Saturday Sanity Check
Does it seem to you like the world has lost its mind? It has!
A New Zealand government committee has produced a report arguing that schools must ensure Maori folklore and science must be given equal importance.
Kiss the enlightenment goodbye.
Science has, for some years now, been kissing up to every woke fad.
There was a time when scientists split the atom. We live in times when science can’t even say what a woman is!
These days science seems to be just made up to placate every identity group that feels aggrieved.
We don’t want to upset transgendered people so, let’s pretend we don’t know what a woman is.
We don’t want to upset pro-choice people, so let’s pretend we’re not sure if she’s pregnant with a human being or with something else.
We don’t want to upset environmentalists, so let’s nod seriously at the study finding climate change increases domestic violence.
We don’t want to upset indigenous people, so let’s pretend shadows cast on a cave wall from a flickering fire was the first cinema.
Appreciating ancient cultures does not mean giving them equivalence with modern science.
You can’t say indigenous people invented the GPS 50,000 years ago when they first looked up into the stars.
It’s not just ridiculous. It’s racist. It’s the racism of low expectations. It’s the racism that comes from believing indigenous people are so sensitive and so insecure and so desperate for recognition that we must take ancient folklore and shoehorn it into modern science in order for them to feel appreciated.
It’s commonly said ‘Go woke, go broke’. It is also proving true ‘Go woke, go racist’.
CULTURAL elites have described attempts to cancel a talk about bestiality at Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas as “a throwback to the 1950s.”
The NSW goverment funded festival is due to host UK academic Joanna Bourke talking about sex between humans and animals. But after the schedule was criticised in the media - including on Sky TV’s The World According to Rowan Dean - the Arts Minister moved to have it scrapped.
Author and journalist David Marr, speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald last week, said …
“This is the 1950s. This is people saying a decent state doesn’t tolerate indecent talk. This is people saying somehow the state will collapse if dirty talk is allowed. Hello, 1955.”
I’d say it’s a pretty solid argument for the 1950s!
BLACKFACE - using theatrical makeup to transform a white person into a caricature of a black person - is considered one of the worst forms of racism.
High profile people such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, actor Tom Hanks and late night TV host Jimmy Fallon have all issued grovelling apologies for having worn or been associated with blackface.
Mr Trudeau said …
“I should never have done it. I ask for forgiveness.”
Tom Hanks said …
“I was blindsided when one of the parents got up on the stage in a costume that was hideously offensive then and is hideously offensive now."
Jimmy Fallon said …
“I am very sorry for making this unquestionably offensive decision and thank all of you for holding me accountable.”
So you get the idea. Blackface is bad. Very bad.
But what about womanface?
If it is wrong for a white man to use makeup to transform himself into a caricature of a black man, is it also wrong for a man to use make up and wigs and dresses to transform himself into a caricature of a woman?
If one is racist, is not the other misogynistic?
Cathy Boardman, a lecturer in cultural studies at a prominent UK music academy has been sacked for daring to ask students to contemplate that very question.
Bosses at the BIMM Institute, which has links to Sussex University, told her this was a 'deeply sensitive' subject and that transgender students had been left upset.
Ms Boardman told The Daily Mail:
'Essentially, I've been fired for doing my job. We are supposed to look at things from different perspectives. If we don't, what is the point of university? Educational institutions are doing students a disservice by claiming they are not capable of critical thought or being challenged. The sad fact is there is now a climate of fear on our campuses.'
Remember, Boardman wasn’t fired to saying womanface was wrong. She was fired for asking university students what they thought!
THE GREENS are demanding the government places a two year freeze on rent increases in order to fix rental affordability.
I’m demanding the government declares world peace and places a two year freeze on war.
I’m also demanding my twin 17-year-old sons clean up their room.
None of these things are going to happen!
Last time I checked the title deed of my property the name Adam Bandt was not there!
If the Greens owned anything they would know that landlords have outgoings too! Rates are up, insurance is up, mortgage repayments are up, water is up, body corporate fees are up and maintenance costs are up.
If landlords don’t pass some or even most of these costs on to their tenants they will be unable to afford the property which will then be repossessed by the bank.
Then no-one wins. The renter has nowhere to live and the landlord loses his investment.
The Greens would know that most landlords are not property tycoons. They are typically mum and dad investors and are struggling with their own mortgage but decided to take a step of faith and purchase an investment property as a way of securing their future.
Maybe this is the Greens plan. They are always talking about taxing billionaires. They want to destroy the middle class as well.
And here’s another thing. A freeze on rental income rises, even to keep pace with CPI, would prove a massive disincentive for people to invest in properties. Less investors means less houses for people to rent, driving up rental prices. Thus the very thing the Greens seek to fix is actually exacerbated by their ‘solution’.
I had to laugh when I read about all of this in the Daily Mail. The headline said:
“The Greens demand a two year rent freeze .. but the plan could have dire consequences.”
Have you ever heard of a Greens plan that didn’t have dire consequences?
A SYDNEY Council has been questioned about council employees being given time during work hours for playing board games, pot planting, meditating and learning to cook.
The plan is apparently run by one of those companies that helps organisations increase staff job satisfaction.
Personally, I think the council could have used the thousands of dollars the touchy-feely job satisfaction program would have cost them to raise staff salaries. Job satisfaction would have instantly improved.
It used to be ‘a fair days pay for a fair day’s work’. These days it’s ‘a fair days pay for a fair day’s work IF council workers have time left over after they conclude their self-actualising therapy sessions’.
The Religious Man of the 1950s gave way to the Economic Man of the 1980s who has now given way to the Therapeutic Man insisting he cannot work in the council admin department unless he gets time off for arts and crafts.
If you asked my grandfather about job satisfaction, he probably wouldn’t have understood the question. Pressed, he likely would have said his job enabled him to put food on the table and shoes on his children’s feet.
If you ask millennials about job satisfaction, they will probably say (if they’re happy in their job) that they derive a lot of joy and pleasure from what they do.
Author Carl Trueman, in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, says this change of focus is profound.
Whilst my grandfather’s job was all about looking outward to his community, this current generation’s job is all about gazing inward to their feelings.
A generation ago, therapy was to help people to socialise and reconnect with society. These days therapy is to protect people from a society that is trying to inhibit and squash their individuality. It’s about helping them to express themselves.
And so staff members come to work, not to produce a product, but to actualise themselves. Work becomes less a production line, than a performative space.
Missiles flying across the Taiwan Strait should fix this.
AMERICAN magazine Popular Science promoted an article this week arguing that “sex isn’t nearly as binary as you think it is” because, well, avocados.
Avocado flowers, you see, contain both male and female parts. And they operate sequentially, female one day, male the second.
So there you go.
Biological men should be able to dominate college girl’s swim meets and be accommodated in women’s emergency shelters.
Follow the science.
I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, ‘Likening transgendered people to avocados is a bit rich.’
And you’re also thinking, ‘Wait, when did a male avocado ever try to pass itself off as a female swimmer? Or a weightlifter? And when was the last time a male avocado walked around naked in a female change room?’
The answer, of course, is never.
I’m not a biologist, but I’m pretty sure avocados are fruit, not human.
It’s for this reason that even the most ardent LGBTQ activist has never said to his or her detractors: “If you doubt that I’m non-binary, go read up on avocados!”
Avocados can self pollinate. Avocados can also be the primary ingredient for guacamole. We can’t do either of those things.
If humans were avocados, then of course we’d be able to flower as male one day and as female the next. We would also be poisonous to some birds. And 30 per cent of us would come from Mexico.
Some scientists - by which I mean all scientists other than those responsible for the Popular Science article - say humans and avocados are different.
If true, this would mean that avocado sexuality, while interesting, should not be used as a guide for human sexuality.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying the popular fruit is completely irrelevant to the trans debate. Smashed avocado on toast makes a great snack whilst discussing gender and sex.
Popular Science magazine? More like pseudo-science, with a side of avocado.
THE FBI told Facebook and Twitter executives that they were worried about Russian interference in the 2020 election.
They said they believed there was about to be “some sort of dump” of Russian propaganda. They asked Big Tech to be “vigilant” and “on high alert”.
The FBI did not mention anything specific. But we know they were aware of the Hunter Biden laptop in 2019. We also know that the FBI would have been aware that the Hunter Biden laptop was real.
How fascinating then, that when the New York Post published the Hunter Biden laptop story, Big Tech immediately recognised that it was probably the Russian propaganda dump the FBI had warned them about.
What were the odds?
The laptop story was not propaganda or misinformation. It was legitimate. The laptop contained documents showing that Hunter Biden’s had been trading on the family name while his father was US Vice President to make millions of dollars from foreign countries including China and the Ukraine.
Information on the laptop also gave reason for suspicion that Joe Biden himself might have been in on the dodgy business dealings.
Twitter, having been warned of a Russian dump by the FBI, banned the story from being shared so that users could never see it on their platform.
Facebook adjusted their algorithms so that a significant number of users could never see it.
And so most Americans voted at the US election having been denied vital information about the Democrat candidate; information that around 20 per cent of Biden voters said would have changed their vote had they known about it.
If you’re not prepared to call that election interference - by the FBI and by Big Tech - then what on earth would you call it?
A PODCASTING convention aimed at promoting “diverse speakers, education and networking” has issued a grovelling apology for allowing Ben Shapiro being on site.
Convention organisers, who’s event brings together podcasters from around America, issued a statement yesterday saying:
Hi folks, we owe you an apology before sessions kick off for the day. Yesterday afternoon, Ben Shapiro briefly visited the PM22 expo area near The Daily Wire booth. Though he was not registered or expected, we take full responsibility for the harm done by his presence.
They didn’t apologise for something Shapiro did.
They didn’t apologise for something Shapiro said.
They apologised for the “harm done by his presence”!
Maybe this is a clue as to what happened …
Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator whose podcast is the ninth most listened to podcast in America. He is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire. He is an outspoken critic of trans ideology.
If the complainant had balls rather than a uterus, she might not have been man enough to cope with Ben Shapiro’s presence.
As a sane person without a uterus, I am not harmed by anyone’s mere presence, no matter how much I might disagree with them on a particular issue.
When your worldview is so fragile that the mere presence of a critic is considered harmful, it ain’t much of a worldview.
I HOPE you enjoyed today’s Saturday Sanity Check as much as I enjoyed writing it.
The world really is crazy, hilariously so.
I’ve got my son’s Youth League soccer grand final today and then church Sunday. Apart from that, it looks like most of the weekend here in Sydney will be spent trying to keep warm and dry.
Enjoy your weekend however you spend it, and thanks for having been part of an other week of The James Macpherson Report.
Thanks for reading The James Macpherson Report! Subscribe here