside well-known Socialist Alternative organiser Hersha Kadkol. The idea that she didn’t know who she was endorsing by her presence is laughable.

Read it all.

Meanwhile the media is off chasing One Nation for talking to the US NRA, or something. Our media lies by omission.