Does being inclusive also mean including Christians?

Israel Folau sacked: Rugby Australia hands down sanction.

“It wasn’t Rugby Australia that put us in this situation. It was Mr Folau that put us in this situation.”

The Waratahs and Wallabies fullback has 72 hours to appeal the ruling with a different three-member RA panel, however, the 30-year-old is reportedly determined to take the dispute directly to the Supreme Court, such is his conviction that he is being wrongly persecuted for expressing his religious beliefs.

“Rugby Australia did not choose to be in this situation, but Rugby Australia is adamant Israel Folau, with his actions, left us with no other choice,’’ Ms Castle said of Folau’s termination because of his controversial social media posts about gays and other so-called “sinners” he believes are destined for hell.

“Our clear message to all rugby fans today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork,” Ms Castle said.

And that’s just rugby, the most brutal form of football known to man (but few women). This is where things have moved in the US: Pelosi says ‘tolerance’ of LGBTQs is no longer sufficient.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it’s no longer enough for Americans to be “tolerant” of LGBTQs. We must celebrate and take “pride” in this community’s sexual decisions.

For myself, I await the time when movies show LGBTQ love scenes as often as they do the traditional kind. Meanwhile, what should we make of this: Trump on Buttigieg’s Marriage: ‘I Think It’s Great’. Here’s the exact quote:

“I think it’s absolutely fine… I think it’s great. I think it’s something that perhaps some people will have a problem with. I have no problem with it whatsoever. I think it’s good.”

The Eurovision Song Contest will be live from Tel Aviv

The only way the Eurovision Song Contest could have ended up in Israel was that enough Europeans voted for the Israeli contestant last year. An absolutely positive sign in its own right. The video is from Andrew Bolt, with this from the comments.

The logic of some of the Left over ‘occupied Palestine’ has always been interesting.

First, there is an assumption that a global economic conspiracy led by some Jewish Americans and Europeans keeps working people poor in the developed world.

Then, there is the contrasting narrative that Palestinians in the early 20th Century were mainly poor farmers, honestly tilling the soil and growing crops to feed their families.

Next, we come to the proposition that a few weird European politicians foisted millions of Jewish diaspora back into the same territories where Palestinians lived.

And then, the inevitable happened, in the ongoing struggle between the two groups.

What is missing is that there have always been Jews in Israel, the geopolitical construction of the entire Middle East was a 20th Century back-of-the-envelope fudge, Israel now gets on well with its rational Arab neighbours in Egypt and Jordan, and encourages Palestinians to live and work peacefully alongside Jews.

What is dangerous is that heavily-armed extremist groups, based in Lebanon, Syria and Iran particularly, are itching to wipe not just Israel but all Jews off the map.

Is that proposition really OK with some hard Leftists?

The fantastical project of yesterday

Two articles which support each other, but written 140 years apart. First the modern one, just from the other day: Ladies, Stop Trying to Have Sex Like Men which comes with these introductory words:

From college campuses to our nation’s boardrooms, women try to pursue sex the way men often do: no commitment necessary. And they’re getting burned.

Then there is this from 1871: Women’s Rights Women. The first few paras are amazing since, apart from the linguistic style, might have well have been written, like the article above, just the other day.

In our day, innovations march with so rapid a stride that they quite take away one’s breath. The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact. Such has been the history of the agitation for “women’s rights,” as they are sophistically called in this country. A few years ago this movement was the especial hobby of a few old women of both sexes, who made themselves the laughing-stock of all sane people by the annual ventilation of their crotchet. Their only recruits were a few of the unfortunates whom nature or fortune had debarred from those triumphs and enjoyments which are the natural ambition of the sex, and who adopted this agitation as the most feasible mode of expressing their spitefulness against the successful competitors. To-day the movement has assumed such dimensions that it challenges the attention of every thoughtful mind.

If we understand the claims of the Women’s Rights women, they are in substance two: that the legislation, at least, of society shall disregard all the natural distinctions of the sexes, and award the same specific rights and franchises to both in every respect; and that woman while in the married state shall be released from every species of conjugal subordination. The assimilation of the garments of the two sexes, their competition in the same industries and professions, and their common access to the same amusements and recreations, are social changes which the “strong-minded” expect to work, each one for herself, when once the obstructions of law are removed from the other points….

The advocates of these “women’s rights” may be expected to win the day, because the premises from which they argue their revolution have been irrevocably admitted by the bulk of the people.

People have been writing about “modern” women since the days of the Roman Empire. I wish everyone the best of luck in pursuing the ends they seek in that brief time we have allotted to ourselves, and I mean that with absolute sincerity. I found this quite apt, although the modern example would be to postpone marriage until well into one’s thirties while still hoping for children, but you will see what I mean.

The philosophy of the Yankee mind is precisely that of the Yankee girl who, when she asked for leave to marry at seventeen, was dissuaded by her mother that she “had married very early and had seen the folly of it.” “Yes; but, Mamma,” replied the daughter, “I want to see the folly of it for myself.”

But if you think that’s up-to-date, try this.

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

Not everything works for everyone, so no matter what the fashion is, there will always be many who want something else. What seems perennial is the desire to experiment with one’s life, a very good thing but dangerous as well.

A boy with a broad, vacant smile revealing a missing tooth

“Me — Worry?” cartoon, Stuff & Wilson print, 1914

 
That’s right, the date on that picture, along with the caption, are correct: 1914! The illustrator was Harry S. Stuff and that was his real name. For more, read here, which includes this:

Of all Stuff’s graphic design works, the one that that he is best remembered for was a poster he called “The Eternal Optimist.” On June 24, 1914, a federal Register of Copyright was granted to “Stuff and Wilson” for this illustration of what would later be described as: a “picture of a boy with a broad, vacant smile revealing a missing tooth, and large outstanding ears and uncombed hair, which make him appear half-witted. The words ‘Me — Worry?’ appear directly underneath the illustration”

This has all come out because PDT compared one of the Democrats running for President to Alfred E. Neuman.

POLITICO: What do you think about [South Bend Mayor] Pete Buttigieg? I know you mentioned him once in your rally, but do you think he’s a threat in any way?

TRUMP: Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States.

Weirdly, when asked, Buttigieg [pronunciation unknown] said he had never heard of A.E.N. which led to this comment:

“Not having heard of Alfred E. Neuman is arguably more disqualifying than resembling him.”

Absolutely un-American.

Jeopardising the ability of civilisation to continue to function

This is the brilliant picture that comes with this story: After Academia. It begins with a quote from Bret Weinstein that captures much of the intent, but if you have time, read it all.

I keep being invited to talk about free speech on college campuses and every time I’m invited I make the same point: that this isn’t about free speech and this is only tangentially about college campuses. This is about a breakdown in the basic logic of civilisation, and it’s spreading. College campuses may be the first dramatic battle but of course this is going to find its way into the courts; it’s already found its way into the tech sector. It’s going to find its way to the highest level of governance if we aren’t careful, and it actually does jeopardise the ability of civilisation to continue to function.

I will only add that the academic world is mostly about preserving and passing on ancient learning and culture, which it could do so long as universities were repositories of our Christian civilisation. Now they can still teach physics, medicine and perhaps the law, but the social sciences and humanities are a dead zone for original thought and cultural depth. Here is a bit from near the start of the actual article to give you a taste.

Premchand Brian, a friend of mine from Singapore, was until recently studying for a PhD in neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh. By his own account, he joined the UoE’s Black and Minority Ethnic Liberation Group but was ejected within a couple of months for wrongthink. “I said that ‘cultural appropriation’ is an invalid concept,” he told me, “because 1) nobody can own a culture, 2) even if ‘stolen’ the original owners still have it, and 3) cultural exchange was historically important in human progress and still helps combat bigotry. I was told my ideas were ‘triggering,’ ‘offensive,’ and ‘making people of colour feel ‘unsafe,’ so I was told to retract them. I refused and got kicked out.”

It really is gruesome.

Inventing the individual has a long history

Here’s a book you might consider if you are interested in seeing the world in a different way: Inventing the Individual.

Here, in a grand narrative spanning 1,800 years of European history, a distinguished political philosopher firmly rejects Western liberalism’s usual account of itself: its emergence in opposition to religion in the early modern era. Larry Siedentop argues instead that liberal thought is, in its underlying assumptions, the offspring of the Church. Beginning with a moral revolution in the first centuries CE, when notions about equality and human agency were first formulated by St. Paul, Siedentop follows these concepts in Christianity from Augustine to the philosophers and canon lawyers of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, and ends with their reemergence in secularism―another of Christianity’s gifts to the West.

Inventing the Individual tells how a new, equal social role, the individual, arose and gradually displaced the claims of family, tribe, and caste as the basis of social organization. Asking us to rethink the evolution of ideas on which Western societies and government are built, Siedentop contends that the core of what is now the West’s system of beliefs emerged earlier than we commonly think. The roots of liberalism―belief in individual freedom, in the fundamental moral equality of individuals, in a legal system based on equality, and in a representative form of government befitting a society of free people―all these were pioneered by Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages who drew on the moral revolution carried out by the early Church. These philosophers and canon lawyers, not the Renaissance humanists, laid the foundation for liberal democracy in the West.

And there is more here as well.

“No surrender in trying to take back our country”

UPDATE: With thanks to duncanm who has found the speech online.

Mark Latham unleashes in maiden speech: How did our nation come to this? This is only one passage in a much longer speech.

“Like so many parts of our politics that have changed quickly in recent times, there are voices here who do not believe in the virtues of the West, who do not acknowledge the nation-building achievements of our culture and our country.

“It’s like a scene from The Life of Brian, a case of: What has Western civilisation done for us? Only advanced healthcare and education; architecture, engineering, information technology, free speech and the rule of law.

“ In fact: this chamber, this parliament, in this city, all our public institutions and the material comforts we take for granted — none of them could exist without the greatness of the West. Without the advances that began with the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution and continue to this day.

“Yet still, among the Leftist elites, among the social engineers and cultural dietitians, sneering at our civilisation and its achievements has become their new pastime.

“They preach diversity but practice a suffocating cultural conformity, wanting everyone to be just like them.

“They argue for inclusion but as soon as a Christian, a conservative, a libertarian, a nationalist, a working class larrikin, an outsider from the vast suburbs and regions of our nation disagrees with them, they crank up their PC “outrage machine to exclude them from society. “

They are tolerant of everything except dissenting values and opinions — meaning, of course, they are tolerant of nothing that matters, only themselves.”

Mr Latham said this was a “Leftist curse through the ages: the recurring history of those who so badly crave control over others, they lose control over themselves.”

Lots more along the same lines with this the final para:

“ For those of us who believe in the virtues of Western civilisation, who treasure the advances and values of the Enlightenment … this is the fight of our lives. Our ethos, sir, is simple: No surrender. No surrender in any debate, in any institution, on any front. No surrender in trying to take back our country, That, Mr President, is why I’m here and what I’m fighting for.”

Après nous le déluge

It’s about when my generation disappears in the next few years: After the Boomers Are Gone, the Bloodshed Begins. It’s not that we have been so fantastic that what follows will be a disaster because they won’t be able to maintain what we left behind. It is what we have done that means that the world that follows will be a disaster, disorder will rule. It’s our fault as well. Here’s the start; you can then read it all for yourself.

The Boomer Age is drawing to its close. When one speaks of this group, it tends to mostly focus on white Boomers (not that others are outside the group, but to such a great extent, it really does mean those of mostly European background, if for no other reason than they have been the largest demographic group). When that age does end, we will see an ever dwindling European demographic majority in many Western nations (Canada and the USA are almost certainly the first, soon followed by a variety of European nations). That significant point of majority will be fading, as the numbers precipitously drop until below 50%. The question looming then is, what is next? Will it be the glorious Brave New World of harmonious multiculturalism or an uneasy balkanization that trends ever more to tribalism and violence? Based on existing evidence and studies, I believe that it will be closer to the latter.

Will just finish off with the author’s bio:

Cam’s a married father of three. Born and raised in Canada, he currently lives on the left coast of Canada, notorious for its milder winters and liberal thinking. He’s a university-educated educator, blogger, former generally indifferent employee within the financial sector, and failed musician. A Christian of what has usually been termed politically conservative leanings, he prefers to be labeled a realist at this time, mostly for lack of a better term, as too often conservatives have been little more than slow-motion liberals.

You might also read the thread at Lucianne.com where the article was found. The optimists are the ones who think they will be able to defend their way of life. The realists are the ones who see a Dark Age coming.

And now for something completely different

I found these were actually funny. Sent to me by Tony and now passed on to you.

These great questions and answers are from the days when “Hollywood Squares” game show responses were spontaneous, not scripted, as they are now!

Q. Do female frogs croak?
A. Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water long enough.

Q. If you’re going to make a parachute jump, at least how high should you be?
A. Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.

Q. True or False, a pea can last as long as 5,000 years…
A. George Gobel: Boy, it sure seems that way sometimes.

Q . Paul, what is a good reason for pounding meat?
A. Paul Lynde: Loneliness! (The audience laughed so long and so hard it took up almost 15 minutes of the show!)

Q. You’ve been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
A. Don Knotts: That’s what’s been keeping me awake.

Q. According to Cosmopolitan, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think that he is attractive, is it okay to come out and ask him if he’s married?
A. Rose Marie: No, wait until morning.

Q. Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
A. Charley Weaver: My sense of decency..

Q. What are ‘Do It,’ ‘I Can Help,’ and ‘I Can’t Get Enough’?
A. George Gobel: I don’t know, but it’s coming from the next apartment.

Q. As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while talking?
A. Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing old question Peter, and I’ll give you a gesture you’ll never forget.

Q. Paul, why do Hell’s Angels wear leather?
A. Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.

Q. Charley, you’ve just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during the first year?
A. Charley Weaver: Of course not, I’m too busy growing strawberries.

Q. In bowling, what’s a perfect score?
A. Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.

Q. During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
A. Rose Marie: Unfortunately Peter, I’m always safe in the bedroom.

Q. Can boys join the Camp Fire Girls?
A. Marty Allen: Only after lights out.

Q. When you pat a dog on its head he will wag his tail. What will a goose do?
A. Paul Lynde: Make him bark?

Q. If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
A. Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark..

Q. According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
A. Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army.

Q. Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
A. George Gobel: Get it in his mouth.

Q. Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
A. Charley Weaver: His feet.

Q. According to Ann Landers, what are two things you should never do in bed?
A. Paul Lynde: Point and laugh