requires people to be elected and once elected to act as
they deem in the best interests of the community. There is a
big difference between WRONG, and CORRUPT. Our opponents are
wrong, sometimes crossing to corrupt, but mostly just wrong.
Many are misguided, and there are important reasons why,
because the people that 'guided' them are wrong.
A lot of people, especially the deranged left, prefer the
idea that their political opponents are evil. These people
imagine opponents acting for their own self-interest in
contravention of what they know is right. In my opinion this
way of thinking fails to give you a handle on how to respond
rationally and effectively for the success of your own
interests. Why on earth should we adopt the deranged
way of thinking of Pilger, Chomsky and such?
I prefer to believe that John Howard acted as he thought
best for everyone, without understanding that real evidence
was against the emotionally based anti-gun position.
The best and brightest minds working on the problem in
Government and academia were blind with prejudice against
the redneck white male values they imagine shooters have.
Richard Harding when he wrote 'Firearms and Violence in
Australian Life' (1979-80), reported that his colleagues
assumed that gun owners were mentally ill, or motivated in
unspecified bad ways. He abstained from that prejudice and
reported his finding that gun owners were people from across
the community, indistinguishable from the rest of the
population in any way except owning a firearm.
That prejudice is where academics, public servants and
feminists live and they have set the values and agendas for
the modern governing class. There is malice involved, but
the malice is just a by-product of ignorant prejudice and
the drug of self-approval that drives moral campaigners.
I believe our best tactic is to de-legitimise that drug, to
undermine public respect for activist loonies and the
journalists that use them so cynically.