SOMETHING DOESN’T ADD UP

The Federal #Budget2020 has definitely forgotten to carry a few 1’s along the way…

There is a lot of criticism out there. Financially secure Liberals are unhappy about the sea of public money piling up around the working class. Media hacks (who didn’t read it) are absolutely certain that women were short changed. Labor commentators are stuck between demanding cash for their pet topics while simultaneously giving Josh a hard time about the trillion-ish dollar debt. (Labor upset about debt. Try not to laugh.) And then we have the businesses owners, who are simply depressed because they can recognise unhelpful bullshit at a hundred paces.

This is all noise, of course. Every time a budget slithers out of government, only a few economists are bored enough to actually read it. These poor bastards lop off the head and translate the waffle into a couple of talking points which are then repeated at length by the rest of the news cycle. Within hours it has become a game of economic Chinese Whispers.

So, what is actually wrong with the budget?

Frydenberg makes a huge assumption that the pool of existing businesses who have survived the Covid crisis are somehow immortal. This false hope is used to underpin his recovery figures, which are then extrapolated into pretty graphs that might as well be drawn in crayon. Anyone separated from the climate-controlled enclosure of the public purse knows full well that the economic train has a long way left to crash. Even if Covid vanished tomorrow and Australia returned to business as usual, margins are well below profit and the banks are preparing to call in loans that have been shadowing our nation.

As government assistance withdraws from the market, international borders remain closed, and a vaccine unlikely for months – businesses are going to fold in an extinction level event. This outcome is predicted to be so serious that Chapter 11 bankruptcy legislation was rushed through – probably when an escapee from the Reserve Bank showed up looking rather rattled in Scott Morrison’s office. At that point, someone in government must have realised that they were about to permanently wipe out the productive seam of Australia’s entrepreneurs, who are collapsing through no fault of their own.

Frydenberg is in a dilemma. He wants people to throw their remaining assets into starting up new business to salvage his spreadsheet, but who is going to risk their savings now that they know the government can pounce at any moment and destroy their life’s work? Not many. In the halls of Australia’s retail giants, many are preparing to cut their losses and give up on this country, and who could blame them?

Second major problem… The budget is full of unintended consequences. Allow me to give you a typical example. The government knows that it has an issue with too many people sitting on the expensive JobSeeker welfare scheme. Naturally, they want to incentivise businesses to hire them.

Governments aren’t particularly bright, so they picked up a wad of cash and decided to throw it at businesses who hire JobSeekers under the new ‘JobMaker Hiring Credit’. There is plenty of fine print involved meaning that it is only really useful for larger companies who are doing well, not struggling small businesses, but more to the point, it actively disadvantages prospective employees who have managed to make it this far without dipping into the government’s pocket. If an employer has the choice of hiring two people and one results in them getting paid by the government and the other doesn’t, they’re going to pick the government hand out regardless of how skilled the employees in question are. In essence, the government is now competing with an individual’s merit while tossing a bit of casual ageism in for good measure.

There has been plenty of fair criticism pointing out that John Howard had similar youth-employment policies during his tenure as Prime Minister. However, playing around in the job market during a booming economy cannot inflict anywhere near the damage of tilting employment away from Australians during a financial crisis. Remember, free food doesn’t cause a stampede unless the people are starving.

A better idea would have been to pressure the states to give up Payroll Tax (already a broken promise left over from GST reform), get rid of Paul Keating’s Fringe Benefit Tax, and significantly reduce Company Tax. All of these taxes punish businesses for hiring people and being productive – which is a ludicrous thing to keep in your economy if you’re trying to salvage as many businesses as possible and avert an employment crisis.

Frydenberg, like all of his predecessors, will not pursue this because it requires admitting that these particular taxes have always been counter-productive and anti-business. They exist purely to collect revenue at the cost of the average person trying to make a go of the Australian dream.

The last glaring issue in this budget comes in the form of detail. There are a lot of grand gestures and statements of cash being thrown into key industries which have been trending in the press. Take the 1.3 billion for the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. Sounds great, eh? Who doesn’t love a bit of manufacturing when the public are keen to claw back market share from China. Unfortunately, when you dig a little further you find that it is more of a vague thought bubble than a tangible lifeline with no information available until 2021. With an election due in 2022, one would be forgiven for thinking that this money will be folded back into a whole new set of election promises – around and around – never actually manifesting in a glorious manufacturing industry.

US President Donald Trump knows how to salvage an economy, but no one in Australian politics is paying much attention. If there is one thing that Australians can take away from Frydenberg’s budget, it is that Capitalism has made Australia fabulously wealthy and free over its short life. When the government was forced to engage in Socialism by health-mandated-fear, it sent itself broke overnight.

This budget is not our salvation.


By ellymelly – If you enjoy my work, consider shouting me a coffee over on Ko-Fi

ADRIFT

thinkerlarge

The world is either coming to an end – or it’s not.

Every successful political tyranny understands that civilisation has an inbuilt emergency setting. The big red button. When activated, humans of every ilk will set aside their selfish genes – cast off material ambition – down the tools of common conflict and work a unity ticket in the name of survival.

This mechanism is a gift of our violent history. We use it to endure horrific accidents, sustained warfare, plague, starvation, and of course those rare cracks in our epoch when we can do nothing but watch as nature tears apart reality. These are the moments of humbling terror. The flashes where annihilation reminds us that we are a wink in the dark.

It is very important to understand that this survival instinct is first and foremost unsustainable.

Primarily an emotion, it compels us to do things that we would not ordinarily consider including activities against our civilisational interest. When it ends – and it will always end – whatever embers of society that have endured will face upheaval as all the pieces try to shuffle themselves back together on a broken board.

The West lost alcoves of its psyche during World Wars that can never be replaced. Many for the better, a lot for the worse but all at the cost of 100 million lives. Entire generations were stolen and those who survived faced decades of poverty. The Millennial empire may be genuinely unaware but peace is purchased with leagues of blood so we should hold onto it for as long as possible and cherish every day our swords remain sheathed.

Crying wolf about this sort of approaching hell takes radical stupidity, moral vacuousness or both. Certainly, chaos is not the ground upon which anyone should construct a political thesis – unless you’re short-sighted.

Apocalypse-politics preys on the camaraderie of fear.

Labor knows how easy it is to terrify people into dropping a vote at the ballot box. Union thuggery has worked this way for the best part of a century and now they’ve reared a generation to be Climate-god fearing in the Greek fashion. I’m frankly surprised we’re not at the point of vegan-virgin sacrifices in the public square to make amends for our iphone emissions.

When this eco-cataclysmic philosophy is embraced, there’s no need to sell boring economic facts that feel like an abstraction in the face of brimstone. Of course who cares about the economy if we’re all going to die!? A solid budget for future success pales in the shadow of the Socialist spend. This is the argument of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who laughs at the challenge of balancing a budget to pay for the great climate war as if she is the general in an existential conflict instead of a backwater politician facing a campaign fund scandal. What is money anyway but a sin of Capitalism? Unless it’s your tax money arriving in their campaign accounts – then Socialists perk right up.

The glaring truth observed by the ordinary citizen is that the governments writing doomsday prophecy do not believe their own press releases.

We are not relocating our capital cities into the mountains for fear of ocean inundation. Politicians haven’t grounded the aviation industry or scaled back their personal indulgences. World conflict hasn’t been snuffed for the greater good as you would expect if the world’s leaders truly thought that there was a serious threat to their survival. No. We continue to prop up corrupt governments with aid as they mulch through irreplaceable natural resources. Meanwhile France’s Renewable Energy Regime all looks a bit pointless as the streets of Paris are set on fire every weekend, billowing thick smoke across the horizon in an ironic stain.

Seriously… The elite class strapping a token solar panel to their sprawling air-conditioned mansions with heated pools and more rare earth scrap metal than Southern China is not a sign of the ‘end times’. It is indicative of a scam.

As is the constant in politics the world over, it is for the plebs to suffer the consequence of Dante politicking.

The poorest are tasked with the bill while the top end of town have nothing to fear from the likes of Bill Shorten, Labor or their notorious punch-spiking wingman the Greens. Everyone else I advise, buyer beware. There is no money left in the kitty for vanity projects which is why Shorten intends to take the balance directly from you under the guise of a moral veil. He will tax you to death and follow you into the grave, resurrecting the hated ‘death duties’ in which politicians conspire to profit off your grief like a flock of vultures tearing at a corpse on the Savannah. They want you to think that your sacrifice is to stop the rising tide like the virgins tossed into volcanoes. Don’t be a fool. The contents of your wallet is purchasing beach front houses for the rich.

So, let us settle something up front. The world is not ending.

This is nothing more than the archaic argument of ‘ an enemy at the gates’ given a makeover. The aggressor is Capitalism, the battleground is Australia’s economy and the proposed Olympian hero is Socialism. The government is coming to save you from a threat that doesn’t exist. Political parties only require a ludicrous foundation when the policies themselves are ludicrous. Stop and think about how unpalatable these ideas must be for the threat of world wide annihilation to be brought onto the field as a sweetener.

I’m not going to pretend that there are many clean hands in Australian politics.

We’d all be thoroughly shocked if the Greens didn’t employ this tactic and it is practically the party foundation of Shorten’s Labor. However, watching the conservative LNP wade in up to their necks is disappointing to say the least. The purpose of the Liberal-National alliance is to counter-balance the Left’s heavy lean toward large government supremacy but since Malcolm Turnbull had a go at the wheel they’ve developed a taste for climate ponzi schemes for which we are all the poorer.

It’s no surprise that minor parties are back in favour. If nothing else voters feel that they have been bookended by twin pillars of the same philosophy. The tightening of the chain, shall we say. Populism is on the rise well yes that tends to happen when both sides of the political coin adopt unpopular policy.

In lieu of the Budget Reply 2019, the founding premise of Labor’s doomsday campaign can be named as #GlobalCooling #GlobalWarming #ClimateChange. This is the fantasy that, despite all historic evidence to the contrary, the Earth’s climate naturally exists in a static state which humans have wrecked with their technology and now the fiery vaults of the Doom are opening. The ten year deadline on this apocalypse has been shifting since the 70’s and has proven to be about as accurate as a Mayan prophecy.

Never mind the oceans filling with plastic pouring out of the third world’s largest rivers. Don’t look too closely at the ravages of religious war ripping apart the environment across the Middle East. We’re not going to worry about the wood-chipping of the Amazon to make way for palm oil, soy and rubber. It doesn’t matter that the biggest threat to our atmosphere is the loss of the mechanism that generates 20% of the Oxygen we require to keep breathing… Humans are pretty good at navigating temperature change. We don’t do so well with oxygen depletion.

If the United Nations and the Alliance of Virtue Signalling Countries with Shonky Human Rights Records were truly worried they might consider tying aid money to the survival of these last mega rainforests. It’s no good Australians bankrupting ourselves into the Stone Age if the lungs of the world have cancer. A move like this would require political bravery and moral fortitude – neither of which washes up on the shores of parliament very often.

We already know a hiccup of carbon dioxide sends swathes of the Left fainting so how could any eco warrior worth their salt make the case for Solar or Wind over Nuclear energy? Kilowatt per pound of lifetime carbon emission, it’s the gold standard. Indeed, France’s historically low emissions have climbed as it closes its Nuclear power plants in favour of Renewables while Germany has had somewhat of an actual catastrophe. As a country, it has thrown about as much money into Wind and Solar as South Australia and managed to give itself the silver medal in, ‘Europe’s Most Outrageously Priced Energy in the World’ category. Germany’s once stable power grid now suffers through black outs and load sharing mayhem despite subsidies and green levies that set the German taxpayer back nearly one trillion euros.

There’s no end in sight either. Building your power grid around Solar and Wind is the worst idea nation states have ever had. This electricity is unpredictable and expensive. More importantly, it fails to meet the basic requirement of a national energy grid – stability.

What we call ‘baseload’ is the minimum consumption requirement to keep the lights on. Solar and Wind have necessitated the bizarre obligation to build parallel energy grids. It is one thing to supplement baseload with a bit of Wind but quite another to try and run a country on it. As a power source, it tends to average 10% on its promised return peaking at 50% on good days and dropping to literally nothing without warning. Don’t get me started on batteries. Suffice to say there is neither the money nor resources to cover even Germany’s lonely grid.

The natural reality is that traditional sources of energy like Nuclear will always have to prop up the grid but here’s the thing – Nuclear is perfectly capable of running the grid all on its own – so why are we duplicating our costs on a technology that has a habit of slaughtering native birds and bats?

That would be politics getting in the way of progress.

Not only do we have systematic failure with the end product of the Renewables Industry – there’s a taxpayer rort perpetrated at the beginning. Government funded ventures to build Solar, Wind and Wave power (many foreign owned) are taking their pay cheques before folding in on themselves.

Meanwhile, with a mortally wounded power grid staring down inevitable collapse, Bill Shorten and Labor have birthed a remarkable policy to lure what’s left of our energy security into the senate where it will be stabbed repeatedly until finally stumbling over and bleeding out on the floor of parliament.

Who is our Brutus? Mandated electric car purchases.

To clarify – this policy will decree that 50% of all new cars be at least partially electric by 2030 from a market currently at 0.2%. It will impose an emission target on the other 50% which completely bans sales of Australia’s most popular vehicles currently totalling 97% of all purchases – ouch… Businesses will be able to write off 20% of the cost of their electric vehicle worth more than $20,000 (you pay for that) on top of the existing 12.5% (you pay for that too).

Shorten will then author a 200 million cheque to the car industry (which Labor previously argued should not be supported by the government) 100 million of which will go into new charging stations and the rest into the creation of yet more layers of bureaucracy in the guise of COAG. There is no consideration for the wiping out of the mechanical industry surrounding vehicles and contrary to what Shorten has said, electric vehicle manufacturers do not allow third parties to service their batteries. In addition, Federally funded road upgrades and charging stations have about as much chance of reaching Australia’s country areas as the NBN so we can pretty much write this off as another inner city wet dream paid for by Australians who’ll never experience the benefit. Again.

To bring these budgetary figures into perspective. The average Australian pays $10,000 a year in taxes of some kind so Shorten’s little ecar binge would take 20,000 years for you to pay off. Good value? Probably not…

So while we have tens of thousands of vulnerable Australians disconnecting from the power grid every year unable to afford the most basic of first world comforts and pensioners dying in their beds from the cold as they ration their air conditioning, it’s good to know that we’re spending so much money on virtue projects to keep the United Nations happy.

Speaking of that power grid.

Current government policy is to politely request that businesses and home owners reduce their electricity consumption at the height of summer when it’s needed most because after the closure of our largest Coal Fired power stations, it quite literally cannot cope with demand. Like the Germans, we are well acquainted with sustained blackouts and forced power sharing which basically translates to a big F-U to country areas in favour of keeping the city lit.

Even without electric cars leeching off the grid, if Australia doesn’t do something about building baseload power plants immediately Sydney and Melbourne might have to adapt and become vampire enclaves where residents resign themselves to candles and other savageries of the 14th Century. One might imagine that any government currently campaigning for the Federal election might put this at the top of their list. Sadly, focus groups have been taught to resent the very thing that charges their smart phones and no one has the chops to buck up and state the obvious – we need Coal Fired power stations or it’s back to the caves.

So yeah, there is going to be a massive demand issue when the tide of electric cars roll into their garages of an evening and plug in. They don’t evenly distribute themselves either, they cluster in hot spots in a feeding frenzy the nightmare of electrical engineers the world over.

Mark Butler, a Labor spokesman, recently operated on a supreme level of naivety when he suggested that, ‘other countries around the world were dealing with the issues.’ Yes Mark, with their Nuclear power plants which we’re not allowed to build. He continued, ‘high take-up of rooftop solar panels will lower the impact’. Indeed Mark, when everyone plugs their cars in at night. However it is Mark’s final suggestion that gets the grand prize for sustained hilarity in which he floats the idea that the cars themselves could be used as backup batteries for the houses during blackouts.

Firstly – that’s not how electric car batteries are designed to discharge their energy… Secondly what? And how is a flat car going to be of use the next morning when people head out to their jobs? At this point Labor and their apologists are pulling lunacy right out of the air while the Press give them a free pass.

Labor are also acting under the impression that most people who own cars in Australia travel short distances or barely use them like our European cousins. This might be true of the Canberra circle or even the political class in Melbourne but for the Sydney workers who commute for an average of 2 hours every single day or the unwashed hordes living outside major cities who easily rack up 1000km a week, electric cars are not very appealing in their current capacity. If you’re facing an 8 hour return trip with produce the last thing you want to do is stand around waiting for your car to charge. The supercharging requirement for this sort of use falls well beyond the recommendations from ecar retailers for the health of the battery. You’re simply not meant to use these cars as dogged workhorses. That’s the entire reason why Australians buy higher emission cars in the first place – the work load.

We are not Europe. Our roads are terrible, everything is bloody miles away, we’ve no useful rail system and the quality of the power infrastructure is at the lowest threshold with eyewateringly long charges on an ever rising electricity price tag.

This discussion does not even begin to delve into the chemical limitation of battery technology. For two hundred years we’ve known that the process which allows us to re-charge a battery by reversing electron flow irrevocably destroys the battery. Changing materials and packing the cells more densely has slowed the damage and increased the voltage but the problem remains. As Climate Change zealots are yet to work out, not every technical puzzle has a solution no matter how much money you throw at it. Battery engineers have been working on this full time since the electrical revolution and the best recommendation of laptop and phone manufacturers was to reduce the charge load of the devices to be more gentle on the battery thus extending its life. You can do this with a phone but it doesn’t work with a car which requires a large amount of electricity to physically turn the wheels.

Superchargers make it worse. The faster you charge a battery, the quicker it degrades. Degradation means that the charge capacity lowers – about 8% in the first year with perfect use, 11% after two but much worse if you start religiously using superchargers. This means your range also drops 11%. All these wild claims about ecars being able to travel 400km is only true when they are brand new. You cannot expect that to be the same a year into your ownership. If that happened to petrol cars they’d be returned to the dealership.

These are material limitations similar in difficulty to breaking the speed of light. You just can’t get past the law.

There are so many pieces of vertebra out of place in this policy that all you can see for miles is deformed bone. While Bill Shorten remains resolute Australians are completely bewildered by the reality he is proposing.

At the end of the day the real demon is government interference. Technological achievements do not require our loving government to rob us blind and then stand there and beat the living shit out of us until we adopt their product.

Good technology is appealing.

Customers line up in the freezing cold for days to pay more money than they can afford. The reason markets the world over don’t buy electric cars on their own is because the product isn’t good value. If we’re ever going to produce an electric car that people desire manufacturers have to be left to compete with the better product currently available. When they succeed, the supporting industries will be mature enough to sustain a 50% target. Forcing it too soon will not only destroy Australia’s economy and sour consumers, it will stifle ecar development.

In every conceivable way, Shorten’s policy is a terrible idea.

When the greatest ancient mariners sailed off in search of the rumoured Southern Land they did so on a leap of faith. Ahead lay endless gaping water. Languid and mellow. The tides of exploration lulled around their hulls and dragged the ill-fated expeditions over the edge of the horizon until their grand empires were reduced to a glittering mirage.

These were not middling fools. The wide-eyed groups were cashed up, well stocked and experienced. More than that, they were driven by captains who believed in their bones that this mission was ordained by the rabble of gods. To be fair, they were all onto something. Across the uncharted oceans waited many prosperous realms dreamed of in their legends. The great Southern Land long rumoured in myth really did have open veins of gold.

To foreign princes the ages past, Australia was a floating mine of rare and precious plunder defended by the bizarre with an ecosystem trapped in an evolutionary pocket poorly understood by those first European eyes who were forced to re-learn survival.

Their problem was never ambition – it was timing.

Australia is a form of unsurpassed geological hostility. That is what she is to electric cars – logistically hostile and if European electric car manufacturers want to succeed then it is the product that must evolve, not the consumer.

And so we are left to watch Bill Shorten set his fleet into the water – not a skilled captain but a middling canoeist – where it will soon be cast adrift, meandering from one fatal shore to the next until it sinks beneath the waves and arrives on the ocean floor in bits.

–by ellymelly

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CENSORSHIP

thinkerlarge

This is not the article I set out to write this week but I believe it is the one that must be written.

Here I will put to you the argument against censorship while I am still able to make it in all its uncomfortable, contentious and truthful self. You can decide at the end if there is a case worth considering or a moment’s pause to be had before we gleefully unravel the fabric of our society to the cheers of the political class.

We are a week out from another of humanity’s tragedies, this time perpetrated on the shores of our Pacific neighbour. The city of Christchurch which is settled on New Zealand’s volcanic South Island, has had a run of misfortune. First, an earthquake in 2011 killed 185 people and liquefied the ground beneath portions of the CBD rendering them worthless. This was a social and economic disaster from which the city was only just recovering when in March 2019 a lone gunman besieged the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre murdering 50 people in broad daylight livestreamed over Facebook.

This horrific slaughter of innocent people is not the first mass killing of the year – nor even the month. Terrorist events have been on a steep rise since the 70’s across the world and have, until recently, reached for an endless ceiling of violence. There are different political and religious motivations behind these actions but taking Wikipedia’s figures between 1970 and 2017 there have been 182,437 separate terror events resulting in 414,533 deaths and 529,476 injuries – that we know of. I stress this point because the majority of terror is perpetrated in countries with poor reporting and so we can assume the numbers are even worse than those quoted. Probably much worse.

There is no question that at this point in history, the largest recorded cause of terror and death in the world belongs to the Islamic Caliphate and its affiliates – lone wolves or recognised groups – operating in a wide range of countries. They are an organised, well funded movement of mixed religious and political motivation both seeking conquest and subjugation of foreign States while its members engage privately in unspeakable crimes against humanity. Inside its loose organisation wage several civil wars and a separate Islamic faith conflict that has been going on for over a thousand years. This terrifying force is backed by powerful countries who either allow terror to exist or openly fund their efforts for various reasons. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2016, 74% of all terror could be attributed to ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’lda.

Add to this other forms of extremists who have committed acts of terror in recent memory: Sikh Extremism (Ireland), Christian Extremism (Indonesia), Separatism (Angola, Chechen, Romania), Communism (Bulgaria, India, Malaysia), 19th of April Movement (Columbia), Palestinian Nationalism (UAE), White Nationalism (NZ) state-sponsored violence and whatever it is that China, Russia and Venezuela put their people through.

Then we must note the unaffiliated – the random acts more commonly referred to as, ‘mass murder’ because they have no specific ideology apart from their own wickedness.

Enough with the statistics. You take my point. Terror is not a single event, it is a complex sequence of violence transcending race, religion, culture and law. Skip a hundred or a thousand years backwards in time and the names will change but not the pattern of violence.

There are a few additional remarks required before I make my point.

Terror is overwhelmingly conducted in poor countries run by dictators, religious law or entirely failed states. These countries almost exclusively survive with serious government or cultural impediments to freedom, education and prosperity. Terror groups promising the world are able to take root among the youth using money and power as a primary drive. The dynamic is different in wealthy Western countries where terror tends to be run like an arm of a warring state against the native population who, unlike historic terror in these countries, are very unlikely to incubate the terror from within the population. There is an ongoing debate about whether the Islamic branch of this violence is actually a resurrection of ‘Holy War’ – self identified by those who wage it, bragged about by the leaders of countries who support it but uncomfortable for Western nations to hear who have left religion out of their politics for a long time.

Alright.

The abhorrent Australian mass murderer in Christchurch went to the trouble of writing a detailed manifesto which he intended to be found to explain his actions. This has been censored from the public arena with astounding fines and threats against anyone who not only disseminates the text but reads it.

This is a mistake. Let me tell you why.

Western Civilisation, particularly those with historical English roots, came to the conclusion after thousands of years of bloodshed that the key to peace is freedom. This is remarkable. A revelation – if you will.

At first it is not entirely obvious why this holds true.

Freedom of speech, association and expression has not been the norm of our species. Not today, not yesterday. We are predominately a tribal group ruled over by kings, dictators or rigid political and religious systems that keep a strangle hold of the collective through strict coercion and violence. Freedom has long been seen as the enemy of those at the top of these hierarchies. Because they gain their power by force these civilisations must exert an enormous amount of energy to strengthen the bars to maintain it. They have to do this diligently because, like the second law of thermodynamics, all things tend toward chaos. This includes human civilisation.

The tighter you try to hold human beings, the more they fight. The system wants to break. It is the reason populations overthrow their leaders in violent revolution. It is the cause of war the world over. With every layer of censorship and every onerous punishment, the probability of revolution grows. Of course this is deceptive. Before the catastrophic conclusion, these tyrannical entities can appear stable and uniform – much more so than an open democracy. There’s no dissent. No outrage. No deviation. This is kept in the shadows, festering resentment and hatred. Take North Korea as your example of stable hell brewing a future conflict.

What started in the forums of ancient Greece and Rome and finished off by Europe is the concept of democracy – a population who chooses their leaders, not on a one-off bloody coup but in a stable cycle that continuously dethrones those who would rule. This was not bestowed upon the people as a gift, it was the product of a very complex historical struggle between successive monarchs, religious authorities and the people working out how best to survive free of slaughter.

Contrary to all logic, it turns out that the best way to keep the peace is to have the incontrovertible freedom to insult each other.

This doesn’t apply simply between individuals, it is replicated to religious institutions, government leaders and the monarchy itself. Ideas were given value and debate birthed as the mechanism to test them. What we might call the second revelation is the well known reality that bad ideas die in the light.

The wonderful thing about a society constructed this way is that it self regulates. Insult is a necessary path to truth for how often are horrific ideas kept safe by the fragile feelings of monsters? How many millions have died while causing offence to right an immoral idea protected by the powerful?

It works the other way as well. Consider that only one person has a good idea – let us say, a scientific observation that flies in the face of all accepted culture and understanding. Even if enormous financial institutions stand at risk from this idea and even if the very moral underpinning society could be torn apart by its uttering – the idea is allowed to survive. In the end, society is the better for the upheaval, however painful. Take Charles Darwin’s work in evolutionary biology. There could not have been a more unimaginable crime of thought – even to himself, a devout man and yet without the veil of tears and screams set through the world we would not have discovered even a fragment or our medical industry.

The truth is that no one is qualified to know if ideas have worth before they are voiced. That is the purpose of the system but it only works without chains. If you start giving freedom of speech handicaps by roping off corners with ‘handle with care’ tape it will stop working – and quite quickly.

Fair enough, you may say, when we speak of ideas of science but this is a matter of hate.

There is no difference.

Hate speech is an idea unfit for those of moral standing. It is a sinister creation that originates in an infinite myriad of thought and circumstance. You can no sooner chase it with duct tape than prevent it from arising via AI algorithms. Like every bad idea before it, the fastest way to tear it to shreds is to submit it to the sunlight and allow the ruthless crowd to have-at the filth. This is what we should have done in the years after WWII instead of allowing the creep of ‘hate speech’ laws to muddy a well functioning system. It is worth noting here that Holocaust Denial laws did absolutely nothing to quash the movement but almost certainly made it worse by giving perceived victimhood credit to a fringe idea that would have withered away into obscurity. Bring them out onto the stage, I say and publicly drown them under the weight of visual evidence. You may never convert the tiny few zealots but you will thin the herd of conspiracy.

Today these hate speech laws are ever expanding beyond their solitary purpose to now infringe upon common offence and soon, terrifyingly, branch back into blasphemy law – the most heinous and bloody stain on our past that should never be given a foothold again. The threat they cause to our future is far greater than the offence they claim to protect against.

The next time a sympathetic leader or news reporter makes the argument for protecting religion from offence, make sure you remember those who are tortured and killed every day for defying the state-sponsored gods and consider what might happen to you…

Here I will come to my point.

The only way to mediate hate is to understand it. If its cause remains a mystery, so too will the solution. It is not good enough for a self-appointed government censor to wave a hashtag over an unseen idea. No person has the qualification to read for another and decide what they may hear. Even on its own that action solves nothing but more disturbingly there is a good deal of evidence to show that the manifesto of this particular tragedy is being misreported not just by the New Zealand government but also political parties at home and abroad. The motivational inaccuracies of the killer are then being used as an excuse to proliferate mass censorship in an unprecedented fashion against the rest of society – who had nothing to do with it…

If you were listening, you’ll know what my concern is regarding the spread of censorship through Western democracy.

To that end, I feel that it is safer for the public to be allowed the opportunity to make up their own minds about the document instead of diverting to manipulative, second hand reporting currently being used to sway debate. From the little we have been able to see of the source material – before reading was turned into a crime – it was looking more and more like the document in question was a deliberate mess created to start unrest. There was no committed single thought but rather a name-drop nightmare perfect if given to a government already chomping at the bit to silence perfectly legitimate and entirely unrelated unrest.

Indeed, the most dangerous hands to place this manifesto in are those who can use it without scrutiny.

I am aware of the counter argument. Should a document designed to create chaos be allowed to circulate? On face value you might say no and I understand that position but make sure you ask the follow up – how…? How does the killer imagine that his manifesto will do as he claims? If the purpose is to divide society and create civil unrest, the circulating of a cumbersome, nonsensical piece of garbage will not achieve it. For one humans are lazy and the grand majority won’t read more than a few pages before losing interest. Secondly, of those that do it is highly unlikely that they’ll be swayed by ideas that lack coherency. Third, like-minded individuals are already across the mantra and so the document neither changes their position nor makes them any more dangerous. Lastly, when enough people have read the drivel society will be able to dismiss it as worthless.

If we come to the conclusion collectively that this person is a maniac who tried to use a false political document – society holds onto its freedom and an evil man spends his life in jail. By all means the gun laws that he exploited should be addressed but in truth, that should have been done long ago by a neglectful government now embarrassed and trying to deflect their very real policy culpability by clinging to smoke and mirrors.

Remember, anyone can purchase and read Mein Kampf. You can do it in broad daylight sitting in a café. The detailed manifesto of Communism and Socialism’s heroes are only a Google search away even though combined they slaughtered more people than any other ideology. Religious texts sit in our schools, churches, libraries and airports despite their blood-stained history and present. Or perhaps you want to delve into the true crime genre and immerse yourself in criminology. Forget about us writers – our search histories will land us in jail one day.

Why then do we allow this? To learn from our mistakes.

…and the practical reality that if we banned everything used as justification for murder we’d be living in an empty cave real quick.

There are larger questions. How do we stop the next Hitler if, as a society, we never understood the first? Reading his work is common place in academia and yet we don’t have a tide of devout followers walking the hallways of our universities. It is patently false to say that reading a bad idea propagates it. Leaving it unchallenged has that honour. Would any world leader suggest that we should censor the events leading up to WWI and WWII because the ideas are simply too dangerous to risk circulating in general knowledge?

Worse, do we allow acts of violence by a deluded individual to unpick our laws? What would be the response if a killer named dropped Climate Change before a crime – do you throw a towel over the entire industry? Does that even seem logical… If we know one thing for certain it is that the murderer claimed himself an eco-fascist. (He claimed many competing affiliations, including a love of China’s Communism).

Look to the rise of Socialism among our youth. This generation doesn’t warm to Socialism because they understand it. They gravitate into the darkness because we have not done our due diligence as a civilisation and dragged the failed ideology through the fire for our children to fairly judge it. I’ve not met a single ‘Socialist’ who could define their own movement or even one that knew a grain of its history. We censored it from our culture and allowed its ghost to go unchallenged.

This is exactly what New Zealand has done with the killer’s manifesto. Authorities are turning it into a thing of rumour to be re-written and quoted without any mechanism to fact check. From this any claim can be made about its content and from those claims any law can be justified.

Re-read that.

You definitely have not read closely enough.

If a manifesto of ideas is going to be used to trigger a global love affair with censorial doctrine in the West the very least we are owed is the opportunity to decide for ourselves if such an action is justified.

We are not being asked if we wish to cede our freedom – world leaders are competing deliriously with each other to do something they’ve always wanted but never dared. While we are vulnerable in grief we must not let the rare and precious birthright our ancestors purchased be bargained away without so much as a sound.

The Nanny-state doctrine of censorship politics will stir violence in our society. Tearing apart the only true mechanism for freedom – the internet – will create a wave of anger from people who never before felt the need to express it.

I understand the temptation to exert control on the world is strong and that leaders who wish to distance themselves from blame are looking for life rafts in the storm but do not come for freedom. It is not yours to take.

As for Facebook and its livestreaming – it doesn’t take a genius to build a special function that can be activated by any user on pain of punishment if misused to alert a social media company of serious incident. We already have versions of these on other platforms to deal with cases of self-harm or active crime. What we are witnessing is a reaction of convenience, capitalising on tragedy – and I reject it.

 

-ellymelly