Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Some observations about Aborigines from a very kind Christian social worker who knows them well

To appreciate the latter part of his story  below, you may need to know that he is also an accomplished martial arts exponent

Basically, they are a stone age race, that has had the modern world thrust upon them.  As  they have been in the modern world only 4 x 50 years, we cannot expect them to cover 15,000 years of development in only a few generations.

In life there are problems that can be solved, and there are problems that cannot be solved but they can be managed. We cannot solve the Aborigine problem, but we can manage it. That is all we can do. They are destined, generally, to occupy the lowest rung of our society, and we should make that as comfortable and as helpful to them as we can, alleviating suffering while encouraging their development without too much pressure and stress on them.

And we should just accept that is how it has to be, and they should accept it too. Their men especially, are deeply shamed that they cannot get ahead in our society and do what white men can do and provide a good living standard for their people. They fall into shame and despair, and to relieve it, to live with themselves, they counter the shame with blame, and blame the white man for their failings. Their blaming is a coping mechanism to relieve their shame and sense of inability, which is heavy on them.

They know they are backward compared to us, they know they are ugly, they are a depressed and defeated race. They desperately try to find something they know about that we don’t, so they can feel smart and worthy of living.

Others give up and find a sort of alcoholic/drug addled peace in their failings. Like long term unemployed white men do, eventually to counter their depression and sense of repeated failure which is too unbearable to live with, they give up applying for jobs and become accepting and “contented” with unemployment. It is a survival mindset.

The Aborigine is in a survival mindset too: Just trying to live with himself as a primitive man existing on the lowest rung of a modern world that he cannot get ahead in.     

If an advanced race of humans, 15000 years more advanced than us, came from another planet and colonised this one, then we would find ourselves occupying the lowest rung of their society. That is just how it would be. Nothing the colonisers do would make us as advanced as them or able to function amongst them as equals. They would have to carry us, probably for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, until we gradually adjusted or died out through interbreeding.

Aborigines who marry whites tend to marry whites of similar intelligence to themselves, and also for some reason, it seems there only has to be a little bit of Aborigine blood in them and they easily become what we see as lazy, feral, and prone to alcohol and drug abuse.

I get along with them well. Some of the local ones call me Graymo. I was in one of their homes last week doing an assessment for council services for home maintenance, and dealing with some of the issues they struggle with.

I can’t solve their problems, only relieve the weight of them. So I put in services for them, like grass cutting, home maintenance and such. It is the only way. They do not have the intelligence or the initiative to do themselves what needs doing.

When on or off duty I will often veer my path or cross the road to talk to them because I know they need it. They need sincerity. They like to joke and laugh, and they like affection. I always make them smile and laugh, shake their hands, give them sincere goodwill and smiling eye contact and touch them on the shoulders and back. They love that.

Stupid lefty psychs say not to give them eye contact because they find it threatening, that is bullsh*t, that is because lefties are phony and because most people look down on Abos and it shows in their eye contact. I don’t look down on them. I know they are an inferior race but I don’t look down on them no more than I look down on students in lower classes than higher students. They are just coming along behind, that is all, and may never catch up, but they are no less than me in the creation of their souls. That is how I see it.

The most aggressive ones will warm to me a little, but they can be dangerous, some are ready to kick off any moment, but I am ready for that, if no weapon is involved I would cover my head and vitals and ride it out, as long as its not too savage, I have done it before, then immediately show I hold no resentment, show no fear, just answer with friendliness and forgiveness and reassurance that it is alright.

I don’t like to say it but some can be like an aggressive dog that can snap and attack if its buttons are pushed but is soppy underneath and needs some love and soothing to settle down. When the dog bites there is only two ways to deal with it, either thrash it severely so it never dares bites you again, or let it bite and be unmoved and hold it and stroke it till it settles, which messes up its mindset and resets it.

That is what I try to do with Aborigines. I once got mugged in a park in Rockhampton and could have thrashed them but they could barely mug me well, even with me doing nothing to prevent it, just laying there and covering vitals. My back got very bruised but so what? Then I sat and chatted with them and won them over. They had never experienced that before.  
Via email

Mark Dreyfus, Australia's Jewish outrage machine

Outrage is the Left's routine substitute for rational debate so one can understand his use of it. But for an educated man such as he to mainline on it just exposes him to ridicule. He dishonours himself by his actions. Leftism does seem to fry brains at times. Additionally, one would have thought that a Jew would keep his outrage for the really important challenges Jews face -- such as Islam.  Has he never read the Koran?

Peak outrage is opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus’s stock-in-trade, especially when complaining about Attorney-General George Brandis.

How many times does someone have to call for the resignation of a minister, making outlandish claims of corruption without evidence, before they themselves should resign, or at least dial back the inflated rhetoric?

On no fewer than 41 occasions in the past 20 months, Dreyfus has demanded that Brandis resign or be sacked.

He probably has made the call more times than that, but that’s how many occasions I was able to confirm.

Media releases, doorstops, in parliament, via Facebook and Twitter, and of course in countless media interviews, Dreyfus has assumed the role of the boy who cried wolf.

“It is always the novice who exaggerates,” CS Lewis wrote, but Dreyfus is no novice. He’s a former attorney-general, a Queen’s Counsel, no less, and an experienced politician. Frankly, he should know better.

To be sure, Brandis has been involved in some controversies recently, including the present saga regarding the Bell Group litigation.

And there is every chance that Brandis does move on sometime next year. With two significant changes to the High Court announced this week, Brandis has achieved what he wanted: helping to shape the highest court in the land for the decades ahead.

Brandis’s colleagues would prefer he made fewer headlines for the wrong reasons. He has been accident-prone.

And as comprehensive as Brandis’s statement to the Senate this week was when it came to his involvement in the Bell Group saga, questions remain, especially in assessing what discussions Joe Hockey as federal treasurer had with West Australian Treasurer Mike Nahan that led the latter to believe he had a deal, which was never consummated.

But the peak outrage Dreyfus displays time and time again when it comes to Brandis, rushing to extreme judgment before all the facts are in, displays the sort of temperament we don’t need in the senior ranks of any political party.

Dreyfus claimed Brandis was corrupt but failed to produce one shred of evidence to support such a serious accusation. Nineteenth-century American clergyman Hosea Ballou said: “Exaggeration is a blood relation to falsehood and nearly as blamable.” Dreyfus is the one lowering public confidence in the body politic, not Brandis. By exaggerating to try to score political points Dreyfus is prepared to tarnish the political class (Brandis in particular) to help achieve the end of winning office. But the office Dreyfus hopes to secure will be diminished because of the distrust he seeks to foment.

If Dreyfus, like a latter-day Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were revealing a cover-up, then power to him for his persistence in prosecuting the case against Brandis. Were he more considered in his criticisms, Dreyfus would have had a point. (There has been plenty to criticise.) But a glance at the issues Dreyfus has used to demand Brandis be sacked highlights the overreach and the tendency to shoot his mouth off too soon. Dreyfus demanded Brandis be sacked for his last-minute appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before the July election.

Yet it turned out that most of the “appointments” were simply reappointments as recommended by AAT president Duncan Kerr (who happens to be a former Labor MP appointed to the AAT post by Labor in 2012 when Dreyfus was cabinet secretary).

Dreyfus has called for Brandis to be sacked over his treatment of Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, yet in the end it was Triggs who was embarrassed by revelations that she boasted about her ability to “destroy” a Senate committee, only to besmirch the journalist who wrote the story by claiming the quotes were inserted by a subeditor. When a recording of the interview emerged, Triggs beat a hasty retreat.

The most frequent issue Dreyfus has used to demand Brandis be sacked is the feud between the Attorney-General and now former solicitor-general Justin Glee­son.

Yet Gleeson lost a lot of credibility in their feud when Brandis was able to prove the pair did meet, as he claimed in parliament, and when it was revealed Gleeson and Dreyfus held talks during the election campaign without informing the government (as convention dictates should happen).

As it happened, Dreyfus put Gleeson in that awkward position when he put through an unsolicited telephone call.

One can only imagine how outraged Dreyfus would have been about such actions were he applying the same standards to himself that he does to Brandis.

While exaggeration may be what the art of politics occasionally calls for, the single-minded obsession Dreyfus is showing when it comes to Brandis is at a point where it needs to be called out. Had his rhetoric been more controlled this column would have praised his ability to keep the heat on a minister under pressure.

Sadly, the overreach has become a parody, giving Malcolm Turnbull the opportunity to start mocking Dreyfus in question time for his “unhealthy obsession”.

The art of having an impact when making an argument is not to overdo the outrage.

Dreyfus, by continually overreaching, hopes that political journalists and, by extension, the public have short memories; that we will all approach each resignation demand as though it’s a stunning new moment: a considered call for a political scalp that’s worth reporting and worth considering because it comes from someone well credentialed in the law.

Yet where was Dreyfus during Labor’s time in government, when ministers oversaw the sort of missteps that really do require resignations or sackings? What is now a lion’s roar against Brandis was the timidity of a mouse when the pink batts fiasco occurred. Not a single Labor MP I spoke with this past week could recall Dreyfus raising concerns about the issue within the party even once.

Inflated rhetoric can be tolerated if at least it is consistently applied. On this score Dreyfus isn’t the only offender.

The political class more broadly is upping the outrage when complaining about opponents. It’s designed to create a political advantage, which it may well do.

The unintended consequence, however, is that politicians writ large are damaged in the eyes of voters.


Toowoomba accused by activists of being Australia’s most racist city after chemist shop display

The accusation is just an off the cuff comment by a known whiner.  It has no statistical basis.  Golliwog controversies keep cropping up thoughout the English speaking world as a result of attempts by Leftists to make something offensive out of a children's popular soft toy. I had a golliwog myself as a kid over 60 years ago

TOOWOOMBA has been dubbed the “most racist city in Australia” after a display of nine golliwog dolls appeared at a Terry Whites Chemist store in Clifford Gardens.

The dolls were placed underneath a sign inviting shoppers to “Experience a white Christmas”, in a move that’s been slammed by Indigenous activists.

Author and activist Stephen Hagan, who famously campaigned against the “N*gger Brown Stand” in 1999, said the display was offensive.

“Toowoomba is the most racist city in Australia,” he told the Sunshine Coast Daily. “Words can’t describe this behaviour in the 21st century. I can understand it in the 1960s but to do it today is inexcusable.”

The store’s Managing Partner Alwyn Baumann offered an “unreserved apology” in a statement, saying the store had made a “regrettable error” with the display dolls, which they will “not stock in future”.

A spokesman for the store clarified the connection between the dolls and the sign was completely unintentional.

Golliwogs are considered offensive due to their history as a blackface motif, in which people of colour are depicted as comically idiotic and as plantation slaves.


Carbon tax debate revived

The debate over pricing carbon has been reignited after the Government confirmed introducing a carbon price for power companies would be considered as part of a climate change review.

It's a politically touchy topic — the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader in 2009 and Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2010 can both be attributed in part to positions on emissions trading schemes (ETS).

It's also a topic with a long history. Former prime minister John Howard first floated the idea of an ETS in 2007.

Here are the five things you need to know if you want to join the conversation.

The Government says it's not talking about another carbon tax, but another way to reduce emissions.

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg announced the terms of reference for a review of climate changes policies, to be undertaken and completed next year.

Mr Frydenberg said there was potential for an "emissions intensity scheme", where power generators could pay for emissions above a set level.

It sounds similar to a standard ETS, where the government caps total emissions and issues permits to emit up to that amount.

Mr Frydenberg has promised any changes would ensure power prices don't skyrocket for consumers and that the "lights will remain on", as part of a shift towards a reduction in emissions.

But it does all sound very familiar.

The carbon tax introduced by the former Gillard government — and scrapped by Tony Abbott — was a scheme that covered the entire economy.

The new proposal being discussed by the Federal Government would apply to individual sectors.

It all hinges on what penalties would be faced by power generators when their emissions go above that set level.

There's no legislation before Parliament and no guarantees anything at all will be adopted.

The Coalition was responsible for axing the carbon tax.

The former Abbott government was responsible for the repeal of the tax in 2014 after the legislation was initially blocked by the Upper House.

It followed an election campaign on the issue with Mr Abbott vowing to have the repeal legislation before Parliament within 100 days of his victory.

You may remember him talking out against the tax in 2011, when he made headlines for addressing a rally in front of a "ditch the witch" placard.

But that was under Abbott, who rolled Turnbull over climate change in 2009.

Mr Turnbull was ousted as Liberal leader in 2009 after a lengthy brawl over climate change policy.

His support for then prime minister Kevin Rudd's amended ETS led to weeks of division within the Coalition.

Mr Abbott, who won the leadership spill by one vote, withdrew the party's support for the scheme and said a Coalition policy would not involve any new taxes.

Abbott instead introduced Direct Action. And that's what we have in place now. Instead of a tax, Direct Action provides financial incentives for polluters to reduce emissions though the Emissions Reduction Fund.

It also included the creation of the Green Army, an employment program for young people. It is reported to be axed in the near future.

Mr Turnbull refused to confirm the reports today, but said the review into climate change policies was "nothing remarkable".


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

1 comment:

Paul said...

"one would have thought that a Jew would keep his outrage for the really important challenges Jews face..."

..or the important challenges they prefer us to think they face?