The Difficulty of Being a Voice of Reason in an Overtly Tribal Society that is Australia Today

Recent Australian events have shown just how difficult it has become to be a voice of reason. On issue after issue, public debate has hardened into moral absolutes, leaving little space for caution, complexity or constitutional restraint. And the difficulty in dealing with this stems from government and the institutions that support it.

The 2023 referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was an early warning. Many of us who raised questions about constitutional entrenchment, legal uncertainty or long-term governance were not engaging in hostility but in civic scrutiny. Yet reasonable doubt was frequently recast as moral failure. Instead of persuasion, the campaign too often relied on accusation. And shamefully, the Prime Minister and many of his cabinet were guilty of that. The result was not unity, but polarisation — and a defeated proposal that might have fared better had reason been allowed to breathe.

The same pattern has appeared in debates over protest and public order. Following large-scale demonstrations, including the Sydney Harbour Bridge pro-Palestinian protest, discussion quickly collapsed into false binaries. Any enforcement of the law was framed as authoritarian even by those vehemently opposed to the rest for the protest. The reasonable position — that protest rights and the rule of law must coexist — struggled to gain traction. The argument that it should not be allowed to extend to disgraceful chants and appalling signage was met with vitriol and hatred and the old but it’s ’free-speech’ nonsense. We must all defend free speech, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t extent to a ‘free-for-all.” And it’s protected because it is vital to truth, democracy, and human dignity — but it is limited where it collides with violence, coercion, or the erosion of others’ freedoms. Absolute free speech is not workable in a real society because it would ultimately destroy the very freedoms it claims to defend hence the limitations. 

Rising antisemitism and social tension since October 2023 have further tested Australia’s capacity for reasoned debate. Voices calling for moral clarity about violence, while also urging restraint, proportionality and community cohesion, have been drowned out by extremes on both sides. Condemning terrorism has been portrayed by some as political alignment; urging care in language has been framed by others as suppression. Reason, again, found itself attacked from all sides. And sadly we’re all witnessed the outcomes of that.

Even legislative debates have followed this trajectory. Proposals around misinformation and hate speech laws have been reduced to slogans about censorship or safety, with little public appetite for discussing difficult trade-offs: free expression versus harm, enforcement power versus abuse, short-term response versus long-term precedent. Those insisting on careful drafting and constitutional compatibility have been treated as impediments rather than safeguards. And this often arises because proponents on both sides don’t deal with facts but with headlines. Headlines are often meant to inflame debate rather than frame debate.

Social media has accelerated the collapse of nuance. Complex legal or constitutional arguments do not survive the demand for instant outrage. Calm voices are flattened into caricatures, accused of “both-sideism” or cowardice, simply for refusing to inflame. Ignorance and misunderstanding of the law flourish, and mistruths spread like wildfire and facts are buried in the melee. 

Australia’s democratic system was deliberately designed to slow decision-making, distribute power and absorb disagreement. But we have lost the ability to absorb disagreement. Parliament, the courts and constitutional limits exist precisely because passion is a poor substitute for judgment. When voices of reason are sidelined, institutions weaken — not dramatically at first, but steadily. And I believe we are living that now with some of the decisions being made by parliament and the courts. And as a result, anger and frustration are growing, and that is decreasing the ability to reason.

There is a cost to insisting on reason in this environment. It brings isolation rather than affirmation, criticism rather than applause. Reason offers no chant, no banner and no sense of moral exhilaration. It demands patience at a time when impatience is rewarded.

Yet Australia’s stability has never depended on unanimity or righteous certainty. It has depended on restraint, proportion and a shared commitment to rules that outlast any single cause. In fact we have until recent years thrived on disagreement and encouraged alternative viewpoints. And we matured as a nation. But that is not where we are today. Now we have descended into warring tribes. And the fact that when reason prevails, crises de-escalate quietly, damage is limited and the system holds is lost.

Being the voice of reason isn’t about cold calculation. It isn’t driven by anger, ideology, or playing to the loudest crowd. In Australian politics, reason means exercising judgment under pressure—choosing what is right over what is easy, and holding principle even when it costs politically.

Hard times test a country. When met with restraint and fairness, they don’t weaken us—they sharpen our sense of responsibility to one another. That’s how trust is built and social cohesion is kept.

A politics without reason slides into division and outrage. A politics guided by reason resists that pull, values proportion over theatrics, and remembers that unity in Australia is earned through fairness, restraint, and respect—not slogans.

If we are to dig ourselves out the hole we are in we all have to strive to be that voice even when it means standing up to the tribe. 

We are not all equal and we shouldn’t be afraid to say it

We are not all equal — and pretending we are has damaging consequences.

People differ in ability, effort, judgement and choices. These differences matter, because they shape outcomes. A political system that treats unequal behaviour as if it were equal does not produce fairness — it produces resentment, inefficiency and division.

Equality before the law is essential. Equal dignity is non-negotiable. But equality of outcome is neither natural nor just. When governments pursue it, they must first deny obvious differences, then redistribute responsibility, and finally lower standards so everyone can appear the same. That is not unity; it is enforced sameness.

A healthy society rewards contribution, accountability and merit, while protecting the vulnerable. It does not excuse failure by blaming success, nor does it punish effort to satisfy ideology. True cohesion comes from shared rules applied equally — not from pretending all people, choices and outcomes are equal.

My letter to the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese

Yesterday said yesterday that Australia will never submit to division, violence or hatred, and that we will come through this together. Unfortunately, Prime Minister, division is precisely what your leadership has championed—beginning with the Voice.

In fairness, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not a deliberate attempt to divide the nation, but rather a failure to think through the consequences. Regardless of intent, the result has been ongoing division across multiple fronts: gender ideology, politics, heritage, and more. The list is long and growing.

Many Australians are weary of platitudes. We are also weary of being told that unity requires silence, submission, or the compulsory acceptance of ideas that actively reject us and our values. Some people no longer want “togetherness” on those terms, because they are exhausted from constantly having to accommodate those who openly despise who we are and how we live.

We are tired of being told we must embrace every fringe ideology that has forced its way into our institutions and legal frameworks. Against that backdrop, calls to “come through this together” ring hollow. Unity cannot be imposed, especially when it demands that only one side change.

What many of us want instead is to work through our differences in a country where we feel at home—among people we love and respect, and who respect us in return. A country where our way of life is not treated as an obstacle to be overcome, and where we are not endlessly expected to reshape ourselves to accommodate those who refuse to accommodate us.

And to put it plainly: if that is unacceptable, others are free to find somewhere else to live.

#auspol

When we normalise hatred and violence, society erodes..

 Over the past two years in particular, hatred and anti-Semitism has become normalised in Australia. We have witnessed that on our streets and heard that in our parliament. And experienced that on reading our news services. 

When hatred of any sort but particularly that based on religion becomes normalised, several predictable and serious things tend follow; socially, politically, and psychologically.

Dehumanisation becomes acceptable. People stop being seen as individuals and are reduced to a religious label. Or any other label that those who hate you decide to label you with. Once a group or a person is framed as “the problem”, mistreatment feels justified rather than shameful.

Violence becomes easier to excuse or ignore. And hate speech lowers the threshold for hate crimes. Even if most people don’t become violent, those who do, feel validated, emboldened, or invisible to moral restraint. And those who don’t become violent take to social media to spread their bile. 

Collective punishment replaces individual responsibility. The actions of one person are blamed on an entire faith community or a group. Innocent people are treated as suspects simply because of belief, appearance, or name.

Extremism feeds on itself (on all sides). Religious and political hatred strengthens extremist narratives: extremist point to discrimination as proof that coexistence is impossible. This fuels radicalisation, which then “confirms” the original prejudice. It becomes a self-reinforcing loop.

The rule of law erodes into selective justice. Laws may remain neutral on paper, but enforcement becomes biased. And have witnessed that far too often in recent years. 

Social trust collapses. People withdraw into in-groups for safety. Moral standards shift without people noticing. What once would have been recognised as bigotry and hatred gets reframed as “concern,” “realism,” or “free speech.” Society doesn’t suddenly become hateful, a gradual shift takes us there. 

And history shows where this leads. From sectarian violence, idealogical political violence to ethnic cleansing and normalised religious hatred. These things preceded mass harm. It never stays rhetorical. 

Normalising hatred doesn’t protect society it corrodes it. It replaces moral clarity with fear, justice with prejudice, and security with permanent tension.

This is where we now find ourselves in Australia

Remember Who We Are …

The first line was used in the closing remarks at ARC 2025 by CEO Philippa Stroud. It inspired me to add the rest.

For far too long, people have been bullied, harassed and silenced for speaking the truth about some of the absurdity being pushed down our throats by activists and social reformers. But not the social reformers of old, who strived to make the world a better place, but reformers who force their opinions and beliefs on society and in doing so take away our rights. And people who have the temerity to challenge, question or to point out the dangers of many practices being forced on society today, those challenging end up in court! 

We are supposedly a free people. Our forefathers sacrificed much to provide that freedom. Some even sacrificed their lives. Many of us have continued to fight for rights, for decency and freedom. 

But we are no longer free if we are bullied and silenced for holding a different opinion. If we are forced to accept laws that isolate and divide us and result in our rights being removed to accommodate the rights of others based on their chosen lifestyles. And most importantly, we are not free when we are no longer treated equally under the law.

It’s time to take our rights back. 

Lessons we can learn from the Triffids..

“Vanished past the day of the truffids” 

The quote below signified the end of the old world and the dawning of a new, uncertain, and dangerous one. It reflects the idea that the world before the Triffids was gone forever, as illustrated by the survivors’ struggle and the new social order that emerges from the chaos. 

When The Day of the Triffids was published in 1951, Britain was just emerging from World War II and entering the Cold War. People were haunted by recent experiences of totalitarian regimes, wartime rationing, government control, and the dawning threat of a nuclear or biological catastrophe. Wyndham’s novel channels those anxieties into fiction — not just as a disaster story, but as a reflection on what kind of society might rise from the ruins.

We haven’t suffered from a freak meteor shower that made most of the world’s population blind, which led to the emerging of the Triffids taking advantage of the chaos that followed. But we have and are experiencing a manipulated societal shift, which is delivering a similar phenomenon; a more dangerous and hateful world. A less prosperous and free world. A world where it’s becoming increasingly acceptable to silence and even kill people others disagree with. A world where increasing numbers of people are being blinded to the dangers of reliance on the Government to save them. 

What we have instead of Triffids are groups and individuals doing precisely that; Net Zero acolytes, Marxist and far left groups, pro-Palestinian groups, Religious fundamentalists and terrorist who are extremely skilled in manipulating a naïve west into supporting them and condemning those fighting for their survival against the brutality. We have the leftist elite, the Sovereign Citizens and other groups of their ilk. And dare I say, far too many elected representatives in our parliaments. All intent on smashing our tenuous free society to gain power and control to mould society into what these groups and individuals deem an acceptable society. 

In his book, John Wyndham explores the fragile balance between freedom and order in the aftermath of catastrophe, offering a more hopeful vision than many of his postwar contemporaries. Like George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Fourand William Golding in Lord of the Flies, Wyndham questions whether humanity can preserve freedom when civilisation collapses. Orwell portrays freedom as destroyed by political control, while Golding depicts it as undone by humanity’s own savagery. Personally, I believe we are fighting against a mix all three.

And, as we discover in the post-Triffid era, social orders are not free in the liberal sense. Most of them impose hierarchy or compulsion as the price of survival. And Wyndham’s seems to explore how fragile freedom is when civilisation collapses — and how easily it gives way to control when people are desperate. Which raises the question about the deliberate attempt of interested parties to smash society and to quench their thirst for greater and greater control over us. 

However, Wyndham suggests that moral responsibility can sustain liberty even in chaos. He sees this as being led by protagonist Bill Masen’s rejection of authoritarian plans for rebuilding society. Masen, a biologist, becomes a key survivor after the meteor shower blinds most of the world’s population. His temporary blindness from a prior triffid encounter saves him from the effects of the “comet” shower, leaving him as one of the few sighted individuals to navigate the post-apocalyptic world alongside other survivors like Josella Playton. 

There are lessons here for us because through Bill Masen’s rejection of authoritarian plans for rebuilding society, Wyndham argues that true freedom arises not from the absence of rules but from voluntary cooperation, compassion, and ethical restraint. His survivors choose to live freely by conscience rather than by compulsion, embodying a distinctly postwar optimism: that civilisation’s survival depends less on institutions than on the moral choices of individuals.

But to do this requires society to wake-up and to accept responsibility for the part they’ve played in destroying the prosperity and freedoms our forebears fought so hard to gain for us. And we don’t have long to do that. Because the world that is ahead of us if we don’t change will make the apocalyptic Triffid assault look like a children’s game.

.

The Destruction of the Natural Order

Everywhere we turn today the “natural order” is being shattered and the warnings from history ignored. Whether that’s by design or ignorance is questioned. Personally 

I think it’s a combination of both design and the ignorance of the masses. 

When the “natural order” (ecological balance, moral framework, social contract) is ignored, history shows us three likely paths:

1.Collapse (nature or institutions break down).

2.Chaos (conflict, revolution, fragmentation).

3.Imposed Order (rise of authoritarian or ideological systems promising to restore balance).

 

𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲..

𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲..  will lead us to rising political violence or a backlash in the form of authoritarian “order”. 

People are more likely to express disdain, hatred, or even joy over someone they see as an ideological opponent. Online platforms provide “fuel” for that kind of behaviour: they reward content that stirs emotion, outrage, or tribal identity.

When opponents are stripped of their humanity and reduced to caricatures (“evil,” “vermin,” “traitors”), their suffering no longer registers as suffering. They’re considered to be subhuman. Once someone is viewed as subhuman, their death can be reframed as “justice” or even entertainment.

We have witnessed that again with the murder of Charlie Kirk. 

It’s bad enough when impressionable teenagers and young adults do it. But when mature adults do it, the alarm bells should ring loudly. And when members of our parliament acknowledge those who are devaluing death, the bells should ring even louder.

History shows us that celebrating the death of enemies has often flared up during moments of deep social fracture — and many times, those moments preceded collapse or violent upheaval.

Based on history, this path leads to either increasing political violence or an authoritarian response. And people better wake up pretty soon because neither of other scenarios are palpable.

Multiculturalism is failing us

After years of relative stability, multiculturalism is failing us. Perhaps it was always going to fail, or perhaps it’s merely the result of several more recent factors. But to me, there is one key factor that appears to be the root cause of most of our current collective problems. That is a clash of values.

Multiculturalism assumes different cultures can coexist peacefully, but sometimes values directly conflict (e.g., on gender equality, free speech, religion in public life).These tensions can spark cultural flashpoints, protests, or even violence.

The values clash has been percolating under the surface for sometime. Thinking about it, the border control under Rudd and Gillard was mismanaged, and many Australians have been anxious about the events since. It needs to be said that most people who come here do so with the express purpose of building a better life. That includes some who came here via the backdoor, but not all do. And since 7 October 2023, we have been living the manifestations of the hatred and the clash of values that have been here for several years just waiting to surface.

There has been no better example of that than the celebrations on streets of Lakemba following the sadistic murder of people in Israel. That was followed by a protest on the steps of the Opera House. For almost two years, we’ve endured protests on our streets where people wave terrorist flags and call for the death of Jews. These are NOT people who are here to help create a cohesive society. We even have people sitting in our own parliament who are not native to this country calling those of us whose families have lived in this country (and died for this country) for nearly two hundred years colonisers!! She even stated in the Senate yesterday, “This country’s violent discrimination and racism started with colonisation and has never really stopped.” 

In reality we shouldn’t have to say we don’t want this culture developing any further here because the leaders of this country should be but they don’t and they aren’t. Their silence has given legitimacy to this abhorrent, vile behaviour.

And because the leaders of this country have been silent, we now see the coming together of those who aren’t here for the right reasons with those who are ideologically at odds with Western democracy. As a result, we’ve witnessed a dramatic increase in violence, gang behaviour and hence intimidation. This country is in trouble and, alarmingly, those leading the country are ignoring it to keep the faith with socialist reformists and ethnic groups. Those supposedly leading the country wonder why people are taking to the streets to say we have had enough. 

And let’s not be intimidated into silence about this changing ‘culture’.  The reason those who defend it brand all of us Nazis or far right etc is because character assassination has long been the central tactic used to enforce multicultural orthodoxy. They use it as a tool to silence those who oppose them. 

Anthony Albanese and his Govt have failed us, and they’ve failed the country. They need to hear it from as many as possible. 

It’s what people don’t do and don’t say that tells the real story..

In times of tragedy, such as the tragic death of those we love, we attempt to find some good to create meaning. Even if it is just something as simple as being able to help someone else deal with a similar event. To help give them hope and strength to move forward. It is part of our coping mechanism.

Whilst these two little boys are not my children, like so many in the world who were traumatised and shocked by what took place on October 7, I hoped and prayed they would be released. Sadly, we learnt that these beautiful children were subjected to a most horrific death by Hamas butchers. Butchers who taunted the world and kept promising to release little Ariel and Kfir, knowing full well they’d murdered them.

So then we hoped and prayed that their deaths would not be in vain, that the West would wake-up and rise against the barbarism of Hamas. However, the West has not in fact done that; they have emboldened Hamas by their abject failure to condemn them resoundingly. They have turned on little Ariel and Kfir’s homeland.

If Sunday’s bridge walk was indeed a march for humanity, we would have sighted at least one Israeli flag in recognition of those who were butchered and those still held hostage, but there were none. The front line would have seen family members of Israelis who were butchered and those who are still held hostage standing alongside Assange and Foster. But there were none. 

We would have heard chants condemning Hamas, but there were none. We would have sighted signs with the photos and names of at least some of the Israelis who were butchered, but there were none. Instead there were signs displaying the images of butchers and murderers. Chants of death to the IDF. The flags of tyranny, Iran. The flag of terrorist protectors Palestine. We would have seen the faces of little Ariel and Kfir, a true symbol of the failure of humanity, but there were none. 

West has forgotten little Ariel and Kfir, and their deaths mean nothing to them. To me, that is the most shameful thing about what is happening in countries like mine. We must NOT let their deaths be forgotten. And the mere fact that there were no symbols, or signs extending of the arm of humanity to the Jews who suffered and are still suffering at the hands of Hamas signals the march had nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with hatred. 

The propagation of illusory truth in Western Democracies

If you repeat often enough what a dreadful occupying colonialist country you live in and how dreadful capitalism is, then it stands to reason some people will be encouraged to follow the Marxist, activist, greens Islamist agenda.

They’re sold the Marxist line of everyone being equal. Though Marxism has been implemented in ways that have created new, more restrictive power structures rather than eliminating far less restrictive old ones. What transpires is that the leaders or ruling parties gain from the system, even more than they would in a capitalist society. This is driven by the inability to vote them out based on the loss of the population’s political rights. Historically, Marxism has led to centralisation of power, which severely limits the benefits for the average worker in those societies.

And the intellectuals and activists who advocate for Marxist, green Islamist ideologies benefit from the recognition and influence that come with being at the forefront of social movements, even if the overall system they promote isn’t anything like they claim it will be. They make money exploiting the disenfranchised and the ignorant.

It is why so many people have to be manipulated into thinking everything about their country is bad — about their history, their society, their freedom and their wealth when it isn’t. 

The propaganda of illusory truth is being used to change Western democracies for the worse. 

The Marrickville Brawler and the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to take you back to election night 2022 when @Albomp stood up and, among his (as it turned out) hollow promises, swore to bring respect back to parliament. As we have witnessed over the past three years, he delivered the complete opposite of that.

Now, after his extremely long taxpayer-funded bludge following his win in May, we have been given the first opportunity to witness his commitment to respect this term. And it is on this point that Simon Benson has made a very astute observation, and one that hasn’t escaped me and others. And that relates to how Albanese intends to treat @sussanley. Remember Albo’s now infamous “smash her” statement from some years ago when referring to Sussan?

Albanese and Labor can’t treat Sussan the way they treated Peter Dutton. And he certainly couldn’t invoke the “smash her” tactic. Nor could they resort to the disrespectful labelling and attacks on her appearance as they did with Peter. If they did that to a female, they’d be hammered. So it appears Albanese, as Simon points out, is adopting Bob Carr tactics and treating Sussan as if she didn’t exist.

In QT this week, Albanese barely looked at his opponent across the chamber. He refused to address her on occasion as required and, when answering questions, turned his back to speak to his troops.

Albo wasn’t labelled the Marrickville Brawler for nothing. And Albo will keep up his dismissive charade unless starts to adopt some of the “Thatcher Tactics’.

• Being better informed and tougher than them

• Using authority, not apology

• Turning their condescension into political strength

• Dominating with preparation, poise, and conviction

Thatcher out-prepared everyone in the room. She knew the figures better than anyone, and she used that to devastating effect.

She had voice coaching to lower her voice to sound more authoritative. Her delivery was very deliberate, firm and on point.

When dismissed as “just a housewife,” she used it to her advantage. She framed herself as a practical, no-nonsense economic manager — someone who balanced budgets and made tough decisions, just like a household must. Albo has never balanced a budget in his life!!

Thatcher was not afraid to challenge men directly, even those who tried to patronise or bully her. She often interrupted or corrected senior male colleagues if they were wrong. This will be harder to do given the Speaker patronises Sussan as well, but she could use the media to better effect.

Thatcher rarely emphasised her role as a “woman in power” and rejected modern feminism, preferring to be seen as a leader, not a female leader. This helped her navigate spaces where overt gender solidarity might have backfired. This is where Sussan could introduce a real difference to great effect. Whilst I love pink, she needs to drop the pink and white pants suits. Those who study the art of colour know that people treat you differently if you wear pink when taking issues head on. 

Conviction. Come out strong in support of biological women and against child gender experimentation. Drop NetZero and stand firmly behind nuclear. So many opportunities to differentiate and stop asking everyone for their opinion.

Leaders determine what needs to be done, select the best people to deliver on it and constantly remind those whose support you why it’s necessary.

Until Sussan adopts this, the Marrickville Brawler will continue to treat her as irrelevant.

The intolerance of the smug elitist left leaning dog owner - Phillip Adams

Phillip Adams wrote a column published in the Oz yesterday under the headline “As a dog person, I reckon cats are catastrophes.” 

He stated, “Forgive me if you’re attracted to very small dogs like chihuahuas or, shudder, those other lap-dogs, pekinese. But to me pekes are not so much dogs as pussies in disguise. And as a dog person, I reckon cats are catastrophes. I understand that some members of our human species prefer the feline to the canine, just as some prefer the rat-baggies of religion to the simple sanities of atheism. Just as some prefer LNP to ALP. And I look forward to the day when science finds a cure. But cats? Effing cats? Bird-killing cats?”

As an animal lover and a cat person, my observation of @PhillipAdams_1 is that he is the epitome of the arrogance of those who consider themselves to be superior to others. 

And I would remind Mr. Arrogance Adams that cat owners, many of us, believe there is more to our existence than just birth and death. We believe in the conservative values of self-sufficiency, family, and freedom as opposed to socialists, union-controlled Labor. As for science finding a cure for us, that really sums him up. 

And I would point out to Mr. Arrogance that dogs DO kill birds, like pigeons, ducks, or small garden birds. And that cats don’t bark incessantly, as far too many living in suburban areas that cats bury their droppings, dogs just leave theirs for poor unsuspecting walkers to tread in. Even worse, as one did last week right outside of the door of our local supermarket!! Cats don’t kill and main people, but dogs have frequently done that. 

And according to psychology studies undertaken by the University of Texas and Carroll University, cat owners have consistently been found to be more independent, which explains why we are conservatives, tend to be non-conformists and open-minded. Often more laid-back and selective. 

Cat owners also score higher when it comes to creativity, curiosity, and tolerance of different perspectives. The complete opposite of Phillip Adams, it appears particularly when it comes to open-mindedness and tolerance. 

Where are the traditional feminists? Why are they silent?

I’m questioning whether I’m transgender. And before you fall off your chair, I will preface this by stating the below before I move on to the absurdity that goes unquestioned.

I am an affirmed traditional feminist as opposed to the woke feminists of today.

Traditional feminists believe in and fight for equal rights and opportunities for women within existing social structures. Many of us follow in the footsteps of our female ancestors, who fought for legal and political reforms to address gender inequality, particularly in areas like suffrage, property rights, and access to education and employment.

Traditional feminists work within a framework that acknowledges biological differences between men and women, and we continue to fight for the right to women’s only spaces and to keep biological men out of these places and out of sport. We wish no harm to those who struggle with dysphoria and mental illness. But we will not stand by whilst our hard-earned rights are eroded. And we are dogged in our fight against the new social constructs and power dynamics that is leading back to biological women’s subordination today.

Now, to the absurdity that goes unquestioned.

Many of you will know the legal battle (Giggle vs Tickle) between Sall Gover and Roxanne Tickle. Many of you are also aware of the satirical mug that has been selling on Etsy containing a satirical comment based on a disclosure Tickle made in an interview on SBS. And that Sall was fined $10,000 for a natural human response of a brief giggle over the statement on the mug that was presented in court. I also laughed because it comes back to the absurd statements that are made but never questioned.

In the interview on SBS, Tickle talked about her love of hockey and the years she spent playing hockey. She spent 10 years playing hockey with four teams. She went to university, travelled overseas and returned to Australia and, following an epiphany (after 20 years) she was finally able to admit to herself how uncomfortable she was playing with a men’s hockey team and being in the men’s change rooms. She stated, “The sounds, the smells, the language, the personal interactions - everything except for the actual hockey had felt foreign to me. I hadn’t really belonged at all. I was just there.” That’s when she admitted to herself that she was transgender.

Given that I’ve been battling a back injury for the past two weeks, and because I don’t enjoy taking pain killers etc I’ve been slathering myself with Extra Strength Deep Heat, which helps. In fact, I like the smell of Deep Heat, albeit I do smell rather obviously like the boys’ locker room. In fact, perversely, I even find the burning (the extra strength burns) comforting. So, using the Tickle measure, I’m now questioning my gender.

Yes, it is absurd. But so is the fact that women have to fight for spaces where they feel safe. And sporting fields where they feel safe and can compete on equal terms. It is absurd that elected representatives are doing nothing about this in this country. It is absurd that women like Sall Grover are left to carry the burden in battling people like Roxanne Tickle. And it is absurd that so few women are standing up and saying, enough is enough. 

BTW the way as someone who has spent a bit of time in female locker rooms, they aren’t the most pleasant of places either. 

We can no longer afford to be bystanders

We can look to history to see the similarities with today. And whilst we don’t have a Hilter running Australia, we are battling with a cultural shift that, if not addressed, gives rise to extremists capitalising on it. 

It was written in the Holocaust Encyclopaedia that the Holocaust was a series of events that happened over a long period of time. Jews were dehumanised, deprived of many legal rights, became the victims of both random and organised violence, and were socially, if not physically, isolated from the rest of the population. Many people became “bystanders” to this ever-radicalising program long before the mass roundups and killings began.

Whilst God willing, we will never see that repeated we are witnessing the random and organised violence against Jews in our own country. We graphically see the manifestation of the radicalisation of young people who are encouraged by leftwing ‘elites’ who collectively march in the streets every weekend. They march, holding up signs calling for the death of Jews and supporting terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and they defend terrorist funding nations like Iran. This is alarming behaviour and yet the bulk of the population and the leaders of this country are “bystanders”. 

We should be outraged by this and the excuse used by many “well look at what is happening in Gaza” has stuff all to do with it. What is happening in the Middle East is tragic, but we MUST not allow that to manifest any longer on our shores. It was a close call in Melbourne on Friday with the torching of a synagogue whilst people were inside thankfully no one was injured this time. But it is only a matter of time before someone will be.

We must demand that the leaders of this country come out of hiding and take steps to quell what is now the persecution of Jews on our soil. And the majority of people doing this aren’t recent migrants they are people from many countries now living in Australia and many who are Australian born with no links to the Middle East. This is about a changing culture and a culture war.

It pays to remember that it only took nine years between 1924 and 1933 for the Nazi Party to be transformed from a small, violent, revolutionary party to the largest elected party in the Reichstag. They were able to do this largely by propaganda aimed at exploiting people’s fear of uncertainty and instability. Jews also featured heavily in the Nazi propaganda as enemies of the German people.

Think about this in relation to what’s happening now. For some years, the young (in particular) and the so labelled marginalised have been brainwashed into believing their future is bleak. Climate change, inequity and various other pieces of propaganda pumped out daily have driven this. Those who have a vested interest in changing our culture promote it. When in fact, people today have more opportunity than ever, but that gets lost in the relentless bombardment of alarmism, hate, and lies that spread like wildfire on social media. 

As Max Horder wrote in his superb piece recently, Assassin’s creed this in now manifesting as online subcultures normalising and justifying violence. He wrote of the justification of attempts on Trump’s life. The widespread public support for smashing up Tesla dealerships–and for shooting Elon Musk because he had the temerity to work for Trump.

Horder wrote of the applause for the actual murder of Unitedhealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December last year, which still goes on, unabated, online. And the accused killer, Luigi Mangione, is praised, respected and even worshipped by a small; but growing social media community. A psychotic murderer has become a hero for youngsters, who imagine he stands for vigilante justice against corporate greed. Many view Jews the same way. They are the oppressors who stole land from the Palestinians when actual history tells a very different story. But that doesn’t matter because this new culture praises the terrorists, hates democracy and views Israel as the world of the rich. Hence we see that manifested in attacking and vilifying Jews in Australia 

What we are witnessing in Australia is an entirely new subculture for incubating radical and subversive ideas that are an anathema to the things Australia has historically stood for. With the power of the internet, this can get out of hand very quickly if we are not careful and we can’t afford to be bystanders any longer.

I personally think this is one of the most important discussions we need to have in our country. The question of how do we address this?  I don’t have the answers apart from keeping it front of mind in the hope others also recognise the seriousness. Then that we collectively in turn keep the pressure on the leaders of this country to get off the fence and start addressing this. We need action not weasel words.