Gender vs Sex

In the United States, New York State recognises 31 "genders", not just the two male and female genders we all grew up understanding.

This gender expansion is the trend globally now. The significance of debate is nascent and crosses all domains of socio-political life and thus requires global and courageous rational discussion.

For those who remember, there was only ever (since the origin of the term in the 15th century) two sexual genders until this century, when more than two made an appearance recently in popular and media culture.

Remember how language works. We humans like to categorise items and things in the world and use linguistic symbols to represent these categories: we give titles to categories, e.g. Man and Woman.

Wittgenstein would have argued that where there is a distinctive concept, there is a corresponding term. Language has its limits. But what can be said, can be said clearly. If a thing cannot be said clearly, it cannot be said.

Some concepts are not so clear and defy categorisation or even definition, but unless we categorise them anyway, we can't discuss them without people not knowing what thing we're talking about.

That is why names for things are only convenient tools to introduce the discussion, to indicate the realm of a concept. In serious intellectual discussion, the name should be abandoned and replaced by its description, as Bertrand Russell pointed out. Abandon the name and discuss the description.

So, we categorise items as belonging to a set that share something in common. Everything belongs to a set. So there has to be something that all items in that set share in common. Then the set is given a name, so that discussion can begin through identification of the general issue. Once identified through the name, only then can discussion begin.

The concepts, or sets, of the categories Men and Woman share many things in common, but we sub-categorise Men and Women because of obvious, mostly physical, characteristics that separate them: such as Women having the potential for childbirth, XX not XY chromosomes, hormonal cycles and differences of appearance from Men in general.

So, now we understand how the two categories came about, we can proceed.

Our definition of Gender is based on a reference to being or identifying with masculinity or feminity. This definition is based on the problem that proponents of gender alternatives have not defined the term themselves. So we are left with their descriptions. Their descriptions of their gender identity always refers to physical sexual characteristics between men and women.

The existing definitions of "gender" are either circular or refernce sexual characteristics.

So let us proceed on the traditional use of the terms.

There were only ever two genders of sex, which was proven by the discovery of the XX and XY sex chromosomes all animals have in every single living cell, except red blood cells in the early 1900s. But we all knew about the differences between Men and Women long before this discovery anyway. It's why we have divisions in society, language and lore between men and women. The physical difference, especially the genitals and child-birth, is obvious and beyond dispute. Every society in the world throughout history has separated Men from Women. The differences are mostly sexual.

Thus, the term gender has been almost synonymous with this sexual physical characteristic, but gender came to be meant something more psychological, or psycho-socio-sexual in the 1960s.

The term Gender, began as meaning "type" or "kind", before being applied in the 15th century to the two sexes.

Think how you use the term "genre", which is the French term for gender, meaning "type".

So, fast forward to the last 10 years of literature. In the popular, artistic, scientific and academic literature there were only male and female sex genders for the whole of human history until about ten years ago.

So what happened?

Well, in the late 1990s, we started hearing the voice of the minority on the Internet. After the Internet, anyone could say anthing; anyone with the smallest voice and the most unusual views found a public platform to publish their views and their voice - to sell to all.

The Internet enabled minorities to consolidate and communicate and promote and argue their views. No proof or justification was needed.

The Internet explains the apperance of the range of views we have today in pop culture and in the media.

Many of these minority groups, once consolidated, began lobbying society and government to strengthen their views, seeking equality, recognition, support, and human rights to achieve what all minorities seek: objectivity, veracity and validity.

Before the Internet, minorities could only protest publically, cause a scene, write articles in fringe publications. They were largely ignored. The Internet changed that in a heart beat.

Ethnic groups, ideological groups, people of differing sexual oritentation, religious groups all found a voice, a means to consolidate and a means of recruitment and support ONLY because of the Internet and the provision it provides for free speech.

Free speech included the ability to bypass mediating publishers and moderators, who previously would have rejected their attempts at publication, rejecting their bizarre, minority opinions, their small voice.

Through the Internet anyone can publish any shit. There is virtually no regulation or control, so that We and You can now say absolutely anything we want, true or false. Anything, that is, unless it is considered Politically Incorrect.

Political Correctness was already mature when the Internet appeared. PC prevented anyone from arguing against the voice of the minority, on pain of being labelled racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic.

So, the Internet and Political Correctness combined in support of the development of minorities and their views.

One such view, having the power and broadcast of the Internet and the protection of Political Correctness, is those with non-traditional views about Gender.

These people argue two points:

1. The term Gender is not a dichotomy but wider in scope than we used to believe; some people don't fit into the traditional concepts of male or female. They claim to be neither, and/or something different.

2. Some feel they have been treated as one gender or the other, but feel like they are the other or neither.

So what do they mean, they are either, neither male nor female, or both?

Well that requires answering the question, what does Gender mean? If you reject the traditional and common usage you don't have much else to go on.

So assuming we've all used the words incorrectly until now, what do the terms Male and Female and Gender mean today?

This questions is older than you'd think.

Otto Weininger had something to say about this 100 years ago. Weininger observed that Male and Female idenitites are extremes on the same spectrum. They are not separate sexualities, but the same sexualities on a spectrum from male to female and we all fit somewhere on the spectrum. Some males have aspects of a female and some females have aspects of a male. That explains Net ball.

However, people use words differently. If you asked the average person on the street the last 500 years, what do you think it means to be male or female, you would get the same answers:

Male gender means, has the sexual physical and psychological characteristics of a man.

Female means, has the sexual physical and psychological characteristics of a woman.

So what are these sexual characteristics?

What are all these variations from male and female? Was Weininger right?

Most of us are wondering, how can you possibly have more than male and female genders?

The X and Y Chromosomes were discovered over 100 years ago. The Y chromosome is responsible for the development of masculine sexual organs and systems, such as sperm production - not a female characteristic - and potential for child birth.

Certainly there is a set of physical characteristics that lead to the quick discovery of whether an animal has the potential to conceive and give birth to other animals or does not: we call the animal capable of childbirth female and the animal with sperm a male.

Some argue for female characteristics beyond physicality: feeling, identity etc.

What on earth does that mean?

How can an animal that has none of the female physicality have any idea what is means to feel and identify as female? It can't be possible because it is illogical.

I cannot feel like an elephant, or an African man, or a brick, in exactly the same way.

There is no reference to start from, by which one would first conceive the comparison between the two entities, before progressing to feel like the other.

A female baby grown up in isloation cannot at some stage feel like a man, because they have no man available to know what is meant by "a man".

In this sense, and in these terms, a woman feeling like a man can only be a socialised feeling, akin to the very socialisation argued to be the reason for dividing sexes by external appearance and expected behaviours and interests.

Further, what would it mean to feel like a female? Would that feeling entail feeling like having children, sexually aroused by males? I can't imagine these being accepted by those who make the claim. These are physical and we keep hearing that it's not physical. So what would it feel like for a man to feel like a woman, outside physicality?

Our challenge to proponents of gender radicals is to demand the answer to the question,

"Excepting physical aspects, how do you know what it's like to feel like, to identify with, a man/woman, a gender other than the one assigned to you at birth?"

If you're a Man physically, you have penis and produce sperm, how can you possibly know what it is to be a woman physically or otherwise? A woman has a monthly period, a potential for childbirth, and many more types of hormones than men affecting their mind, their moods, their behaviours and over time their personality, their view of the world, etc etc.

Unless you go through these physical characteristics throughout your physical development to maturity, how can you claim you know what it's like to feel like a woman?

Weiniger may be correct, that a man can feel like a woman, because they occupy a place on a spectrum. But how can anyone deny that one Gender can give birth to a human and the other cannot?

It may well be that the term Gender is no longer useful. It represents nothing and should not nor need to be used in conversation.

Why choose to stay here?

If you despise the country you have emigrated to so much, why stay?

Why did you come here knowing this is not a country of Islam, Buddishm, Christianity, Atheism?

Why did you not move to a country that shares your beliefs, lives your cultural life?

Why do you choose to stay in a country that is so foreign to you?

These questions baffle everyone in host countries that have angry, resentful immigrants who claim to have chosen your country as a safe haven, but complain violently of the society that hosts them?

If it's so bad and so wrong, why don't you leave?

Why stay?

You appear to be using us.

You appear to be an ungrateful group of people who don't care where they end up, as long as it is rich and has freedom and protects your views.

We hosts see right through that. Do you know how obvious your true intent is revealed?

You are lucky to be accepted into our societies. But you appear ungrateful and even arrogantly antagonsitic when our host society finds your behaviour insulting.

Your reaction to this behaviour is to go full defensive and demand your human rights.

How ironic, considering where you fled from.

You seem upset and vilified by the reaction of your host country, but then you complain when your host country feels the same vilifaction from you.

Well then, why not leave?

If the society you have chosen to emigrate to does not accept you, why stay?

Immigration - The Ugly Truth

Immigration is a force for good.

It's how most of us have ended up where we are in the world.

People of different beliefs, values, customs, ethnicity. race, nationality leaving their countries for some reason and moving to another; to similar ethnicities or not.

It's an ancient practice, but changed in the last 21st century due to unique developments:

- the Internet: global information exchange enabling public platforms for the stupid hitherto never available
- third world civil war and Western intervention
- global economic and natural disaster
- cheap easy travel
- organised crime expansion into trafficking
- political correctness
- Hipsters: the force-multiplied do-gooders
- the return of religion, as a political power
- the sidelining of science and philosophy

The worst reasons possible have supersized immigration from third world countries to modern Western countries.

When the world changes, we must change. We must look at our historically borne but current policies and change them accordingly.

That's not happening.

Old laws and policies are struggling to cope with new developments.

Laws and mind-sets only change when we have a public conversation, a courageous public debate unmolested by censorship and fear. Thus, the following discussion is rarely heard publically:

Immigration is also a force for bad.

It must demand conditions, and conditions set by the occupants to be subject to it; not those who will not be affected by it.

The conditions must include what is generally categorised by terms such as the potential for  "assimilation".

Those immigrating, where the scope of the host sociey's policy is unlimited, being "anyone from anywhere", will cover the range of people harmful or not to the host society.

So the first assumption is, some immigrants are likely to harm the host society.

Is this assumption true?

The assumption derives from an expectation that harm is likely in the forms of the effect on the host society's culture, power, freedom, laws and customs.

This expectation seems to be based on a few foundings: rational, emotional or instinctive or intuitive:

1. empirical
2. emotional: xenophobic, intuitive
3. rationa: logical, deductive

Empirical expectation of harm:

Ask the indigenous Fijians whom accepted Indian immigration how that went.

Inidans now rule Fijians in political power, government and commerce.

Ask the Malaysians and Singaporeans about Chinese immigration.

Chinese began to take over the commercial industries and the government.

Ask Western Europeans about the recent immigration of North African and Sub-Saharan people to their countries.

Ask these people what harm if any was done , is being done, by this immigration.

They will cite examples of ethnic-based societal division, class system and racism, now institutional in those societies.

There are empirical justifications for assuming the harm of some immigration.

Emotional/Xenophobic expectation of harm:

Xenophobia expressed by one host society to an immgrating ethnicity is of two kinds:

Emotional or intuitive:

Some will argue simply that they don't like the particular ethnic groups immigrating. They just don't like them. No reason. Just a strong dislike of people who are so different from them.

Rational:

Some argue that a community is a group of people whom share so much in "common" that they can live together easily without much trouble.

Therefore, how can a society enjoy the community of shared aspects, such as common history, common ethnicity, common language, morals, beliefs, customs and behaviour, live easily with a group that has none of these in common with it.

Are these assumptions that expect harm to their society true or at least understandable?

If they are, then conditions of immigration must be obtained and applied.

Assimilation or its potential must be a condition.

So what would we expect to be assimilation?

Firstly, the conservation of the host society's lore and conformity to its fundamentals.

Is that too much to ask?

Is there such a thing as an "incompatible ethnicity" unable to assimilate or be harmless to the host society?

It depends upon the numbers.

A minority of such groups is harmless, but a non-minority is not.

In Western democracies, there will inevitably be a move to have the immigrating group achieve political power, governmental representation and this will and must lead to laws that include aspects of the immigrating groups into the host society's culture, customs, behaviours and therefore the essence of that society.

It is reasonable then to conclude that such a non-minority's effect on the host society is harmful, in the sense of changing the essence of that host society. They will no longer be conserved within their own society, but will have changed to produce a merger of two societies.

Immigration has a potential to convert the host society to become no longer that society, but an unfamiliar combination.

Surely such a society would include contradictions, such as occurred between Muslims and majority Hindus in India following the end of the British Raj in 1946.

The country was split into three: India, Pakistan and Bangaldesh,

Is that split of the country a good thing for the majority society?

How reconcilable to our Western countries is arranged marriage, genital mutilation, slitting the throats of animals for food and ceremony, the respect of death in war by killing opposers, suicide bombing, the covering of woman, the relegation of woman to the kitchen, the marriage and sex of under-aged children by old men, the killing of critics of Islam?

How good is it for a society to accept these legislated and protected, promoted changes to their society? To accept the stoning of adulterous women, the amputation by sword of thieves?

In conclusion, if a society accepts immigration without condition, it should expect to become merely a partner in its own country and its laws and customs subject to radical and foreign change,

In India, cows are sacred to Hindus and have their throats slit for food and ceremony by Muslims.

Some aspects of each society will be self-contradictory, irreconsilable.

For those who expect this and work against it, We have your full support.

"...it begs the question...."

Another widely misunderstood and misused phrase, and subordinate clause, offended by general public and learned alike, is the phrase "It begs the question."

Begging the question is NOT to say, "The issue at hand demands we ask the following question..."

Begging the question is an accusation that someone has made a kind of logical fallacy in presenting an argument.

Someone makes a proposition and is asked to justify the reason or logic behind it, that lead to the conclusion.

The proposer then gives their reason or logic, but this is found to be a mere repitition of their proposal and NOT the logic that lead to the proposition.

Thus the proposer has "begged the question".

In other words, after hearing their reasoning and their logic, the question demanding their logic still stands.

Their explanation demands the question still needs to be answered, "what was your logic?"

Their explanation begs the original question; it is yet to be answered.

People please, get it right.

Without Further Adue...

The phrase, the oft used subordinate clause "Without further ado..." is malaproposed.

The general public and even academics have erroneously malaproposed the phrase to "Without futher adue..."

The concept is "fuss" or "trouble" and its linguistic symbol is commonly expressed as the term "ado".

Example, from Shakespaere's play "Much ado about nothing."

We don't know what the term "adue" means. It seems to confuse the concept of "due".

So, the purpose of the clause is, "let's fuss no futher and get on with the discussion, the issue."

So, "Without further fuss." is synonmous.

In symbolic language, there is no correct use or wrong use of words; there is only consistency with common usage.

In order to achieve communication, the shared understanding between speaker and listener, it is essential to have a database of commonly used terminology.

If one person uses a word differently from another, then communication should not be expected.

It is commonly held that the phrase is "Without further ado...", not "Without further adue."

It is the responsibilty of all whom seek communication, shared understanding, to stick to terms that are commonly used.

If this unwritten agreement is not adhered to in one instance, there is no reason to adhere in any instance.

So, We encourage All to keep the standards of their laguage use to the highest level, that we may All benefit from the world in which communciation is not made even harder to achieve than it already is.

Culture versus Tradition, Custom, Ethnicity - Time to Start Using Terms Properly

It has been the fashion for more than a generation now to refer to Ethnically different groups of people outside your own, as a different "Culture".

Now, the traditions, the customs, the ethnicity of a people group (especially when referring to those minority immigrants and asylum seekers/refugees pouring into our better countries) are instead lumped under the malapropist term "culture".

Examples:

- they don't eat pork, it's their culture
- they slit the goat's throat, it's their culture.
- they have arranged marriages, it's part of their culture.
- they marry children to old men, it's a cultural thing.
- some cultures don't look you in the eye, it's rude.
- Melbourne is a multi-cutural society.
- there are socio-cultural aspects at play in youth crime.
- Just because someone comes from another culture, doesn't mean we can be racist.

None of these sentences is using the term "culture" or "cultural" in the common use of intellectuals and thinker and students of sociology, anthropology, politics and other sciences that are concerned with people groups and their distinct behaviours.

The word Culture refers to development, change, improvement, growth. But it is used to describe tradition, custom, ethnicity.

The practise of stoning adulteress women to death, the throwing of acid into the faces of unveiled girls, selling off daughters to old men, arranging marriages of children to children with no regard for their own view, is not cultural in any sense, more accurately the opposite sense.

These practises are traditonal, NOT cultural. They are customary, they are socio-behavioural aspects of an ethnic group.

Up until recently (before mass immigration caused by terrorism and the Internet, cheap flights and the boat-people trafficking industry) the sentences above would have not used the term culture, but the terms, Tradition, Custom and Ethnicity.




It is odd that these "correct" or at least more accurate and historically consistent terms, have now almost become obsolete.

This is a typical malaproposim from the ignorant and uneducated, and easily fooled, easily lead, general public.

Teachers, educated parents, politicians, academics, philosophers, scientists are all to blame for not educating themselves and then correcting the general public misuse of discrete linguistic symbols conserved to express important concepts and meanings.

Should we intellectuals put up with this? Should we allow our beautiful, intelligent language to be hi-jacked by the dumbarse masses?

This use is detrimental to intellectual discussion, especially in the public arena, and the misue and misunderstanding of key sociological terms like these will create more problems than that field of study and policy has already.

So let's get our language right.

As we learned know already, there is no Divine Dictionary. The meaning of words is NOT permanent and written in stone by a council of wise Sages.

Words evolve. However, meanings do NOT.

So even if you take a word away and use it for some other meaning, the meaning left behind will remain and still need to be expressed by the symbols of langauge.

How about this:

Instead of that, why don't we educated step in, call out the mistake, and return the word to its original owner, and in a public way?

That's what We are doing, in our own cliques and places of social engagement.

Culture  = Growth, NOT Tradition

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

A Culture is a fungus on your bread, not a group of ethnically defined people.

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

Class and Refinement - the Downward Spiral in Australia

Australia celebrates the Bogan.

Australia promotes the celebration of unrefined, scuffing, thong-wearing, sleave-sniffing scruffs.

Australia ignores, ridicules, and denigrates the stylish, the well-adorned, the polite, the chivalrous, and the erudite, the educated, the rational, the intellectual.

Australians are taught directly or indirectly to mock and dismiss the sophisticated of dress, bearing, education and speech.

In Australia, it is risky to speak with a vocabulary of more than two dozen words in general day-to-day life. Pithy cliches and formulaic copy-cat phrases benal and simplified, uncontroversial and void of intellectual difficulty, are acceptable and expected. Anything beyond this is suspicious, rejected and prejudiced against.

Respect and admiration is reserved for ignorance, casual dress, standard commentary and beliefs.

Because of that, Australia is plummeting toward classlessness and unrefinement.

The original drivers are those founding Australian principles of aversion to authority, separation from Royalty and the overlord rebellion against the old Empire, with the Queen as its poster-girl.

Australians are proud of their history of flipping the bird to ponsy English rulers and ponsy English class systems.

It is therefore understandable.

However, it is to the detriment of progress and the development of civilisation beyond the cave-man status we all escaped so long ago and at such ernormous cost.

A return to peasantry is inevitable.

A classless unrefined society is not a good one.

It will entail the rise in power of the idiot across politics and industry. We will become that Bogan nation in the world.

Science and philosophy will join style and chivalry in being further sidelined and ridiculed into submission and dismissal. And this will create a domino effect on the detriment of the wellbeing of our nation.

Less money and attention will be given to scientific and philosophical discovery and practical application to make more room for the development of Middle Ages thinking, exemplified by witch-hunting, book-burning and all the other horrors that accompany peasant-rule.

Be warned.

But there is an anti-dote: we're not completely stuffed just yet.

Those in Australia still sporting the refined life must act and act quickly, with courage and vim.

Lead by example.

Protest.

Use your careers, your conversations, your contacts, any means available to knock Bogannism off the podium in your  own circle your own niche in life and stand in its place as a last beacon of hope.

Wear a suit, quote philosophers, expand your vocabulary in all conversations, demand intellectual discussion when arguing. Reject formulaic cliches in your responses to daily life conversations.

Hold your head high and with the courage of Perseus, proudly show the world the severed head of the Gorgon Bogan in your hand, as you command attention and respect to all that is refined in the world.

Here is your Bogan god's head. Severed by my sword of refinement from the Gorgon's body you proclaim so loudly and proudly to worship.

Doctors said I'd never walk again...

Ever hear someone say that?

It is total Bull Shit.

Think about it.

What medical practitioner, (a professional who is by definition an expert in evidence-based assertions with years of experience in witnessing the defeat of predicition and the futility of certainty) would tell someone, would ever consider making the kind of "horoscopic" statement exemplified by, "You will never walk again."?

No doctor, GP, surgeon, specialist or whatever you want to call them, would ever make that statement, or any statement like that statement.

It is a stupid statement to make, unless your patient is dead or their spine has been destroyed.

People say shit like that because of the effect they want to get from you, and the positive affirmation it says to themselves:  I am special, I am amazing, I am better than you, I am so awesome the universe works one way for others and another way for me.

However, it is "quite possible" that the patient in certain situations would want to know "will I ever walk again?". Who wouldn't want to know that, especially after an accident where you've lost control or sensation of your legs - or you've lost your legs?

It is therefore "quite probable" that such a person would ask their primary medical adviser that very question.

"Hey doc, will I ever walk again?"

Unless the doctor is a psychopath or philosopher, the former ignoring the question, the latter spending too much time answering it, they would probably respond to the question with an attempt to understand its genesis and reply.

So, what would they likely say?

As a practitioner of medical science, an expert in empirically verifiable and evidence-based inductive reasoning, they would have a suite of phrasing options to present to the patient, hopefully using sensitive language that include the following concepts:

1. A summary of how cases like this have panned out in the past for others.

2. Based on what evidence is available, a probability judgment, such as "possibly, unlikely, might, potentially, fair chance."

3. If certain conditions take place in the future, e.g. medical treatment, patient immobility, no further detrimental influences, then the probability of x degree of walking will increase.

A "doctor" would never ever say "you will never walk again", nor even "you will walk again".

They would attempt to respond to this question, understandably deserving of an answer, from a scale of likelihoods and balanced by conditional caveats.

The only reason you will ever have heard someone skite "the doctor said I'd never walk again.", is if and only if the patient was initially unable to walk and later was able to walk. What about the ones that didn't end up walking again? The doctor was correct in their prediction and wrong in yours. Knowing that, you now see how their predictions were flawed to begin with. So, there's nothing to skite over, now that you know the doctor was sometimes right and sometimes wrong with their predicitions.

Anyway, it is "unlikely" that a trained and experienced and sober doctor would make such a statement. Statements X will never Y, are the halmarks of the religious, the moron or the manipulator.

We wouldn't wish any doctor to have any of these characteristics.

If a doctor were found to be prognosing in this way, then we have discovered a rare bird, a very stupid doctor and we should move quickly to have their licence to practise removed...

...until they are likely to be smart again.

A bigger problem with this kind of flagrant bull shit is the anti-intellectual, anti-reasoning climate it draws from and adds to.

The patient's statement is a "So there!" to science and reasoning.

Smart people said something and they were wrong, therefore being smart is bad.

In the US, this kind of statement is likely to be made by a religious nut.

Science said I'd never walk again, then I walked again, therefore God exists.

Impeccable logic.

Doctors said x, y or z, and they were wrong, is a bull shit formulaic statement made by idiots who are also science haters.

They hate science because it is a threat to their little fantasy about living for ever in a heaven where you don't have to shit ever again.

Well, We're very sorry, but because you're dead, you are never going to shit again.

You Don't Want to Know the Truth!

Everyone publically worships the truth.

Everyone references "The Truth" as the final word in support of their argument.

Everyone fights and fusses in a search for the truth of the matter.

Tell me the truth, they demand at the top of their lungs.

We are all condemned for not telling the truth, altering the truth.

In reality, in private... absolutely no one wants the truth.

Again, what people say and what they do are two different things - usually the opposite.

The truth is terrible and terrifying.

The truth is painful.

The truth should be run from, should be covered in a blanket, buried, avoided, ignored, left alone.

The last thing we all want is to hear the truth from someone else. That's even worse than telling the truth to ourselves.

When someone else says it, it carries more weight; it's even more real and more terrifying, excruciating.

Everyone says they want the truth, but when they hear it, they want it to go away and never come back.

We need to distinguish a few different uses of the term here.

There is the truth in the sense of a statement representing reality, a fact.

Example: the statement, Donald Trump was elected President of the US, is true.

The statement is true, it reflects an empirically verifable reality.

Then there's the truth in the sense of the thing itself, without needing a subject: The Truth.

Thomas Hobbes argued that truth is a quality of words, not things.

A statement is true or false. A thing itself cannot be true or false.

A statement about a thing can be true, but not the thing.

The statement God is true could be false, but it is not a statement; it is meaningless.

The statement purports a quality to a thing that cannot have that quality, unless God is a statement.

Not all sentences are statements. The sentence, The King of France is bald, is not a statement and so is neither true nor false; it is a meaningless sentence.


The ancient Greek philosophers thought of truth as an unveiling of reality, a revelation.

Today, reality can be ugly and contrary to the world we wish existed, and which the truth reveals for us it does not.

So, today, reality lies mostly hidden; behind political correctness, obscured by policy-speak and euphemism.

So, some cry out for an unveiling. But they soon regret their demand, when the truth turns out to be hurtful, harmful, against their morality or their pride.

The cry for truth looks and feels heroic to many.

How do I look, says a woman; tell me the truth. She doesn't want to hear the truth.

We all go to great lengths to protect ourselves and others from the truth.

And so we should; the truth is awful.

We cover our bodies in clothes that hide our ugliness.

We respond with bright cliches when asked how we are doing.

We keep personal secrets for fear of embarrasment, prejudice, judgment, incrimination or retribution.

We lie about our age, our competence, our finances.

We exaggerate. We set people up, manipulating our questions and statements to produce a secret effect and extract a desired response from someone.




People who claim proudly that they say things as they are, are tactless bogans insensitive to the situation, ignorant of the nuances of social interaction, devoid of sophisticated conversation.

Will they tell their boss they're a stupid wanker? Will they tell their loved one how ugly they look or that their breath stinks? No they won't.

So let's stop pretending we want the truth and accept the fact that some things should stay veiled, hidden.

Let's stop lying about the truth.

Terrorist or Muslim Jihadi Islamist?

Everyone can and does use humour to achieve a desired outcome.

But a comedian uses the tool of humour to acheive the desired outcome they define as their purpose for being a comedian. A comedian is called by us a comedian because of the predominant use of their tool, humour.

Everyone can and does use the tool of painting to make art.

An artist uses media, like paint, and is called an artist because they use media, like paint, to acheive their artistic outcome, a painting.

So, everyone can use terror to acheive a state of terror.

But it is predominantly Muslim jihadi Islamists who use terror.

Beheadings, shootings, car bombs, flying planes into buildings, blowing up children, strapping bombs to women, cutting out the clitoris of young girls, marrying little girls off to old men, hiding in hospitals and schools for a shield, throwing acid in women's faces, stoning women and men to death, targeting innocent civilians, running people over on footpaths... what is more worthy of the term "terror"?

No other interest group, ideology, religion, ethnicity, political party, no individual uses such a thorough suite of terror like the Mulsim jihadi Islamist.

A mere description of an attack draws everyone's conclusion that it must be a Muslim nut-job.

So why do we name them after their tool?

We don't call other actors a name from a tool they use to achieve their outcome.

We don't call surgeons cutters, or plumbers pipists or spannerists.

So why call Muslims who murder the innocent in the name of their version of Islam, terrorists?

It's inconsistent.

If we were consistent with the terror makes a terrorist, we'd be tied to calling a comedian a jokist or laughist, words that don't exist, an artist a media-ist or paintist, and so on.

If we were consistent with a paint makes an artist, the food makes a Chef de Cuisine, then we'd say the terror makes a Muslim jihadi Islamist.

A builder uses a hammer to acheive their outcome, but we don't call them Hammerists.

So why do we call Muslim jihadi Islamists "Terrorists"?

Two reasons:

1. HISTORICAL USE

Firstly, it's a term already used by us, way before Islamists exploded onto the scene.

The IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers and many other groups were lumped together because the scenario played out by the event, the attack, the explosion, and only later did we find out who was doing it.

A bomb goes off out of nowhere, with no obvious attacker, or an anonymous attacker.

The event took centre stage and was the first thing named. The party who deployed the attack is only named later.

Humans like to categorise things that are different, but share common qualities and then assign a name to that category.

So, terror was that word. It was the common denominator in all the attacks, a terrifying attack on civilians.

It's an easy step to lump all attackers together into the group of terrorists.

All of this thinking-style was developed by the media, not experts, academics or officials.


2. POLITICALLY CORRECT

Secondly, political correctness:

Not all Muslims are murderers. It is unfair to paint all Muslims with the title terrorist.

Islam as practiced by the vast majority is a religion and lifestyle of peace, compassion, love and social inclusion.

But like anything good, the worst of humans turn it into their own sick, murderous version.

Bertrand Russell advocated that in serious discussion we should always replace names with their descriptions.

So perhaps the name terrorist should be changed to our description of what we mean by terrorist.

The terrorists we are all terrified of are a sick version of the Muslim, following a murderous version of the jihad doctrine in order to achieve a political Islam, locally or globally.

Jihadi Islamist is a better term, if a shortened form is preferred. But if we want to progress on the debate, we need to bite the bullet and say it how it is. The terrorists are Muslim, we can't ignore that fact. No one has the right to tell someone that they are not a Muslim, if they say they are.

However, political correctness is so strong today, the term terrorist will remain as the name for the group committing terror.

The term terrorist is now a politically correct term.

Because the word terrorist is not discriminating, does not identify a sect, an ethnic group, a religion etc, the politicians took it on. The word terrorist and its derivatives is politically correct, safe.


HOW MUCH TERRORISM IS NOT CONDUCTED BY MUSLIM JIHADI ISLAMISTS?

Since 9/11 the word has almost exclusively been used to name attacks committed only by Muslims, and certain Muslims who appeal to the jihadist Islamist ideology. as taught by their founding father and fundamental inspiration, Sayyid Qutub.

Qutub promoted the ideology of the justification ordained by the Islamic teachings of jihad, to the killing of anyone, civilians, children, anyone who was a perceived threat to the Islamic religion and Muslim people.

When 99% of attacks on civilians across the world are committed by Muslims who subscribe to the Qutub jihad, who are Islamists bent on coercing the world into a Muslim world, we should call it what it is.

These attacks are more than terrorism. They are all carried out by people calling themselves Muslim and who state that they commit their terror to defend Islam.

TERRORIST - A WORD THAT COVERS ANY GROUP

Terrorist is a word that covers all groups, all ideologies, not just jihadi Islamists.

But, almost every attack on civilians across the world by a group defined by an ideology, are conducted by a specific group of people, who claim a certain religion and a branch of that religion that attacks for a specific reason.

Almost all the attacks happening across our world on civilians are conducted by members of one religion.

Who sees reports of attacks from Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or even Christians?

Who sees report of attacks on civilians across the globe from interest groups, like Greens, White Supremicists, Bikies, even Communists?

So, what we call them should be just as specific as the attackers. Not generic.

It would only make sense to call these attacks, by Islamists, terrorist attacks, if they were committed by a range of religion and ideology motivated attackers, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Jews, White Supremicists, Black Power, etc.





It makes no sense calling hundreds of attacks on civilians by Islamists, terrorists.

We can and should be more specific.

The problem for all humans right now is not terrorism, it is Islamism and its jihadi application.

India's Racist Caste System is Alive and Thriving in Australia

Most of us have never heard of the term and Indian practice of the Caste System.

The celebration of Indian "culture" in Australia seems to skip over this pervasive tradition.

Perhaps they don't want us to know about certain "cutlural" activities, as Australians currently only like to know things that are nice, cute and acceptable about foreign "culture".

We're not surprised.





The Indian Caste System is a way Indians divide their people into a hierarchy of groups based on the value they provide to their society, their communities.

You inherit your caste from your parents and pass it on to your children, whom you've had with a member of the same caste, thus preserving the caste.

Sound familiar?

A lower caste is of inferior value to a superior caste. The castes therefore do not inter-marry, mix socially or treat each other equally.





The castes begin the division into basic social service provision: from religious elite and academics, royalty and warriors at the top, to business owners, executives, landowners, professionals, and then down to workers, labourers, servants at the bottom.

Beneath the bottom are "out-castes". The lowest of the low, those who perform the disgusting services no one else wants to do: cleaners, street sweapers etc.

These few fundamental types of castes are further divided internally, so that each caste type has its own sub-castes, which themselves divide, based on nuanced changes.



Have you ever used or heard the term "out-caste"?

We bet you didn't know the significance of this term.

You are born, work, marry, live and die in your Caste.

A higher caste will not employ an Indian into a job outside their caste's designated job spectrum.

How Aussie is that?

What's your definition of racist?



Although, Australian Indians will not admit this practice occurs anymore, in Australia (in India only), or doesn't exist, all you need to do is look for yourself. Look closely. It's there alright. Alive and kicking.

And why shouldn't it be?

Here's a screenshot from an example of an Indian "matrimony" dating website:






Why would a first or second generation culture abandon it's most traditional, most fundamental beliefs and practices, just because they or their parents moved to another country?

What strongly patriotic and proud person would oppose and choose to weaken, dilute or abolish its own heartfelt, close-held  cultural tradition? Would you drop one of yours, just because others might not like it?

The Indian Caste System is just one example of the ancient human self-preserving tradition (perhaps instinct) of creating a Them and Us in any society.

Every "culture" has, or has had, some version of a caste system in their society, their "culture"

[I keep using speech marks for "culture" because the word actually means "development", which implies change, improvement, growth, all concepts that actually oppose the concept of tradition.
Most things of "culture" when discussing ethnic group characteristics, utterly lack any connotation or certainly denotation of the term "cutlure".  In this sociological sense, the term is a mysnomer if ever there was one.]

Jews, Chinese, Arabs, Fijians, most groups who feel an ethnic connection divide themselves internally or from outsiders, in order to strengthen that feeling of belonging and specialness.

There's nothing wrong with keeping tradition. But there's everything wrong in lieing to everyone, falsely presenting yourself as an inclusive group, and excluding one group infavour of another just because they don't belong to your group.

Not all Indians are racist in this way. Of course, not all Australians are inclusive. That's not the point. The exception of any group is not a problem. It's the rule of any group that we're concerned about.

Before you call an Aussie a racist, think again.

Halal food is Cut-Throat... literally

Halal food is that which adheres to Islamic law, as defined in the Koran. 

The Islamic form of slaughtering animals or poultry, involves killing the animal through a cut to the throat; jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe. 

Animals must be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter and all blood is drained from the carcass.

The animal chokes on inhaling its own blood, before dying in pain, fear and confusion, and bleeding out.

Often, a traditional knife is used, often blunt, and the executioner has no hesitation in sawing through a tough neck if needed.

You won't learn that in school, or at multi-cultural festivals celebrating Islamic tradition.

How would you like to go through that?

If you support Halal food in any way, directly or indirectly, you support this sick, stupid, disgusting practice. 

Grow some balls, get a brain and examine the world around you closer than a mind-starved Kardashian fan.

With the Internet providing you the world's information and the sum collection of all human understanding at the click of a button, you have no excuse for not knowing what's really going on around you.

ARMED CITIZENS

Australians will soon be arming themselves against perceived threats from local Islamists. Policy makers and legislators need to start preparing for the strategic shock now.

The slow wave of shocking attacks by Islamists across the globe that we see almost weekly on our TVs, elicits a myriad of responses from stunned onlookers. One notable response is the sense of helplessness. It is immediately clear to many watching that should they experience such an attack themselves there is nothing they can do about it. Almost every attack may as well have been carried out in a kindergarten – the victims are that helpless. 

A chain of thought sparks in the minds of most of us watching the helpless victims from our armchairs. We see that no one from the law enforcement community is there to help. No patrols. No one comes to their rescue. Where are the police?

The obvious solution for many watching the defenceless killed in public, in broad daylight, without impediment, is to arm-up. All it takes is one or two examples in the media of an armed victim fighting back against the terrorists, and the floodgates will be opened. Australians everywhere will beg, borrow and steal to arm themselves, so they can feel safer walking the streets, taking the train to work, dropping the kids off at school and shopping in the malls.

The thought of being armed everywhere they go, will replace the job police are failing to fulfil, a sense of genuine security and safety. At last Joe and Jane Public won’t have to worry about adding yet another fear to their growing list of dangers from the community. 

The danger on the horizon is of much more concern to average Australians, as it is utterly new, they don’t really understand its nature, it seems incomprehensible, it’s a scary, ugly terror and they know the police can’t protect them. Being armed they are no longer helpless – in their mind. Knowing they can turn from victim into counter-attacker, shooting back, will become close to desirable in the minds of many, especially men.

No one wants them or their loved ones to die for some stupid, pointless reason at the hands of a religious idiot nut-case, just because they had nothing to fight back with.

Unlike the gun culture of the United States, Australia has spent decades with strict firearms restrictions that has produced generations[1] without any understanding of their power and their potential. In the States, firearms are not uncommonly used in the settling of disputes, such as road rage and family or neighbourhood arguments. However, most of these end at the presentation of the weapon or the firing of a warning shot; hardly a terrorist attack.

For Australia, the phenomenon will be a shock to the system, as there is no “real”[2] familiarity with firearms by almost all dwellers of Australia’s few cities. They have almost no appearance in the life of a city-dweller, and even on television they rarely feature outside fiction, only occasionally in the news, and never in lifestyle television outside the odd hunting programme that most viewers will flick past whilst channel surfing.

There is an unwritten social contract in the US, between its comparably more fire-arm familiarised citizens, that is effectively a self-regulation. You avoid certain situations and certain escalating arguments, because someone might have a gun. This self-regulation is more obvious in areas of high firearm ownership, such as the cities of Texas and the Mid-western cities, such as Colorado, Arizona, and Idaho, but applies across the country and is understood by most. The point here is that it is no use looking to the US as a model to follow in Australia; it’s chalk and cheese.

Australian policymakers and legislators need to consider the implications of a secretly armed citizenship. The widespread carriage of secreted fire-arms in public will imply more than its relatively innocuous intent.

What should we imagine when considering the evolution of road-rage, pub brawls, arguing neighbours? Will people start resolving disputes with their weapons? Will the threatening presentation of a fire-arm be used to curtail an escalating argument between citizens? Instead of relying on current recourses, such as the pointless arguing and futile paperwork handed to them by impotent police stations, the armed citizen will not even bother wasting their time with the police.  

What effect will an armed society have on the black and open marketplace for weapons? We should expect to see the typical abuse by the retail trade, as supply creates demand.

Will self-defence classes move from the Dojo to the pistol range?

The change will affect the law enforcement community, certainly, schooling, public transport, health, privacy, even taxation, but also the commercial sector: the security industry, the insurance industry, private healthcare, sport and recreation industries, and the black markets of weapon suppliers, criminal activity to fund supply, and organised crime.

The implications are legion, as are the number of questions needing answers, problems needing solutions, laws and policies needing drafting well before that first TV news item airs all over the country. “Neighbourhood argument, pub brawl, street party, road rage, school bullying… ends in shooting.”

---

[1] Terrorists are unlikely to attack the regional farming communities, where any firearm familiarisation in Australia is only found among those protecting their crops from predators and pests, or for game during hunting seasons. This article is therefore concerned only with communities of strategic interest to Islamist terrorists, and these are likely to be large cities rather than country towns.

[2] Excluding movies and crime drama television, as fictional representation is a poor preparation for the real thing when it comes to firearms.