It is time to stop the madness.

Companies are falling over themselves to promote themselves to the world as being bastions of inclusion, fairness and charitableness. Not a day goes past that some CEO (or wannabe) is asking someone to ‘sponsor’ them for some charitable cause. Or brag about how they and their company are proud to sponsor some event or cause: ‘look at me, I am going to sleep tough for one night to show how much I care about the homeless.’

So let me tell you straight:

If you were REALLY charitable, give away your own damn money and stop frittering away the shareholders money. Give them the dividend and let them spend it the way they see fit. This deceitfulness that you are so generous with other people’s money should stop.

If you had a bone of honesty and integrity in your body, you will admit to yourself (and then to the rest of us) that you are doing this because it makes you feel good and righteous. And I don’t give you permission to express your charitable nature at my expense.

When Jesus said people shouldn’t pray loudly on the street corners, it’s people like you that he had in mind; the pretentious and self-righteous arseholes who don’t even donate their own money.

The ‘other people’s money’ that you are so generous with is being donated to a ‘charitable institution’ that exists primarily to raise funds and provide employment for people seeking to feel like they are doing good. Most of these charities have passive-aggressive cultures, because it is filled by people who can’t really express any doubt, dissent or disagreement because they are always meant to be ‘good’.

The fraction of funds that find their way to the people who actually need it is minuscule. And by playing this game, CEOs are simply perpetuating this mockery of social justice.

Business organisations are not playgrounds for social engineering, and neither do they exist for the sake of giving its senior leadership the opportunity to validate themselves by bribing the ‘community’ of needy with their largesse.

If you were honest and if you really cared, do this: Go to work. Work hard. Make money for your shareholders. Be awarded for your efforts. Go home. Be generous with your money. Let shareholders be generous with theirs.

The company is not your playground. It does not exist to validate you. It exists to to be rewarded for serving customers according to their needs.It exists into the future to provide employment and reward for thousands of people after you.

The notion of ‘equality’ is one of the most misunderstood things in the world.

On a material, physical level, equality cannot exist except as a theoretical construct like ‘infinity’. That is, we know what you mean, but not really. No two (physical) objects can be ‘equal’ simply by virtue of the obvious fact that there are two of them. They must be different in at least one regard, and that is that each occupy its own space, so there is at least that one difference. And if there is at least one difference, it can’t be equal. Things be mostly similar or even largely similar, but that is the extent of it.

The only form of equality that exists is as metaphysical construct. For instance you could have the equality of ‘value’ or the equality of ‘worth’ or equality of ‘potential’.

But to believe that (i.e. metaphysical constructs) you also have to believe in the notion of transcendence. For any metaphysical construct to exist, it must transcend the physical domain.

Hello God.

So, equality of ‘value’ (for instance) exists because two (different or mostly equal) things can be measured against the metaphysical, ontological referent (God).

ANALOGY: Two oranges are not equal. But, introduce the objective reference point of a scale, and then the two oranges can have equal mass. In fact, an orange and an apple can have equal mass.

You and I cannot be equal. I am 100% confident that you know something that I don’t, and vice versa. So, since we are different (e.g.) in the domain of knowledge we cannot be equal.

Equality of worth is sacrosanct and granted by (a metaphysical) God; but if you claim equality based on a perverted sense of a democratic, human-centric ‘equality’, then the physical reality and logical will contradict you clearly, as explained above. Your worth cannot be judged by 'other people' as that would not be an objective measure and cannot fully transcend bias, subjectivity, preference etc.

For a group of people of different abilities (especially mental capacity) cannot declare all beings to be equal without denying its very own essence. The ideal of ‘equality’ (of worth) requires a metaphysical mandate. It is logically unavoidable.

Since equality (as claimed) does not exist, the promise of a world where all are ‘equal’, is a lie.

Those on the ideological left deny this logic as they naively pursue an equality of outcome – probably because the promise of this lie is so compelling and so comforting that they gain great power (over those they mislead) by virtue of the promise.

** Believing the lie, denies us the opportunity to strive.**

A hierarchy is necessary if want to be able to strive for a higher idea. And that ideal can only exists if it is better, i.e. non-equal, to whatever we have at present.

Believing in equality is a superficial promise based on that lie. If achieved, what you get is some sort of equality, but not one that makes you better, but makes everyone else equally bad.

It doesn’t take much contemplation to extrapolate what happens when everyone strives down to the lowest common level of ‘equality’ – the collapse of the hierarchy and the collapse of civilisation as we know it.

If you subscribe to some sort of equality that is based on human conceptualisation of equality, then you believe in (and effectively wish for) the destruction of civilisation.

On the other hand, if you do accept inequality in the physical domain, then you always have something better to live for. All it takes is to re-frame the way you look at it: strive for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

• Put the man on the moon
• Fought the wars that brought us freedom
• Built and worked the factories that make our fridges and your cars
• Invented the internet
• Made all the great classical music and invented the rock band
• Abolished slavery
• Invented the printing press
• Started every major art movement
• Cured all the major diseases
• Started all the major charities

That, for better or for worse, is Western Civilisation – as created by young white men.

In short, everything you have is what you should thank young white men for.

Naturally, other people (genders and races) played a role. Sometimes that role was vital in advancing the cause. Naturally, not everything was created by young white men.

But, even a rudimentary grasp of history will reveal that the world we have is one that is substantially because that is what young white men created.

For every Marie Curie, there are a hundred Einsteins.

In return, what do young white men receive?

People complain of what they don’t have, and demand to be given freely what the young white men worked, fought and bled for. And they apportion the blame for all that is ill in the world solely to young white men.

These young white men did not blame anyone for anything, they just went ahead and did it. Men and women of all races all co-existed and faced the same world as the same blank slate, yet it was the one particular sub-set of people who did all the heavy lifting to create the Civilised world.

They did these things because they were there to be done. That’s all. Perversely enough, the reason they did it all was for the love and admiration and respect of the woman.They fought, and slaved and worked, just to get laid.

And you claim that is ‘white privilege’? Who really got the short end of the stick? Who exactly, dies younger? Who, exactly, has more stress, more pressure and more pain? Who, exactly, faces the harshest competition is judged the harshest when they lose?

Young white men do not and did not live in isolation. They are part of a something bigger – something called the world. They could not have done what they did in a vacuum. They not only relied on other people to create civilisation, they needed other people. For every young white man on the frontline, there necessarily were a dozen others making the food, sewing the uniforms and loading the planes. Some men, some women. And the less abled too. Without these people the war could not have been won.

This not an anthem to, and neither is for the glorification of young white men.

In the process, young white men screwed up. Of course.

• Medicine became drugs.
• Love became pornography.
• War became genocide.
• They created slavery before abolishing it.
• For every female rape there are thousand male rapes, for every female serial killer, there are a hundred male killers.

Being a man makes makes him nothing more than a mere man, not a saint.

Power corrupts, and that power was used to keep other people down. Young white men have done many bad things. Most Nazis were young white men.

But to claim that the world we have is unjust, unfair and unequal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the world. The world is not flat; there is a distinct and inviolable hierarchy. Some things are better than others, some things are weaker than others. Fast beats slow – every time. There is good and evil. There is truth and falsehood. There is beauty and ugliness.

And those at the bottom of the hierarchy are using the privileges (freedom, technlogy, law) bestowed upon them to destroy the hierarchy BECAUSE it is intolerable to accept that you are at the bottom.

Just because you don’t have something does not mean that you should have it. Just because you want something does not mean you deserve it. But that won't stop them.

The rest of the world IS fighting for what it wants. And they are entitled to fight for what they want. It is fighting by demanding privileges. It is fighting by shaming.

The conundrum young white men face is that they don’t even recognise they are in a fight.

Most young white men are befuddled by the tactics. Because, in fact, the rest of the world IS fighting like the archetypal 'girl'. It is fighting by whining and complaining, and fighting through psychological manipulation.

But, just like young white men created the very civilisation and ruled over it because they deserved it, so will the victors of this fight deserve to recreate civilisation in their own image and rule over it. And young white men, if beaten in the fight, will have to suck it up and live with it. Or keep fighting or start another fight in the future.

That future society/ civilisation may well be better for having less testosterone. We can only speculate if it will be better or worse.

Consider these assumptions:

• Evolution is true
• Evolution is propelled by Natural Selection
• Natural Selection promotes the fittest to survive
• Sexual selection is a key mechanism that drives natural selection
• The need to propagate is near universal (i.e. it is the normal state)

Can you fault any of the assumptions? Assuming that is true; consider these assertions:

• Feminism is a socio-cultural movement designed by feminists to destroy the male dominance hierarchy
• By destroying the male hierarchy (patriarchy for short) feminists are exercising sexual selection that ensures they have access to only low-dominance males
• Low dominance males are undesirable sexual selections
• High-dominance males will resist and refuse to mate with feminists
• Feminists won’t have access mating partners in the high-dominance males and naturally avert from low-dominance males
• Feminicide

The logic seems sound and the only question that remains is: ‘how long will it take?’

There is a chance that technology will enable procreation without direct male involvement. The extent to which culture and environment endorse and support these unnatural family structures may extend the duration of this selection cycle.

But ultimately, the offspring from low dominance families will reflect feminised traits only and not be suited to successful adaptation to conflict-ridden environments.

Feminicide is nature’s way of ridding itself from a sub-optimal species (feminists) who are not suited to promote the survival of humankind.

Feminists are literally the like the sea turtles wanting to rush to the sea, but instead see the lights of the city and turn to the road: they are answering a call of their biology, but get confused between the light of the phosphorescence of the sea and the lights of the highway where they simply get crushed by the thousands. Yet they keep coming.

It’s probably a good thing that I don’t believe evolution functions quite like that. Now, if you were an atheist/naturalist, I invite you to find the flaw in your logic.

To divide people by their political beliefs is obviously prone to mis-classification because there so many variations and shades in the spectrum. But at the broadest level, the distinction between left and right works exactly because it is so broad.

In Australia we have confounded ourselves by naming the Conservatives as Liberals, and the Liberals as Labor (American spelling and all). But the distinction I intend to make still holds, but please note that I am going to use the more universal Liberal, Conservative distinction.

Politically speaking, there is a ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

Broadly, and admittedly this is very broadly, the distinction is something like this:

The Liberal LEFT is in favour of unions, (hence Labor), big Government, spend on Social Justice and charity, and the primacy of the collective Group.

The Conservatives are in favour of small Government, fiscal responsibility, Individual accountability and the conservation of traditional values propagated by the Church.

The Right think the Left’s naivete is destroying the civilised world. The Left think the Right is nasty and set against progress and change.

There is more, but the detailed differences and nuances is not the point of this post. I want to focus on the importance and the role of the State.

The following claim may be contentious if you want to perceive either claim as being incorrect or even incendiary. Just bear in mind that I am talking about averages – i.e. group traits. Individual differences abound. (James Damoore made the same qualification in his infamous screed, and that did not work for him, but I do it anyway, hoping you are smart enough to understand.)

Since the left doesn’t accept the religious foundation for ethics and morality, they rely (more heavily) on the rule of law to govern human dynamics in society.

The right, on the other hand, value individual rights more profoundly, and because of the individual accountability that is based on the religious foundation (or western civilisational ethical frameworks if you must), they expect the individual to be responsible because it is right. They don’t like the State to have much of say.

I think it is also fairly logical to think, and easy to observe that the trajectory of the rule of law tends to ever increasing complexity.

Once you start trying to govern the incredible complexity of human relations at the societal scale by written and agreed rules embodied in the law, there is no possible end to the number, complexity and reach of these laws. Such is the nature of that beast we call human.

An apt analogy may be to think of the two political perspectives mentioned as similar to us dividing the biological world into fauna and flora. Despite that there is some flora that might eat spiders and some fauna that simply float in the sea, the distinction is generally understood. But then, in cycles of ever increasing complexity, we first identify various species, then identify the genus, then families and so on and on. And each layer of the taxonomic rank, things get ever more detailed and specific. Eventually it reaches the individual animal which may count in the billions or trillions.

Such is the law: The Biblical Origin narrative starts with one law, By the time we get to the Prophets, there are a few hundred laws. Despite the fact that Jesus tried to bring it back to basics by claiming there are really only two important ones. To be fair, He also said we should adhere to the ten commandments, so maybe he was happy with twelve laws.

The reality is that there isn’t a single country that could even tell you how many laws they have. In the UK, between 1983 and 2009 Parliament approved over 100 criminal justice Bills, and over 4,000 NEW criminal offenses was created. That is right, the LAW creates one new crime every working day of the week.

If you start layering in the plethora of regulations and other applicable laws that come into play when you interact with other countries, join trade pacts, enter into bilateral relationships, or form a trading bloc – it becomes complex quickly. Not to mention the compounding effect when you consider the layers from international, national, state and municipality. Then there is the Golf club… anyway, you see where I am going with this.

This problem is not new or unique. It is also recognised by most governments and there are at various stages programmes launched to reform the law.

It is not contentious to claim that the Law is a voracious, hydra-headed monster.

The general arc of every nation on earth tends left. I should qualify that: democratic countries who subscribe to western civilisational ideals, tend left.

Without digressing too much, and not putting too fine a point on it, one can easily see the pattern from the founding nations of most of these countries (whether by discovery, invasion, colonisation or whatever means) as one where the rebels and the misfits who irked under the yoke of the governance (of say the monarchy or the homeland) headed out to discover new lands.

The Wild West experience we know from American cowboy movies is not atypical to what you find in many countries where white settlers went: The Pioneer on horse-back archetype exists everywhere.

But once you ‘settle’, the rot starts setting in.

Firstly, it is about power. Sheriffs and mayors. And councillors. The committees and chairmen.

Secondly, the wannabe tycoons pandering to power in greedy pursuit of wealth.

Thirdly, the bourgeoisie who become desperate to join the game, and they use the power of their vote to secure favour and influence.

And so democracy becomes a weapon in pursuit of the ignoble goals of satiating man's depravities.

In order to make and enforce Law, you need the State. (See step on the cycle above.)

As societies tend left, the reach of the Law is always increasing, reaching into more domains and leaving less and less room for individual freedoms, individual rights and individual responsibility.

I am not suggesting the Conservatives don’t value rule of Law at all. Law and order go hand in hand, right? And we all need to agree that we need to drive on the right side of the road and that my property is mine and yours is yours.

Where do we draw the line though?

In most western civilisations, but specifically in Australia the State decides:

• What you will learn – even when you are allowed to start learning
• If you can drink and smoke – and even what you can drink and smoke
• If you can fight or vote or use a bathroom
• If you can own a car, a rifle, a house
• Which movies you can watch, what you are allowed to wear in public
• Where you must park, where you can spit
• What you are allowed to sell and what you are allowed to buy and what the label on the bottle you are selling must and must not claim

I have made a few points thus far:

The Left loves the Law as a solution for governance (more than the Right at least):

• The Law becomes ever more complex – to the point of incomprehensibility.
• The Law responds to AND assumes the worst in humans.
• This cycle repeats and escalates and will never end.
• Having Law, presupposes State

I can go on, but the question is pretty simple: what freedoms do you really have? And yes, I recognise the core assumption: freedom matters.

Right now, we are going through a stage where society is agitating for the State to decide what you can say and even think. Which brings me to the conundrum of the plebiscite about gay marriage.

Every argument I have heard for the YES vote is stupid beyond comprehension. The arguments are purely rhetorical. The Left is framing the argument in one of three ways, and that is all it is – framing of arguments, not actual logical positions. I will keep it brief:

Marriage Equality: No marriage is equal. All marriages are different. The people who enter into marriage may be equal in value before God, but the act of marriage is not equal. All marriage contracts may be treated as ‘equal’ by the law, but that does not make the actual marriage equal. But especially, mathematics and science: Man + Woman (XX +XY) and Man + Man (XX + XX) and Woman + Woman (XY +XY). To my untrained eye, that looks three different things. Bananas and oranges may be equally healthy, but they are not equal.

Love is Love. This absolutely transcends stupidity. I love ice cream, my dog and my wive. I love Netflix and long walks on the beach. And I love shopping. Yip, love is love. Just think about it: you probably support the coming legislation to introduce ‘assisted suicide’ as euthanasia is being framed, right? You want to have the choice the end your life if the suffering is unbearable and to stay alive is inhumane? Is that a fair assumption? So how does this argument stack up: #lifeislife. A good argument, don’t you think?

It is modern. Yip, so is Pornhub. Aids. Cybercrime. And Gender Studies. Just because it came into existence in the modern era does not make it right or good.

The Bible does not prohibit it: That is open to interpretation and a million qualified theological scholars may differ, but even if they were all wrong, what kind of stupid logic is that? You claiming that a book you don’t believe in doesn’t object, is supposed to comfort me? And then there is the little matter that the Bible also did not say you shouldn’t buy Katy Perry songs, but that doesn’t mean it is good thing either.

It won’t change your life, let me live mine: Just because you can’t recognise the ways in which it changes the world we both live in, does not mean it doesn’t or won’t. And even if we are both speculating about the potential impact, the fact that might not impact me is pretty weak.

This is all I want, and it is not too much to ask: The Right is also not inclined to believe that you won’t follow through on your promises that this is just one concession. Your claim that it is about your individual right to be equal before the law at no one else’s expense rings hollow, because I judge not what you say, but what you do.

And what you actually do is to sue the bakers, florists and dressmakers who want to claim their individual freedom not to support your lifestyle choices at the expense of their own moral code (rightly or wrongly). You say you don't but you act as if your rights trump their rights. So they must now believe you that you won’t compel the churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, really?

Is it completely surprising that the arguments of the right respond to this by claiming that the NO vote is a vote against political correctness, a vote against coercion and vote against pedophilia and whatever other equally stupid argument they can come up with?

Most of the articulated arguments on the right are equally immature and unsophisticated because you have people who are not properly equipped to have the debate at the level it should be had engaging in deeply philosophical discussions.

The plebiscite debate is happening at an instinctual level, not a philosophical one.

I don’t deny ANYONE (Right or Left) the right to debate this and I hope everyone continues. What I am explaining is the reason why the debates are ineffective, hurtful and stupid.

I am also not going to claim how many gays I have in my life and how I love them because that always sounds like a justification for the bigotry that is usre to follow.

Suffice to say, everything about my personal circumstances dictate that I should vote YES. Everything about my personal convictions say I should vote YES.

But I am going to vote NO.

You see, as much as I want to vote for the opportunity of other human beings to experience joy and be free from oppression, the cost of doing so is to invite the sanction of Government into the home, into the bedroom and into your mind. And that is a price too big to pay.

I would prefer the Government to have nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. I want the Government out of my life to a greater extent. I want more freedoms and not less. And it is not about me, it is about the world that we are creating and the world we live in and the world our children will inherit.

The Left only have themselves to blame for this: they have attached the idea of marriage to politically leftist ideology. And by voting yes, we must accept the ideology. As much as you may deny this; the evidence is pretty clear – and it is a one way street. You are a vindictive mob that brooks no dissent. Your designer can refuse to dress the FLOTUS, but our baker can’t refuse to decorate a cake. Your hipster coffee shop can advertise that no voters should stop visiting, but would the Right be allowed the same freedom?

You may think I am on the right, and you would not be right:

• I believe in public schools, not private schools
• I believe in the decriminalisation of drugs (not only marijuana) But
• I believe in God and embrace the Christian ethos
• I believe in traditional family values

You see the difference between me and you, the YES voter, is this: I believe that all humans beings are equal before God and should be loved accordingly. That means I am anti-abortion and want to vote yes; because that is the meaning of respecting true equality of human beings before God.

But you don’t have principles, you have laws. And you make them up as you go. And you make them to suit you in the moment. And the conclusions are contradictory and often downright bizarre. You want abort a baby because it has Downs, but once it is born you want to celebrate its 'diversity'?

Your laws don’t make any sense, and it is getting worse. You are destroying everything from the past merely because it is not the present and therefore not 'progressive'. You invite chaos and uncertainty into the world. And worst of all, you leave no room for anyone to think or believe differently.

It’s a great irony really, since we don’t even properly know what consciousness is, and you most likely believe you are created by random co-location of atoms, yet you have the firmest conviction of all that you are right and the world must bend to your will.

So you see, dear Yes/Lefty, whilst I may share some of your goals, the price is such that I must trade the ‘happiness’ of a few people for the opportunity to make you sit up and take notice of what the real consequences are of your position.

Ultimately, it is not a difficult decision because from where I sit, the fate of the civilised world must weighed up against the perceived ‘happiness’ of a few people.

So, it will be NO, because happiness is not the purpose of life. There are more important things than that, and if you don't get that, it is a sure sign that we either don't live in the same universe, or you have been drinking the kool aid for too long to actually form an original argument.