On Inventing Feminist Victims !

The me-me-me generation of feminists are more interested in inventing their own victimhood than in helping real victims, says Christina Hoff-Sommers:

Christina Hoff-Sommers

This past year I visited and spoke at several US campuses, including Yale, UCLA, Oberlin, and Georgetown. I found activist feminist students passionately absorbed in the cause of liberating themselves from the grasp of the oppressive patriarchal order. Their trigger warnings, safe spaces and micro-aggression watches are all about saving themselves from the ravages of the male hegemony. 

It’s not that they don’t feel bad for women in places like Iran or Yemen. They do. But they believe they share a similar fate… But too often, today’s gender activists are not fighting injustice, but fighting phantom epidemics and nursing petty grievances. Two leading feminist hashtags of 2015 are #FreeTheNipples and #LovetheLines. The former is a campaign to desexualise women’s breasts; the latter promotes stretch-mark acceptance. If the imprisoned women of Iran and Afghanistan were free to tweet, what would they say about these struggles? It's so pathetic isn't it?

Miranda Devine's sobering comments:
(Her photo is below)



We are under attack from the patriarchy, hostage to a rape culture, all at risk of domestic violence, held down by the glass ceiling, and not paid as much as men for equal work. 

Pity none of this is true, and in fact women in Australia have more freedoms and equality than at any time in our history.

So when a brute alpha male like Mark Latham, the maverick former Labor leader, stomps through the cosy media consensus to slay these lies, the entire apparatus of victim feminism rises up against him.  

He gives back twice as good as he gets, and so the professional offenderati who gathered at the Melbourne Writers’ Festival on Saturday to hear him talk got the vapours when he peppered his home truths with foul-mouthed aggression…

Then there was idiot Mamamia.com writer and social researcher Rebecca Huntley, who recounted her “terrifying” encounter with Latham the morning after his star turn in

Melbourne.  (Photo  of the two on the right)

By her own admission Huntley had once written that Latham, who takes care of his three children while his wife works, was a “stay at home psycho”. Why did she think that she could write something so malicious and unfounded and suffer no consequences?
He confronted me about the comment .  He stood very close to me and said, “How would you like it if I called you a deranged slut?"

 “Afterwards I was shaken,'' Huntley wrote. “How do I get my kids out of the hotel without encountering him again? I was genuinely concerned he might have more nasty things to say.” Maybe she should have thought of that before she called him a “stay at home psycho”.


The Way I See It......women have been so introspective in their own Western world of perceived slights and discrimination that I wonder why isn’t there a fight against ISIS a feminist issue? Why this near-silence in the face of the most horrific was on women seen in our lifetime? Amazing!

ABC’s Four Corners aptly revealed such ghastly crimes against women that any feminist who does not demand action betrays their deepest principles.

Doesn't work. Doesn't add up. Doesn't matter. It's Global Warming, right?

How much more evidence do you need? Global warming is a Faith, impervious to reason:

Reporter Paul Kelly

Australian Reporter Paul Kelly: ''How, as shadow treasurer, could you allow the leader to commit the party to the 50 per cent renewable energy target without any framework of analysis, without any work done on the impact of the scheme, the costs, any analysts whatsoever? ''
Labor dimwit MP Chris Bowen: ''Well, because I believe in ­renewable energy.''

UPDATE
Labor’s indifference to the terrible cost of its global warming faith is astonishing:

LABOR’S ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions by 40 to 60 per cent by 2030 would deliver a devastating blow to the economy, stripping a massive $600 billion from economic growth over the next 15 years, its own modelling commissioned in government has revealed. 

The emissions cut would also cost tens of thousands of jobs and would likely lead to the closure of all 37 coal-fired power stations in Australia.
The shocking predictions are contained in a 2013 Treasury and Department of Industry and Climate Change modelling report.  

Labor’s plan, which the party adopted last month at its national conference in Melbourne, would have to assume a carbon price of $209 a tonne by 2030, according to analysis of the models. It would also push wholesale power prices up 78 per cent over the next 15 years, radically increasing power bills for homeowners and businesses.

Simon Benson:

THE 2013 Mitigation Scenarios report by ­Treasury and a string of others is the report that Labor in government didn’t want anyone to see… Labor will lose this argument — again — if it isn’t upfront about what its policies will cost.

Daily Telegraph:

If Labor wants to create a welfare-dependent underclass of Australians whose former industries have been rendered non-viable by government legislation, this is exactly the right way to go about it.

UPDATE
But for all the crazy demonization of coal, the rest of the world is gobbling more of the stuff: 

A new study by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences detects an unmistakable “coal renaissance” under way that shows this mineral of fossilized carbon has again become “the most important source of energy-related emissions on the global scale.”
Coal is expanding rapidly “not only in China and India but also across a broad range of developing countries — especially poor, fast-growing countries mainly in Asia,” the study finds.

Or take Turkey:

Over 80 new coal-fired power stations are proposed in Turkey, the biggest coal rush in the world after China and India.

A rational word from the U.S.:

Carly Fiorina, Republican presidential candidate, and an outsider tip to be the party’s nominee for vice president:

The scientists that tell us that climate change is real and caused by man made activity, also tell us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all. So, when I see a state like California destroy lives and livelihoods with environmental regulations that will make no difference at all to climate change, when I see the Obama administration take that same regulation and apply it nationally – it will make not difference at all, yet we’re destroying people’s lives and livelihoods – I wonder, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when it won’t have any impact? 

So I think the answer to this problem is innovation, not regulation. But I must say, it angers me when liberals say “I’m prepared for you to lose your job in the name of sending a signal to…” whom? China could care less? In fact, China is delighted that we are not spending any time or energy figuring out clean coal, because they’re going to go do it.

The Way I See It.......Bjorn Lomborg, a top Danish Economist researching the terrible cost that global warming hysteria is costing, cites The Conversation (and specifically a media academic) as well as the Guardian as organisations and people which had peddled false information. When he pointed these out, no corrections were made. Even two Australian Universities refused to have him set up a think-tank on their campus. So much for free inquiry and speech.

You see, being wrong when you are a warming alarmist is just evidence of an excess of virtue. What’s to apologise for?

Barack and Michelle Obama: A Retrospective View !

The below summary of 6- year reign in the White House is by far the best I've ever read as it squarely hits the nail on the head.

And it took a black female reporter writing it to make it as effective as it is. 

A white man's account would be instantly criticized by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obamas is penned by a well- known journalist of colour?
 

BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA EVER!

(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles ..)

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obamas. Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. 
 

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. 
 

President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. 

 

Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing Congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs? 
 

Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie. But even using that low standard, 
the Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
 

I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
 

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide." No President in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. (AND THE 'SILENT MAJORITY' REMAIN SILENT!)
 

And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.
 

He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the

most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. (DON'T FORGET THE 'DEVOTED MUSLIMS' HE'S PLACED IN GOV'T) He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
 

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
 

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
 

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white President and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
 

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his Presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
 

The Way I See It.....many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected President, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a First Lady who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.  Disgusting !

 

The ''Benefits'' of Chavez Socialism !

In 2010, I posted an article on this blog site entitled ''Oliver Stoned On Hugo !''

While Venezuelan media outlets that criticize Hugo Chavez's regime were getting the duct tape treatment, Oliver Stone was out seeking to promote a movie that lionizes the autocrat. The increasingly leftist filmmaker just can't seem to shake his "Thug-Love" having already wasted money on the Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat flicks. Now he's got a documentary called, "South of the Border" that heralds Hugo as well as productions of 6 other South American socialist leaders.

 

"None of them are Dictators" says Oliver, looking unashamedly more like a South-of-the-Border dictator himself. His co-lover of Banana Republics, Sean Penn, is obviously delighted with Hugo being the main feature of the film. This leftist Penn has repeatedly praised Hugo for his anti-American stance and tight-fisted control of any complaints from his citizens. Sick little bastard.

Stone had been on tour of Latin America, on a marketing campaign for his film. Surprise, surprise--the beleaguered citizens of Venezuela decided not to show up to watch the whitewash of their so-called president. Many of the theaters were reportedly EMPTY! During the first 12 days of the movie's release, it brought in only $18,601 on 20 screens. That's what Venezuelans refer to as "la Bomba".
 

Venezuelans have been force-fed a steady diet of Chavez's mug on TV, which makes Hugo (the despot) more overexposed than Pamela Anderson doing the rumba on "Dancing with the Stars". Stone and the Hollywood leftist sympathizers of these dictatorial Pond Scum should reacquaint themselves with the Declaration of Independence which categorically states: Authority is derived from the governed, not through control.

Seven  years ago a collective of our most ardent  socialists - including the ABC’s prime dickhead Phillip Adams, propagandist John Pilger, the Greens’ scumbag Kerry Nettle and Kevin Rudd’s nephew Van Thanh Rudd - begged Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez to come teach Australians a lesson:

''Every country has its own traditions and culture and has to find its own solutions, but what Venezuela has been able to achieve in so little time will be a source of inspiration and ideas for many in Australia.''

Now:

The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the former president who once declared ‘being rich is bad,’ may be the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, according to evidence reportedly in the hands of Venezuelan media outlets.

Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, the late president’s second-oldest daughter, holds assets in American and Andorran banks totaling almost $4.2billion, Diario las Americas reports.

Venezuela itself isn't so blessed by the Chavez legacy:

As dawn breaks over the scorching Venezuelan city of Maracaibo, smugglers, young mothers, and a handful of kids stir outside a supermarket where they spent the night, hoping to be first in line for scarce rice, milk, or whatever may be available.
Some of the people in line are half-asleep on flattened cardboard boxes; others are drinking coffee. Almost all are bemoaning their situation. With shortages of basic goods and looting on the rise, more Venezuelans say they are resorting to night-time waits in front of closed stores.

 The Way I see It....Hugo Chavez deserves to be remembered as a missed opportunity; a man ignorant of the consequences of socialism and all it bestows on any country that pursues its phony promises. Through it all Chavez was uncharacteristically silent and passive, not listening to the free-press before it was extinguished. His complacency as he watched his nation fall into a vortex of murder and criminality will be one of the most ugly and unforgivable aspects of his years in power.

The Venezuelan people gave Chavez a political blank cheque and thanks to the prolonged boom in oil prices he also had a financial blank cheque. Few other heads of state had the combination of vast popular support and immense financial resources enjoyed by him for 14 years. His total control of all the levers of power ensured that he could do whatever he wanted. And he did! From changing the name of the country to changing its flag to imposing a new and unique time zone on his nation. And much more.

What he did not do was leave the country better off than when he became president. I can only hope when all those stupid individuals who followed him into the votex realize what is left of their country....they line up to piss on his grave.

Southern Ocean ‘SINK’ Turns the Tide on Climate Change Alarm !

Graham Lloyd wrote in The AUSTRALIAN, SEPTEMBER 11, 2015

Dr Nicolas Gruber

The Southern Ocean has recovered its ability to suck vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, overturning fears the natural “sink” had stalled with dire consequences for future climate change.

Acting like a giant lung, the Southern Ocean carbon sink accounts for about 40 per cent of the ocean uptake of anthro­pogenic carbon dioxide, without a trace of that demon: acidification.

Climate scientists had feared the uptake of carbon dioxide by the Southern Ocean had slowed in what was feared to be a “feedback” response to human ­activity.

New research published today in the journal Science reveals that rather than stalling, the amount of CO2 being ­absorbed by the Southern Ocean was on the rise again. It is thought that changes in weather — particularly wind patterns and temperature in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans — were responsible.The findings have invigorated debate about how well scientists understand the natural variations in the earth’s climate.

Lead author Dr Nicolas Gruber, from ETH Zurich, said the research did not address directly whether fluctuations in the sink strength were because of natural or human-induced variability.
“The starting hypothesis is that they are a result of natural variations,” Dr Gruber told The Australian.

Dr Benny Peiser (left) from the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation said it was “not the first time that lengthier observations have led to the demise of a short-term climate scare.” He continued, “The fact that researchers now acknowledge they cannot predict future trends indicates that they don’t fully understand the underlying physics and mechanisms.”

Contributing author Dorothea Bakker, from the University of East Anglia, said the variation in the Southern Ocean carbon sink was larger than expected on the basis of the growth of atmospheric CO2 alone.

“The Southern Ocean behaves like a giant lung — breathing in and absorbing vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, and releasing it later in the year,” Dr Bakker said. “The seas around Antarctica absorb significantly more CO2 than they release. They basically help to slow down the growth of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and lessen the rate of climate change.”

CSIRO Southern Ocean expert Steve Rintoul, who was not part of the research team, said the new analysis showed the strength of the Southern Ocean carbon sink varied with time more strongly than expected. “The weakening and strengthening of the Southern Ocean carbon sink reflects changes in ocean temperature and carbon dioxide driven by variations in the winds blowing on the ocean surface,” Dr Rintoul (right) said.  He said the wind changes were caused by human activities such as
greenhouse gases emissions and by natural variability.The results show that overall, the Southern Ocean sink is keeping pace with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

GWPF science spokesman David Whitehouse said the recovery of the Southern Ocean carbon sink “could be yet another explanation for the surface temperature hiatus”. He said the research was “another alarmist claim removed by science, showing that the ‘settled science’ isn’t settled at all.

“The fact is that the current models do not fit the observations, so there we have a vital part of future climate prediction shown to be not predictable,” Dr Whitehouse said.  He added, “No one

knows why the Southern Oceans are doing this, and no one can say what will happen next. It seems the Southern Ocean, along with a little bit of help from the sun, means that future climate projections, especially decadal ones, have become far more uncertain. The closer you look at widely held certainties, the more complex and less understood they become — that’s the science of a complicated earth.”

In a press release, University of East Anglia said while the research results may look to be good news for climate change, the effect could be temporary, and trends can’t be predicted reliably for the
Southern Ocean carbon dioxide absorption.


The Way I See It......The results show that overall, the Southern Ocean sink is keeping pace with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is in contrast to some earlier studies based on model experiments and atmospheric data that concluded the Southern Ocean carbon sink was weakening. Bravo for Mother Earth sticking it to the hyped-up delusional Warmists.

CNN Tries to Destroy TRUMP Over VACCINES and AUTISM !

(NaturalNews) During the widely televised Republican debates hosted by CNN, debate moderators tried to destroy Donald Trump with a "gotcha" question about vaccines and autism.

As Natural News readers know, a top CDC scientist has publicly confessed to taking part in the CDC'S fraudulent cover-up of data linking vaccines to autism in African-Americans. Both the CDC and the mainstream media -- including CNN -- have gone to tremendous lengths to censor this news, bury the truth and pretend that vaccines have no links to autism.

Of all the candidates running for President, Donald Trump is the only one who has publicly expressed intelligent scepticism over the insane vaccine schedule now being pushed on the children of America by a federal government that's run by Big Pharma profit interests.

CNN plays "gotcha" with Trump, but it backfires

CNN clearly plotted to attempt to discredit Donald Trump on this issue, posing a question to him that was laced with all the usual pro-vaccine propaganda which falsely claims that vaccines have no risks and couldn't possibly be linked to autism. The question to Trump was essentially accusing him of being medically incompetent or scientifically insane. But when CNN posed the question to Trump, he answered brilliantly.

Stating that he's in favor of the principle of vaccines, Trump explained, "But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time."

Trump, like many informed pediatricians and parents, is extremely skeptical of the false promises claimed by the CDC and the vaccine industry it promotes. Trump even went on to tell this story about vaccines and autism:

''Autism has become an epidemic... Because you take a baby in, and I've seen it, and I've seen it, and I had my children taken care of, over a long period of time, over a two or three year period of time, same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump -- I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, two-years-old, two-and-a-half-years-old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic. ...I'm in favor of vaccines [but] do them over a longer period of time, same amount, but just in little sections. I think you're going to have -- I think you're going to see a big impact on autism.''

CNN then tries to cajole Ben Carson into attacking Trump, but that backfires, too

Next, CNN turned to Ben Carson and prompted him to attack Donald Trump for his answer. While  

professing his belief in vaccines, Carson added this one stunning statement that backfired in the face of CNN:

Ben Carson: "We are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time..."

With now TWO candidates in the debate stating they believe there are too many vaccines given too early, CNN then turned to Rand Paul, hoping Paul would attack Trump.

Instead, Rand Paul confirmed what both Donald Trump and Ben Carson both said: that there are too many vaccines given too close together:

Rand Paul: "I'm all for vaccines, but I'm also for freedom. I'm concerned about how they're bunched up... I ought to have the right to spread out the vaccines a little bit..."

Finally, Mike Huckabee chimed in on the whole scam of Big Pharma, asking, "Why doesn't this country focus on cures rather than treatment? Why don't we focus on the cure for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's?"

CNN then abruptly cut him off and changed the subject as quickly as possible.

The Way I See It.......what wasn't brought out was the fact that it was Dr Andrew Wakefield, a renowned gastro-intestinal surgeon, working at the Royal Free Hospital in the England that became aware, in the late 1990's, of a relationship between children suffering from both inflammatory bowel

disease and autism. A case study reporting on 12 of these children was published in the U.K. medical journal Lancet in 1998 with Dr Wakefield simply suggesting that further study of a possible link between MMR vaccination and autism would be desirable.

Due to the medical politics surrounding the MMR-autism issue this article was later retracted by the ''Whores of Big Pharma'' who publish the journal saying he fabricated the study. This effectively  helped to hide vaccine injury science from public awareness. Dr Wakefield has been pilloried for daring to include the parents' personal recollections and observations of their children after receiving the MMR vaccinations in his report.

UPDATE:  The main ''whore'', the un-Godly Dr Fiona Godlee, who is the editor-in-chief for the British Journal of Medicine, and a key player in having Dr Wakefield barred from practice, admits that fraud claim against him for unscientific research had no basis in fact. Her private admission of wrong doing is obviously insufficient for the public damage done to Dr Wakefield's integrity.

The NEW DARK AGES, where the perfectly normal are branded bigots

BRENDAN O’NEILL wrote this in THE AUSTRALIAN, AUGUST 19, 2015
Brendan O'Neill is the editor of Spiked Online and a columnist for The Australian and The Big Issue

Something terrifying has happened during the past five years: a belief that was held by virtually all human beings for centuries has been rebranded as bigotry, something that may no longer be expressed in polite society.

That belief is that marriage is something that occurs between a man and a woman, or between a man and many women: the idea that marriage is a union of opposite sexes.

This was once seen as a perfectly normal point of view. Now, in the historical blink of an eye, it has been denormalised, and with such ferocity and speed that anyone still brave enough to express it runs the risk of being ejected from public life.

Consider the ABC’s Q&A this week, and the furious response to it. The show was unusual from the get-go because it featured not one but two gay-marriage sceptics: Katy Faust, an American Christian, and me, a godless Brit.

I made the argument that gay marriage now seemed to play the same role God played 200 years ago: anyone who didn’t believe in it hadn’t a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life.


There was a chokingly conformist climate, I observed, with sincere critics of gay marriage facing demonisation, harassment and, in some cases, expulsion from decent society.   Consider  Brendan Eich (right) being sacked as chief executive of Mozilla for his belief in traditional marriage. Or all those Christian cake shops beleaguered by gay-rights activist scum demanding that they make gay cakes. Twenty-first century religious persecution. Unbelievable !

The response to my comments, on Twitter and in parts of the media, proved my point. It can be summed up as: “How dare you say that the gay-marriage campaign is intolerant, you bigoted arsehole?! Get out of Oz!”  Irony doesn’t even begin to cover this.

Labor Senator Sam Dastyari, (rhymes with bastard-yari) also on the Q&A panel, accused Faust of being “hateful” and talking “Christian evangelical claptrap”. Yet all she said was that marriage should be between a man and a woman and children had a right to know both their father and their

mother. (Ed. Labor shit-head !)

The demonisation of Faust shows how thoroughly the Christian viewpoint has been turned into a kind of hate speech. Something that was a standard outlook a few years ago is now treated as a pathology. And as a liberal — small L — I find it deeply troubling that a moral outlook can be so swiftly put beyond the pale, branded “INAPPROPRIATE”.

Then there was Twitter, which went into meltdown over Faust’s and my comments. We’re bigots, haters, scumbags, “vomiting our bile”; we should be sent packing.

You know what? Scrap my comparison of gay marriage to God: 200 years ago, in developed Western countries, even the godless had a better chance of getting ahead than gay-marriage sceptics do today.
Are Faust’s views really so controversial? Most people would back the idea that kids should ideal­ly know their biological mum and dad.

Indeed, adopted children often seek out their biological parents, believing it will help them make sense of who they are. Maybe they’re bigots, too?

The response to Q&A shows that gay marriage is not a liberal issue. Rather, what we have here is the further colonisation of public life by an elite strata of society — the chattering class — and the vigorous expulsion of all those who do not genuflect to their orthodoxies. Whether you’re a climate-change denier, a multiculturalism sceptic or, the lowest of the low, someone who believes in trad­itional marriage, you’re clearly mad and must be cast out.

 The Way I See It.....the social impact of this illiberal liberalism will be dire, be warned.

A whole swath of society — the old, the religious, the traditionalist — will feel like moral lepers in their own country, silencing themselves lest they, too, be branded scum.

Listen, we need more time to have a respectful discussion about this complex issue, which is what our Prime Minister is trying to do. And when we do, then the government should let the people decide by referendum or plebiscite......not the politicians