26 Comments

Hmmm this all sounds so familiar.

Voting for Brexit, voting for Trump, voting NO on "The Voice": we were told by all institutional voices in unison that there was only one possible reason for these votes: Bigotry aka race hate.

And same goes for any opposition—even simple questioning—to things like BLM, DEI, Critical Race and Gender Theory: all Good People automatically obediently believe in these things, and all who don't need re-education for their "implicit bias" and/or to be hounded out of their jobs and polite society.

Once again we see the wisdom of our globalist oligarchy and progressive gentry in deciding to rush to the altar with the New Left, in a panic over their possible loss of power: this allowed them proprietary access to the New Left's superweapon, the Bigotry Accusation. (The Bigotry Accusation is how the New Left established its academic beachhead, conquered the Humanities, then the culture, and now the world—it remains undefeated and the gun you bring to a knife fight.)

It seems safe to say that now and for the foreseeable future Bigotry and its manifestations, emanations and incarnations etc will remain the central axis that our societies revolve around, the unseen Satan that has a seat at every table, and fighting it (whether politically, physically or metaphysically) will be sold as the first purpose of all thought and action, from migration to education to employment to culture etc.

The globalist oligarchs are wielding the Bigotry Accusation like a scalpel and the surgery they're attempting is to cut away their conservative/reactionary/dissident fellow citizens—sort of like attempting to separate conjoined twins—and dump them in the trash, while they move forward into a future where they have total control—the big question for the rest of our decade is if they'll be successful or if both patients will die on the operating table.

Expand full comment

Knowing the Pfizer endorsed the Yes position was all we really needed to know wasn't it?

Expand full comment

hey thanks!

Expand full comment

There are similar problems everywhere. The level of discourse has gone down to name-calling and bullying.

Expand full comment

Really appreciate this perspective on mass emotional manipulation regarding the Voice referendum. A big mistake is throwing dollars into programs to improve outcomes for our First Nations people that involve doing things to and for them rather than with them, based on their own identified needs, strengths, capacities and resources. Mothering and coddling is yet another strategy the narcissistic parent uses to manipulate their unruly children to assimilate into their dysfunctional family system when force can no longer be used.

Expand full comment

I really hate being scolded (particularly if I don’t think I’ve actually done anything wrong!)

Expand full comment

And now, after the bollocking the yes case received in the referendum, we have the professional talking classes pointing out to us the relationship between ‘educational status’ (as defined by them) and voting ‘yes’. Apparently it is the ‘lack of education’ that has allowed those who voted no to be influenced by....guess what? MISINFORMATION!! They have learnt nothing, continue to blame others for the failure of their hopelessly inept and intellectually insulting campaign and continue to insult the intelligence of the electorate. Keep digging guys.....

Expand full comment

I knew it was coming. It’s just more emotional abuse.

Marcia summed it up so well. If you vote no then you’re either Racist or Stupid. So if we’re not uneducated then we must be racist. There’s no proof we aren’t racist. If we have Aboriginal friends then they are tokenistic, or the aboriginal friends are uncle Toms. All wokery is emotional abusive and the proponents have zero self awareness.

Easiest to not engage.

Expand full comment

A farcical example of Civil Servants not actually serving the democratically elected government they are supposed to 'impartially' serve in the UK this weekend: government ministers instructed their departments to hoist Israeli flags (a la Ukraine flags last year). Then 'civil servants' had them taken down.

But Well Done Australia for saying No to your own false -pious administrative clerisy.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 19, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Then we must agree to disagree. To my mind the Russia Ukraine case is considerably less black and white than the Hamas Israel one.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 19, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I was contrasting the Civil Servants' complete compliance with the hoisting of Ukrainian flags on all UK public buildings at the start of that war with their hostility to doing the same in the case of Israel. What exactly are you failing to understand here? What "insinuations"?

Expand full comment

Superb analysis. The Yes side was simple totalitarianism, poorly masked by self-righteousness. They'll be back.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the clarity on what I think are the two most important points:

1. This is emotional *abuse*.

2. It's feminine-style abuse, and that style has taken over most Western public life

Expand full comment

> Unfortunately, such methods have proved to be very effective as institutional-capture strategies

This is a hint there should be more procedural formalism within institutions. Secret balloting being the magic in this particular case.

Expand full comment

Secret ballots prevent preference falsification.

Expand full comment

Well they neutralise some of it's effects. The falsification can still exist prior to the ballot.

In this sense, continuous, anonymized, opinion polling also has an effect.

Expand full comment

If Brexit, the Voice referendum etc show anything - the preference falsification is still very much present prior to the ballot. Also have to be really careful with polling.

Expand full comment

Long before weg ot to the ballot box on Saturday, we all had a pretty good idea if where the public stood. So if No voters were keeping quiet, it's not because they thought they were alone.

And indeed No supporters were not all that quiet. Just quieter than the Yes ones.

Expand full comment

Depends on the institutional context. Also, if Yes voters are more likely to punish, that will still lead to folk being stumn, to not attract nasty attention.

Expand full comment

I hadn’t been able to put my finger on how it all linked together, I could “feel” it though. Emotional abuse has a way of doing that. When you’re under attack, you might not be able to describe it, but you know it’s making you feel like crap. You have nailed it. Bravo 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Expand full comment

I remarked to my Canadian brother a month ago on the topic of The Voice that Australians can be surprisingly shrewd and so they have proved themselves to be, once again.

Expand full comment

Can the courts override?

That’s what they do here.

Expand full comment

No. The High Court interprets the Constitution, but they can’t and won’t read it in somehow.

Expand full comment

interesting, because the SCOTUS has the same job, but has a long history of creating new rights and laws

Expand full comment

There was an attempt to embed rights and freedoms in the Constitution. It went down to the worst defeat in our Referendum history, barely cracking a 30% Yes vote. Australians tend to be legal positivists and don’t like the idea of giving that much power to judges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Rights_and_Freedoms)

Expand full comment

We have very few rights embedded in the Constitution. Not taking property without just compensation, not establishing a religion, some requirement for juries, free trade between the States covers it. The High Court did find an implied right of political communication in the Constitution setting up a representative system of government, but there was enough pushback on that it has not been followed up.

https://www.vgso.vic.gov.au/implied-constitutional-freedom-political-communication#

Scalia J had the best comment on that one: “I am sorry, you don’t have that sort of Constitution”.

The High Court has ruled that you cannot use regulation to take all the value out of property. The Jury provision can be got around by simply making it not a trial on indictment.

https://australianpolitics.com/text/80.shtml

The “trade between the States shall be absolutely free” provision caused endless arguments, and was used to block bank nationalisation back in the 1940s. But the High Court eventually came up with a 9-0 decision that put all that to bed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Expand full comment