Do You Value Independent Arts Journalism & Would You Like To Help Us Produce More? Find Out More

Crowdfunding Sarah Hanson-Young’s defamation action is seriously stupid

For an entire week, your reporter has quietly mourned the death of media reason. Today, she faces attack by winter power bill and can maintain her reverent silence no minute more. Is it an act of great hypocrisy to recount, for cash, an act of media stupidity then come over all la-di-da about how no worker in media should be banging on about it at all? Absolutely, yes. But, there are less principled ways to pay one’s bills. I could be asking you to pay ‘em, for instance.

In the unlikely case you had not heard, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared her intention to take action against Senator David Leyonhjelm, and she has asked Australians to crowdfund this defamation fancy. This follows the comments Leyonhjelm made to and about Hanson-Young.

These comments were unparliamentary. If I were not fearful of my arse being owned forever by a parliamentarian, I might also call them sexist, idiotic and impulsive. I might then call Hanson-Young’s response to these disproportionate, opportunistic and self-serving.

What moves a person to finance one Australian senator’s longing to pay lawyers to take money from another Australian senator?

I will refrain, however, as I not remunerated even one quarter as well as a senator, nor do I have a senator’s comfy pension plan. Further, it is my misfortune not to hold those views with which large numbers of persons employed in media feel comfortable; to wit: “strewth, feminists are awful” or “golly gee, aren’t feminists the bees’ knees”. Ergo, no bastard would crowdfund my defence.

Many bastards have, however, crowdfunded the defence of Sarah Hanson-Young. About 800 of the falsely conscious pets, at last count.

Seriously. What is this shit? What moves a person to finance one Australian senator’s longing to pay lawyers to take money from another Australian senator? How did a person on whom great legitimacy, pay and power have been already conferred become a Poor Little Lady With No One But The People To Defend Her?

Sarah Hanson-Young may weep for the powerless at appropriate moments, but she is not one of the powerless. She is a senator. She earns 200K a year. The woman is able to take vacations at the World Economic Forum, an obscene circle-jerk of the powerful. There is no better time or place on Earth to collect the cards of the inordinately well-to-do. Let her get a loan from one of the lady bankers she met at the nice Swiss spa.

I almost can’t take it anymore. I almost can’t. I am conscious that in stating that The Struggle of Sarah Hanson-Young is not The Struggle Of All Women I will give media people the shits. I’d prefer not to do this, as they are a vindictive bunch. I’d rather leave them to their commentary on the Leyonhjelm vs. SHY promotional wrestling match as though this were meaningful for the many.

Were the words of Leyonhjelm a great offence? Hell, yes. Is the decision to take this man to court likely to diminish the abusive nature of work itself? Hell, no.

I would sue myself for defamation if it meant never again having to “analyse” these obscene ruling class moments that require no real analysis at all. Let’s do the analysis needed and ask: who wins? Cui bono, as I am pretty sure they never say in civil courts. I’ll tell you cui fucking bono from this obscenity, this funding drive and this misuse of political will. Two senators. Dozens of lawyers. Parasites on the host of mass consciousness, like me. Who does not bono? You lot. Everyone else. Whether you’re on the purportedly feminist side of Hanson-Young or the purportedly libertarian side of Dave “I Love Adam Smith But Totally Ignored the Stuff He Said About Banking Regulation” Leyonhjelm, you lose.

Were the words of Leyonhjelm a great offence? Hell, yes. Is the decision to take this man to court likely to diminish the abusive nature of work itself? Hell, no. Let’s really ask, once more, what a “victory” for Hanson-Young would achieve.

First, a series of smug columns by neoliberal SHY-identified women claiming that this is just the sort of thing we need to stop rape; let’s get courts, police and any authority we can think of involved to stop the abuse of all persons. Because, nothing creates peaceful conditions like the apparatuses of the state, and the abuse of SHY is the abuse of all women etc.

Second, a series of smug columns by neoliberal Leyonhjelm-identified men claiming that this is just the sort of punitive thing that the Femonasties are wont to do. They’re no fun and they’re always calling the police, the prison warden or a lawyer.

Leyonhjelm could not write a scenario that would better embolden his base, and nor could Hanson-Young. If you are unable to see that the true victors here will be two unremarkable, and often confused, politicians who have little to offer to parliament but negation—”at least I am not him/her” is what now stands as a policy position—then your eyes are focused solely on the interests of our nation’s ruling class.

For the many, everyday life is a case of doing what the boss demands to meet the demands of the bank. For the few, everyday life is a case of being shocked by mean tweets.

If I were not terrified of having my arse owned forever by litigious politicians, I might say that these two are twits likely laughing it up when they’re not amping it up on the telly. For whose freedom are they fighting? Not mine. Not yours. No “misandrist” or “misogynist” will be felled by their petty dispute and no freedom to speak or to move without fear of a hand up your work uniform will be gained by its legal resolution. Did you not pay attention in high school? Do they not teach government these days? Do they teach you the lie that the Australian parliament is a “contest of ideas” and not a place that actually legislates?

For some decades, Australian legislation—which must be approved in the Senate—has geared an upward concentration of power and of wealth. The supposed deregulation of labour and of the finance sector has regulated and diminished the freedom of workers and of borrowers. For the many, everyday life is a case of doing what the boss demands to meet the demands of the bank. For the few, everyday life is a case of being shocked by mean tweets. This is a luxury enjoyed by Leyonhjelm, major party parliamentarians and a fantasy endorsed by many in the media class. It is a luxury fantasy maintained by Sarah Hanson-Young and nearly every Greens senator ever. This is with the exception of Lee Rhiannon, a Greens senator whose unfortunate tendency to fight for the education of children above the education of the press gallery about her Marvellously Compassionate Character has been ended by her party. Rhiannon retires next month.

SHY will go on, though. As will Leyonhjelm. They will continue to “represent” themselves to the press as guardians of justice, and continue not to represent anyone much but a media class in love with power.

There is so little that separates the policy of a Leyonhjelm from a SHY, media workers just make a bet on the neoliberal whose style they like best.

If you want George Orwell’s vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. If you want Helen’s vision of the present, imagine an infinite row of happy media faces all waiting for their turn to be kicked. 1984 is a book for optimists. 2018, as recounted by press, is true cause for pessimism. Here we are, arguing for a pair of parliamentarians unable to articulate what they truly believe, possibly even to themselves. There is so little that separates the policy of a Leyonhjelm from a SHY, media workers just make a bet on the neoliberal whose style they like best.

To be ruled by a forceful few is a violation, but to desire the force of that few is our self-violating disgrace. And if it isn’t a disgrace for us in media to love power, it’s a cause for a bit of a laugh. Or, would be if current social conditions did not find the many in shit far less endurable than mean tweets and sexist jibes in the upper house.

Say SHY gets a payday for her one unpleasant afternoon. What will this mean for All Women? Will the many who labour in insecure retail or healthcare jobs feel emboldened to sue their co-workers? And how will they find the money to do so on minimum wage? Will we ever issue enough currency to sue all the sexism out of society? My estimate is: FFS no, you twits.

No one can purchase their way out of exploitation itself produced by purchased exploitation. You want to end workplace exploitation, you put an end to workplace exploitation. If you’re a senator, you actually have a pretty good shot at making your objections to workplace exploitation heard. But why would you bother? It’ll win you no press coverage and get you kicked out of the party room.

Get your shit together, you deluded media dills. Or, don’t. Either way, I’ll be around until you crowdfund my retirement.

69 responses to “Crowdfunding Sarah Hanson-Young’s defamation action is seriously stupid

  1. I wonder why Helen’s rant was directed solely at the GoFundMe page set up for Sarah Hanson-Young’s legal fund by Jane Caro and Simon Chapman, and not at David Leyonhjelm’s GoFundMe page set up by himself. Given his supposed philosophy of self-reliance and standing on your own two feet, which he expects the poor to accomplish, his GoFundMe page is a prime example of toxic unhinged hypocrisy. But no, Helen much prefers to attack closer to home. The annoying thing about socialists like Helen is not that they are wrong about the economy, they aren’t, it’s their conviction they are infallible on everything else, especially including stuff they know stuff-all about.

  2. Leyonhelm’s defence, in the unlikely event this makes it to court, will doubtless have the tab picked up by his Libertarian mates at Kennards, who quietly fund him.

  3. Irony alert. The issue started over a discussion of men’s violence towards women and has turned into a celebration of David Leyonhjelm being a misogynistic arse and trashing Sarah Hanson-Young. Congratulations for keeping it going, Helen Razer.

  4. I mostly love your work Helen but sometimes there’s too much smart arse for smart arse sake.

    If SHY has been defamed in the ugly way she describes, then DL should not be able to do it with impunity. It does matter to women universally – you included. It matters that there is an independent assessment of whether someone has said something so egregious and damaging and then determines that that damage cannot go unpunished. That independent person at that moment is representing all of us and making a statement about what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour in our society.

    And yes, it’s entirely acceptable to crowd fund the action in order for SHY not to compound the damage and suffer the financial burden of bringing the action, her $200k a year salary notwithstanding. She earns that, as do all parliamentarians for the 60-80 hours a week they work under enormous pressure. The action could well cost a year’s salary. Crowd funding is also an opportunity to show support and solidarity. No one is forced to so why are you feigning outrage at it.

    Sorry Helen but this time your column is just kinda silly. I’ll keep reading you though.

  5. It should be mentioned that the SHY crowd funding stunt was instigated by Jane Caro, a media hungry leftist panel member on various shows in Australia. It’s a total absurdity, the whole thing, given SHY’s own assumed freedom to use taxpayers’ funds for her own obsessions.

  6. It seems to me that some now quite archaic doctrines of the Common Law need an update in order to put a stop to the crowd funding of this sort of publicity nonsense. I write of champerty, maintenance and barratry which date from almost as far back as Roman times to prevent people funding other persons’ litigious adventures.

  7. I think you left out the fact that, SHY is crowd funding because her case doesn’t stand a snow ball’s chance in hell and that’s why she doesn’t want to waste her own 200K salary on it. She will push it politically for all she can, while delaying ever reaching a hearing right up until the election and then she will drop it like a hot potato. Otherwise she will be crowd funding to pay Senator Leyonhjelm’s legal costs and potentially a counter suit.

    All the while that is going on, I suggest that over time, public opinion will slide more towards Senator Leyonhjelm than towards someone who says on national TV that “men are morons and pigs”.

    “men are morons and pigs” is already gone viral and will just get played over and over for months unless SHY drops the issue.

    SHY is trying to make out someone giving back the same abuse to her as she readily dishes out to others is somehow an attack on all women. This won’t fly beyond the mass media and a few inner city, soy latte sipping Green feminists. It won’t fly because although it was abuse, it’s called equality. Dish it out and you get it back. This will not be a new concept for Australians, men or women, that are not earning 200K in an echo chamber.

    So I think SHY has badly misacalulated. The longer she tries to make political capital out of this, the more scrutiny she will bring on herself. And that will not be to her or the Green’s advantage.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the crowd funding for SHY legal case comes from Leyonhjelm supporters.

    If anyone should be suing anyone it should be a class action on behalf of men against SHY. But of course, men won’t do that. We are accustomed to it from feminists like SHY and as you point out we all have more pressing issues, even if we could afford such an indulgence as a defamation case.

    The poor schmucks that fund SHY’s doomed legal case are completely wasting their money no matter how you look at it.

    Probably we should ban Senators from being able to sue other Senators for defamation at all. While they are on the tax payers pay roll they will just have to either play nice for a change or suck it up.

  8. Folks ……….settle down. If SHY gets some decent legal advice, she will learn that her case has not got a snowballs chance unless she gets someone like Gillian Triggs as the Judge.

    Lionheart has this for a defence:

    1) Truth of his allegation if he can show evidence of SHY’s multiple male partners
    2) Public Interest if he can show that SHY has made provocative statements against a significant segment of the public ….ie MEN.
    3) Community Standards if he can show that an allegation of multiple sexual partners is no longer regarded in the community as a stain on a person’s ‘character’ and thus not defamatory.

    Maybe we can get a Rumpole type to get SHY on the stand and run the above and see if a few tears will get her a result.

  9. I have been following Helen Razer for several years now, and this may be the best essay of hers I have seen. FFS SHY and Leyonheljm are two shades of the same paint!! Thanks H – again!!

  10. Helen, Loved y0ur article, you can bet any money you like that SHY will face a number of defamation claims before she gets to enjoy her pension paid by us suckers. They have lost the plot as to their roles in both houses.

    As crude as the statements were, my immediate thought was he was suggesting she become a lesbian so as to not have sex with men, the alleged slut shaming was a poor ‘I’m a victim’, the saviour for the female proletariat that she would have little empathy for. SHY has never been shy at sledging other Senators but now she has set the precedent, she needs to be as quite as a church mouse.

  11. Politicians should be barred from suing for defamation. After all, they have the benefit of parliamentary privilege, which allows them to defame anyone with impunity in their chamber, a privilege not enjoyed by the rest of the community. No excuse for Leyonhelm’s appalling comments, but it’s hardly surprising, given his usual form. And they are both more than capable of funding their own legal actions.

  12. Has the concept of a moral victory escaped you, Helen? Sure, it may ultimately be pyrrhic, in that the process itself becomes destructive, and no, it won’t change the world, but arseholes like Leyonhjelm deserve their comeuppance, even if it’s only symbolic. Many of us can see that as a worthwhile end in itself.

  13. Great, Helen, love it. What we have here is not so much a wrestling match as a jelly wrestle by two equal & opposite ideologues. Two ideological jelly wrestlers don’t make … ah … a … a just dessert.

  14. I understood that in order for a win in a defamation case, damages needed to be proven. In what way has SHY been damaged? If anything, this tawdry affair has only served to excite each Senator’s voter base. Hardly damaging.

    I find both of these politicians to be self serving grubs.

    Nice article Helen.

  15. I couldn’t agree more. SHY seizes the opportunity to donate money to personal litigation lawyers at the same time as validating the complaints of lunatics like Leyonhjelm and distracting the public’s attention from far more important issues, like why women’s DV shelters are closing down (hint: money, not misogyny).

    #becauseIthinkthatwifebeatersarediscouragedbycivilsuits

    Is that how Twitter works?

  16. Apologies for typos in my previous post. My first time posting here and I thought I’d have the chance to correct them before the comment was submitted… Gary

  17. Who would have thought libertarians/LDP supporters would be better represented in the comments on Daily Review than in the voting public?

  18. While I might sympathize with many of the sentiments you express, you do not provide a solution as to how to stop or put the brakes on this “libertarian” movement which misrepresents and thereby undermines one of our fundamental freedoms designed to allow people to speak up sbout and oppose government and industry actions, downgrading it to the picking right to abuse, offend and personally insult whoever you want. …. You seem not to see the strategy of the Libertarian movement which is to increase the power of the billionaire fascist elite through making a mockery of the individual human rights that people have fought centuries to obtain. ….. I don’t care if SHY is or is not the most desirable person to be making a stand against these thugs, SOMEONE HAS TO. ..And further, your attempt to put he person standing up for these rights in the same category as the Libertarian thugs is playing precisely into their hands and serving their interests…. they must be applauding and laughing at you for helping them dupe even more people with their false narrative.

    1. I agree I love Helen’s take on this issue in part but I think her point is overplayed. I support SHY above DL without a doubt SHY has spoken out against the horrible totally inhumane mistreatment of refugees . Her position on this is totally unfavourable to most who sit in the Senate.I must admit I did wonder why the need for crowdfunding isn’t there a lawyer out there who could do pro bono on this one?? I guess really it is trying to understand the strategy. SHY gets 8 times income more than me per annum.. however some things are worth taking a stand but as Helen says what really will it achieve i doubt a change of heart from DL and his followers!

  19. I thought the crowd funding thing was a great way to demonstrate how much support SHY has in pursuing Lyingphlegm’s ad hominem nonsense

  20. The “unremarkable” Sarah Hanson Young has consistently and unwaveringly spoken out about Australia’s inhumane and illegal treatment of people who are consistently assessed at over 90% genuine refugees. I call that remarkable.

  21. Helen, David Leyonhjelm needs a good kick in the teeth and if SHY asks for some help in funding that and people want to feel involved who cares? Seriously, you can find something else to be outraged about can’t you?

    Crikey have just been asking us for crowd-funding to run their latest research.

  22. People can choose to crowd fund whatever they wish without getting a long and turgid criticism from you.
    It is a free country – freedom of speech and freedom to crowd fund

    1. It is a free country, indeed. We are free to financially get behind the defamation proceedings of one senator against another which will not change anything for you or me or any of the people who crowdfund these proceedings.

      But why would you want to, is more the question. To feel like you’re kicking a goal for men stopping raping women?

      I’d rather see people crowdfund the woman who whistleblew re Origin Energy ruining our countryside and who has been taken hold of by the Fixated Persons Unit branch of the Queensland police force and subjected to monthly Abilify injections. Which sounds beyond insane but which is actually, apparently, insanely, we-are-so-fucked, happening.

      That woman’s crowdfunding efforts are not doing nearly as well as SHY’s. Not sexy enough, fighting the structural power, for the hyperindividualists caught up in being told how to think in a very thin line about the world.

  23. Each senator earns almost $200,000 per annum plus an elecorate allowance of $32,000.
    And each senator expects the Australian public to Crowdfund a ludicrous defamation case.
    Surely each senator can fund his/her own case from what is a huge income

  24. Will these politicians – both him and her – EVER stop taking our money..
    I can only shake my head at the hypocrisy of it all..

  25. I cant help but agree with most of what you have to say Helen (except the vague feeling of burn the banks to the ground that wafts behind every para). Contrived outrage on virtually everyone’s part does not bring meaningful change…

    If we had to have a battle of ideas, could we please have some more edifying combatants. Please.

    1. Each to their own Larry. Perhaps David L is your cup of tea? Not sure why your sexual appetite is of relevance in this context, however.

    2. Why would or should that matter to her, or to us Larry? Why is her attractiveness to you relevant to anything on this earth? Why do women have to be attractive to you to matter?

  26. In the interests of balance, I think it’s important to mention a few facts that were omitted here:

    1. Leyonhjelm is crowd-funding his campaign and this is in response to that.
    2. If SHY wins, all this money is going to women’s charities so for those that feel comfortable in the strength of her case, this is a charitable donation.
    3. SHY was defamed so why wouldn’t she use the laws that we have in our society that exist precisely for these situations? It’s a civil matter, the redress is usually in the form of money. Again, that’s the way our civil laws work.

    1. Also worth nothing is that SHY was defamed in the course of her employment while trying to do her job (argue that women should not have to arm themselves with tasers whereas men’s behaviour not women’s was what should be under scrutiny) and then subsequently when Leyonhjelm wittered away on various networks that should have ignored him. Should her party stump up the legal fees given it happened to her because of her job? Maybe. I have no interest in chucking some money into the pot for legal fees but I’m interested in the outcome.

  27. The reason I doubt anyone would help you Helen is because of your beliefs. People will help her because of his beliefs. People are starting to turn off the conservatives because of their constant greed for all thingsthem.
    Regards the better John.

  28. This just makes a joke of GoFundMe, this is abusing the whole concept of GoFundMe by people who can afford to pay their own legal expenses, if they cant don’t go to court its simple.

  29. If these children want to take this to court it should be up to them to fund themselves, not ask the Australian people. The Australian people are ripped off enough by our politicians abusing their entitlements and anything else they think they can get away with .
    If they cant afford it don’t do it, something a lot of Australians face every day.

  30. I’m not sure you understand what a libertarian is. Nor have you even looked at the LDP website and read the issues. If you don’t understand the difference between the policies of SHY and DL you should stop writing. Because clearly you are just another hack.

    1. Bless. Look at you. Making out like you understand the neoliberal project. I could just cut you up for lunch and eat you, little Braden.

  31. But Helen!
    SHY “Is doing this for the women on the factory floor”. You know, the factories Australia doesn’t have anymore. The ones we outsourced to poor countries in the Global South long ago. The least we low paid, underemployed women on the retail/aged and child care/disability support work floor can do is finance SHY’s fight for us. After all, we’re used to making way too little money stretch a long way. SHY wouldn’t know where to start.

  32. The one thing in all of this I don’t understand is why LH would say “Stop shagging men” if unprovoked? It just seems such an arbitrary thing to do. It begs the question that SHOULD be asked of SHY by now yet, for some reason, has not: “What did you actually say, Sarah?” I mean, lets not forget that just 3 weeks ago, on national TV (Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise’ show, 18th June 2018), she stated that men are “morons” and “pigs” and that “men cannot control themselves and deal with their own issues” (as a man, I take exception to that – maybe I should sue SHY for defamation).

    With those views in the open, it seems entirely plausible that SHY said something that LH responded to but she won’t own-up to it because it scuttles her narrative where women, and only women, can be victims of sexism.

    1. Or you could just make up any old nonsense to “justify” Leyjonhelm’s completely unacceptable remarks which he then expanded on in a paid? interview.

      1. It would be preferable to get both sides of the story.

        David said what he recalled, after being asked on numerous occasions.

        Sarah has yet to be asked what she did say immediately prior to his response. Because, you know, the truth may get in the way of a good story.

        I guess we’ll have to wait for her to be asked in the court room.

      2. you miss the point Rob, the question that SHOULD be asked of SHY by now yet, for some reason, has not: “What did you actually say, Sarah?” `

    2. There’s no secret – it was a speech to parliament and is all on Hansard. Why don’t you look it up?

  33. Razer’s arse being owned by a Parliamentarian……conjures up all sorts of unwelcome thoughts; however the purpose of Helen’s huffy-puffy rant seems to be snowing all readers with the ‘pox on both their houses’ line.

    The snow is needed because Helen’s power bill is no longer brown coal fired with the double whammy of also failing to stop global warming elsewhere AND the more important issue of Lionheart’s decent chance of beating SHY’s defamation wrap in court.

    All LH has to do is look to Gillard and her Malaysia solution. The much vaunted Malaysian legal system would take care of asylum seekers, while accepting evidence from a lot of paid rent boys to put Anwar in jail.

    All LH has to do is find a string of males who claim to have enjoyed the carnal charms of SHY to make a ‘truth’ defence; and for the pubic interest defence he could claim that she has slandered half the Australian population by her antics and her comeuppance is warranted.
    What could possibly go wrong?

    .

    1. Yes what could go wrong? Does SHY’s case not have to be based on the argument that a woman who has multiple partners outside of wedlock is of bad character and by stating this publicly you have defamed such woman? It seems to me that this is what she wants a court to establish, with the sisterhoods financial backing of course.

      1. Precisely Seb,

        What is wrong with a woman having multiple male sexual partners? Surely if is a badge of honour for the thoroughly liberated modern woman controlling her own sexuality and no comment on her ‘character’ at all!!

        So what is in fact the defamation Lionheart is accused of? Would he not be simply stating a ‘truthful’ fact about SHY if he can establish the multiplicity of her partners (and of course that they are males).

        1. Nothing wrong with women having multiple sexual partners if they so wish. What is wrong is sledging in the Senate which is deliberately designed to undermine a senate colleague. Whether it is truthful or not it is none of Leyonhjelm’s business. The Senate should be a place of robust debate, not a place of where people behave like children making slurs behind the teacher’s back.

          1. Lisa, if the issue was about the Senate not being a place for “sledging … deliberately designed to undermine a Senate colleague”, then SHY would be the first person to be sued. She is almost weekly forced to withdraw some unparliamentary sledge and those are just the occasional ones recorded on Hansard. The whole fiasco came about due to SHY off record, sledging of men as a collective.
            Which is not just sledging Senate collages but actually a sexist sledge of half the population.
            Throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind.

        2. The key to this little run of comments is IF. Because some scabby fringe religious nutter alludes to “multiple sexual partners outside marriage” doesn’t make it true. A question for you: is multiple sexual partners INSIDE marriage ok by the moral police?

  34. Helen you somehow always manage to articulate my vague feelings into a delicious rant, leaving me inexplicably punching the air in agreement.

    Both senators involved are as bad as the other and we have to endure their tax-payer (and now crowd payer) funded moral sermons.

    Maybe it’s time to start a Helen Razer winter fund, it wouldn’t be the stupidest gofundme campaign by a long shot.

    1. Same here, Rachel, the sure sign that it’s time to check in on Ms Razer is my trusty “Something fricking fishy about all this but I can’t quite work out what it is…” sense.

      Thank you Helen.

      1. Helen, Rachel, and Polly,
        I love you all. If we had a president, I’d vote for you Helen. I’m a bit scared that while you chart the general direction well, you might not oversee all the details with enough fastidiousness, so I’m happy to offer my services as an adviser for a reasonable salary of $200K.

  35. Hey, thanks. Although from my reading of this there is no ‘payday’ as such. All that cash is soaked up by (I cant even think of an appropriate derogatory noun) those involved in the action. The practical effect: it is a ‘content generator’ for tweets and media outlets. This is where our world is at the moment. CONTENT. The West is dead, perhaps it never rose, stuck in its arguments about “equality” and “diversity” and licking its own ****. Meanwhile, quite close to Australia, the centre of economic and cultural gravity is turning back to where it was for thousands of years. The East is rising.

    Scotto

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Newsletter Signup