Why Even Secularists Might Not Like a Post-Christian West

Many who deride Christianity fail to see that the moral underpinnings of Western society rely on the Gospel, and a post-Christian society may not be palatable to them either. They are cutting off the branch on which they sit.

The West is becoming post-Christian.

Fewer people are identifying as Christians. Christian views on gender, marriage and sexuality are increasingly seen as extreme.[1] As a result, Christianity itself is increasingly marginalised.

And while many secular commentators are happy with this state of affairs (just look at the responses to Roe v Wade being overturned), there may well come a day when they, their secular children or grandchildren yearn for the time when Christianity had greater influence in the West.

Does that sound far-fetched? Not if we explore what a post-Christian West looks like.

The Secularist Dream: Christian Morality Without Christ

The secular world’s relationship with Christianity is much like a celebrity marriage: it’s complicated.[2]  For starters, our secular world likes much of Christian morality, but can’t stand the Jesus of the gospels. They want the Kingdom without the King. As Australian Christian author and academic Michael Bird explains in his new book: Religious Freedom in a Secular Age,

‘At the present time, the Western world is struggling to come to terms with its (post-) Christian heritage. We live in a venerable paradox whereby political classes are trying to renew society by vigorously reworking the Christian moral vision of love for neighbour, seeking the good of the “other”, protecting the vulnerable and consoling the victimized, even while excoriating Christianity for its former hegemony and deriding Christian beliefs as unpalatable myths and fanciful superstitions.’ [3]

But how long will Kingdom ethics last across society if we ignore the King?

Without Christ in the West, Christian morality will be forgotten

According to Bird, Christian morality won’t last long without Christianity:

‘A post-Christian society will inevitably become post-Christian in practice. If liberal social ethics are unmoored from their theological foundations and metaphysical committments in Christianity, then the dominant ethical patterns will inevitably drift in a different direction as various currents carry them along… After post-Christianity comes either a neo-paganism or a consistently humanist Nietzschean philosophy. In either case, brute power would be all that matters, for might makes right, and truth means nothing more than what benefits the tribe.’ [4]

Now, that’s not to say everything was perfect under a Christianised West.

There was much that was wrong in the West of yesteryear: racism (which is thankfully less bad now than it has ever been), poverty, misogyny, etc. Nobody is arguing that it was anywhere near perfect. But what allowed for moral improvement was a Christian moral foundation that saw people as human beings deserving of dignity and equal treatment (just look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr). The Christian worldview fuelled the fight against slavery, racism, and unequal treatment of minorities.

And it’s this worldview that’s being replaced.

The Post-Christian World of Today and Tomorrow

And so,  what does a post-Christian society look like?

We need only look at the different trajectories of our culture, let alone our politics, to see the birth of a post-Christian West:

The Post-Christian Right: Race and Nation

While many a secular person may have held their nose at Christian conservatives, and their advocacy on issues such as abortion, marriage and euthanasia, things have changed now that the right is less religious than before.

Writing about the American political and cultural scene, The Atlantic’s Peter Beinhart argues:

‘For decades, liberals have called the Christian right intolerant. When conservatives disengage from organized religion, however, they don’t become more tolerant. They become intolerant in different ways. …

Whatever the reason, when cultural conservatives disengage from organized religion, they tend to redraw the boundaries of identity, de-emphasizing morality and religion and emphasizing race and nation. Trump is both a beneficiary and a driver of that shift.

So is the alt-right.

He concludes:

For years, political commentators dreamed that the culture war over religious morality that began in the 1960s and ’70s would fade. It has. And the more secular, more ferociously national and racial culture war that has followed is worse.

Welcome to the post-Christian right, where racial politics and a hatred of those who are different fuel their politics.

What about the post-Christian Left?

The Post-Christian Left: The Rise of Totalitarian Woke Politics

The post-Christian Left is replacing Christian ethics with a totalitarian view of reality commonly known as Wokism.

This can be seen in the areas of gender and sexuality. As centre-left commentator Abigail Shrier points out:

Those of us who dare express skepticism of gender-affirmative care are routinely censored, denied Twitter verification, suspended from social media, or have our online fundraisers shut down — all for the sin of telling truths that the left wishes never to hear.

Like those living outside the Free World, we adjust our behavior, which of course is the aim: We edit our tweets a little more carefully. We refrain from “liking” the tweet of anyone who’s been sent to the frosty exile of Twitter suspension.

We don’t want to do these things; most days, we fight like hell. But no independent journalist can easily promote her articles without Twitter or earn a living without the benefit of Stripe and PayPal.’

And in Australia, such ideology is weaponised through laws such as the Victorian anti-gay conversion law, which takes aim at churches or even parents who don’t affirm a child’s desire to transition to the opposite gender.

While such laws and actions might currently be aimed at those who differ from the woke view of reality, the goalposts of wokism are ever-expanding. Thus, secular people who might be comfortable with the reach of the State today may find themselves on the wrong end of the law tomorrow.

Will Secularists Look Back Nostalgically to a Christianised West?

In light of these changes in the moral outlook of Western society, Bird offers a reflective question:

‘I do wonder if we might one day become nostalgic for a Christendom if it turns out that what comes after a de-Christianized West is anything like the savagery and superstition that preceded Christendom.’ [5]

Thank the Source

Why The Racist Left Smears Clarence Thomas As An ‘Angry Black Man’

Why The Racist Left Smears Clarence Thomas As An ‘Angry Black Man’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is “a person of grievance” harboring “resentment, [and] anger,” reported no less an authority than Hillary Clinton during an appearance last week on CBS. In ignoring Thomas’s ideas to smear his temperament, Clinton pulled from the same playbook leftists have been using against Thomas since even before his 1991 confirmation hearings.

The New York Times once called Thomas the Supreme Court’s “youngest and angriest.” Times columnist Frank Rich accused him of “rage” and “unreconstructed racial bitterness.” His colleague Maureen Dowd has over the years variously described the justice as “barking mad,” dishonest, and “angry, bitter, self-pitying.” In the article, “Why Is Justice Thomas So Angry?,” CNN legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin concludes, “His fulminations … are hurtful to the court’s mission and reputation.”

Forming something of a bitter consensus, his critics exhibit behavior every bit as intriguing as that they claim to condemn.

Let’s Go to the Source

The best place for insight into Thomas’s “anger” is with the man himself. In his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” Thomas says his bouts with anger in early life were at their most intense when, during his college years, he grew “drunk with revolutionary rhetoric.”

Black-nationalist ideas didn’t suit him long, however. As his life evolved, so did his thinking. The hostility he once directed at a racist American society for mistreating blacks found new targets.

His personal anger can be interpreted in the context of its inverse relationship with happiness. Alongside his brother, Thomas was raised by their grandfather, Myers Anderson, whom, taking after their mom, they called Daddy. A self-employed deliveryman and farmer with an inexhaustible work ethic, Thomas portrays Anderson as akin to a drill instructor.

As the price of their shelter, the two boys labored so intensively in maintaining the farm that Clarence once reminded his grandfather slavery had ended. “Not in my house,” Anderson answers. Without hard work, self-reliance was impossible, Anderson taught the boys, and only through self-reliance can men earn their freedom. That was to be his gift to them.

“He knew that to be truly free and participate fully in American life,” Thomas writes, “poor blacks had to have the tools to do for themselves.” Very few would argue that, absent this individual liberty, personal happiness is even possible.

Clarence Thomas Meets Karl Marx

Thomas credits self-reliance for his success as a student. Raised Roman Catholic, his elementary school years were spent at St. John Vianney Minor Seminary, where he excelled athletically and academically. With plans of becoming a priest, he left Georgia to attend high school at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri.

After a change of heart, he returned to Georgia, where one of his grammar-school nuns persuaded him to apply to Holy Cross. Before heading back north to attend college, a friend introduced him to “The Communist Manifesto.” This introduction to Marx soon blossomed into something else.

As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.

At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”

In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.

Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.  

Thinking Freely Makes Vicious Enemies

In his senior year, Thomas read the uber-individualist books of Ayn Rand and began questioning the groupthink of his black peers. But to embark on free thinking meant making enemies of “the government, the racists, the activists, the students, even daddy.”

Yet free thinking yielded an immediate payoff for his temperament, for he was also being liberated of ideologically imposed passions that universities countenanced: “I already knew that the rage with which we lived made it hard for us to think straight. Now I understood for the first time that we were expected to be full of rage. It was our role — but I didn’t want to play it anymore.”

Graduating cum laude in English, Thomas was accepted to Harvard Law, but opted instead for Yale, which he felt was less conservative. Yale was further down the racial-preference road than Holy Cross, which cast suspicion over the entire black student body, as author John Greenya quotes Thomas: “You had to prove yourself every day because the presumption was that you were dumb and didn’t deserve to be there on merit.”

Affirmative Action Destroys Opportunities

To put his abilities beyond doubt, Thomas eschewed classes on civil rights and constitutional law in favor of corporate, tax, and antitrust law, seeking out professors with a reputation for hostility to blacks, where he strived still. Aspiring a return to his Atlanta-area hometown where an elite law degree could be of service to needy blacks, his plans were frustrated after every application was rejected, and his anger was born anew.

“Prospective employers dismissed our grades and diplomas … assuming we got both primarily because of preferential treatment,” Thomas told the Macon Telegraph. Believing his Ivy League education was overvalued, he affixed a $.15 stamp to his degree, the value of a Yale education when it “bore the taint of racial preference.”

In The New Yorker, Toobin wonders whether Thomas overplays this notion, asserting perhaps these rejections stemmed from simple racism, the very thing “affirmative action was designed to combat.” Perhaps. But would an already racist employer be any less skeptical of a black applicant owing to admissions’ racial preferences? 

‘That Stopped Me Cold’

At Yale, Thomas had worked for the social-services group New Haven Legal Assistance, where he encountered the “beneficiaries” of government welfare programs. Many of those seeking eligibility feigned poverty and victimization and called for assistance.

Thomas nonetheless believed that as American society condemned blacks to an outlook of scant hope, redressing social imbalances was legitimate government work. Around this time he happened to befriend future U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who introduced Thomas to a new set of ideas.

In a debate over whether mandating helmets for motorcyclists was meritorious policy — Thomas felt accident-related health care costs demanded such a rule — Bolton asked him: “Clarence, as a member of a group that has been treated shabbily by the majority in this country, why would you want to give the government more power over your personal life?”

“That stopped me cold,” Thomas writes:

I thought of what Daddy had said when I asked him why he’d never gone on public assistance. ‘Because it takes away your manhood,’ he said. ‘You do that and they can ask you questions about your life that are none of their business. They can come into your house when they want to, and they can tell you who else can come and go in your house.’ Daddy and John, I saw, were making the same point: real freedom meant independence from government intrusion, which in turn meant that you had to take responsibility for your own decisions. When the government assumes that responsibility, it takes away your freedom — and wasn’t freedom the very thing for which blacks in America were fighting? 

Thomas’s worldview made a prodigal return “to the real world.” In many eyes, though, this made him a traitor, for it positioned him as an opponent of programs advertised as pro-black.

Clarence Thomas Meets Thomas Sowell

Thomas was soon recruited by Missouri’s attorney general, John Danforth, a Yale alum. Danforth’s Republican affiliation posed a near-crisis of conscience for a man who’d recently voted for George McGovern and felt there was no such thing as a self-respecting black Republican.

After being assured of the same treatment as every other staffer, Thomas accepted a job offer, to the derision of his Yale classmates. While the position was intellectually satisfying, its meager salary soon sent him into the private sector, where he encountered the opposite dilemma: satisfying pay but meager opportunities for intellectual challenge.

Thomas then stumbled upon a book review of Thomas Sowell’s book, “Race and Economics,” which ended with this passage:

Perhaps the greatest dilemma in the attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful —  self-reliance, work skills, education, business experience —  are all slow developing, while those methods which are more direct and immediate —  job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment —  tend to undermine self-reliance and pride of achievement in the long run. If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes — and particularly attitudes of self-reliance.

Finally, Thomas knew he wasn’t alone: “I felt like a thirsty man gulping down a glass of cool water.” But with newfound confidence came another challenge: Danforth had recently been elected Missouri’s junior senator and wanted Thomas to join his staff. A job that could be used to benefit other people was appealing, but Thomas knew his heretical thinking would make him a target in scandal-hungry D.C.

Being a Target Almost Scared Thomas Off

Not long into his tenure on the Hill, the Reagan administration asked if Thomas would serve as the assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education. He almost didn’t. Washington Post reporter Juan Williams had recently published an article quoting Thomas as asserting welfare ruins blacks, mentioning his sister’s experience. The torrent of criticism that followed made him think twice about accepting a prominent executive branch position.

“Having felt the lash of public criticism, I questioned whether I had the strength —  or the courage — to stand in the eye of the howling storm that surrounded civil-rights policies,” he writes.

He was likewise beset when later nominated to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As chairman, Thomas oversaw a massive increase in anti-discrimination litigation, and ideologically driven attacks against his character intensified. These began exacting a toll, especially as a longstanding fondness for alcohol turned into a form of escapism. He even nursed thoughts of suicide, Thomas writes:

I [asked] myself whether I might do better to back away from my political beliefs. Life, I knew, would be so much easier if I went along with whatever was popular. What were my principles really worth to me? As I gazed out my office window at the Potomac River, the answer came instinctively: They’re worth my life. I spoke the words out loud, knowing at once that they were true.

When Thomas was later offered the nomination for Supreme Court justice, he knew it meant subjecting himself to abuse for not thinking as white senators thought black men should. He says he accepted only out of loyalty to then-President George H.W. Bush: “By then I’d shed the last of my illusions about white liberals: I knew that their broad-mindedness stopped well short of tolerating blacks who disagreed with them.”

The campaign against him featured charges of tax fraud, Confederate sympathies, anti-Semitism, patronizing a cult-like church, and, of course, sexual harassment. These wild allegations obscured the motivation behind the campaign. According to Thomas: “I refused to bow to the superior wisdom of the white liberals who thought they knew what was better for blacks. Since I didn’t know my place, I had to be put down.”

‘A Few Crumbs from the White Man’s Table’

For noting the correlation between welfare services and an entitlement mentality, Thomas has endured beyond-the-pale personal attacks. After defending himself against a Playboy article (“Reagan and the Revival of Racism”) with a letter to the editor, the article’s white author responded: “As a Southerner, Mr. Thomas is surely familiar with those ‘chicken-eating preachers’ who gladly parroted the segregationists’ line in exchange for a few crumbs from the white man’s table. He’s one of the few left in captivity.”

Not even civil-rights leaders criticized this racist broadside. “What I found inexplicable,” Thomas writes, “was that so many of the people who went out of their way to tell me how strongly they disapproved of my views seemed to think that the mere act of pointing out the human damage caused by welfare policies was wrong in and of itself. Would they have felt the same way if I’d said that I was opposed to drunk driving because my sister had been hit by a drunk driver?”

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policies that favored some races over others, Thomas issued a dissent imbued with personal experience:

The majority of blacks are admitted to the Law School because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the ‘beneficiaries’ of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry, or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement. The question itself is the stigma — because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed ‘otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination. 

After this decision New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said Thomas’s failure to appreciate racial preferences was hypocritical: “It’s impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself.” Toobin abused Thomas as a race traitor for his “intense resentment of efforts to help African-Americans.”

In 2002, five black law professors at the University of North Carolina boycotted a Thomas appearance, claiming: “[A]s a justice, he not only engages in acts that harm other African Americans like himself, but also gives aid, comfort, and racial legitimacy to acts and doctrines of others that harm African Americans unlike himself — that is, those who have not yet reaped the benefits of civil rights laws, including affirmative action, and who have not yet received the benefits of the white-conservative sponsorships that now empower him.”

Is the ‘Angry Black Man’ a Projection?

How could good-faith efforts at furthering blacks’ progress be met with such derision? Much of it stems from his critics’ perception of what motivates his opposition to their social-engineering experiments. Toobin, Dowd, and others ascribe this heterodoxy to a perceived servility to “powerful” “conservative” elites.

Dowd, imagining herself as Thomas, wrote of his opinion in Bush v. Gore: “I used to have grave reservations about working at white institutions, subject to the whims of white superiors. But when Poppy’s whim was to crown his son —  one of those privileged Yale legacy types I always resented — I had to repay The Man for putting me on the court even though I was neither qualified nor honest … But having the power to carjack the presidency and control the fate of the country did give me that old X-rated tingle.”

Others interpret Thomas as an ideological devotee to the take-it-as-it-comes judicial philosophy sometimes called “originalism” — a notion he’d reject.

“A philosophy that is imposed from without instead of arising organically from day-to-day engagement with the law isn’t worth having,” he writes. “Such a philosophy runs the risk of becoming an ideology, and I’d spent much of my adult life shying away from abstract ideological theories that served only to obscure the reality of life as it’s lived.”

Still, Thomas’s Supreme Court career is often blithely dismissed as the work of his ideological puppeteer, Scalia, supposedly because they often vote alike. In fact, according to ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg’s book “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story for Control of the United States Supreme Court,” it is Scalia who often changed his opinions to more closely reflect Thomas’s.

In 2005, University of Iowa Law Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig reported the court’s leftist justices were more likely to vote alike than Thomas and Scalia did, “with Justice Ginsburg agreeing in full with Justice Souter 85% of the time, Justice Souter agreeing with Justice Stevens 77% of the time, and Justice O’Connor agreeing with Chief Justice Rehnquist 79% of the time while Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia agreed in full only 73% of time.”

This notion that blacks choose not to think for themselves is not entirely foreign to these critics; The Times’s Dowd and Rich have joked that blacks who spoke at the Republican 2000 convention participated in a “minstrel show.”

It’s Old Racism in New Clothes

Thomas’s own explanation for his ideas is less conspiratorial. He thinks too many of these policies are premised on the idea that blacks are an inferior race. In 1995, the Supreme Court heard Missouri v. Jenkins, where the Kansas City school district was attempting to, in part, correct racial imbalances by opening schools catering to whites in a neighborhood they had long ago abandoned. In a concurring opinion, Thomas writes:

It never ceases to amaze me that the courts are willing to assume that anything that is predominately black must be inferior. Instead of focusing on remedying the harm done to those black schoolchildren injured by segregation, the District Court here sought to convert the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) into a ‘magnet district’ that would reverse the ‘white flight’ caused by desegregation. … Racial isolation itself not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. 

It’s unclear whether affirmative action supporters’ professed ideal of racial equality better represents their actual thinking than preferences’ implications of black inferiority. President Biden certainly didn’t help the former case when he speculated aloud to The Washington Post about why Iowa’s public schools outperform D.C.’s: “There’s less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.” More recently Biden said, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

Hurting Black Kids to Make White Adults Feel Better

The preoccupation with means over ends exacts a toll on blacks, says Thomas. By pursuing busing programs meant to intermix students usually at the expense of quality education, blacks are essentially being used as guinea pigs in the experiments of white social scientists. This not only is demoralizing, but suggests that without whites, blacks are hopeless.

Once more, blacks become reliant on whites, and a theory that tacitly assumes black inferiority helps make it real. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll finds that, with the Great Society 57 years deep, black Americans are historically pessimistic, with more than 80 percent viewing their race as an impediment. Curiously, the more educated the respondent, the more likely he was to see his race as an obstacle, and half say America will never achieve racial equity.

Whites, too, see less progress, per Pew, but are twice as likely to be optimistic. This suggests efforts at racial redress atone for white guilt twice as well as they do boosting black progress. For this reason, Thomas sometimes says, racial preferences are intended more for their sponsors than their recipients.

Perhaps conventional repulsion for Republicans explains why more blacks haven’t had similar re-appraisals to the government’s efforts to improve their lot. While skepticism of government social work may well be an aspect of conservative political philosophy, for Thomas, it’s merely an affirmation of his life’s experiences. He is “conservative,” in other words, because he is black.  

I Don’t Care What You Think. I Think for Myself

And it no longer matters what anybody says, a declaration he made in a 1998 Memphis speech. Speaking before the National Bar Association, a black lawyers group, Thomas did not apologize for his heretical beliefs. Instead, he said this:

I have come here today, not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to anger some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black. I come to state that I am a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I have come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others.

This attitude is clearly unhelpful to those promoting preferences. Thomas, after all, is right: Racial preferences tar reputations. He has achieved the uttermost prominence, yet no matter what he achieves, it seems, his critics still argue he owes everything to preferences.

Dowd began an article, “He knew he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.” Of Thomas’s nomination to the EEOC, Toobin says, “Though Thomas doesn’t say so directly, it’s clear he was given the job because he was black.”

Stripping pride from a man’s achievements is certainly an indecent thing. One wonders how Toobin would feel if it were constantly alleged that the only reason he got his job at CNN was because he’s a dyed-blue-in-the-wool Democrat. And how would Dowd respond to accusations that the only reason she owns premier real estate on The New York Times editorial page is because she’s a woman?

This claim effectively imparts ownership of racial-preference recipients’ achievements to those administering these programs. If that’s the choice —  diminished personal sovereignty, or liberty —  Thomas would rather be free, even if it means he fails. This is why Thomas began his Grutter v. Michigan opinion with a quote from his hero, Frederick Douglass:

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.

Thomas’s life has been a struggle to stand alone, and he knows there are others. He’s long nursed an urge to return to Georgia and help his old neighborhood. At a book-signing party, he was asked whether he’d prefer any job over his current assignment. He could think of only one: “a small or medium-sized business” somewhere in the South where he could “be a part of my community.”

Thomas has often passed up these opportunities on the belief that positions of greater prominence held greater capacity for reform. Yet each step has met ever greater condemnation —  sometimes infected with accusations of racial traitorship, always leading to the same regrettable conclusion: Black minds aren’t ready to be free.

But having untangled himself from the pull-strings of racial groupthink, leftist social dogma, political ideology, and popular opinion, Thomas was recently able to proclaim himself “the freest man on the court.” It’s this, his intellectual emancipation, that most infuriates his leftist critics. In proving their entire worldview fraudulent, Thomas continues to attract racist abuse because that’s all they have left to hurl.

Witnessing the way white progressives resort to racism the moment a black man breaks free from his intellectual shackles, surely younger black thinkers will realize there’s no value in accepting a set of beliefs simply because they were born a certain race. That would surely make Justice Thomas happy.


Tom Elliott is the founder and editor of Grabien. Follow him on Twitter @tomselliott.

Source

Neil Oliver Will Not Eat the Bugs

Neil Oliver Will Not Eat the Bugs

This week Neil Oliver talks about the new Utopia we are being instructed to accept.  A world in which there are no rights, only permissions.

Everything including the modification of diets and the eating of bugs and fake meat; to the type of carbon footprint home we are permitted, to the energy we may use or the acceptable car we must drive; permissions, assuming of course, our social media profile and accompanying score is in line with regulatory inspection.

Nope.  Not happening.  There are more of us than them.  We will not eat the bugs.  WATCH: 

[Transcript] – What’s being done to us, or tried on us at least, isn’t working … and it isn’t working and won’t work because what we’re being pushed to accept as the new world makes no sense. The supposed utopia we’re being promised – or, rather, having rammed down our throats – is one in which there is no universal truth, no absolute and trusted truth, but only personal truth that trumps all else.

There are to be no facts like those observed by biologists, just as a for instance, and only feelings based on personal preferences that change from day to day. It will be a world in which we might have no inalienable rights, rights we are born with – just permissions granted one by one by the state … and then only if we do as we are told and do without cars and warm homes and eat our bugs and fake meat and take our medicine on demand. It is a world in which 2+2 might equal 5 if some faceless, unelected bureaucrat says it does – and if any of us says no, 2+2 always and only equals 4, then our bank accounts won’t give us any money until we accept our arithmetical and moral error.

It is a world that makes no sense and that will not work, not for the likes of you and me. It will benefit the few, but it won’t work for the billions.

In the world of before some of us had tried to learn to treat our fellow citizens as equals, and to judge them only by the content of their characters. In the new world we are to be born stamped and cursed with the sins of our ancestors or burdened with the yoke of oppression that was borne on the shoulders of those that went before. And above all else, we are absolutely to judge, and be judged, by the colour of our skins.

This judging of a person by the colour of his or her skin is a glaring example of an idea that makes no sense and does not work.

The trail to the new world is being blazed by those who call themselves progressive. Among much else, progressives say they hate racism and that it is the duty of all of us to be actively anti-racist. Progressives say we must teach our youngest about white privilege, introduce critical race theory to the classroom.

But as soon as the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and put the individual states of America in control of laws on abortion, the progressive racist knives on the Left were out for a black judge named Clarence Thomas, one of the majority that struck down the 1973 ruling.

Thomas – only the second African American person to sit on the Supreme Court, and having occupied a place there since 1991 is, in the eyes of many who count themselves progressive, evidently the wrong sort of black man.

As a black African American, he ought, the progressives thought, to have belonged to them, and so done their bidding promptly and without hesitation. Justice Clarence Thomas however, had his own mind and made his own decision – which was not the one they wanted him to make.

All at once the N-word was back and being thrown in his face. On social media he was described, among other things, as just another dumb, field … I leave you to fill in the blank, starting with the letter N. He was called a … slave – again with the N-word as a prefix – an N-word slave to his white wife, who was called a nutcase, just for good measure. We might just cut to the chase and say Justice Clarence Thomas was called everything under the sun by the progressive, pro-choice/pro-abortion side of the debate.

Racism is one of the oldest sins of humankind. The N-word might be the ugliest name a human can call another human. In 20th century America the Ku Klux Klan hid their faces within white pointed hoods. In 21st century America it turns out progressive politics provide the necessary cover for naked racism.

Aside from feelings and opinions about abortion, deeply and passionately held – aside from the unforgivable return of one of the most offensive words in any language, and a slew of other racist insults too many to list – this behaviour by self-proclaimed progressives makes no sense – not least because it is simply inconsistent. It is also hypocrisy of the most obvious sort.

Let’s remember these are people who say they hate racism and racists. And yet the moment a man – a black African American man – did something they didn’t like – which is to say step out of line – the vilest manifestation of racist thinking was an instant, easy, comfortable fit in some of their mouths.

When President Joe Biden felt he had to respond to news of black people thinking about voting for Donald Trump at the last election he said of them:

“You ain’t black!”

It seems that in the minds of so-called progressives, from the White House on down, black Americans are to be seen and treated as a monolithic bloc that could and should be counted on to vote as one … specifically the Democrat, leftist, woke … “right” way. In those progressive minds, any black people who do otherwise, who break step with the herd, must have something wrong with them. If thinking that all members of a racial group can be counted on to think and act as one isn’t racist to the core … then I don’t know what is to be described as racist.

Many of those same racists who pilloried a black man for thinking and acting as he saw fit were also among those demanding bodily autonomy for women in the context of abortion. Where were they when women, and men, were losing their jobs for refusing the Covid-19 injections? Where were they when world leaders like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern and many others went out of their way to make life unbearable, unliveable for those millions who already understood bodily autonomy and had the courage to make it real by standing up straight and saying no to an unwanted medical procedure and damn the consequences? Where were those bodily-autonomy-demanding progressives then?

It doesn’t make sense, this proposed new world … this new world of say one thing and do another, where racists are evil incarnate until a black man thinks for himself and then quick as a flash the progressives sound like they’re looking for the bed sheets and the burning crosses.

Racism from the progressives might be the most egregious example of the new world making no sense, but it’s hardly alone.

World leaders in the west, for what they’re worth – which is absolutely nothing – are reciting from a hymn sheet, singing in perfect harmony about a world made green by ending fossil fuels.

Footage emerged this week of Canada’s PM, Blackface Trudeau, and our own Boris Johnson, laughing together at the G7 about who had arrived on the smallest jet plane.

They were laughing about their uninterrupted use of jet planes because to them the very subject is a joke. It’s a joke because for them nothing will change, while for us, the peasants, everything must change. Leaders like Trudeau and Johnson find the advent of this new reality very funny indeed, because it’s another opportunity to laugh at us – us every day folk, fearful about feeding our families, heating our homes, ever-rising inflation, that sort of thing.

The nonsense – or rather, the absolute absence of sense – trickles down from on high and puddles around the feet of the gullible and the hypocrites.

The Glastonbury music festival was the return of the annual pilgrimage of the woke and worthy – fittingly enough, at Worthy Farm of all places. It is the gathering, all in one place, of the hundreds of thousands who think they know best and are ready and able to part with hundreds of pounds just to get beyond the high fences and onto the holy ground. Talk about no borders.

When it was all over, they left in their woke wake uncountable tons of rubbish – single use plastic among it – scattered across the fields so that the farmland looked like a pop up landfill site. Best of all, the organisers had provided chargers for electric cars. The initial price to top up a virtue vehicle was 80 pounds … dropped to a bargain low of 50 pounds after complaints. But wait … the chargers were powered by … diesel generators. There, at the heart of the high church of woke, was the very life blood of Satan himself – filthy old diesel. A statement on behalf of the festival even said that using the farm’s own diesel power had been deemed less harmful – less harmful – to the environment than installing a Tesla supercharger.

On and on it goes, the litany of the nonsensical.

We’re told to fear overpopulation – when reproduction rates throughout the West are way below the level needed even to sustain present numbers. All across the globe – from the US to Spain to here in the UK to Singapore and to Japan – population numbers are set to fall off a cliff. Who will work to earn the taxes? Who will take care of the elderly? Countless questions and not enough people demanding answers. It makes no sense.

At a time in history when we have the technology and the ability to feed all 7 billion people on the planet and more besides, we have global food shortages, the promise of famines in the Third World. We have a fuel crisis while coal, gas and oil lie untapped under the lands of the west, and while nuclear power remains pariah in the minds of those who would rather the poor got poorer, the hungry got hungrier and the cold got colder. Boris Johnson and Joe Biden find yet more billions of pounds to send to Ukraine and won’t lift a finger to do anything meaningful to help their own people face the advent of crisis and hardship.

It makes no sense. It makes no sense because, and here’s the hardest pill to swallow, it’s not supposed to make sense. This is planned. This is on purpose. It’s supposed to make us do what we’re told. It’s supposed to make us stop asking impertinent questions and just submit to The Man. It’s supposed to divide us, one from another until everyone feels alone. It’s supposed to make us scared, angry, cold, hungry and sick to death. And when enough us are scared enough, angry enough, cold enough, hungry enough and sick enough or dead … we’re expected to welcome the new world with open, spindly, incessantly jabbed arms.

But here’s the thing, my prediction is that it won’t work, this new world. It won’t work because it takes no account of the human spirit – the human spirit that learned more than two thousand years ago why totalitarianism was the enemy of freedom and life itself. That human spirit is still alive and kicking, by the millions.

I’ll tell you this much right now – I want nothing of their new world and so I’m having none of it. I know right and wrong when I see them.

I will not eat the bugs.

I’ll see you on the other side.

Source

Nolte: CNN Lays Groundwork to Dismiss Announcement of Biden Recession as Racist

Nolte: CNN Lays Groundwork to Dismiss Announcement of Biden Recession as Racist

CNN, a far-left propaganda outlet that spreads conspiracy theories and political violence, is laying the ground to claim that any declaration of a recession is… racist.

Those of you waiting for CNN to change under new management? Suckas!

So as I’ve been telling you for the better part of a year now, America is headed into recession. Am I a genius? No. It’s just that I lack the sophistication necessary to look at record gas prices and record inflation and see any possible way around a recession. Trust me; you have to be awfully sophisticated to pull off that trick.

So His Fraudulency Joe Biden is already in deep dookie, and in about four months, the Democrat party as a whole will be in real trouble when the midterm results start pouring in. Moreover, CNN knows that our economy has already shrunk this last quarter by a whopping -1.6 percent and that if we shrink again during this second quarter, we are officially in a recession.

That’s how it works. Two consecutive quarters of shrinkage, and we’re in a recession.

So the big brains at CNN sat around and thought to themselves, How can we save the Democrat party? Hmmm?

What can we do here?

Well, we can’t convince people to halt the recession by urging them to go out and spend more.

No one listens to us anymore.

No one watches us, either.

Yeah, and mfffhhhg giopsdlllee jjfjlk

Stop talking with your mouth full, Brian.  

Hey, I know! How about that old standby: raaaaacccccciiiiiissssmmmm.

And so the desperate stupes at CNNLOL came up with this beauty of a headline….

Who decides if the US is in a recession? Eight White economists you’ve never heard of

And the 1400 or so words that follow are all about undermining any upcoming declaration of a recession as illegitimate because white people….

There is a clear lack of racial diversity amongst the eight members, and NBER has never had a member who has been a racial minority, according to Gary Hoover, co-chair of the American Economic Association Committee on the Status of Minority Groups in the Economics Profession.

[…]

In recent years there has been a push by policymakers and the Biden administration to include more diverse thinking in economic analysis.

Janet Yellen, America’s first woman Treasury secretary and its first woman Fed chair, has argued that the lack of women and minority economists at the Federal Reserve and the federal government is a top priority. That lack of diversity, she said, skews viewpoints and limits the issues of discussion.

This is not an opinion piece—I mean, it is an opinion piece, obviously, but it’s presented as news.

This is how desperate the corporate media now are….

Thanks only to left-wing policies (profligate federal spending, green nonsense exploding energy prices, etc.), things are so objectively bad in America — and the corrupt media’s credibility and moral authority are so eroded — that all CNN can come up with is naked nihilism to push back on the coming declaration that the United States is officially in a recession—which will be an objective fact.

A political sticker mocking President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris is seen next to a gas pump display showing a transaction in Los Angeles, Monday, March 7, 2022. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

All they can do is respond with the nihilism of hurling accusations of racism at objective facts.

They got nothing else.

You can see the cable news segments now…

These are white people telling us we’re in a recession. If there was a Cherokee lesbian with a harelip in that group, we might discover the economy is booming.

And…

We’re in a recession.

That’s racist.

But the economy shrunk two quarters in a row.

That’s racist.

Yeah, math is racist. 

And how condescending and insulting to suggest that a racial minority would say anything different, would ignore an objective fact.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Source

Justice Thomas: The Laws on Abortion and Interracial Marriage

Justice Thomas: The Laws on Abortion and Interracial Marriage

Samuel K. Jackson took a potshot at Justice Clarence Thomas, without understanding the legal foundations of his judgement. Here is a cogent summary of the majority opinion’s reasoning in the recent Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade.

Ever since the Supreme Court in the United States overruled Roe v. Wade, many people throughout the world have gone apoplectic in expressing their “devastation and terror” at not being able to legally kill their unborn children. Take for instance the actor Samuel L. Jackson, who tweeted in response to Justice Clarence Thomas:

tweet to Justice Thomas

Jackson acerbically referring to Justice Thomas as ‘Uncle Clarence’ would never be excused if the same slur had been uttered by a white man. But since Jackson is black — and immensely privileged — he gets a free pass. What’s more, the hashtag #UncleClarence is allowed to trend on Twitter without being ‘ruled’ offensive. All the while Donald Trump, the man responsible for appointing the three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, remains banned.

For those not familiar, to refer to an African-American man as an ‘Uncle’ is a reference to the eponymous character in the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by the abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom was widely seen as being overly compliant and subservient to his white masters. To refer to Justice Thomas as “Uncle Clarence”, then, is to accuse him of not being able to think for himself.

Significantly, the legal case which Jackson is referring to is the historic decision of the US Supreme Court — Loving v. Virginia (1967) — which ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and, in particular, the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The amendment simply states:

No State shall deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law.

Justice Clarence Thomas and wifeThe reason why Jackson’s reference to this decision is pertinent is because Justice Thomas argued in his concurring statement regarding the use of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses that, “in all future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive (this particular adjective is crucial, and I’ll return to in a minute) due process precedents”. And this would obviously have implications for a law that affects his own inter-racial marriage, calling that into question as well.

This has caused me to go back and read the concurring statement of Justice Thomas to try and understand his legal reasoning. The full ruling and various concurring statements can be found here. Sadly, it seems that very few are likely to engage with the document in question. And so, what follows is my own attempt to summarise and explain the argument of Justice Thomas.

The Due Process Clause Has Been Weaponised Politically

The original intention of the Framers in adding this amendment, was so that a person could not be denied their life, liberty or property without due legal process. As Justice Thomas states:

Considerable historical evidence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty or property.

However, in the infamous Roe vs. Wade, the Due Process Clause was given the “gain of function” ability (i.e. politically weaponised) to argue that a woman has the legal right to have an abortion. This was because to forbid her from doing so, would be to deny her fundamental right of ‘liberty’ i.e. the freedom to kill her unborn child. But as Justice Thomas rightly comments:

The idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.

Can the Due Process Clause Outlaw Abortion?

While Justice Thomas doesn’t ever mention this, it could be argued that the Due Process Clause extends to an unborn person the legal protection for their life while in utero. And that this right to life cannot be rescinded “without due process to law”. But of course, as they are not yet born — or able to for quite a few years afterwards — they are not able to request their own legal representation.

Interestingly, Justice Kavanaugh argues that the Constitution does not impact the issue of abortion at all, and that the matter should be decided only on a state-by-state basis. In his own concurring statement, Justice Kavanaugh writes:

Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocated for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion.

Process vs Substance

The most that the Due Process Clause guarantees is that of legal process. It does not forbid the government from ever taking away a person’s right to life, liberty or property. It simply ensures that this cannot be done without due process. To say that the clause addresses the substance of one’s rights though, rather than the process of legal recourse is, Thomas believes, a judicial red herring. As Justice Thomas goes on to argue, such a reading of the Due Process Clause:

… strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.

The resolution of this case is straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

The Same Mistake Applies to Rulings on Other Laws

Justice Thomas addresses the question of other Supreme Court decisions which used the Due Process Clause to federally legislate on other issues, in particular, federal rulings regarding contraception and gay marriage. Any previous decision, such as these, and which functions now as a precedent for a “substantive due process” decision, should be reconsidered. This is because any legal reasoning relying on the substantive due process interpretation is, according to Thomas, “demonstrably erroneous”.

What Justice Thomas is taking aim at here is not the issues themselves — abortion, contraception, gay, or even interracial marriage — but the legal reasoning behind why those laws were passed. His argument is that it is always wrong to use the Due Process Clause substantively because it was only concerned with process. That is clearly, what the original Framers intended when they wrote it.

Three Key Dangers

Justice Thomas doubles down on the incorrect judicial use of the Due Process Clause, saying that “apart from being a demonstrably incorrect reading of the Due Process Clause, the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process is ‘particularly dangerous’”. Justice Thomas then goes on to highlight three distinct dangers:

1.      It Exalts Judges over the People

According to Justice Thomas, applying the Due Process Clause substantively “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority”. In other words, the personal opinions of judges — rather than the collective convictions of the People — become supreme. As the Supreme Court recently ruled, the right to have an abortion is not addressed at all in the Constitution. Hence, “The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.”

2.      It Distorts Other Areas of Constitutional Law

Justice Thomas persuasively argues that: “Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments.” This is because, “once the Court identifies a ‘fundamental’ right for one class of individuals, it invokes the Equal Protection Clause to demand exacting scrutiny of statutes that deny the right to others”.

For example, the Substantive Due Process Clause was used to invalidate a state statute that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. Meanwhile, “statutory classifications implicating certain “nonfundamental” rights, receive only cursory review” such as the Supreme Court case involving sewer treatment projects.

3.      It is Often Wielded to “Disastrous Ends”

In the infamous Dred Scott case, “the Court invoked a species of substantive due process to announce that Congress was powerless to emancipate slaves brought into the federal territories”. Significantly, this decision “was overruled on the battlefields of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after Appomattox”. In the words of Justice Thomas, the overruling of this decision “was purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering” which wasn’t needed because the legal reasoning in support of Dred Scott was erroneous.

Similarly, in the 49 years since Roe vs Wade was passed into law, 63 million American lives have been lost. And these are all a result of spurious legal reasoning based on a substantive reading of the Due Process Clause. As Justice Thomas soberly concludes, “The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Conclusion: A ‘Substantive’ Reading of the Due Process Clause Must be Eliminated

Justice Thomas concludes that the substantive reading of the due process clause “conflicts with the textual command” of the Fourteenth Amendment and “has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity”.

While the issue of interracial marriage is not addressed by Justice Thomas, from my cursory reading and understanding, this ruling would also be likely overturned. Not because it is right or wrong ‘substantively’, but because the legal reasoning behind such a rule is fallacious. As with abortion, contraception and gay marriage, this wouldn’t automatically make interracial marriage illegal per se. Instead, it would send the issue back to the individual states to decide.

While I’m not an American, it seems to me that Justice Thomas is correct. None of these matters is an issue to be decided by the Constitution, and as such political activists need to be prevented from misusing and abusing their country’s legal documents for their own agendas. That includes whites and blacks, Christians and atheists, Muslims and agnostics because the law is the law. No one is above the law and neither is anyone beneath it.

___

Photo: Clarence Thomas and Virginia Lamp, 1987

Thank the Source

Lidia Thorpe and the “Blessing” of Australian Colonisation

Lidia Thorpe and the “Blessing” of Australian Colonisation

Was colonisation a wholly evil thing, or has it been, on balance, beneficial for the indigenous peoples of Australia? This question merits serious consideration, as progressives denigrate our monarch and our nation for supplanting the savagery of yore.

Not so long ago, it used to be that the ultimate cultural putdown was to label someone as being ‘un-Australian’. But at least amongst political parties such as the Greens, this is now being viewed as a virtue. Just take the recent comments by Greens Senator, Lidia Thorpe, who has labelled Queen Elizabeth II as a “coloniser”.

When asked to clarify how she can hold this position as an elected representative of the Australian people, Thorpe is reported to have said that she was only in parliament to ‘infiltrate’ the ‘colonial project’ and so destroy it from within. Significantly, fellow indigenous woman, Senator Jacinta Price, has called on the Governor-General to consider whether Thorpe should be removed from parliament.

Clearly, even the idea of ‘colonisation’ is no longer in vogue and seen as being deeply offensive. Which is also why in 2017, when Bruce Gilley — a professor of political science at Portland State University — published a double-peer-reviewed article, ‘The Case for Colonialism’ in Third World Quarterly, a massive controversy broke out.

Thousands of academics signed two separate petitions insisting that the article be retracted, that the journal issue a public apology, and that the editor(s) responsible for its publication be sacked. Due to credible threats of violence(!) as well as personal and professional attacks against Gilley, the article was subsequently withdrawn both in print and also online. So much for academic freedom and the courageous inquiry for truth, however unpleasant it may be.

Thankfully, the article has since been re-published online by Springer Media, and it makes for fascinating reading. Significantly, Gilley argues that contrary to popular belief, colonization did far more good than harm. As Gilley states:

Research that is careful in conceptualizing and measuring controls, that establishes a feasible counterfactual, that includes multiple dimensions of costs and benefits weighted in some justified way, and that adheres to basic epistemic virtues often finds that at least some, if not many or most, episodes of western colonization were a net benefit, as the literature review by Juan and Pierskalla shows.

What’s more, Gilley then goes on to further argue:

Such works have found evidence for significant social, economic, and political gains under colonialism: expanded education; improved public health; the abolition of slavery; widened employment opportunities; improved administration; the creation of basic infrastructure; female rights; enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded communities; fair taxation; access to capital; the generation of historical and cultural knowledge; and national identity formation, to mention just a few dimensions.

What if Colonisation in Australia Never Occurred?

Unfortunately, there has been very little to no research on the positive contribution that colonisation has made to the Australian context. But now is probably a good time to pause and pose the question, ‘What would our nation be like if colonisation never occurred?’ Would it be a utopia of Afrofuturism that so many progressives like Thorpe believe?

I recently came across a statement by Professor Manning Clark who, in the original edition of his classic, A History of Australia (1962), wrote:

Civilisation did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the eighteenth century… The early inhabitants of the Continent created cultures, but not civilisations.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, subsequent editions have expunged the offending paragraph, which says more about the black armed band politics of Clark’s day, than it does about the accuracy of the historical record.

I then decided to re-read the internationally feted Time Magazine art critic Robert Hughes’s masterpiece, The Fatal Shore (1986). Hughes received both the Duff Cooper Prize and W. H. Smith Literary Award for this work. What especially struck me were his observations of the Iora people living in the Sydney region at the time. Significantly, Hughes came to the same conclusion as Clark, stating:

Aborigines… lived in a state approaching that of primitive communism… What, in short, was “noble” about these “savages”? The Tahitians could be seen as the last survivors of the classical Golden Age; with their fine canoes and intricate ornaments, strict rankings and plentiful supply of free coconuts, they clearly had superfluity, the paradisiacal ancestor of property, as well as strong class instincts to back it up… The Tahitians might live like prelapsarian beings, illiterate Athenians; compared to them, the Iora were Spartans. They exemplified “hard” primitivism… (14-15)

Hughes’ work is no longer politically correct, and would almost definitely fail the newspeak criteria currently in vogue at many of our leading tertiary institutions, but it nonetheless seeks to provide a factual and unvarnished snapshot of the cultural standards of that time. Indeed, three decades after its publication, The Fatal Shore remains the most influential work of popular Australian history written as well as one of the most widely read.

What follows is a summary of Hughes’ description of aboriginal life at the time of the First Fleet with the pertinent page numbers to the 1987 edition in brackets. Each point illustrates what has been achieved through British colonisation.

1. Government

‘The Australians divided themselves into tribes… The tribe did not have a king, or charismatic leaders, or even a formal council. It was linked together by a common religion, by language and by an intricate web of family relationships…’ (9)

2. Treatment of Women

‘… the unalterable fact of their tribal life was that women had no rights at all and could choose nothing. A girl was usually given away as soon as she was born. She was the absolute property of her kin until marriage, whereupon she became the equally helpless possession of her husband. Before and after [marriage], she was merely a root-grubbing, shell-gathering chattel, whose social assets were wiry arms, prehensile toes and a vagina…

As a mark of hospitality, wives were lent to visitors whom the Iora tribesmen wanted to honour… If a woman showed the least reluctance to be used for any of these purposes, if she seemed lazy or gave her lord and master any other cause for dissatisfaction, she would be furiously beaten or even speared.’ (16)

3. Written Language

‘… it had no writing, but instead a complex structure of spoken and sung myth whose arcana were gradually passed on by elders to the younger men.’ (9)

4. Architecture

‘They were far more backward than any Bedouin or Plains Indian. They used what they could find: the sandstone caves of the harbour shores, with sheets of bark propped up for crude “humpies.”’ (13)

5. Agriculture 

‘… that the Iora had no conception of agriculture. They neither sowed nor reaped; they appear to have wrought no changes on the face of the country. They were seen as culturally stative primitives lightly wandering in an ecologically static landscape, which seemed to eliminate any claims they might have had to prior ownership.’ (12)

6. Technology

‘Compared to an American Indian birch canoe, they were unstable craft and wretchedly crude, “by far the worst canoes I ever saw or heard of… They had neither outriggers nor sails (the Iora were ignorant of weaving); low in the water, they flexed with every ripple and leaked like sieves.’ (11)

7. Literature & Religion

‘… they had few of the external signs of religious belief: no temples or altars or priests, no venerated images set up in public places, no evidence of sacrifice or (apart from the corroborees) of communal prayer.’ (17)

8. Education & Art

‘… they scratched crude patterns on the walls that may be the first works of art ever made in the southern hemisphere — the merest graffiti, compared to the later achievements of aboriginal rock-painting, but clear evidence of some primal artistic intent.’ (9)

9. Health Care 

‘Since the Iora never washed, they spent their lives coated with a mixture of rancid fish oil, animal grease, ochre, beach sand, dust and sweat. They were filthy and funky in the extreme.’ (14)

10. Military 

‘Skirmishing with other clans, or with foreign tribes along the frontier between tribal territories, was an inevitable fact of nomadic life… They had no “specialist” army. They recognized no distinction between fighters and civilians, or between hunter and warrior.’ (15)

11. Currency 

No property, no money or any other visible medium of exchange; no surplus or means of storing it, hence not even the barest rudiment of the idea of capital; no outside trade, no farming, no domestic animals except half-wild camp dingoes; no houses, clothes, pottery or metal; no division between leisure and labour, only a ceaseless grubbing and chasing for subsistence foods.’ (14)

12. Acts of ‘Compassion’

‘To get rid of surplus children, the Iora, like all other Australian tribes, routinely induced abortions by giving the pregnant women herbal medicines or, when these failed, by thumping their bellies. If these measures failed, they killed the unwanted child at birth. Deformed children were smothered or strangled. If a mother died in childbirth, or while nursing a child in arms, the infant would be burned with her after the father crushed its head with a large stone.’ (17)

The Greatest Blessing of All

Reviewing each of these twelve categories shows just how far as a civilisation and culture all of Australia has come. And the fact that people like Lidia Thorpe and Jacinta Price can be elected to federal parliament illustrates that there is no program of systemic racism occurring here.

But, without question, the greatest blessing of all to indigenous Australians has been the preaching of the Gospel. According to the 2016 survey compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

The 2016 Census showed that there were broad similarities in the religious affiliation of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population and the non-Indigenous population. Overall, 54% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples reported a Christian affiliation, almost the same proportion as the non-Indigenous population (55%).

In 2016, less than 2% of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population reported adherence to Australian Aboriginal Traditional religions or beliefs. This has remained steady over the last 20 years.

Significantly, this means that a staggering 98% of indigenous Australians have abandoned their traditional religious beliefs, with the overwhelming majority still identifying with Christianity (and historically this figure was even higher).

As any Christian would affirm, the greatest blessing of all is to receive the good news of salvation. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by whom we must be saved (see Acts 4:12; John 14:6). And if colonisation never occurred in Australia, then neither would the spread of Christianity. But, once again, this has to be the greatest blessing of all.

___

Image: Painting by E. Phillips Fox depicting the landing of Lieutenant James Cook, Royal Navy, at Botany Bay, 29 April 1770.

Thank the Source

The Arguments in Favour of Abortion and Slavery

There is a close parallel between the racist reasoning of those who advocated for African-American slavery, and the amoral arguments used today in support of abortion. And especially to many civil rights advocates, the connection between the two issues couldn’t be more clear. As Norma McCorvey — the plaintiff for the now rescinded Roe vs. Wade — argued before a US Senate Committee:

When slavery was constitutional we treated one class of humans as property. We are treating the humans in the mother’s womb as property and less than human when we say it is OK to kill them.

What follows then are five arguments people have used historically for both slavery and abortion. And what will become quickly obvious is, as Gina Dimuro has observed, just how “oddly egalitarian defences of chattel slavery”. For those who are interested, Justin Buckley Dyer, has written an excellent book, Slavery, Abortion and the Politics of Constitutional Meaning (Cambridge University Press, 2013) in which he explores the nexus between the numerous historical, philosophical and constitutional realities shared by both issues.

1.     My Property, My Choice

One of the most common arguments used by those who favour abortion is that only those with a uterus can have an opinion on the issue, immediately silencing 50% of the population. But the same logic was used in favour of retaining slavery. If you didn’t own a large estate, then what right did someone else have to tell you how to run it?

Indeed, it was considered to be of no concern to women, who didn’t have the right to vote in the United States until fifty-five years after the abolition of slavery. What’s more, no one was forcing anyone else to purchase slaves. If you didn’t agree with slavery, then the answer was the same as not having an abortion. Simply don’t purchase one!

2.     The Priority of Human Autonomy

For the woman who is pro-choice, the baby is merely an appendage within her own body, whereas for the man who was pro-slavery, it was that the negro was the material possession of his master, and therefore, his own private property. Note how both of these issues, though, are framed as being fundamentally personal decisions — underpinned with a latent racism and sexism — that no other individual has the right to speak into. As Jesse Jackson, the African-American civil rights leader once argued:

If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.

3.     It’s all about ‘Health Care’

This argument is more than a little disingenuous; even some feminists are now openly acknowledging that terminating a pregnancy is a conscious act of killing. But one of the main reasons for retaining the practice of slavery was because it was also seen as actually being in the slave’s own best interests! For example, in 1850 George Fitzhugh wrote a popular essay titled, The Universal Law of Slavery, argued:

We would remind those who deprecate and sympathize with negro slavery, that his slavery here relieves him from a far crueller slavery in Africa, or from idolatry and cannibalism, and every brutal vice and crime that can disgrace humanity; and that it… protects, supports and civilizes him; that it governs him far better than free labourers at the North are governed… Our negroes are not only better off as to physical comfort than free labourers, but their moral condition is better.

4.     Securing Greater Personal Freedoms

The benefit of having an abortion is often promoted to women as giving them the opportunity to complete a tertiary degree and hence enjoy a more lucrative career. But almost exactly the same argument was used for maintaining the practice of slavery in Western society. What’s more, there was a tremendous fear that the abolition of slavery would result in widespread unemployment and economic chaos.

And so, just as abortionists believe that it is better for the child to be put to death before they’re born rather than raised in an unsuitable social environment, so too it was argued that it was better for negroes to be slaves rather than left to themselves.

5.     A ‘Fetus’ and a ‘Slave’ are Non-Persons

This strategy of dehumanisation was established within slavery via the Dred Scott legal decision, which ruled that negroes were not actually American citizens. Whereas when it comes to abortion, the developing child is routinely referred to as a ‘fetus’, and never as a ‘baby’, let alone as a person.

This was because many people believed in some form of social evolution, where whites were more developed racially. Indeed, it’s not without significance that Charles Darwin’s magnum opus, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (1850) carried the subtitle, “Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”.

Clearly, the scientific zeitgeist of the age was inherently racist, and this overflowed into how people thought not just about slavery, but also into the eugenics of family planning. As the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once wrote:

It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.

The Democratic Support of Slavery and Abortion

It’s not without significance that historically, the greatest supporters of abortion and slavery have been the Democratic Party in America. Historically, the current US President, Joe Biden, not only supported segregationists, but actively supported their cause. And when it comes to championing abortion, Biden recently said:

Let me be very clear and unambiguous. The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose — and the balance that existed — is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe vs.     Wade as federal law. No executive action from the President can do that.

And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard. This Fall you must elect more senators and representatives who will codify into law a woman’s right to choose into Federal law…

This Fall Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty and equality. They’re all on the ballot.

Until then I will do all in my power to protect a women’s right in states who will face the consequences of today’s decision.

Clearly, nothing has changed. And the arguments for retaining slavery and abortion have more in common with each other than most people think. But as Dr Alveda King — the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr — once said:

Slavery is wrong… [and] that baby — and I know this first-hand — is a slave in the womb of his or her mother.

___

Photo by Anna Shvets.

Thank the Source

The WHO Renames the Monkeypox

The WHO Renames the Monkeypox

Is the term “monkeypox” offensive? Does it cause discrimination against Africans? Monkeys are endemic to Asia too…

The World Health Organisation has decided to rebrand, er, rename the monkeypox.

WHO boss Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus said last week a new name was needed to avoid fuelling ‘discrimination and stigma’.

Discrimination against monkeys? Really?

What about chooks? Should we rename chickenpox, or do they fall afoul of government inaction because of where they sit in the pecking order?

Is smallpox offensive to people under 5’2? Won’t someone think of the midgets?

Clearly, I’m not taking this very seriously. And why should I?

What does it say about the age in which we live that an international group of 29 scientists from such distinguished institutions as Oxford University got together, not to come up with a monkeypox cure, but to call for a name change?

Could there be a better illustration of the lunacy of the age in which we have been doomed to live?

Can we cure the monkeypox? Absolutely not. But don’t worry, we can come up with a meaningless gesture to salve the hurt feelings of… monkeys.

The WHO will use funds to change the name of the disease rather than to stop it. I’m guessing a lot of first-class flights will be required to make the name change happen.

Trust the science, as they say!

You’d think that after the Covid fiasco, the WHO would be working hard to rebuild its credibility, not further diminish it.

Rather than cure the monkeypox, they’re going to cancel it! What could be more 2022?

Antiracism

According to the WHO, the name monkeypox suggests the virus now circulating in countries such as the UK and the US is African.

So the “anti-racists” want to change the name of the virus to stop Africans from coming to mind when they hear the word monkey. Tell me again who the racists are?

The WHO also want the media to use more photos of white people covered in lesions, caused by whatever they are going to call the disease whose name cannot be spoken for fear that the proles cannot hear it without their inner racist being aroused.

This would be the first time in years that I’ve heard elites demand people of colour not be represented.

monkeypox vaccine

When the WHO warns that the name monkeypox creates a certain stigma, I suspect it means too many people are making fun of the disease rather than being sufficiently frightened.

Cause for Concern?

A WHO committee will meet on June 23 to discuss whether the outbreak should be recognised as a global health emergency.

The Guardian ran an article on Wednesday headed: “Monkeypox Virus: What are the Symptoms and Should Australians Be Worried?

Cue scary music.

I immediately donned a mask and started to read, only to learn in the third paragraph that just three monkeypox cases have been reported in Australia.

Stop scary music.

You can see why a new rebranding is urgently needed.

Flying Monkeypox” could work. Or they could just go all out and call it the “Run-For-Your-Lives-Pox”.

MegaDeathPox” for short.

If it’s not so much fear they are trying to instil as action, the WHO could always rebrand it as Covidpox. All the Covidians would immediately double-mask and gleefully line up for never ending jabs, demonising anyone who didn’t.

Big Pharma could sell hastily prepared vaccines — that offer no protection against catching or spreading the virus — to all the countries of the world, where citizens would be forced to take them every three months.

Just drop the “k” and call it the “Moneypox”.

___

Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.
Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by Magda Ehlers.

Thank the Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)