Culture Versus Tradition

The term Culture is used to signify the lore and norms, customs and beliefs of an ethnic group, or sometimes just of a group of people who contrast themselves from all other groups.

Example: The Indian culture, the Hindu culture, the Islamic culture, the Western culture, Australian culture, Maori culture, Chinese culture, French culture.

We are told, we are enriched by all the world's Cultures.

But what do we mean by Culture?

How does Culture differ from Tradition? Not much. The two terms are used synonymously.

But both terms originally meant opposing things. A traditition is a behaviour that is sustained through time to be forever unchanged. Customs handed down to generations without mutation.

However, a culture is a growth, a development from the past to the present. Culture is an evolution. It is a change from a status existing in history that has evolved and changed to become what it is today.

Tradition and Culture are diametrically opposed in meaning.

So why do we call the ancient practice of genital mutilation, arranged marriage, female inferiority to male as Culture?

These practices, by which people groups and ethnicities identify themselves, are called cultural. They are in fact not cultures, but traditions.

Thus, traditional culture is a phrase that contradicts itself.

We need to rescue the term culture, because it signifies a development and growth and change from what was traditional.

We thus need to stop calling traditional behaviours and beliefs as Culture. They are not Culture.

They are Tradition.

Culture celebrates the growth and improvement a people group has achieved over time.

Culture is change.

Trump Assassinations

Recently, Donald Drumpf (US President) authorised the assassination of an Iranian General, Solemani, by a Drone in Baghdad.

Two camps formed shortly after.

Those who thought Drumpf's action was correct and good.

And those who thought Drumpf got it wrong.

The argument of the former is that all bad people should be killed, full stop.

The latter argue that all actions have consequences and in this case the consequences are worse than inaction.

An issue poorly addressed is the principle behind all bad people must be killed no matter what.

It is no surprise that the Iranians are now in the process of vengeance.

Iran has already responded by attacking US forces in Iraq as an act of revenge. They are likely to continue.

The problem with the principle of killing all bad guys not matter what is its childish short-sightedness.

The assassinated party was not someone like Bin Laden who was not representing the policy of a sovereign state.

Sovereign states are different from individual terrorists. They play an integral role in global peace efforts. Thus, the assassination of General Solemani was an attack against the sovereign state of Iran.

A similar assassination occurred in Sarajevo on 28 July 1914. And look what happened. World War 1.

And that was a non-state actor!

If we believe that on principle all bad people should be killed despite the consequences, then we should expect a negative reaction from all those who believe in considered global policy and the principles of justice: e.g. fair trial.

Not all bad people are acting on their own authority. Some of them represent, by their actions, the polciy of sovereign nations who are privileged with internationally supported rights.

Drumpf has attacked Iran. This horrible nation is ready to defend itself and in the same way the US is ready.

Some bad people are tools of sovereign nations. You can break the tool, but the tool is not the problem. Why an actor has the tool is the problem.

The tool is broken. The actor has another tool on standby. How well did you address the problem?

The Narrative

Who knows anything about fashion and its whims, knows that fashion doesn't just apply to clothing.

The latest vernacular fashion includes the term Narrative.

Whatever cause you are supporting, or argument you are defending, the term Narrative will feature, if you want to be perceived as being intellectually current and sophisticated, "up with the latest" genius language.

The absence of the term Narrative in your expressions may work against you, in favour of rivals or comrades that include the term.

Everything is now a Narrative.

The term derives from the Latin verb for Telling a Story: an account of events.

But today, the term is misused to replace boring old terms such as Assumption, Position, Argument or anything that summarises in a fancy word what you are saying.

Today though, a Narrative (the noun) is not a personal account, but an objective account, closer to the social policy of a doctrine or interpretation or belief system held by many. Example, the feminist narrative.

The pretentious and the vain are quick to allude or express their wisdom and moral superiority with the latest fashion in words. This paradoxically makes it easier for us all to identify such charlatans, who believe fancy words add value to their authority. They are thus exposed. Everything you said before and after Narrative is now easily ignored and relegated to the status of Fraudulent Bullshit.

Even if what you are saying is correct, meaningful, important, you have tattooed the word Wanker on your giant forehead. Your words become subordinate to your falsity as a pretender.

To expose the charlatan to the public, you need only ask publically what they mean by Narrative and sit back as they clumsily fail to express the concept; often even using more tripe to answer the question.

We advise against the use of pretentious fashion, no matter how impressive it appears.

The Bushfire Merry-Go-Round

Bushfires (Wild fires in the US) are raging again in what Australians predictively call Bush Fire Season. 

This year has been and still is a very bad one. Many dead, thousands homeless, emergency services stretched thinly.

The curiosity is in the annual response to an annual occurance.

Every fire season, the same actions are taken by the Government and respondant agencies. The approach is reactive; putting out the fires with water from fire engines and aeroplanes.

Some prevention is undertaken every year; burning back to reduce the fuel load, meteorological analysis for planning, evacuation planning, respondant planning.

A few curiosities:

1. Nothing New is Being Done:

What is not done well and not well discussed in open is what is popularly called Continuous Improvement: can we do X better; more effective, more efficient etc.

What is missing from all the media and government discussions is the matter of whether we should be trying something else? Can we evacuate better, can we extinguish fire better, can we predict better, etc etc.

Can innovation and science and research play a role?

If it can, you couldn't tell. Nothing new has been evident.

In 2015, a private company joined the CSIRO agency to develop a new Mist Bomb to extinguish fire. Five years later.... not a peep.

In the US, homes at risk of annual tornado seasons usually have bunkers installed. The point is, there was a time before bunkers. So someone at some stage came up with an innovation. Someone asked, what can we do differently?

Aeroplane water-bombing was an innovation. Perhaps innovation is a good approach?

2. Bush fires are being responded to and managed by volunteers: e.g. the Rural Fire Service.

Why are there not professional seasonal full-time responders? 

Volunteers have day jobs. They are compelled to take time off work and are not paid. Stop press: Days ago the Federal Government proposed to employers they should provide paid-leave to volunteers. Better late than never.

Not paying for emergency services is a keystone of Australian policy. Ambulance services are all private in Australia: user pays.

Should we rely on an eternal goodwill from the community? We have thus far, but for how long? The pros are being outweighed by the cons, for the average volunteer. Why would you volunteer to face death every year for nothing? Even less than nothing, because you are going to be out of pocket for training, time away from work and family and other costs.

Volunteering emergency services is a cheap save for the government.

Is not the Government's primary role in any society to protect its citizens? This is the first line printed in Australia's Constitution. We have a Defence Force, but no Ambulance or Bush fire services.

3. Rural Planning has omitted fire season management.

The homes mostly destroyed by fire are remote from services and community centres, such as emergency services and shelters. They are usually surrounded by hectares of forests.

Perhaps some changes in rural planning can be made to address the factors that cause a fire to reach a property. Compulsory bunkers might be an idea. Separation between property and tree line? Ease of access to supporting community centres? Fire-retardant measures, external building sprinkler systems, breathing apparata compulsory. Fireproofing vehicles, compulsory.

Every year, homes are destroyed, people are injured or worse, businesses destroyed, resources exhausted. Every year, a formal inquiry into the disaster.

Climate change proponents and meteorologists predict more frequent and intense bush fires. 

Are we to plan for the next one like we did the last one?

What is Gender?

The continuing nonsense carried on with the intentional misuse of the term Gender and its relative terms, Sex, Male, Female, He, She etc, demands Our continuing response.

Further, the act of changing a term in common usage, with a common understanding and fixed clear definition, understood and used this way for hundreds of years is itself a trend that threatens basic and philosophical discussion and communication. The alternate use of terms is a problem for language.

And so here again We are compelled to reiterate and elaborate on the issue of the term Gender.

To remind us:

The term Gender has been hijacked since at least the UK Equality Act 2010, and most recently in the Gender Recognition Act 2017, to signify an ideological lifestyle held by a vast minority. The term now has a double meaning:

1. The traditional meaning referring to physical sexual characteristics among the animal kingdom. There are two Genders, discounting a third genetic mutation such as Kleinfelters syndrome; and

2. The recent conceptual meaning that a human can feel like and choose a sexual gender they are not physically. There are endless types of Gender.

So the latter use is based on a belief, poorly defined, that contradicts and attempts to redefine the classical understanding of what it is to BE a male or female.

So, the second meaning has game-changing implications for all terms and understandings of related male and female terminology, and further domino implications on society, government, law and all issues that centre around sex.

A further corollary is that the conceptual version of Gender is superior to the classic version; heirarchically similar to how Quantum physics is held superior to but evolved from Newtonian physics.

Language is organnic and yes terms evolve over time. But language is the primary tool we use to communicate our thoughts to others. This is difficult at the best of times: e.g. clear definitions and proofs.

For language to meet our needs it requires a common understanding of its terms.

Changing the use of a word will lead to confusion and require re-definition.

Re-definition cannot be one way. It cannot be unilateral. Society must adopt the changes.

Further, the meaning left behind still needs to be articulated and expressed and contrasted.

Gender means Sex type in Humans, mammals, and some other species. It is a term that signifies physical features common in some animals that play an exclusive role in the reproduction of the species. Gender does NOT signify a cognitive decision, a mental state, a subjective feeling or personal experience.

Gender is a term abbreviated from the term Sexual Gender and it has always meant, Male or Female terms that signifiy physiological characteristics that relate only to sexual reproduction and the consequences that those characteristics appear to have on physicality and behaviour and relations between members of that species to which it applies.

Gender is a term to signify physical appearance and behaviour, NOT a mental experience. Thus, Gender is observable, verifiable, consistent, internally coherent and objective.

If you change the use of this term, you are conceding that all terms currently understood in common are NOT signifying their historical use. You are calling a banana a pear. A duck a donkey.

If you accept the historical use of terms, and comply with the common understanding, you cannot change them without misunderstanding and you will expect a societal reaction, such as the myriad debates and court cases.

You cannot chose your height, your ears, or ability to give birth and, in the same way, you cannot choose your Gender: your sexual physiology.

Gender is a term that signifies a Group. A class of physical commonlity among some human beings, those being related sexual reproduction. Gender is not a term that signifies an internal feeling that you belong to another Group, defined by physicality.

To belong to a group called Women, you need to meet the criteria by which Woman is defined, and that criteria is based on sexual features, physcially verifiable.

That is the case unless you change the definition of the term Woman and thus the Group of Woman.

And that is what gender identity proponents have done. To them, gender is not physical, but mental. Gender is to them an internal experience that they say all Women share: the internal feeling that they are a Woman.

How do they know what a Woman is, if it is not a physical thing? How can you say I feel like a woman, if to be a woman is internal NOT external? You could not claim to belong to a group that is defined only by physcial features, but claim to belong because of only internal feelings. This is what we call ideology; when members of a group shares the same idea. However, the traditional use of the term Woman does not refer to ideas, but only to physcial features. So gender identity proponents have changed the ancient use of the term Woman from physical to mental, but claim the mental based on the physical.

There are physical commonalities related to sexual reproduction and manking has created terminology to discuss theses features. Today, some are tearing the terminology off its meaning and applying it to separate concept. What then happens to the original meaning? If we call a donkey a duck, what do we then call a donkey? Is a duck an animal that feels like a donkey?

The term used that far in history, without need of scientifc validation, was eventually confirmed with the discovery of Chromosomes:

The discovery of X and Y chromosomes and their proven role in sexual reproduction proves scientifically what humans have already known: there is a difference between humans related to sex.

All humans have sex chromosomes, divided into two categories, which align with their physical features. All humans with a uterus etc, have XX genes, and all humans with penises etc have XY genes. Kleinfelters is a very rare condition where a person has both male and female sexual features, but it is not a mental condition, it is not a gender in the changed sense of the corrupted term.

In this choromosomal case, science has confirmed what we already knew.

But even after all this proof, even though we have ancient historical references to the term Gender, even after all that time we still need to discuss the meaning behind the term today because a small group have decided history and science are incorrect.

We thought we knew what Gender meant and now we are told we were wrong all that time.

We need to challenge this position now because the word Gender is currently being changed to suit a minority's social acceptance. 0.8% of people require and demand 100% of people change their understanding.

So what was the requirement for the original term Gender? What was its etymology?

The modern term is an abbreviation of the historical phrase Sexual Gender. Here the noun Gender is qualified by the adjective Sexual. The original use of the term Gender, by itself, means and has always meant Type. Gender by itself is not exclusive to sex.

Thus, for example, there are Genders (called Genres) of Movies: Action, Thriller, Comedy, Documentary, Horror.

The French word for Type is Genre, and the Anglo Saxon translation became Gender after the conquest of Britain by the French speaking Normans. The French language encroached into English since 1066 and we saw the first publiction of Gender four hundred years ago.

Recently, the qualifier Sexual has been removed from the phrase for convenience, seen as being redundant, so we have the equivalent term Gender: minus Sexual. This abbreviation of phrases to single terms is common in the evolution of language across the globe. For example, the modern term Art is an abbrieviation of the term Fine Art. The term United Kingodm is abbreviated from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It appears the omission of the qualifier is now problematic, as gender identity proponents deny the relation between sex and gender in order to acheive their goal.

So, people are now attempting to change the definition of the term Gender, to signify a psychological choice about physical Masculinity and Femininity etc. for exmaple, I am a man trapped in a woman's body.

So, since its inception, Sexual Gender has referred to the two physical types of Human, based on sexual reproductive features, Male and Female.

Terms do not create their meaning. The meaning creates the term. The concept has precedence over the term. Because there are differences between Humans that acknowledge that Humans differ in physical characteristics, we have created a term to distinguish both. Male and Female. And then Man and Women and all the consequent derivatives and relative pronouns.

Today, we are expected to believe and accept that Gender, the abbreviation of Sexual Gender, is not signifying physiology, but a feeling a person has. So, a term is being used to create a meaning.

Today, Gender is said to be an internal experience, rather than a physical quality.

Gender identity proponents have changed the definition of the term Gender, because the current use contradicts their preference for choosing gender and their view that a woman can be trapped inside a man's body.

So, now we are told Gender is an internal experience only. You can feel like you are a Woman, rather than the Man you appear to be, based on physciality.

How can you feel like a Woman, if it is an internal experience? What's to stop us feeling like a goat?

How do we know what it feels like to be a Woman? So,if you are not physically a goat, you can still feel like a goat?

If we allow feelings to determine what we are, how does it feel to be a Woman? You can't know that you feel like a Woman without knowing what a Woman feels like. How do you know?

How do women feel like women? And why do we think a woman is a woman.

Ask a Woman. Ask someone who thinks they know what a woman is. Ask all those claiming to belong to the group Woman and see what the commonalities are. Then compare that with your feelings. If you don't, then you can't claim to belong to that group.

A survey of Women's answers to what does it feel like to be a Woman will largely be the same, and will be base on physical feeling and physical appearance. Internal feelings are likely to be felt as being directly caused by, derived from solely by, a physical experience.

Now knowing what it is to feel like and look like a woman, let us use the information as an empirical objective and verifiable benchmark for deciding whether a person actually is or feels like a woman.

So. What does it mean when someone says, I am a woman?

Ask these people, what do you mean?

Ask your mother why she feels like a woman. Ask the transgender person how they relate to that.

If the person answers honestly, it will become clear that they are or are not a woman.

So, what is a Woman?

Two things:

1. What claimants feel and experience.
2. What they look like.

What do women feel and experience:

1. Female puberty
2. Menstrual cycle mental consequences
3. Pregnancy

What do they look like:

3. Physical appearance: e.g. vagina, breasts, distribution of hair, muscle growth...
4. Potential for childbirth
5. Menstrual cycles: uterine bleeding monthly, uterine cramping

If you claim to have these qualities, then your claim can be verified empirically. And the determination of your gender can be acknowledged objectively.

Proponents of Gender as a choice, Gender Identity, argue that societal norms have imposed gender-specific behaviours onto humans, such as social behaviour, dress, hair style, names, colours etc.

But it is arguable whether these social impositions upon the child is the cause of this beahiour, or its effect.

If your child displays female characteristics, you may impose on them societally consistent female behaviours and labels.

Rather than imposing behaviours, the behaviours create the gender, perhaps the gender imposes the behaviour.

The consequences of redefining commonly used terms and using language in this goal-oriented, anti-scientific way are immense.

If we can choose to identify ourselves with a Group defined by physicality, but without reference to physicality, then we can identify as ANYTHING.

I can say that I feel like a lion, or a brick, or a planet or a God.

I don't have to look like any of these, as long as I feel like them. So identity is a feeling shared.

So, identity becomes ridiculous and its mention will be heckled and ignored.

There is also an insult to real Women. For a man to claim that he is a woman is to reduce women to a fluid concept that any thing can be.

Further, if we accept that Gender is a feeling, then we are forced to comply that we cannot tell the difference between men and women, until we ask them what they are and they tell us. How ludicrous.

Our newborn child is indeterminate. We don't know what Gender our new baby is. We have to wait for them to grow up and decide on what they identify as.

Further:

Transgender women demand that their decision to identify as female is not based on physical charatceristics, but a feeling. But then they make their appearance as a traditional female. This is a self-contradiction. Female is a feeling, but its expression is physical and contrasts with Males.

If being a women is nothing to do with appearance, why dress and look like a traditional woman?

Men tell us they feel like a woman, and then display their features as women. Why the need? Why the need to appear as a woman, if appearance is not an indicator of gender?

This behaviour refinforces why we know it is utter bullshit.

You cannot identify you way out of your sexual biology.

Transgender - A Practical Treatment

Transgender communities if supported by law and social pressure will detrimentally effect society and individuals.

As parents, we are responsible for protecting our children. We often do this by planning ahead and preparing for worst case likely scenarios that risk their protection.

Do we want our daughters to share public toilets with men? Some male sex predators are already using the excuse of transgender to access female areas to assualt them. Should we wait for the sexual assault of our daughters and then do something about it? Or is it wiser to plan ahead, so the assault doesn't happen in the first place?

An interim solution would be to escort our children in public toilets.

A longer term solution would be to abolish communal bathrooms and replace them with single access rooms: one toilet or changing room per person, with lockable doors.

The point is that prevention is better than cure.

We need to look at current trends with changes in society and plan for those that have new risks, currently not managed.

We need to be proactive rather than reactive.

Transgender is a trend that is starting to change and effect society and individuals. Not all of it is good.

Should we encourage our daughters to become elite sprinter athletes? If we look at the trend in transgender and the consequences in sport, we can see how transwoman (physically male) are going to beat females every time. So we should not encourage or waste resources on our female children entering areas of skill dominated by men when they will be competing with those men.

Our children are likely to start dating. Dating is likely to be via internet apps, where transwomen (men) will idenitfy in their online profile that their gender is female. Should we warn our children?

On the surface, everything looks harmless. Transgender looks like a harmless individual experience that has no effect on our lives or society. Only an intelligent consideration to examine emerging ideas and phenomena can reveal the scope and limitations, the risks and consequences. And then plan, prepare, resource and act to treat whatever is not but needs to be treated.

Why We Call things by Names

The study of why we group things that share something common and name that group with a term is vital to many current disputes currently argued globally, from the streets into the court rooms.

When a Canadian teacher can be jailed for refusing to speak a word, as the term for a group, we need to discuss why we create groups and give them a group name.

Female is a term used to denote a group that shares something in common.

Using group terms is important because it enables us to discuss things without spending hours enumerating all members of the group.

Imagine if you couldn't say female, but could only list all females or describe their individual features. How long would that take? Or imagine having to replace every name with its description in discussion.

That is what we are reduced to now. Instead of using the tools of language to convey a statement or argument, we are reduced to a discussion on the tool itself. This is fine when starting a discussion that has important key terms that are not so familiar to us, in detail, but their definition must be mutually agreed before progressing. Who would have thought we would need to discuss what Male and Female mean, what Man and Woman means?

But here we are, because some are trying to fuck with the meaning of these ancient terms. They are changing the definition of Man and Woman, Gender, Sex, Male and Female, to achieve a personal gain, social acceptance for a minority delusion at the expense of society. And we must agree to change our own use and understanding of these terms, or else.

GENERALISING TO COLLECTIVE NOUNS

As humans, we naturally notice patterns and commonalities; that some things have a quality in common with other things. This is probably a survival instinct. If we see one lion kill a family member, and then later we see another lion, we are well to define a group called"lions" and attribute the quality of killing people to that group.

The more occasions we see lions killing people, the more concrete the quality attributed to the group becomes.

The formulation of an abstract concept to a collective noun is obviously important.

Firstly we notice simmilarities in physical appearance and/or behaviour. This creates the collective noun.

Then we use this abstract concept, the term for a group with simmilar characteristics, as a means of predicting behaviour. Over time, the repetition substantiates the collective term. Who would not be worried if they suddenly saw a lion in front of them?

Some lions won't kill. Perhaps they are full, they have just eaten. Perhaps they are too old to chase. So we accept the term is not exhaustive and it becomes accepted as a generalisation.

But the point has not been lost by one exception.

Hence the practical necessity of group terms and also generalisations.

Now that we understand why we use a single term to denote a group of individuals sharing something in common, we can progress.

SEXUAL GENDER

It is a generalisation that we group individuals as Women and Men. Almost all Women have the same physicality and appearance, which other individuals do not, so the we have a definition by exclusion and simmilarity. Women generally have the ability or potential to birth a child, and do not have penises. Men do not generally give birth.

For thousands of years, the languages of people across the world have assigned terminology to describe the group, and separately from each other. All languages have ancient terms for women and men. Now, we are told this is all wrong.

Today, we are told that we cannot use such group terms that denote a sexual gender, male or female, for humans. The term "gender" means "type". The French word for type is "genre", and the Normans of French Brittany passed it to the English, who accepted the term, after 1066.

Thus "gender" today is an abbreviation of "sexual gender", male or female type.

But sexual gender is not limited to human animals. All animals have a sexual gender in the same way other animals do.

But...

No one is complaining about the equivalent use of sexual gender terms for animals. Wonder why? Seem inconsistent? We use sexual gender terms to describe animals for the same reason we use them for humans. So gender fluid proponents are burdened to apply their views across the animal kingdom.

And that is because we all share the same physical commonalities. Sexual gender refers to sexual organs, hormone types and levels, menstrual cycles, the role in reproducing, the ability to give birth or contribute to egg fertilisation, the X and Y chromosomes.

These are things you nor your dog or cat can choose to have or not. They are things assigned at conception and on display at birth. There is no choice here.

None of this has been questioned about humans, perhaps before Otto Weininger a hundred years ago. It's not questioned because the presence and quality of each is empirically verifiable, objectively evident. It is obvious that a human is a male or female. It is something any idiot can verify.

The word Man does not create a man. The word Man is an abstract concept created by a common understanding that a group of humans display the same certain physiology and that which is not displayed by other humans (i.e. Women). A human may agree that they belong to this group from observation of their physicality and then seeing the consistency between that and how they feel with other members of the Man group.

A person claiming to be a Woman, but has no physciality or experience or feeling that naturally born Woman have, is claiming they are and are not a Woman.

Why does this even need to be spelled out?

Further, the creation of sexual gender terms is organnic and pervasive and ancient. So, for the entire history of the world, every group of people on earth has created terms that denote a group sharing sexual characterisitics, man and woman, boy and girl, him and her, for example.

No DNA test is done prior to the use of the terms male and female to ensure a person is identified as one or the other. The decision to use man or woman is based on the physical appearance of the person; their conformity of appearance to meet the distinction the terms create.

You can pretend to be something. You can put a wig on, makeup, socks in a bra. You can have hormone injections and surgical reconfiguration of your privates.

But you cannot say you are a Woman but not be able to experience conception, pregnancy, childbirth, the menstrual cycle, the physicality of owning a uterus.

Besides the science, there is appearance and physicality. The adams apple, lactation, skin smoothness, muscle growth, external genatalia. These don't require science, only observation.

Those who try to mimic what they are not are not fooling anyone.

The proposition that you choose all this, you choose your sexual gender, is factually, verifiablly incorrect. You cannot choose to have a uterus, hormonal cycles, or birth and pregnancy.

Someone calling themselves a member of the group Transgender Female claim to feel like a Woman, as opposed to them being "assigned" Male from birth. They claim to feel like a Woman. How can a physical Man feel like a Woman, in the same sense that a physical Woman feels like a Woman?

How can you claim to feel like a Woman when you have never had female puberty, menstrual cycles, the effects of estrogen and progesterone, having breasts, and all the other things Woman cite as being what makes them Womanly?

Further, if they feel like a Woman, which is an internal mental experience, and not an outward physical characteristic, why go to the trouble of looking physically like a Woman? Why wear dresses, high heels, makeup, have boob jobs? Because that sounds like they believe being a Woman is simply appearing like a Woman.

Further still, how does a man know what he means when he says Woman? All he has to go on is the physcial comparison between Men and Woman. He only knows what a Woman is by observing physical characteristics. He cannot say I look at Woman and then feel like one. The two activities are not the same. One is internal experience. The other outward appearance.

This is why we can't say I feel like a lion. How do you feel like a lion? How do you know what it's like to feel like a lion? You'd need to know what it feels like to be a lion first, before comparing that feeling with how you feel during consideration and comparing that feeling to other feelings, like feeling like a dog. This is utter nonsense. Thinking something doesn't make it true.


Yet again, We argue against sophistry and illusion, and the need to express the truth. No matter how much the truth hurts, the truth will out. Bullshit is not a good platform from which to achieve truth.

In conclusion:

We call things names, because some things share qualities that distinguish them from other groups of things. If we mess with Names, we are not communicating. We are using language as a tool to achieve a selfish deceit. And that is no way to bring people closer together in understanding, empathy and compassion.

Names are humanity's way of sharing information to achieve understanding.

People need to preserve this fundamental purpose of language and...

STOP FUCKING WITH WORDS!

Unconscious Bias

The latest fad in corporate, political and social media debate is Unconscious Bias.

What does it mean and why is it being used in discussion?

The phrase is used during a conversation where two people disagree on an issue.

One party will say of the other that their view is weakened because it derives from an Unconscious Bias.

This is the latest pseudo-intellectual defence of someone who is desperate to win an argument and to win the title of "Correct View" and winner of the debate.

There is some truth to the concept behind the phrase, because it is not a new concept.

Unconscious Bias sounds like it stands for a new enlightenment, discovered recently.

It is not.

Same pig, different lipstick.

The concept that our views, beliefs, tenets, rational conclusions are influenced by our personal morality is ancient.

Influenced. Not derived from. There is a difference. And this difference is the problem.

Of course our life experience and our morality and character can influence our arguments and our positions on an issue for debate or discussion. But those arguments do not derive from this. They are at best a source of influence. That influence can be recognised and rejected by a conscious mind.

In contrast, Unconscious Bias proponents claim that your view is derived ONLY from an Unconcious Bias and that you have no control over it nor even awareness of it.

You can see the power of such a claim made against an opponent during debate.

You can say to your opponent that they are not aware that their argument derives solely from a power in their mind that they have no control over.

This means that the opponents argument is not a product of rational deliberation, logic or intellectual insight, but their argument is derived from an all powerful, unconscious Big Bang that is devoid of reason.

So instead of rationally concluding an argument or position on an issue, the opponent has always had a their view arrived at through a weakness of character than an intellectual exercise.

Therefore, the opponents argument is not rational but irrational and consequently weak, subjective and fallible.

The truth is that rational people already identify any biases they might have and are ready and willing to destroy them for the sake of truth. They may begin unconsciously, but the power of reason is in its deliberate action of seeking out what is unconscious and thus making it conscious.

Everyone has conscious biases. Biases chosen by reason or morality.

It is a harder intellectual exercise to convince us that someone has a bias they are not aware of, but that they are aware of.

The onus of proof is on the claimant, "You have an unconscious bias."

Further, if the logic is sound and the facts are empirically verifiable, then Unconcisous Bias doesn't matter. The proponent cannot argue that a valid argument is defeated by such a claim. A black cat is a cat, no matter what the Unconscious Bias.

The Truth about Obesity?

Obese people are aesthetically repulsive.

Obese people are obese because they ate too much shit food.

Obese people are weak and lazy who care nothing about their health or their appearance.

When have we heard these kinds of statements in discussion or debate?

Not often and not without being vilified and condemned.


Today, there is no acceptable public place or forum to speak your mind about anything.

Anything, let alone important issues that need discussion and free expression.

Fear of vilification or punishable discrimination now outweighs the desire to express the truth.

Thus, although the world and social media is covered in Q&A meetings, debates and social issue forums, none of the panels, speakers or attendees are free to speak their mind without the tangible threat of being attacked for their expression.

Now more than ever, we are effectively banned from conducting meaningful discussion or debate, where truth is the objective.

By truth, We mean simply saying what's on your mind: your experience, your feelings, your rational conclusions, your opinion.

So much of what we think is now offensive and unacceptable, even honest expression is forbidden.

In 2015, the British Medical Journal published an editorial "You can't outrun a bad diet" stating that lack of exercise and sedentary lifestyle had almost nothing to do with weight gain, that weight gain is mostly caused by diet. Shortly after, the editorial was removed following a barage of complaints.

Why the censorship?

Because, the truth hurts. The truth hurts, and therefore simultaneously creates a victim and an offender. The discussion is now no longer a search for truth or an activity of sharing ideas. The discussion ends and has become a trial, where judgment and punishment will be forthcoming.

Worse than the consequent absence of truth seeking and knowledge sharing are the lies, fallacies and frank false appeasement and sycophancy that replaces it.

This is a double whammy. We avoid the truth and encourage lies.

This being the result, how could we ever expect to benefit, resolve, improve as indidivudals and as a society?

If you find fat people ugly, you cannot express that. So how could we ever know what people think about fat people and the aesthetic relationship?

If fat people tell us that they are fat because they have a genetic cause or something beyond their control, how can we move away from stagnant effect to cause, and then address the cause?

If we argue against this lack of control, and that will power, competing priorities and choices are the cause, you will be prosecuted.

To most people, fat is instinctively aesthetically repulsive. But no one will ever say that in public.

Most people see a fat person and judge that the person is lazy and weak. If they are in most cases lazy and weak, then we can move forward toward the truth of causation.

If there is no problem with obesity, that obesity is good or not an issue for society to be botherered discussing, then why is it such a huge and popular topic? Why such offense, if it doesn't matter, if opinions against fat are false, wrong, bad?

No one enjoys, or takes a compliment, for being told they are fat. Nor that they are ugly.

But is the purpose of a forum that claims to be held to seek understanding, shared ideas, and resolution, actually held as the primary objective? Or is the purpose of the forum to justify a vulnerable sector of society in the continuation of their habits, to preserve and protect their feelings and to feel good about yourself for standing up for and supporting sycophantically a vulnerable group?

Is the true purpose of the rational debates really just an exercise in making all attendees feel good?

Honest debate is not concerned about feelings, but about truth. Rational. logical understanding and the benefits of philosophical inquiry cannot be achieved if they are stopped from continuing as soon as someone's feelings are hurt.

The truth hurts. And today, whatever hurts is bad and must be crushed and punished and damned. Not hurting people outweighs the truth, therefore the truth is kept unspoken and unseen.

That is the real danger.

If we can't say what we think, then we can't expect to obtain the truth, subjective or objective.

The progress of curing cancer through foetal stem cell research was all but ended by the Catholic Church and protests from the masses of people who put their personal beliefs above ending the suffering of others.

So, what remains in the latest collection of human knowledge about the world?

Lies, falsehoods and unveiled knowledge.

Fat people are not normal. They are not beautiful. They are wrong. They are aberations.

Fat people drain the civic funds when they seek treatment for fat-related illnesses, which are preventable.

Fat people literally don't fit in society.

Fat people create an instant instinctive disgust.

The truth hurts.

Clive James - A Homage - Australian Bars

[the following is an interpretation of how Clive might have addressed the modern bar culture]

Bars in Australia today are a far cry from how I remember them…

Before I was banned from entering bars in Australia.

In my day, a bar was a place you went to unwind and relax and recount the horrors of the week with friends and strangers.

Today, a bar is a place to go to wind up not down. A place where the pretence of the week was just a warm up for the real thing.

A bar is a place to dress as pretentiously as the conversation. A place to sell the best you to anyone looking. A place to get noticed, photographed and maybe just maybe to score.

The Australian bar today is not a place you go to relax, but a place you go to confirm your power, your wealth and status. It’s not a place for the light-hearted.

Ironically, an Australian bar requires no demands acute sobriety. Sitting on half a bar stool, with your gut sucked in and your muscles glowing throw a tight shirt, the bar has become a stage… where pensive reflection is pressed down and heroic persona forces its way over the sadness just beneath the surface.

Perhaps this titanic change in bar culture is a reflection of modern society’s obsession with the self. Where the weakness of realism is too real for punters to accept. Today’s bar hopper is under social contract to perform, to entertain, to keep the positive spin of the day’s latest fad.

Perhaps that’s why, I feel I don’t belong in this modern version of the village billabong. I’m too sad, too lonely and too outspoken on issues that really matter.

Perhaps that’s why I’m proud and relieved to be banned from the Australian bar of today.

The Boron

Ever get stuck with someone in a social situation and the conversation is awkward, quiet, strained, uncomfortable?

You're struggling to break the awful silence with some banter and you're failing.

You're in a social relationship with the person whether you like it or not.

You were left there by someone, or you just end up in close proximity with a person.

The nauseating silence chews at you. You have to say something.

You try the standard banter. The response is awful. It's clear this person is not into collborating with you, or their own attempts breed further awkward silence and failure to connect.

Could be you're stuck in the presence of a Boron.

A Boron is a boring person. Someone who has nothing to say that interests you and is uninterested in what you have to say.

The conversation is boring. The person is boring.

You've met a Boron.

Maybe you are the Boron. How do you tell?

Because you connect with everyone else. You have a full-on interesting conversation with others.

You notice that no one else can connect with the person.

It's not you. It's them. They are a Boron.

Run!

Toxic Masculinity

The latest slogan to appear all over social media is Toxic Masculinity.

A new name for an old complaint.

Men are bad.

Gee whiz. Never heard of that one before have we?

And like women are totally harmless, right?

The term was coined by a psychologist in the '80s.

The concept? Been around for about 200,000 years.

The term is another 2.0 version of ancient endless terms signifying the same old ancient complaints.

The term, currently used, stereotypes the entire male sexual gender.

So, weren't stereotypes bad? Wasn't tarring a whole group with the same brush a bad thing?

Oh... only when we say so.

If We wanted to stoop so low, we could use SJW arguments that the term is offensive, by SJW definitions.

Toxic masculinity as usual is another poorly defined slogan thrown around social media without any discussion of what it means. Sound familiar?

Without any definition accompanying its use, it's impossible therefore to tell what people mean when they use it. But let's have a guess.

Firstly, it feels pejorative, morally charged, superior, prejudiced, presumptuous, stereotyped, can we say negative?

Is this kind of negative terminology not in direct contradiction to the shoutings of SJWs?

Shouldn't the term be banned from speech, by the standards of the constantly offended hoi polloi?

The appeal of the term Toxic attached to the enemies of SJW, manly men, must be too much for planet-savers to bear. No definition required.

Masculinity is fine by itself. But the toxic version sounds... harmful. Bad. Must need to be treated as a problem. Removed or eradicated from society.

Papers scanned via scholarly writing sites do offer a range of definitions.

Academics qualify the term, as reference to the bad side of masculinity, especially We assume when it offends women or weak men, and society tolerates it. So, bad masculine behaviour is seen as Normalised. Society has accepted the bad side of masculinity. And now we planet-savers must campaign to destroy it.

And what do we do about Toxic Femininity?

Toxic Social Media?

Toxic SJWs?

Toxic Man-haters?

Toxic Causes?

Toxic Protesting?

Nothing.

Ironically, Misandrists accuse men of Misogyny.

How about re-focussing on Toxic Humanity? Or how about plain old rudeness?

Climate Rage

Today, Australians mass together across the three real cities in the latest privileged planet saving cause, a rage against inaction on the Climate Emergency.

Other countries kicked off the global whinge and now it's Australia's urban privilegeds' turn.

More surveys and news items are declaring the Climate as the number One concern for society; especially politicians, and you and me.

Not poverty, financial and political corruption, household debt, mental health, cuts in higher education, media control, monopolies, housing affordability, lack of effective policing, increased home invasions and car-jackings, the rising cost of medical treatment and energy, insurance gaps, the trend away from full-time work to part-time and casual, foreign takeovers, robots taking jobs, paedophile organisations preaching against sin, crushing costs of living...

No. Not that shit. Don't matter.

Climate Emergency!

Our top concern. Worthy of mass protest.

Screaming hysterical masses demand someone fix the Climate. Fuck the economy, farmers, the jobless, the disabled, the poor struggling to make ends meet. Fuck them. Climate Change is killing us right now and all our future generations are next (if we survive to have them). We're all gonna die and its our own fault (not us, but those who aren't us).

Drop everything else. We need to focus all our efforts on the climate and those evil people who fucked it up.

Who are those evil doers who destroyed our climate?

The government. Politicians. Greedy corporations. Murderers!

Questions:

How did you get to the protest? Did you walk?

How were all your clothes, cars, houses, furniture and appliances manfactured?

Where do you get your electricity from?

Why did you vote in a political party that doesn't believe in climate change?

At the last UN climate summit, where was our Prime Minister?

He decided to brown-nose Trump instead.

The devices you buy every year to tweet your rants and instagram yourselves on holiday and eating, how were those devices manufactured, powered?

All that shit food you eat, how did it make it from the farms and factories to your big mouth?

How come you don't protest outside the Chinese and Indian embassies, consulates?

The two largest polluters in the world haven't heard any demands or complaints from you. Not a peep.

You demand Action Now! Exactly what do you want to be done, and done now? Do you have a clue?

We think you're just another mob of social-media addicted, Cause-seeking frauds proudly pretending to make a heroic effort to save the planet.

I'm saving the planet! I'm so awesome.

Look everyone. Look at me, waving banners, wailing slogans, crying, yelling cliches at the world, tweeting my fingerprints off, because that's how you save the planet.

Today thousands of disrupted vehicles sit still in gridlock, exhaust pipes pumping out greenhouse gasses, waiting for the traffic to clear.

Real people are struggling to live, suffering, terrified of the next bill, the next illness, keeping their job, keeping their family together, lonely, getting knocked back by real problems.

And today you're telling them the fucking climate is their most important concern.

You fucking stupid pack of useless dishonest self-contradicting wankers.

Hope the climate joins your protest and rains on you dickheads.

Why Respect the Law?

Comply with the Law. Familiarise with it. Accept the findings of the Law. Understand what you can of Law likely to cross your life path.

But why respect the Law?

The Laws are the product of the minds of people, not an almighty God.

The Laws are made by elite individuals, Parliament, Courts, not the collective public.

Laws are not made democratically (Aristotle's version not "representational" democracy).

Laws are inconsistent across the world. In Russia it is against the law to be homosexual, but not in Australia. In some US States marijuana use and possession for personal use is legal but not in the UK.

Even within nation states the Law is still subject to interpretation of individual people.

Laws are so hard to understand the average citizen needs an expert to interpret them, a person trained for years in particular laws.

All this means that the Law is fallible and does not deserve that resepected status it holds among most.

The Law is the best thing we have for ensuring a society has rules controlling behaviour and some vague idea of a moral society.

Why respect only the best thing we currently have?

Yet in court there is no fallibility, no misinterpretation, no incorrect judgment.

Even with courts of appeal, the same respect is demanded of the Law.

It is reasonable to agree that any group of people need rules.

It is unreasonable to respect the Law.

But to praise it, to fight and die and harm for it, to use it as a moral compass, to hold it among other respected things like family, friendship and love and security, wisdom, talent, physical ability, resilience, science, spirituality, courage, sacrifice, altruism, is ridiculous and self-contradictory.

These things are not respected for their infallibility, but for their intrinsic value. These things are respected as the ends to most of our means in life.

The Law is respected for like a God, as an end for all means, for its perfection, its superiority, its heavenly power and authority above all else.

Why this mindless respect then?

The reason is fundamental. Humans have a fetish for objective truth.

Humans believe that above us all exists close but often unreachable truth, not man-made, but true in itself.

The Law is, to too many, such an entity living like a God in the heavens above us.

Like the Latin Bible, the Law is so high above the average person we need experts, interpreters, Lawyers, to study it, pass exams and explain and work it for us.

The Law is just a bunch of the latest temporary fickle rules of a particular society.

The Law changes, is often against the morality of contemporary society because it changes slower than our morality.

The Law is man-made, not carved on stone tablets by God sent down to us from the sky.

The Law should be obeyed. But the Law does not deserve our respect.

What is a Bogan?

A famous Australian poet called Banjo Patterson coined the term Bogan in his poem City of Dreadful Thirst in 1902.

"We don't respect the clouds up there, they fill us with disgust,
They mostly bring a Bogan shower -- three raindrops and some dust;

What did he mean?

He meant the term Bogan as something below standard. Something pathetic. Something that is not enough; below par. He was referring to the Bogan river, which was less than a river should be, as a metaphor for the rain. The Bogan river was a sad trickle of muddy sludge that couldn't live up to the status of a flourishing river. Banjo used Bogan metaphorically to represent the rainfall that was uttlery useless.

Since then it was used metaphorically as something below standard; something of low standard.

We can see how it was used to differentiate between groups' characteristics; sophisticated versus peasant. Different standards, often polarised, held between the two groups.

And so the term Bogan had evolved to mean something of the lowest level, metaphorically.

Today, Bogan refers to a group of people in society with the same shared low standards. Peasants.

A Bogan today is a person of low standard. Unsophisticated. Unrefined. Base.

Today, so many Australians display the same behaviour as an unsophisticated, uncivilised, unrefined person that the general public calls them Bogan.

Bogans reject civilised sophisticated refined behaviour. They see it as ponsy, pretentious, dishonest behaviour and they refute it aggressively.

Being quiet in public, reserved, patient, tolerant, well-mannered, well-dressed and well-spoken is anathema to so many Australians.

This being the case, we see examples throughout Australian society.

In fact the whole world has versions of Bogan.

In the UK, they're called Chavs. In the US, Red-necks. In France, Bouffons.

So their behaviour is predictable.

We know from the fundamental cause above everything about them; they're favourite food, music, employment, hobbies, interests, beliefs, morality, tastes, dress and bearing, attitudes to advanced societal changes e.g. gays, transgender, politics, morals, problem solving, dispute resolution etc.

They are by nature morally and politically conservative.

That's because they've identified the final acceptable standard for all things and they stick to them no matter what.

The best effort of a Bogan is their least effort.

This reverance for the lowest standards is a life-style, a belief system, a moral system.

Consequently, they promote their Bogan behaviour to themselves and their children. They are a self-replicating sub-societal sect within society.

Bogans are the proud peasants of the current era.

They also love loud noises. Loud speech, loud music, loud cars. They have no care for self-awareness. They dress outdoors like they dress at home.

They have no interest in refining themselves to the higher levels of social sophistication, but mock it.

They'd rather eat a dried up petrol station pie than a fresh well-cooked steak in a restaurant.

Bogans are the lowest form of human in a civilised society and they're proud of that.

Bogans swear and spit and burp and fart and yell and argue in public.

An impromptu dispute in the street with another party will be resolved by the Bogan with either violence or by yelling "Fuck off cunt."

When you understand how low your standards in everything can be, you understand Bogan.

They prouldy claim to speak their mind.

Bogans empty their thoughts, emotions, into speech in any social situation, like an endless shotgun.  No bullshit. This is because they reject civilised expression and controlled, appropriate behaviour. Whatever is in their skull comes bursting out of their snarling mouth without any control or planning.

Bogans aspire only base life activities: to eat, fuck, shit, drink, yell, sleep, repeat; and they do nothing to refine themselves.

That is their life goal. To exist as a caveman. A wild dog.

So what's the problem?

1. They vote,

2. They have kids,

3. They occupy some same spaces as refined people.

4. They cross our paths every day.

5. They drive.

6. They promote low standards across society.

7. They can't be argued with or de-escalated in dispute. They are uncompromising.

Further:

Having a huge proportion of society aspiring to low standards is a backwards step in the evolution of civilised society.

How do we more refined civilised types cope, manage?

Bogans simply need to be mocked, laughed at, treated with disprespect and ignored for them to become harmless abberations.

We can't eradicate this sub-sect.

Like terrorists and religious nuts, we will never rid society of Bogans, but we can treat them in a way that keeps them at the bottom of the barrel of civilisation where they belong, where they want to be.

Our New Global Messiah - Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg is a 1st World 16 year old "girl".

She is another naive imbecile on the world stage with millions of idiot followers who influences cause-seeking morons in public and public office.

Just like all the others out there with the same sickening influence and political power, Trump, Putin, Morrison, Xing Ping and other idiot leaders in Brazil, the Philippines etc etc.

Like all teenagers, she claims to have Autism, Asbergers, depression and other markers of genius and superhuman talent and insight.

Like all Millenials, she has clutched onto a globally catastrophic cause too big to understand, but believed in with the dumb verve of an evangelist religious nut job.

She's found a band wagon and taken the reigns and off she hurtles down a road to anywhere.

Her cause doesn't matter, like none do to Millenials. As long as the cause aims to stop the world from exploding, from billions of lives being destroyed unless the cause acheives a naive poorly understood political outcome and public action.

The cause doesn't matter, because it's not the cause that drives the hysteria. It's the immature teenage drivers all humans crawl through on the way to adulthood.

I want everyone to love me, respect me, follow me, agree with me, comfort me, hug me.

I want to express my self-inflicted anxiety, fear, hysteria, depression and other teen stresses caused by watching the news, Home and Away, being oppressed by my parents, teachers, authorities and stressors caused when my phone dies in the middle of a Tweet or Text, when I can't find a phone charger, when I get less than 10 Likes, when someone says something negative to me on social media.

But I don't want to earn it honestly, because that takes effort, struggle, sacrifice, patience, diligence, intelligence. Oh it's all too hard. Earning respect and acheiving valuable goals is harder than cleaning my bedroom or doing the chores for mummy and daddy.

It's much easier to Tweet, Facebook, Instagram and email from the comfort of my messy bedroom or in class at school.

When I join a Cause, I'm no longer alone. I'm respected. I belong somewhere. I'm fighting the evil authorities and the evil corporate world, the evil patriarchy. I'm a Warrior!

I'm smart. I'm superior. I'm a Hero. I'm infallible.

But oh yeah. I'm also a victim. I'm down-trodden. I'm oppressed. I'm treated like a child.

The Cause may be real. Climate change, rising sea-levels, global warming, may all be actual scientifically verifiable events. They seem to be, if you scan mainstream science and political action from international organisations like the UN.

However, the veracity and value of the cause is NOT the point for Millenials like Greta.

The point is the fundamental point of any teen, any Millenial.

I want something great for nothing.

That something has to be a huge cause that creates a band wagon of brothers resisting the oppressive authorities and in doing so, allows me to express my teen angst, exhibit my awesome childish wisdom, my moral and intellectual superiority, and turns my weaknesses into awe-inspiring strengths.

Contrarily, I want to follow causes that are laced with as many oppressed minorities as possible.

Minorities who have one, some or all of the following lifestyles or conditions:

1. Austism.
2. Veganism.
3. Gender Confusion.
4. Homeopathic medical treatment.
5. Alternative Lifestyles.
6. Homosexuality.
7. Allergies.
8. Transgenderism.
9. Disabilities.
10. Minority religious beliefs.
11. Minority ethnicity.
12. Immigrants: especially asylum seekers.
13. Obesity.
14. Annorexia.
15. Depression.
16. Anxiety.
17. Phobias.
18. Environmentalism.

Millenials like Greta seek to check off as many of these items from the lifestyle shopping list available these days.

None of this stupidity would matter, if it wasn't for a couple of serious problems for society now and in the future.

1. Adults support them.
2. Politicians support them.
3. Their stupid ideas become law, policy, societal tenets.
4. Children grow up thinking they are equal in wisdom about the world as adults or even more wise.
5. Children grow up thinking you can get anything for nothing.
6. Real wisdom and deserved respect are devalued right down to low levels.
7. Mediocrity is celebrated, promoted and is the highest standard. No higher standard is required.
8. Bullshit is treated like the truth.
9. Educators grow them.
10. They share the same platforms as real intellectuals.


Why are we adults being dictated to by naive children who know nothing about the world, nothing about the complicated co-dependent systems that struggle to keep our shitty world intact?

Has anyone noticed why no political or corporate organisations are lead by children?

Has anyone noticed why no children are Judges, surgeons, engineers, published research scientists?

Where do we find great works of philosophy written by children?

The world is far more complicated than your simplistic view imagines.

You haven't had sex, children, serious intimate relationships. You haven't suffered the harsh lessons of a long life: failed marriages involving kids, chronic physical illness, inability to pay bills, balancing your budget to sustain a household, struggling to find work and keep your job because you have dependents, struggling through years of formal study, saving for a mortgage and struggling to avoid a default. You have no idea what suffering is. You know why?

Because you haven't lived yet.

Being a child does NOT automatically grant you a life-time of wisdom.

Being a child does NOT make your understanding of complex systems like government, law, politics, sociology, psychology and human nature greater than that of leaders, experts, your parents.

Being a child makes you as simple-minded and ignorant as your short life has made you.

Parroting the latest Cause jargon doesn't fool anyone either. Big adult words you hear on TV are well-known cliches and vaccuous policy slogans used by fraudulent adults to fool adult morons.

But even adult morons have an advantage over you. They have suffered for real, they have substantial life experience.

Before you go and change the entire world with your Tweets and your ranting balling outbursts and school-wagging protests, how about you go clean your fucking bedroom, do the dishes and read a book first.

Wisdom comes with age, not watching TV or reading Tweets.

Wisdom comes from learning, suffering, adapting, experiencing life. That takes time, a long time.

And you children by definition don't have time.

The various Causes you latch onto are often very serious issues that should be actioned, discussed, analysed, broken down into their component sub-systems for debate and resolution.

The Causes you support may indeed be real, but that doesn't automatically mean you understand them. Nor does it mean you have the intellectual capability of doing anything about them, besides screaming and wailing about them like a fucking retard throwing shit at cars on the street because they're noisey and scarey.

We have one final thing to say to Greta and her childish fraudulent pathetic self-victimised, depressed anxious autistic deluded idiots of her immature ilk:

Grow the fuck up.

Until then, shut the fuck up.

Millenials - The Future

Can you imagine a future with Millenials at the helm of our societies and governments?

What characteristics define Millenials?

1. Ban all words and practices that offend anyone.

2. I deserve a high paid job no matter what.

3. Hard work does not lead to success. The rewards of success are attained by right.

4. All negative statements, acts, discussions are anathema and must be prevented, stopped, opposed and punished, without condition.

5. Everyone's a winner. There are no losers.

6. The rights of the individual outweigh the interests of society, authorities and government.

7. Anything that makes you feel bad or sad is wrong.

8. Nothing is worth war or conflict.

9. All discussions must be positive and include nothing negative.

10. Equality means equality of outcome, not opportunity.

11. Conventional beliefs are to be challenged always and doubted due to their origin in archaic, patriarchal and obsolete authority. E.g. international borders should be abolished.

12. Authority is a false concept and its manifestations are to be destroyed.

13. We are all victims and victims of multiple causes. Therefore, we all need our victimisation to be addressed by destroying the cause of our victimhood.

14. Everyone is the same, in value, in capability, in treatment.

15. If you disagree with me, you are offensive and aggressive and wrong.

16. I must have the right to speak freely, but no one else does, if they disagree with me.

17. Everyone is good, no matter what they do.

18. There are no facts, only opinions.

19. We should not sacrifice or compromise in order to achieve a greater good for society or for ourselves.

20. All men are violent and aggressive and oppressive.

21. Sexual gender is a choice.

We could go on.

But this is enough to make the point.

If our leaders, our influencers, our law makers and policy makers and our government follow the Millenial tenets above, we need to plan now for the consequences.