by PAUL COLLITS – THE other day, when one of my grandchildren (optimistically) stated that what separates humans from animals is rational decision-making, I reached for the phone and pulled up one of those excellent videos on the brilliant problem-solving skills of crows.
The children by now had all gathered around, and were in awe. Rightly so, as Bill Lawry would say.
- The Liberals are now full of women and wets – and those two categories often overlap.
- The attack on freedom is accelerating under the guise of safety, equity and progress.
- Unelected bureaucrats and ideological radicals are constructing a new global control grid.
The claim is made that crows are as intelligent as any seven-year-old. I would only add that they are also as intelligent, probably more so, than half the population of Canberra. And much, much more likeable.
Anyway, if I repeated this action come next December, after the new online safety laws come in, I would be committing an illegal act.
SECOND-RATE
By then, those second-rate women-in-public-life, Julie Inman Grant (aka eKaren) and the Liberal’s Shadow Communications Minister Melissa McIntosh, will, no doubt, have prevailed upon three-term Albo to extend the immoral and ludicrous age verification process for the new social media access laws to video sharing companies. Or is it only YouTube?
Here is McIntosh: “The opposition is calling on Labor to include YouTube in its world-leading social media ban for under 16s.”
World leading? What an embarrassment of a politician. What a freedom-hater. She is clueless, and free-swimming out of her depth. Making kindergarten-level category errors.
The Liberal Party, just like the country it claims to represent, is no longer recognisable.
Its parliamentary Party is full of women and wets, and yes, those two categories often overlap.
There is another sense in which they are unrecognisable. Most of them you have never have heard of – and you’d be happier never to hear from.
The American eKaren we have inherited, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, reckoned there was “research” to support her argument to extend the social media fascism to video sharing platforms.
It turns out there was a reason she didn’t want this “research” released.
When there is absolutely no justification for a policy, rest assured that the real motive for its promulgation is nefarious at best, evil at worst. And so it is with this crow’s breakfast.
There can be no rational reason for banning social media for under 16s related to its ostensible justification of child harm protection, let alone extending it to non-social-media companies.
If the risible claim that social media has led to a crisis in the mental health of children, well, why not let parents be parents and keep their children away from the alleged harm? If there is harm.
It is, of course, old hand practice in government to simply create a problem, better still, a moral panic, then claim to be (heroically) solving it.
They did the same with paedophile Catholic priests (remember the Royal Commission we had to have?), with pandemics, wars, the lack of women in the paid workforce and climate catastrophism.
It might be argued that somewhere north of half of all government policy is completely unnecessary. Libertarians would argue, probably correctly, that the real figure is somewhere north of 90 per cent.
The great urbanist-scholar Peter Hall wrote a book called Great Planning Disasters back in 1982.
DISASTERS
The contention here is that many policy disasters are borne not of good intentions but are, rather, the work of globalist and other bad actors bent on control and power.
Power that crushes individuals, families and nations.
So, what are they up to? It isn’t rocket science.
The online safety laws are all about digital ID, as many have been warning for some time. The logic of forcing the young to prove their age to access social media means that everyone will have to verify their age.
Ergo, even more and greater State surveillance of all citizens seeking to go online. And greater capacity to restrict what the surveiled can say.
After all, Inman Grant did use the term “rabbit-hole” in a recent speech explaining the justification for the YouTube push. The final goal? To remove anonymity on the net.
Her speech was cutely titled: “Swimming between the digital flags: helping young Australians navigate social media’s dangerous currents.”
And just think. As eKaren’s speech was on YouTube, come December, the youth of Australia won’t be able to check out why they are being forbidden from using the very platform on which she (mis)spoke.
The State already has the tools of surveillance (digital ID) approved. Thanks again to the Liberal Party, of course.
This new atrocity is merely a mopping up operation. An operation that is part of a far larger picture, too.
George Christensen again explains: “The war on freedom is accelerating. Under the guise of safety, equity and progress, unelected bureaucrats and ideological radicals are constructing a new global control grid.
“It is being sold with pretty words like inclusion and sustainability, but underneath lies an agenda of surveillance, censorship, coercion and submission.
HARD-CODED
“These are not fringe ideas. They are being hard-coded into law, software, education, travel, and communication.”
It is all of a piece. Digital tyranny in a digitally lived world is simply tyranny.
George Christensen says Inman Grant must resign or be sacked:-
- The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has repeatedly overstepped legal bounds, including issuing unlawful takedown orders now overturned by Australian courts.
- Her office, initially created to combat child exploitation, has expanded into ideological censorship and political activism, using vague and coercive methods.
- Notable overreach includes global censorship demands on X and efforts to undermine encryption and user privacy through mass surveillance proposals.
- Inman Grant faces international scrutiny, including a US Congressional report accusing her of colluding with partisan groups to suppress conservative speech.
- Australians must act to defend free speech by demanding Inman Grant’s dismissal, the closure of her office and a rewrite of the Online Safety Act.
All of which begs the question – whose country is it now?
An unelected, foreign-born globalist with a decidedly undemocratic – dare one say, unAustralian – agenda now gets to say that I cannot legally show my grandchildren a video of crows that are far more rational than she is.
It would be the same country where Jewish Australians and their fellow Zionist travellers cannot walk the streets or have a public meal in safety.
It is the same country whose environment is being desecrated by windfarms and solar farms and their supporting infrastructure. In the name of the environment. Another irony.
MABO
It is the same country where great swathes of foreign enclave suburbs are culturally off limits to those who like their signs in English, and where even greater swathes of the country are legally off limits in a post-Mabo world.
It is the same country where dissidence is not tolerated and where dissidents are sneered at for not parroting politically correct narratives.
And not merely sneered at. Put in jail during COVID. Dragged through the streets. Shot at with rubber bullets. Evicted from businesses. Excluded from shops. Prevented from attending church services. Sacked for not accepting the clot-shot.
It is the same country that is run by a cartel of people with zero interest in the welfare of the rest of us.
And, of course, it is the same country where a citizen who was born here and who has lived here all his life has to be “welcomed” to it by an Aboriginal elder.
Donald Horne once wrote, famously, that we were the lucky country. Now, it is only lucky for some.
There will be more and more caged people as time passes.
Whose country?
Oh, that would be the same country where two thirds of Sydneysiders have one or both parents born overseas.
The same country that is replacing its natives – in the sense of Australians born here and committed to the place – with foreigners for whom the country is just an airport.
I never thought I would be having so many conversations with people who are bereft and just want to leave the place.
The country we once knew is gone.PC
The rot in the West started when women got the vote. I say that despite Jacinta Price being the best politician in the major parties. In the US currently the absurd opposition to Trump is being led by young white women.
But the issue is wider than women. The left will use anything to maintain power: Starmer wants to lower the voting age to 16, and the dreadful Teal here has taken up this nonsense. The left are also importing muslim voting herds despite the incompatibility of muslims with Western values. The key is power, which is all the left are interested in. Here our pathetic PM is also importing muslim voting herds, who will eventually turn against the left as they did in iran. In a sense the left is entirely made up of women because there are no men, in the traditional sense, in their ranks.
I have been catching up over the last few days with the major female-centred story in Australia of 2025, namely, the feud between Clementine Ford and Abby Chatfield.
AC put on a performance which was simultaneously hilarious and chilling. Imagine a carload of five year olds throwing a tantrum in chorus and you’re getting close.
CF managed to show more self control, but from what I can make out she was the instigator. The inference drawn by many from her comments is that she felt threatened by Abby – a younger (and more popular) version of her own self.
This pair supposedly represent the peak of Australian feminists. Strong, bold, confident, ready to put any man in his place. And yet, at the first moment they feel they’re being undermined, they turn to water.
Little Caesar syndrome. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
That’s Julie Inman Goebbels. Use the correct name.