tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66072269801249325812024-03-28T20:28:34.825-07:00Malcolm's Musings: MiscellaneousScience, history, religion, politics, language, literature, and more: this blog includes everything which does not fit into my other blogs. It therefore should have something for everybody, so feel free to browse.Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-28493443248888591262024-02-26T17:04:00.000-08:002024-02-26T17:04:22.251-08:00Aboriginal Issues Despite being an Australian, I have a significant library on the North American Indians, mainly because they had a wider variety of lifestyles to those of our own Aborigines. They were hard done by by the Americans. However, that does not mean that their lifestyles were idyllic. The tribes tended to break down into two categories: the predators and the prey, the latter being the smaller tribes. Constant warfare was the order of the day, sometimes with unimaginable cruelty.<br /><div> The Australian Aborigines were also hard done by by white Australians. But that also does not mean that their lives were idyllic.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div> Like most of the human race for most of history, they were hunter gatherers. In the South Australian Museum you can see Aboriginal stone tools on display next to almost identical ones from Europe. The fact that they progressed no further was not their fault, but the fault of the country. The Australian flora is poorly suited for the development of agriculture, and its fauna even less suited for domestication.</div><div> Traditionally, the Aborigines went about stark naked. Even the occasional string pubic apron was an exception to the rule. Their houses were the most basic of shelters. In summer, when we swelter in humid heat, and I need to apply sunscreen just to walk around outside, I appreciate why the original inhabitants were black. However, when people complain about the cold in wintertime, I also say, "On days like this the original inhabitants wore nothing at all." It must have been particularly bad in the southern states, where winter is also the wet season. Sure, they had possum skin cloaks, but their feet were always bare, and you can't hunt kangaroos wrapped in a possum skin robe. I can't imagine what it must have been like for mothers of new babies during the rainy southern winter, because no white man ever visited their camps at such times to inform us. I notice that not even the "back to nature" crowd want to discard clothes, blankets, and solid buildings.</div><div> Hunter gatherers adjust poorly to settled life, because their customs are so different, beginning with their child rearing methods. Hunter gatherers train their children in self-reliance, whereas settled people, even the more primitive ones, train them in obedience and respect for property. Thus, a Zulu boy would be put in charge of a herd of cattle, and would be severely punished if he let one get lost. His Aboriginal counterpart, however, would be allowed to eat the small animal he caught, being freed from the rule of sharing imposed on the adult hunter, because they want him to grow up to be an effective hunter.</div><div> In a hunter gatherer society, when the food becomes scarce in one area, they move to another. If there have been personal quarrels, they make sure that when the new camp is set up, those involved are living apart. In other words, hunter gatherers solve problems by walking away from them. Little facility also exists for the storage of food, or the accumulation of wealth, so hunter gatherers stop working once they have achieved their immediate aim. They work in order to buy leisure. There is evidence that urban Aborigines have carried over these habits into city life, where they are inappropriate. Furthermore, Aboriginal society had the laudable custom of sharing. When a hunter brought in a kangaroo, it was divided up according to a rigorous formula, ensuring that those unlucky in the hunt didn't miss out. Unfortunately, this custom is one of the biggest obstacles to advancement in civilisation. Any Aborigine who earns significant money is immediately set upon by relatives intent on getting their cut. There is even a name for it: "humbugging", and it ensures that no individual can succeed by hard work.</div><div> Although it is not specific to hunter gatherers, an important part of child rearing among the Aborigines was the initiation. Children were, by and large, indulged. However, the boys at least knew that when they entered their teens they would be put through the initiation into manhood, a ritual intended to knuckle them down under the authority of the older adults. Secret religious beliefs would be explained to them. More to the point, they would go through a long series of phases in which certain foods were taboo, and it was tabooed to speak to certain relatives. Whenever an adult male spoke to an initiate, the latter had to stop and think whether he was allowed to reply in words. Men who went through such an initiation developed strong self control. However, nowadays a lot of the males are not initiated, but they are still molly-coddled as children. The result is that many of them are not the men their grandfathers were.</div><div> Frequently, initiation involved painful procedures which the boy was supposed to accept manfully without murmur - procedures such as knocking out a tooth, or the cutting and scarification of the chest, or circumcision (with stone knives). The desert tribes used to, and may well still do, practise <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision" target="_blank">subincision</a>, in which the bottom of the penis is cut open to expose the urethra. Often, while the boy was being initiated, one of the older men would further extend his own subincision. The tribes who practised it insisted that sex was more enjoyable for both men and women if the man was subincised. It is a contention I have preferred not to put to the test.</div><div> In the desert life was hard, but even in the best of climes feeding all the extra mouths was not easy. Infanticide ran at thirty to fifty percent.</div><div> Needless to say, Aboriginal religion was, and is, superstition. They would will themselves to die if a witchdoctor pointed a bone at them. They lived in terror of the kurdaitcha man, the tribal executioner who walked on shoes of emu feathers to avoid leaving prints. When a person died, his name became taboo, lest his ghost hear it and come back to trouble the living. (Is this also the reason for avoiding photos and tape recordings of deceased persons? This is obviously a new custom, but nobody ever asks the rationale for it.) The C.S.I.R.O. (that is the Commonwealth <i>Scientific</i> and Industrial Research Organization) actually endorsed the ubiquitous smoking ceremony as <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/01-02/smoking-out-evil-spirits/" target="_blank">driving out evil spirits</a>. Does any scientist really believe this? Ditto such things as the Rainbow Serpent and the Lightning Man. As a matter of respect, we should not desecrate their sacred sites, but we do the Aborigines a disfavour if we talk as if we consider there is any validity in their superstitions.</div><div> Traditional society was violent. Constant raiding for women and blood feuds ("pay back") were an endless source of killings. In Arnhem Land during the period 1909 to 1929, there were 200 men killed in pitched battles and smaller raids - all this is a population of about 3,000, making an average annual casualty rate of 1:300. William Buckley, who lived for three decades among the Wathaurung of Victoria before the commencement of white settlement, witnessed 50 violent deaths. Although cannibalism was rare among the Aborigines, it was well attested on the Cape York Peninsula. Even during "normal" camp live, there was a tendency to bring out the nulla nullas when quarrels arose. The anthropologist, M. J. Meggitt, who worked among the Warlpiri in the 1950s ie before the introduction of alcohol, recorded how, with the egging-on by the women such fights would envelope half the camp.</div><div> <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/" target="_blank">Violence against women</a> was endemic and universal. The earliest white settlers reported women repeatedly being bashed on the head with clubs for trivial reasons. Examination of thousands of bones spanning a period of 50,000 years revealed evidence of female head injuries indicative of being hit with clubs, usually from behind: 20 - 33% in the tropics, 44% around Adelaide - much higher than on male skulls.</div><div> Polygamy was uncommon among hunter gatherers due to the difficulty of a man in supporting more than one family. However, the Aborigines got around it by their custom of sharing. The older men monopolized the women while the younger men, as often as not went without. Husbands were a generation older than their wives, and girls were married off very young - sometimes as young as eight. Meggitt reports how, if a man already had a wife, the new prepubescent wife would be left alone for a while, but if he had no other wife he would enthusiastically copulate with an eight year old girl. When women are hitched with men a generation older, and every man had to wait until he is 30 or even 40 before he can marry, you can imagine the sexual tensions in the society. While the older men had multiple wives, every woman ended up passing through several harems during her lifetime. The irony is, you will read on the internet that patriarchy did not commence until the invention of agriculture.</div><div> Nothing of this is controversial. It is all well documented. Looked at objectively, what is the value of traditional society? Is there any manner in which it can be considered superior to ours?</div><div> What about the present day? It is no secret that their lives, particularly those of the full bloods in the remote communities, are inferior to those of white people in almost every measure. Their economic level is pathetic. They are more than ten times as likely to end up in prison. Their lifespan is lower by a couple of decades. So what are the major barriers which stand in their way?</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Firstly, there is the obvious fact that most of the tribal lands are situated far from industries. What sort of industry is likely to develop in the heart of the desert, or along the coast of Arnhem Land? White people move to where the jobs are. Capitalists start their enterprises where the people are, or where the resources they need are available. In many cases, that means leaving the tribesmen behind.</li><li>As mentioned previously, many of the customs of a hunter gatherer society are counterproductive in the modern world.</li><li>Lack of education. Universities provide scholarships and special facilities for white people with some remote Aboriginal ancestry. However, in the remote, largely full blood communities the main trouble is getting the children to attend primary school rather than play truant.</li><li>Lack of English skills. This relates back to the no. 3. In the past it was the older generation who lacked English skills. Now, all too often, the elders can speak it but the youngsters are woeful.</li><li>In traditional society adults were pretty healthy. Now their life span is much reduced. However, on observation this will be seen not to be due to infections, but to lifestyle type diseases e.g. those due to alcohol, tobacco, junk food, and violence.</li><li>And most of all, there is the baleful lifestyle of the remote communities, crippled by alcohol, pornography, and welfare i.e. "sit down money". Traditional society was violent, and women were treated as a lower form of life, but the level of violence is remote communities is <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/when-the-horrific-is-mundane-part-iv/" target="_blank">so horrific</a> it is hard to contemplate - along with the <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2020/10/three-names-that-should-haunt-us/" target="_blank">sexual abuse of children</a>, which was rare in the old days. I don't know of anybody who denies these facts.</li></ol><div> The half-Aboriginal Senator, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the face of the <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-rare-defeat-for-establishment.html " target="_blank">"No" campaign</a> against the Voice, ruffled the feathers of the usual suspects when she said that modern Aborigines do not suffer from "colonisation". However, looked at objectively, how are the above problems the fault of white society except in the most general way? The authorities want Aboriginal children to attend school, not to wag them. It is not the fault of white society that it is uneconomical to start industries in remote tribal areas. I suppose one could say that alcohol, tobacco, and pornography were introduced by white society, but they are "gifts" which the Aborigines are perfectly capable of rejecting. Looked at objectively, also, these problems are structural and long-standing. They won't be easily solved by Government action.</div></div><div> It is equally obvious that the old, tired explanation, "racism" doesn't apply. On the contrary, if these conditions disappeared, so would a lot of prejudice against Aborigines. There are a few people who, for some unfathomable reason, simply despise people different from themselves, but for most people prejudice is something which comes with having negative experiences of the group in question, and extrapolating from there. As for "systemic racism", if you ever see an explanation of what this is supposed to be, you will see that it accepts, totally uncritically, the supposition that, in the normal course of events, all groups would end up exactly equal in all respects, and the only reason it doesn't happen is that the better off group is somehow suppressing the other. Remove that supposition, and the whole house of cards disappears.</div><div> As for "compensation" or "reparations" or "paying the rent", I've noticed that all the Aborigines (mostly light skinned) advocating such things are wearing clothes. I'm also prepared to bet that the sleep on mattresses under solid roofs, use metal tools and cooking equipment, and, when they get sick, go to a doctor. None of these were available in traditional tribal society. If this isn't compensation, what is? Dispossession was not pleasant, but that was a long time ago. No-one wants to go back to the traditional lifestyle. The problem is integrating Aborigines into modern white society.</div><div> For that matter, I have serious doubts about the value of "land rights". No-one is trying to turf Aborigines out of their homes in order to make money, and even if they were, the practice should be illegal without asking if the current occupants of the relevant area were the traditional owners. Land rights legislation typically holds up economic development of a site while rival Aboriginal groups squabble over who the traditional owners really are, and then they squabble over what sort of royalties or compensation should be involved. What they really should be concerned about is setting up industries and providing work for the local Aborigines. They need to be integrated into modern society.</div><div> There is one other point that needs to be made. A small racial or ethnic minority can survive only if it remains poor and marginalised. Once they become prosperous, the individuals move out of the ethnic enclave, marry into the greater society, and become assimilated to it. The <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26067980" target="_blank">Jews</a> are aware of this, and recognize that in the Diaspora assimilation is destroying their identity. In New Zealand a lot of people identify as Māoris, but few if any of them are full blooded. Likewise, when the Aborigines eventually cease to be poor and marginalised, it will mean the virtual extinction of full blooded Aborigines, and a major connection with the remote past will have been severed. It is not something I relish. I would like to see the Aboriginal race remain a distinct branch of the human family indefinitely, but not at the expense of the suffering of the individuals.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-64797410640373041552023-10-15T20:33:00.001-07:002023-12-02T17:29:25.603-08:00A Rare Defeat for the Establishment <b>2023</b>, and another Australian referendum bites the dust! Australians are wary of changing their Constitution. They know that if they make a mistake, they will never be able to fix it, so if any significant group opposes the referendum, they vote No. And this one was especially egregious. Ignoring the bread-and-butter issues with which the people were really concerned, the Prime Minister had made it his priority to establish an Aboriginal "Voice" to act as an addition to Parliament. It could have been established simply by legislation, but for reasons on which we may speculate, he wanted it in the Constitution. As for the details - its size, the cost, the choosing of its members, and everything else which might interest the population - these were ignored. The great unwashed citizenry were not supposed to know anything as trivial as that before they affirmed their masters' plans. The result was predictable: 61% No to 39% Yes. Just 90 minutes after voting closed in the eastern states, the referendum was declared lost. But that was only half the story. <span><a name='more'></a></span><div> The fact is, this was a rare victory for us, the general public. The whole darn Establishment was against us. All the state Governments supported the Yes campaign. So did the 13 biggest commercial enterprises, nearly all the major sporting codes, two universities, and a couple of churches, not to mention a whole swag of celebrities. How could so many agents of the Establishment get it so wrong? And why did they do it?</div><div> Some of them no doubt genuinely believed the Voice was a good thing. However, while CEOs and board members presumably have their own private political and social views, they normally don't use their organizations to support them unless they actually affect the organization. A lot more, I suspect, were simply virtue signaling. They dwell in a left wing bubble, and genuinely believe that all these politically correct views were mainstream. Also, many of them probably wanted to cosy up to the Government. As the CEO of BHP put it, it was in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOZoW2Fi54" target="_blank">best interests of the company</a>. It should be interesting to see how they now square it with their shareholders, members, customers, and other stakeholders. </div><div> Even so, it is rumoured that two donations of a million dollars each were made to the No campaign on the proviso of anonymity, because nobody of substance wanted to be seen to be a No supporter. Just the same, the Yes campaign spent five times as much as the No campaign. It was a David vs Goliath battle. However, as I <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/flogging-dead-horse-of-republic.html" target="_blank">mentioned before</a>, the leftist "long march through the institutions" ends at the Constitution, because the general public (drat it!) have to have their say.</div><div> <b> 2016</b>. It has been frequently pointed out that this was Australia's "Brexit moment". The UK Conservatives had a problem: too many of their members wanted to leave the EU. They were bleeding members to UKIP. Also, many were cheesed off because they had passed a law that <strike>two nuts or two screws could make a bolt</strike> two men or two women could make a marriage. So they decided to throw them a sop: they could have a referendum on leaving the EU. They then campaigned against the issue, predicting terrible results if it were successful - not realising that, even if "Project Fear" were accurate, the leavers were more concerned about getting their country back. Shock, horror! The people voted to leave. The Government was left wrong footed, and because their hearts weren't in it, they refused to negotiate wholeheartedly, and came up with a weak, pathetic Brexit. It will be a long time before any British Government holds another referendum. What's the point of letting the unenlightened masses have a say in policy if they are going to vote the wrong way?</div><div> Of course, in the same year something similar happened in the US. A rank outsider, Donald Trump stood for election by promising the people what they wanted. The Establishment couldn't take him seriously. They assumed he was going to go down in a screaming heap. They were so sure of themselves that his rival, Hilary Clinton hadn't even composed a concession speech. The look on her face when the results came in would have made a stunned mullet appear prosaic. Not only did Trump win, but he actually kept his promises. No wonder the Establishment hates him. They <a href="https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/" target="_blank">boasted</a> of how they conspired together to defeat him in the following election, and it is why they are determined to destroy him now.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-68705822943050471252023-06-08T16:33:00.001-07:002023-10-21T22:27:08.955-07:00The Gospels - Harmonized and Annotated This is a work I have been wanting to produce for 57 years. In hindsight, I can see how the information and facilities have been coming in for many decades without any actual planning on my part, but it is only in the last few years that they have all come together. It began when, as a teenager, I attended a Crusader camp in the Blue Mountains, and took along my father's Bible. The publication date was not recorded, but he must have acquired it before the Second World War. More importantly, it contained an appendix, of similar size to the New Testament, entitled <i>Helps to the Study of the Bible</i>, 2nd edition, the first edition having been published in 1890. And in the middle was a Harmony of the Gospels. "What a useful tool!" I thought.<span><a name='more'></a></span><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLaJ5JLkssSflBjS7KXVwAxUD1qH9FB4Z8z2SqwtRdWzibGmSgwmDGaCbicUFc-RIs_iYMjdFdcLELvPTsVXwkKBfkNoz8xYwFlrSWytm6SZxJS4o0-9s6tLYc5RpWJNF9Mw5CixpwPnZAczFRyv2Ej8zB_Fde0iDw-4DYiiSFAv_tbBhi417vQ3uO/s218/611WEm7-JgL._AC_UY218_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="145" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLaJ5JLkssSflBjS7KXVwAxUD1qH9FB4Z8z2SqwtRdWzibGmSgwmDGaCbicUFc-RIs_iYMjdFdcLELvPTsVXwkKBfkNoz8xYwFlrSWytm6SZxJS4o0-9s6tLYc5RpWJNF9Mw5CixpwPnZAczFRyv2Ej8zB_Fde0iDw-4DYiiSFAv_tbBhi417vQ3uO/w213-h320/611WEm7-JgL._AC_UY218_.jpg" width="213" /></a></div> What, exactly, is a harmony of the gospels? Well, we all know that there are four gospels, that they cover a lot of common ground, but that every gospel includes material unique to itself. A harmony seeks to render the four into a single narrative of Jesus' life by tabulating the verses into the best approximation of the chronological order, and with parallel passages listed side by side.</div><div> Of course, this was long before I knew anything about how the gospels had been written. I was to learn that each had its own perspective and style, the latter frequently more obvious in the original Greek than in translation. The gospels are independent, yet interdependent. In other words, they copied from each other, and from other documents, while each adding material of his own. Also, not only is it established that they were written during the lifetime of the witnesses, but they relate back to sermons and even earlier documents, some of which were Greek translations of even earlier works in Aramaic.</div><div> Not only that, but it all took place in first century Israel, an outpost of the Roman Empire. The past, as they say, is a foreign country, and a distant land really is a foreign country. No doubt you can live a good Christian life without knowing much about it, but I have always been interested to know the details of New Testament life, and whether the innumerable paintings and movies on the subject were accurate. (Not very, is the answer.)</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDFgsHcq45oU7nPaNmYfmtX0GA2SZhJOWaceTIUzl52_Wp_NbnDR21w85XzBEedBvW-41c5Unat-9vqc8q-QLquKphsJsoXTQlGY1OxbEms-Ur0ytmRnLj3ysZp6Kghu4wjlH1g-ZndgXolmDDmKlyNjKzyvNDF3EJExjmgnw88pEUbdYL1OoG4bxq/s218/61YMF6G3-1L._AC_UY218_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="218" data-original-width="145" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDFgsHcq45oU7nPaNmYfmtX0GA2SZhJOWaceTIUzl52_Wp_NbnDR21w85XzBEedBvW-41c5Unat-9vqc8q-QLquKphsJsoXTQlGY1OxbEms-Ur0ytmRnLj3ysZp6Kghu4wjlH1g-ZndgXolmDDmKlyNjKzyvNDF3EJExjmgnw88pEUbdYL1OoG4bxq/w213-h320/61YMF6G3-1L._AC_UY218_.jpg" width="213" /></a></div> So I here present the gospels, based on the Nestle Greek text, which is considered the most authentic. The translation is not difficult if you understand the basis of the language. The gospels are <i>harmonized</i> in that they are presented in what I judge to be the most likely chronological order - which is <i>not</i> quite the same as the document in my father's Bible. Where there are parallel texts, these are displayed side by side. Reading them this way reveals the quirks and perspectives of the individual writers, which tends to get overlooked because we are used to compounding them in our thoughts. To take only one example: the story of the "rich young ruler" is told in all of the first three gospels. However, Mark says nothing about the man, only Matthew says he was young, and only Luke calls him a ruler. The writers were all obviously independently familiar with the story, and they individually had information unavailable to the others.</div><div> The gospels are also <i>annotated</i>. I have not written a commentary. Readers are left to decide for themselves what lessons they can derive from individual passages. I have also (mostly) avoided theological controversies. Just the same, facts are stubborn things, as it is said, and might not make everybody happy. The gospels are annotated in the sense that after every passage is appended a discussion on the context of time and place, and how the original gospels were written. This involves asking such questions are: what is this disease, what is the location, and when did it happen? And yes, occasionally an evangelist made a mistake on a minor detail. Following up the texts in this manner produces some unexpected insights. For example:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Jesus and his mother would have been pleasantly surprised to meet each other at the wedding in Cana, for they arrived independently from opposite directions.</li><li>The "daughter of Herodias" is not named in the Bible. However, we know from a Jewish historian that she was called Salome, and she was a teenager already married to a much older relative. When she requested the head of John the Baptist, it was not delivered to her right away at the party, as is usually portrayed, for John was imprisoned at the other end of the country.</li><li>All the depictions of the Last Supper are wrong, not only because they usually show the diners seated, but because, of necessity, it is shown in daylight. The Last Supper took place after dark in the light of olive oil lamps.</li></ul></div><div> I hope that these two volumes will prove a useful guide for everybody wishing to study the Bible. <b>Volume I</b> starts with a 54-page section outlining the background to the writing of the gospels, and to their context in first century Israel, then continues up to the date of the second Passover in Jesus' ministry. <b>Volume II</b> covers the climactic last year in Jesus' life, along with two short appendices: one on what is known of the later activities of the disciples, and one on the origin of New Testament names.</div><div> Unlike my other books, I have not produced a Kindle version, because displaying parallel texts side by side does not sit well with that format. However, both paperback and hardback editions are available from Amazon.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-55243168930522680182023-04-05T16:01:00.000-07:002023-04-05T16:01:15.478-07:00The Tribulations of Peter and John Good Friday is again upon us. Seven years ago I discussed the reaction of <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/the-problems-of-pontius-pilate.html" target="_blank">Pontius Pilate</a> when he found himself, unwillingly and unwittingly on the cusp of history. This time it might be appropriate to examine the actions of two of Jesus' inner circle of disciples, St Peter and St John, at what appears to have been the first time they acted together as a team. The reason for this is that, when reading first hand personal accounts, one thing I've noticed quite frequently is that the really brave men seldom emphasize or make an issue of their own bravery.<div><span><a name='more'></a></span> <span> </span>For reasons I shall discuss later, St. John's gospel provides details missing from the earlier three. Take, for example, the simple phrase in John 13:30, "and it was night." The thousands of paintings of the Last Supper are all incorrect. They all, by necessity, depict it in full daylight. In fact, it took place after dark, in the flickering light of multiple olive-oil lamps. <div><div><div> And while we are on the subject, the earliest record of the Last Supper is not in the gospels, but in St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-26), written about AD 55. We are so used to these words - they are incorporated into the liturgy - that we fail to see how extraordinary is the concept. The early church had to develop their worship services more or less from scratch, and naturally included prayers, preaching, and hymns. However, if they wanted something to specifically focus on Jesus, they would hardly have invented something like a common meal, where the bread and wine were somehow linked to his body and blood. Yet, here it is, less than a quarter century later, taken for granted as the central ritual of the service. The only conclusion is that the narrative is genuine at this point: they were acting on Jesus’ instructions, and that he himself was aware that his last day had arrived.</div><div> But we are digressing. The real action shifts to the olive grove known as the Garden of Gethsemane. It was late, probably after midnight, when Peter, James, and John were asked to keep company with Jesus while he prayed, but once they had sat down, they could hardly keep their eyes open. Suddenly, everything changed with the arrival of Judas and the temple police. In the face of a couple of hundred armed men, what did Peter do? He decided to defend his master! When the slave of the high priest grabbed Jesus, Peter swung his sword at his head. Fortunately, the latter ducked, but the sword took off his ear. At that moment there was a strong possibility that the disciples would be massacred. Jesus retrieved the ear, reattached it, and told Peter to put back his sword. The disciples scattered into the night.</div><div><span> However, for two of them, the night was far from over. Peter and John joined forces and decided to follow the arresting party, even though there was not much they could do. When the party entered the high priest's palace, John had an idea. He was known to the high priest personally. How is not explained. It has been suggested that, as a fisherman, he had been involved in the salt fish trade of the palace, but this is conjecture. In any case, he was known in a private capacity, not as a disciple of Jesus. He therefore went to the entrance and said to the girl keeping the door, in effect: "You know me - John bar Zebedee. Is it all right if I and my friend come in?"</span></div><div><span> Of course, we have all heard, over and over again, about Peter's denial of Christ. But this should not blind us to the sheer courage of the two disciples - especially since there was nothing they could do to help. (The other nine were more sensible.) We tend to imagine Peter and John huddled among an anonymous crowd of onlookers gathered outside. That would have been dangerous enough, but it wasn’t so. They were deep in enemy territory, so to speak: the only two members of the public in an enclosed space filled with the high priest's staff and the attendants of the temple police. Of course, they would attract attention!</span></div><div><span> The high priest's palace would have been similar to other Greek palaces. A narrow vestibule would have led to an open air court, from which all the other rooms branched off. At the far end it would have opened into the hall where the trial would have been taking place. In the glow of olive oil lamps one could see the Sanhedrin, the members themselves sleep deprived, seated in a horseshoe formation with the accused, Jesus standing in the middle. Standing! Imagine being required to stand for hours on end in the early hours of the morning, when you have not only had no sleep, but had been through a traumatic emotional event such as Jesus' agony in the garden.</span></div><div><span> But we digress. It is now the third watch of the night: from midnight to three. An hour ago the two apostles could hardly keep their eyes open. Now they are running on adrenalin. John, I presume, kept a low profile and prayed that nobody would call him out. Meanwhile, Peter warmed himself at a brazier someone had set up in the courtyard. When someone identified him as one of Jesus' disciples, he suddenly realised that everybody surrounding him were enemies. Panic-stricken, he denied it all. </span> What most of us do not notice is what he <i>didn't </i>do. Unlike any normal person in that predicament, he did not get the heck out of there. He merely retreated to the shadows. He was still determined to stay on. If the bugle sounding the start of the fourth watch (the "cock crow") hadn't sounded just as he had made his third denial, he probably would have stuck it out to the end.</div><div> While Peter slunk away in shame, John appears to have stuck it out to the bitter end. We next meet him as the sole male disciple keeping vigil at the cross. He would also be offering consolation to his own mother, who was one of the women there. We tend to forget that. Then Jesus committed his mother, Mary to John's care.</div><div> On Good Friday we naturally focus on the Savior's suffering, as is right and proper. But we tend to forget that the witnesses were flesh and blood too. The women remained there throughout the day from 9 o'clock till almost sunset, without food, and probably without anything to drink. And John? Apart from perhaps a half hour in Gethsemane, he had not slept since early morning the previous day. Throughout the wee hours of the morning, and the first three hours of sunlight, he had been running on adrenaline. Now the reaction would have set in; he would be like a limp rag. He hadn't eaten, and probably hadn't drunk anything since the Last Supper. And I don't suppose there were many public lavatories in the vicinity.</div><div> Finally, as the day was declining, he dragged his feet through the streets, escorting his mother, and Jesus' mother, back to whatever accommodation they had in the city. Now, where was he to go? The disciples had expected to sleep in Gethsemane the previous night. A bit of thought would have shown him that there was only a single "safe house" in Jerusalem: the upper room where they had eaten the Last Supper. When he arrived, he discovered that the other nine had come to the same conclusion. We never ask ourselves how the women knew where the disciples were staying the following Sunday when they reported the empty tomb, but it is not difficult to work it out.</div><div> <i>Afterwards</i></div><div> Peter and John had become a team. When the women reported the tomb being empty, it was those two who followed Mary Magdalene back to the tomb to see for themselves. After Pentecost, we find them preaching together in the temple. Later they were sent to look into the revival taking place in Samaria.</div><div> After that, they appear to have parted ways. In hundreds of separate sermons Peter would have told the story of his denial of Jesus as a lesson in forgiveness, and a second chance. What he failed to emphasize was the sheer courage required to enter the palace in the first place, and to remain there even after he had been identified. He also failed to mention that it was he himself, and not some random disciple, who rashly decided to defend his master in the face of a small army of armed men. Finally, after 30 years, he became a martyr at Rome. In his absence, his assistant, St. Mark wrote down the stories he had told in some sort of order, in the gospel which now bears his name.</div><div> About the same time, St. John moved to Ephesus. There, at an age when most of us would be considering retirement, this redoubtable apostle began his greatest work. For 30 years he cast a long shadow over all the churches of what is now western Turkey. Finally, his congregation came to him and said, in effect: "You are the last of the apostles. When you die, all these great stories you have been telling us will be lost. You have to write them down."</div><div> St. John's gospel was written with the other three gospels in front of him. This is the only way one can explain the almost total absence of nearly all the material about the Galilean ministry recorded in the other three. When it comes to the climax of the story, John adds new material. With respect to material recorded by the others, he either passes over it, or elaborates on it. He appears to have examined each item, and put it in one of two pigeon-holes:</div><div> (a) They already know about this; there is no need to say more.</div><div> (b) In this case, it is about time the world knew the full story about what happened during that terrible 24 hours that changed the world.</div></div></div></div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-69590754076255137682023-02-01T02:56:00.020-08:002024-02-26T17:26:26.203-08:00Blackwashing
Over the last few years, I've noticed a peculiar trend in Australian TV ads. They are constantly featuring African Americans. The trouble is, despite the flood of non-white immigration, sub-Saharan Africans - negroes - remain the rarest of racial groups in this country. There are more full blooded Aborigines in Australia than negroes. There are more South Sea Islanders. There are more of every race with the exception of Eskimos and Amerindians. At first it seemed the ads were of big cosmopolitan brands, and were made in the US, but now I see them more and more in ads for Australian companies. I don't know where they get the actors. They are clearly not African Australians.<span><a name='more'></a>
</span> There are two reasons I say this. The first is the simple rarity of potential actors. The second is that they don't look like African Australians. A high proportion of those who actually are here are refugees from the Southern Sudan, and these belong to the Nilotic branch of the Negroid race: very tall, very slim, and very dark. They are as remarkable as they are impossible to overlook, and none of them appear on Australian TV ads.<div> Of course, in Africa they have the reverse problem. The Nigerian Government got tired of the airwaves being dominated by American company ads full of white faces, that they passed a law requiring television ads to have only black faces. I wonder what would happen if we took a similar attitude.<br /><div><div> Now, before we go further, I now have to make a point which shouldn't need to be made. Some ignorant people are bound to take umbrage at the use of a single, honourable word, "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro" target="_blank">negro</a>" instead of triple word term like "Sub-Saharan African". Promoted in the antebellum years of the US by abolitionists and freed slaves as a substitute for "nigger", it remained the standard polite term for the race for all and sundry. Martin Luther King called himself a negro. Back in 1974 the residential college where I was staying contained a large number of student teachers from all over the Commonwealth. I shall always remember a Ugandan commenting jocularly to one of his compatriots, "You're not supposed to say 'negro' any more, but 'black'."</div></div><div> At that point, my friend, Rachel, who was as black as the Ace of Spades, objected. "I am not a black!" she asserted. "I am a negro!" Whether she is now reconciled to the use of "African American" I don't know. I suppose you could say that Guyana, which is where she came from, is American.</div><div> Now, back to the subject. These advertisements are a sign of a peculiar new phenomenon: "blackwashing", the insertion of black people into places such as movies, literature, and history where they don't or didn't exist, usually by displacing white people. In Australia it is not easy to pull off, but in the rest of the world it is going full swing.</div><div> Certain people get upset by "whitewashing" i.e. using a white actor to play a character which was non-white in the original story. But they don't seem to have any problem with the reverse.</div><div> Thus, the 2022 movie, <i>Mrs Harris Goes to Paris</i> was a really delightful experience, but it made a few changes to Paul Gallico's 1958 novel. For a start, Mrs Harris' best friend was a black woman. In 1957 London this was theoretically possible, but unlikely, and not in accordance with the book. Even more egregious was the black Dior models. Not only did they not exist at the time, but they could not. Dresses must co-ordinate with the wearer's complexion. What looks stunning on a dark skinned model would be pedestrian against pale skin, and vice versa. (I noticed none of the prospective buyers where dark.)</div><div> The British 2022 remake of <i>All Creatures Great and Small</i> doesn't actually have black people in major roles, but you see them move across stage as if they were part of the background. In a pre-war Yorkshire village? I don't think so.</div><div> And whatever was the management of Disney thinking when they cast a black woman as the lead in their 2023 live action version of <i>The Little Mermaid</i>? Now, I am sure that Africa has its own legends of humanoid sea creatures. However, this is a Danish fairy story, based on Northern European legends, and over there mermaids are always depicted as white. Also, this was a remake of Disney's 1989 cartoon of the same name, and in that film, the mermaid was white. The change of colour must have been deliberate, yet they have the hide to accuse <i>us </i>of racism! This is gaslighting.</div></div><div> What about the 2018 BBC/Netflix series, <i>Troy: Fall of a City</i>, in which Achilles is black? He was a Greek, for heaven's sake! And according to Homer, he was blond.</div><div> Currently in the UK there is a stage production of <i>The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe</i> in which all four Pevensey children are black. Remember, these were English children evacuated to the countryside during the Blitz. Right now the BBC is producing a remake of Charles Dickens' <i>Great Expectations</i>, in which the lawyer is black and a couple of other characters chosen from other racial minorities, all of which were exceptionally rare in England at the time.</div><div> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryDebunkedsimonwebb" target="_blank">Simon Webb</a>, a vlogger who has picked up a number of these absurdities, has pointed out that, although there are far more people from the Indian sub-continent in Britain than negroes, they seldom get a look-in. However, Jules Verne's 1872 novel, <i>Around the World in Eighty Days</i> concerns the adventures of Phineas Fogg, an Englishman, and his French servant, Passepartout as Fogg attempts to win a bet circling the world in the said eighty days. On the way, they save an Indian widow from being burnt on her husband's pyre and take her with them. In the end, Fogg marries her. Here's a good interracial marriage we can all admire. But in the latest television incarnation of the story, the Indian woman is dispensed with, to be replaced by a black British reporter, who could never have existed in 1872, who accompanies them all the way.</div><div> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjBrNjjUBlZDPWv0W33fO9-5wTYYxkAXDDv9-4a-2-JUYflD99_Wm5vv26brvOfAmJmjo1ggLmOe5CUh0Gg4z6zFJlpPdWTrLiiVisIAcO-Gd7BfLb9cZzk0I8mMx2dQzG2-NbokAjCNb5GIoxZ6v1WUGjuQ2Qop1dNqqkwDw-Fe2L8WljfV3A0aXZ/s283/Anne%20Boleyn%20black.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="282" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjBrNjjUBlZDPWv0W33fO9-5wTYYxkAXDDv9-4a-2-JUYflD99_Wm5vv26brvOfAmJmjo1ggLmOe5CUh0Gg4z6zFJlpPdWTrLiiVisIAcO-Gd7BfLb9cZzk0I8mMx2dQzG2-NbokAjCNb5GIoxZ6v1WUGjuQ2Qop1dNqqkwDw-Fe2L8WljfV3A0aXZ/s1600/Anne%20Boleyn%20black.jpg" width="282" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Anne Boleyn as Channel 5 saw her.</td></tr></tbody></table> Blackwashing has reached a point where the authors clearly have complete contempt for their audience. The 2021 Netflix production of <i>Vikings: Valhalla</i> presents us with a black queen of a small Viking kingdom. Do they really think we don't know how preposterous this is? The backstory they tried to palm off to us was that her Viking grandfather met his royal African bride on a trading expedition to Alexandria, Egypt. Egypt is not black. The chances of a black princess from the south turning up in Alexandria is close to zero, and the chances of a white Viking leader falling in love with one even closer.</div><div> It gets even worse when historical figures are involved. Take Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, and the mother of Queen Elizabeth I. In 2021 the UK's Channel 5 decided to have her played by a woman who is not just olive skinned, or even slightly swarthy, but completely, unadulterated, full-blooded black. Do they think we are complete idiots to accept this? Once more, they tried to gaslight us by insisting that the resulting outrage was "racist".</div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw87tOGn2sNdUvL50EOfTAxMVWKtmmvjGbuUtTU6P4H1DjUrY8U6UZn8Z3-Hfs7aJLwW7lTiuwWB1LJFCHilnr5XZLuCKsIzFN96nPVtSHCL7TV8YrKhOZ0S13XlRbmwx6fBqPwrNRkgLpk7Z7SsApJAiI5waZgU-7uY4Qm2rfoPWZjshdOZCJbdzF/s1070/AnneBoleynHever.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1070" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw87tOGn2sNdUvL50EOfTAxMVWKtmmvjGbuUtTU6P4H1DjUrY8U6UZn8Z3-Hfs7aJLwW7lTiuwWB1LJFCHilnr5XZLuCKsIzFN96nPVtSHCL7TV8YrKhOZ0S13XlRbmwx6fBqPwrNRkgLpk7Z7SsApJAiI5waZgU-7uY4Qm2rfoPWZjshdOZCJbdzF/s320/AnneBoleynHever.jpg" width="239" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Anne Boleyn as a contemporary<br />artist saw her.</td></tr></tbody></table> Another story doing the rounds is that Queen Caroline, the wife of George III of England, was, despite all the official portraits to the contrary, "black". The argument is that one of her ancestors 15 generations removed, was a Moorish concubine of a Portuguese king (maybe). Talk about the "one drop" rule! 15 generations means diluting the bloodline more than 30,000 times, assuming no inbreeding. Besides which, the historian who made this "discovery" apparently doesn't know the difference between a Moor and a Blackamoor. The Moors of the Iberian peninsula were Berbers and Arabs from Morocco and related parts of North Africa, and these people were, and remain, white - olive skinned, like the Portuguese themselves, but white nevertheless.</div><div> Netflix has now come up with another blackwashing series, <i>Bridgerton</i>, set in upper class Regency England, commencing 1813. Here again Queen Charlotte is shown as black, or at least one quarter negro, but they also did a lot of "<a href="https://www.tyla.com/tv-and-film/bridgerton-2-black-history-month-regency-england-colour-blind-casting-20210930" target="_blank">colour-blind casting</a>", which is code for blackwashing, for arbitrarily portraying lords and ladies as black. Again they gaslight us as racists for criticizing the "historical inaccuracy", which they put in scare quotes as if it weren't real.</div><div> This time, however, a historian did attempt to justify it. True, she admits, there were no black lords and ladies, but there were a lot of others lower down the chain. There were "thousands" of slaves brought over by their masters from the West Indies, and "thousands" of black Loyalist soldiers from the failed American Revolutionary War, who then settled in England. This would have come as a surprise to <a href="https://thinkafrica.net/abc-merriman-labor/" target="_blank">A.B.C. Merriman-Labor</a>, an educated black man from Sierra Leone who, in 1909, wrote an amusing book, <i><a href="https://archive.org/details/britonsthroughne00merr/mode/2up" target="_blank">Britons through Negro Spectacles</a></i> (there's that word again!), in which he declared that there were only about 100 negroes in London. Not all of these would have been residents; many would have been visiting sailors <i>etc</i>. Photographs of crowds during late Victorian and Edwardian times reveal that England was racially homogenous at the time. Coloured immigration really only took off after World War II, and even then was more of a trickle than a flood until the 1980s.</div><div> Here we have a clue to the motives of the (mostly white) people responsible for blackwashing. In one of the episodes of "Dr Who" the Doctor went back to Victorian England and his (coloured) companion commented on the unexpected number of black people in London. The Doctor said they had been "whitewashed" out of history. No! They were being blackwashed into it. One of the writers, in a rare moment of candour, admitted that they were falsifying history, but they were showing history as it ought to have been.</div><div> In the U.S. there is a tendency among the politically correct to try to place various minorities in every venue available, no matter how inappropriate it might be. In the U.K. their motives are worse: knowing that many Britons resent the way their country has been transformed without their consent, they are trying to indoctrinate the younger generation with the lie that the U.K. has always been multi-racial. Now, if only I could divine the motives of the Australian ad-men.</div><div> No doubt certain elements will denounce me as "racist" for this article. People with such a mentality are immune to logic, but it would be helpful if they told us what their expanded definition of "racism" might be, and why it is a bad thing.</div><div> I have had African friends in the past. I have nothing against Africans in their place. And what is their place? Simply the places where they live, and use to live, in the correct proportions. Is that too much to ask? Stop colonising our advertisements, literature, and history.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum.</b> John Ray's blog, "The Psychologist" has a much larger readership than mine. On 2 February, he posted a copy of this essay. Google <a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2023/02/advertisements-and-homer.html" target="_blank">deleted it</a>, on the basis that it was "hate speech". It would be interesting to know what criteria they use for this smear. Can anyone claim that the information in it is incorrect? Or is it "hate speech" to complain about it? Interestingly, they left it intact in another of his blogs.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mqeiaXGzA2Q" width="320" youtube-src-id="mqeiaXGzA2Q"></iframe></div> Simon Webb has uncovered so many of these fake histories that I think I might provide a few links.<div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUkkLdU0RyM" target="_blank">The false black Viking of the Jorvik Centre, York.</a></div><div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaepzqv3NdA" target="_blank">Ireland's Queen Mebd is blackwashed.</a> (updated <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCUa8mM12E" target="_blank">here</a>)</div><div>A negro aboard <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAzwWYQumPw" target="_blank">Apollo 13</a> (and racial conflict)</div><div>The musical comedy, <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-9o_4HGfwI" target="_blank">Six</a></i> has four of Henry VIII's six wives as black.</div><div>Disney's live action remake of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-live-action-peter-pan-trailer-shocks-major-character-changes-diversity-nonsense" target="_blank">Peter Pan and Wendy</a> has a dark skinned Tinkerbell, and many of the Lost Boys are girls, some of them black.</div><div>The <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10666221/Amara-Okereke-poses-ahead-West-End-role-black-Eliza-Doolittle-Fair-Lady.html" target="_blank">same black woman</a> plays Eliza Doolittle in <i>My Fair Lady</i>, Cosette in <i>Les Misérables,</i> Laurey in <i>Oklahoma!</i>, and Polly in <i>The Boy Friend. </i>(You couldn't make this up.)</div><div>In the new BBC adaptation of <i><a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/tv/news/bbc-rewrites-great-expectations-to-make-british-empire-more-beastly/ar-AA18LJce?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=75590859423e45739a06a9e37eeb77d9&ei=12" target="_blank">Great Expectations</a></i>, the love interest and the barrister are both black, and a character bad-mouths the British Empire. Oh, and they make a nonsense claim that there were 15,000 blacks in Britain at the time.</div><div>A Netflix "documentary" which makes <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaOClzLcbvo" target="_blank">Cleopatra</a> black. (Cleopatra was Greek. And even if she were Egyptian, the ancient Egyptians, like their <a href="https://egyptindependent.com/hawass-criticizes-depicting-cleopatra-as-black-in-netflix-film/" target="_blank">modern counterparts</a>, were <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694" target="_blank">Caucasians</a>.)</div><div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqiu--zzpTE" target="_blank">Hannibal</a>, the Carthaginean leader is being played by an old black man.</div><div>In a new production of <i>Richard III</i>, the king (yes, the king!) is being played by a <a href="https://deadline.com/2022/02/danai-gurira-richard-iii-shakespeare-in-the-park-robert-ohara-1234924973/" target="_blank">black woman</a>. This is not a satire.</div><div>In a new rendition of <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3UHzVgwAeI" target="_blank">Tom Jones</a></i> (Fielding's 1745 novel), the hero's love interest is black.</div><div>In the <a href="https://www.scifiwright.com/2023/06/blackface-aragorn-and-poke-the-monkey/#more-32856" target="_blank"><i>Lord of the Rings</i> Magic Set</a>, Aragon is black.</div><div>Half of cast of <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYr77lOmzdc" target="_blank">Robin Hood: the Legend Rewritten</a></i> is black. And, as Simon Webb pointed out, this fact is hardly ever mentioned by reviewers.</div><div>Disney's live action remake of <i><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12298801/EXCLUSIVE-Snow-White-Seven-Politically-Correct-Companions.html" target="_blank">Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs</a></i>, in which Snow White is a brown skinned Latina, and the "dwarfs" are of normal size, and some of them are black.</div><div>A television version of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND2XS_l0dOQ" target="_blank">legend of King Arthur</a>, in which his wife, Guinevere, the magician, Merlin, and several minor characters are black.</div><div>A <a href="https://theatrefan.co.uk/treason-the-musical-all-star-concert-production-announced/" target="_blank">musical</a> about the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, in which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atZChd5rIeg" target="_blank">40%</a> of the cast is black.</div><div>A <i>Dr Who</i> episode in which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUTOmmMbFgo" target="_blank">Isaac Newton</a> is an Indian.</div><div>A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKmdKysuJeU" target="_blank">BBC series</a> on Enid Blyton's "Famous Five" books, but set in the 1930s ie two decades before the books, with George, the tomboy being the product of a black-on-white marriage. (Even the <i><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/dec/31/the-famous-five-review-this-enid-blyton-adaptation-feels-oddly-like-the-da-vinci-code" target="_blank">Guardian</a></i> thought this adaptation was idiotic.)</div><div>A new adaptation on an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/dec/11/is-easy-could-be-the-radical-enough-adaptation-agatha-christie-wanted" target="_blank">Agatha Christie novel</a> in which the protagonist is changed to a black man.</div><div>A Hallmark version of Jane Austen's <i><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/01/1228156305/sense-and-sensibility-jane-austen-hallmark-loveuary" target="_blank">Sense and Sensibility</a></i>, in which the women and their love interests are black.</div><div>A real, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5bzjgX5MWQ">notable white woman</a> has been changed into an Indian for a movie.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-70484350817417701032022-10-09T15:10:00.021-07:002024-01-22T21:46:53.858-08:00Blackfellas - and Not-So-Blackfellas My tour leader in Kakadu and related areas of the Northern Territory in 1986 was half Aboriginal. "Because my mother is Aboriginal," he told us, "I am able to relate to them. But I would never be considered one of them. I'm khaki coloured."<div> "Yellow fellow" is another term they used for mixed bloods. (I myself don't.) Aboriginal society makes distinctions which we whitefellas in the coastal zones fail to see. Nevertheless, in the interest of clarity, I shall now show you what Australian Aborigines look like.</div><div> And in case anyone objects to my use of the term, "blackfella", kindly note that they use it for themselves, and call us "whitefellas", a term which causes no offence. I regard these words as informal terms, like "paleface" and "redskin" - not derogatory, but more likely to be used in informal conversation than in formal essays. Nevertheless, someone was taken to task recently for using the familiar word, "Aborigines" on the ABC. It is getting harder and harder to keep up with political correctness. In any case, here is a series of photos of what Aborigines look like. Make sure you scan down to the end, to see the significance.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEqhg-JUxmteHEgQ3dYawCatNLUODwr8TpLhTubaFeHaBoqEPhvB97PyCJkMSLsW1MiI97CQNxlwXQ9OwHS8OXrBG3R3xHFVZdblrciBSc-RLkR0ajyMd_SEy1_FuXMVkLy4cjUn6ZUuDYEMIYsSM57I2ENpN7d2Lb52EzGD5kvccvq4inEx7E8wM/s1908/Ted.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1745" data-original-width="1908" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkEqhg-JUxmteHEgQ3dYawCatNLUODwr8TpLhTubaFeHaBoqEPhvB97PyCJkMSLsW1MiI97CQNxlwXQ9OwHS8OXrBG3R3xHFVZdblrciBSc-RLkR0ajyMd_SEy1_FuXMVkLy4cjUn6ZUuDYEMIYsSM57I2ENpN7d2Lb52EzGD5kvccvq4inEx7E8wM/s320/Ted.JPG" width="320" /></a></div> This is Ted of the Mirriwong tribe in the Kimberleys, W.A. When I took the photo a couple of months ago, I neglected to ask his last name. In any case, he is a wonderful outgoing person, who works as a highly articulate and informative guide of the Argyll Diamond Mine, currently being decommissioned.</div><div><br /></div><div> At this point, according to the almost universal customs of the media, it is traditional to warn that some of the pictures refer to people who have died. Now, common sense tells you that there was no photography or even realistic portraiture among the Aborigines prior to contact with the white man. The custom of avoiding such depictions must be of recent origin, and it is surprising that it has spread continent wide. No-one has ever explained the reason for this custom, but I am aware that, in traditional society, the name of the deceased was not mentioned, lest it attract the attention of his ghost. Whether that now applies to pictures and taped voices I do not know, but one may conjecture. In any case, some of these photos are of people who have died.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvX8ydENu37MH6G6rRMDkZ0UxYzYO8h6TaOlHUCY4stscrO0-HuwN41uXxD_yLSR6-Q0xJwgN8NlMBCY3BLoG6sNvGL602qCwIcVg0EC1hh3dYotX24n7oMqOFb-4k1Lc3iA9lCXgc8O-9pCyLtitiA6cwJNgGZVbH_J6rLf2akXGI7MdcuaLv5WP2/s747/Rosalie%20Lynette%20Kunoth-Monks,%201937-2022.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="747" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvX8ydENu37MH6G6rRMDkZ0UxYzYO8h6TaOlHUCY4stscrO0-HuwN41uXxD_yLSR6-Q0xJwgN8NlMBCY3BLoG6sNvGL602qCwIcVg0EC1hh3dYotX24n7oMqOFb-4k1Lc3iA9lCXgc8O-9pCyLtitiA6cwJNgGZVbH_J6rLf2akXGI7MdcuaLv5WP2/s320/Rosalie%20Lynette%20Kunoth-Monks,%201937-2022.webp" width="320" /></a></div> This lady passed away this very year: Rosalie Lynette Kunoth-Monks (1937-2022) of the Arunta (Arrente) tribe in Central Australia. One eighth Caucasian by ancestry, she received whitefella education, but was nevertheless immersed in the tribal life of the Anmatjere subgroup of the tribe. A long time community leader and activist, she is best remembered for the leading role in the 1955 movie, <i>Jedda</i>, from which this picture is taken. In a television interview, she explained that the producer, Charles Chauvel didn't think Rosie sounded like a good Aboriginal name, so he asked her the name of her "skin" or clan. She told him Pnuggan. (I have rendered it phonetically, but have no idea of the official spelling.) Not good enough. He asked her mother's skin name, and was told Naala (again, written phonetically). He decided to adopt this name for the film, and called her Ngarla Kunoth on the credits. Rosie said she was outraged.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJyXC79h3F5sAkhVs3B4Tbyeu2Apm76GxfiUu00TFCm51U6_oym0lU9H7J0nS0T_bzOI7d6B3MQ1E5WfD49DBYI-ByeSRTL8uvsvbDHP5LFIIjE5gWTnt0k2B6NXvC1-1CZvoXobO-mXxAxkCcbl0PHf9YkFcG0CVY-pxlvKx9YxMshDJVGfqxYIDB/s320/Robert%20Tudawali,%201929-1967.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJyXC79h3F5sAkhVs3B4Tbyeu2Apm76GxfiUu00TFCm51U6_oym0lU9H7J0nS0T_bzOI7d6B3MQ1E5WfD49DBYI-ByeSRTL8uvsvbDHP5LFIIjE5gWTnt0k2B6NXvC1-1CZvoXobO-mXxAxkCcbl0PHf9YkFcG0CVY-pxlvKx9YxMshDJVGfqxYIDB/w320-h240/Robert%20Tudawali,%201929-1967.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> The man on the right was her co-star, Robert Tudawali (1929 - 1967), from Melville Island. If he looks a bit wild, it is because he played a wild man in the movie.<br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2o6OCEjV5CHRjiIUUhqcMeOorNJ0qW7vbFqYzpCXLA1kCairxR7dK7SxvPsKyCRgaj4YoTjXc_WI7UZj2HqbehGNaBzc0isvI-CFTCgBChvTQTJ7Ira02nxlHh66WSwEmCgVG9tOALVd1zK8n4-g5KB5LVvtPy7EY-4OTH3WTq9r8sADFghaPxOJE/s838/Bess%20Price,%20Waljpiri.jpg" style="clear: right; display: inline; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="838" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2o6OCEjV5CHRjiIUUhqcMeOorNJ0qW7vbFqYzpCXLA1kCairxR7dK7SxvPsKyCRgaj4YoTjXc_WI7UZj2HqbehGNaBzc0isvI-CFTCgBChvTQTJ7Ira02nxlHh66WSwEmCgVG9tOALVd1zK8n4-g5KB5LVvtPy7EY-4OTH3WTq9r8sADFghaPxOJE/s320/Bess%20Price,%20Waljpiri.jpg" width="320" /></a> On the right is Bess Price of the Warlpiri tribe. She is a Northern Territory politician who catches flak in some circles because she tells it like it is about domestic violence in remote Aboriginal communities. Her story can be found <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2023/09/making-life-even-worse-for-us/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5hO1lua-uH7TNObF6H9PFwC-fIqnS2Ks37phqwxhSeB_0zdWjvz8sAtFqcfT5f7I7w7ltxMMCJ_RmDX3FTPvclHD24tEYc__sqYP5JURMxW4qCvvBXk8hir_I7CnokBeeCc7NL1N7z_E1EvLJQ0QzuUr_NSH3X5tDTzY_RfoxyvNGHeo-XIxEIQ2h/s1170/Albert%20Namatjira%20(portrait).jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1170" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5hO1lua-uH7TNObF6H9PFwC-fIqnS2Ks37phqwxhSeB_0zdWjvz8sAtFqcfT5f7I7w7ltxMMCJ_RmDX3FTPvclHD24tEYc__sqYP5JURMxW4qCvvBXk8hir_I7CnokBeeCc7NL1N7z_E1EvLJQ0QzuUr_NSH3X5tDTzY_RfoxyvNGHeo-XIxEIQ2h/s320/Albert%20Namatjira%20(portrait).jpg" width="320" /></a></div> Here we have a portrait of Albert Namatjira (1902 - 1959), the famous Arunta (Arrente) painter of Central Australian landscapes in water colours. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg41RzDfT10a2JeaPT1Ut5E_mImWSYrBq8SfnQI93ppLO5pbqLu0miR-HmtQ6L1GZoJDkXMDLJu8JKAlov6QFRhPGzBbae-Q90X9vUVNZ_qwEIJS37zuHoqDqPn4IkhnMu3qhNmo5pOCorHSTIiFoWr7OufbELAsqPErwhPCQL6keWATOv4tWnjzuCZ/s3241/Lamilami.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2673" data-original-width="3241" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg41RzDfT10a2JeaPT1Ut5E_mImWSYrBq8SfnQI93ppLO5pbqLu0miR-HmtQ6L1GZoJDkXMDLJu8JKAlov6QFRhPGzBbae-Q90X9vUVNZ_qwEIJS37zuHoqDqPn4IkhnMu3qhNmo5pOCorHSTIiFoWr7OufbELAsqPErwhPCQL6keWATOv4tWnjzuCZ/s320/Lamilami.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> The old photograph on the right shows the Rev. Lazarus <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lamilami-lazarus-10778" target="_blank">Lamilami</a> (c1913 - 1977), of the Maung tribe of Arnhem Land, with his wife and daughter.<br /> He was a prominent evangelist to his people, and was ordained a minister in the Methodist church.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoh_-pzlIw2yF_AlMf2lmCFnFjaB_AYQJf1M5GrBOFvrUgXzhEUbvH4TJgR42tJPvQTZzZwBhWNBoVtTA-CThz8R4MgjW02_VfQZhLTuzN-_9SPnI4wSPZjqbyNeYOqs_HhA_4a179wTlciLoql4GNHZo-usyNrfWzczqIrZHMJ2cBwircoaRaZ4Js/s3136/Pitjantjatjara.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3136" data-original-width="2213" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoh_-pzlIw2yF_AlMf2lmCFnFjaB_AYQJf1M5GrBOFvrUgXzhEUbvH4TJgR42tJPvQTZzZwBhWNBoVtTA-CThz8R4MgjW02_VfQZhLTuzN-_9SPnI4wSPZjqbyNeYOqs_HhA_4a179wTlciLoql4GNHZo-usyNrfWzczqIrZHMJ2cBwircoaRaZ4Js/s320/Pitjantjatjara.jpg" width="226" /></a></div><br /> Here we have a photo, probably taken in the 1960s, of an unnamed elder of the Pitjantjatjara people of Central Australia.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcVpZPFrJkKcvFuJ6uhNMYbsxSMkH0mND0q_Dx_c3Ha-xHUfy0cFmxTVKwP86XVBWcQ1c1eLT6e2h8zatarINKsMbOQ1G8F4Dt83r9CkyaYF1BXJ6PgjWAn1ze_76m3-WZFqWj0q2Mqi7DAZbT1uaqCaO0AsQ9nPvCVPG-tx4N_3Vuo-YpwWjqvtol/s933/One%20Pound%20Jimmy.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="933" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcVpZPFrJkKcvFuJ6uhNMYbsxSMkH0mND0q_Dx_c3Ha-xHUfy0cFmxTVKwP86XVBWcQ1c1eLT6e2h8zatarINKsMbOQ1G8F4Dt83r9CkyaYF1BXJ6PgjWAn1ze_76m3-WZFqWj0q2Mqi7DAZbT1uaqCaO0AsQ9nPvCVPG-tx4N_3Vuo-YpwWjqvtol/s320/One%20Pound%20Jimmy.jpg" width="240" /></a></div> This handsome individual was Gwoya Tjungurayi (c 1895 -1965), otherwise known as "One Pound Jimmy", because he used to make and sell boomerangs for one pound - which was a lot of money then. He survived one of the last white-on-black massacres, and shot to fame with this cover of the <i>Walkabout</i> magazine of September 1936. (The original, full length photo shows him in his native costume ie nothing at all.) In 1950 his face made history by becoming the first one of a living Australian to feature on a postage stamp, In fact, he became so famous he had to shave off his beard to avoid recognition.<div><br /><div> I took the following picture from the December 1916 edition of the <i>National Geographic</i>, and left in the caption simply as an indication of contemporary attitudes, not because I believe it. (The author appears to confuse material culture with intelligence.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv_2xFyul2nDbM5083G4l4O8DEsEXUnMNaZ5rR7L7eFq0xKDnGiYV6RHMXWI_k94PdiM1_N_z_K9o0-uZaTeo1MEdaP79KGvNknuZ0XEayZkSQEyv6reIjg1bGa5c1cdlUXjXg1Dv0GqLdR1lQY0Prs2Fzw3rGcADcITBScG7yKDqYqi-T_ILBAZGJ/s1073/NG%20Dec%201916.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="704" data-original-width="1073" height="420" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv_2xFyul2nDbM5083G4l4O8DEsEXUnMNaZ5rR7L7eFq0xKDnGiYV6RHMXWI_k94PdiM1_N_z_K9o0-uZaTeo1MEdaP79KGvNknuZ0XEayZkSQEyv6reIjg1bGa5c1cdlUXjXg1Dv0GqLdR1lQY0Prs2Fzw3rGcADcITBScG7yKDqYqi-T_ILBAZGJ/w640-h420/NG%20Dec%201916.png" width="640" /></a></div><div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwc1Sb6yW7zrRoVl3YebgH75qp9qk62VBRNzgo6Iylb8a9SzkxYlH_Jii1_Ji6HM63mhkowfZuBNWKl5g5SIhofvOwx-EfWK-leZC5LkKXoFcmIstLiTTtsngFB2rLWSKMHm3Cec4fwFTkEkN2RvQj1obY-eyXRZZGJEorP1tQ4T_ZnsE2WqbnJ1-C/s350/Daniel%20Woditj.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="350" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwc1Sb6yW7zrRoVl3YebgH75qp9qk62VBRNzgo6Iylb8a9SzkxYlH_Jii1_Ji6HM63mhkowfZuBNWKl5g5SIhofvOwx-EfWK-leZC5LkKXoFcmIstLiTTtsngFB2rLWSKMHm3Cec4fwFTkEkN2RvQj1obY-eyXRZZGJEorP1tQ4T_ZnsE2WqbnJ1-C/s320/Daniel%20Woditj.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> Finally, we have photo of a family from Peppiminarti in the Northern Territory: Captain and Mary Woditj, with their four year old son, Daniel. That little boy decided to go pig hunting, and <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spirit-lures-aussie-boy-to-crocodiles/news-story/9ead4e5849b91e33a2936d5fb29e5c22" target="_blank">swam two crocodile infested rivers</a>, thereby demonstrating that the spirit of bushcraft is by no means extinct in the younger generation.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLsWY1Ngcm4Kcaygq8ahy6GMKSjeSWrDWAs_1SNYgjeSQynfxrndbiI6J1ZQpLhf2M3XQgHLZEOochua4dNDjreEICRrjGjWgud835oDDIQsSvnjfD8cVjKjbqeI5hol7FmqIIgl2wCVAF3FRzoTiLyLEACiw-G3A2aD-nOLSK526B8ntWJJ6dFGTG/s2609/69.%20Oct%2017,%201997.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2609" data-original-width="2176" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLsWY1Ngcm4Kcaygq8ahy6GMKSjeSWrDWAs_1SNYgjeSQynfxrndbiI6J1ZQpLhf2M3XQgHLZEOochua4dNDjreEICRrjGjWgud835oDDIQsSvnjfD8cVjKjbqeI5hol7FmqIIgl2wCVAF3FRzoTiLyLEACiw-G3A2aD-nOLSK526B8ntWJJ6dFGTG/s320/69.%20Oct%2017,%201997.jpg" width="267" /></a></div> Now that you know what Aborigines look like, you may wish to be reminded of how someone with absolutely no indigenous ancestry appears. The photo at right is how I looked a quarter of a century ago. I am of mixed ancestry, being 13/16 English and 3/16 Irish, and so can claim to be typical of mainstream Australia.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> With this in mind, we shall now examine some recent photographs of prominent modern Aborigines. At least, the newspapers and television all hail them as Aborigines, and often cite them as example of the advancement of indigenous Australians in our society. But nobody - nobody at all - ever mentions the elephant in the room. Can you see it?</div><div><div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqfeTiEE4GOgzs2rJ9bNg4CUrhkOg7D6mBJIsMWRDjQMeee9AT3LVjscH3n0RWKNEjWwf_LkMdSuhtb6Oz7CWvJUhz7KL7W3466k5pB-DzOMSfqVGNBtt4ryZBGrSF_S5mXPzO_LKKXkD3onzA90UPvA9spOXAYzxzZeJerE1huy78FuyhqmMyXm4A/s330/Ash%20Barty.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqfeTiEE4GOgzs2rJ9bNg4CUrhkOg7D6mBJIsMWRDjQMeee9AT3LVjscH3n0RWKNEjWwf_LkMdSuhtb6Oz7CWvJUhz7KL7W3466k5pB-DzOMSfqVGNBtt4ryZBGrSF_S5mXPzO_LKKXkD3onzA90UPvA9spOXAYzxzZeJerE1huy78FuyhqmMyXm4A/s320/Ash%20Barty.jpg" width="213" /></a></div> This is our tennis star, Ash Barty, born 1996, who this year retired undefeated champion of the court. Through her great-grandmother, she is a member of the Ngarigo tribe, and so hailed as an inspiration for indigenous people throughout the country (like those depicted in the earlier part of this essay, no doubt).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div> </div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOCPSPlMZfsvwdv4kSFcFlDXwedDM30ekQefu0YX87sNt2f0PJe01zbNyRWCW_e5KjRiKkm7XswDhkPiPZd-hRNwqBfpIEIEb4iOGSOr2fgPBqACtYTzqv76pCKnpyQvC5FZociIR6sNCdouVtb8dFQfVnaul3BTTMtGpdyxX3T5e3rCm_1c_F9lM/s698/John%20Maynard,%20Emeritus%20Professor%20at%20Newcastle%20Uni%20&%20Worimi%20man.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="698" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOCPSPlMZfsvwdv4kSFcFlDXwedDM30ekQefu0YX87sNt2f0PJe01zbNyRWCW_e5KjRiKkm7XswDhkPiPZd-hRNwqBfpIEIEb4iOGSOr2fgPBqACtYTzqv76pCKnpyQvC5FZociIR6sNCdouVtb8dFQfVnaul3BTTMtGpdyxX3T5e3rCm_1c_F9lM/w320-h243/John%20Maynard,%20Emeritus%20Professor%20at%20Newcastle%20Uni%20&%20Worimi%20man.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> Here we have John Maynard, a member of the Worimi tribe of Port Stephens, NSW. He is Professor Emeritus of Indigenous Education and Research at Newcastle University.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcDEfqoh6bq6FDn2sNAmwUyqKhHIDHIrspqKUfqss820pFzwYljQBrF55kxD_F_VzE7Ljn-oBEVeNppqwt13cuzkTGfwkO-QPYyMAY7oPY7t3McMLwW--3-A10FpjR86Cwic8DpbJlobREpWmNAAO4Cu16hjAsz8TeTdU5b9cVjkHkqGsMiE6DL0O8/s453/Larissa%20Behrendt,%20Kamilaroi.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="340" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcDEfqoh6bq6FDn2sNAmwUyqKhHIDHIrspqKUfqss820pFzwYljQBrF55kxD_F_VzE7Ljn-oBEVeNppqwt13cuzkTGfwkO-QPYyMAY7oPY7t3McMLwW--3-A10FpjR86Cwic8DpbJlobREpWmNAAO4Cu16hjAsz8TeTdU5b9cVjkHkqGsMiE6DL0O8/s320/Larissa%20Behrendt,%20Kamilaroi.jpg" width="240" /></a></div> Larissa Behrendt is a Kamilaroi woman who is a Professor at the University of Technology, Sydney, and is the author of a number of books, and a number of films, all on Aboriginal subjects.</div><div>Her genealogical history is <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2016/11/family-stories-behrendts/" target="_blank">somewhat complex</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi67jfLrJ4aO-HYRlW8dqR_dsLPjKb7k8oKIhPucpuFRzYxkEjyDC4at_qW0wAIGFKdaNGE7uZaUBOQLCHOVejEMTbf1FO12PfE2AwGmgB0-tE-INlOl8JLPHl1lmRyPLGp4xrAJsctkFeHvnzYkOVnNJ1cOnklDVYc6Rb--nObxmH3MB15aNQQ5Mn9/s332/Lidia%20Thorpe%20MP%20(2).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="292" data-original-width="332" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi67jfLrJ4aO-HYRlW8dqR_dsLPjKb7k8oKIhPucpuFRzYxkEjyDC4at_qW0wAIGFKdaNGE7uZaUBOQLCHOVejEMTbf1FO12PfE2AwGmgB0-tE-INlOl8JLPHl1lmRyPLGp4xrAJsctkFeHvnzYkOVnNJ1cOnklDVYc6Rb--nObxmH3MB15aNQQ5Mn9/s320/Lidia%20Thorpe%20MP%20(2).jpg" width="320" /></a></div> This is Lidia Thorpe, an Aboriginal member of the Senate, and as such claims descent from the DjabWurrung, Gunnai, and Gunditjmara tribes of Victoria through her maternal great-great-grandmother. She is noted for declaring that her entry into the Senate represents an infiltration of the colonizers' system, and for racist rants against white people, plus offensive statements about our late Queen. However, she is the deputy leader of the Greens in the Senate, so what can you expect?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4MxxXv9m00YX5-MdurOPyIEil0AwpEAPAZ7Mqk8a-yiKu7-u8-nlxBIh3Kv11MKYnGyzODbUSs7dRpo-Mb25LTQtNBjQZ3e1RsTnpHh_jV-SBX-JcKqx7ttFrdbEYNYGvvCBIqAw94km6ipYayWoTV10tbgLk8zxNA1sOvSS28apYTe4VTcap8pE7/s1080/Josephine-Cashman.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4MxxXv9m00YX5-MdurOPyIEil0AwpEAPAZ7Mqk8a-yiKu7-u8-nlxBIh3Kv11MKYnGyzODbUSs7dRpo-Mb25LTQtNBjQZ3e1RsTnpHh_jV-SBX-JcKqx7ttFrdbEYNYGvvCBIqAw94km6ipYayWoTV10tbgLk8zxNA1sOvSS28apYTe4VTcap8pE7/s320/Josephine-Cashman.png" width="213" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"> <a href="https://josephinecashman.com.au/blog/f/about-josephine-cashman" target="_blank">Josephine Cashman</a> is a member of the Warrimay tribe of central coastal New South Wales, and was once a NSW Crown Prosecutor. Her <a href="https://josephinecashman.com.au/blog?blog=y" target="_blank">political opinions</a> are completely opposite those of Lidia Thorpe. In fact, she once stood for Parliament as a One Nation candidate.</div></span></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7TC1wzH7bUkFzlmBhEiNrVW0ya0fZFcEzIPEJrZG2WsitDjjjpMZ5Wfq2hUoym_di_3bAUU-xWRyWv2ZdU-BB6Xv2agXsjds3vpMxR1zidQemyVFULCLDE7iCO01MNI2I0Htfg7qmu_-DzFvsEzVNgVqb07M6fLd5_7QAqiZcRXtm6C04NHU9jXmK/s480/Clarence%20Stockee.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="480" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7TC1wzH7bUkFzlmBhEiNrVW0ya0fZFcEzIPEJrZG2WsitDjjjpMZ5Wfq2hUoym_di_3bAUU-xWRyWv2ZdU-BB6Xv2agXsjds3vpMxR1zidQemyVFULCLDE7iCO01MNI2I0Htfg7qmu_-DzFvsEzVNgVqb07M6fLd5_7QAqiZcRXtm6C04NHU9jXmK/s320/Clarence%20Stockee.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> Clarence Stockee is a member of the Bandjalung tribe of northeast New South Wales. He is the Education Officer at the Sydney Botanical Gardens, and appears frequently on the ABC program, <i>Gardening Australia.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD-h2Re8ivA0Gg_fmurpiTMPnNvdYLBQ-KZCqwWCd_8Ljt6WfZSMIgCz2X9DssNFAwkFuNbzptLljEyfjA_1_45zYil9wNNCEcgTcaecd-RigQOOLlEnXnjFSrvVtzV3bosIyPMDhLcmrCdVG6ez8oo0CnB3TmjwyY2I3a8BI94Cu82qMkG7YWFWCC/s349/jack-evans-262x349.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="349" data-original-width="262" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD-h2Re8ivA0Gg_fmurpiTMPnNvdYLBQ-KZCqwWCd_8Ljt6WfZSMIgCz2X9DssNFAwkFuNbzptLljEyfjA_1_45zYil9wNNCEcgTcaecd-RigQOOLlEnXnjFSrvVtzV3bosIyPMDhLcmrCdVG6ez8oo0CnB3TmjwyY2I3a8BI94Cu82qMkG7YWFWCC/s320/jack-evans-262x349.png" width="240" /></a></div> Jack Evans is one of two Aborigines working for the ABC who happen to be homosexual, and who thus tick two boxes in the ABC's (legally suspect) <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/their-abc/2022/08/the-sickest-abc-joke-in-ages/" target="_blank">diversity program</a>. Isn't it good when you can kill two birds with the one stone?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwoUkEa2BbZj3XD2tvWLa6vvRkkgtz5lwqYi6veGGawVpy8uwnHY0vEVGytK3suSBPA-jVNUHpbg88kmsXYCi0yielbsplAWJ0LQnoJudW-6Zf2D8h01a2uFNbEfDyRUYqiaX-Y-EOGJlCiqmTHHnHkfyLSy2JlU3lN9-DvQ7vGRYrzz9qaxFaeLhl/s380/5154.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="228" data-original-width="380" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwoUkEa2BbZj3XD2tvWLa6vvRkkgtz5lwqYi6veGGawVpy8uwnHY0vEVGytK3suSBPA-jVNUHpbg88kmsXYCi0yielbsplAWJ0LQnoJudW-6Zf2D8h01a2uFNbEfDyRUYqiaX-Y-EOGJlCiqmTHHnHkfyLSy2JlU3lN9-DvQ7vGRYrzz9qaxFaeLhl/s320/5154.webp" width="320" /></a></div> Here we have <a href="https://tasmanianartsguide.com.au/artists/aboriginal-artists/julie-gough/" target="_blank">Julie Gough</a>, an artist of the Trawlwoolway tribe of northern Tasmania.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJVhKCVSnLHZaHe2V_oSLOm4y_XGhkkasYSf_z4xqAxN1EyQax070tHLegmtxUfO9PZVyHIXPX57iSQj3gRS_NXOQfbsZFeop_i1L-vp4ZV8GkBny_zJyTUmZpbrcr3__f47tP2dgPvUWZJyBYeJlMgEx5JjjjsuAmnxiGa_Tac5kO_lvQ_fS-cLl_/s797/Arlene_Mehan.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="797" data-original-width="634" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJVhKCVSnLHZaHe2V_oSLOm4y_XGhkkasYSf_z4xqAxN1EyQax070tHLegmtxUfO9PZVyHIXPX57iSQj3gRS_NXOQfbsZFeop_i1L-vp4ZV8GkBny_zJyTUmZpbrcr3__f47tP2dgPvUWZJyBYeJlMgEx5JjjjsuAmnxiGa_Tac5kO_lvQ_fS-cLl_/s320/Arlene_Mehan.jpg" width="255" /></a></div> This is Arlene Mehan, an indigenous civil celebrant. It is not stated to which tribe she belongs, but she is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11359417/Cancel-culture-debate-hits-Port-Macquarie-indigenous-push-remove-Edmund-Barton-statue.html" target="_blank">behind a campaign</a> to remove a statue of our first Prime Minister.</div><div><br /></div><div> So now you have a good idea about what modern urban Aborigines - the ones lauded and lionised by the media - look like. How do they compare to those in the first half of this essay? Can you see the elephant in the room? If you can, be careful where and how you comment on it. There are some things not supposed to be spoken about in today's society.</div><div><br /></div><div> John Ray has a <a href="http://jonjayray.com/abocon.html" target="_blank">similar gallery</a> of modern Aborigines.</div><div><br /></div><div> Sydney University is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11297517/University-Sydney-praised-crackdown-students-falsely-claiming-Aboriginal.html" target="_blank">examining</a> the situation.</div><div> </div><div> We now have a <a href="https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/deep-fakes-academics-appropriate-aborigines-again-x2c94" target="_blank">website</a> tracing family trees and exposing Aboriginal academics who may not be what they claim to be.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2MICEJViudq9KBs16O5urGTBzImxf7UtIgOJgUFoH3iuDRE4iVMG4qAPc5732qd9H5aARaqfPNiRgNJzIseNkuuf_bU2gu06aOvX_XDMpFU-UJhkd5NjRIloQ85XGebyeSf6kvboAUz_4Sz8qrIXZNBVl8QebnntlduQpMOhM3JbArOjcLVU8lzK3/s300/Linda%20Augusto.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="291" data-original-width="300" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2MICEJViudq9KBs16O5urGTBzImxf7UtIgOJgUFoH3iuDRE4iVMG4qAPc5732qd9H5aARaqfPNiRgNJzIseNkuuf_bU2gu06aOvX_XDMpFU-UJhkd5NjRIloQ85XGebyeSf6kvboAUz_4Sz8qrIXZNBVl8QebnntlduQpMOhM3JbArOjcLVU8lzK3/s1600/Linda%20Augusto.png" width="300" /></a></div><br />PS</b> I keep finding more examples. Here is Linda Augusto, who is a Wiradjuri woman, who was introduced to her Aboriginal heritage by her grandmother.</div><div>You can read her touching story <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2021/04/09/following-legacy-strong-black-women-me" target="_blank">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVN8iK0ntsYWpXFl9YCxGFNiF-Vl5ZtvEwsNPbLCe9T0cCMkMryws8TT3A4jiU9iOXP2H5BlfumccUcmpF21GWcNtoWDDSFETpXL1GYUHHDdFhIA3Nr0pEHd40fR3-LgnfwcsdBkL9VGMsM9015qViGSHR2F4rL-3J2xQWG3exqwGP5cGXQb_Gr41y/s335/Lauren+O'Dwyer.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="317" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVN8iK0ntsYWpXFl9YCxGFNiF-Vl5ZtvEwsNPbLCe9T0cCMkMryws8TT3A4jiU9iOXP2H5BlfumccUcmpF21GWcNtoWDDSFETpXL1GYUHHDdFhIA3Nr0pEHd40fR3-LgnfwcsdBkL9VGMsM9015qViGSHR2F4rL-3J2xQWG3exqwGP5cGXQb_Gr41y/s320/Lauren+O'Dwyer.png" width="303" /></a></div><br /> This is Lauren O'Dwyer, a Labor candidate in the 2022 Victorian state election. She describes herself as a single mother, a lesbian, and a "proud Yorta Yorta woman". I have noticed that every Aborigine is proud of his or her heritage. In her case, it comes <i>via</i> her great-grandfather, Graham Berry. For some reason, however, Mr. Berry's daughter (I presume her great-aunt), Joan Keele insisted that Graham Berry never claimed Aboriginal descent, and the Yorta Yorta Nation and Aboriginal Council claims no knowledge of her. (See <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-21/lauren-odwyer-labor-candidate-aboriginal-heritage-claim/101675786" target="_blank">here</a>.) It's pretty tough when your own family and your own tribe refuse to stick up for you.</div><div><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSD1qqpL8V9yX1aoMG_nodKYsuFtPVYCEWKIJXOYwO5q18MmC5n12n88dxCZdOzCfFJmvz1zRoci5wyXvd9Oju7PygjXpIavJHjOSoK88jtDLJflPu5i2Nu-sv0h5HfGVVe1IJu6wlAxDIALV58a063A8-8rQlOp2dTfU1NQtpHuNtbjlJNE651EN/s717/Kerry%20White.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="717" data-original-width="634" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSD1qqpL8V9yX1aoMG_nodKYsuFtPVYCEWKIJXOYwO5q18MmC5n12n88dxCZdOzCfFJmvz1zRoci5wyXvd9Oju7PygjXpIavJHjOSoK88jtDLJflPu5i2Nu-sv0h5HfGVVe1IJu6wlAxDIALV58a063A8-8rQlOp2dTfU1NQtpHuNtbjlJNE651EN/s320/Kerry%20White.jpg" width="283" /></a></div><br /> Here we have Kerry White, an elder of the Narungga tribe of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. Unlike some other Aborigines, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11552185/Aboriginal-elder-Kerry-White-says-Welcome-Country-not-Indigenous-culture.html" target="_blank">she is against</a> the Welcome to Country ritual, the proposed Aboriginal Voice, and the Canadian term, First Nations. She calls urban Aborigines claiming indigenous status "<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-elder/" target="_blank">tick-a-boxers</a>". She also ran as a One Nation candidate in the South Australian election.<br /><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqzv3Kl4hH-dtMiEIpGO3RvxuDJz3zKWUiTzg5tYnMP-NjR4ANPIeENKcZrbZFkr76Jy1FWuR0bzJxvEeoktMgsDKqx9PCyk51HDiHaPvnERFa1g4nmHh7rVIQuyFk8je8INouxn1V4Z_2ax1XJMnlKkLsbQCWZuj8ecvyss--Nvw3Yq2E11EaUmjR/s319/Ash%20Gardner.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="319" data-original-width="316" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqzv3Kl4hH-dtMiEIpGO3RvxuDJz3zKWUiTzg5tYnMP-NjR4ANPIeENKcZrbZFkr76Jy1FWuR0bzJxvEeoktMgsDKqx9PCyk51HDiHaPvnERFa1g4nmHh7rVIQuyFk8je8INouxn1V4Z_2ax1XJMnlKkLsbQCWZuj8ecvyss--Nvw3Yq2E11EaUmjR/s1600/Ash%20Gardner.jpg" width="316" /></a></div>This is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-11662409/Indigenous-cricket-star-Ash-Gardner-slams-Australia-Day-prepares-play-Pakistan-holiday.html" target="_blank">Ash Gardner</a>, a lesbian cricket star from the Muruwari tribe of northwest NSW, beyond Bourke and Lightning Ridge. She has adopted the Central Australian custom of dot painting, along with smoking ceremonies, but she has an issue with Australia Day.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjdf69waw2UvyQxSf61ndUpbmUKmK-Ap8DZVrwoql9vEhKBG6Rqrvf2H-kn4HJC4o3O9d2_mxsa7aG4My9wjuU3CA4730Bl3UOr9NX2dZlqpyYNcvTvX5NJQGmPBRX16iZwhvOdIIBc4gKIUvklmXcLDZzMECSikBkSw90xu9-RV0s_rChA80cuGCi/s731/marcus-stewart-hat.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="731" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjdf69waw2UvyQxSf61ndUpbmUKmK-Ap8DZVrwoql9vEhKBG6Rqrvf2H-kn4HJC4o3O9d2_mxsa7aG4My9wjuU3CA4730Bl3UOr9NX2dZlqpyYNcvTvX5NJQGmPBRX16iZwhvOdIIBc4gKIUvklmXcLDZzMECSikBkSw90xu9-RV0s_rChA80cuGCi/s320/marcus-stewart-hat.png" width="320" /></a></div> Here we have Marcus Stewart, co-chair of the First Peoples Assembly in Victoria, campaigner for The Voice, and husband of Labor Senator Jana Stewart. He belongs to the Taungurung <strike>tribe</strike> Nation by descent from his great great grandfather, <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/identity/2023/03/a-family-heritage-overpainted-with-ochre/" target="_blank">John Franklin</a>. The latter was an orphan fostered by a white family, who later married a white woman, and became a prominent farmer and, later, ran a tea shop with his wife.</div><div> He also comes from a long line of <a href="https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/king-marcus-and-the-house-of-stewart-a-rising-aboriginal-aristocracy-part-1-by5ld" target="_blank">Scottish aristocracy</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu7o9fyAZq8OA23WFD6E3okplHcyXJtFHEfy-gG1QWdZIz08uc48mgzKxJ_oe0XPn35vXm5oC-_-ABiwvqnk6jMChXcsXODFrLkvkRYwbUP0Iaif2LZtTwg5BqKBWfn3Gsp72JU_7cGX3cdwEiRpBiBRzZRGDn3vDSA_qEwtJuhRRqlm6VJGPdpeZJ_TM/s1006/Blake%20Stockton.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1006" data-original-width="680" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu7o9fyAZq8OA23WFD6E3okplHcyXJtFHEfy-gG1QWdZIz08uc48mgzKxJ_oe0XPn35vXm5oC-_-ABiwvqnk6jMChXcsXODFrLkvkRYwbUP0Iaif2LZtTwg5BqKBWfn3Gsp72JU_7cGX3cdwEiRpBiBRzZRGDn3vDSA_qEwtJuhRRqlm6VJGPdpeZJ_TM/s320/Blake%20Stockton.jpg" width="216" /></a></div> This is Blake Stockton, a Wiradjuri man from the Nation of Three Rivers mob in western New South Wales. (It is unclear how many nations belong to the Wiradjuri entity.) For over a decade he ought indigenous cultures and history at four different high schools, and now he is the RACQ's Reconciliation Action Plan Program Specialist. Although he doesn't actually say so, he appears to be a supporter of the Aboriginal Voice, because people like him are unable to make their needs and desires known.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje5QE2RcxH8xr4WiynlC2n_9KHV7inldMrKKTcBxpKvBt7Y6XR23a1OLZ-cWCy4hEf6XmLXlLbl-2vvKNY7wjf-btWTSxb9wTcyk54DDVmgu3l23b9IjR1fmv-1ptFxQ_VCUbfe9Ljh3n2zkCDE-EagSeqfV1yC77iJfOPqxrZ8ltp8Ui3Vuy0q8Fl04g/s216/Celeste-Liddle,-L.webp" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="216" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje5QE2RcxH8xr4WiynlC2n_9KHV7inldMrKKTcBxpKvBt7Y6XR23a1OLZ-cWCy4hEf6XmLXlLbl-2vvKNY7wjf-btWTSxb9wTcyk54DDVmgu3l23b9IjR1fmv-1ptFxQ_VCUbfe9Ljh3n2zkCDE-EagSeqfV1yC77iJfOPqxrZ8ltp8Ui3Vuy0q8Fl04g/s1600/Celeste-Liddle,-L.webp" width="216" /></a></div> This is Celeste Liddle, a writer for the <i>Guardian</i>, and she belongs to the Arrente tribe, the same as Albert Namatjira and Rosalie Kunoth-Monks (see above).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCP-TXF6gQoaJQpLwKh7OEw_8lTZjoOtSiOMkvUg4zu6hhEULQPTuqKpCkYRm_Ua6IbnqF6q7swpnjJYpFFb_p7XvTFySbPrJEqejI4MVbgjQBTxoSqSHBV7KYNiVnnQBRmhWce2ZhsjOdonoNIHH7k9x1yvr0AYf17x14Ts_fFivrAl6667PGmN74aA/s768/Victorian%20First%20Nations%20Assembly.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="768" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRCP-TXF6gQoaJQpLwKh7OEw_8lTZjoOtSiOMkvUg4zu6hhEULQPTuqKpCkYRm_Ua6IbnqF6q7swpnjJYpFFb_p7XvTFySbPrJEqejI4MVbgjQBTxoSqSHBV7KYNiVnnQBRmhWce2ZhsjOdonoNIHH7k9x1yvr0AYf17x14Ts_fFivrAl6667PGmN74aA/w640-h384/Victorian%20First%20Nations%20Assembly.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> Here we have the entire newly elected Victorian First Peoples' Assembly (2023).</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV0uB-mEmt76XmNqhHXhAmHZ0m5-an3Yi4haUWLsePeJauINdR5xamiypt81ZPDS0fZpdJGrU21ErsbBqk-PBFH-X_ZVCbIHq1fFThJTOoWMk0DzDWqWB5gW3rA1ZIT7kSSmSo9dk4MLyLgOUy3f9LbowTgBwSYMLFG2JHmXs8jtcZHT2ZxetgpXEx9Zs/s768/Tarneen%20Onus.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV0uB-mEmt76XmNqhHXhAmHZ0m5-an3Yi4haUWLsePeJauINdR5xamiypt81ZPDS0fZpdJGrU21ErsbBqk-PBFH-X_ZVCbIHq1fFThJTOoWMk0DzDWqWB5gW3rA1ZIT7kSSmSo9dk4MLyLgOUy3f9LbowTgBwSYMLFG2JHmXs8jtcZHT2ZxetgpXEx9Zs/s320/Tarneen%20Onus.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>This is Tarneen Onus, who is clearly of mixed ancestry. According to <i>Mamamia</i>, "</div><div>Tarneen Onus Williams is a proud Gunditjmara, Bindal, Yorta Yorta person and Torres Strait Islander from Mer and Erub islands. Tarneen is a community organiser for Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance working on Invasion Day, Black Deaths in Custody and Stop the forced closures of Aboriginal Communities in WA. They [<i>sic</i>] are also a filmmaker and writer."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjH8W9JjlbrXWvixJfqYwwKmJchyduDwcHlWi1aGko0UiZh1D3qEqpjgsQTgu3hJEEjS2nf0KdzavE7SZ8JUIGK58gLepYk61JiZ-xwGoerXgwQsKh6_oohyphenhyphen9Kw_rWvZe7MeWJaH9hhZo5yDlQVXtfub-Srjh2WjbyjJs4mBtmixN6l6-dqS4sodEvDUk/s330/Ray_Martin_(11024225326).jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjH8W9JjlbrXWvixJfqYwwKmJchyduDwcHlWi1aGko0UiZh1D3qEqpjgsQTgu3hJEEjS2nf0KdzavE7SZ8JUIGK58gLepYk61JiZ-xwGoerXgwQsKh6_oohyphenhyphen9Kw_rWvZe7MeWJaH9hhZo5yDlQVXtfub-Srjh2WjbyjJs4mBtmixN6l6-dqS4sodEvDUk/s320/Ray_Martin_(11024225326).jpg" width="213" /></a></div> One of our most prominent Aborigines is Ray Martin, who has for many years been one of the country's leading television presenters. He has recently discovered that his great-great-grandmother was a Kamilaroi woman.</div><div> Andrew Bolt has some interesting comments <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gCAofyI2o" target="_blank">here</a>. (Make sure you go to 3.34 to see a group of Aborigines who have graduated from university by means of a scholarship provided for members of their race.)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg-TmwrBgbCY8-C9ltX7rN84vv6I0PuytlZ7x9uWeNoiZfoSIElbZxWUZuFatGqvT54o35qB7Gdj1ytQTWSXDXF-ZgePiEUJGrhHLYxAka9vQfMlrI8TifqG1BE04TghBcGvwbpqDtuAeMEy2XS1sLTBfERrQcrvvLuqJCceA1EiOgJM-cr2f1OTEUAUs/s275/Julia%20Cornwall%20McKean.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="275" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg-TmwrBgbCY8-C9ltX7rN84vv6I0PuytlZ7x9uWeNoiZfoSIElbZxWUZuFatGqvT54o35qB7Gdj1ytQTWSXDXF-ZgePiEUJGrhHLYxAka9vQfMlrI8TifqG1BE04TghBcGvwbpqDtuAeMEy2XS1sLTBfERrQcrvvLuqJCceA1EiOgJM-cr2f1OTEUAUs/s1600/Julia%20Cornwall%20McKean.jpg" width="275" /></a></div> Julia Cornwell McKean recently discovered that she is a Wiradjuri woman, because her father was a member of the "<a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/1-2/why-there-were-no-stolen-generations/" target="_blank">Stolen Generations</a>", having been taken from his parents at the age of three months. In 2023 she was elected as the first Indigenous mayor of the Berrigan Shire Council. She immediately started opening Council with a "<a href="https://xyz.net.au/2023/09/dont-welcome-bloody-country/" target="_blank">Welcome to Country</a>" ceremony, using the Aboriginal flag, and endorsing the Ulu<u>r</u>u Statement.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGIHJi6G66C7zkAII-qj-1VCBhPK2VXYXHbz7sYA1Cjgupa7tZbnxv076i2UgK6OybAD1UeDdY6UoHvXA6LX6UYvgciDtqGCH3BZ9u6huSGUu_BKFuei_umLVkqIGP_WE3cnYdxZRVjL3CfX6NCMqMaOWrR2JqywF3rcg-Hr-dONy8ObwLp9N_7gLvGWY/s495/Jay%20Walton.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="471" data-original-width="495" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGIHJi6G66C7zkAII-qj-1VCBhPK2VXYXHbz7sYA1Cjgupa7tZbnxv076i2UgK6OybAD1UeDdY6UoHvXA6LX6UYvgciDtqGCH3BZ9u6huSGUu_BKFuei_umLVkqIGP_WE3cnYdxZRVjL3CfX6NCMqMaOWrR2JqywF3rcg-Hr-dONy8ObwLp9N_7gLvGWY/s320/Jay%20Walton.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /> Jay Walton has just discovered he is an Aborigine, his great-grandparents having belonged to the Worimi nation around Port Stephens, NSW. He is <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12990087/Aboriginal-businessman-Australia-Day-national-flag-changed.html" target="_blank">now explaining</a> how celebrating Australia Day and flying the Australian flag are breaches of human rights.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-12902160579001009992022-01-06T21:42:00.012-08:002023-12-15T21:04:14.511-08:00Love, Honour, and Obey? When I was a boy, I happened to look through one of the women's magazines which turned up in my home, and read the advice column. A woman was complaining that her husband wanted to move to a new house in a new neighbourhood, and she didn't. What should she do? The female columnist provided some suggestions as to how she might get him on side, but she did point out that, as the head of the house, her husband would be the one to make the final decision. Up to then, it had never occurred to me (I was only a child, after all), but it suddenly made perfect sense. That is, after all, what headship means: to make the final decision on important matters.<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> To some people this idea grates, and there are, regrettably, too many couples who view marriage as a contest in power. One woman insisted, "There is no way I would let a man have the last word." Well, who is going to have it? You? There cannot be a majority vote in a partnership of two; someone has to have the casting vote. Or does she think it should be made by the one who whines, shouts, or digs in his or her heels the most?</div><div> Of course, the male equivalent is the fellow who mounts his high horse and insists on the symbolism of his headship. ("Now, look here, woman! I wear the pants in this family. What I say goes.") This is foolish. Apart from it causing resentment, a real man seldom needs to throw his weight around to gain a woman's compliance. There are some roles which human beings naturally fall into.</div><div> You doubt it? Take a look at popular culture. The most popular genre in fiction is love stories, which make up 40% of mass market paperbacks. Their readership is almost wholly female. And they <i>all </i>feature alpha males. Female editors fresh out of college and feminist indoctrination tried to get their authors to produce what they perceived as "more equal" scenarios, but it didn't work. The authors didn't want to write them, and the readers didn't want to read them. To be sure, not every woman reads them, but the opposite type of story is much rarer, if it exists at all.</div><div> Pornography is, of course, a perversion of natural tastes, but it says a lot about the way the natural taste is directed. And the most successful pornographic novel in all history is <i>Fifty Shades of Grey</i>. Who would have thought that a book about a woman being subjugated and abused by a dominant male would be written by a woman, promoted by women reviewers, read predominantly by women, and sell 50 million copies?</div><div> Women are hard wired to look for an alpha male. Even <a href="https://quillette.com/2020/01/16/all-the-single-ladies/" target="_blank">highly educated women</a> who expect to earn high incomes look for a husband of equal standing to their own. Only as a last resort will a woman marry, or even date, a man who ranks below her, socially or financially, with the result that high flying women <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6004239/High-flying-career-women-refusing-marry-despite-struggling-Mr-Right.html" target="_blank">cannot find husbands</a>. When they do, they are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200121-why-promoted-women-are-more-likely-to-divorce" target="_blank">much more likely</a> to get divorced. An interesting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/25/winning-lottery-sends-women-rushing-divorce-court" target="_blank">Swedish study</a> revealed that winning the lottery increased a man's chances of marriage and reduced his chances of divorce, while it increases a woman's likelihood of divorce in the short term.</div><div> <a href="https://childandfamilyblog.com/gender-attitudes-mothering/" target="_blank">Research</a> has shown that, at the birth of the first child, both parents, despite their original attitudes, revert towards the traditional ie natural gender roles. The researcher, of course, considered this a bad thing, but that merely reveals her bias towards modern ideology. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167218781000" target="_blank">Other research</a> has consistently found that women, even those of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-women-including-feminists-are-still-attracted-to-benevolently-sexist-men-101067" target="_blank">general feminist persuasion</a>, prefer men who exhibit the traditional male role of protector and provider, because they intuitively recognize that they would make better husbands. Of course, being politically correct, the authors called it "benevolent sexism" and claimed it was harmful to women, but when you look closer, it appears that the "harm" lies in encouraging them to adopt female roles rather than male ones.</div><div> Some of my female workmates once joked about how a certain feisty female supervisor would become quiet and demure in the presence of her boyfriend. However, this is by no means uncommon. As anthropologist, Peter Frost <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-adaptive-value-of-aw-shucks.html" target="_blank">explained</a>:</div><div><blockquote>In a mixed group, women become quieter, less assertive, and more compliant. This deference is shown only to men and not to other women in the group.</blockquote></div><div> He then <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236707130_Gender_Inequality_in_Interaction_-_An_Evolutionary_Account" target="_blank">cites</a> a lady professor of sociology that this behaviour has evolved by sexual selection for a mate. In other words, just as faint heart never won fair lady, being loud and assertive didn't win the handsome prince.</div><div> Families work best when the husband is the head and the wife is the heart. When a system is universal, and has existed as long as human memory runs, it usually means it is hard wired into our genes. Culture normally functions by socialising people along the lines of their natural bent. It is only in our own society for the last fifty years that we have been attempting to run it in reverse, and it isn't working very well. Modern women are impaled on the horns of a dilemma: nature attracts them to male dominance, and ideology insists they reject it. Of course, the men who buy into this fantasy also tend to <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/" target="_blank">come to grief</a>.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Evolution</b></div><div> I gained my degrees in zoology at a time when the study of the behaviour of primates - monkeys and apes - in the wild was all the rage. Every species has a slightly different social structure, but nearly all involve male dominance. Of course, there are exceptions. Among bonobos, although males are more aggressive, the females combine and manipulate to dominate them. But this would cut no ice with their nearest relatives (and ours) the chimpanzees, where virtually any male can dominate any female. The societies of baboons and macaques are centred around a coterie of dominant males which protect the females and children. Gorilla males control harems. So do the male hamadryad baboons, who will actually punish a wife who tries to stray. Just the same, if she is really determined to change her allegiance to another male, there is not much he can do about it. This should remind us that it is not just about male power. As with human beings, the system exists because it benefits both sexes.</div><div> In my essay on <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-science-of-sexual-morality.html" target="_blank">The Science of Sexual Morality</a>, I explained that human marriage evolved, as it has in not a few other species, because the large brained human child requires the care of both father and mother. And for the mother, obviously the most valuable "catch" would have been the dominant male, not only because he had the best genes, but because he was best able to protect and provide for her and her children. Being submissive and sexually available was a winning evolutionary strategy.</div><div> There is another factor which does not, strictly speaking, affect the relationship between husband and wife, but does impact on the relationship between men and women in the public sphere. The father's contribution to the family economy was meat. Men are designed as hunters, women as gatherers and nurturers. Since the roles require different skills and mind sets, it should not be surprising if, when given a free choice, men and women <a href="https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/news/0218-gender-equality-surprise-revealed-by-leeds-beckett-university-research/" target="_blank">choose different careers</a>. More importantly, if a male went hunting with two or three of his male buddies, they came back with more meat per person than if he hunted by himself. If, however, he took his wife with him, at best she would distract him or hold him back, and at worse, she would put herself in danger. Both problems would be exacerbated whether she took the children with her, or left them to fend for themselves. The result is that men are hard wired to try to recreate this primordial male hunting band: a male bonding group which excludes women. Should you be surprised, therefore, that they dominate public life? Ask any high flying woman about the "old boys' club"!</div><div> Patriarchy has been the default social system for both us and our ancestors for at least 40 million years. It isn't going away soon.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Anthropology</b></div><div> <a href="https://riverinagirl.blogspot.com.au" target="_blank">My mother</a> (born 1909) once made an interesting observation on women's fashions. Those of the 1920s were very boyish. The flappers cut their hair short and, although they still wore dresses, they were straight up and down, not pulled in at the waist, and they sometimes came with chest flatteners. On the other hand, during the Second World War they were more masculine, with wide shoulders. She volunteered no explanation for this, but it is not hard to divine the reasons. It was probably not clearly thought out, but simply the result of intuition. The 1920s was the era of initial women's emancipation, so to be taken seriously, they had to downplay their femininity. During the war, however, women were filling occupations left vacant by men. Also, the nation's survival rested on masculine virtues. Following the war, femininity came back into fashion, but even now women in positions of power have to go in for "power dressing" ie looking more like a man. Nobody is going to take seriously a CEO or Prime Minister with a frilly dress or low neckline. "It is just a case," a woman told me, "of not letting your femininity get in the way of professionalism." But nobody suggests that masculinity gets in the way. It comes with the uniform.</div><div> For most of my adult life I have had an amateur interest in anthropology, so let me say it: in anthropology, "the patriarchy" is known as "human society". There isn't any other. Men dominate family and public life in <a href="https://knowlandknows.substack.com/p/the-patriarchy-paradox?s=r" target="_blank">all societies in every era</a>. They may share it to a greater or lesser extent with women, and they may treat women well or treat them badly, but patriarchy is universal.</div><div> Now, this tends to upset some people, so they resort to a form of dishonesty: they diligently search among minor tribal societies, and confuse matrilinear ones with matriarchal entities. Matriarchy is the hypothetical system where the natural order is reversed, and society is run by women. On the other hand, matrilineality means that inheritance passes through the female line. The Minang Kabau of Indonesia are matrilinear and uxorilocal. The husband moves in with his wife's family. But the head of the house is neither the wife nor the husband, but the wife's father. In the macho warrior society of the Iroquois, the chiefs were elected by the elder women of the clan - but the chiefs were male. Many New Guinea tribes are matrilinear, but their women are still treated like dirt.</div><div> However, all this fussing around small tribal groups misses the forest for the trees. They are useful to see how far the human social template can be stretched before it breaks, but it is the major civilisations, which cover millions of people over hundreds of years, that are the successful societies. Furthermore, if patriarchy really were a social construct, one would expect an equal number of societies to be matriarchal, and others more or less neutral. Also, in the usual to- and fro-ing over the centuries, many of them would have flipped. If, every time the human dice box is shaken, men come out on top, something fundamental is going on. And it appears even on a small scale. Men are only a small proportion of nurses, but they are <a href="https://www.nursinginpractice.com/latest-news/male-nurses-better-represented-at-higher-pay-bands-than-female-colleagues/" target="_blank">overrepresented</a> at the higher levels.</div><div> This is human nature. You can't fight it, only direct it into its proper channels, because families function best when the father is the head and the mother is the heart. Ours is the only society which has ever questioned that, and then only recently. Everywhere else the natural order is taken for granted. No other society would think it strange for a bride to promise to obey; they would only be surprised that something so obvious need be mentioned. The universal moral law needs no defence.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Bible</b></div><div> The people who condemn Christianity as some sort of male chauvinist cult don't appreciate the irony of it all. The only reason they believe in the equality of the sexes is that they are living in a society which has been Christian from time immemorial. No other society came up with the idea before. Modern feminism, like a lot of other modern trends, is essentially a secular heresy. It has latched onto the Christian teaching about the equal value of human beings, but removed it from the social morality which makes it workable. Worse, as I have explained <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-does-woman-want-with-career-anyway.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>, it holds that feminine lifestyles are inferior, and insists that women compete with men in their own field.</div><div> So let us examine the real doctrine. When the actress, Candace Cameron Bure caused a stir by describing her attitude to her husband as "submissive", she responded that it was a problem that there was no better word. All too true! "Blessed are the meek," suffers from the same problem. It is a defect of our society that, five hundred years after the Bible was translated into English, some basic virtues still sound negative. "Submission" implies accepting something which you don't like, and was probably unjust. Perhaps "defer to" might be better, but I suppose the political correctors would complain even about that. Just what is the appropriate word for the correct attitude of the first mate towards the captain?</div><div> In the New Testament, the Greek word is <i>hypotássesthe</i>, which literally means "appoint yourself under", the appropriate act of a subordinate. In the words of St Paul:</div><div><blockquote>Wives be subject to (<i>hypotássesthe</i>) your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and in himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Eph. 5:21-25, RSV)</blockquote></div><div> In the verse immediately before, he uses the same verb when he tells the members of the congregation to be subject to one another. Elsewhere, they were told to be subject to the authorities as citizens. However, children are instructed to obey (<i>hypakoúete</i>) their parents, and slaves their masters, the implication being that these had much less freedom of action than the other three categories. And, in case you are interested, similar instructions occur in Col. 3:18-19, and also by St. Peter (1 Pet. 3:1, 7).</div><div> A ship cannot have two captains, but the captain does not micromanage the first mate, who has wide authority, discretion, and field of responsibility. Similarly, you will find women <a href="https://peacefulwife.com/2015/06/18/biblical-submission-is-not-passivity/" target="_blank">explaining</a>, in any number of websites and video clips, that "submission" does not mean subservience, nor that she is her husband's servant, nor that she has no influence and no mind of her own. But, seriously, the only people who believe this caricature as those who don't practice it. It is a strawman. The Enemy always seeks to make us flee from the least probable danger so that we will embrace the greater one. There will always be a minority who take a sensible rule to ridiculous levels but, realistically, in this day and age the danger of a woman allowing herself to become a doormat is significantly less than that of her aiming to take over command.</div><div> The same goes for that other strawman, that it might prime wives to accept abuse. As Matthew Cochrane <a href="http://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=768" target="_blank">so aptly put it</a>, this is like saying that the commandment to "honour thy father and thy mother" primes boys and girls for child abuse.</div><div><blockquote>It’s simply a rhetorical device that poisons the well by presenting God’s design of humanity as a dangerous curse rather than a blessing—as though pastors and teachers need to make God’s Word safe before we stoop to teaching it.</blockquote><div> <b>Love, Honour, and Obey</b> </div><div> When the early feminist, Lucy Stone insisted on keeping her maiden name upon marriage, her sister-in-law, Elizabeth Blackwell (who was also the first woman doctor) commented that it seemed strange that she should want to be known by the name of a man she didn't choose, instead of a man she did choose. The point, of course, was that her "own name" is really her father's, so retaining it is hardly a blow against "the patriarchy". These days, of course, it is even more problematical, because it will imply that they are not really married, but merely living in sin.</div></div><div> A woman who has already made a name for herself may retain her old name for professional purposes, while using her new name socially. By and large, however, a refusal to take her husband's name means she is deliberately taking a stand against her husband - before the marriage has even begun! Her fiancé would be well advised to call off the engagement. Even raising the issue would be a bad sign.</div><div> As for the words at the top of this section, one wonders whether those who cite them recall their own marriage vows. They are thinking of the vows made popular by the Church of England's <i>Book of Common Prayer</i> of 1662, although they appeared in earlier editions. However, the phrase itself does not occur as such. In the early part of the ceremony, the priest asks the bride: "Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him ...?", to which she is supposed to answer, "I will". They then recite their vows, in which the bride promises "to love, cherish, and to obey." The groom's vows are slightly different, and more detailed, but they are complementary.</div><div> The advantage of using traditional vows is that they embody what both the word of God and centuries of experience have shown to provide the solid basis of marriage. Writing your own vows may sound romantic, but it implies you can select your own particular brand of marriage, rather than accept that marriage is a fundamental institution independent of the individuals involved. In 1928 the Church of England produced an alternate service which deleted the word, "obey", and other groups followed. This was a mistake. It implies that you can have two different marriages, and that you can opt out of one of its requirements, even one mandated by both the Bible and nature. Indeed, the fact that some people resent the word is itself a good reason to retain it.</div><div> In 1947, Princess Elizabeth, soon to be Queen Elizabeth II, insisted on including "obey" in her vows, and every indication is that she followed it through for the remainder of her 74 year marriage. (The late Lady Diana once called Prince Philip "the real head" of the Royal Family.) In the lead-up to Queen Victoria's wedding, the Archbishop of Canterbury wondered whether "obey" should be removed from her vows. To this Victoria replied: "I wish to be married as a woman, not as a queen."</div><div> Too many women these days, unfortunately, wish to be married as a queen rather than as a woman.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-88788014813363149752021-11-08T13:45:00.002-08:002022-04-05T03:57:06.666-07:00Did The Pill Really Do All That? The sexual revolution has been an unmitigated disaster. Since the oral contraceptive was introduced, there have been more out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Since abortion was legalised, there have been more out-of-wedlock births. The effects on the children have been appalling. Couples who approach marriage on the "try before you buy" principle have a much higher divorce rate. When I was growing up, there were three STDs you needed to know about, and they could be cured by antibiotics. Since then, I have lost count of the number of new STDs, most of which are highly resistant to treatment. One of them can kill you horribly if you don't keep it at bay with <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/the-high-cost-of-preventing-aids.html " target="_blank">very expensive drugs</a> for the rest of your life. The sexual revolution has been a failure even in what it promised. More sexual partners do not equate to more sex. Most sex still occurs in the bond of matrimony, but these bonds are breaking up faster these days. And a commonly expressed opinion is that it all started with the introduction of the contraceptive pill. But did it? I think the truth is far more nuanced.<span><a name='more'></a></span>
<div> For a start, one thing most people forget is that effective contraception existed for decades before the arrival of "the Pill". Jennifer Worth met a Boer War veteran who, once he left the army, decided that he wasn't going to inflict his wife with endless pregnancies, so after his two daughters were born, they always used contraception - I suspect condoms. Both Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger were pushing intra-uterine devices. During the 1920s one of the fads of the <i>avant garde</i> was "companionate marriage", which might be defined as cohabitation with contraception, but without commitment. In 1927 Bertrand Russell was talking about developing a new sexual morality, a <i>via media</i> between monogamy and promiscuity, involving modern contraception. In 1943, C. S. Lewis stated: "Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before." In his 1948 novel, <i>The Haunting of Toby Jugg</i>, Dennis Wheatley imagined a Satanic school where promiscuity was promoted, and all the girls were fitted with a contraceptive device. Yes, this might have been fantasy, but it described the accepted medical knowledge of the time.</div><div> Nevertheless, all this appears to have been limited to the upper and middle classes - or at least sections of them. Mrs. Worth's war veteran notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to have percolated down to the lower classes. Just the same, I was a teenager when the oral contraceptive was introduced, and I can affirm that the male locker room conversation centred on "frenchies" ie condoms. Fellows were genuinely frightened of shotgun weddings. Also, they knew that even "easy" girls would become difficult if they weren't offered protection.</div><div> Now, if you were planning a career of sexual abandon, a condom has a lot going for it. Although not perfect, it is at least as effective as the pill. It needs only be used on the occasion, rather than every day. It also protects from venereal disease, which no pill could do. (That's another thing: female-based contraceptives are really only useful in monogamous relationships.) So why didn't the condom kick start the sexual revolution?</div><div> The immediate beneficiaries of the pill were married women. Single women did not rush out to acquire it - even assuming their doctors would prescribe it. Genuinely promiscuous women no doubt did, as did some of those with a regular boyfriend whom they hoped to marry. But otherwise, for her to seek the oral contraceptive would be to cross a psychological and sociological rubicon; it would mean that she was planning to be promiscuous. Likewise, a male seducer would tell her he had a condom; he wouldn't ask if she was on the pill. If she were, seduction would hardly be necessary; it was already established that she was "easy". But I was around in the "swinging sixties", and I can assure you, the "swinging" was honoured more in the breach than the observance. The moral law was still too deeply embedded. </div><div> What broke it down was, I would suggest, was really a series of actions by governments in the late 1960s and in the 1970s, when they really got underway. The first was the relaxation of censorship of obscenity. Dr. John Court was able to show that, in all western nations, there was a strong temporal relationship between the legalisation of pornography and a sudden increase in rape. But for our purposes, a major result was the normalisation of unchastity in films and literature. The next movement was the legalisation of abortion. You will, of course, remember that in the U.S. this was done by judicial decree, rather than through legislation by the democratically elected representatives. About this time, it was decided to introduce sex education into schools. While a good case could be made for this, the radicals turned it into a how-to-do-it course in unchastity, which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JXZZmlgTI" target="_blank">caused the very problems</a> it was intended to prevent. None of these changes had been made as the result of public pressure. By and large, most of society was against them, or at least neutral. They were pushed by a hard core of sexual radicals, and only after they had been well established did they gather mainstream acceptance. Culture, in this case, was downstream from the law.</div><div> The final step lay in paying an allowance to unmarried mothers, forgetting the basic economic rule that what you subsidise <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-we-can-learn-from-hobos.html " target="_blank">you get more of</a>. Errant males could now do their thing without fear of paternity suits or shotgun weddings - even if they couldn't persuade their girlfriends to get an abortion. Marginalised girls found they could get government benefits, even a free house, by having an illegitimate child. I would suggest that when unmarried mothers on government assistance reached a certain critical level, the sexual revolution was complete.</div><div> Most of this had only a tenuous link to the oral contraceptive. Ironically, it took another decade for condoms to get back into fashion, and then only because a new and terrifying STD had arrived.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-51752134230113077992021-10-09T17:52:00.002-07:002021-12-22T21:47:58.799-08:00"Anti-Racism" Comes to Australia. Parents beware! Anything which the <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/09/why-cultural-marxism-dare-not-speak-its-name/" target="_blank">corruptors of society</a> get away with in America will eventually be introduced into Australia. And the obvious place to introduce it is in the schools, under the radar of the parents. We have already been alerted to the "Safe Schools" abomination, and questions are now being asked about how the new curriculum undermines the national identity. Now we have a three-part ABC documentary on "The School That Tried to End Racism". No doubt the intentions were good (which is more than can be said for some other teaching programs), but the sum result was to introduce racial tension into an area where it did not previously exist.<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> First of all, you should understand that about a fifth of Australia's population is of non-European background, and while we see a few of them scattered around here in Brisbane, the vast majority are concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. Not only that, but they are concentrated in specific suburbs, some of which do not look like Australia at all. This is a relatively new development. Pauline Hanson warned about it, but they vilified her, demonized her, and put her in jail.</div><div> The program was introduced to a class of 10 and 11 year olds in a Sydney state school with a broad mixture of European and non-European children, with an idea of teaching them about racism before it started. It was acknowledged that the various pupils got on well together. This, you might think, is how racism is defeated: by having people, particularly the young, mixing together and discovering that a lot more unites them than divides them. Heck! My nephew's best friend in primary school was a "blackie" (his word) from Fiji. My wife grew up playing with the black kids in Papua New Guinea, so when she went to school in the U.S., she automatically gravitated to the negro girls (and got stones thrown at her for being a nigger lover). However, they were now going to be put through a course to make them conscious of racial differences that hadn't bothered them before.</div><div> First of all, they asked the children to draw their friends. I suppose they were trying to establish that they picked their friends according to race, but we didn't hear much more about it. What did they expect? The drawings were so inexpert, it was hardly possible to identify the friends, or even their race. So the kids were taken outside to learn about "white privilege". This is a definite import from America. The concept was invented by Peggy McIntosh, a specialist in "women's studies". In other words, she is one of those unnecessary academics who make their money creating tension and resentment between the sexes, and now she was intent on doing the same with the races. To give her credit, she did not pretend that a white hillbilly was more privileged than a middle class black man. Instead, she talked of being able to get a "flesh coloured" Band-Aid close to the colour of her skin, to easily find a hairdresser familiar with her kind of hair, to open newspapers or turn on the TV and see white people widely represented, and know that her bad behaviour would not reflect on her race. All these, of course, are simply a reflection on being in the majority ethnic group. I suppose my cousin, who works in Japan, finds himself surrounded by Japanese privilege. She did, however, add the fact that, if she gets a job with an affirmative action employer, people won't assume she got it because of her race - evidence that there is such a thing as "black privilege" in America.</div><div> But the managers of the school program were determined to teach the kids that being white gave them a head start in life, and for this they adopted a program straight from the US. They took them to a race track outside, and told them to take one or two steps forward or backwards depending on certain qualifications. The system was rigged to make the white children win, and left one poor little Vietnamese boy stuck at the back because he spoke Vietnamese at home, and was once asked where he really came from. And what were the factors which allowed the white kids to step forward and win the race? Such things as speaking English at home, seeing people predominantly of their own race in advertisements and on TV, having most Members of Parliament of their own race, and so on. Is there any evidence that these factors give anyone a head start in life? It was never provided, just asserted. The most ludicrous was for them to take two steps forward if they had blue or grey eyes. Are brown eyed white people at a disadvantage to those with lighter coloured eyes? Don't these idiots know that brothers and sisters can have eyes of different colours?</div><div> And no-one ever mentions the elephant in the room: immigration. If non-Europeans are really at a disadvantage in Australia - no matter whose fault it is - then bringing in more of them can only make the situation worse. Why import an underclass? Through their agencies, Governments inflict us with contradictory propaganda. When they want to justify their unpopular immigration policies, they assure us that we are a "proud multicultural country", and we are all getting on swimmingly. But when they want to justify their procrustean anti-discrimination legislation and the indoctrination of children, they claim that there is racism everywhere.</div><div> Having now convinced the non-Europeans that they were hard-done-by second class citizens, they took them all back inside and told them to divide into two groups: whites and non-whites. One girl from the Lebanese Muslim community initially failed to act as planned. She looked around and decided she belonged with the whites. This of course was correct; non-European is not the same as non-white. But in the second round, she decided to join the non-whites. (I might add, that we saw her family a couple of times, and a disturbing thought occurred to me: when she becomes a teenager, will she be forced to wear the headscarf like her mother? Will the school permit it? If so, this will isolate her from mainstream Australia more than anything else.)</div><div> The non-white groups consisted of children whose origins lay in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, southeast Asia, and east Asia. In other words, they were a mixture of races, religions, and cultures, with nothing in common except they were non-mainstream. Instead of the teachers encouraging them to consider how they might fit in, they asked them to consider their experiences of being non-white - which meant rehearsing the occasional slights they had received in the past, plus what they had been taught about "white privilege". The teachers noted that the white children were reticent when asked to reflect on what it meant to be white. What did they expect? Prior to that, it had never been part of their world view.</div><div> The program was a success; they had introduced racial tension where little had existed before. When they grow up, the non-Europeans will not assimilate, and they will assume that any difficulties they encounter will not be due to their own fault, or bad luck, but to Australian racism. The whites had been taught to feel guilty just for being white. I hope the parents of both groups were suitably impressed.</div><div> It will no doubt be a while before it is introduced to white cities such as Brisbane, but they are sure to expand it in Sydney and Melbourne. When this happens, parents will have to refuse to permit their children to get involved, and they must make a fuss at the local PTA, and with their Members of Parliament. This is why parents must be very diligent at investigating everything their children are being taught at school. The days are past when they could assume the education system was their servant.</div><div><br /></div><div>More <a href="https://spectator.com.au/2021/09/their-abc-and-the-school-that-tried-to-end-racism-by-being-racist/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://spectator.com.au/2021/10/their-abc-teaches-students-about-systemic-racism/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-24981082050155466622021-04-24T13:57:00.003-07:002023-12-03T21:26:17.735-08:00We Didn't Need No "Consent" Lessons! I see that, morally, our society has fallen so far backwards that it is now trying to reinvent the wheel. In the last few weeks we've heard a lot about the Australian Federal Government's program to teach sexual consent in schools, due to a moral panic about sexual assaults committed by pupils or recent graduates. Nothing like this was ever raised in school when I was a pupil. We didn't need it. The fact that it is seen as necessary now is merely evidence of how far society has fallen. And it will almost certainly be taught badly.<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> The reason my generation, the baby boomers, required no such training was that our parents, and the whole of society, inculcated a whole different world view into our consciousness. The first lesson, of course, was "Boys don't hit girls." It was easy to learn because, although boys may settle their differences with fisticuffs, girls belong to a different tribe, and are outside the male dominance hierarchy. Most boys also learned at least the rudiments of how to be a gentleman. If they didn't offer their seat to a woman, at least they knew they ought to. From popular culture, be it comics, books, or movies, they absorbed the truism that the male role was to be the protector of women. It went without saying that wife beaters were recognized as low life (and <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/why-i-didnt-wear-white-ribbon.html " target="_blank">still are</a>.)</div><div> As for consent, this was also something you absorbed from your surroundings. Consent was obtained when you both made your solemn vows before the altar, and put a ring on her finger. Before that, the issue was not supposed to arise. If you did make an indecent proposition to a girl, and she said no, it was because most girls would. And you would be a rat for asking. You would probably also lose status in her eyes, and certainly in those of her parents and brother(s).</div><div> It also needs to be said that this was not some sort of quirk of my era. As I have explained <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-science-of-sexual-morality.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>, it is the default position on humanity, upheld by the vast majority of societies, and all of the successful ones. It is modern permissive, hypersexualised society which is abnormal, not to mention dysfunctional. And yes, I am describing the ideal. There were always people who broke the rules and bucked the system. But the modern educationalists are attempting to construct another ideal. It will also have others who break the rule.</div><div> There is another point: if a man knows that, by making an indecent proposition to a woman, he has already crossed a red line, he is not likely to cross yet another by forcing himself on her after her not unexpected rebuff. Date rape, which is what we are talking about, occurs in a culture of entitlement, where dating is automatically expected to end in intercourse, if not on the first date, then not long after. When Mike Tyson was on trial for rape in 1992, he unsuccessfully argued that his victim must have known he expected sex when he took her to his flat. His victim might have been a virgin, but his expectations would have been produced by all the other women who had been all too ready to oblige him. I note that some of the women loudest in their demands for consent training are themselves unchaste, and admit that they themselves would be happy to end a date with copulation if they felt in the mood. They don't realise they are part of the problem. Bad women attract bad men, and bring out the worst in them.</div><div> A major sex scandal rocked the Australian Defence Forces back in 2013. A female soldier called "Kate" had a one night stand with a male colleague, and was appalled that he had videoed their encounter in order to share it with his friends. Yes, his behaviour was despicable, but I can't build up much sympathy for "Kate". She was a slut. She used men to slake her own lust, and was shocked - shocked! - that the sort of man who would do it with her would, by the nature of the arrangement, be a low life rake with absolutely no respect for womanhood.</div><div> So yes, we probably do need to teach consent in school. But the need is only a symptom of a much deeper moral malaise. The powers that be refuse to recognize that there might be such as thing as an indecent proposition. They <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/catholic-education-tasmania-head-takes-issue-with-mandatory-consent-education/ar-AA1kVLtN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1b7e09e795134386a9b9d7d0c0b8549a&ei=37" target="_blank">apparently expect</a> their charges to accept that all sexual activity is on the table, just as long as there is consent. This will not end well.</div><div> And parents, you might wish to examine what your children are actually being taught at school. And you yourself might care to start early and teach them right from wrong, because they aren't getting the message from school, or popular culture.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-13896142618928154602021-02-12T17:28:00.003-08:002022-12-31T22:45:41.836-08:00Ireland's Malthusian Apocalypse If my <a href="https://malcolmshome.blogspot.com/2011/04/captain-john-mcgovern-1846-1929_10.html" target="_blank">great-grandfather</a> had been born in 1846, as his obituary claimed, and not 1844, as he himself had claimed, then it is possible his parents had migrated to England because of the Great Irish Famine. You probably know the essential details: the Irish peasantry had become dependent on the potato - they lived on almost nothing else - and when the potato blight struck, famine and starvation ensued on a previously unimaginable scale. I myself had heard a lot about it, but it was only recently that I read Cecil Woodham-Smith's classic history, <i>The Great Hunger, Ireland 1845-1849</i>, and something leaped out at me which the author herself did not press, and few others have mentioned: the underlaying cause of the disaster was overpopulation. It was a classic case of the Malthusian limit being reached.<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> First of all, a few statistics. The population of the island, as recorded in the 1841 census was almost 8.2 million, and it is generally accepted that this was an underestimate. The famine began in 1845, and only gradually petered out over the years, the worst occurring in the first five years. By the time 1851 came around, the census recorded a population of only 6.5 million - again, probably an underestimate. Taking into account the natural population increase, this represents a loss of approximately 2½ million, well over a quarter of the population. Not all of them died, of course; a huge number emigrated (but many of them also perished from disease.) Even more would have died had it not been for the British Government's admittedly inadequate and ham-fisted attempts to alleviate it, for at one point a million people were receiving supplementary feeding.</div><div> To put this into perspective, the current population of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Island is just under 7 million. Fifty years ago it was not much more than half of that. Where'd they all go? The famine didn't last that long. Of course, Ireland today, like everywhere else, possesses a much more efficient agriculture than 170 years ago, so we should make comparisons with the situation at the time. England, a much larger country, and the epicentre of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, had a population of almost 17 million in 1851 (an increase by an eighth in the previous ten years, believe it or not), and there was widespread poverty. Even the English farmers were moving on to a dependency on the potato, and only the onset of the potato blight in their own country prevented it. During the height of the famine, the British Government was faced with a financial crisis, and there were also crop failures and lesser famines throughout Europe. While philanthropists were collecting money for the starving Irish peasants, smaller collections were being undertaken for Scottish peasants.</div><div> According to Disraeli, with respect to arable land, the population of Ireland was denser than China's. We tend to assume that our way of running our lives represents the norm but, in fact, for hundreds of years the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern" target="_blank">western European marriage pattern</a> has been different from the rest of the world. West of a line from St. Petersburg to Trieste (the Hajnal line), marriages were relatively late, and a high proportion of the population never married. However, Ireland was an exception. For reasons which are obscure, in the 60 years between 1780 and 1840, its population expanded by <i>172 percent</i>. As a result, land became at a premium. 93% of holdings were less than 30 acres - often much less. Subdivision became the rule, often without the landlord's consent. A farmer could hive off a section of his holding to his sons, and then to his grandsons. Farms got ever smaller. Eventually, many families were attempting to survive on only an acre of land, or even half an acre. And there was only one way to survive on such a small holding. To quote Woodham-Smith:</div><blockquote><div>Sub-division could never have taken place without the potato: an acre and a half would provide a family of five or six with food for twelve months, while to grow the equivalent grain required an acreage four to five times as large and some knowledge of tillage as well. Only a spade was needed for the primitive method of potato culture usually practised in Ireland.</div></blockquote> Nevertheless, that method was well suited to the wet soil of Ireland, and could also be used on hillslopes unsuitable to the plough, and even in the bogs, where nothing else could grow. With a bit of extra land, the small tubers, unsuitable for humans, could be used to raise pigs, cattle, and chickens. In short, overpopulation had reduced the people to a complete dependence on a particular crop. But when the crop failed, a Malthusian apocalypse ensued.<br /><div> I can hear some objections. What about the oppressive social system, especially the landlords, who had been rightly criticized for more than a century, since the publication of Swift's <i>Modest Proposal</i>? The tenancy situation in Ireland was outrageous. Landlords were more often than not absentees, and possessed absolute discretion in the charging of rent and the eviction of tenants, who could not be compensated for any improvements made on the property. This being said, I cannot help feeling that, even in the absence of security, most people would attempt to improve their lot to the best of their ability. Be that as it may, visitors were constantly shocked at the sheer poverty of the Irish peasant. More than half of them dwelled in one-roomed, windowless mud huts, more often than not without a bed or chair, but shared with pigs, while the evicted and unemployed put roofs over ditches, or burrowed into the banks. It was something more to be expected in places like India or Africa, rather than Europe.</div><div> The point, however, is that, to whatever extent the British establishment was responsible for their poverty, it was manifested in low level accommodation and the lack of creature comforts, not the reliance on potatoes, which was ultimately due to land shortage as a result of the population explosion. In other societies marriage is normally delayed until a family can be supported. Not so in Ireland, where people were content to live in squalor. Early marriage was the rule, even at the age of 16, on the basis that a hut could be thrown up very quickly, and all that was necessary to make a living was a spade - and a subdivision of your father's rented land.</div><div> This doesn't mean that no other crops were grown. Typically, a plot of vegetables existed next to the house, and grain was produced for sale in order to pay the rent. It was a bone of contention to Irish nationalists that grain was still being exported while the famine was at its height, but it was not quite as simple as all that.</div><div><blockquote> At first sight the inhumanity of exporting food from a country stricken by famine seems impossible to justify or condone. Modern Irish historians, however, have treated the subject with generosity and restraint. They have pointed out that the corn grown in Ireland before the famine was not sufficient to feed the population if they had depended on it alone, and that imports must be examined as well as exports: in fact, when the famine was at its worst four times as much wheat came into Ireland as was exported, and in addition almost 3,000,000 quarters of Indian corn [maize] and 1,000,000 cwts. [50,000 tons] of Indian meal. </blockquote> The maize and its derivatives were imported as part of the Government relief program. But even then, there were difficulties in milling it. Mills were rare in the country, and in the areas where the famine was worst, the people did not know how to make bread or, indeed, how to do any cooking except boiling potatoes. Reliance on the potato had driven out all other foods before it.<div> I mentioned that the Government's handling of the disaster had been ham-fisted and inadequate. Of course, nothing is clearer than 20/20 hindsight. Also, as our experience with the current coronavirus pandemic should have taught us, you cannot expect governments to come up with perfect solutions when faced with a crisis never before encountered. They deserve a bit of slack. This being said, there were a lot of better methods which could have been tried. The British Government was both hidebound by the doctrine of <i>laissez faire</i>, and woefully ignorant of the lack of infrastructure in Ireland, which prevented solutions which might have worked in England. Even so, it certainly saved a great many lives. At one point 3 million people were being fed at soup kitchens, and a sixth of the state revenue was being spent on famine relief. However, the disaster was so vast, and so extensive, that no government could realistically take control of it. After all, the population of Ireland was fully half that of England itself.</div></div><div> The Irish tend to speak as if British rule was somehow responsible for the famine. I've even heard the word, "genocide" bandied around. I'm sorry I have to disabuse them, but although the British establishment is open to a lot of valid criticism, this is one thing they cannot be blamed for. Even before the onset of the potato blight, the country was approaching the limits of its ability to feed itself. If the disease had not arrived, and the population continued at the same rate, within a few decades some other crisis would have eventuated, and probably the only recourse would have been mass emigration.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-4835272427377944972020-11-08T20:11:00.013-08:002022-05-11T22:12:22.753-07:00America Should Run Elections Like Australia Another leap year, another U.S. Presidential election! And, regular as clockwork, allegations of voting irregularities, of varying plausibility, are making the rounds. What is it about Americans? Such allegations practically never occur over here. All right, Australia is probably the gold standard for election procedures, but the allegations are also rare to non-existent in other democracies. Britain and France have both acquired large racial minorities (more fool they!), but one never hears it suggested that they are being "suppressed". Other countries make no issue about voter ID, and I am sure that none of them would tolerate ballot harvesting or election day registration. So what's wrong with America?<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> First of all, I don't take seriously the talk about "voter suppression". If that were really happening, we'd be hearing a lot of people declaring, in effect: "I tried to vote but I found I wasn't on the roll/they wouldn't accept my ID (and I couldn't or wouldn't come back with a good one)/the voting centre was too far away <i>etc</i>." It happens occasionally, I'm sure, because people fall through the cracks in even the best of systems. But if the problem were in any way significant, we would have a lot of people complaining, lobbying to prevent it happening again, and taking steps to avoid the pitfall the following election. It should be easy to quantify the people who were prevented from voting. Quantifying those who managed to vote illegally is another matter.</div><div> In Australia voting is compulsory. As I pointed out in <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/the-australian-voting-system.html " target="_blank">an earlier article</a>, a case can be made for and against the practice, but it does cut down on electoral fraud. However, this is probably a bridge too far for Americans. Still there are a lot of Australian practices which work much better than theirs.</div><div> <i>Run the election on a Saturday!</i> Or at least make the election day a public holiday. The advantages of this are so obvious they needn't be mentioned.</div><div> <i>A national electoral roll and an independent Electoral Commission</i>. When you come of age, or become a citizen, you register to vote. You only have to do it once. After that, you notify the Commission whenever you change address, and your name is automatically shifted to a new electorate, in a different state, if need be. You also notify them when somebody dies, but I assume the Commission follows the obituaries personally, in any case. There are no separate state rolls, which need to be cleared at regular intervals of dead or relocated voters. It is hard to believe that in some counties of the U.S. there are <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/20/judicial-watch-finds-18-million-ghost-voters-in-29/" target="_blank">more registered voters</a> than voting age citizens. (Of course, if voting were not compulsory, I suppose someone who never bothered to vote might never bother to have his address changed, but this would be unusual.)</div><div> <i>Electorates and representation to be based on registered voters, not the census.</i> I realise this would require a Constitutional amendment in the U.S., but I can't see how anybody could muster a case against it. The census takes place only every ten years. A national electoral roll is constantly being up-dated. The census includes children and non-citizens. (I myself ended up on an Ecuadoran census because I was visiting the country at the time.) The census records visitors and holiday makers, whereas the electoral roll records where they really live. (I might add that an Australian Government once introduced a referendum for equalising the size of electorates, which might have succeeded if it hadn't been written in gobbledy-gook. However, they also tried to sneak in the use of the census instead of the electoral roll. The public saw through it.)</div><div> <i>Voter ID</i>. You need it for other, less important reasons. Why not for voting? Not every nation requires an ID, but those that do have no trouble with it. Here are some spurious arguments I have heard against it:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It's not necessary. All it does it prevent voter impersonation. We are supposed to believe that, in a country where a third of the voters don't turn up to vote, and many dead and departed voters are still on the roll, that is unlikely. Besides, it is ridiculous to claim that a certain type of fraud has not been proved, when you haven't looked for it, and it is difficult to detect in any case.</li><li>In theory you have to provide an ID to establish your age to purchase alcohol, but in practice you are never asked. That's because your age is usually obvious by sight. But whenever I wish to apply for the post office to hold my mail, I have to provide an ID - every blessed time!</li><li>It discriminates against ethnic minorities and the elderly, who are less likely to possess photo IDs, and some laws stipulate forms of IDs which minorities are less likely to possess. In Australia, there is a national standard list of IDs, which mostly involve a photo ID or two utilities bills. I know that in the US the states make their own laws - they do so in Australia as well - but a country which managed to put men on the moon should be able to arrange co-operation among the states on such a simple matter.</li></ul><div> (Although it is irrelevant to this essay, I can't resist repeating the story a bright old lady told me about the time she decided she needed a photo ID. She was too old to drive, and not being prepared to travel overseas, she didn't have a passport. So she went and got an Over 18 card: the one you use to prove you are old enough to drink alcohol, and she painted a vivid word picture of herself, white haired and wrinkled, sitting among all those fresh faced kids applying for the card. I've been told that this is becoming common.)</div></div><div> <i> Sensible absentee voting.</i> If I expected to be away from home of election day, I would apply to the Electoral Commission, who would promptly record me as having already voted, and then hand me a voting slip for my electorate, with a return addressed envelope. We do not normally have to wait too long for absentee votes to come in after the election. The average absentee voter posts his vote fairly early. He doesn't normally wait till the last minute. Why should he?</div><div> Having tried to follow the American election, I keep coming across things which would never occur to any of us Down Under, and which confirm me in my opinion that, on the other side of the Pacific, the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum.</div><div> <i>Gerrymanders</i>. I think you would need to be very crafty and systematic in order to make gerrymandering have a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/29/democrats-midterms-new-york-election-maps-court" target="_blank">significant effect</a> on an election. Be that as it may, it is next to impossible with an independent Electoral Commission.</div><div> <i>Registration of non-citizens</i>. Of course, this is not official, but what else can happen if you provide driver's licenses to all and sundry, then allow a driver's license to be used <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/08/court-pennsylvania-must-release-records-on-non-citizens-voting-in-elections/" target="_blank">as ID for voter registration</a>? Before someone is registered to vote, his citizenship must be established.</div><div> <i>Same day registration</i>. In Australia, if you turn 18 between the calling of an election and the polling, there a window in which you are allowed to register. But permitting it on election day itself is a recipe for fraud. And, incidentally, the shenanigans which are <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/democrat-voter-fraud-minnesota-bruce-hendry/" target="_blank">legal in Minnesota</a> are enough to blow the mind.</div><div> <i>Ballot harvesting.</i> I can't believe any state would actually allow such a practice. With no control over how the ballots are filled in, and what happens to them afterwards, it is a recipe for fraud. What justification could there be? I've heard two:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In Indian reservations many households have no street address, and access to polling stations is difficult. The nearest Australian equivalent would be remote Aboriginal settlements. I honestly don't know how the system is managed there, but they definitely do vote because, as I said, voting is compulsory. The most obvious solution is to send out electoral officers to collect them - two at a time, if need be, to ensure it is above board.</li><li>Some people's English skills are so poor they need help in filling in the ballots. Good heavens! Don't the parties produce "how to vote" cards? In any case, why can't a person in that situation ask a friend to explain the voting form. Even if a postal vote is used, there is no good reason why the voter can't just mail it himself.</li></ul><div> With respect to the last reason, two issues immediately spring to mind. (1) If you can't read enough English to fill in a ballot, your vote is not much use to either the country or to yourself. You won't have enough background information to make an informed choice. (2) Why on earth does the U.S. allow people to become citizens if they can't read English? In my opinion, they should remove all those "VOTE AQUI" signs and tell them, in effect, If you can't read English, come back when you can.</div></div><div> Of course, ballot harvesting cannot exist unless there is far more postal voting than is necessary. True, in Australia you don't actually need to give a reason in order to get an absentee vote. I could theoretically obtain one, then stay at home on election day, but why would I? Up to now it hasn't occurred to anybody to ask for an absentee vote unless they were really going to be absent. In the U.S. you can complete a postal ballot, then follow it by a provisional ballot in case the mail is slow. That makes no sense. If you can go in person for a provisional vote, you don't need a postal vote. Besides, in Australia, once a ballot is in the mail, no-one can identify whom it came from, or needs to. It's a secret ballot, you know.</div><div> Widespread postal voting also has the potential to destroy the confidentiality of the process. Imagine if everyone in your in-group - family, religious, ethnic, union etc - were voting that way, and you were the only one who insisted on your right to vote in person secretly. It turns out I was wrong to say that no other democracy has this problem. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHiIQkDzqnQ" target="_blank">Here</a> was what the UK's Nigel Farage had to say:</div><div><blockquote>Just last year the Brexit Party fought a by-election in Peterborough. We lost by 600 votes. We saw things like, on polling day, somebody with a carrier bag bringing a thousand ballots into a polling station. We knocked on doors where people told us that they had actually effectively had their ballots - their blank ballot papers taken from them. And yet, when we went back to try and get them to swear affidavits the doors weren’t opening.</blockquote></div><div> (There appear to have been a <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/11/10/britains-sordid-history-mail-in-voting-fraud/" target="_blank">lot of other scandals</a> concerning postal votes in the UK.)</div><div> All of which brings us to the three ring circus known as the 2020 election, which is not yet over as I write. A British writer was <a href="https://archbishopcranmer.com/us-presidential-election-chaos-confusion-litigation-and-whatever/" target="_blank">not impressed</a>:</div><div></div><blockquote>In countries across the world, rich and poor, election night usually sees all the ballots in and counted within hours. In the UK, Sunderland defends its crown as the fastest counting authority against competition from Newcastle and Billericay. It is the dispersed Scottish Islands who tend to declare later. In the US election it is rural areas like Alaska and Montana that manage timely management of electoral affairs, while for some unexplained reason it is in the major cities where the postal service and election officials cannot manage the timely delivery of ballots to the counting house from the adjacent borough. In these contested states it is the in-person votes that are counted first, and then, once that ‘target number’ is roughly known, the postal ballots are hauled in. . . .<div>Why those votes could not have been posted days or weeks before is an interesting point. Why would three quarters of a million people, most of whom would have made their minds up weeks or months before, have waited so late to post their votes? It makes little obvious sense. We are enjoined in the UK to ‘Post early for Christmas’. If the postal ballots were in post office custody, why not deliver them early on Election Day? </div></blockquote><div></div><div> You have no doubt heard some of the allegations of <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/" target="_blank">electoral fraud</a>. I shall not attempt to pass judgement on their accuracy, except to say that it should never have come to this, and to make three points.</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Most of the allegations would be difficult to prove, even if true. And difficult to quantify.</li><li>Human nature is such that, if fraud is easy to commit and hard to detect, it is likely to occur, and those who benefit from it will be tempted to do even more next time.</li><li>At the very least, the fact that such allegations can be made with a degree of plausibility <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/08/america-wont-trust-elections-until-the-voter-fraud-is-investigated/" target="_blank">destroys confidence</a> in the democratic process. The system is broken. Elections must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair.</li></ol><div> The problem has largely arisen from the widespread use of postal voting. If this is not curtailed or heavily regulated, it will have far reaching effects along the line. The next time an election hinges on postal votes, the losers will believe the election has been stolen. That will not bode well.</div><div> Tyler Durden listed <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-fix-americas-election-system-4-easy-steps-dummies" target="_blank">four simple steps</a> for fixing the elections system: (1) no more early voting, (2) no mail-in votes no-one requested, (3) voter ID, and (4) count until it is over without stopping.</div></div><div> And you can also do it the Australian way. (Here's <a href="http://thedailychrenk.com/2020/11/08/australian-ballot-2-modest-proposal-learning/" target="_blank">another take</a>.)</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-8825961368381552392020-08-10T14:04:00.006-07:002022-08-30T23:18:35.539-07:00The Case for Capitalism I was born with a tarnished silver spoon in my mouth. My <a href="https://malcolmshome.blogspot.com/2011/06/h-f-smith-1862-1948.html" target="_blank">paternal grandfather</a> came to Australia as a fatherless teenager, and became a wealthy jeweller. By 1901 he was prosperous enough to pay for three portraits of his daughters by the state's leading portrait artist, and he lived in a two story home with four servants. None of this money came down to the next generation, I might add. My parents were small businessmen who lost their business and ended up as unskilled labourers, leaving me to climb my own way up into the middle class. I wouldn't want all you socialists and assorted Marxists to think I am speaking from some sort of privileged background. But I would like to ask you this: would you prefer to live as the owner of a big jewellery store in 1901, or as a shop assistant in such a store today?<span><a name='more'></a></span><div> That my grandfather's life held certain advantages cannot be denied. However, before you make your choice, there are a few things you ought to know. Two of his eight children died in infancy, and another in early adulthood. Antibiotics did not really become available until the middle of last century. His eldest daughter was envied by some of her schoolmates because she was driven to school in a carriage by the family groom. But the fact was she was partly lame because of polio. This was decades before the Salk vaccine made polio virtually obsolete in most of the developed world. I myself was born during the last great polio epidemic. Furthermore, in my own lifetime I have seen smallpox wiped off the face of the earth, and right now the World Health Organization is closing in on polio.</div><div> It is likely that the modern jeweller's shop assistant has a car. My grandfather didn't have one - at least, not in 1901. Nor did he have a flushing toilet. Sewage did not arrive in Brisbane until the 1960s. Here's a few other things the modern shop assistant has which were rare or non-existent in Grandpa's 1901 mansion: a telephone (certainly not a smart phone!), washing machine, refrigerator, possibly even a dishwasher, television, CD and DVD players, a computer, and the internet.</div><div> One of our friends was always complaining about lack of money, and for good reason: she was a renter solely reliant on the old age pension. Just the same, she lived in low rent public housing with a telephone, television, and air conditioner - unheard-of luxuries a century ago.</div><div> For more than a century we have taken constant inflation for granted. For this reason, we need the <a href="https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/australiacompare/" target="_blank">Measuring Worth</a> website in order to compare prices and income over any length of time. However, several indices are required. The "real price" is a measure of inflation, of the cost of living, or the CPI, while the "labour value" tracks the standard of living ie how much labour was necessary to buy a particular item. As I pointed out in an <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-1-of-3.html" target="_blank">earlier article</a>, in the 50 years from 1966 to 2006, labour value increased at twice the rate of the real price ie we had all got twice as rich in that time. If we take the period 1900 to 2000, the figure is 5.8. A shop assistant in 2000 was almost six times as rich as one in 1900 - and possesses technology never imagined then. For more than a century we have just taken it for granted that our standard of living will constantly improve without any real effort on our own part!</div><div> The same was true of the previous century. Despite the existence of terrible slums, the fact is that real wages quadrupled in Britain during the nineteenth century (even though only 10 per cent of the workforce was unionised by 1900!). In the middle of the century the wages of farm labourers in the north of England were twice as high as in the south. Why? Because the north was industrialised. And despite the terrible conditions in the factories, as chronicled by Dickens and Engels, the workers were still paid better than on the land, so the only way to "keep them down on the farm" was to raise their wages.</div><div> How did all this come about? H. G. Wells might have been a socialist, but he was right about one thing: for science and the arts to flourish, it is necessary to have a class of people who do not have to work for their bread and butter. This aptly describes Great Britain at the time Adam Smith's <i>Wealth of Nations</i> came out in 1776. Britain could hardly have been called a democracy at that period; only a small percentage of the population had the vote. But freedom does not mean just the freedom to choose the government, but also freedom <i>from </i>government - something our over-regulated state has forgotten. So, living under a free constitution, the upper crust, following their own stars, and seeking to improve the productivity of their own land, commenced the agricultural revolution: making three grains of wheat grow where once only two grew. With a greater surplus in food, this led to the second wave: the industrial revolution - again, commenced by people following their own interests. The rest is history.</div><div> There are still people who will try to tell you that the West rose to prominence by exploiting other nations - conveniently never asking how they managed to get into that position in the first place. Come off it! Australia has been the recipient of massive amounts of foreign investment, first from Britain, and then from the US. How come we haven't got poorer, rather than richer? Since independence, Singapore has risen from a third world nation to a flourishing member of the first world. How did they do it? If you examine the third world, you will see that the most prosperous nations are those which cultivated the strongest ties with the advanced capitalist countries. The green revolution of the 1970s has raised the living standards of billions while still permitting a huge population increase. Even the vast hordes of would be illegal immigrants battening on the borders of the West are the result of increasing prosperity. Previously, they would not have had the money to pay the people smugglers.</div><div> We live in the most comfortable society in history. In the third world, capitalism has raised hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. So why do so many people claim that it is "broken", and seek to overthrow and change a winning system?</div><div> I can see two motives, one good and one bad: compassion and resentment.</div><div> The former is the cause of the <a href="https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/" target="_blank">old adage</a> that someone who is not a socialist when he is young has no heart, and whoever is still a socialist when he is old has no brains. Since no system is perfect, they see big businessmen behaving badly, and disadvantaged people falling through the cracks. The logical solution is to fix the imperfections. The function of government is to do for the citizens what they cannot individually do for themselves. <i>Of course</i>, this means it must ensure that people do not cheat, lie, and steal as they follow their dreams. And it has to act as the insurer of last resort, providing a safety net (but not a hammock) against disaster. Indeed, it is only the advanced capitalist societies which have the wherewithal to finance an effective welfare state.</div><div> The trouble is, these idealists are too easily seduced by an old, tired fallacy of the nineteenth century: that society is perfectible, and that utopia can be achieved by having the government take over everything, centrally planning the economy, and handing out largess to all and sundry.</div><div> In an ant-nest this works very well, but two clear problems arise when it is applied to human society. Firstly, by separating the individual from the fruit of his labour, it encourages freeloading and discourages incentive. After all, if you are going to be paid no matter how hard you work, there is no incentive to be productive. Likewise, if your extra income is going to be stolen by confiscatory taxes, what is the point of introducing innovations, or expanding your enterprise? Is there thus any wonder socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried?</div><div> "Inequality" is the word constantly bandied around by the anti-capitalists, so let me be a heretic and ask: What have they got against inequality - at least as far as material possessions are concerned? Money does not buy happiness. Like fat in the diet, it is essential, but too much is a <a href="http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/06/why-it-sucks-to-be-rich/" target="_blank">hindrance</a> to the good life. I don't resent the fact that some people have more than I, and there is no reason I should be bothered if others have less - provided they have enough. That last phrase, of course, is important. I needed the social safety net when I was younger, and I don't begrudge it to those who use it today. But this has nothing to do with a quest for "equality".</div><div> Furthermore, despite the evidence that the standard of living has been increasing for generations - that the slice each of us takes from the economic pie is bigger because the pie is growing - too many people assume that wealth is a zero sum process: that a person cannot get richer without making another person poorer. Of course it is ridiculous. An individual capitalist might be a bad or a good person, but <i>all </i>of them made their money the same way: by providing something which people wanted to buy. Bill Gates did not become a billionaire by dipping his hand into everyone's pockets; he did it by putting a computer into every home. The process is easiest to see in the entertainment industry. Nobody was forced to buy J. K. Rowling's books, or watch Steven Spielberg's movies. We willingly gave them money for the service.</div><div> There is another factor which people tend to forget: the rich redistribute wealth by means of purchases. To understand this, think of what you might do if you won the lottery. Perhaps you would go on a holiday, or buy a new car, and so forth. You will note that all of involves transferring money to other people. It you paid off your mortgage, that would just leave you with more discretionary spending. Similarly, although a millionaire may live in a mansion, he has to pay someone to build it, and someone else to maintain it. The money doesn't necessarily filter down to the most needy, but that's what we have a government safety net for. You don't need socialism to help the needy.</div><div> Unfortunately, it's not difficult to also detect other, baser motives: attitudes which are traditionally regarded as two of the meanest of vices: envy and resentment. They resent the fact that some people have more money than the rest of us, and so convince themselves that the rich are actually responsible for the others having less. They want to redress the balance by stealing from the haves and giving to the haves-less. Many of them would be happy to drag everybody down as long as it would result in "equality".</div><div> At the back of it lies an even darker and more sinister ideology. I have spent enough of my long life studying it to recognize its features. Karl Marx proclaimed there to be no such thing as objective morality, that the ends justify the means, and that "violence is the midwife of history". Nechayev, whose writings Lenin recommended, taught in <i>The Revolutionary Catechism</i> the need to hate the whole of society, and proclaimed: "Our task is terrible, total, universal and merciless destruction." Looked at objectively, isn't this what we are seeing in the current political violence in the U.S., which has already lasted ten weeks in Portland?</div><div> The average socialist is a well-meaning, but misguided, ideologist who sees himself as a modern Robin Hood. But the die-hard Marxists are real nasty pieces of work, who hate the whole of society, and have sold their souls to an evil ideology which allows them to rationalise the anger in their hearts. Don't let them seduce you into abandoning a system which works and benefits everyone for one with an unbroken track record of failure.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7_7Jv2oh9s4" width="320" youtube-src-id="7_7Jv2oh9s4"></iframe></div><br /><div><br /></div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-19724621649621718202020-02-10T13:02:00.006-08:002023-10-22T04:06:04.294-07:00OF COURSE, Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos! I wish I could say something which would make the world sit up and take notice, something that would turn viral, which would direct thousands of hits to my lonely blog. Take the case of <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/12/18/meet-transformed-wife-whose-working-mom-chart-rocked-world/2342435002/" target="_blank">Lori Alexander</a>. Now, I have to admit, I had previously never heard of her, and I presume most other people would have said the same. Then, a year and a half ago she penned a short article entitled, "<a href="https://thetransformedwife.com/men-prefer-debt-free-virgins-without-tattoos/" target="_blank">Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos</a>", in which she discussed a letter someone had sent her on the subject. Suddenly, the fat hit the fire. Within three days she received 90,000 Facebook comments, a lot of them not just negative, but vitriolic, and at the time of writing the score stands at 126,000. Clearly, it touched a raw nerve with many people. As tends to happen when the opponent has no logical rebuttal, many of them caricatured her position, then argued against the caricature. Others had such a visceral reaction to the title that they apparently lost all reading comprehension, because they argued against statements she never made.<br />
Well, as a man, let me tell you that the title is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is blindingly obvious. It belongs to the same category as "Rain falls from the sky." It shouldn't be necessary to state it. Nevertheless, as George Orwell <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell" target="_blank">once said</a>, "[W]e we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men, " so here goes ...<br />
<a name='more'></a> First of all, although Mrs Alexander wrote from a Christian perspective, the words apply across the board, to the irreligious as well as the religious, as some of the non-Christian commentators on her blog pointed out.<br />
Secondly, there is a difference between what people "prefer" and what they will accept. After all, most people, male and female, prefer members of the opposite sex who are as good looking as a movie star or model, when obviously only a small proportion of the population fits the bill. There was once a cartoon in which a young man or teenager proclaims: "I've looking for a beautiful career woman whose hobby is housework." Good luck on your search, sonny!<br />
But, back to the article, let's take the categories in reverse order.<br />
<br />
<b> Tattoos.</b> I haven't done any survey, but I suspect that the woman is very rare who had a tattoo because her husband or boyfriend told her it would make her more attractive. What I can say is that I have never, ever heard a man declare that a particular young woman looked really good because of her tattoo. They are more likely to call them "<a href="https://www.xyz.net.au/your-tattoos-are-horrible/" target="_blank">tramp stamps</a>" or "slag tags". There is a broad consensus that small, dainty tattoos, such as a butterfly on the ankle, aren't too bad, but even they add nothing positive. Beauty may be only skin deep, but it is responsible for the initial attraction, so it behoves all of us - men as well as women - to make the best use of what nature provided. Disrupting the smooth lines of youthful skin with an unnatural mark is not the best method.<br />
<br />
<b>Virgins.</b> I noticed that the men who scoffed at this were all talking about women they wanted to bed, not those they wanted to wed. In fact, even including the Lotharios and Casanovas of this world, there would hardly be one man in a thousand who would say, "I wish my wife had <i>not </i>been a virgin when I married her." This is hard wired into our nature. As much as, individually, we might wish it didn't apply to us, nearly everybody understands instinctively what I explained in <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-science-of-sexual-morality.html" target="_blank">"The Science of Sexual Morality"</a>: that marriage is the fundamental basis of society, and chastity - sexual purity - an essential requirement for it.<br />
Of course, there are caveats. A person shouldn't have to spend the whole of his or her life paying for one lapse. It is possible to turn one's life around. Also, although it is desirable to be your spouse's first bedmate, it is more important to be the last. Just the same, is the "preference" reasonable?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeA25_dn6zbUzg1kHCHoNeN5cy9yittuHLefy1PVYZre2C-pjxXqJHxgzMdoGNYNcAhMghtwciQoOC4Z6AsO1He-rKaP_wmjyMCnyTDZATBvfc4YeYx0HuQJK4XOY0a-2Vz2GfOeIUGOE/s1600/wolfinger-sex-partners-divorce-figure-1-1.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="363" data-original-width="640" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeA25_dn6zbUzg1kHCHoNeN5cy9yittuHLefy1PVYZre2C-pjxXqJHxgzMdoGNYNcAhMghtwciQoOC4Z6AsO1He-rKaP_wmjyMCnyTDZATBvfc4YeYx0HuQJK4XOY0a-2Vz2GfOeIUGOE/s400/wolfinger-sex-partners-divorce-figure-1-1.png" width="400" /></a></div>
Have a look at the chart at left of the divorce rate after five years against the number of a wife's premarital sex partners. It is taken from the (US) Institute for Family Studies, and you can find a discussion <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/" target="_blank">here</a>. And yes, <a href="https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html" target="_blank">other studies</a> reveal the same results beyond five years, with similar, but lesser results for males. (<a href="https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/premarital-sex-and-greater-risk-of-divorce/" target="_blank">Here</a> is a summary of five different studies.)<br />
The results seem to have embarrassed those reporting them, for they commented on the peculiarity of the dip in the divorce rate after two partners, ignoring the elephant in the room i.e. that the divorce rate after five years for (to take an example) millennial virgin brides is 6 percent. In my day that would have been considered outrageously high. However, it goes up to 21 per cent for a single premarital partner, and to 30 per cent for two. In other words, just a single premarital sex partner - which, in most cases, would be the eventual husband - increases the chance of divorce 3½ times. Isn't that interesting? And who is doing the divorcing? Well, it is known that more than two thirds of divorces are initiated by the wives. With this in mind, any man in his right mind would do his level best to find a virgin for a bride.<br />
Of course, we must also take into account the physical risks - such as pregnancy and/or venereal diseases, many of which are now impossible to cure. Despite all the precautions, it is amazing how often these risks eventuate. Or perhaps it's not amazing.<br />
The same week as Mrs Alexander's post, a 20-something virgin called Erica Wilkinson wrote a <a href="https://www.boundless.org/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-author-of-men-prefer-debt-free-virgins-without-tattoos/" target="_blank">response</a> stating that "usually, once you’re out of your teenage years, virginity is a difficult and delicate conversation you must have in your dating life, not a bragging right." Really? Has dating changed so much since 2000, when I was married? In all my courting days, it never occurred to me to ask about the lady's virginity, or lack of it, nor did they feel the need to raise the issue. Admittedly, if she were <i>not </i>a virgin, it would be useful to be told once we were deep in the relationship, but not at the start. Generally, an unmarried woman was assumed to be a virgin unless there was evidence to the contrary. Of course, this might just reflect the circles in which I moved.<br />
Which brings us to another comment by Miss Wilkinson: that men "react to her virginity with a spectrum of emotions including shock, shame, disbelief, mirth and fear." Erica, my dear, you are looking for love in all the wrong places. Such men, by definition, operate in circles where chastity is next to non-existent. They may be looking for a wife in the long term, but in the short term, they are after a lay. They will try to seduce you. And they are poor husband material. So, if you are dating online, it is best to announce that you are saving yourself for your future husband, and that this is not negotiable. That should keep a lot of the riff-raff away. (Miss Wilkinson did mention some other types of riff-raff, but you can't avoid them all.)<br />
<br />
<b>Debt-Free.</b> This is a no-brainer. What man or woman wants a spouse who will bring a debt into the marriage? They may be prepared to do so, but it is hardly desirable.<br />
If your future wife has several thousand dollars on her credit card, it means she can't handle money. Not only will you have to pay it off for her before you tie the knot, you'll have to keep a close watch on her spending afterwards. And, needless to say, this is a case where the sauce for the goose is even more the sauce for the gander. Ladies, if your intended has maxed out his credit card, beware! After all, he is going to be the head of the family and its chief bread winner. (And don't kid yourself that this won't apply to your marriage. Women are hypergamous ie they are instinctively attracted to men who rank above them in status and wealth. Also, once a baby is born, it <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175808/New-fathers-sexist-birth-child.html" target="_blank">has been shown</a> that both parents revert to more traditional ie natural gender roles.)<br />
The biggest source of debt is, of course, a mortgage. However, this is something the couple must deal with together. In the unlikely event that they both have mortgages at the time of marriage, one house can always be sold. I have already <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2016/08/working-women-and-housing-crisis.html" target="_blank">explained</a> how double income families have raised the cost of housing, which itself makes double income families necessary. It is a vicious circle, but it can only be solved by community action; the individual couple will just have to deal with it.<br />
But, although the reference to virginity was no doubt the part that touched the rawest nerve, the major thrust of Mrs. Alexander's article was about women attending college or, as it is called over here, university, and it is here that she is most vulnerable to criticism. But she does have a point.<br />
As I <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-1-of-3.html" target="_blank">mentioned</a> recently, I got my tertiary education at a time when it was possible to gain a scholarship for a first degree, and to pay for a second by part time work. These days, not only has the cost of tertiary education shot up, but we need at least certificates for all sorts of employment for which a high school diploma <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-why-employers-deserve-much-of-the-scorn-and-blame-for-the-student-debt-crisis" target="_blank">was once sufficient</a>. The world has not become so much more complicated as to make that necessary! Employers are outsourcing to universities and TAFEs what should be covered by on-the-job training. Worse, it is often not the content of the college course which is important, but the mere fact that you have <i>done it </i>- and thus displayed some sort of industriousness and self-discipline. And for all this the prospective employee has to pay huge sums! I find this outrageous. (As Charles Kirk pointed out, the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrd72UtczMg" target="_blank">Game of Loans</a> is rigged against you.)<br />
Therefore, any prospective student ought to really do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether any potential extra income gained from taking the degree will balance the cost of obtaining it. Many would be far better learning a trade. (If they have the aptitude for it. I myself would make a terrible tradesman.) As Dennis Prager said back in 2003: "With very few exceptions, any tuition over $10,000 is rarely worth it."
<br />
My own degrees were in science, so perhaps I am biased, but for the life of me I cannot see the value of so many courses in the humanities and arts. No, I am not being a Philistine. I read widely, and nine tenths of what I know was not covered by my degrees. For example, I am very interested in history. However, unless you hope to become a professional historian, or a history teacher, I can't see the point of studying history at university. Buy the text books and read them in your free time, while you study something which might actually help you get a job - such as science, law, or business management. And above all, stay away from courses such as "women's studies", "black studies" or any other "studies". You'll be paying heaps of money for useless indoctrination sessions which lack balance, accuracy, or marketability.<br />
What has this got to do with the matter at hand? Simply that the cost-benefit equation is different for men and women, because their careers have <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-does-woman-want-with-career-anyway.html" target="_blank">different functions</a>. A man has to face the fact that he will not always be working just to support himself. He will (hopefully) one day have to support a wife and children. Indeed, the pressure starts even before he gets the girl because, as I said, women are hypergamous. Only as a large resort will a woman marry, or even date, a man who earns less than she. On the other hand, unless a woman marries straight out of high school, she will need a career to support herself, and it is possible she will never marry. But she must also face the fact that she will have to put her career on hold once she gets pregnant and has a baby. In fact, she will have to put it on hold for several years unless she wants to hand over her children to the care of others - and even then, she will have to pay a lot for the privilege. Therefore, it stands to reason that she should choose a <a href="https://www.mrsmidwest.com/post/careers-for-aspiring-homemakers" target="_blank">portable career</a>: one that can be worked part time and can be dropped and started again, perhaps with a bit of retraining. A career is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. And you shouldn't pay an arm and a leg for it.<br />
If they are wise, once they are married a couple will attempt to live on the husband's income while the wife's goes into savings for a deposit on a house. But it's pretty tough if it has to be diverted onto paying off her college debt instead. That was the point Mrs. Alexander and her correspondent were attempting to make: a woman uses up several years in college, then is saddled with a heavy debt she has to work to repay instead of having children and taking care of them, and all the time her biological clock is ticking. How can a career be more valuable than a child in one's arms?<br />
There is another matter. When I was at university, the girls were told that tertiary education would not prevent them from making a good marriage, and at the time, this was correct. But times have changed. There are now more women than men at university, which means that they must now compete for male attention. They should read the recent article, "<a href="https://quillette.com/2020/01/16/all-the-single-ladies/" target="_blank">All the Single Ladies</a>". Citing numerous studies, the authors show that, due to the normal female instinct for hypergamy, university educated women are looking for men with the same level of education as themselves, and preferably more. If they marry someone less educated, it is because he has more money. (And, I might add, men are intimidated at the idea of marrying above their station.) The result is that the pool of available men is much reduced.<br />
<br />
I do not envy modern young women. Society is constantly trying to force them into a masculine mould with which they are not comfortable. No course of action comes with a guarantee of success, but young people ought to be aware that actions which they take when young can seriously affect their later life.<br />
And men really do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos.Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-74502673354470480542019-11-23T12:41:00.007-08:002023-04-10T21:59:46.970-07:00The "National Geographic's" Gone All PC Again The <i>National Geographic</i> is lucky I have a subscription, because I wouldn't have purchased the November 2019 issue if I'd seen it on the magazine stands. The <i>National Geographic</i>, as you no doubt aware, functions to introduce its readers to interesting geographic sites around the world. This mission has permitted them to include such fields as wildlife, archaeology, and prehistoric life into their ambit. Occasionally, they have gone off onto tangents: such as discussions on chocolate, the sense of smell, and the King James Bible, all of which were nevertheless worth reading. But in February 2017 issue they <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/whats-got-into-national-geographic.html" target="_blank">lost the plot completely</a> with an issue devoted to "gender". This month they have done it again, and devoted the issue to "Women".<br />
<a name='more'></a> To be fair, there are a couple of useful geographic articles in it - such as the one about the women who patrol the streets of New Delhi to make it safe, and "Rwanda's renewal by women", where they hold 60% of parliamentary seats. (What's wrong with Rwandan men that they aren't prepared to run for office?) Also, the data it provides are more sensible that in the "gender" issue - not that that is a hard bench mark to cross! Some of them you can actually agree with.<br />
Nevertheless, the issue is basically political, not geographic - and politically biased as well. It includes a section on prominent women's contributions, more reminiscent of <i>Time</i>'s periodic profiles of leaders. One of these is astrophysicist Rebecca Oppenheimer, who is actually a trans woman. "Though her body looked male, her childhood self-portraits showed a girl named Rebecca." She transitioned in 2014 although, as she put it, "I like to say I stopped pretending to be a boy." Now, I have<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/the-lunatics-are-taking-over-asylum.html" target="_blank"> previously related</a> my experience with transsexuals. If Dr Oppenheimer is now legally a woman, I am prepared to go along with the legal fiction. But there is something wrong with the way the magazine describes this as if it were perfectly normal. Also, surely it is grotesque that they hold up as an example of feminine achievement a "woman" who is really a man, especially since most of "her" achievements would have been made while "she" was still legally male?<br />
But where the magazine really loses the plot, and turns into simply a politico-social issue, is the six multi-page sections entitled, "Speak Up", where multiple prominent women provide answers to such questions as "What is your greatest strength?" and "What needs to change in the next 10 years?" It's a pity they didn't ask: "What has this got to do with the mission of the National Geographic Society?<br />
What makes it bad even from a socio-political perspective is that it never engages with any alternative opinions. Just as the "gender" issue never discussed mental illness or suggested that transition might be dangerous, the present issue assumes, without any suggestion to the contrary, that the feminist position is not only obviously right; it is the only one which exists.<br />
Thus, the statistic on the number of national legislative seats held by women. What is the point? Do they think Parliament exists in order to provide careers for politicians, or to represent the people? If the latter, do they think only women can represent women? If so, why should the other half of the human race vote for them?<br />
People who talk about "gender equality" don't really mean it. They think they do, but they really mean that feminine lifestyles are inferior, and that the only way that women can be "equal" is to adopt masculine lifestyles. I have provided examples <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-does-woman-want-with-career-anyway.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a> as to how this unconscious assumption is embedded in the whole feminist outlook. So what about this statistic on page 108?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
43% of women - compared with 23% of men - in the U.S. have taken at least a year off with no earnings, usually to tend a child or provide other caregiving, says the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Census Bureau data show women make 80 cents for every dollar men make. But when the institute factored in women's time away from full-time work in a 15-year period, the gap widened to 49 cents for each dollar.</blockquote>
Good heavens! Where do these people get the idea that men and women live separate lives? Do they think that husbands spend all their earnings on themselves while their wives are left to spend their (49%) earnings on themselves? They ought to look up the word, <i>hyergamy</i>. Only as a last resort will a woman marry, or even date, a man socially or financially inferior. The reason for women's lower earnings is that they marry men who can support them while they do feminine things, like taking care of children.<br />
The fundamental feminist fallacy - that women must adopt masculine lifestyles - is never questioned. Thus, the article on women in the military assumes that it is somehow a good thing, and not an outrage, nor is there any mention of the sexual assaults and sexual scandals involved, or the chicanery involved in addressing women's physical weakness. All we have is a female marine saying: "Women learn weakness. We can also unlearn it." <a href="https://www.livescience.com/52998-women-combat-gender-differences.html#:~:text=A%20study%20in%20the%20Journal,on%20average%2C%20the%20study%20found." target="_blank">Yeah, right!</a><br />
Likewise, the writer of the article on women in science has apparently never heard of the <a href="https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-gender-scandal-part-one-scandinavia-and-part-two-canada/" target="_blank">gender paradox</a>: the fact that, as societies become more gender equal in their policies, men and women adopt <a href="https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/news/0218-gender-equality-surprise-revealed-by-leeds-beckett-university-research/" target="_blank">different careers</a>. Or, to put it another way, if you equalise culture, it allows biological differences to come to the fore. Thus, page 117 provides a graph of the U.S. workplace representation of the sexes. We learn that science in general, and biology in particular, has the same proportion of women as the workplace average. However, the average female participation for health workers is 72.6%, rising to 97.1% for dental hygienists. It is not suggested that this is a bad thing, or that they choose these careers because they are not allowed into others. However, common sense should tell you that if women are over-represented in some fields, they must be under-represented in others: such as engineering, which is only 15.9% female. For some reason, this is supposed to be a bad thing. The author discusses some high profile sexual harassment cases, but surely no-one suggests that hosts of women are applying for engineering careers, then dropping out due to bad experiences? (In fact, there is actual bias <a href="https://virtueonline.org/way-physics-ends-not-big-bang-feminist-whimper" target="_blank">against men</a> in STEM!) Why can't they just accept that men and women are different, and choose different careers?<br />
The whole tenor of the issue is set by the first essay, "Why the future should be female". Complete with several pages of huge feminist posters, it adopts without question the fundamental feminist assumption: that feminine lifestyles are inferior, and so they must become more masculine.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So why do men hold more power than women today? Why does gender inequality persist? The explanation is so often: It's just the way it's always been. That's simply not good enough.</blockquote>
Sorry, madam, but it is. If something is universal, and has been around as long as human memory runs, it usually means it is hard wired in our genes. Not only is patriarchy universal in human society, and always has been, but it is the default position in monkey and ape societies. It's not going away any time soon. In fact, in mixed company women become quieter, less assertive, and more compliant because, as a woman sociologist <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-adaptive-value-of-aw-shucks.html" target="_blank">has shown</a>, deferential women are more likely to get husbands. But why go back to evolutionary history when we only have to look around us? The most popular genre of fiction, amounting to 40% of mass market paperbacks, is love stories. The readership is almost wholly female, and they <i>all </i>feature alpha males. Feminist publishers tried to get their authors to write more gender equal plots, but it didn't work. The authors didn't want to write them, and the readers didn't want to read them. And what is the most successful pornographic novel of all time? <i>Fifty Shades of Grey</i>! Who would have thought that a story about a woman being subjugated and abused would be written by a woman, promoted by women reviewers, be read mostly by women, and would sell 125 million copies? So don't try arguing it's not hard wired in our genes.<br />
Some advice to the publishers: your magazine is called <i>National Geographic, </i>not <i>National Political</i>. We buy it because we want to vicariously visit exotic foreign localities. If we want to read biased feminist propaganda we can do it for free on the internet.<div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum:</b> The April 2020 issue inserts a short article, completely irrelevant to the rest of the magazine, entitled "Patriarchy is Not Destiny" by Angela Saini. However, all it does is draw attention to the minority of societies - none of them part of large, long-lived civilizations - which are matrilinear. That means that the descent and inheritance is passed down through the female, not the male line. She did mention, of course, that power is typically held by the men in the woman's family of origin. Of course! There has never been a society where men share power equally with women. Get over it, Miss Saini; patriarchy is destiny.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-1148606395920873892019-10-24T21:11:00.005-07:002022-05-15T04:23:38.034-07:00Life Was Better in the 1950s and '60s (1 of 3) Life is good. I was born in 1949, and my parents had to scrimp and slave to make ends meet. Now I am an affluent retiree. I've seen the world, and the world is at my fingertips by virtue of the machine with which you are reading this. When I get sick, as I eventually will, there will be medical treatment available which was undreamed of when I was young. Nevertheless, I shall go out on a limb and state that life was better in the 1950s and '60s - not materially, but in the things which really matter. Compared to today, it was particularly good for those growing up. I quail at the thought of the challenges the grandchildren will have to face.<br />
<a name='more'></a> Now, of course, old farts are always proclaiming the superiority of life when they were young and vigorous. It automatically invites the response: "You wouldn't really want to go back to time when [name your favourite bad example]?" Of course not! There is no such thing as a golden age. So just to even the score, I shall mention a few aspects of that time I do <i>not </i>miss.<br />
Firstly, prior to Vatican II, there was a lot of prejudice and bad relations between Catholics and Protestants. However, it never came to any sort of significant discrimination or other social evils. And it was not as bad as the present day war of the ungodly against the religious.<br />
Secondly, there was constant industrial action ie strikes. Far from me to say that unions are useless, but it is definitely the case that membership has collapsed over the past decades, and workers have still become more prosperous. Strikes were most common in unions under control of the Communist parties, which also managed to infiltrate the whole political scene. It was not terrorism, but subversion and treason which we had to face.<br />
Thirdly, there was the pernicious habit of smoking, which robbed my father of at least 20 years of his life, and my brother and brother-in-law of at least 30. Today 16½ % of adult men - one in six - smoke, with a slightly smaller percentage for women, but in 1945 it was 72%.<br />
So what was life like materially when I was growing up? For a start, we could go to the <a href="https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/australiacompare/" target="_blank">measuring worth</a> website and compare the value of money in 1966, the year decimal currency was introduced, with that in 2016. You will immediately note that there has been rampart inflation; based on the CPI, a dollar in 1966 would buy what $12.63 did 50 years later. More to the point, however, the "income value" was twice that of the "real price". What that means is that an hour's labour, or a day's labour, allows you to buy twice as much as it did 50 years ago. In 50 years, we've all become twice as rich.<br />
Sewage did not come to my suburb until the early 1960s. Prior to that, we had to use an outhouse in the backyard, which a council worker would empty once a week. (What a stinking job!) Television (black and white, of course) did not arrive here in Brisbane until 1959, at which time we all gathered outside the electric goods store to watch the simplistic programs on display. Prior to that, we used to sit around, sometimes in the dark, listening to serials, comedies, and dramas on the radio. And, of course, there was "<a href="https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/6762897/The+Best+of+the+Drifters/Saturday+Night+at+the+Movies" target="_blank">Saturday Night at the Movies</a>". Three cinemas graced the suburb closest to mine. We got there by public transport, of course, because cars were a middle class luxury, as were telephones. (My family didn't have either.) The lack of cars resulted in another phenomenon: a proliferation of corner stores. You could get your household needs at three such stores within walking distance of my home.<br />
I know this is all going to sound like the dark ages to a generation brought up on computers, the internet, mobile phones, CDs, and DVDs, but don't you imagine it! Our parents had it tough: first the depression, and then the war. But we grew up in the flush of post war prosperity. Let me give you a few pointers.<br />
<ul>
<li>It was possible to raise a family on a single income. At the bottom of economic ladder, where my family belonged, the wife and mother often had to seek part time or casual employment, but single incomes were regarded as the default.</li>
<li>Despite that, they could afford children. They don't call us baby boomers for nothing! Today, despite everyone being twice as rich, our fertility is well below replacement rate. What has gone wrong?</li>
<li>In 1950 it required 301 weeks' of average income to purchase a median-priced house in a capital city. This was reduced to 200 weeks in 1955, and stayed that way for a couple of decades. Now it is 455.</li>
<li>We had full employment. Governments were in danger of losing office if unemployment went as high as 2 per cent. There were cases of workers leaving a job in the morning and picking up a new one in the afternoon.</li>
<li>As far a education went, anyone who was at all bright could automatically get a scholarship to university. That was how I, the son of an invalid pensioner, took my first degree. The second I financed by not too arduous part time work. I still don't understand why, these days, a degree should cost you a year's income.</li>
<li>And finally, we didn't lock our doors at night. Crime might have been reduced in recent decades, but it nowhere near as low as what my generation was accustomed to.</li>
</ul>
<div>
So, materially, life in the 1950s and 1960s was not too bad. But socially it was much better. Every index of social disintegration is worse now than it used to be.</div>
<div>
In <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-2-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a>, I shall explain how certain alleged improvements are not necessarily so.</div>
<div>
In <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-3-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 3</a>, I shall reveal the social disintegration facing children growing up today.</div><div>An American woman has said <a href="https://thetransformedwife.com/the-past-was-a-glorious-time/" target="_blank">pretty much the same thing</a> about her own country.</div>
Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-38093801673817927602019-10-24T18:20:00.005-07:002024-02-23T20:31:42.438-08:00Life Was Better in the 1950s and '60s (2 of 3)<div style="text-align: justify;">
In <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-1-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> I explained what life was life was like in the 1950s and '60s. Materially, it was not as good as today, but was still prosperous. Socially, it was much better in most instances. However, recently I saw how a columnist claimed that, over the last fifty years, life has become "more free" for most groups, and he singled out women, Aborigines, and homosexuals. Is that true? Let us have a look. You will see that, at best, it is merely a half truth.</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"> <b>Women</b> are obviously the largest of these three categories, so we will start with them. Women have certainly moved out into many more fields than previously. However, it is a mixed blessing; they are now chained to their careers just like men are.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first thing to understand is they didn't experience as many restrictions as you might imagine. There was nothing to stop them attending university, for example. The fact that a lot smaller percentage of women than men attended is because the former did not consider it so important. Women were required to leave the public service once they married. Employers often advertised for either male or female workers. Although they are not allowed to do so these days, if an employer wants a worker of a specific sex, he or she just shortlists out all the applicants of the wrong sex. However, the real reason for the increase in married women in the workforce was that employers wanted more staff, and encouraged them to take paid work. Ironically, that was also a period of employment contraction, and the unemployment rate increased from the low 2% to 6%, and ultimately 10%. Are we to assume that the two phenomena were completely unrelated?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"> Single income families are more productive, <a href="https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/families-with-a-stay-at-home-parent-are-better-off-according-to-a-nobel/">according to</a> a Nobel Prize winning economist. It would be interesting to calculate how much of the additional women's income is taken up with expenses. Unless her career is lucrative, a high proportion will be taken up in child care and after school care, even with government subsidies. It is likely the family will require a second car. Indeed, even a stay-at-home housewife may very well require her own car, because the rise of the two car family has resulted in the disappearance of corner stores, and the growth of supermarkets at greater distances. I have <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/working-women-and-housing-crisis.html" target="_blank">previously described</a> how the growth of the two income household has increased the price of houses. This is how events conspire to force married women into the workforce. As Helen Andrews <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/conservative-women.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article" target="_blank">put it</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By making it easier for women to pursue success in the workplace, we have made it harder for them to do anything else.</blockquote>
Women, nevertheless, still possess a strong instinct to seek a good provider as a husband, and only as a last resort will marry, or even date, a man who ranks below them socially or financially. The result is that so many of them <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12603" target="_blank">cannot find husbands</a>. And, of course, it is well established that the higher a woman moves up the financial ladder, the more likely she is to be never married, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200121-why-promoted-women-are-more-likely-to-divorce" target="_blank">divorced</a>, and/or childless.<br />
I have also <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-does-woman-want-with-career-anyway.html" target="_blank">pointed out</a> that, for the last fifty years, public policy has been based on two absurd propositions: that feminine lifestyles are intrinsically inferior such that women must always adopt male lifestyles, and that men and women live separate lives when, in fact, they live together and share resources. The establishment gets upset if women are underrepresented in any field, ignoring the strong possibility that men and women, being different, might <a href="https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-women-equality-preferences-20181018-story.html" target="_blank">not want the same things</a>. There is even a so-called "<a href="https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-gender-scandal-part-one-scandinavia-and-part-two-canada/" target="_blank">gender equality paradox</a>" whereby, in countries where women have the most opportunity, they end up choosing different careers from men. Not only that, but since men and women tend to marry each other, their different career paths represent the way couples divide up their resources. The better a man is as a provider, the less likely is his wife to work full time, or at all.<br />
But because the establishment refuses to recognize these factors, it seeks to force women into the paid workforce. Governments have resisted any attempt to support the single income family. The dependent spouse tax rebate was allowed to fall behind inflation and was finally abolished except for when the spouse required a carer - because, after all, a woman's place is in the office, not the home. Mothers of young children consistently express a desire to stay home and rear them, but the government does not subsidise them; it subsidises childcare. Worse still, it extols childcare as a way to help women stay in the workforce, thereby defining children as an impediment to a career, rather than the reverse.<br />
Paul Collits <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/11/on-being-jobless-in-our-bs-economy/" target="_blank">expressed it</a> fluently:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
The dramatic move by women into the workforce has achieved many things – increased family stress, increased family costs, increasing traffic congestion in peak hour in the cities, giving grandparents unwanted second careers and causing many of them to move house (!), the ratcheting up of the cost of housing such that now a whole generation is excluded from the property ladder, jobless men, a false sense of female achievement, the birth of a new career (child-carer), the smearing of stay-at-home mothers and their appalling treatment by policymakers, [plus] searing political correctness in the workplace.</blockquote>
No, women have not become more "free". They used to be free - to be women. Now they are compelled to bear Adam's curse as well as Eve's.<br />
<br />
<b>Aborigines.</b> First of all, let us demolish one myth: that Aborigines were not allowed to vote before the 1967 referendum. <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/03/fabrication-aboriginal-voting/" target="_blank">Most of them were</a>. The referendum only permitted them to be counted in the census, and for the Federal Government to make laws concerning them. Other than that, Aborigines came under state jurisdictions, and they ranged from urban mixed bloods, who were the subject of Nene Gare's classic novel, <i>The Fringe Dwellers</i>, to mostly full blood members in remote communities, who still maintained much of their tribal affiliations and traditional lifestyle.<br />
The latter were essentially treated as minors, although individuals could apply for full citizenship rights if they could show they could manage their affairs properly. Otherwise, they were under the charge of administrators, or "Protectors". Since the latter possessed wide discretion, sometimes the system worked very well and sometimes it worked very badly. Children who were perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be victims of neglect or abuse could be taken into care. This has been demonstrated every time an alleged member of the "stolen generation" has taken the issue to court, and it has been left to the <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/01-02/why-there-were-no-stolen-generations/" target="_blank">detailed investigations</a> of Keith Windshuttle to establish that the central theme of the "stolen generation" <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/01-02/why-there-were-no-stolen-generations-part-two/ " target="_blank">myth</a>: that there was a consistent, continent-wide government policy to remove half caste children from their families simply because they were half caste, is false.<br />
In the interior, Aborigines lived in a symbiotic relationship with pastoralists, and there were special regulations regarding their wages. It was also illegal to sell alcohol to them and, in order to protect black women from sexual exploitation, it was illegal for a white person to sexual relations with them - hence the jibe that full citizenship meant access to "the bar and the brothel".<br />
Of course, such policies couldn't last. Minors eventually grow up. Aborigines now have land rights, but it would be difficult to show that this has significantly improved their material situation. In the '70s and '80s there arose a campaign for "equal pay for Aborigines". When it succeeded - surprise, surprise! - all too often the Aboriginal stockmen lost their jobs. Some of them formed their own businesses, or "outstations", which is itself a good thing, but their income tends to be no better than when wages were unequal. Billions of government dollars are poured into Aboriginal welfare, but those in remote areas see little of it. It is mostly creamed off by white public servants and white people with some distant Aboriginal ancestry.<br />
Meanwhile, "the bar and the brothel" have done their worst. Unemployment is the norm in the remote communities because, basically, they are too far from industries. Aboriginal communities are being <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/yabbered-to-death-part-i/" target="_blank">destroyed</a> by alcohol, pornography, and welfare, which they call "sit down money". Children are not going to school. They are not being fed. They are being taken into care, but not nearly as often as they should be, for fear of creating a "second stolen generation". Traditional society was violent, and women were treated as a lower form of life, but the level of violence is remote communities is <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/when-the-horrific-is-mundane-part-iv/" target="_blank">so horrific</a> it is hard to contemplate - along with the <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2020/10/three-names-that-should-haunt-us/" target="_blank">sexual abuse of children</a>, which was rare in the old days. I don't know of anybody who denies these facts.<br />
No, a return to the policies of the 1950s and '60s is neither possible, nor desirable. But let's not pretend they are better off.<br />
<br />
<b>Homosexuals.</b> It says a lot about the way some people's minds works that they should treat a category of behaviour the same as physical categories such as sex and race. They are labelling a person's temptations, or mental disorder, as the core of his identity. In the old days, homosexual acts were illegal. Even so, due to the law's inability to intrude into people's homes and bedrooms, this usually meant acts which would have been considered public indecency if performed by a man and woman. While they no longer face the possibility of jail, it is still a horrible lifestyle, with soul-destroying promiscuity, physical damage, and venereal disease, including AIDS, which can only be held at bay by <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/the-high-cost-of-preventing-aids.html" target="_blank">expensive drugs</a>. They are subject to much higher levels of mental illness and suicide, <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/people-in-homosexual-marriages-almost-3-times-more-likely-to-commit-suicide" target="_blank">even in countries</a> where their activities are largely tolerated. The trouble is, these days the lifestyle is being actively promoted.<br />
Three of my boyhood friends were homosexual. One gave himself over to the lifestyle, and I have lost contact with him. Another decided to remain celibate, and thus was saved from the many negative effects of the lifestyle. That's something you don't hear much of these days: it is not necessary to follow every sexual urge and, in fact, necessary not to. If you can't live a normal lifestyle, it is bad policy to adopt an abnormal one. The third friend, who had a crush on me, has since been married - to a woman - for forty years. That's another secret: same sex attraction is a phase which more than half of affected teenagers grow out of if left to their own devices.<br />
How do you think these vulnerable young people would have fared if they had been exposed to the grooming which goes under the rubric of "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKfz-XIRewk" target="_blank">sex education</a>" and "<a href="https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/04/19/safe-schools-and-the-war-against-children-and-parents/" target="_blank">safe schools</a>" these days? (Don't forget to scroll down to the comments on the second link, as they provide even more information.)<br />
There is a determined effort these days to corrupt the sexual morals of children. This is another reason why growing up is so much more now, as I shall explain in <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-3-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 3</a>.<br />
<br />Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-30830676587372482942019-10-24T15:17:00.006-07:002023-11-21T02:03:53.041-08:00Life Was Better in the 1950s and '60s (3 of 3) Every index of social disintegration has got worse in the last fifty years. In <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-1-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> I described what life was like in the 1950s and '60s. In <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-2-of-3.html" target="_blank">Part 2 </a>I explained why much of what is considered progress is, at best, a mixed bag. In the following article I shall list all the ways life has become much difficult and more challenging for those growing up than it was when I was a boy.<br />
<a name='more'></a> The first challenge a modern child faces is actually being allowed to be born. If you are under 45, you are an abortion holocaust survivor. Something like a fifth of babies are aborted. Ironically, the great expansion of abortion has occurred just as widespread contraception should have reduced its incidence, but the only people to be surprised will be those who don't understand human nature. As well as being harmful to the baby, abortion can be destructive to the mother, with around four per cent suffering serious long term mental illness, a situation made worse by the fact that those who should have been her social support - her parents and boyfriend - are likely to have been the ones who pressured her into abortion.<br />
On the other hand, children are all too often treated as commodities, created to serve adults' self-fulfillment - produced by IVF, donor sperm, or surrogacy, and handed over to people who should never be given the care of children: unmarried women and same-sex couples. As one of them <a href="https://thembeforeus.com/bethany/" target="_blank">said</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“…being “wanted” can sometimes feel like a curse, like I was created to make you happy, my rights be damned. I’d be lying if I said I never felt commodified.” </blockquote>
If the child eventually makes it to be born, he or she may well end up without a father. Unmarried motherhood has expanded alarmingly since contraception and abortion were introduced to prevent it - but, again, this will surprise nobody who understands human nature. Not only that, throughout the western world there has been a tremendous number of studies on the effect of family structure on children, and the evidence is overwhelming: children raised by only a single parent, as a result of either illegitimacy or divorce, do much worse statistically than those raised by both their parents, even starting from birth, when they are less likely to be breastfed, and more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Even allowing for compounding effects such as race and socio-economical status, they are statistically less healthy, less likely to be vaccinated, and more likely to develop asthma, among other things. Girls are more likely to experience early puberty. The children of unmarried and divorced mothers are far more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and/or other substances, suffer from anxiety and depression, be sexually active, get pregnant, join gangs, get involved in crime, and even to commit suicide, to list just some of the negative outcomes. They are even <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-finds-new-evidence-that-childhood-family-factors-influence-sexual-ori" target="_blank">more likely</a> to end up homosexual or lesbian. <a href="https://conservativetribune.com/mike-rowe-fatherlessness-sick/" target="_blank">Fatherless boys</a> are strongly prone to antisocial activities.<br />
It is also well established that a father functions differently from a mother in child raising. From him, his children learn how to relate to authority. His sons learn from example how to relate to women, his <a href="https://thembeforeus.com/father-effect-daughters-divorce-serve-test-case/" target="_blank">daughters</a> how to relate to men. He is the first man the little girl falls in love with, and all those who follow have to measure up.<br />
These studies, which number in the hundreds, have been so consistent and so compelling across many decades and many different countries, it can only be the result of deliberate blindness that the media fail to publicise them, and the average person ignores them. When presented with such data, the tendency is to point to some example where they didn't apply. Non-scientists are not comfortable with statistical tendencies; they always imagine a generalisation can be defeated by an individual exception.<br />
We could add a couple of other problems. All too often the mother shacks up with another man, in which case the child is at <a href="https://thembeforeus.com/biology-matters/" target="_blank">much greater risk</a> of violence or sexual abuse than with his natural, married father. Furthermore, in 1973 the Government decided to pay a supporting mother's pension to unmarried mothers - apparently unaware of the economic principle that you get more of what you subsidise. The result is that both mother and children are left in an economically deprived situation.<br />
When I was growing up, we were acutely aware of the plight of the illegitimate. The community's first line of defense was preventative: we had it drummed into us that sex before, or outside of, marriage was not only dangerous, but <i>wrong</i>; if you did it, you were not only stupid, but bad. Nor was this exceptional; history shows that, for <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/11/western-european-marriage-pattern.html" target="_blank">hundreds of years</a>, Western Europe managed to combine late marriage and a high proportion of never married citizens with a low rate of out of wedlock births. But if it did happen, the option was for the mother to marry the father. Such "shotgun marriages" had a greater breakdown rate than other marriages, but I have known lifelong happy marriages which started with a teenage pregnancy. Very strong social pressure was applied to the father to "do the right thing" by the girl and, of course, his child. If he didn't, he was regarded as the lowest of cads - and he was still liable to financial maintenance under a paternity suit.<br />
Alternatively, the baby would be put up for adoption. It was emotionally traumatic for the mother, but she was then able to get on with her life: complete her education, get married, and have more children - all of which would have been put in jeopardy had she kept the baby. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, the adoptee had a much better upbringing.<br />
A lot of myths have grown up about this. "It was considered shameful to bear a child out of wedlock," you often hear, as if that were the main reason. No, the reason was that she could not take care of the baby by herself. The moral law is not arbitrary; actions are recognized as sinful, and thus shameful, because they cause the sort of terrible consequences listed above. Remember Prime Minister Gillard's apology for "forced adoptions"? Rubbish! The Federal Government had nothing to do with it; adoption was, and is, a state affair. The only policy the Federal Government had was what it <i>didn't </i>do: it didn't pay the upkeep of illegitimate children any more than it did for those born in wedlock. Nor did the state governments have any such policy. In the vast majority of cases, you will find that the adoption was "forced" only in the sense that the girl was a minor, and her parents authorised it on her behalf. If she were legally an adult, the decision would have been hers. It would have been a hard decision, and society would not offer her any alternative other than marrying the father, but it was still her decision. I might add that adoptions like this still continue, although at a much reduced rate, and nobody calls them "forced".<br />
<br />
It the child still manages to pass all these hurdles, there is still the strong possibility that his or her parents will split up. In the '60s the divorce rate was less than ten percent, but we still thought it alarmingly high. Now it is closer to 40 per cent. And that is not including de facto relationships, which were rare in the old days, and which have a much higher rate of breakdown. Divorce is terrible for children, half of whom still fantasize about their parents reuniting up to fifteen years later. Most of the negatives listed above for the children of unmarried mothers apply to those of broken marriages. In a small percentage of cases, the marriage is so toxic that divorce is the lesser of two evils, but in most cases the split-up is for trivial reasons, and it would have been better if they had stayed together.<br />
Divorce is bad for adults as well. Women are typically left in straitened economic circumstances, while attempting to take care of their children. Men talk of being stripped of their assets and losing contact with their offspring - hence the fellow who proclaimed: "I don't think I'll get married again; I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house." Again, myths have developed. From online comments I have read, it appears many younger people think that forty percent of marriages in my day were unhappy, but they just didn't divorce. Completely false! People supported the institution, and the institution supported them. The high divorce rate in modern times is the result of the law making it the easy option for perceived problems.<br />
Once you had to have a good reason in order to get a divorce, and if you were the guilty party who had broken your sacred vows, you would come out worse when property distribution, maintenance, and custody were concerned. No fault divorce was supposed to end all the bitterness. In fact, it simply moved the bitterness to another phase of the proceedings. Strictly speaking, it does not favour either men or women, but rather the spouse with the least scruples. It is a frightening fact that you can vow to love, honour, and cherish, follow it through faithfully and diligently, and then have your spouse suddenly decide to walk out on you, perhaps with a lover or mistress, and the law will force you to hand over half your home, bank account, and superannuation, and even take your children off you. Marriage is now the only contract where the one who breaks it is not simply left unpunished, but is actually rewarded.<br />
<br />
Recently a journalist penned a heart-wrenching story about the childcare system, and how she was unable to find a vacancy for her 10 month old (!) baby. When I was growing up, we weren't farmed out to the care of others either; our own mothers took care of us. Children of mothers working full time tend to suffer (<a href="https://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Mothers-and-Work-Raising-Hell.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>).<br />
<br />
When my generation was growing up, there was strict censorship of books, magazines, and films. There were still a certain number of sleazy magazines and paperbacks doing the rounds, but nowhere near as bad as what is normal today. I won't say they were completely harmless, but you knew that they were socially unacceptable. It was thus possible to grow up with a healthy attitude towards sex. Real pornography only arrived with the collapse of censorship in the late 1960s and early '70s, a development which the Australian psychiatrist, Dr. John Court showed corresponded to a sudden increase in the incidence of rape in every country. (This is normally overlooked these days.) Today, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-every-child-exposed-to-internet-pornography-is-an-abuse-victim-there-should-be-laws-protecting-them" target="_blank">children are exposed</a> to the worst type of pornography from every side. For prepubetal children, it can be very disturbing; for teenagers, it introduces them to a very sick view of sexuality.<br />
Most of the social disintegration we see today is due to the breakdown of the family, and most of that can be traced back to the misuse of sex. The moral law, as I said before, is not arbitrary, and society ignores it as its peril. <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/06/report-to-divorce-proof-yourself-dont-have-premarital-sex/" target="_blank">The research is clear</a>: chastity is the best prophylaxis against divorce. The very lowest divorce rates are among those who had no sexual partners prior to marriage, while just one extra partner increases the chance of divorce more than three-fold. This, of course, will be of no surprise to those of us who understand human nature, but it is now counter-intuitive to most people. Our society has become obsessed with sex, such that that young people are bombarded with messages promoting as mainstream the same sexual mistakes which have ruined the lives of so many of their parents. Not only that but, as mentioned in Part 2, perverts are now taking the opportunity to introduce the same misinformation into the schools, often to children far too young to have any idea about sex. Once we <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/02/chatterley-on-trial" target="_blank">banned dirty books</a> lest they corrupt the morals of adults. Now governments are publishing and promoting books specifically written to <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/03/schools-quietly-indoctrinate-kids-abortion-transgenderism/" target="_blank">corrupt the morals of children</a>.<br />
<br />
What other challenges do modern youngsters face? Technology, for a start, is a great servant but a bad master. I cannot resist the feeling that this modern obsession with social media is an example of a good thing taken far too far. My advice to anyone under thirty is: Get off your mobile phone and <em>get a life</em>! More important in the long term is the way in which technology is due to abolish about half the modern jobs in the next few decades. While it might be a bit of a challenge to have to learn new skills constantly, it will not be a major hurdle for most people. After all, my generation mastered the computer revolution and the internet. What is disturbing, however, is the loss of unskilled work. Jordan Petersen hit it on the head when he pointed out that, although the U.S. military is keen to attract and retain volunteers, it is not allowed to employ anyone with an IQ less than 83, because they cannot do anything with them. This amounts to almost a sixth of the population!<br />
<br />
Finally, when I was growing up, Australia was a largely homogenous nation, despite massive immigration, because we took people racially and culturally like ourselves, and insisted they assimilate. Since then, the poisonous policy of multiculturalism has been introduced - without any demand from the electorate - with the aim of dividing us into tribes. Also without demand from the electorate, we are giving preference to immigrants unlike ourselves, and everybody is afraid to speak out. We have terrorism in this country because we imported an <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/muslims-in-australia.html" target="_blank">incompatible culture</a>. It is clear that China is a looming threat, but we have imported more than half a million potential fifth columnists. As Yan Xia <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/04/chines-australians-foreign-influence-transparency-scheme/" target="_blank">put it</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is often said that we Chinese migrants leave our “loyalties” planted in the motherland, despite living in Australia. This statement may be distasteful but, sadly, there has been much truth to it.</blockquote>
There are parts of our capital cities which don't look like Australia at all. It has even been <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609425/Native-English-speakers-minority-Sydney-just-10-years.html" target="_blank">predicted</a> that, on present trends, native speakers of English will be a minority in Sydney in little more than ten years. In 2011 Chris Bowen, the Minister for Immigration boasted - yes, boasted! - that for the first time we had taken more Chinese than British immigrants. While the 2001 figure of only 52% of immigrants coming from Europe may be shockingly low, by 2016 it was down to only 34%. Our birth rate is well below replacement level, but the Government is topping it up, and more so, by immigration, but the immigrants are not our own kind. In other words, <i>we are being replaced</i>! The next generation is going to have to wake up and fight, or else they will lose their country.<br />
<br />
Does all this sound like a rant by some old fogey? Then feel free to look for any errors. I've been around. I remember when the world wasn't always like it is now. I've seen improvements, but I've also seen what happens when a society loses its moral compass. Unless we want to see more social disintegration, we must get back to the fundamentals taken for granted in the 1950s and '60s. Life was better then.Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-68158111233333461552019-09-16T13:57:00.002-07:002021-05-11T16:07:05.153-07:00Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) At the beginning of the year I wrote an <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/01/wannabe-authors-beware.html" target="_blank">article</a> about the literary parasites who prey on first time authors. I also mentioned that Amazon offered a self-publishing facility called <a href="https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/" target="_blank">Kindle Direct Publishing</a> (KDP) for e-books, which appeared legitimate, but I hadn't tried it at the time. I have now tried it, and discovered that it allows publication, not only of e-books, but of paperbacks in a print-on-demand (POD) manner. It is also free. Whatever else might be said about it, you won't be ripped off.<br />
<a name='more'></a> First, in my previous article I explained that authors typically earn as much in royalties for e-books as for hard copies. In KDP you set your own price, and can opt for either 35% or 70% royalties. The difference is that, at 70%, the cost of delivery is deducted from the royalties. For the US, Canada, and Australia this is 15c of the local currency per megabyte. When the time comes, therefore, you can do your sums and decide which is the best for you. Remember that royalties are calculated on the retail price before sale tax, GST, or VAT is added. Remember, too, that customers normally expect an e-book to cost about half or a third of the print edition.<br />
With paperbacks, KDP operates differently from traditional publishing. Traditionally, the publisher pays all the expenses, and gives you 10% of the retail price. KDP pays you 60% of the <i>pre-sale tax</i> price, but deducts the printing expenses. It gave an <a href="https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G8BKPU9AGVZSF9QF" target="_blank">example</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
U.S. Dollar VAT Exclusive List Price = $9.99.<br />
Your book is a 300-page black ink paperback sold on the US marketplace.<br />
Your Royalty per sale to a customer from Amazon.com is: (0.60 x $9.99) - $4.45 = $1.54<br />
(Royalty Rate x List Price) – Printing Costs = Royalty<br />
Applicable Printing Cost calculation: $0.85 (Fixed Cost) + (300 (Page Count) x $0.012 (Per Page Cost)) = $4.45 (Printing Cost)
</blockquote>
That's not bad! It's the equivalent of 15.4% royalties, or 14% if you add the 10% Australian GST to the retail price. Normal royalties are 10%. Obviously, when setting the price, you decide what royalties you want for each copy, add it to the printing cost (it will be quoted in American dollars), and multiply by 10/6. Don't be greedy. Remember that the purchaser will also have to meet the sales tax and postage/shipping costs.<br />
Since it is POD, it will stay in print indefinitely, which allows royalties to trickle in year by year. (Traditional publishers budget to sell the whole first edition in just a few years.) However, there is an obvious disadvantage: potential readers have to know the book exists. The best way for that to occur is for browsers to happen upon it in a bookstore or library. KDP therefore offers an <a href="https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/GQTT4W3T5AYK7L45" target="_blank">expanded distribution</a> facility, to make it available to distributors. For this, the royalties are 40%, so you need to multiply by 10/4 when setting your price.<br />
Therefore, by way of experiment, I decided to self-publish the same book which originally came out in 2010 - not expecting to gain any sales or money, but simply to see whether it could be done. It turned out the exercise was simplicity itself. It came out at only half the original online asking price. (The original bookshop price had been even higher.) If I had opted for expanded distribution, it would have ended up three quarters of the original price. Perhaps I should have been more greedy with respect to royalties.<br />
If you wish to go in that direction (and why not?), I have a couple of tips. First of all, I suggest that when you come to <a href="https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202145400" target="_blank">building your book</a>, you download the 16 page set of instructions rather than follow the video clips. Secondly, when uploading the final draft, I kept getting messages that some paragraphs were "bleeding" ie extending into the margin. I found the only way to get around it was to either add an indentation of about one character to the offending paragraphs - something that is invisible in the finished product - or to hyphenate a long word.<br />
I've also discovered that, for convenience in reading, it is best to make the inner gutter ie the space attached to the binding - larger than the minimum.<br />
<br />
<b>What About Us Australians?</b><br />
You should understand that we Australians are the poor relations as far as Amazon is concerned. Previously, local companies found themselves undercut by foreign online sales companies because the latter did not have to pay the 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST). So, in 2017, the Australian Government applied the GST to everything coming into the country. This caused that mammoth company, Amazon to have canniptions. Their immediate respond to refuse to sell anything to Australians except what was in their Australian warehouse. As far as books were concerned, that wasn't such a big deal; you can still get a tremendous number from the Australian branch. You can even buy KDP books. I know, because I have purchased a couple from a Scottish author, and communicated with him to confirm it.<br />
However, for some reason, Australian users of KDP are unable to purchase their own books at cost price like citizens of other nationalities. We are informed that we have to purchase it at the retail price like any ordinary buyer.<br />
When I published my book, within just two or three days it turned up on the US, UK, French, German, Japanese, and quite a few other Amazon branches, all offered in their own currency equivalents. But not in Australia. So I sent them a query. To their credit, customer support will give you a reply in just a couple of days. They said it would take time, and I should ask again if it wasn't available within 45 days. A week or two later, the title and cover thumbnail appeared on the Australian website - but with the words, "Currently unavailable". So, at the end of 45 days, I asked again. The result was a polite apology for inadvertent misinformation.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It can take up to 45 days for your book to filter through the Global
Store, however, we cannot guarantee that your book will be available on
the Australian marketplace. Due to the new GST laws for Australia, KDP
is cornered to look for alternative solutions so that Australian
publishers can order their books. Our teams are hard at work to find a
suitable solution. For now we can only ask that you order your books
from an available market place.</blockquote>
The last sentence presumably means that, if I opted for expanded distribution, it might eventually appear on the list of (say) Booktopia. If the algorithm produces a cover thumbnail and book description on the Australian website, presumably there is also some mechanism for making it available when the planets are in the right conjunction. In the meantime, I shall try it with works of more cosmopolitan interest.<br />
But right now I can't even purchase a copy of my own book.<br />
<br />
<b>Up-Date 17.10.19</b> KDP has now solved the problem of allowing Australian authors to purchase their books at cost price although, since they have to come from the US, the postage is a bit on the high side. However, it is possible to publish an e-book in this country, and the process is also simple. They even notify you of the best price to balance royalties with sales. My <a href="https://malcolmsanomalies.blogspot.com/2019/10/introducing-new-ufo-novel.html" target="_blank">second book</a> is also available in Australia, although it has to be ordered from the UK. I note, also, that the books of Roland Watson, a Scottish author who publishes on KDP, have to be ordered from US Amazon, which normally can't be done in Australia. It seems that this is how Amazon deals with KDP books in Australia. Probably, it does not yet have POD facilities over here, and so it outsources it.<div><b>Further U-Date 12.5.21</b> KDP has now opened a print-on-demand facility in Australia, with effect from 20 May 2021. It will now be possible to order paperbacks direct from Amazon Australia.</div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-84226765290345115312019-08-15T01:38:00.005-07:002022-06-11T21:28:01.927-07:00Global Warming? I've noticed that nearly all the <strike>propaganda</strike> information on global warming is about just that: global warming, not carbon dioxide. No, I am not "denying" the science. In order to do that, I would have to become an efficient climatologist. In any case, I don't think anything is gained by the parties abusing each other as "deniers" or "warmists". But I am sceptical - because that is what a scientist is supposed to be. When you hear that "the science is settled", we who are not climatologists, but who nevertheless have a background in science, know that the statement is ridiculous. Which science? And to what degree is it settled?<br />
<a name='more'></a> This particular science breaks down into four questions:<br />
<ol>
<li>Is global warming occurring, and to what extent?</li>
<li>To what extent, if any, is it caused by human beings - particularly by the increase in anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub>?</li>
<li>How bad is it going to get?</li>
<li>What can be done about it?</li>
</ol>
<div>
It should be noted that the answers to each of the questions is dependent on the ones before. Also, every scientific statement carries a margin of error, and these errors are cumulative. In other words, if 1 is uncertain, 2 is doubly uncertain, and so on.</div>
<div>
This being said, the first question is the easiest to answer. Although we can quibble about some of the data, the average global temperature for the 21st century is higher than for the 20th.<br />
It is second where the science becomes murkier. The proponents of the theory hardly ever provide us with evidence. They bombard us with information about how the shrinking Arctic ice pack and shrinking glaciers, of flowers blooming earlier, and so forth. <i>We know that!</i> But what they don't tell us is how it relates to carbon dioxide. They just assume that if global warming can be proved, it stands to reason that it must be wholly due to the extra carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. But is it? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which serves to trap the sun's heat, and restricts its radiation into outer space, is not in dispute. It ought to contribute to warming. But how much?<br />
Firstly, climate is constantly changing. It is well established that the earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling. The Roman Warm Period covered the period between 250 BC and 400 AD. That was followed by a colder spell, which in turn was replaced by the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period" target="_blank">Medieval Warm Period</a> from about 950 to 1300. A brief web search will turn up any number of commentators arguing from entrenched positions that this warm period was not the same as the current warming or that, on the contrary, it was the same. After that came the <a href="https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/" target="_blank">Little Ice Age</a>, the coldest period of which occurred between 1645 and 1715, but which did not peter out until about 1850. You will note that the end effectively coincided with the start of the industrial revolution. Therefore, unless they are going to claim that the industrial revolution was responsible for ending the Little Ice Age, why do so many people use the start of the industrial revolution as their base date for temperature increases?<br />
The logic is perfectly clear. Either:<br />
(a) the Little Ice Age, which had already run for more than 400 years, would have continued at least another two or three centuries without the advent of the industrial revolution; or<br />
(b) much of the current warming must be part of a natural trend.<br />
Because of this, two Australian scientists have recently <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/08/22/delingpole-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural-study-confirms/" target="_blank">argued</a> that the current warming is completely natural. Perhaps. But just the same, as mentioned above, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and ought to be having some effect, but how do we distinguish its effects from natural causes? One obvious method would be to find a linear relationship between the amount of CO<sub>2</sub> and temperature increase. However, this is exactly what we do <i>not </i>find. I am not referring to the normal year-by-year fluctuations. Evening out those fluctuations, it is clear that temperatures have been rising during the twentieth century, but have leveled out during the twenty-first, while the amount of CO<sub>2 </sub> has been constantly rising. No-one denies this. Various explanations have been proposed for this plateauing, but they all come down to the same thing: <i>the system is more complicated than the experts predicted</i>. One specialist suggested that the data could be explained if the sensitivity of climate to CO<sub>2 </sub>were only a third of what had been assumed. I regard this as an open question. Furthermore, if this century's warming plateau is hotter than last century's temperatures (which is what a plateau means), then the hottest year on record is bound to be one of those years. It is also virtually inevitable that it will occur during an El Niño year. Just the same, the last couple of years have been especially hot, which might suggest that we are in for a new period of warming. Only time will tell, but if it occurs, this will be strong evidence implicating CO<sub>2</sub>, though it will still not be the whole cause.<br />
This brings us to point no. 3: how bad is it going to get? With regard to this, we are constantly bombarded with estimates based on various models. Let me state, categorically, that all this is rubbish! None of these models predicted the leveling of temperature in the last twenty years. If a model's predictions are wrong, then the model is wrong. This is scientific principles #101. It is one of the first things you are taught when learning the scientific method. The only model which can hold any water is one which correctly predicts what has already happened. When such a model is presented, we can take seriously its forecasts for the future, but until then we can safely assert that the factors influencing climate are too numerous and complex to fit into any current model.<br />
One of the reasons so many are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming is that we have been fed <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#68854ce612d6" target="_blank">so many alarmist predictions</a> that we have become like the listeners to the boy who cried wolf. Does anyone seriously believe, for example, that we have only twelve more years to save the world? That we face, not only catastrophe, but human extinction? <a href="https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/" target="_blank">It's all been said before.</a> Back in 1989 (yes, <a href="https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0" target="_blank">1989</a>!) a senior U.N. environmental official was predicting absolute disaster if global warming wasn't reversed by 2000!<br />
So allow me to state my own tentative conclusions:<br />
<ul>
<li>Global warming is real, and will probably continue to some extent.</li>
<li>It is partly natural, and partly man-made.</li>
<li>It is manageable, and nowhere near as catastrophic as made out, but we need to reverse the trend.</li>
</ul>
<div>
That bring us to point 4: what can be done about it? Ironically, it would be a relief if global warming were wholly man-made; we could then do something about it. But if global warming is completely natural, then it is impossible to predict how hot it will get, except that, based on history, it would probably mean an increase in a degree or two for several centuries, followed by a cool spell. But since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, whether its effect is large or small, if we keep pumping it out, the temperature will keep going up and up. Eventually a point will be reached where drastic action will have to be taken. There is no reason to think it can't be managed, but the longer action is delayed, the more extensive the action will have to be when the crunch finally comes. It would be best to gradually put the brakes on now.<br />
Ultimately, however, real progress will not take place until renewable energy becomes as cheap as fossil fuels. The way science works, that will eventually happen. In the meantime, much of the proposed action makes just plain common sense, even without global warming. I have solar panels on my roof simply because, in the long run, they save money. Keeping your home insulated, so that it requires less electricity is also good economics. Aircraft contribute 2½% of human produced CO<sub>2</sub>, but that is half what it used to be a couple of decades ago, simply because of greater fuel efficiency. Electric cars will cut down on particle and carbon <i>mon</i>oxide pollution, but as far as carbon <i>di</i>oxide is concerned, that depends on exactly where the electricity comes from. In many cases, it is produced by burning coal.<br />
Personally, I would like to see the gradual elimination of fossil fuels. In the first place, they will eventually run out, and they could be put to better use in the production of industrial hydrocarbons. In the second place, oil is financing our enemies, the Salafist Muslims. The sooner the Middle East in general, and Arabia in particular, revert to their original semi-civilised state, the better it will be for everybody else.<br />
But as far as Australia is concerned, the picture is clear: there is practically nothing we can do. The way some people talk, anyone would think our CO<sub>2</sub> just floats over the continent changing our climate. In fact, it mixes with every other nation's. The 558 million tons of greenhouse gases we produce annually is just 1.22% of the world's total: roughly one 80th. China's contribution is 27%. We could convert wholly to renewable energy tomorrow, and it would make no difference the world climate. If we did nothing, it would also make no difference. I don't personally recommend either extreme. We should be a good world citizen, but there is a happy medium between doing nothing, and wrecking our economy for no useful purpose.<br />
As for the Adani coal mine, even if India could obtain no coal from any alternative source (but, of course, they could), it would add just 1/40th of the Australian output of greenhouse gases. That's 1/40th of 1/80th. Anyone who thinks stopping Adani will save the Barrier Reef has rocks in his head. William F. Buckley used to tell opponents: "I won't insult your intelligence by assuming that you believe what you just said." Reluctantly, however, I have come to the conclusion that some people really are that stupid.<br />
Of course, there is one source of power which produces no greenhouse gases: uranium. Australia possesses 30% of the world's uranium, and is the third biggest exporter. Many of our customers use it to produce up to half their electricity. They have never had an accident, and the new style of reactors are especially safe. Disposal of waste may be a problem, but the best solution is to simply bury it, preferably vitrified, in a geologically stable area with no ground water. Half of Australia fits those criteria. We could even make money burying other countries' wastes. But the people who are loudest in the global warming debate have some sort of phobic reaction to the idea of uranium.<br />
<br />
<b> Up-date January 2020.</b> There's an old adage: Never let a good crisis go to waste! This appears to be the motto of certain people pontificating that the catastrophic bushfires being suffered by Australia are "caused" by global warming. A more accurate statement is that they are <i>contributed</i> to by global warming. The fires are the result of heat and a prolonged drought, both of which are regular events in Australia. As I said before, global warming must be factored into every weather event, and it is reasonable to suspect that the drought and heat wave would be smaller without global warming, but anyone who thinks getting world temperatures back to those of (say) the 1950s is going to get rid of the problem has rocks in the head.<br />
Other factors impact on bushfires. An obvious one is population density. Since 80% of bushfires are caused by people, either deliberately or accidentally, it is plain common sense that the more people there are in bushland areas, the more likely are bushfires. The second is the fuel load of the forest. White settlers have given up the Aboriginal custom of low intensity fires which consumed the dry undergrowth, but prevented high intensity fires. As the Bushfire Front has <a href="https://www.bushfirefront.org.au/resources-2/further-reading/bushfires-and-global-warming/" target="_blank">pointed out</a>, the <i>only </i>way to prevent megafires is to conduct low intensity prescribed burning. These two factors dwarf any contribution from global warming.<br />
Added to this, of course, is the fact that we contribute only 1/80th of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. While we should act as good world citizens, we have to accept that reduction of Australian greenhouse gases will have close to zero effect on the frequency and size of bushfires. We should divert our energies into programs which can actually work: like increasing prescribed burning to prevent bushfires, and bolstering our fire-fighting responses, so that fires can be extinguished before they become catastrophic.</div>
</div>
Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-25250281943297951272019-06-03T14:32:00.002-07:002020-07-30T05:11:13.506-07:00An Unlosable Election? I was just as amazed as everybody else on the evening of the May 18th Federal election to see the Coalition returned to office. Whether I was elated or appalled is beside the point; it wasn't supposed to happen - not if the opinion polls were to be believed. Since then there has been endless soul searching: firstly with the pollsters, who turned out so wrong, and secondly by the Labor Party which, like the American Democrats, feel "We was robbed!" Well, I have no intention of revisiting and analysing the various policies, but I do intend to elaborate on normal voter behaviour, and show that the results weren't so extraordinary after all.<br />
<a name='more'></a> Firstly, there's an old adage but true that oppositions don't win elections; governments lose them. If you are a party member, or a party supporter, try to drop your ideological stance and put yourself in the place of the people who matter: the swing voters. By definition, they are not ideologists; they could jump either way. That means that they more or less accept the <em>status quo</em>. This is true whether the <em>status quo</em> is Liberal (as, for example, the Howard years) or Labor (the Hawke years). However, they will abandon the government under two circumstances:<br />
<ol>
<li>It does something they really don't like. The corollary is that if you alienate enough groups, you are likely to make permanent enemies, and you will be in opposition for a long time.</li>
<li>It is seen to be incompetent, or to have lost the plot. Often this is a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the government sees they are losing support, and start squabbling among themselves, and trying to pull rabbits out of hats in order to regain support, but only further demonstrating that they have lost the plot.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM4YA_vEzU5G_WcVc89-0-zqpi4DFYPRaXppJL75wfibjo7AZWEnEmXt7XdZBS04cobdiUEkszCNiUpN6wlpTaySfePonndQ3wZZVLhXXH0aOQ_GOoqkHhZ5w50awkArn31gSJXdzXHEk/s1600/13_01.06.19_Nick_Newman.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="820" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM4YA_vEzU5G_WcVc89-0-zqpi4DFYPRaXppJL75wfibjo7AZWEnEmXt7XdZBS04cobdiUEkszCNiUpN6wlpTaySfePonndQ3wZZVLhXXH0aOQ_GOoqkHhZ5w50awkArn31gSJXdzXHEk/s320/13_01.06.19_Nick_Newman.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Time for a new leader!"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Conservative parties know this intuitively. Their promises are always: "We'll keep the ship of state sailing smoothly" (if in power), or "We'll clean up the mess" (if in opposition). Normally, they have to wait until the mess is obvious. Parties of the left, however, always come out with grand schemes to reorganize society. They can't help it; it's part of their DNA. They want to win government on their own merits, not merely allow the government to fall due to its own failings. What they don't realise is that, if they win, it will be in spite of the grand scheme, not because of it. Indeed, it might even frighten voters off.<br />
I could supply quite a few examples from past elections, both state and federal, but instead I shall concentrate on the last election. Even his opponents (especially his opponents!) agree that Scott Morrison (ScoMo) ran a very strong campaign. Conversely, I was amazed at how pathetic had been Malcolm Turnbull's campaign in 2016. The man he replaced, Tony Abbott would have done a much better job. Indeed, <em>I</em> could have done a much better job. If he had still been in charge in 2019, he would have gone down in a screaming heap, bringing the Coalition with him.<br />
The fact was, Turnbull was good at gaining power, but poor at managing it. He was all tip and no iceberg. If you had asked the swinging voters why they were turning against the Coalition, they would probably have been hard pressed to nominate a policy which was really bad. What was wrong was that it was drifting in disarray. As Peta Credlin put it, it had "lost control of the narrative".<br />
But suddenly, at the last moment, a dynamic new leader arose who took back control of the narrative. To the swinging voters, the new <em>status quo</em> didn't seem so bad after all. Not so the opposition's grand scheme, which had enough policies to scare off the waverers.<br />
<br />
<strong>What about the polls?</strong><br />
I'll always remember a cartoon where a pollster asks a couple: "Have you ever been polled? Do you know anybody who has been polled?"<br />
Many commentators note similarities with the Trump and Brexit elections, which went against the pollsters' predictions. The U.S. polls, indeed, were not only wrong; they were all over the place. However, they involve a factor not present in Australia: many of the respondents might not have voted at all. But when voting is compulsory, the polls ought to be more accurate. <br />
It has been pointed out that the final result was within the margin of error of the polls. Just the same, the polls were consistently against the government for most of the previous three years. By chance alone sampling error should have favoured the government for many of those polls. In my opinion, the polls weren't far wrong, but many people definitely changed their vote in the last few months. Even so, I gather that exit polls also favoured Labor, which indicates some more basic problem with the polls.<br />
It is not so easy to extrapolate the opinions of just a couple of thousand respondents to the whole country. Once pollsters called people at home on their telephones, but now mobile phones are more in use, and their numbers not listed. Many people will be hard to reach, and some do not want to respond. Not only that, but for several decades I have noticed that the polls tend to overestimate the Labor vote, whether they win or whether they lose. Something is fundamentally wrong with the way polls are taken.<br />
One thing is certain: it will be a long time before the polls regain their authority.Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-62858522750495727142019-04-17T16:01:00.006-07:002023-04-07T18:42:05.437-07:00Race and IQ Jared Diamond expressed the view that uncivilised people are more intelligent than civilised ones, but didn't actually provide any evidence. Now, I am a zoologist, not a psychometrician, but two things are pretty obvious to me. The first is that intelligence is not a social construct; some people really are born smarter than others. The second is that <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/of-course-there-is-such-thing-as-race.html" target="_blank">race is real</a>. We may be all brothers under the skin, but my blood line separated from that of the Aborigines about 2,000 generations ago, and from Africans nearly 3,000 generations ago. A lot can happen in that time. Therefore, I find it extremely unlikely that the various races can differ in (say) average height, but be exactly the same in average intelligence. On the other hand, some of the extremely low racial IQ I have seen quoted make my <a href="https://www.undergroundthomist.org/baloney-meters" target="_blank">baloney meter</a> light up.<br />
<a name='more'></a> To give an example, white people - at least standard Europeans - have an average IQ of 100. That's by definition, as we shall see. The average IQ of East Asians is said to be 105. That is the sort of variation I would expect. It's not my own race, but I can live with it. However, one thing a scientific education gives you is a good baloney meter or, as I prefer to call it, a b***s**t detector. So when I am told that African Americans have an average IQ of 85 ie at the bottom sixth of the white IQ, that the same race in Africa itself has an IQ of 70 (the bottom fortieth), and the IQ of Australian Aborigines is only 64 ie that of an 11-year-old child, my BS detector flashes brightly.<br />
Let's start off by explaining what IQ tests are. They were originally devised for the study of school children, and essentially measure academic ability. More than one ability is measured, and an individual's score will be different for each ability, though probably not wildly different. It does not measure memory. Nor does it measure manual skills. In primary school I myself was normally top of the class. Then, one term, they introduced courses on woodwork and metalwork. Let's just say that I passed them, but only just. I am a disappointment to my wife in that, unlike her father, I have no handyman skills. The screws I insert are never really tight. I can put up a shelf, but it will always wobble a bit. You probably need a reasonable IQ to be an effective tradesman, but what you <em>really</em> need is something that never appears on IQ tests. And I shall say nothing about musical ability, because I have none whatsoever.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvJBwoR8Wt9tIF7sSCP6At-cDaJu05WGdOtXpDCJQmsN7v12lg2A-JlcdK7V8MTT0wSovkYYHW2sxUTVozu_mrqtgDtPtLF1R3AsHD9S9ilLLax1stKeYCRwEUjrtMelQbpps6I1OYlIc/s1600/Bell-Curve-Graph.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="308" data-original-width="609" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvJBwoR8Wt9tIF7sSCP6At-cDaJu05WGdOtXpDCJQmsN7v12lg2A-JlcdK7V8MTT0wSovkYYHW2sxUTVozu_mrqtgDtPtLF1R3AsHD9S9ilLLax1stKeYCRwEUjrtMelQbpps6I1OYlIc/s320/Bell-Curve-Graph.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
IQ, like a number of other biological parameters, follows a <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/bell-curve-normal-distribution-defined-2312350" target="_blank">bell curve</a>, or normal distribution: the three measures of "average" (mean, median, and mode) are the same, and the proportions on either side of the average are the same. In designing an IQ test, psychometricians try it on a large number of people, then grade it so that the mean is 100, and the standard deviation - a measure of how wide the distribution is - is 15. Thus, IQ is a measure of relative intelligence, not absolute intelligence. This should be obvious; otherwise we would need a recognized zero intelligence. If, for example, your IQ is 115, it does not mean that you are 15% smarter than the average. However, it does imply that, it is one standard deviation from the mean, and you are in the top sixth of the population.<br />
Psychometricians also automatically remove any items in which the sexes have markedly different scores. Men and women are defined as being equally intelligent. It would also be the easiest thing in the world to design a test which reveal either men or women to be more intelligent.<br />
You shouldn't try to become a doctor if, for example, your IQ is only 90. IQ is not a social construct. In the Western societies in which the tests were invented, they are very good predictors of the individual's progress in school, and in careers. It also possesses a strong heritable component. Smart parents have smart children. The IQs of identical twins are very close (though not identical) - much closer than for fraternal twins and singletons. Even if identical twins are reared apart, although their IQs are more divergent, they do not diverge as much as singletons reared together.<br />
On the other hand, the IQ of the eldest child tends to be a few points above the younger ones, and this is hardly likely to be genetic. It is probably related to more parental attention in the earliest years. Also, siblings reared apart have more divergent IQs than those reared together. Poor children adopted by educated parents have higher IQs than those who remain in the slums. Then there is the <i><a href="https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2022/08/how-real-is-flynn-effect.html" target="_blank">Flynn effect</a></i>. People's IQs appear to have been increasing throughout the twentieth century, with the result that IQ tests have to be constantly redesigned to ensure the mean is still 100 and the standard deviation still 15. Since it is unlikely that our grandparents and great-grandparents were all morons, something else is obviously at play. Suggestions are that we are becoming more used to tests, that we live in more complex environments or, essentially, that we are learning to think more like the people who design the tests. I might add that this process appears to have gone into reverse in the 1990s. We are now<a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence" target="_blank"> getting dumber</a>.<br />
This raises the obvious question: <i>Do some marginalised sub-groups achieve poorly on IQ tests because they are out of the mainstream, and haven't got aboard the Flynn effect?</i><br />
The IQ test I did was designed in England, and one answer I missed involved a four letter word, with the hint being "spring". The answer was "Lent". Living in the southern hemisphere, it never occurred to me to associate Lent with spring. Admittedly, this probably had very little effect on my overall score, but the point has been made: if intelligence can be defined as the ability to learn, and the ability to solve problems, then prior learning and prior experience with problems will confuse the measurement. Sensible psychometricians attempt to design tests to mask the effects of education and culture, but they can never be completely eliminated. After all, the individual must still understand the questions.<br />
This raises another issue. Instead of asking whether blacks are as smart as whites, perhaps we should ask whether the English are as smart as the French. I doubt if there is much difference, but how do we know? I can read French, but I would be much slower taking the French IQ test, and so my score would be correspondingly lower. Presumably, a Frenchman would have the same problem with an English test. The French no doubt design their IQ tests in the same manner as the English, but <em>how do we know they are comparable</em>?<br />
<em>What about immigration</em>? My regular doctor comes from India, as does the after hours doctor who visited me. Obviously, if we continue importing Indian doctors, and rejecting Indian street sweepers, the average IQ of Indian Australians will end up higher than that of white Australians <em>and</em> Indians who stay at home. Not every country's immigration policy is as geared towards businessmen and those with special skills as Australia's, but they do tend to reject those who are uneducated or unemployable. Also, immigrants are more likely to be go-getting sorts of people who have managed to build up a certain amount of capital before they head for another country. In other words, immigration and immigration policies tend to at least cull out the lower end of the IQ bell curve. According to <a href="http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/" target="_blank">John Derbyshire</a>, the average Indian IQ is 82 (we'll get back to that), while that of Indians in the US is 106. He makes the obvious point that they are importing an overclass. We are doing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/27/hothoused-and-hyper-racialised-the-ethnic-imbalance-in-our-selective-schools" target="_blank">the same thing</a> in Australia. Also, despite what I said about East Asians, I wonder if their high IQs is not simply a result of immigration selection. (See below.)<br />
Moving away from that, what can we make of the contention that the average Indian IQ is 82? A tenth of India's population enjoys the same lifestyle and education as Westerners, while those at the bottom are desperately poor and uneducated, struggling all day and every day to survive. All the factors which may explain the Flynn effect, like more complex environments and education, are lacking for a high proportion of the population. There are also as many languages as in Europe, bringing the French-English conundrum into play. A lot will have suffered malnutrition in childhood, which must take the fine edge off IQ. Also, there is the unacknowledged issue: motive. If you or I took an IQ test, we would try to do our best because (a) our self-esteem is at stake, and (b) so might our future careers. But will every member of a marginalised community have the same attitude?<br />
IQ tests originated in advance Western societies, and they are very good at predicting academic and career success in such societies. But I can't see how any similar reliance can be placed on them outside of that milieu.<br />
Just the same, are there any <em>genetic</em> racial differences in IQ? I would be surprised if there weren't, but how do you prove it? Many American soldiers stationed in Germany after the war took German wives or mistresses. There was no mean differences between the IQ scores of the children of white fathers and black fathers. Of course, members of the military are not a random sample of the population, nor are men with the ability to marry or seduce a woman. Indeed, if a man belongs to a despised race, he probably needs special advantages not present in other members of the race. On the other hand, in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study" target="_blank">Minnesota transracial adoption study</a>, it was clear that (a) the bright parents' biological children were smarter than the adopted children, revealing the effects of genetics, (b) the IQs of the adopted black children were higher than the general black population, revealing that the positive effect of environment, and (c) the black children still had lower IQs than the white children.<br />
What about East Asians? The interesting thing is that tests performed <em>in Asia</em> reveal IQs of 105 or 110, while studies performed on Japanese and Chinese Americans in the 1960s and '70s failed to show any superiority to white Americans. <em>However</em>, their academic achievements were, and are, well in advance of what would be predicted by IQ. Something else appears to be at work - probably culture.<br />
I think, on the balance of probabilities, Africans do have a slightly lower average intelligence than whites. At the same time, I think it is pretty clear that <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes" target="_blank">Askenazi Jews</a> possess an average higher IQ. This has been shown in multiple tests in many separate countries, so it is unlikely to be a simple immigrant selection. The question of East Asians I shall leave open. Just the same, as I said at the beginning, a difference of 5 points one way or another sounds reasonable. Vastly lower or higher scores I find very suspect.<br />
What are the implications? If certain minority groups really are genetically lower in IQ, then bringing them up to the level of the majority will be a lost cause. However, we are not at that stage yet. Most of the differences in IQ between groups is probably environmental, and can be improved. But, of course, the problem exists only for genuine multiracial societies. The US has a large black minority as the result of slavery, and will have to live with it. Britain never had a racial problem until the 1960s, when they foolishly <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/07/27/uk-ethnic-minority-population-doubled-to-13m-over-one-fifth-general-pop-report/" target="_blank">imported one</a>. Why is Australia following suit? We don't need a racial underclass, and we don't need a racial overclass. The way to avoid both is to stop importing other races.<div><br /></div><div> Here is a video by the inimitable Simon Webb, about the racial disparities found in spatial skills for those applying to join the RAF or the British police force. They are unlikely to be cultually conditioned.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uam6nxHI3gk" width="320" youtube-src-id="uam6nxHI3gk"></iframe></div><a href="https://www.amren.com/news/2021/01/black-applicants-significantly-more-likely-to-fail-raf-selection-tests-than-white-counterparts/" target="_blank">Here</a> are the details. "On the ‘BIS’ test, designed to test spatial awareness, including that of potential RAF gunners, candidates from a Black African background scored a five-year average of 40.6. However, White British applicants scored a five-year average of 55.4, more than 36 per cent higher. Those declaring a Mixed Black Caribbean and White ethnicity scored 51.4, candidates of Asian Indian ethnicity scored 50.1, while applicants from a Chinese background scored highest, with 60.1."Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-54477235309445397192019-01-25T12:41:00.002-08:002023-03-11T03:32:00.057-08:00Wannabe Authors, Beware! So you've written your first book! Isn't it hard to find a publisher! Some of the biggest companies refuse to accept unsolicited manuscripts. In other words, they outsource to literary agents the task of culling out the badly written chaff from the wheat. Finding a good agent is almost as difficult as finding a publisher. You virtually have to have a reputation before you start. After all, a first time author gets little money, and the agent gets only a fraction of that, so they operate on a shoestring. Besides that, your book may well be poorly written - especially if it is a novel, which requires a whole more skill than non-fiction. Yes, we've all seen published rubbish which makes you wonder how anything ever gets rejected. Just the same, most people have an exaggerated idea of their own writing skill. But even if your book is good, it faces competition from a lot of other excellent works, and the publisher just might not have enough scope to fit it in. But beware! There are predators out there waiting to exploit first time authors.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <strong>The Traditional Contract</strong>. Traditionally, the publisher takes all the financial risks, with a result that the author's royalties are low. The publisher meets all the expenses of printing the book and distributing it to the bookstores. If it doesn't sell within a certain time, the retailer sends it back. Typically, there is a 100% mark-up from wholesaler to retailer. Typically, royalties are 10% of the retail price. Typically, also, the author gets a much bigger slice of the pie if the book is licenced to a mass market paperback publisher, a comic book, or foreigner translator, and he keeps all the film and TV rights.<br />
If the book fails to take off after a certain amount of time, it is sold as a "remainder" ie sold at a loss, with the author getting nothing. These are the books you find going for a song at newsagents and discount bookstores. Australian publishers seem particularly ruthless at clearing unsold stock, and you will frequently find on the remainder pile foreign bestsellers which would certainly be sold if given enough time.<br />
How big is an initial print run? 3,000 copies is large for Australia, which has a small market. However, I have been advised that it can be equally small in a larger country such as Britain. Nevertheless, if it does make it to a second printing, your royalties go up because (a) it is cheaper, because the initial setting up costs have already been met, and (b) there is less risk, because they now know it will sell. Royalties increase with each printing until, if it becomes a best seller, the author gets the lion's share.<br />
<strong>Print on Demand (POD)</strong> is a new form of publishing enabled by computers, and is probably the wave of the future. The whole publishing process is performed by computers, which means the book can be printed as desired or, more likely, printed and distributed in dribs and drabs as required, without the need for a large initial print run. A couple who run a small POD company as a sideline told me that it requires an initial outlay of $1,500 for each book, and I suspect that it would be cheaper for large scale operations. Nevertheless, I have a couple of reservations.<br />
First of all, how does the public learn about your book? My opinion is that, if a work hits the bookshelves, and is of quality, it will sell. Bookworms wander into bookstores, browse, see it, flick through it, and decide to buy. The probably don't browse a publisher's website so frequently. Many POD publishers, of course, will distribute them to retailers like any other publisher. In any case, they have a vested interest in getting the book sold, so they will use their skills to push it.<br />
More to the point, you could find yourself locked in. What if your book takes off, and sells 30,000 copies instead of 3,000? Will you still be stuck on 10% royalties indefinitely? What if publisher fails to get them sold? Wouldn't you like to try another company, as you could with a traditional contract?<br />
In my opinion, any POD contract should permit renegotiation or cancellation after a set period - say three or five years. It definitely should not be open ended.<br />
Now we come to the dubious practises of literary predators.<br />
<br />
<strong>Self Publication.</strong> You pay to have the book published, and you take all the profits. However, there are a couple of draw-backs (apart from the obvious one that you might be a lousy writer): it is very expensive, and you must have a distribution network. The latter is something wannabe authors tend to forget; you have to tap into the distribution companies which serve the publishing firms and the retailers.<br />
Very occasionally, this works out well. Some people are not after a commercial venture, but just a couple of hundred volumes of poems or autobiography to give to friends or relatives. These days they would be better putting it on the internet. A friend of mine once made a study of the dairy industry in the Bega district, and he reckoned he had enough contacts to self publish a booklet on the subject. Also, I notice that a certain popular humourist and speaker has learned how to tap into the distribution system to market her own self published works. But unless you have solved the problem of distribution, don't even think of self publication.<br />
Nevertheless, there exist a large number of companies derisively labelled "vanity press" because they appeal to the vanity of the wannabe authors. They call themselves publishers, but are really printers, who will take your money and then leave you with a large pile of (probably badly written) books you cannot sell.<br />
<strong>Shared Cost.</strong> Since taking on an unknown author is a bit of a risk, it would sound reasonable for the author to share some of the costs and risks, in compensation for larger royalties. Right? But wait a minute! The cost of a print run under the traditional method is so high, that an author's contribution is likely to be minimal, while the initial set-up for POD of $1,500 hardly warrants an author's contribution.<br />
My book, <em>The Repat Racket</em> was topical; it would lose its relevance if it had to delay ten years before publication. (I have since put it <a href="http://repatracket.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">on the internet</a>.) I therefore reluctantly agreed to a cost share arrangement with <span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>Zeus</em></span>. The asked sum of $4,800 was undesirable, but something I could afford to lose. They did a good job of editing and producing the book. Indeed, I discovered how computerisation had revolutionised the industry. Previously, the author would receive printed gallery proofs in the mail and asked to proof read them. These days publisher and author e-mail it back and forth until the final version is reached.<br />
Everything went well. I started receiving <a href="http://repatracket.blogspot.com.au//p/why-this-book.html" target="_blank">glowing feedback</a> from the public. Then, after the sale of little more than 70 copies, would be buyers were telling me it was listed as "out of stock". When I enquired, I was informed that they prioritise printing by the size of the request ie a request for 100 copies is printed before one for ten. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Rubbish! There are two other routes to take if you want to maximise sales.<br />
<ul>
<li>They could top up each title whenever stocks run low, until it becomes obvious it is not selling.</li>
<li>If they were going to allow stocks to reach zero then, when somebody ordered a copy, they could at least advise him that it was <em>temporarily</em> out of stock, and they would only bill him when it became available. But by listing it as "out of stock" they ensure that no-one will ever order it again, and it will never get back into stock.</li>
</ul>
This is a rip off! It's a scam! They take your money, print a minimal number of copies, then dump you in the dustbin while they go after the next victim. It also illustrates something important: while the publisher bears all the risks under the traditional contract, under shared costs, not only does the author run all the risks, but there is no incentive for the publisher to market it.<br />
Recently, by accident, I came across a UK company called <span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>Pegasus </em></span>(not to be confused with a US company of the same name) which claimed to be looking for new authors, and was prepared to offer either a traditional or shared cost contract. I smelt a rat but - what the heck! - it cost nothing to e-mail them a manuscript. In due course, I was advised that they had accepted my novel, and if I wished, they would send me a shared cost contract. They assured me they were not a "vanity press" company, but a genuine publisher. I told them I would not be prepared to accept a shared cost contract unless the problems I had previously encountered were ironed out. Their response was:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I completely understand your concerns. We are not a print on demand company. We have our own warehouse on site and therefore carry stock. We continuously print. Our warehouse staff keep a careful eye on stock levels and we aim to despatch all orders received the same day,</blockquote>
The contract offered me 25% royalties for a payment of £2,400. That's more than $4,300 Australian. No way! Also, I noticed two further problems:<br />
Firstly, as the average price of their books was £8, I would need to sell 1,200 copies to break even. How did I know they would print that many? If a shared cost contract has any value, it should stipulate how many copies would be printed - say 3,000. Of course, they might not all sell, but that's what shared risk is all about.<br />
They also stipulated that they could decide to dispose of unsold copies as a remainder if they failed to sell. At least that suggested they were planning to print more than 70! However, it was open-ended as far as the author was concerned. There was no way he could just cancel the contract if the book didn't sell, and look for another publisher. He was effectively handing over his rights to them.<br />
I told them all this, and suggested they opt for a traditional contract. Naturally, as expected, they declined. I wonder if they ever offer it to anyone.<br />
<strong>E-books</strong> are another wave of the future. Some businesses will charge you a fee to produce an e-book, but then, how does anyone know about it? It just sits advertised out in the ether. Amazon runs Kindle Direct Publishing, which appears to be free, but I haven't tried it (yet) for the above reason: how is anyone going to know about it? The facility is best for established writers and, in fact, many publishers put out a Kindle edition at the same time as the hard copy. (To its credit, Pegasus offered to do the same.) Authors discover that they earn just as much through Kindle as through hard copies, despite the greatly reduced price. This is because royalties are either 35% or 70%. Why would you choose the former if the latter is available? I presume that Amazon wants to get the same amount from both, so a 70% book will be more expensive. It is therefore a matter of calculating whether the number of cheap copies sold will balance the higher royalties of a more expensive copy. In any case, it is easy to calculate that a $6 Kindle book will produce the same royalties at 35% as a $20 hard copy at 10%, so why be greedy?<br />
<br />
Being a first time author is not easy, but remember: if a publisher ever asks for money, they are trying to rip you off.Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-12010982892987644182019-01-12T03:52:00.005-08:002021-11-08T13:47:16.078-08:00INDEXI might give this blog a rest for a while, but since it covers a wide range of subjects, let me help you find what might interest you by presenting an index. Some articles, of course, have multiple tags, but the major ones are: Books, Theology, Sex, Science, History, Islam, Politics, Social Issues, and Odds and Ends.<br />
To read the appropriate article, click on the asterisk in front of it.<br />
<br />
<strong>Books</strong><br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/what-you-didnt-know-about-books.html" target="_blank">*</a> What you don't know about making books <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/01/wannabe-authors-beware.html" target="_blank">*</a> Wannabe Authors, Beware!<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/09/kindle-direct-publishing-kdp.html" target="_blank">*</a> Kindle Direct Publishing<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2014/04/walking-through-walls-and-rationing-days.html" target="_blank">*</a> Walking through walls and rationing days<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/re-introducing-great-adventure-writer.html" target="_blank">*</a> Rider Haggard <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/fanthorpes-fantasies.html" target="_blank">*</a> Lionel Fanthorpe <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2017/06/robinson-crusoes-anonymous-friends.html" target="_blank">*</a> Robinson Crusoe's anonymous friends<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/pook-noo-forgotten-childhood-classic.html" target="_blank">*</a> A forgotten childhood classic <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/02/the-panther-and-other-comics-youve.html" target="_blank">*</a> Forgotten Australian comics<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/little-red-riding-hood-and-werewolf.html" target="_blank">*</a> Little Red Riding Hood and the werewolf<br />
<br />
<strong>Theology</strong><br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/p/why-i-am-christian.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why I am a Christian <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au//2016/05/tradition-and-doctrine.html" target="_blank">*</a> Tradition and Doctrine <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/womens-ordination.html" target="_blank">*</a> Women's Ordination<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/some-peoples-damascus-road-experiences.html" target="_blank">*</a> People's Damascus Road Experiences <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/dreams-visions-and-muslims.html" target="_blank">*</a> Dreams, Visions, and Muslims<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-christian-explosion-in-china.html" target="_blank">*</a> The Christian Explosion in China <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/on-scaffold-or-battlefield.html" target="_blank">*</a> On the battlefield or scaffold<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/your-christmas-crib-is-wrong.html" target="_blank">*</a> Your Christmas Crib is Wrong <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/the-problems-of-pontius-pilate.html" target="_blank">*</a> The Problems of Pontius Pilate<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/the-halloween-which-changed-world.html" target="_blank">*</a> The Hallowe'en that changed the world (1517) <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/a-licence-to-steal.html" target="_blank">*</a> A Licence to Steal<br />
<br />
<strong>Sex</strong> I got my degrees in animal and human behaviour. Therefore ...<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-science-of-sexual-morality.html" target="_blank">*</a> The science of sexual morality<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/homosexuality-in-lower-animals.html" target="_blank">*</a> Homosexuality in the lower animals?<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/rates-of-cure-for-homosexuality.html" target="_blank">*</a> Rates of cures for homosexuality [one of my most popular articles]<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/same-sex-marriage.html" target="_blank">*</a> Same sex "marriage"? <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/same-sex-marriage-and-australian.html" target="_blank">*</a> Same sex "marriage" and the Australian Constitution<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/the-lunatics-are-taking-over-asylum.html" target="_blank">*</a> Transsexuals [I have personal experiences with them.]<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/whats-got-into-national-geographic.html" target="_blank">*</a> The <i>National Geographic </i>gender issue <br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/lies-damned-lies-and-suicide-statistics.html" target="_blank">*</a> Lies, damned lies, and suicide statistics [Am I the only person to have read the paper?] <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/the-high-cost-of-preventing-aids.html" target="_blank">*</a> The high cost of preventing AIDS<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/the-book-was-right-breasts-are-meant-to.html" target="_blank">*</a> Breasts were meant to be sexy. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/no-womens-swimsuits-are-not-too-brief.html" target="_blank">*</a> Toplessness<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2020/02/of-course-men-prefer-debt-free-virgins.html" target="_blank">*</a> Debt-free Virgins without Tattoos <span style="font-family: "times new roman";"> </span><a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2021/04/we-didnt-need-no-consent-lessons.html " style="font-family: "times new roman";" target="_blank">*</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"> Lessons in consent <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2021/11/did-pill-really-do-all-that.html" target="_blank"> *</a> Effects of the pill</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Science</b><br />
My M.Sc. was on the Behaviour of the Koala, and since this is an animal dear to the hearts of Australians, I have summarised it in layman's terms in seven parts.<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-1-background.html" target="_blank">* 1.</a> Background <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-2-basics.html" target="_blank">* 2.</a> Basics <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-3-bringing-up.html" target="_blank">* 3.</a> Bringing up baby <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-4-communication.html" target="_blank">* 4.</a> Communication<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-5-sex.html" target="_blank">* 5.</a> Sex <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-6-fighting.html" target="_blank">* 6.</a> Fighting <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-behaviour-of-koala-7-comments-and.html" target="_blank">* 7</a>. Comments and references [important]<br />
In addition, I have written: <br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/understanding-those-strange-scientific.html" target="_blank">*</a> Understanding those strange scientific names<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/the-strange-story-of-antechinus.html" target="_blank">*</a> <i>Antechinus</i> or Why it doesn't always pay to be too macho.<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/vegetarianism.html" target="_blank">*</a> Vegetarianism <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/its-just-theory.html" target="_blank">*</a> Evolution as a theory <br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/of-course-there-is-such-thing-as-race.html" target="_blank">*</a> Of course, there's such a thing as race. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/04/race-and-iq.html" target="_blank">*</a> Race and IQ<br />
<br />
<b>History</b><br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/wini-wild-white-man-of-badu.html" target="_blank">*</a> Wini, the Wild White Man of Badu [one of my most popular articles, possibly because I seem to be the only person to write about this unusual facet of Australian history.]<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/why-didnt-norse-settle-north-america.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why the Norse didn't settle America <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/why-columbus-didnt-write-italian.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why Columbus didn't write in Italian<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/when-superpower-was-written-off.html" target="_blank">*</a> When a superpower was written off. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/when-history-is-just-matter-of-chance.html" target="_blank">*</a> When history is just a matter of chance<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/ned-kelly.html" target="_blank">*</a> Ned Kelly <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/no-germans-did-not-know-about-gas.html" target="_blank">*</a> The Germans did not know about the gas chambers.<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/on-scaffold-or-battlefield.html" target="_blank">*</a> On the scaffold or battlefield. <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/05/the-case-for-colonialism.html" target="_blank">*</a> The case for colonialism<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-miracles-of-apollonius-of-tyana.html" target="_blank">*</a> The miracles (?) of Apollonius of Tyana <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-riddle-of-amazonian-amazons.html" target="_blank">*</a> The riddle of the Amazonian amazons<div><a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2021/02/irelands-malthusian-apocalypse.html" target="_blank">*</a> Irish famine<br />
<br />
<strong>Islam</strong><br />
Myths About Muhammad <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/myths-about-muhammad-1-moon-god.html" target="_blank">*1.</a> Moon god <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/myths-about-muhammad-2-demon-possessed.html" target="_blank">*2.</a> Demon possessed <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/myths-about-muhammad-3-pedophile.html" target="_blank">*3.</a> Pedophile <br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/myths-about-muhammad-4-violence.html" target="_blank">*4.</a> Violence <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/muslims-in-australia.html" target="_blank">*</a> Muslims in Australia <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/what-are-we-going-to-do-about.html" target="_blank">*</a> Polygamists in Australia <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-tragedy-of-english-jihadist.html" target="_blank">*</a> The tragedy of an English jihadist <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/geert-wilders-speaks.html" target="_blank">*</a> Geert Wilders <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/dreams-visions-and-muslims.html" target="_blank">*</a> Dreams, visions, and Muslims<br />
<br />
<b>Politics</b><br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/why-i-am-not-liberal-or-conservative.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why I am not a liberal - or a conservative. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-case-for-capitalism.html" target="_blank">*</a> The case for capitalism<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/flogging-dead-horse-of-republic.html" target="_blank">*</a> Flogging the dead horse of the republic<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/why-i-would-have-voted-for-trump-if-i.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why I would have voted for Trump if I had been an American.<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/11/why-i-voted-for-one-nation-in-queensland.html" target="_blank">*</a> Why I voted for One Nation in the Queensland election.<br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/02/guns-in-australia-and-america.html" target="_blank">*</a> Guns in Australia and America <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/the-australian-voting-system.html" target="_blank">*</a> The Australian voting system <br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/health-insurance-in-australia.html" target="_blank">*</a> Health Insurance in Australia <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/06/an-unlosable-election.html" target="_blank">*</a> An unlosable election? (2019)<div><a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2020/11/america-should-run-elections-like.html " style="font-family: "times new roman";" target="_blank">*</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"> America should run elections like Australia</span><br />
<br />
<b>Social Issues</b><br />
Life Was Better in the 1950s and '60s. Parts <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-1-of-3.html" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-2-of-3.html" target="_blank">2</a>, and <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/life-was-better-in-1950s-and-60s-3-of-3.html" target="_blank">3</a><br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/why-i-didnt-wear-white-ribbon.html" target="_blank">*</a> Domestic violence (facts) <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/why-i-dont-respect-respect-campaign.html" target="_blank">*</a> The "Respect" campaign <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-does-woman-want-with-career-anyway.html" target="_blank">*</a> Women's careers<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/working-women-and-housing-crisis.html" target="_blank">*</a> Working women and housing <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/what-we-can-learn-from-hobos.html" target="_blank">*</a> What we can learn from hobos.<br />
<br />
<b>Odds and Ends</b><br />
<a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2018/06/hinduism-and-buddhism-in-very-small.html" target="_blank">*</a> Hinduism and Buddhism <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/where-do-kids-get-these-ideas.html" target="_blank">*</a> The crazy ideas children have. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/what-you-didnt-know-about-shaving.html" target="_blank">*</a> Shaving<br />
<a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/murder-most-ineffective.html" target="_blank">*</a> Murder is not as easy as fiction makes out. <a href="http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-to-steal-million-dollars.html" target="_blank">*</a> Getting away with robbery is even harder. <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/do-we-all-have-double-somewhere.html" target="_blank">*</a> Do we all have a double somewhere? <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/the-philosophy-of-aboriginal-tribe.html" target="_blank">*</a> The philosophy of an Aboriginal tribe <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/yes-salt-can-lose-its-savour.html" target="_blank">*</a> How salt can lose its savour <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/wedding-presents-are-so-passe.html" target="_blank">*</a> Wedding presents <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/none-of-my-best-friends-belongs-to.html" target="_blank">*</a> None of my best friends belongs to a minority.<br />
<br /></div></div>Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6607226980124932581.post-81190427705597435822018-10-01T13:05:00.002-07:002022-12-13T21:01:16.735-08:00How to Steal a Million Dollars A while ago three men were arrested after a year-long crime spree bringing in $80,000. Sounds a lot, doesn't it? In point of fact, a third of $80,000 is chicken feed for a year's work, and hardly worth risking going to jail. They would have been better off getting an honest job.<br />
Crime is a mug's game: a high risk, low yield enterprise. If you decide on a life of crime, you are declaring war on society, which means you will be outnumbered and outgunned. No matter how clever or lucky you are, in the end you'll get caught. And apart from the sheer <i>inconvenience</i> of going to jail, once you get out, you can't logically go back to crime, because the police know your name, your fingerprints, your DNA, and your methods. At the same time, anything you steal will have to be "fenced" at a fraction of its nominal value. Even the few who do make it pay - the drug lords, the Mr. Bigs, the godfathers - probably have the enterprising skill to make the same amount of money in business without having to watch over one shoulder for the law, and over the other for their fellow crims.<br />
A few years ago I wrote an <a href="https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/murder-most-ineffective.html" target="_blank">essay</a> about how murder is a lot harder than the books and movies make out. So now I shall explain what needs to be done if you want to steal something and keep out of jail. You shouldn't do it, of course, because (a) it's a bad thing to do, and (b) the danger is still very high. Nevertheless, these are the steps you need to take if you want to have at least some chance of getting away with it.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <b>(1)</b> Do it once. I know this will go against the grain. Once you pull off a big heist and (apparently) get away with it, the temptation will be strong to try again. Resist it! The police will be on the watch for similar crimes, looking for a pattern. The more often you do it, the more likely you will make a slip-up. Remember the proverbs: the pitcher is taken once too often to the well, and is broken, and those who play with fire always get burnt in the end.<br />
<b>(2) </b>Do it big. That's why I suggested a million dollars. It is an obvious corollary of the first point. If you're only going to do it once, you should do it properly. In this regard, cash is more valuable than (say) jewels, because the latter have to be "fenced" at a fraction of their value, and they bring into play an extra person, the buyer, who may well be the weak link in the chain.<br />
<b>(3)</b> Do it alone, or with one or two trusted confederates at the most. The more people involved in the heist, the more chances there are that something will go wrong. Many a gang has come a cropper because, sometime after the event, one member let something slip, or did something stupid. This is also a reason for stealing cash. Anything else must be "fenced", which brings an extra person into play - someone who may be known to police, especially since he probably deals with lots of criminals. It is also important that you and your confederates, if any, are "clean" ie you have no criminal record, nor are even under suspicion for anything. You must also stay clean. The last thing you want is to be picked up in a routine investigation for something minor, and your fingerprints found to match one carelessly left at the site of a big robbery years before.<br />
<b>(4) </b>Plan it thoroughly. Leave nothing to chance. One gang performed an absolutely fantastic heist in France, stealing huge amounts of valuable jewels from a bank vault, carefully planning how to get around every single camera and sensors. But they hadn't considered how to get rid of some of the rubbish used in the heist. They threw it out by the side of the road, assuming it could never be linked to them. The rubbish was found, and a tag on one item led to their hotel. They went to jail.<br />
<b>(5)</b> But keep it simple. If this sounds like a contradiction to rule (4), you are right. That is one of the conundrums of crime. The more detailed is the plan, the more things can go wrong. If you require a very detailed plan, then the heist is probably too dangerous to attempt.<br />
<b>(6)</b> If anything fails to go according to plan - <i>anything</i> - pull out! I know the temptation will be great if the loot appears to be just within reach, but you are supposed to be leaving nothing to chance. Once you are forced to improvise, you lose control of the situation. Many a brilliant plan led straight to prison because a casual stranger passed by at the wrong moment, or because an unexpected delay occurred. You must be rigorous; get out!<br />
<b>(7) </b> Finally, when everything is over, lie low. The police will be watching for unexpected purchases and other signs of sudden wealth. For the immediate future, you must act as if nothing has happened, and not draw attention to yourself. Go on a cruise. Hide the money in a safe place (where?), return to it regularly but surreptitiously (how?), and spend it on small items, perhaps allowing your regular income to accumulate in the bank. Pay off your house in larger increments, but not all at once. Keep your day job for the time being. Wait at least a year before you make any significant changes to your life.<br />
Which brings us to the obvious question: what are you going to do with the loot? A million dollars is not a lot of money. No, it isn't. Especially not if you have to divide it with confederates. But even assuming you have it all to yourself, what are you going to do with it?<br />
<ul>
<li>Live the high life? You'll draw attention to yourself. And the money will soon be used up, so you'll have to plan another heist, violating rule (1). You'll go to jail.</li>
<li>Live a life of ease? Take it easy, drawing on your stash of loot to pay for both necessities and luxuries without the need to work. It sounds good, but on a standard of living equivalent to the average wage, paying no tax, but adjusting for inflation, a million dollars might last you 15 years. Then what will you do? Get a job? How will you explain the gap of 15 years? Unless the robbery sets you up for life, it's not worth it.</li>
<li>Buy something big? Owning your own home outright is always a good investment. So is a superannuation scheme. The trouble is, large sums these days are paid with cheques or money transfers, not cash. You can't just put down several hundred thousand dollars in banknotes in front of a real estate agent (for example) without questions being asked. Least of all can you put it in a bank. The law requires the reporting of large sum deposits for the very purpose of countering money laundering.</li>
</ul>
Or you might seriously reconsider the value of a major robbery vis-à-vis the risks involved. <br />
In 1963 a gang of 17 British crims staged the Great Train Robbery, netting the equivalent of £52 million in today's money - not a bad haul, even when divided 17 times! They all went to jail. However, one of them, Ronald Biggs escaped after less than two years, and by devious means ended up in Brazil, from which he could not be extradited. But I can never forget an interview he later gave to a British journalist.<br />
<em>Interviewer</em>: Have you any message to give to the people at home?<br />
<em>Biggs</em>: Tell them crime doesn't pay. Crime never pays.<br />
<em>Interviewer</em>: But you seem to have made it pay?<br />
<em>Biggs</em>: Yes, but you don't know how much my poor heart has suffered.<br />
<br />
<br />Malcolm Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00672612354161787023noreply@blogger.com