Diversity, Equity, Inclusion is a fundamentally low-grade, Orwellian anti-liberal project

Sunday Telegraph editor, and vehement classical liberal, Allister Heath, writes about the "DEI" movement, which has spread like a cancer around US universities and corporates, in scathing terms:

DEI is only interested in racial or gender diversity. It doesn’t really care about poverty, class or geography. It loathes diversity of thought; it preaches an imbecilic groupthink that can never be questioned. It denies the scientific method. Its more extreme North American proponents occasionally even reject the idea that 2+2=4, claiming it implies “covert white supremacy”, the sort of lunacy that would have made even the Soviet pseudo-agronomist Trofim Lysenko blush.... 

The woke demand performative adherence to dogma, even when it is evidently contrary to reality, hence “Gays for Palestine” chanting pro‑Hamas and pro-Houthi slogans, even though both terror organisations are brutally homophobic, whereas Tel Aviv celebrates gay pride. Eliminating objective reality is every tyrant’s dream: citizens can no longer judge the validity of what they are being told. 

That's it, it's the latest part of the 20th century post-modernist excrescence that denies evidence, reason and genuine diversity between individuals.  Indeed it is a movement of neo-Maoist Cultural Revolution, with staggering parallels with that most murderous period in China's history.

...DEI advocates group “justice” that is at once unjust and inequitable, based on confiscation and redistribution. People don’t matter, only aggregate statistics. Individual merit counts for nought: DEI judges people solely on their membership of a tribe based on racial or sexual characteristics. This is a reversal of centuries of Western progress towards individual dignity, a rejection of Enlightenment ideals and a readoption of pre-modern group politics....

DEI is horrifically exclusionary, seeking to cancel anybody who fails to pretend to agree: it embraces the permanent inquisition, the auto-da-fé, excommunication and (metaphorically) burning heretics at the stake. Staff are “encouraged” to take the knee, to wear special lanyards, to share pronouns. Employees are divided into “allies” and “adversaries”, with the “good” in-group pitted against the “bad” out-group. “Micro-aggressors” are denounced.

This toxic philosophy is as destructive to individual freedom as Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Islamism and all other forms of mystical authoritarianism, because it is mystical. It is entirely based on the feelings of the proponent, it is inherently inconsistent and immune to evidence. It is a social movement that has life because of well-meaning people who take the claims of the philosophy on face value, but is catalysed by generals of sociopathic misanthropists who lead armies of dimwitted malcontents and grifting inadequates, keen to shame, cancel and scream at those they deem "the enemy".

Diversity movements, activists, units and managers are about the exact opposite. No business should have a bar of it, and should purge its marketing and human resources departments (especially the latter, which is an administrative overhead all businesses should minimise). 

Government should purge it as well, eliminate it from all government agencies and make all staff who exist to promote the concept within government redundant.  I wont be holding my breath though.

Mining companies, white supremacy, Zionism, neo-colonialism, libertarianism and education vouchers: The fascist programme to establish a racist, oppressive state that will wreck the planet

I wrote in my previous post that I am embarking on a journey, thanks to the sagacious commentator and academic, Dr. Mohan Dutta.  Although he is unaware of this, I am truly grateful for him showing me a new way and recognising that I may have been duped, for years, to be an instrument of dark forces, from overseas and paid for by mining and fossil fuel interests, who only want to make a profit exploiting others.

I said I had questions, and I do, as I have been deconstructing the network of connections that means libertarianism is actually a vehicle for fascist white-supremacy and neo-colonialism, including Zionism, which is a tool of not only apartheid, but allegedly genocide.  This is serious stuff and very confronting for anyone who has spent a good 25 years or so promoting libertarian ideas and politics, to be told that actually what you advocate for isn't more freedom, less government and getting the state out of people's lives, but rather a sinister strategy to facilitate takeover of society by mining and fossil fuel interests.  It's not advocacy for individual rights, but advocacy for racism and oppression of people.

I'm unsure what this really means for what form of government we should have, how laws should constrain freedom of speech, funding of political activities and the rights of mining and fossil fuel companies. I don't know what it means for foreign affairs, beyond ending diplomatic relations with Israel.  However, I do want to know, and I want to know whether everything I believed in is for naught, or if there are shreds of campaigning for individual freedom that are worth continuing with.

So here are some of my questions: 

1. Given Zionism is irredeemable (apartheid, settler-colonialism), do Jews have a right to self-determination as a people? If so, where? If not, what is it about them that denies them this right?  Are they not a nationality or race, but just a religion, or is it that they have a right to self-determination, but somewhere else? If so, where?

2. Does the right to self-determination on land where your ancestors once lived and governed, disappear if the people who moved there subsequently, and were part of empires that conquered that land, still have their descendants living on part of that land?  If so, does that not also apply to lands with generations of settlement of people who live on land previously occupied and governed by other people indigenous to that land?  How is this applied consistently in a principled way?

3. What makes "whiteness" a unique characteristic among racial groups globally? Does it apply to all ethnicities that are visibly "white", notwithstanding the diversity of languages, religions, histories, cultures and experiences?  If not, what is its essential nature? (I know there are books, but they are not all consistent). 

4. Is it possible to want individual freedom, small government and human beings interacting voluntarily without being part of a scheme to enrich mining and fossil fuel companies? 

5. Many declared white-supremacists are anti-semitic, and hate Jews as much as other races (such as the Nazis), what makes them different from the ones that are libertarian, who like Jews and hate Nazis, is this just internecine warfare between people who are similar, or something else?

6. Islamist militant groups universally use violence as a form of resistance and often expound racist rhetoric that is Islamic supremacist in nature. Where do they fit in, or am I misconstruing their otherwise heroic revolutionary acts of self-determination that are not to be interpreted under the lens of "whiteness"?

7. If libertarianism is fascist and white supremacist, are statist authoritarians (those advocating a very intrusive and dominant state role in the economy and society) anti-fascist and anti-racist? Or rather, is the solution to libertarian fascism and racism the adoption of a large government that has significant control over economic and social systems?

8. If education vouchers are a tool of white supremacy, does that mean that Sweden (a pioneer of educational vouchers) is a white-supremacist state?  Are all European states white supremacist? How do they avoid this?

9. Is Zionist backed white supremacy the most virulent and destructive ideological influence in the world today, or are there others? I gather the Hindutva moment is similar, as Dr Dutta has written much about it, but do other countries or cultures also promote similarly fascist ideologies? If so, what are they?

10. If the solution to Palestine is for Israel to be disbanded, should we even consider the future of Palestine at that point? What would happen to the Jews there?  Jews in most Arab countries have declined in number precipitously, is this something to be concerned about, or should we just not care what happens to the Zionists?

11.  What is the answer to Ukraine? Is this just white supremacists fighting each other? Should we all just let them fight and hope for peace? 

12. How should the international order be restructured for decolonisation and anti-racism? Presumably it means the US withdrawing globally, along with disbandment of NATO and an international order of the South having more power (excluding fascist Hindutva India).  Can we trust the People's Republic of China to lead a new peaceful world order, or will a multi-polar world just be more peaceful and just?  Does there need to be reparations paid by Western countries (and presumably Japan) to the South? How is consensus to achieve this to be reached to take such taxes from people in those countries? How do we avoid corruption in the South seeing such money accumulating in the hands of national elites?

13. Decolonisation should always exclude violence against civilians, but does that include what a post-colonial government does to civilians?  Some post-colonial governments have been brutal to the civilian population in implementing their policies (see Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Zaire/DRC), how should we respond to this?

14. Virtually all of South and Central America is dominated by people who are, by the definition applied to Aotearoa, Australia, Canada and the USA, settler-colonialists. How is this injustice to be addressed? Is resistance against these governments, from Mexico to Chile, justified? 

More questions will come no doubt

A Revelation

Happy New Year everyone. I was hoping for a break over Christmas and New Year, but I was busy. I had a Road to Damascus experience. I’ve been a libertarian for over 25 years, and having at different times been a member of ACT, Libertarianz (when it existed) the Taxpayers’ Union and the Free Speech Union, I had my own set of views, and I would happily express them. I expressed untramelled opposition to Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, and expressed dismay and anger towards those who not just ignored it but seemed to celebrate it. However, I was naïve, I did not join the dots to understand fully what I was a part of, when I tweeted my opposition to a phrase published by a man I clearly misunderstood.  I would have gotten away with continuing this if it hadn’t been for the meddling Professor. 

What I wrote

By whom I mean the world-renowned expert in developing culturally-centered, community-based projects of social change, advocacy, and activism that articulate health as a human right, Dr Mohan Dutta, Dean’s Chair in Communication at Massey University.  Dr Dutta reminds me of Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics who became famous for his commitment to anti-imperialism and taking on global capitalism and those exaggerating or not understanding the context of emancipatory movements around the world, and the network of white supremacist, libertarian, Zionist, extractive industry funded pro-settler colonialist promoters opposing them. 

Dr Dutta caught me (and others part of this network) tweeting about him, and explained in some detail, (in over 5,000 words) on New Year’s Eve quite how it all works. In truth I am shocked and ashamed, because I didn’t quite realise the connections, but it is all clear now.   He wrote this article which I unreservedly defend his freedom of speech to produce.  I don't want him silenced, I want his views shared and of course with that he will have to defend his views, but that highlights them more.

See I thought when he said:

I was therefore not surprised to wake up today in the backdrop of what would be described as a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance and my expression of solidarity to it to angry and racist tweets by Giraud. 

He was supporting Hamas's attacks, but that oversimplified and falsely represented his views, and he opened my eyes.

I had thought that libertarian movements and groups domestically and overseas were simply people who believed that society’s problems were best resolved through voluntary human interaction, co-operation and trade, rather than through the use of coercion through government. I thought they were avowedly against the initiation of violence (violence only being approved in self-defence, and proportionately so), and that a belief in treating all humans as individuals based on their deeds and character was an ethical position to have. 

I did not realise I had been duped for so long by the world’s extractive industries (by which I take to be mining and fossil fuel extraction) seeking to make their fortunes through neo-colonialism.  You see those industries, which despite being only 12% of global GDP, exercise disproportionate power and control over governments and the public. They make money by imposing the white supremacist concept of “property rights” over land and by requiring white supremacy (even China is now doing this) to ensure labour in extractive industries is predominantly undertaken by ethnic minorities and seeks to ensure they remain impoverished. This is especially so in colonial-settler countries such as the United States and Australia, although official statistics in both countries indicate indigenous people in both countries form a tiny part of extractive industry employment, I haven’t done enough research to question Dr Dutta’s findings. He also notes the role of the tobacco industry, but I thought that was a tiny part of the global economy and not at all influential.

Extractive industries seek to promote both white supremacy (this includes the mining and fossil fuel businesses owned and managed from countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (all of South America is colonialist-settler based though)), because whiteness brings with it the concept of privatising property and human relations (I’m not sure quite how Marx, Engels and Lenin fit into this, all being white and seeking to abolish private property, and implement an idealised society without exploitation and where there would be equal provision for all, but again I am new to this). 

This is where I once was confused.  See I thought white supremacy was what was seen in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, UDI Rhodesia and the US Deep South, of course most European colonialism was a project led by a belief in superiority of the colonisers over the colonised. This changed after WW2, when most colonies became independent, and the horrors of the Holocaust shocked most of the world, and theories of race and eugenics were seen as immoral. A more classically liberal view of humanity emerged, with human rights of individuals, not limited by race, nationality, caste or sex.  

I was wrong, in fact the classical liberal/libertarian view of rights is white supremacy, not just because it was developed mostly by white people, but because treating people as individuals blanks out the oppression people experience and feel. I thought that because the Nazis ran a totalitarian state, the Apartheid regime had severe restrictions on freedom of speech and movement, and even the segregationist states of the US severely constrained private property rights, freedom of movement and speech, that a libertarian would be absolutely opposed to racism, let alone white supremacy.  Especially given the writings of ultra-nationalists and racial supremacist politicians and political parties always seem to promote strong, interventionist states with little tolerance for untrammelled free speech, legalising drugs, free trade, foreign investment and immigration. 

So libertarians are white supremacists funded by extractive capital, but it goes further. The global network of libertarians pushing school vouchers and school choice actually want only rich people’s children to be educated, and to sustain racial differences in educational outcomes (although I’m unsure if this includes the above-average performance of children from various Asian backgrounds in many countries, including the US and the UK, but Dr Dutta might have an answer for this).  School choice is a tool of white supremacy and colonialism.

Dr Dutta rightfully places the example of Equatorial Guinea, a country I know a bit about, as an example of colonialism exploit its resources, but I’m not clear whether the Franco regime instituting Macias Nguema was designed to exploit resources that it didn’t know existed at the time (fossil fuels) who then systematically slaughtered a third of the population.

What’s most sinister though is the links between white supremacy and Zionism. Zionism isn’t a project whereby the Jewish people (who I mistakenly thought lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years) have an independent state on their historic lands, after centuries of colonisation and imperial invasion, but is a settler-colonial project. Maybe Ken Livingstone got it right and the Nazis and the Zionists were in cahoots? Of course, I was first astonished that the people who suffered the first industrialised genocide in history, undertaken by a white supremacist government, could actually be called white supremacists themselves – but Dr Dutta says it is a colonial settler regime that engages in apartheid (I’m unsure whether the Arab members of the Knesset fit into apartheid, and where non-Jews are prevented from going within Israel, but who am I to judge?).  

This all comes back to what I first said. I thought when Dr Dutta after the Hamas pogrom saying it was “a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, that saying it is a “resistance” means it was justified (is a resistance not justified ever?), and saying it was a “powerful exemplar” meant its meaning was powerful and it was an example, perhaps for others seeking decolonisation. 

He has since clarified that decolonisation “fundamentally critiques violence in any form carried out on civilian lives”, which infers condemning all forms of terrorism, which is a relief. No ethical person could possibly support what Hamas does to its own people, let alone Israelis.

I could go on, but the links Dr Dutta makes are clear:

Mining and fossil fuel companies seek exploitative profits and cheap labour.

To achieve this they promote idea of private property, freedom of speech (but they don’t like people criticising their ideas), school choice and small government.

This promotes white supremacy, because only white people benefit from these ideas.  Zionists are white supremacists as well, because like white supremacists that lead major Western countries (Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak – don’t let his name fool you into thinking he isn’t a tool of white supremacy), they want more settler colonialism.  They are colluding with the Free Speech Union to suppress the voices of Palestinian solidarity and to attack anti-racist concepts like Critical Race Theory and decolonisation – which proves how racist they are.

Libertarian organisations are funded by mining companies to promote policies for the expansion of genocidal white supremacist including Zionists, and will wreck the environment and exploiting non-white people.

I don’t want to be a part of that. Not just because I’ve not seen a dollar of money from extractive industries or the Atlas Network, but because I don’t want to be a part of an international ecosystem of misinformation that is about wrecking the planet, expanding colonialism and promoting white supremacy, that encourages Zionism (which is implementing genocide apparently). 

I thought the far-right were explicitly racist people wanting largely closed ultra-nationalist states that categorise people by race, with laws and money distributed by the state based on racial characteristics, and a heavy-handed state that suppresses speech, media and art it finds offensive, and hated Jews.

I was apparently wrong.

Dr Dutta has explained a lot, but I do have a lot of questions.  

Considering transgenderism from a libertarian perspective

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what is simplistically called "trans" issues, but given transgender activists (and their challengers) see it as being a collective of issues, I'll happily deal with them together.  I am writing it bearing in mind I have a trans-relative, and so I have some appreciation of how sensitive it is as an issue. It's hardly trivial for most people who assert a change in gender

Transgender adults should be considered as having the same individual rights as other adults.  Live and let live, as in most cases, it is nobody else's concern whether or not you want to claim to be a different sex.  

The non-initiation of force principle indicates that if you want to live your life identifying differently from your sex, then you should be able to without it being subject to other initiating force against your body or property.  Unlike sexual behaviour, which involves another person, if you want to be assert that you are now a different sex, then whose business is it other than your own? If you want to pay for surgery or other medical treatments to reinforce it, then similarly, as long as you are an adult (so able to consent to the procedure) you should be able to choose. Indeed I'd go so far to support the recent move by the ACT Government (Australia) to prohibit unnecessary medical procedures on those born intersex. Letting people choose what to do with their own bodies, when they have the capacity and capability of fully understanding the consequences of those decisions.

But what about the issues that get most publicity?

• Trans-women using female only spaces
• Trans-women competing as female in sport
• Use of language to describe trans-people
• Gender self-identification on demand
• Trans-gender treatment for children
• Drag queen story time

There are principles for all of these, and it wont please everyone.

Property rights should govern questions about spaces and any organisations.  If you provide toilets, changing rooms, then it is up to you how you handle this issue.  If someone doesn't like it, then that person is not compelled to use your establishment.  This includes womens' refuges, or indeed any property owner that wants to restrict access based on sex or gender.  Lobby whatever you wish to property owners, but you have no right to decide what businesses, voluntary organisations or any private entities do around rules about access.

That is, of course, for privately owned property that doesn't have a statutory monopoly (those with a statutory monopoly do, effectively, use the state to force consumers wanting their goods or services to use their property). 

 However, for government owned property the issue becomes more complex, in that there is an expectation that it should treat everyone with similar levels of respect.  It becomes more important when this government property has sex segregation for sound public policy purposes. It might be healthcare (where the body you objectively have is likely to be important), or the criminal justice system (whereby it can rather matter a lot what prison someone gets sent to, for their own sake and that of fellow inmates).  These cases need to be dealt with based on a framework that protects individual rights, which when properly defined allow someone to be who they want to be, but not to threaten or violate the rights of others to control their own body or property. 

Sport is also a property rights issue. World Athletics Council has made a decision on this issue, which it is fully entitled to do.  In most countries sports is led and managed by private entities, so let them do as they see fit.  Likewise those women (and realistically this is only about women) who regard the policies around transgender athletes to be unfair, should be able to freely boycott and leave organisations they think do not do their sport justice (and vice versa with transgender athletes).  For some sports it wont be an issue (e.g., does it really matter with archery?), but for others it is.  This goes to freedom of association.  You are free to join whatever organisation you wish, including employer, and they are free to adopt whatever policies they want around sex and gender identity.  

Freedom of association:  This is the extension of property rights. Nobody has a "right" to demand that others associate, contract, socialise or engage at all with them. It is your body, your life and any organisation you belong to, or associate with, is both your choice to associate with and their choices to let you do so. You cannot force anyone to be your friend, just as they cannot force you. 

Freedom of speech governs questions about what people are called and what language is used.  Use whatever pronouns you like, say "trans-women are women" or say "trans-women are trans-women not women".  Use the term "cis" or don't, or TERF or whatever.  However the state should not force anyone to use any terms or any definitions.  There is quite some culture war going on about this, notably regarding women, largely because women and girls DO have specific health needs separate from men and boys.  As long as language isn't being used to threaten, then the person has the right to say what they wish, and you don't have a right to not be offended. Someone may say you're "CIS" you can object to that, but that's it, you don't have a right to insist someone calls you anything except that if someone does go out to deliberately antagonise you, you can then choose to ignore them, not trade with, employ, engage with or otherwise.  No one is required to please you by the use of terms you dictate, but obviously if someone deliberately fails to do so, presumably to antagonise, then why bother engaging if it means so much to you?

Again, what government does matters here, in relation to goods and/or services supplied by the government.  The state should never be ambiguous, it should be clear what it means by terms like "woman" and if it needs to differentiate between people, it ought to be absolutely neutral on this and use terminology that is clear. Sometimes "woman" will include "trans-woman", sometimes not.  

What gets many agitated is the banal use of so-called "inclusive" language which is largely in relation to medical issues affecting women and girls such as pregnancy, menstruation and the like. I don't think there is an orchestrated attempt to eliminate women anymore than there are plans for genocide of trans-gender people, but there are issues where there should be some clarity and certainty as to the boundaries of people's rights, and how to treat people's identity such as...

State record of identity: Birth Certificates are generated to identify the birth of a human, by date, name and sex. Sex is identified at birth (not "assigned", like children being told which sports team they are allocated to). It is a statement of record, it should not be amended subsequently unless there is an obvious mistake. If you change your name, you may want a separate record of your change of name, and likewise if you wish a gender change, then there should be a record of the date of that change, but it should not  change the birth certificate, which is an objective declaration of fact on a specific date.  

If you want to change your gender and get that formalised in some government authorised documentation, then that should require some threshold to enable it. It should not be undertaken by a minor, because children are not entitled to contract or to consent to many procedures or activities, but as an adult it should be possible to have a record as to your gender (and indeed if you engage in surgical activity to do so, you may have a change of sex recorded). However, this should not be a procedure able to be undertaken in order to obtain any sort of advantage. 

There are sound reasons to separate sexes in the criminal justice system, specifically because men generally have more physical strength and aggression than women, and have the capability to harm women in ways they cannot harm men because of physiology. So for a man to identify as a woman in order to be treated differently in the criminal justice system, particularly following being charged for an offence (particularly a sexual offence) is irrational and unjust. This is patently opportunistic. 

However, why does it matter if people can switch their gender identity, as long as other people can exercise their individual rights of freedom of association (including non-association), property rights and freedom of speech? i.e. if you want to change anything about you, don't expect the force of the law to force people to associate with you, allow you into spaces set up for people of a different sex or gender exclusively, or for people to call you what you want (even though they ought to be polite, it is not a crime to misname or misgender someone, for a good reason -  it isn't actually a violation of any rights). 

A is A but so what?: I read an article published by objectivist economist George Reisman on 11 April after I started writing this post, where he makes a case to completely reject transgenderism as irrational.  In short, he challenges the idea that you should be able to self-identify as anything you want, as being a complete rejection of objective reality.  I understand his point, that simply proclaiming that because of subjective emotions you can declare you are something you are biologically and objectively not, does not make your feelings actually a reflection of objective reality. Yet more fundamentally, if everyone else simply has rights to property, freedom of association and freedom of speech, who cares if a person identifies as another gender, another age or another thing?  Nobody is seriously going to expect a 50 year old man to be treated as a 5 year old girl and be admitted to a primary school because he says he identifies as the latter.  Indeed that should be called out, with people applying their rights to ignore, block and reject anyone who does so. However, if a 25 year old woman says she is now a man, then whose rights is it infringing upon? You may think it is absurd, illogical and denying reality, but you need not associate with that person, invite him/her into your property or call him/her by whatever name or pronoun wanted.

This is why Reisman is completely wrong that someone who seeks to be another gender should be given hormones of their biological sex as therapy, because this simply isn't a medical answer to what might be a psychological condition or issue.  Of course if someone wants to do that, then good luck to them, but neither he nor I is qualified to make such a judgment as to its effectiveness or its secondary consequences.

This is also why it is critically important that in the cultural sphere, there should be unlimited space for people to live, dress, act, talk and exist peacefully without being bound by any historic or culture-bound stereotypes about what it means to be a woman or a man.  Nobody knows what it feels like to be a boy or a girl by any logical reference point, because the alternative is unknowable - and the responses of other people to how you look and act are a reference to your behaviour and appearance. Indeed girls should be anything, as should boys, they should strive to follow their own passions, interests and aesthetic, and not feel bound by what others say they must be, as long as they live a life of peaceful fulfilment.  This leads onto perhaps the most difficult issue...

What to do about transgender youth?  My basic position on childhood vs. adulthood is that until someone is an adult, there is no ability to make decisions that the child is unable to fully understand the nature and consequences of, especially if it is irreversible. This is why I believe that puberty blockers and surgery for anyone below the age of 18 is wrong.  The use of such drugs interferes with and can harm fertility, and since there is widespread public consensus that below a certain age nobody should be able to make decisions that create irreversible impact on the body of a minor for non-medical reasons.  Certainly they should be given all of the counselling support and encouragement to be themselves until they reach full adult age, after which if they wish to medically change their bodies, it is their choice to do so.

Drag queen story-time? I literally don't care about this issue, as it should be up to parents to decide whether their children attend, and should be up to property owners to decide whether they host such an event.  Judgments can be made about whether people around children should dress provocatively or act such, and parents will know what they think of that, but that is up to them, and the freedom to support or reject it should be clear.

In conclusion... the rise of post-modernist identitarianism has seen the rise of trans-genderism as a new "frontier" in collectivising people based on perceptions of oppression and power.  There is a three-way culture war underway on this issue between:

• Post-modernist identitarians
• Traditional identitarians
• Feminist identitarians (who may be a mix of modernist and post-modernist).

The post-modernist identitarians believe everything is subjective, so if someone says "she" is a "woman", then not only is that "real", but that if you do not recognise it, you are part of the traditional power structure that has "always" oppressed trans-people, like it oppresses (insert list of oppressed collectives).  They want the power of the state to initiate force against those who refuse to accept their demands around eroding property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Traditional identitarians regard trans-genderism as an illness or perversion and seeks at best to discourage it, and at worse to prohibit it. 

Feminist identitarians see trans-women (they are not so concerned about trans-men) as men pretending to be women to enter women's spaces and organisations, and so are not able to really reflect the reasons why women set up such spaces and organisations in the first place.  They see being a woman as being distinct, and as a group of humanity historically denied basic individual rights, that having men claiming that identity, undermines women's progress for such rights. Some may also say that trans-men reflect backwards thinking around feminism, that girls do not think they can be full individuals without changing gender to be boys/men which undermines feminist objectives for girls to not have to pander to stereotypes about what gender is.

While all may have some legitimate concerns at some level, rejecting identitarianism completely sees a position based on individual rights. That position is that whatever an adult does is nobody else's business a long as it does not interfere with the same rights of another adult, including control over one's body, property and who you associate with. For children those rights are held in trust by parents until they are adults, and cannot be abused by parents to deliberately or recklessly undermine the ability of a child to become a fully functioning adult. 

So let people be, but also respect others when they say they only want women on their property, and they choose not to include trans-women. They exclude men, so they can exclude others. It is polite to call people by the name they want and refer to them by the pronoun they prefer, if you ever do that in front of them, but the state and the law should not exist to police rudeness which does not constitute a threat.  Finally, there should be robust discussion and debate about medicine, especially psychology and trans-genderism, and it should not be hindered by fear of causing offence, regardless of what position someone takes. There should be caution about medicalising any mental health condition for minors, as a matter of course, and care given around people's feelings, because in most cases this whole issue arises because people are not feeling good about themselves. Having individual dignity, self-esteem and feeling able to pursue life and happiness are core to being human.  The quest to belong to a group, to have support from others and to collectivise also happens to be human, but the latter (the desire to collectivise and "belong") should never be used to undermine the former (the need for self-esteem and to be an individual). 

Abolish the Human RIghts Commission (but give everyone Tino Rangitiratanga)

It was 26 years ago that the Free Radical published an article calling for abolition of the Human Rights Commission (sometimes called the "Human Wrongs Commission" on Radio Liberty at the time).  The main reason for that was how egregiously the entity had been in dealing to what it claimed was unjust discrimination - such as a Wellington hairdresser that charged less for men's haircuts than women's, the Nelson strip club that charged women half price for admittance, the golf club that held a married couple's tournament (discriminating against unmarried couples!) and even weighing in on a political party's proposal to give welfare to a married couple if one spouse remained at home to look after their children.  This all seemed like pettiness pushed by a bureaucracy that was looking for issues that, fundamentally, were petty.

A lot has changed since then, the Human Rights Commission has gone from seeking to stop people being rude to one another, to being the taxpayer funded advocacy for a highly politicised, radical and controversial interpretation of human rights, and indeed of New Zealand society.  The Human Rights Commission is the public sector wing of advocates of a far-left vision of a post-liberal democratic, post-capitalist, post-modernist Tangata Whenua Republic of Aotearoa, where not just your ancestry, but your claimed identity determines who governs you, and the rights you hold.  Whether it be a state within which half of the power is held by Iwi who appoint representatives to the new people's assembly (the logical end-point of co-governance), or two nations in one, whereby Maori are governed by the laws set by their Iwi and everyone else is governed by a state that has limited power over Maori. At least, that's one way of interpreting the radical vision of the Human Rights Commission. It's inconceivable that when the Muldoon administration created this body in the 1970s that it would be seen as the taxpayer funded arm of Nga Tamatoa.

It's helpful to know exactly what the Human Rights Commission has been spending your money on

The Human Rights Commission has produced a 162 page report called "Maranga Mai!"  (don't forget the exclamation mark) which:

combines evidence-based literature and research with the first-person testimony of recognised experts in the field of anti-racism about the impact of colonisation, white supremacy and racism on tangata whenua and communities. This methodology centres and amplifies Māori voices, memories and experiences, the value of which lies in documenting lived inter-generational and cumulative insights of how Māori have experienced colonisation, racism and white supremacy

It is unsurprising that the authorship is collective:

The Tangata Whenua Caucus of the National Anti-Racism Taskforce (2021-2022) and Ahi Kaa, the Indigenous Rights Group within Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | the Human Rights Commission (the Commission), worked together on the development of Maranga Mai!

RNZ does give us a clue as to one of the key contributors, reporting that:

Co-chair of the anti-racism taskforce, Tina Ngata, said the country's constitutional arrangements such as the electoral and justice systems were based on centuries-old racist ideologies and were the root of racism here.

Now Ngata is a far-left activist who appears to see everyone and everything through the lens of structuralism - the "system" from her perspective, is designed to protect patriarchal colonial capitalism - apparently. She is also quite the romantic for life pre-colonisation.  I'm no fan of the view that colonisation was "good" overall (neither because British colonialism may have been better than others, nor the idea that Maori may not have modernised without colonisation), but I'm also no fan of fantasies of a fictional golden age of isolationist nationalism of pre-modernity. Medicine in ALL societies 200 years ago was primitive, and pretending it was "better" than today, for anyone, is deranged stuff.  Ethno-nationalism is often based on myths of a glorious past eroded by the "other".

It's a philosophy that sees malignant intent or neglect in political and legal systems that are deemed to have been designed for and to preserve identitarian privileges.  In other words, ANY system of governance cannot be based on objective principles of reason, rights and justice, systems exist only for those in power.  It is exactly the philosophy of Marxist-Leninists, that you need to destroy the system (and society, and culture, and art) of a capitalist society to liberate the oppressed proletariat. For structuralists, you need to destroy the system of the "racist, patriarchal, colonial settler" system to liberate the oppressed Tangata Whenua.

Taxpayers have paid a group of far-left radical to essentially assert that liberal democracy (one-person, one vote), albeit not constrained by any explicit constitutional limits on power is "at the root of racism", as is the common law based justice system, which has at its roots proof of fact and application (for crimes) a presumption of innocence.  It isn't about people being racist or laws being racist or government policies being racist...

Talking about a revolution...

Hence the recommendation of "Maranga Mai!" essentially for revolution as follows:

To eliminate racism throughout Aotearoa will require nothing less than constitutional transformation and we urge the government to commit to this much needed change. (emphasis added)

So a department of state wants a revolution.  It's a political manifesto. Not only that, it wants a constitutional transformation to be implemented by the government elected by a bare majority, it isn't calling on the general public, it isn't calling on Parliament (representing more than the majority government), but on the government. Pause for a moment to think where and when it is that radical constitutional transformation was implemented without broader public consent, but the Human Rights Commission is uninterested in a nation-state that is governed by the consent of the governed.

You need to understand...

Apparently "The first step in the process is for tangata whenua to tell the truth about the impact of racism on their whānau, hapū, iwi, ancestors, communities and lives".  Of course people can say as they wish, but there's no room for critical thinking here. What IS racism in this context? It isn't just individual behaviour, indeed that isn't the main issue. The narratives wanted are just that...

New Zealanders need to understand that colonisation, racism and white supremacy are intertwined phenomena that remain central to the ongoing displacement and erosion of tino rangatiratanga. The cumulative effects of this are evident in the intergenerational inequalities and inequities tangata whenua suffer across all aspects of their lives, These serious matters are the focus of this report.

Colonisation happened, but New Zealand is no longer a colony. The non-Maori citizens are not "colonisers" but people with as much right to live in the country they are born in, or admitted as immigrants in as anyone else. Inferring anything else is racist, even if it doesn't meet the definition of the post-modernists.  

Similarly, the idea that white supremacy is somehow endemic is ludicrous and deranged.  However, the New Zealand state DOES erode tino rangatiratanga, for EVERYONE, by increasing its power and diminishing the freedom of citizens and residents to live their own lives peacefully.

However, that's not what this report is about, unsurprisingly if you look at the Executive Summary....

Detailing histories of racism and white supremacy in Aotearoa is pivotal to developing an accurate awareness of the past that is sufficient to change the future.

It's not really about history though, in calling for anecdotes of the past, including recollections of what dead relatives said, it's about inculcating a culture that combines anger and hatred, with shame, guilt and repentance.  There's no room for critical thinking, and disentangling assertions, assumptions and narratives to look for objective facts.

The elimination of racism in Aotearoa requires true and authentic acknowledgement from the state that indigenous and tangata whenua rights exist.

Shut up if you disagree...

Actually it requires acknowledgement from the state that individual rights exist, but it isn't enough, because for racism to be eliminated requires individuals to think of people as individuals, not groups.  The Human Rights Commission doesn't do that, nor do the authors of this report.

You can see it in the threatening and racist tone of this language:

Also, that the continued dismissal and violation of these covenants, and Tiriti responsibilities, by the Crown and settler society must cease.

So if you are not Tangata Whenua (bearing in mind that this is a state of mind more than anything else, as all nationalisms are a psychological state), you are a member of "settler society", and you "must cease" dismissing indigenous rights and apparently Tiriti responsibilities that, in fact, do not apply to those who aren't parties to Te Tiriti (as the parties are only the Crown and Iwi signatories).

The Human Rights Commission wants you to cease arguing about the concept of indigenous rights and to cease breaching Te Tiriti.  Perhaps it needs to revisit freedom of speech, or is that a white supremacist concept too?

There is the red herring:

The reliance on the Doctrine of Discovery, to validate the New Zealand colonial state, must also cease alongside a transition to recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the rightful source of kāwanatanga legitimacy in Aotearoa.

There is no colonial state anymore, and almost nobody relies on the Doctrine of Discovery. 

Give us your money...

Tangible actions will be required to atone and provide restitution to tangata whenua, while laying a foundation for healing and constitutional certainty.

Don't expect your bank account to be immune from that, it's a direct demand for taking your money (if not your land) to provide restitution to people who you have never harmed, who may even be better off than you are.  

Racism was invented by white people

There's so much in this report that is revealing, not only of the Human Rights Commission, but of the Labour Government that commissioned this report and has not dismissed it as a doorstop take this quote:

The social construct of race is based on the ideological notion of white supremacy, which is driven in society by racism (p.36)

This is nonsense, as the identification of different races was recorded by humanity thousands of years ago. The ideological notion of "white supremacy" emerged as Christian Europeans in the Middle Ages ventured forth to proselytise, albeit it was primarily religiously focused - but as were the motives of Muslim imperialists at the same time, but methinks that the authors of this report don't care much for breadth of history of many parts of the world.  Genghis Khan, one of the great imperialists and racists was no "white supremacist", but that gets in the way of a narrative of exuding guilt and shame against the vast majority of New Zealanders, and in particular parroting the US-inspired hierarchy of oppression. The anti-concept of "whiteness" is cited throughout the report, without being defined.  Of course if race is a "social construct" (it certainly is a psychological rather than a usefully objective one), then what happens if it gets ignored? Well this report isn't interested in THAT.

Racism is a primitive collectivist fear of the "other", inculcated especially by those with power either by state, religion or other form of collective governance.  Those with power don't want to share it with others, so demonising or diminishing the "other" is key, and it may not even be skin colour, it is fundamental identitarianism.  You see it in Northern Ireland and the Balkans, where people who are indistinguishable from each other physically, "other" different sides based on religious, ancestral and other claims to identity.  It's all in their heads, like all forms of ethno-nationalism.  

Europeans were (and some are) full of their own supremacy against each other, but the notion of "us" vs. "them", with little regard for universalism was commonplace throughout humanity until it started to be challenged by Enlightenment classical liberal thinking, which ultimately saw the rise of universal individual rights.

Unless your group was involved in creating an institution, it is biased against your group

Of course there is the claim that because Maori are not involved in creating institutions those institutions automatically become institutionally racist:

Institutional racism is not always obvious because the underlying prejudice hides behind complex rules, practices, policies and decision-making processes. These are framed, written and confirmed in the absence of Māori. (p.37)

So even if you can't find evidence of institutional racism, it's there. Structuralism teaches you that everyone in power sets up systems of bigotry to prejudice those in power, and because a system wasn't designed by the collective of "Maori", it is institutionally racist. You don't need evidence. Post-modernism regards evidence and empiricism to be eve

Māori in Aotearoa live under a constitutional and legal structure that is foreign to them and which derives from England (p.37)

What does this even mean? Almost nobody in a nation-state has much power to determine constitutional and legal structures, and most people in NZ are not from England. The system has evolved over many years, the electoral system has parallels to Germany, the legislation is passed by a legislature where every adult citizen has a similar say in who represents them.  It is, objectively, no more foreign to one person than another, and many would regard most of the systems and institutions of state to be alien to them. It is only by seeing everyone through a collectivist lens of "us" vs. "them" that perceives "us" finding a system foreign which mustn't be to "them".

Of course the report isn't clear on what should happen to those structures.  However, it appears it is about passing control to Iwi, so they control Maori, not the state.

You can spend a long time going through this document to find all sorts of gems, such as the need to abolish prisons:

Decolonisation, and constitutional transformation based on Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga, necessarily involves abolishing prisons (p.92) why... because “incarceration does nothing to address the underlyingissues the person may be experiencing”

Because the man (it's mostly men) who raped you, or murdered one of your relatives or friends, should not, fundamentally, be somewhere to protect you. How dare you claim individual rights you white supremacist?  You need to think of the person who violated you or your family, because he is basically a victim.

You see...

Colonisation introduced an Anglo-Saxon centred notion of western justice based on the fundamental principle of individual responsibility. This approach minimises the personal and social circumstances of accused persons (p.89)

Individual responsibility, remarkably, predates both the Anglo and Saxon peoples, and remarkably remains central to justice systems across the world. The report blanks out that personal circumstances are relevant to some crimes, and are certainly relevant to most sentencing. However, of course, it doesn't fit the collectivist mindset, which (as in Maoist China) focuses more on the context of the person who commits the assault, rape or murder, than the act itself.

The Human Rights Commission presumably believes individual responsibility is foreign to Maori.

Of course the report wouldn't be complete if it didn't recommend expanding the powers of the Human Rights Commission. It wants legislation to...

Give full effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Reo Māori text) throughout the Human Rights Act 1993. This includes all institutional arrangements for the Commission

and (bearing in mind the Human Rights Commission has quasi-judicial powers)...

Include via preambulatory paragraphs definitions of racism, institutional racism, and white supremacy within the Act. (p.98)

The effect this would have on freedom of speech, and indeed on liberal democracy could be chilling indeed.

It's not all wrong though..

Now there is a LOT that can be done to liberate Maori, such as decentralising education, ending the next to peppercorn leases enforced on some Maori land, granting Iwi (and indeed all) property owners real property rights to use their property as they see fit.  There is plenty of content in the report that rightfully points out the acquisitive, oppressive nature of the state, such as the Public Works Act and the application of local body rates on Maori land, even if that land received no services or benefits from local government. There was legislation discriminatory against Maori, and legislation that generally undermined property rights and individual rights for all New Zealanders, and had egregious effects on Maori. That's what an overbearing state does.  

As a result the report effectively recommends to not levy rates on Maori land, which is fine of course, if you accept that local government should provide no services that support such land.  I doubt the Human Rights Commission wants very small local government though.

and there are seeds of freedom in constitutional reform...

Fundamental to the constitution reform the report wants is for Maori to determine their own lives and make decisions over their own resources.  This is libertarian, it is freedom and property rights.  There remain two questions though...

Is giving Maori this power actually power as individuals with the choice to act together, or purely collective entities? If it is the latter, it is just another form of government, I suspect it is the latter.

Why can this not apply to EVERYONE in New Zealand? Why shouldn't we all be able to determine our own lives and make decisions over our own resources?  The authors would be confused because they will think non-Maori have this, but they most definitely do not.  That's what liberal democracy in a mixed economy without constitutional constraints on government power generates.

Unfortunately, I doubt the vision of a series of far-left collectivist activists really is about liberating individual freedom and opportunity.

Don't be saying no...

The report concludes:

Several barriers stand in the way of fully realising constitutional transformation. The first of these is the inevitable safeguarding of the settler-colonial status quo and the economic privilege that has flowed from that for generations at the expense of Māori. The economic implications of constitutional transformation and addressing racism are significant, because “Many Pākehā won’t oppose racism if it means giving land back and supporting constitutional reform” p.102

The main barrier, surely, is not having the consent of those that would be governed. Especially if this means taking away people's own land, acquired legally and privately. It would be shades of Zimbabwe.

Note that the report effectively accepts that protest, legal or not, and indeed violence must be expected if its recommendations are not followed:

Direct action to respond to and challenge colonisation, racism, and white supremacy are important in the assertion of tino rangatiratanga, as Ihumātao and internationally, the Dakota Access Pipeline, have shown (see Smithsonian Institution, 2018; Meador, 2016). So long as the settler-colonial status quo remains, this will continue to be an effective method of resistance p.104

Direct action is a euphemism for any form of protest that can include trespass, vandalism and violence, the Human Rights Commission is almost endorsing a breaking of the rule of law.

What to do with it?

It's a political manifesto, which the Labour Government commissioned, and it should be debated. Political candidates should challenge and be challenged by the concepts and views expressed in it, and indeed there is nothing inherently wrong with reflecting on state-inflicted racism, both direct and indirect, on Maori, in New Zealand's history.  However, it seeks fundamental constitutional change which, on the face of it, would destroy liberal democracy in New Zealand and severely limit freedom of speech and private property rights. It is a call for ethno-nationalist separatism, which if it were to liberate Maori from the state, I would applaud, but it steers away from that.  For a report purportedly about liberation it calls for a lot of new state institutions and a lot of new taxpayer spending, it is a report wanting more statism, and to transfer state power to collectivist institutions that are meant to represent Maori.  Maori as individuals don't feature much here, except for anecdotes about experiences and feelings, as evidence of institutional racism (although evidence isn't needed apparently).

What it demonstrates is that the Human Rights Commission has been completely taken over by far-left ethno-nationalists who see it as a vehicle to achieve radical political change, rather than to implement government policy - unless of course, this reflects government philosophy, which it may well do.

It's easy to brush Maranga Mai! to one side as ridiculous, but it embodies a philosophy that is being inculcated across all levels of the education system and the wider state. It appears to be shared by the Labour Party, and certainly the Greens and Te Pati Maori.

The easy response would be to abolish the Human Rights Commission, which is what any libertarian would do, but it might be more clever to reform it, legislatively change its mandate to actually defend the rights of the individual to control over his or her body, property and life. Imagine if it produced reports that called for a restructure of the state so individual rights were paramount.

My expectations, however, are low. Hipkins will pretend it isn't important, but will continue to let the philosophy underlying it dominate discourse in education and the state and the state's media. National will barely touch the Human Rights Commission, as it did create it.

What is more important is to have debate and discussion challenging collectivist and post-modernist ideologies for what they are - philosophical positions - not factual renditions of events. 

Colonisation saw many atrocities committed, but it is over.  The non-Maori who live in New Zealand are not "settlers". Liberal democracy and rule of law are not invented to benefit Pakeha, and the only human rights are individual rights, for without the freedom of the individual, everyone is at risk of violence being initiated by the state, Iwi or any other collective that thinks it should govern you.

Set Maori free by setting us all free.

Iran is on the brink of a revolution for freedom.. and the world's politicians should be loudly in support

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an abomination, it is a theocracy that demands absolute obeisance to a collective of men who claim to be channelling the will of God, applying a branch of Islamism that in practice is just a form of medieval barbarism.

Have no doubt, Iran is the centre of a courageous struggle, led by young women, against a system that is specifically designed to ensure they submit to an authority led by old men.

It is the most irrational and mindless of governments - for it is theocratic. Not only do the mullahs claim they are following the "will" of their Almighty - but they alone are the ones with the "inspiration" to pass laws and compel and prohibit peaceful individuals to do as they see fit.

Iran may have scrapped its utterly immoral "Morality Police", but it is still a regime characterised well as Taliban-lite.  It is a death cult, that worships and commemorates those who spill their own blood, and blood of others for their superstitions and they should be called out on it by all leaders of liberal democracies.

However you don't hear or see much. Notwithstanding Jacinda Ardern's logical efforts to ensure Christopher Richwhite and Bridget Thackwray (posh wealthy young folk who have that utterly inane occupation "social influencers" - that role whereby you produce videos in the hope countless other airheads are attracted by your clickbait) got out of Iran safely, it is telling that the great heroine of leftwing women has not said much about Iran at all.

Given Ardern's remaining star power internationally (notwithstanding how much it has waned domestically) this is disappointing.  She's big on getting an international stage for climate change, notwithstanding her government has had little influence on policy on it, whereas influencing regime change in Iran that would literally liberate women is something she chooses not to do.

No doubt MFAT has told Ardern and Mahuta (noting Mahuta is much more socially conservative than Ardern) that it isn't wise to say anything, because of trade.  

MFAT sees Iran as a "sleeping giant" noting on its website:

 It remains an untapped market with a lot of potential, although financial and banking sanctions, the difficulties of doing business in Iran, along with a stalled Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or nuclear agreement) and Iran’s blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) will continue to affect humanitarian sanctions-exempted trade for some time.

Exports with Iran have dropped dramatically in recent years, but no doubt there is ambition to have it grow again.  I know from experience that the default position of diplomats is always not to "disturb" relations in the hope that it will make future trade fruitful, but bearing in mind Ardern has claimed to never be afraid to "talk tough" it's odd there has been no pushback.

After all by far the main reason the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a big export market is BECAUSE it is the "Islamic Republic" led by a death cult of misogynistic terrorism sponsoring arms proliferators.  The regime in Tehran is, on the face of it, antithetical to the values of Ardern and the Labour Party, because it is antithetical to the values of any decent liberal democracy.

Yet Ardern is saying little, no doubt because diplomats think there are "opportunities" for trade.  Mahuta, having demonstrated next to no interest or history in international relations, is hardly likely to push back, since her interests are much more focused on Maori nationalism, and by and large as Foreign Minister she parrots the standard MFAT line on every topic (which is low risk, but also low reward).

Revolution in Iran would have profoundly positive effects not just for most Iranian people (not the thugs, rapists and murderers who are the hand maidens of the regime), but also the Middle East more generally.  For Iran to no longer sponsor Islamofascist attacks across the region, including backing Hezbollah.  

However it should be first and foremost about Iranians and Iranian women and girls in particular. Unlike the unhinged ravings of leftwing woke university professors, Iran is a literal patriarchy, it has a literal rape culture.  It is a culture that punishes women for "immodesty". As Hammed Shahidian wrote "Modesty in dress, especially women's hejab, secures society against chaos and individuals against self-incurred harmful thoughts and deeds".

In other words women better cover up because men are too weak to control what's in their trousers.

Religion in liberal democracies is about freedom to choose and worship as you see fit, and freedom to leave religion if you see fit, but in Iran you cannot leave Islam.  It is compulsory.  

So it should be that politicians across the free world should be supporting the women protesting and calling for freedom in Iran, because it is morally right, and because these women are human beings with the same rights to choose how they live their lives as anyone else.  

The fact that so many politicians choose to keep largely mute on this, whilst demanding private companies address an anti-concept called the "gender wage gap" shows the depths of their hypocritical privilege (which they finger-wag about constantly) and the turpitude of their cultural tunnel vision to not even recognise women who are oppressed on a grand scale and deserve to be supported.

Finally, I'll give a nod to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, whom I disagree with 95% of the time, who has been consistent on this in the past year. 

Iran's revolution is one for humanity, and of course it is telling that the jackbooted blood spillers of Beijing and Moscow are backing the regime. 

How to explain the hard-left's position on Syria

When a one-party state, led by a dictator, with a personality cult, who inherited his position from his father (who himself gained power by military coup), repeatedly uses chemical weapons against his opponents and the residents of areas governed by his opponents, you'd think there would be universal outrage and condemnation.  

But no.  Setting aside the regime itself and its foreign backer (Russia - which has used its airforce to quell dissent against the regime, with little apparent concern for civilian casualties), there have been two groups who tend to hold one (or even more than one) of three views of these events:

1.  The chemical attacks didn't happen (the "false flag" believers).  As such it was staged by one or more opposition groups, or the more ludicrous claims that it was a CIA, MI5, Israeli orchestrated charade.

2.  The chemical attacks did happen, but were undertaken either by an opposition group (which has no air power, given the Syrian Air Force is well equipped) or by the UK (says Russia), to discredit Assad and Russia.

3.  The chemical attacks did happen, but no one can prove it was the Assad regime, and besides any military action just "makes it worse", will "escalate conflict", will "benefit Jihadists", is "illegal", etc.

One group are non-interventionist libertarians, who at best simply oppose military action by governments on principle, unless it is for self-defence.  Some are conspiracy theory cranks who share a lot with the other group.  I'll discuss them all another day.  Suffice to say, while I respect high levels of scepticism over intervention, I am not a non-interventionist.  I think there is a considerable interest for us all, for those governments with some values of individual rights, rule of law and secular liberal democracy, to take steps to ensure that the treaty based commitment of state to not use chemical weapons, is enforced, with some urgency especially if that state is using it against civilians.  There is merit in arguments against such action, but this post is not about those arguments.

This is about the much larger and vocal "other lot", the so-called "peace" movement on the left.  It's view, as exemplified by the far-left hypocritical "Stop the War Coalition" in the UK, is fairly simple.  It opposes absolutely all Western military action of all kinds, and happily cheers on military, terrorist and other insurgency action by any entities confronting the West or its allies. Loud on US intervention, silent on Russia.  Most of the libertarian non-interventionists are fairly consistently opposed to both, but the far-left are much more obviously hypocritical.

With a Hat Tip to Dave Rich on Twitter I thought his explanation of the hard-left worldview of these events, alongside the Skripal poisoning and indeed many foreign policy issues is as applicable to the NZ Green Party as it is to the UK Labour Party, and to equivalent far-left movements in other countries. 

A short thread about what links Corbyn’s position on the Douma gassings, Skripal poisonings, Gaza violence and antisemitism in Labour. Seemingly unconnected events but a thread links Corbyn’s responses: his view of power /1

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

For Corbyn, Stop The War Coalition & others in their part of the left, all the problems of the world are due to the unequal distribution of power & wealth. Sort that out and war, poverty, terrorism, racism etc will all disappear /2

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

This is why he will never support any use of military force by the UK, US or any other Western country. They have power therefore it is not legitimate for them to use it. Instead they should give it up /3

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Corbyn in the Morning Star, 2004: “The wars of the 21st century are crude fights for oil or power and emanate from glittering boardrooms in Western capitals.” Iraq & Palestine show “all that is wrong with the world's power structures.” It’s that simple /4 pic.twitter.com/07zvktNefW

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Ideology, identity, culture, local power dynamics: all missing from this narrative of why wars happen, because it is all about the globally powerful exploiting & oppressing the powerless /5

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Unequivocally condemning Russia for Salisbury or Assad for Douma would involve taking the side of the powerful (UK & US) against the powerless (Russia & Assad). I know, the flaw in this ‘logic’ is so obvious a child would spot it. But that’s the thinking /6

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

It’s not pacifism. STWC supported the “resistance” in Iraq & Palestine when that resistance was definitely violent. Here’s STWC in Dec 2003 supporting “military struggle” against UK & US forces in Iraq and “armed struggle” in Palestine /7 pic.twitter.com/HP1Lrq9HkC

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

It’s not about Parliament or the UN either. Parliament supported the 2003 Iraq War. Afghanistan was invaded under the UN Charter. Does anyone seriously think Corbyn & STWC would drop their opposition if Parliament or the UN backed the Syria strikes? /8

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Israel is seen as part of the Western power network so its use of force can never be justified either. This is why Corbyn can be so certain he knows what is happening on the Gaza border. The powerful are shooting the powerless. Simple /9

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

But when Assad gasses Syrian children it doesn’t fit the paradigm so he calls for investigations, he condemns both sides, he talks in generalities about political solutions and diplomatic processes that don’t exist /10

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Similarly, a lot of people on the left don’t take antisemitism seriously because Jews are seen as wealthy and powerful. This means Jews can’t really experience racism, because racism is what you get when rich powerful white people oppress poor people of colour /11

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

The next step is thinking that because Jews are rich and powerful, they are part of networks of power in Western states & therefore Jews (not just Israel) are oppressors. Not everyone on the left takes this step – but it’s easy to find, especially if you call them “Zionists” /12

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

It’s a simple way of viewing the world: the West has all the power and everyone else has suffered from the West’s power. Follow that paradigm and you can work out what to think about any issue. It has the benefit of certainty but the drawback of being wrong. /End

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) April 15, 2018

Emotionalism - the new post-religious puritanism

Forgive the length of this piece, but this is a very big issue that should concern not only those who embrace academic freedom, but also more generally individual freedom and the importance of reason.

As Mary Wakefield in The Spectator last week put it:

Back in the 1990s, PC students would stamp about with placards demanding equal rights for minorities and talking about Foucault. This new PC doesn’t seem to be about protecting minorities so much as everyone, everywhere from ever having their feelings hurt.

The illiberal left (and I am not being pejorative here, but believe that despite their claims, these are people who are as illiberal as any hardline social-conservatives, in their own way) regard the term "political correctness" as a reactionary pejorative label against "liberation" movements that seek equal treatment of people based on a whole set of agreed identity politics based categories.  It is swiftly dismissed, rather than the key arguments behind it tackled, not least because, unfortunately, so many who claimed "political correctness gone mad" (as if it was ever sane) were themselves not particularly articulate about their concerns, or (if you scratched the surface) racist, sexist and homophobic.

Today the illiberal left (yes there is a genuinely liberal left) have moved on, into what I call the new tyranny of emotionalism.  It is the belief that if something someone says or gestures or does, hurts your feelings, the person who says or gestures or does whatever, should refrain from doing so, to protect the hurt feelings of the "offended".

It is seen in the reaction of illiberal left to the Charlie Hebdo murders by Islamists - after a cursory expression of horror, their first reaction was that nobody should say anything to upset Muslims, by taking on the tyranny of those seeking Islamic blasphemy legal principles to apply to the free world. Then it went much further, with television in the UK refusing to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine, because it might offend a tiny minority of viewers.

It is seen in the anonymous vitriol poured out by those offended by an article published in a newspaper that was neither illegal, nor gratuitous (but the newspaper was from the spawn of the devil - being The Times, owned by the illiberal left's own pantomine villain - Rupert Murdoch - whose main crime has been to establish or buy media outlets that express views they not only disagree with, but importantly disapprove of).   It saw the newspaper pull the article because of the angry mob.

It is seen in the complete absurdity of a UK National Union of Students Women's Conference asking delegates to not applaud speakers because it "triggered" anxiety for some students.  So "Jazz Hands" were suggested instead.  The language used by one of the advocates for this hyper-emotionalism responded by saying:

Connecticut children are relatively lucky compared to the gulag kids

Whilst the US and other mainstream Western media continue to interview children going to school in Connecticut following the shooting, milking the sadness and showing concern for how they cope with the stress of the appalling crime (which is fair enough), I thought it was time to get some perspective.

At the moment in North Korea there are over 150,000 people in gulags. This includes children.  It is impossible to know how many are children, but it is likely to be in the low thousands.

They are slaves.  They get little food.  The temperature averages at -10 Celsius, the gulags are unheated.  They are awoken at dawn and expected to work every day, doing menial tasks.  Those too young to work get beaten, neglected, sexually abused and tortured for sadistic pleasure.  They are told every day how useless they are, as sons and daughters of counter-revolutionary traitors, lackeys of Americans and Japanese.  

"Id just turned twelve, and I remember wishing I would die soon”  (Kang Chol-Hwan "Aquariums of Pyongyang")

So note that whilst the world paid attention to the DPRK's rocket and its now failing satellite, and the propaganda around the first anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death (and placement in a mausoleum), it doesn't ever pay enough attention to the children in the gulags there.

As I've said before the prisoner children in the DPRK are:

Forced to live in prisons high in the mountain valleys, from babies.  They receive rations that are starvation level, those who survive do so by eating bugs, mice and other things they can forage or hunt for.  Many are physically abused, some sexually abused, when old enough they are forced to work from dawn to late in the evening, every day.  It is one step removed from Nazi concentration camps, in that it isn’t gassing used to eliminate them, simply hard work, cold and malnutrition.

So this Christmas, whilst you may naturally spare a thought for the parents of the children who were killed in the shooting, and the kids left behind, you'd do worse than to be distressed and angry at the ones in North Korea.  Angrier still at the willing idiots in the West who defend it, and angry at the Western politicians who have been too scared to bring this issue up at every appropriate opportunity.

As cute and amusing as North Korea is, it really isn't.  It's unspeakably vile, and at this time of year that vileness will seen many many children die of malnutrition, hypothermia and torture, because of a state, a philosophy and a system that devalues life and dehumanises in a way that is difficult to exaggerate.

It is a clash of civilisations - it's about time we were proud of our's

Back when I studied international relations at university, Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilisations” was not cited as a particularly seminal work.  It was thoroughly criticised, as the prevailing view at the time was that Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis appeared to be more valid.  Bear in mind this was just after the end of the Cold War, and followed what appeared to have been a successful excising of Saddam Hussein’s gangster regime from Kuwait, under UN Security Council sanctions.

The heady days of humanitarian intervention appeared ahead, and with Russia a friend of the West, China focused almost entirely upon economic growth and internal stability and Middle East peace talks focused around pathways towards resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it did not look like there was great international disunity like was seen under the Cold War.

Liberal democracy and basics levels of individual rights and free speech seemed largely universal now that what was the Soviet bloc, seemed to embrace them.  The weeping sores of Israel/Palestine, South Africa, Northern Ireland all seemed to be on pathways to progress.   China, albeit a large country still a long way from any embrace of such rights, appeared to be pointing in the right direction, and was inwardly focused only likely to lash out over Taiwan or Tibet.  Latin America appeared to have rid itself of virtually all of its tyrants.  East Timor was finally liberated from Indonesian military rule.  Saddam Hussein seemed contained.  The Balkans were a disaster and a travesty, but after (finally) intervention against Serbia, it all seemed to come to a halt, and Europe has managed to ringfence and rebuild those lands that were once Yugoslavia.   However,  Rwanda/Burundi and Liberia showed how easy it was for political/military leaders to incite mass extermination campaigns.

It has been clear now, at least for 11 years, that this rosy view of the world has been a mistake.  Most importantly, it is abundantly clear that the values of individual freedom, free speech and freedom of religion, are not embraced by the majority of the world’s population.

Whilst those of us in the “Western” world see differences between the US and Europe, these differences are insignificant between those of other civilisations on the planet.  It is taken for granted in the “West” (by which I mean the EEA countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), that women should be equal under the law to men, that racism is unacceptable and barbaric, that free speech including the right to criticise all political views, and to both criticise and mock public figures, is inviolable, and that freedom of religion and from religion are part of a modern society. 

However, whilst many share some of these values, many not only disagree but cannot even comprehend a viewpoint that holds them.

It is fair to say that support or embrace of those values may be slightly weaker in Latin America than in the West, and moreso in the former USSR.   Confucian and Hindu cultures in east and South Asia also carry less tradition and support for such freedoms, but there have been, by and large, positive paths towards that (although racism/sectarianism remains rampant).   Sub-Saharan African countries have also a different view of such freedoms, which are more diverse than Huntingdon could reveal.

However, the big conflict is with the Islamic world, which itself has many diverse strands, but which by and large, with the exception of the likes of Bosnia, Albania and Turkey, is hostile to individualism, secularism and freedoms of speech and religion.

The reaction seen across the Muslim world, and in many Western countries, is a throwback of some centuries, indeed it is a difference that is more profound that than between Marxism-Leninism and Western liberal democracy/mixed capitalist countries during the Cold War.

The flames being fanned by Islamists are ones of values that are completely contrary not only to the post-enlightenment settlement between Christianity, the state and society, but also international law on human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 
The protestors are predominantly men, promulgating a misogynistic world view, which not only treats women and girls as possessions, but has no tolerance for even engaging in debate or challenge of their religious view.  Freedom of speech is to be burnt at the stake along with all those who they feel have hurt their point of view.  It is as dangerous as it is infantile, as fanatically anti-reason as the anti-semitism of the Nazis, the anti-classism of the Khmer Rouge and every sectarian conflict you can remember. 

They are as incredulous about the relaxed Western view over a film produced privately in the US, as Westerners are over their violence and (literal) sabre rattling.  They live in societies where drawing an image of their prophet can get you executed, and indeed even deciding that you no longer believe in Islam can mean death.    This is accepted as being integral to their entire social system and set of beliefs.   Religion is not an adjunct to life that provides meaning for certain ethical questions or advice on living under difficult circumstances, for reflection at least once a week.  It is central, fundamental and provides a source of guidance on a daily basis.  The closest parallel outside it in modern history is seen in the personality cult laden totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany, the Stalinist world, Maoist China and today in North Korea.   In all of them, the thoughts and words of the personality cults meant everything, their lives, their deeds took up so much time in education and daily life.   For many Muslims, Islam is that special.  The idea anyone would choose to abandon such believes is not only foolish, but dangerous and any such element is likely to bring down their proud culture.
 
Given they live in states which enforce this society, they find it remarkable that other states do not also reflect their national religions.  The idea that private American citizens can produce a film, without any official endorsement or state oversight, seems improbable and impossible to them.  After all, surely all governments everywhere enforce the religious values of their societies?  Just because the West has corrupt ones, and Christianity has been debased so much (they would say), is not the point.  After all, the Islamists would say, they certainly don’t allow people to poke fun at Christianity (don’t ask about the Jews though).

The seriousness by which they take religion, the state and the offence they feel, is palpably toxic.  Because they fanatically embrace Islam (almost entirely because they were born and raised with it), and because they believe anyone departing from it must be both foolish and evil, they see anyone who dares challenging it to be challenging them personally.  They see it as the devil – like an ancient tribe of animists who see outsiders mocking their totems.   They see it as dangerous and genuinely feel that a challenge or mockery of their faith is an attack on themselves.

Yet people in the West are regularly exposed to mocking, to having either religious or political beliefs challenged.  Few would resort to mass violence to defend their point of view.   You see, Western culture and society has embraced free speech, a diversity of views, open discourse and satire as being healthy.  The amount of mockery and what would be seen as blasphemy against Christianity is significant, and is seen across the Western world (although there are parts of the US where it is a bit scarcer than others).   However, the Christian response is, mostly, to engage, to debate, sometimes to call for new laws, but it isn’t to go out and vandalise or demand beheadings.

That is the response I’d have expected 600 years ago.  That is roughly where many in the Islamic world are.   It is why the invasion of Afghanistan is failing, because barely any effort has gone into changing culture – a culture which is as sexist, racist and religiously intolerant as Western society was in the dark ages, and as economically and scientifically innovative. 

So what does this mean?  The key question is how to respond to such sabre rattling.

There are, logically, five options.

Submit, appease, ignore, engage or fight.

Submitting to such declaration of bigotry or ignorance is not an option, it is surrendering that which literally millions of men and women have died to defend.  No one who even considers such an option deserves to live in a free society.

Appeasement is the worm’s way out, and indeed is the option that more than a few politicians will adopt.  This is to agree with the bigots, and to call for greater “respect and tolerance” of beliefs that themselves embrace little respect and tolerance.  This is the vile sycophantic selling out of more than a few on the left, who are only too quick to want to placate the men who want to continue to treat women as chattels, and execute apostates, rape victims and homosexuals.  No one who speaks the language of appeasement deserves to even be considered to be liberal or respectful of human rights.  It is telling that this is the response of the UN Secretary General.  It is also not the path for victory, for ultimately you will have sold out all of your freedom to placate those who hate the values you say you believe in, but prove by actions that you'll sell for some short term peace.

Ignoring the protests is a viable option, until of course, they start engage in vandalism and violence against the innocent.  In some places, they are on a scale where this appears the only logical option, to “let off steam”, but this simply means steam will build up again.  Nobody who fought for fundamental freedoms would see this as being honourable.

Engaging them, would appear to be the most logical and productive step forward.   Indeed, it is promising that counter-protests have appeared in some cities, such as Tripoli, and that some Muslims fear the approach taken by protestors is to deny the freedom some have fought for.   The message to them all should be very simple:

• -          Secular states do not control what films private citizens produce;
• -          Freedom of religion and freedom of speech include freedom to offend, to challenge and to mock;
• -          The response in a free society to being offended, is to challenge back and mock back, to disarm others through argument, reason and one’s own creativity, not violence;
• -          Those that advocate violence or vandalism to make arguments for their religion have already lost, as they are incapable of debate.

Finally, the need to fight in self-defence is critical.  Whether it be people or property owners, the application of violence should be resisted by the state and individual victims to the extent necessary to defend themselves.  For let's be clear, 9/11 was undertaken by those willing to destroy our way of life.   People who are not amenable to reason and engage in force, must be fought - there is no peaceful option to deal with those willing to kill you.

In conclusion, it is critical for those in the West, whether they be libertarians, conservatives, socialists, Christians or atheists, to understand that the commonly shared basic Western values of individual autonomy, equality of the sexes and races, and tolerance of different religious beliefs, are not shared by many on the planet (indeed they are inconsistently shared in the West).  For those values to get greater adherence requires patience, it requires leading by example and it requires continuous consistent engagement against those willing to take it on, and the use of force in self-defence for those willing to initiate force.

This has significant implications for a whole range of public policies, including immigration, education, defence, foreign relations, international aid policy, the welfare state and media.

These require politicians who are prepared to embrace a principle, rather than kowtowing to avoid offence.  Politicians who are proud of the freedoms fought for since the Enlightenment.  However, for them to come out, it requires citizens of Western countries to want to articulate loudly to defend the society that so many have, by and large, done little to defend. 

Post-modernist moral relativists have no place in this.  Neither do those wishing to appease.