This week started badly. The activists of the Umma decided to go full jihadi. It got weirder and weirder. A London event was being run to rehabilitate offenders — both the jihadi, one of the two murdered and one of the defenders came from that meeting. The locals stopped the jihadi cold with improvised weapons — he was using an (officially banned) knife in a city that has banned knives. I don’t know how you are supposed to prepare food without one — and I’m not the trained chef in the family. Kea is. Part of the problem is that supervision of at-risk people is expensive. From the Guardian, of all places.
The answer has to be viewed against a background of prison and probation services that have faced part-privatisation and cuts, under austerity, of 40% in funding during the time that Khan was in prison. Prisons have had to cope with record levels of violence, assaults and suicides.
As the former chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, put it on Sunday: “Let’s be clear. All this talk about longer sentences, deradicalisation programmes and closer probation supervision – who, precisely, is going to do this? These are services in crisis, haemorrhaging experienced staff and struggling with chaotic reforms.”
Official concern about slow progress in turning prisoners away from terrorism and concern about their release into the community emerged as long ago as 2011.
A Home Office review of the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy revealed that there was “no proven methodology” and the bespoke programmes that had been developed had “only reached a small proportion of the target population and have not kept pace” with the increasing number of releases of terrorist prisoners.
Australia has a simpler solution. When the alleged offenders have served the requisite period of incarceration, they deport them to their country of origin. Length of time in Australia is irrelevant. NZ gets such who have lived in Australia from early childhood. In short: they need to go back.
Meanwhile, the woke Climate Crisis (activist generated) is quietly imploding into incoherent screeching.
Notice the words “need” and “must” here? Notice also the word “crisis.” This is a rhetorical tactic beloved by totalitarians. The problem with which they are obsessed is always a crisis, which demands immediate action — “we don’t have a single day to lose” — and anyone who doesn’t share their sense of dire urgency is dismissed as morally inferior: “We cannot just say we care; we must show it.” In other words, you must either show that you care about this issue as much as young Greta does, by doing whatever it is she demands that you do, or else you are to be classified among the untermenschen, subhuman, without any merit or value. You either join her in the work of dismantling “systems of oppression” or you are Lebensunwertes Leben — “life unworthy of life,” as the Nazis described those whom they targeted for eradication.
Autistic people often lack the self-awareness necessary to see the contradictions in their own beliefs. Notice how Greta Thunberg speaks of a “crisis of human rights” even as she demands totalitarian authority to implement measures that would negate basic liberties. You cannot negotiate with such people; they crave absolute power, and will never be satisfied with any compromise or moderate reform measures.
But please, whatever you do, don’t silence Greta Thunberg. Let her keep yapping away on national TV with that demented glare in her eyes for, say, the next 11 months or so, wrapping herself and her agenda around the neck of the Democratic Party, so to speak, and thus dragging them down to defeat next November. She’s so perfect, really.
The Original Australian colonists were the quite Anglican, antiCatholic British Army, and the fairly catholic convicts (including, probably, Irish convicts). There is an antipapist streak among the progressive, woke clerisy. It will start with the Catholics and then the Pentecostals, for they are not converged, gelded, and ineffective (the mainline churches in Australia, which are effective, such as the Sydney Anglicans, are not praised, but damned as well). Adam reports that this is coordinated.
The incredible thing is that nobody has really commented as far as I can tell on who this law will specifically target. It’s not child abusers, that’s for sure. The real targets for this law are the priests themselves. This is an outright attack on the Catholic Church, make no mistake about it.
Think about it this way; the only way in which the law would discover if a priest had not reported a child abuser in his confessional is if the child abuser himself reported the matter to police. Now there are only two circumstances that I can identify that an admitted child abuser would dob in a priest, because we must keep in mind that by doing so the child abuser damns himself in the process.
In the first instance the child abuser has been caught and wishes to reduce his sentence by plea bargaining. All he has to do is dob in his local priest for not reporting him when he made his confession. From a legal standpoint it could then be argued that the child abuse committed after that moment was the fault of the priest, since if he had reported it to the proper authorities it would have been prevented.
Would proof of the accused visiting the confessional be required? The last time I went there was no day-book to sign before confessing my sins. Of course the priest never saw me, and nor I him.
The second example would be a stitch-up; a fake child abuser sent to a confessional to see whether or not the priest would report it. Of course, the defense would argue entrapment but remember that the process is the punishment. This law is designed to get priests second guessing their actions in the confessional. A few fake examples to ruffle the feathers and then priests would find themselves in a bind.
Freedom of speech is mindlessly crowed by just about everyone these days, but the historical precedent for freedom of speech was the separation of the Church and State. This action meant that the State could not bully the Church if religious leaders found that political leaders needed to be criticised. Likewise, the actions of the Church were apart from that of petty politics. It was one of the major events that helped define Western civilization and we are beginning the process to throw it away.
In all honesty I feel that this will be good for the Church in the long term. The Church always does quite well when it is being actively persecuted by the State and now we see that beginning in Australia.
This is not going to end well. The current shibboleth is around racism: any words seen by the woke as “casual racism” are damned, and the person shamed by the kangaroo committees.
Note to the ODT: Twitter is not a court, and Tremain is funny. Do not let yourselves be ruled by the woke. They reliably destroy: the woke papers are losing readers much faster than the ODT, which reports local news.
But too late.
The Otago Daily Times has apologised for an insensitive cartoon that featured in its newspaper this morning about the Samoan measles outbreak.
The cartoon, illustrated by Garrick Tremain, shows two women coming out of a travel agency with the caption reading: “I asked ‘what are the least popular spots at the moment?’ She said ‘the one people are picking up in Samoa’.”
In a statement on its website, editor Barry Stewart wrote: “Today the Otago Daily Times published a cartoon making reference to the measles crisis in Samoa.
“The content and the timing of the cartoon were insensitive, and we apologise without reservation for publishing it.
The Bright Nationalists
Stacey McCain gets it. He supports the wrong code (Gridiron), but he gets it.
He also knows that for a tribe to survive, it must produce a new generation. The people you import only become your tribe if they marry in and accept your customs over four or five generations. This is why Pakeha New Zealanders are a nation, a tribe: we left England, and for the last three generations it has been quite clear that we can’t return. My children are the sixth generation of my family here, and we now have our own nation. I am proud of my heritage, and Stacey should be proud of his.
The column I was working on will not be posted until this afternoon, but it involved accusations of “racism” against a conservative, and let me say this: I am proud to be an Alabama-American. Although my parents immigrated to Atlanta before I was born, my ancestral roots in Randolph County are deep — two of my ancestors served in Alabama regiments during the War for Southern Independence, and my father graduated from the University in 1950, so I was raised with an Alabamian identity. Human beings are tribal by nature, you see, so that despite growing up in Georgia, my affinity was always for the tribal homeland, so to speak.
Team spirit is an expression of man’s tribal nature. Humans are social creatures, so that those Enlightenment philosophers who theorized about man in a “state of nature” — a solitary creature, totally free and ungoverned by any system of law — were all just eloquent fools. Even if one is an atheist Darwinian fanatic (which I’m not), it should be obvious that our most primitive ancestors who deserve the title “human” could not have survived without cooperation among their kindred, so they were governed by the Law of the Tribe (i.e., whatever shared customs were required to secure the necessary teamwork) long before they developed any means to codify their tribal laws in written form.
Furthermore — and this is something that most intellectuals ignore — we are not the descendants of failures. If any primitive clan of paleolithic hunters could not develop a shared code of moral norms and social custom that enabled them to survive natural hardship and to successfully compete against rival clans, those primitive humans did not survive to produce progeny. We are the descendants of the survivors, so that our very existence is flesh-and-blood testimony to the efficacy of our ancestors’ Law of the Tribe.
I was talking to Kea about avoiding walls of text, and that confidence brings brevity. At times there are nuggets of truth. Women, do study your Shakespeare, as our learned sister points out.
If there is one thing Shakespeare provides, it’s the opportunity to consider the complexities of human nature and conduct. There really is, to quote King Solomon, nothing new under the sun, and it’s usually a straight line between someone we know, perhaps ourselves, and a Shakespearean character’s foibles.
Elspeth has a term I have not used, though they used to exist in NZ: the shadetree mechanic. The bloke who fixed his cars and helped his mates for a few beers. She’s correct: modern cars are too complex for this, and the term, sadly is disappearing.
New to me, but excellent, is up with marriage. This is true for Gentlemen and Ladies.
Marriage can be a good litmus test to find out if there’s a disconnect in our theology. When our claim to God is all about the grace we’ve received from Jesus the Saviour, to the exclusion of the grace we give to one another through Christ the Lord, we’ll be unbalanced.
Biting and devouring in conflict, disagreements and disharmony, separation from each other and failure to give grace to our brothers in Christ: these are evidences of an unbalanced Christianity. When my focus is only on what I’ve received from God instead of how I can live for Him, there’s a disconnect between how I talk and how I walk.
Children first crawl so they can walk and they first babble so they can talk. We first receive grace so that we can mature and give it away in obedience. The longer we live in the “Saviour” mentality – tightfistedly hanging onto grace – the more selfish we are … the more unbalanced we’ll seem, like a 18 year old that acts like a 12 year old.
When my faith has embraced Jesus Christ as both my Saviour and the LORD of my life, inevitably it will transpire into my marriage.
While on marriage, Evolutionist X has this about the engagement and ceremonyy. For what it is worth, Kea did not want a diamond. She got a Ruby, instead.
People who spend more on diamonds (and weddings) get divorced faster, but it appears there is a sweet spot for rings between 500 and2000. Not having a ring at all might spell trouble, for going below 500 also increases your chance of divorce–but not nearly as much as spending over2000.
The sweet spot for the overall wedding is… below 1000. This is a little concerning when you consider that, according to PBS, the average couple spends about30,000 on their wedding.
These finding may have an immediate cause: debt is bad for marriage, and blowing $30,000 on a wedding is not a good way to kick off your life together. There may also be a more fundamental cause: people who are impulsive and bad at financial planning may also be bad at managing other parts of their lives and generally make bad spouses.
Quotes for the week>
Rugby Australia Settled with Israel Folau.
Needless to say, the elite hate this. If you are a Christian and fight back, you are greedy filth. Catallaxy files gets the history right.
These were exactly the kind of things said against Cassius Clay in the 1960s after he changed his name and made a number of unpopular statements of religious principle. Eventually, boxing in the United States also surrendered to legal and moral reality. A difference in contemporary Australia is that haters have fought even harder to keep a champion out of work and out of the ring. “People can be bigots if they want,” says Webster. Sure they can but in the Folau case, it just cost them several million dollars.
Zman: yes politicians are weird. Something about selling your soul for power.
I’ve made this point about cutting the cord, but it applies to following current events as well. When you step away from this stuff for a while, coming back feels like you are entering a strange new world. Like Hollywood, the people engaged in politics have always been weird and alien. When you see it every day it is a familiar weirdness that you just accept. Go away for a while then come back to it and you see that our ruling class is foreign and deranged.
Adam on our mandated hypocrisy: from his link post. Well he lives in the EU, where this is rife.
Actually, that’s not true at all; it’s a bare faced lie. We couldn’t give three shits about your privacy. Your precious and overrated privacy can go and burn itself up in a dumpster grease fire for all we care. Why is it then that whenever we visit a website for the first time we are accosted by this ridiculous slogan and a mild exhortation to accept their cookies that will enter your computer like mindful little virus worms and eat out its insides with a spoon?
I suppose it’s because in some parts of the world governments have passed laws stating that that sort of thing is naughty and if you’re going to do it then you have to let people know first. Which brings us back to the we value your privacy bit. I suppose in a way it’s true; they do care about your privacy which is why they want to get access to it for their nefarious needs. And every time we press the okay button a little part of our computer’s soul dies in an Orwellian malaise.
That’s all folks
That’s all for this week. In real life, we have had children graduate, Kea is healing up slowly, and the Christmas social events are stacking up. The traffic is crazy, but we have been (praise God) spared fire and flood.
May God bless you all this week. Do not be of this elite. The the precise opposite of what they preach, and you will generally do well.