Ye's interview on Infowars

Had a bit of a listen to Ye on Alex Jones. Once again, there is the odd good point in a stream of consciousness with a heavy dose of Anti-Semitism.

The start seemed ok...Ye has a problem with Pornography and believes that Paedophilia is at the heart of it and all sex work. So anyone who participates in those things, is in fact supporting paedophilia.  Also said Instagram was a prostitution ring. Look, brutal, but not outside the lines. I think there is no doubt that the increased sexualisation of the world has leaked into childhood as well and resulted in a greater acceptance of deviate behaviour against children. And the rise of Instagram lead directly to the monetarisation of ordinary people's explicit images through Only fans and other platforms that impact family life. 

 Then he goes into the idea that there are acceptable and unacceptable groupings of people in society. Can talk about blacks or Catholics as a group, but not Jewish groups without being silenced. I mean, that is true. There is no doubt that Jewish groups are hyper sensitive of being grouped together based on their history and are more inclined to react negatively when portrayed as a collective that wishes ill on the world. But he does make good points about cancel culture. It is extremely selective about what earns you censure and what is allowed without comment.

And then the Hitler stuff started. Based on Alex Jones being upset about being called a Nazi and said that Ye wasnt a Nazi or Hitler either. But then Ye said Hitler and the Nazi's weren't that bad and did make positive contributions. Now again, he is not wrong that Germany during the war were responsible for various innovations and research that are still useful today (Ye mentions Autobanes and Microphones...not sure Nazis were responsible for either. If he said Jets and Rockets, maybe) But again, celebrating the Nazi regime for what ever reason is a taboo subject and any positive outcomes pale against the horrors they committed.

And that is all that comes out of the interview. Again, he leaves himself open to attack and hence people disregard some of the more salient points he is trying to make.

Rules of Manhood - according to the Goat

Dont be a victim. Change things if things aren't working.

Dont show negative emotions. Laugh and smile, but be a rock in the case of anger and sadness. Emotions make you less capable.

Strength is the most important quantity in manhood. Even if you dont have it, you need to project it.

Be as Physically capable as you can be. Exercise, lift weights, eat well

Know things. Try to understand the world

Do things. Have a purpose or theme to your life

Dont be a slave to your lust.

Find your competitive advantage

KK Ultra - Scientists who may be involved

 Martin Theodore Orne

Gordon H. Deckert

Louis J West

RK Siegel

Does Ye have a point? Not really, but exploitation of artists is rife in the entertainment industry

Been reading about the latest Kanye West controversy where he has had a go at Jewish people in the entertainment industry and how they control black people.

He isn't the first to complain about Jewish influence in the entertainment industry. Mel Gibson, John Travolta, Gary Oldman have all been critical of the Jewish influence in Hollywood. Miley Cyrus, Ice Cube in the music industry. But Kanye (or Ye as he has been known now) is probably the most influential. And the backlash has been swift. Ye has often claimed he cannot be cancelled. Well we will see.

As for the claim, to me, its a big call. There is no doubt a lot of the CEOs of parent companies of the big studios and record companies are Jewish. But they are all technically in competition with each other so the idea that they are colluding to exploit black entertainers is a stretch.

But maybe its less about collusion by Jewish people, and more about collusion of purpose. Lets not forget that ultimately the aim of these companies is to make money for shareholders. And the best way to do this is to maximise their profits by increasing revenues and reducing the costs. And the best way to reduce the costs is to sign the talent at the lowest cost that reduces their expenditure.

I think, Ye should be blaming capitalism, rather than Jewish people. And the fact that black artists may be getting less of the pie than what he believes they are due.

So what is the answer? Better negotiation of contracts is probably the answer. Ye is rich enough to start a management company for black artists. He could think about unionisation of black artists to demand a greater share of profits.

But blaming the exploitation of artists on the CEO's religion should be no where near this conversation.

Socially Responsible Socialism: Manly own Goal

 Reading with interest about the Manly NRL club coming up with the bright idea of producing a Manly "Rainbow" football jersey and then expecting all the players to wear it, without consulting the players.

Some players, mainly devout Christian Polynesian players are now engulfed in a social media storm none of their making as they are refusing to wear the jersey due to their opposition to Same Sex relationships.

Such an own goal from Manly. Here is a club who for some reason, know only to its executives, decided on their own bat to promote a LGBTI agenda on the week of a must win game. As a result, 7 players have decided to stand down, and basically Manly will lose this game.

So its been a waste of time and money and it has divided the team at a time when they should be unified and focussed.

LGBTI rights will not be moved an iota by this type of stuff. It doesnt help. Purely marketing propaganda.

Players in Environmental Activism in Australia

 Kristen Hoffman

Law Firm: Xenaphon Davis (Mark Davis)

Law Firm: Sydney City Crime (Joe Harb)

Violet Coco

Andrew George

Tim Neville

Emma Dorge

Max Curmi

Zelda Grimshaw

Jay Larbalestier

Sergeio Rebel

Sally-Anne Brown

Zianna Fuad

All these people have been part of Extinction Rebellion/Fireproof Australia/Blockade Australia, which seem to be groups of convenience for these people to perform anti-social activities.

I think we need to identify these people as they as so wedded to their beliefs it is inevitable that they will end up performing terrorist actions at some stage in the future.

Dangerous Ideas - How to bring the right back to power

With the change in Government in Australia, it is becoming increasingly clear that the right side of politics here needs to get a lot more organised in its strategic thinking. Unlike the US for example, which has developed a model to return right wing thinking to the populous, in Australia, the right is in retreat.

Which is a shame. Traditionally and historically, Australia has been a conservative nation. We need to start finding those policies and views that will mobilise the right wing and earn a path way back to power.

In the US, the right was in decline after the decline of George W Bush and the start of the Obama years. But then the Tea Party movement started, which was a focus on fiscal discipline. This then turned into Trumpism with the election of Trump whose influence is very strong in at least 2 out of the 3 areas of Governance...the legal and the Congressional Something similar needs to be started here.

A lot of the themes used in the Tea Party Movement could be adapted here

1. Fiscal Conservatism (Less Taxes, Less Debt, smaller government spending)

2. Social Conservatism (Family values, Religious Values, less feminism, less trans-activism, less LGBTI policies, less immigration)

3. Freedom (less government policy in general. Less regulation)

4. Patriotism.

But we need a framework and a narrative to couple these broad themes into action.

I was examining the use of the 5 belief framework by Eidelson and Eidelson. The idea is to view the actions of the Left through a prism of its impact on the ordinary populous to perceive them as a negative and then provide the right as a solution.

The 5 Domains of this framework are as follows

Superiority : Need to believe that the Right is superior to the Left in terms of the ordinary people. That the policies of the right will make the populous better and the left will cause harm. This could be done in the realms of morals, economics, intelligence etc. However the Left dominates in the spheres of culture and academia which is a source of concern. That said, the left dominates in those fields in the US, but has not affected the power of the right.

Injustice: Need to believe the Left are mistreating the ordinary people by taking opportunities away, making people poorer. Could be union membership denying people the right to decide what is best for themselves, less salary negotiation. Need an enemy that is either the Left wing of Government, or an ally of the left. Targets could include Unions, Teachers, the Arts (like Hollywood), LGBTI, Indigenous organisations etc. Left has been able to acheive success here around Business.

Vulnerability: Need to believe that the ordinary people are in peril by the actions of the Left. This could be regarding unemployment, standard of living, energy security, food security, defence etc. The left have been very good at adapting this message to Climate change as a source of their power against he right. The right need to apply this better as well to adapt to counter this. Traditionally this has been Defence or Terrorism. To say Climate change is so far in the future, yet China, Russia, Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to the here and now.

Distrust: Need to focus on the lies or corrupt behaviour of the Left. The left traditionally have been corrupted by money and power. The right, generally by sex scandals. The narrative that Labor is not to be trusted needs to be promoted at every opportunity. This was successfully deployed by Tony Abbott against Julia Gillard and the Carbon Tax.

Helplessness: The populous need to believe they cannot solve theses issues themselves and hence need to rely on the right and its allies for success.

So areas to focus on

1. Patriotism (Australia is superior to all other nationalities, is being treated badly by the UN and China, is vulnerable to sanctions and hostile powers, cannot trust the global environment, and needs the right policies to save them)

2. Mens rights (Men are superior to women, are being treated badly by government and women, is facing an existential threat due to policies that favour women, cannot trust women to work in our interests, needs the right policies to save them)

3. Religion (Catholics morally superior to atheists, under attack by secular policies and the LGBTI community, cannot trust government or the law to protect religious right, needs the right policies to save them)

4. Education (Learning focus in public education, under attack by private schools and teachers union which detracts from quality, Labor cannot be trusted to help with education as they are in thrall with the unions, needs the right policies to remove diversity/trans stuff from curriculum)

5. Government Spending (Less Spending better than more spending. Taking away opportunities for small business, Debt becoming unworkable, needs to be reduced, Cant rely on the left as they grow the public sector, Needs the right policies to reduce the deficit/debt

 

Australian Abortion Laws

 Thankfully in Australia, we have no issues of judical activism here. The states decide abortion rules via state based legislation. So we have the following rules

NSW - Abortion was illegal until 2019 (though not enforced). Post 2019, available on request before 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, need 2 doctors approval

ACT - Abortion was illegal until 2002. Now available on request before 22 weeks

VIC - Abortion illegal until 2008. Post 2008, legal on request until 24 weeks, after 24 weeks if 2 doctors agree

SA - Abortion illegal until 2021. New law has yet to take effect.

WA - Abortion illegal until 1998. Legal on request up until 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, requires 2 doctors agreeing

NT - Abortion illegal until 2017. Legal upon request until 23 weeks. After 23 weeks, if life in danger

TAS - Abortion illegal until 2013. Legal upon request to 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, requires 2 doctors agreement

So not sure why the yanks are so up in arms. Australia got there in the end. States should decide restrictions based on their parliaments and elected representatives. Not by unelected judges

Alito is nothing if not consistant in his reading of the 14th Amendment

 I was reading through Alito's dissent on the gay marriage case "Obergefell v. Hodges".

He has basically made the same point in that decision as he made in overturning Roe Vs Wade...that gay marriage is not a right that is "deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition" and hence not applicable to the 14th Amendment.

It is clear that Alito does not believe the Supreme Court should be creating new rights and enforcing them. He believes that  the proper place for these rights to be created is in legislation via the peoples elected representatives.

I would agree. Justice Roberts in his dissent of "Obergefell v Hodges" said the very same thing

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. "

Abortion is a contested concept. It isn't a natural right that the framers of the constitution expected the 14th amendment to protect nationally. Hence Roe Vs Wade was a mistake. The judges decided to hold a position instead of upholding the law.

It is way overdue that it was overturned and the restrictions, if any, of abortion delt with via legislation.

Roe Vs Wade - Overturn of Abortion rights

 Well the left has gone mad again about the leak draft of an opinion (reportedly the majority one) which will overturn ROE vs WADE, the Supreme court judgement that so called legalised Abortion. There are so many myths being propagated about this, I just wanted to cut through the hysteria and go to the facts.

Firstly, What was the judgement in ROE vs WADE? It was the the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment of the constitution (which is effectively the right to be left alone) means that any state law restricting Abortion had to be balanced with the states interests to make sure the health of Mothers and babies was protected. So a Texan law to restrict abortion to only those circumstances when the mother was in danger meant that the state was interfering with a woman's personal rights and hence was unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment states

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now while the judgement struck down the Texan law, it also said that abortion wasn't legal all the time, in any circumstances. The court said that before the embryo was viable, a mother could have an abortion, but after that, when there was a high chance of a baby being delivered, the state could restrict abortion.

This is why there has never been any issue with laws affecting late term abortions....the late term abortion has never been part of the Roe Vs Wade decision. In practice this has meant before 24 weeks, abortion in constitutional, but after 24 weeks, its not as the state has a legitimate interest to restrict abortion.

Which brings us to the judgement today. In Mississippi, there is a law that wants to restrict abortions to before 15 weeks. After 15 weeks, abortion would not be permissible unless the mother was at risk. The state is justifying this by saying that by 15 weeks, the featus has alot of the behaviours of a new born already and resembles a baby.

And it appears the court agrees. Says that Roe vs Wade was a massive reach of judicial activism and that the 14th amendment doesn't mention abortion, or even privacy, so the right shouldn't be protected by the constitution. Also that the right to an abortion is not a "deeply held or historical right" in the US, which is a requirement, which I would probably have to agree with. As a religious country, the right to abortion has no business being a right worthy of protection. Similar to the case of assisted suicide, that the Supreme Court found was also not a protected right, and hence states could restrict it for the public good.

So I think on the basis of law, the Court is correct in overturning Roe vs Wade, and allowing the states themselves to decide how they should restrict it. But it is going to cause no end of grief for the uneducated left wingers who only see their right to use abortion as a contraceptive taken away.

Is posting/liking on social media cheating?

I was listening to Kyle and Jackie O on Friday (28/04/2022) where they were interviewing some US podcasters who run a pod cast called Fresh & Fit Podcast. Seems like a standard male podcast that focusses on dating from a male perspective.

So far, so normal.

Anyway, the thing that caused the grief was the claim, from the podcasters that women in committed relationships should not be on Instagram, and be posting "thirst trap" bikini shots as it is a form of cheating or can lead to cheating.

Yet the podcasters seem to claim that men could still be on Instagram without penalty. It was just women that needed to self police their behaviour.

Cue outrage from Jackie O about the double standard, where women cant post, but men can.

Now obviously this is just one podcasters opinion, but it does lead to some interesting questions.

1. Why do women post bikini pictures on Instagram/social media?

2. What is infidelity in the modern world and does posting scantily clad pictures fit that definition?

3. Are women or men more prone to cheating?

4. Does the transformation from single woman, to serious relationship women require adjustments in social media profiles

5. Do the podcasters have a point.

In regards to question 1, there has been some research as to why women post selfies. Comes down to 4 main reasons, in order

1. Communication (i.e a a picture is worth a thousand words)

2. Attention seeking (get likes/appreciation)

3. Archiving (record a moment)

4. Entertainment (pass the time)

Now in regards to bikini shots, women would be either using it for attention seeking/entertainment (i.e get likes from friends and strangers), or to document a holiday they are on (would fall into Archiving or communication).

So whether posting bikini pics is bad or not is contextual. If it isn't for communication or archival purposes, it is likely to be for male/female attention, which might indicate a red flag in the relationship.

There has been some research to suggest that the greater number of selfies posted, the more negative affect on real life relationships...mainly due to the Jealousy affect of other users likes/reactions as the difference between the heavily curated online presence vs the reality of every day persona. But it is difficult to detect whether the number of selfies influences the relationship or the relationship influences the number of selfies. Likely to be a feedback mechanism involved.

In regards to questions 2,  Infidelity has been defined as a violation of a couples emotional or sexual exclusivity. But what defines that violation depends on the couples own values as well as society norms. For example, a couple in an "open" relationship  might not be concerned about sexual exclusivity, but extremely concerned about any emotional attachments with others.

In regards to a female positing pictures and receiving likes, a lot would depend on their partners acceptance of that behaviour as appropriate. As far as society norms however, most people would say that posting photos is not necessarily cheating, as it is to a broad audience, but direct messaging (DMs) would be. (survey is from 2017)

In regards to Question 3, according to research out of the US, men are more likely to report that they cheat, to the tune of 20% as opposed to women, who report 13%. That could be reporting bias however. Women are also more likely to cheat in the younger years (i.e 18-29 age, they report 11% cheating to 10% for men...the only time women are more likely than men to cheat). That said, young people are less likely to cheat than older adults

So up until age 29, the peak age of women on instagram, there is some evidence to suggest women are more likely to cheat than men, which would indicate some conccerns with instagram photos.

In regards to question 4, socially, women are expected to change when they enter a committed relationship, as are men. Behaviours that were acceptable as a single person are no longer tolerated as a member of a relationship...this can involve drinking, excessive partying, drug use, gambling and other risk taking/extraverted behaviours. It is fair to suggest that less tolerance of certain behaviours would also migrate to the digital world. One of those could include flirtatious behaviour on-line.

So the podcasters do have an element of truth here. It was badly explained, but there is an argument to suggest that posting sexy selfies as a member of a committed relationship is not appropriate for some people. But like everything, it should probably be decided by the two people within those relationships rather than blanket rules.