“It is not the strongest of the species that survive nor the most intelligent, but those most adaptive to change."   Charles Darwin

 From its inception to the end of the First World War, the Bulletin was the most influential magazine in Australia. Its pre-eminence was primarily due to the innovative imagination and dynamic personalities of its founders, JF Archibald and John Haynes. The vision of Australia the Bulletin promoted was largely shaped by its editor, Archibald, and his aspirations for an independent Australia. The Bulletin began with social and political comment and seven years on, was employing contributors who shared the magazine’s outlook. The democratic ideals of mateship, an egalitarian and classless society and rebellion against the hypocrisy of British social mores (and rule) were all being advocated by the young writers of the Bulletin School with passionate conviction. Archibald’s own bias was reflected in the work he selected from these contributors, leading him to recognise the extraordinary talent of his protégé and fellow nationalist, Henry Lawson.

“We either live together, or we die together,”

was the slogan used by Egyptian Muslims in the 2011 tensions. On Christmas Eve, Muslims protected Christians from Muslim extremists by using themselves as human shields during the Coptic-mass. It was a moving and poignant reminder of how wonderful can be the human spirit.

I was reading Michael Brull in the New Matilda this morning and his writing echoed much of what I have been thinking about lately in light of the Charlie Hebdo murders and the overwhelming public support of what is viewed in the West as the fight for the Freedom of Speech and Democracy. He wrote; “Our defence of 'freedom of speech' appears to be qualified by whether or not we actually find the speech offensive.”

But I am struggling with my values and trying to divine an ethical stance. What does FOS really mean? If it is a blanket principle then we can say whatever we like. If there are laws against incitement and offense then we must be consistent. In order to enrage the small number of terrorists we are risking offending the vast majority of Muslims. How can we say that is ok?

Murtaza Hussein a Canadian journalist wrote in Twitlonger today "freedom" also means the freedom from suffering insult and humiliation to the things that are most cherished [by] them.”

Of the 196 countries in the world, 25 countries have an average wealth of over $100,000 per annum. In the 20 severely poor countries in the world, the average earning is less than $3 per day. Of course the cost of living is lower there, but then the market is not somewhere you could do much spending if you did have more than a slug’s fart to spare.  Zimbabwe for example, at its current growth rate will be considered a rich country in 2,722 years. I don’t know if I was Abayome Okeke, a goat farmer, I could wait that long frankly.

Why are some countries rich and others so poor?

While reading Nick Miller’s article Veiled Intent this morning it occurred to me how very complex the issue of racism is. When I first hear that people wish to “Ban the Burqa” or “Not the Niqab”, it immediately strikes me as pure Islamaphobia and I ignore any following  diatribe. But when the argument is linked to security, I can see the problem with people wandering around with their faces hidden.

I mean if they go into a bank they might conceivably be robbers in disguise about to steal pensioner’s savings. In a government department or say, visiting the nation’s parliament house, they may be approaching the building with 10 billatons of explosive strapped beneath their billowing black robes. Of course an obese person too could have a shitload of explosives strapped beneath their copious plaid shirt intent on covering the National Monument with their intestines and those of anyone in the vicinity. Who can know the mind of a madman?

“Sex doesn't sell, it's fear. In the first episode of Mad Men (Smoke gets in your eyes) Don Draper outlines the appeal of fear as a tool for selling with chilling clarity. "Advertising is based on one thing: happiness," he calmly tells his clients. "And do you know what happiness is? … It's freedom from fear.”

I’ve been watching the addictive Jacques Peretti, Director, Producer and Presenter in his current offering of The Men Who Make Us Spend on ABC on Thursday evenings and it makes for some horrific viewing. Oh it’s not gory but it does make the hair stand up on the back of your head, and Casper does a quick shuffle across your grave.

 I know we are manipulated by the media at every turn. I watch The Gruen Transfer and understand the premise of advertising and their raison d’ etra; it’s to make money for their clients. The ‘Mad Men’ of the sixties were so successful with Listerine that it went from a profit of $115,00 per annum to several million with the machinations of clever advertising. 

In the throes of national grief over the downing of MH17 there was mention in particular of the loss of several AIDs conference delegates, one of whom had been a leading HIV expert and activist, all due to meet in Melbourne this week. In this vein,  ABC News 24 interviewed Chris Beyrer, Director, Johns Hopkins Training Program in HIV Epidemiology and Prevention Science to garner his take on the impact to international studies regarding the loss of these people.

Beyrer was heartbreakingly frank as he discussed his past and how many friends and lovers had been  lost to the disease in the days before there was any drug therapy or hopes of anything other than a palliated death. To me it was moving, it was sad and then suddenly it became something completely shameful; something that rent my heart.

I have always admired Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner where although bleak, the world was a multicultural paradigm where speech has been fused with a mixture of words from many languages. The world is becoming an amalgam of humans communicating in new ways and without a dominant language.

 Language is a social process and heavily influences and shapes culture. To a great degree it determines one’s very thoughts. Language denotes identity. It is power. Many indigenous societies around the world rue the fact that conquering nations forced them to adopt the conquering language and that, more than anything is blamed for destroying their culture and identity.