Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (28)
Support free speech and you are, by the Left’s definition, a white supremacist, fascist, enviro-rapist etc etc
I attended a good part of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Sydney over the weekend. It is the first CPAC to be held in Australia and only the second held outside the US. It was a well-attended. Kristina Keneally’s attempt to have Raheem Kassam barred from Australia was credited with having boosted attendance. She was awarded the “Keneally Cup” – to be awarded annually henceforward for the person doing most to stimulate attendance.
Good fun was had by all over this. And more generally the conference could be described as a funfest for conservatives, who get enormous relief and pleasure from being around those of similar mindset. I certainly do. Next year’s attendance is sure to be bigger, so don’t miss it.
These days, I really only enjoy being around conservatives. I need an accompanying vomit bucket if for some reason I am required to watch Q&A or read Peter Van Onselen. I few years ago I gave up being with some leftist friends; true for a specific reason, to do with a particularly egregious comment on the part of one of them, but it was generally becoming wearing to put up with wall-to-wall tripe.
This brings me to the theme of my piece, which is to do with civility. A number of speakers talked about the need for civility. Janet Albrechtsen in particular talked about the way in which contempt for the person with opposing views destroys any chance of there being a productive engagement. American commentator Matt Schlapp (incidentally and ironically, whose wife works for Trump as Director of Communications) and Republican congressman Mark Meadows were among others who made similar points at the conference. Hooey! I say.
It was noteworthy, at least I think so, that Nigel Farage and Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro gave the most uplifting and inspiring speeches. Gentle to their adversaries they were not; impersonal they were not. Let us please get this straight. Leftist bozos want to destroy our nationhood, our culture, our traditions, our way of life, our very civilisation. And we have to be nice to them?
They can’t be reasoned with. They are not interested in dialogue. Be civil if you like but it takes two to tango and you won’t find any partners.
A chap from IPA, belonging to the group described by Noel Pearson as being “child soldiers” campaigning against the Indigenous parliamentary “Voice”, gave a standard rendition on the benefits of free markets. All well and good in its way but he, along with some others, identified his position on the political spectrum as being “centre-right.” It just won’t do.
The over-used descriptor, centre right, says it all about the faintheartedness of many conservatives. They are not fit for battle. “Oh, I’m really in the centre you know, just a little to the right; miles away from Attila the Hun.” Raheem Kassam did not describe himself. He didn’t have to. An ex-Muslim, he makes critical statements about Islam. As does, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ally. Anyone who has at all considered scriptural Islam knows that it is a poison well. Why else would people need to be “deradicalized”, exorcised of its pernicious possession, if it were not? Kassam describes it as “evil.” And he is right. But truth doesn’t count.
Brad Norrington (badged as associate editor) writing in The Weekend Australian on August 10 describes Kassam as a “British far-right activist.” Nigel Farage is far right. Any commenter or politician who criticises Islam or who extols the nation state (e.g. Marine Le Penn or Geert Wilders) is defined as being far right. I think it is time to embrace the term.
Just as we embraced “deplorables” and “irredeemable(s),” so must any conservative with an ounce of integrity and courage embrace being far right. I am far right. The spectrum has moved so far left in our institutions, in our media, in our corporate world, that I have become far right by default.
So, what does it mean to be far right? This is some of what it means to me as a conservative:
It means understanding that the nation state and its secure borders stand between us and tyranny.
It means being sceptical of the benefits of multiculturism. Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is better than any other by a country mile. It gives us our freedom and our prosperity. I have contempt for those who espouse open borders because they threaten the lives of my grandchildren. At the same time, immigrants who can bring benefits to the nation state are welcome. They can bring their skills, their food, their dancing, their funny ways — but not their clashing values.
It means honouring the role of the family and fighting against forces which seek to undermine it. Think of gay marriage and sowing gender dissonance in children.
It means valuing life, which also means understanding that the pregnant mother and the child she is carrying are separate lives. They are two not just one. This doesn’t at all end the conversation about abortion but it must form part of it.
It means believing in free speech and supporting my right to be contemptuous and insulting in speech and in writing of those who favour open borders. Of course, such rights are reciprocal.
It means believing in the great benefits of the free market but not in having our industries and the communities they support hollowed out, as collateral damage, by so-called free trade agreements or by predatory behaviour on the part of trading partners.
It means being constantly on the alert for scams meant to scare us. As American writer H L Menken put it in 1918: “…the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
I am perfectly willing to debate the latest alarm, the threat of global warming, in a civil manner. But I have contempt for those who persist in advocating useless and impoverishing ways to combat the problem, real or imagined. And, it is beyond me not to have contempt for those who use (abuse is a better word) a young girl, Greta Thunberg, who was aged just fifteen years when it started, to sell their bill of goods. They are shameless. It is disgusting.
Incivility and contempt are sometimes needed. Try being civil and nice to a thug in dark alley who wants your money. And, remember, he only wants to take your money not your whole way of life.
I dislike the terms ‘far’ left or right. They’re utterly meaningless, being nothing but opinion, usually of people whose opinions one would instinctively discount as intensely biassed, if not entirely uninformed.
Like most other pejorative clichés beloved of journalists, the use of such terms is merely crude ad hominem abuse, and editors should not only weed out the terms, but also rid us of repeat offenders.
This should go into the history books.
Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite as was Adolf Hitler. Nazis are ‘of the right’ according to the current narrative so that makes Corbyn of the right not the left!! Of course the Nazis were ‘national socialists’ so this makes Hitler of the left and hence Corbyn! These are bizarre contradictions which suggests that the labels left and right is utter nonsense. The religion of Islam is also heavily anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual making it ‘of the right’ according to the narrative yet Islam is embraced in political discourse by many on the so-called left!
People should be defined according to their principles and values and what they stand for not on some spurious meaningless label. But unfortunately the media in particular will throw around these labels (particularly ‘far right’) to denigrate opponents.
Just in passing, in the US the Democrats were the party of the KKK and white supremacy originally so they are really the party of the far right!!
Jordon Peterson claims going too far on the right is indicated by judging a person by their immutable features, for example, skin colour. This is a clear line in the sand that, by stepping over it one steps into universally unproductive, dangerous belief structures. This makes sense and I clearly recall my using just that measure albeit mostly without conscious thought to decide “who had gone too far” in my eyes.
So if the left would indicate where along the spectrum between the 4 horsewomen of the apocalypse and creepy ole uncle joe that line rests for them…please? it would help my understanding of what passes for leftist logic no end.
“Leftist logic”? Hmmm!
To paraphrase Dickens, when found, make a note of.
The best article you have ever written, Peter, at least of the ones I have read. Allow me a little facetiousness by saying: “I couldn’t have put it better myself”. Unfortunately I am prevented by age related health issues from “straying” too far from my home to attend events like the Conservative Political Action Conference and enjoy live speeches by some of my hero’s like Jeanine Pirro and Nigel Farage. Thank you for conveying your enjoyment of the experience.
I just spent several days commenting on each of the Australia articles regarding Raheem Kassam’s visit – each one included in the headline the term “far right” as a descriptor. Each time I wrote comments challenging the Australian’s use of “far right” without definition. I pointed out that The Australian has never in my memory described anyone as “far left” and pondered that this might indicate some aspect of their own political leanings. I noticed after several days the number of commenters who picked up this theme escalated to perhaps 20% of all commenters. Yawn – far right – the only thing you have said is that he is a “free speech activist” Is that all it takes for the Australian to vilify someone as “far right”? The last article printed just yesterday? did not include the term “far right”in he entire piece! I commented – Not one mention of “far right”? Has the Australian suddenly realised that it is insulting and vilifying a very large proportion of its own subscriber base.
Keep your eyes open Quadrant readers and challenge them at every opportunity.
Can’t we of the so-called ‘right’ just call ourselves conservatives?
I can see a day where we reclaim the term “far right” just as our feminist brothers and sisters reclaimed their shame in slut walks across the nation.
Somewhere along the way I lost my sense of balance as I understood all these terms as a result of a single elective unit I did a university. Roll forward 50-years with the rise of the Greens and ANTIFA and I realised I no longer understood the modern terminology. Just last year I dug out and reread “Political Systems” and found the definitions were static, but found that the media, journalists the ABC and even politicians had no idea what they were talking about or the meaning of the terms they used to denigrate people, organisations and each other.
deric covered it concisely. ANTIFA is actually a fascist organisation and the Greens are actually far-Left (read Gulag supporting & totalitarian) Reds.
To Bill Martin. Thanks Bill for your kind comment. I am sorry to hear that you are not as well as you would want. But you can still put pen to paper, or what passes for it in these computerised days, and that’s important. Best wishes, Peter.
Peter, I say AMEN to this. Now I don’t have to feel guilty about my personal feelings.
Peter, your article should be compulsory reading for the present government.
I would want to argue that three of the most right wing, arch-conservative organisations in Australia at the moment are 1. The Greens under Dr. Richard Di Natale; 2. the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; and 3. the Fairfax press. Why do I call them arch-conservatives? Because they adhere to a rigid set of prescriptive beliefs (“principles” might be putting it a touch high) which they consider to be accepted by a vast majority of their cohort of would-be-if-could-be “elite” followers and they seek to impose these rigidly held beliefs on the rest of society. This is exactly what Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin did. Stalin may have been a proponent of state socialism, but only an idiot would think he was left wing. The zero-sum way that the Greens, the ABC and Fairfax see the world and seek to impose their interpretation of it onto the rest of society leads to an inevitable lowering of standards of argument and reporting which in turn lead to the kind of uncivil behaviour described above.
Leftism, however the ‘nice’ people see themselves, is a system of evil.
The reason it is a system of evil, is that the underlying ‘moral status auction’ has no limit; if you allow gay marriage today, tomorrow you are still evil unless you believe a ludicrous claim about sexuality or gender.
In the same way they can progress in short and easy steps through bricking a pensioner in the head for going to a One Nation meeting, via a bike lock in the head for a motorist from a masked ‘anti-fascist protester’, glancing past a o-dark-30 armed door-smashing raid on local political party secretary’s home, and here we are. Next is being driven out of employment, families living in fear of the mob with pitchforks and torches because you are a ‘denier’.
And here we are. Leftism is an escalating system that cannot be stopped unless we are ready to defend, to offend, and to exact a cost against those who employ the power of the mob.
Peter, one of your best ever this one. “Fit for battle” indeed. I now only associate with like-minded people. I have been dis-invited, socially rejected, ridiculed, abused, insulted, scorned, verbally and once physically attacked by former “friends” who progressively have become utterly intolerant and hostile to any opinion not of approved leftist ABC/Melbourne Age dogma – be it President Trump, or Israel, or immigration, or climate, or gender, or anything from that side – they are immune from reasoned debate or civility. There is one opinion-no other. Right-wrong. Good-bad. ABC infallibility-Murdoch conspiracies. From being intimidated into silence I have become radicalised in the face of such assaults upon myself and my viewpoints so brilliantly expounded above in your summary of what it means to be a conservative. Thank you Peter.
Peter,
I found that your piece provided much food for thought. As I read it, it consists of ten major propositions, of which I can agree with 6. I suppose that makes me a 60% ‘conservative’ by your standards. I have but my own numbering of them in square [ ] parentheses and responses in block capitals, and have numbered those I agree with using round ( ) brackets.
“So, what does it mean to be far right? This is some of what it means to me as a conservative:
[1] “It means understanding that the nation state and its secure borders stand between us and tyranny.” AGREED. (1)
[2] “It means being sceptical of the benefits of multiculturism. Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is better than any other … freedom and our prosperity. I have contempt for those who espouse open borders… “
[AUSTRALIA WAS ‘MULTICULTURAL’ FROM DAY ONE, 1788. ABORIGINES (3 MAIN ‘RACES’ OF THEM) PLUS ENGLISH, SCOTS, IRISH; CONVICTS, FREE LABOURERS EVEN BEFORE THE GOLD RUSHES OF THE 1850s BROUGHT A TREBLING OF THE POPULATION IN TEN YEARS AS THEY CAME FROM “ALL THE LANDS ON EARTH” (HENRY LAWSON), PARTICULARLY CHINA].
[3] “… honouring the role of the family and fighting against forces which seek to undermine it… gay marriage…gender dissonance in children. “
I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE MEMBERS OF A SAME-SEX COUPLE MAY LOVE ONE ANOTHER, MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? POLYGAMY? THE RIGHT TO MARRY ANIMALS (MORE THAN ONE AT A TIME)? (2)
[4] “It means valuing life… doesn’t at all end the conversation about abortion …” WELL, IT DOES, REALLY. AND IT IS NOT JUST BEGGING THE QUESTION, BUT CLOSING IT.
[5] “It means believing in free speech… right to be contemptuous and insulting… of those who favour open borders.”
AGREED: AND OF THE SUPPORTERS OF ANY OTHER RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IMPLIES FREEDOM OF SPEECH. (3)
[6] “It means believing in the great benefits of the free market but not in having our industries and the communities they support hollowed out, as collateral damage, by so-called free trade agreements or by predatory behaviour on the part of trading partners.“ (4)
AGREED. EXCEPT THAT CRAFT GUILDS OF VARIOUS KINDS HAVE ENSURED FOR MILLENNIA THAT ‘FREE’ MARKETS ARE REGULATED IN THEIR OWN FAVOUR.
[7] “It means being constantly on the alert for scams… H L Menken… aim of practical politics… “(5)
AGREED. BUT CAN WE TAKE IT THEN THAT ON THIS BASIS ALL POLITICAL PARTIES ARE INTO SUCH FRAUDS, THE SIMPLE UNMASKING OF OR WHISTLE-BLOWING ON FROM INSIDE WOULD CHUCK THEM INTO OUTER POLITICAL DARKNESS, NEVER TO RETURN? OR IS IT JUST ‘THE LEFT’ THAT IS INTO IT?
“I am perfectly willing to debate the latest alarm, the threat of global warming, in a civil manner… [8.] “But I have contempt for those who persist in advocating useless…”
AGREED: KNOWINGLY ADVOCATING USELESS MEASURES FOR ANY REAL PROBLEM IS FOLLY WORSE THAN USELESS (6)
EXCEPT THAT BEHIND EVERY DENIALIST THERE IS FAR MORE OFTEN THAN NOT A SHILL FOR THE FOSSIL-CARBON INDUSTRY, AND ARGUABLY THE MOST SHORT-SIGHTED, MYOPIC AND BENIGHTED USE FOR THE VALUABLE FOSSIL-CARBON DEPOSITS WE HAVE IS AS POWER STATION FUEL. YET QUADRANT ALSO HAS A RECORD OF OPPOSITION TO RENEWABLY-GENERATED ELECTRICITY, WHICH I THINK SHOWS WHERE IT IS COMING FROM.
[9] “impoverishing ways to combat the problem, real or imagined…” CAN WE TAKE IT THAT YOU HAVE IN MIND HERE THE AGW (ANTHOPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING) ‘SCAM’, AS IS BEING PRESENTLY MARKETED NOT JUST BE DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, BUT BY 198 OF THE SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATIONS OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE ROYAL SOCIETY, THE CSIRO AND THE AAAS? (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)
WELL, THE THREAT AUSTRALIA FACED FROM JAPAN IN WW2 WAS BOTH REAL AND ‘IMPOVERISHING’ IN THAT EVERYTHING WORTH HAVING WAS SEVERELY RATIONED IN THE HIGHER INTEREST OF WINNING THE WAR. BUT WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE? AS THE ECONOMIST LORD STERN SAID OF AGW, THE LONGER WE DELAY, THE MORE COSTLY THE INEVITABLE SOLUTION MEASURES BECOME.
[10] “And, it is beyond me not to have contempt for those who use … young girl, Greta Thunberg… disgusting. “
[THIS ASSUMES THAT A 15 YEAR-OLD OF EITHER SEX CANNOT HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN OR THINK FOR THEMSELVES, AND ARE PUTTY IN THE HANDS OF ANY PASSING DEMAGOGUE. ON THE FACE OF IT, I WOULD SAY THAT GRETA THUNBERG WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST THAT CHARGE.]
Ian, six outa ten ain’t bad.
Ian MacDougall, you smear “every” sceptic of climate change as a “shill” for the fossil fuel industry yet ignore the “shills” profiting hugely from government-enforced take-up of massively subsidised renewables.
jeffholl: google up australia, subsidies for coal ; see what you get.
Peter, I agree. I means that you are 60% of the way to a rational position. Not bad. But as my teachers were always writing on my reports at school: can do better. Must try harder.
I have every confidence that you can achieve a maximum score.
While I understand your reductio ad absurdam strategy, Peter Smith, don’t you think your ironical approach denies conservatism-as-instinct the dignity that Sir Roger Scruton would argue is axiomatic to its endurance? By all means trade blows with name callers if you feel so strongly inclined, but don’t underestimate those many of us who quietly eschew labels in favour of judgements flowing naturally from love of family, home and liberty.
Trevor, I agree that civility is a hallmark of conservatism and I wouldn’t like all, or most, conservatives to be like, say, Rush Limbaugh. But I think there is room for some prominent warriors like Limbaugh to hit back at those who would threaten our whole way of life. And I would like more of them without at all underestimating those conservatives who do things in a quieter way.
Thank you for your reply, Peter. I read your article again. I suppose we conservatives in Australia may be a curious hybrid of the American & the English models, the Lockean materialists versus the Burkean organic set. In other words, we must be fit & ready to engage with the enemy on their own brutal terms. Gramsci long ago saw which direction the long march of the cultural warriors should take, and now that they’ve arrived in force…
‘right’ and ‘left’ come to us from the French Revolution – if you don’t support the violent overthrow of civilization, then the labels won’t fit.
However, agree with:
Bob Hawke on the Middle East,
Paul Keating on budget restraint or the absurdity of gay ‘families’, or
Kim Beazley on the importance of Western Civilization,
and you’ll be abused as ‘radical right wing’.
By all means, right wingers should wear that title with pride, but I am firmly in the political centre – and only here on Quadrant because the looney left has hijacked everything to the left of Quadrant. Being a swinging voter though, I’ll happily consider for voting for a truly right wing govt; consider the alternatives! The looney left is absurd. The centre left is gone. The centre right has rolled over and died. Now is a good time to give a truly right wing govt a chance.
oh, here’s the sort of rubbish Get Up is spouting when spruiking for funds; this turned up in my email today:
=======================================================
Dear James,
In a shocking speech today, Scott Morrison maligned thousands of GetUp members with false accusations of bullying, misogyny and anti-semitism in the election.1
GetUp members are teachers and nurses, mums and dads, students and pensioners. What we actually did is knock on doors, make phone calls and have heart-to-heart conversations with their neighbors on critical issues, like climate action.
But Morrison is abusing his public position to make hideous slurs against us all and launch more politically-driven government investigations — even after the Australian Election Commission (AEC) confirmed our independence earlier this year.2
This time it’s not just Senator Eric Abetz, but the Prime Minister himself, with the entire weight of his office coming to destroy our movement — just as they persecute the ABC, whistleblowers and a free press, or anyone who might hold government to account.
Last time we needed multiple law firms, barristers, accountants and more to fend off one politically-motivated investigation. Now we’re staring down multiple investigations from parliamentary committees and government agencies.
We also need to stand up for GetUp members who have come into Morrison’s crosshairs with scandalous lies about what we achieved together in the election.
Can you chip in $12 to a fighting fund to defend GetUp from the Morrison Government’s anti-democractic attacks? Because politics belongs to everyone!
What does Scott Morrison want? A world without GetUp members. A world without a free press and government whistleblowers. A world with less democracy, less accountability – no one to challenge his decisions to support Adani, build more coal-fired power plants, leave people suffering on Manus and Nauru and give huge tax handouts to big corporations.
This is a government bent on punishing disagreement and silencing dissent. Whether it’s raids on the press, the prosecution of whistleblowers, laws to shut down workers’ rights or attacks on our right to protest.3,4,5
Our movement is now being threatened with politically-driven parliamentary inquiries, an ATO investigation and yet another inquistion into our independence by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).6,7 This comes just months after the AEC confirmed our independence after a gruelling 20-month investigation.
Against all this power of government what we have is the power of everyday people — and we need it now more than ever.
Chip in $12 to a fighting fund to defend GetUp members from the Morrison Government’s anti-democractic attacks.
Here is the shallow trick being played by Scott Morrison and his friends at The Australian. They mention the misogynistic attacks on Nicolle Flint in Boothby, in which her office was egged and defaced. They say GetUp members were active in that electorate – so we must be responsible – even though we publicly condemned those attacks at the time!8
Morrison is counting on people not reading too closely or demanding actual evidence – which he doesn’t have. He’s counting on his public megaphone and the Murdoch Press to drown out anything we have to say.
That’s why we need to fight like never before. We need to tell our story of who we are, what we stand for and what we bring to our politics as a movement of everyday people. We need to lift up member voices against Morrison’s lies however and wherever we can.
We’ll have to fight this in the halls and hearing rooms of Parliament. We’ll have to fight this in the court of public opinion and the courtroom, if necessary, and at great expense. Through all of this, we need to keep fighting for the issues that drive us. Can you help?
Chip in $12 to a fighting fund to tell the story of GetUp members and fight back against the lies from Morrison and the Murdoch Press.
This is a crisis. But it’s also an opportunity to show people who we are and what we’re made of. It’s a chance to define ourselves as a positive force for accountability and democratic participation, if we stick together in our time of need.
Thanks for standing up together,
Paul, for the GetUp Team
PS – When the last government attacked our political independence GetUp members rallied together like never before — with more energy and financial support than we thought possible. They keep coming after us because we’re effective and because we’re a real check on their power. Politics is too important to leave to politicians — it belongs to everyone. We need our ABC, we need a free press and we need a movement of GetUp members to stand up for a more fair, flourishing and just society for all. Can you stand up with GetUp today?
References:
[1] Scott Morrison takes the fight to GetUp lurking ‘in the shadows’, The Australian, 17 August 2019.
[2] Activists GetUp ruled independent of parties by Electoral Commission, SBS, 18 February, 2019.
[3] AFP won’t rule out charging News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst after raid, The Guardian, 14 August 2019.
[4] Witness K and the ‘outrageous’ spy scandal that failed to shame Australia, The Guardian, 10 August 2019.
[5] Morrison wants trespass laws targeting animal activists passed within two weeks, SBS News, 18 July 2019.
[6] ATO called in to examine GetUp finances, The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2019.
[7] Liberal Party wages new war on ‘political’ GetUp, The Australian, 9 August 2019.
[8] A personal tale: How GetUp and unions tried to break me”, The Australian, 18 July 2019.
A fine article Peter, highlighting some of the issues of the day. CPAC was excellent. However, I think we persist with too many adjectives. ‘Right’ by itself is sufficient. It weakens any argument to resort to name calling and titles such as ‘far’ left, ‘cultural’ marxists and ‘liberal’ humanist, or concepts such as ‘free’ speech. What about we concentrate on ‘the truth’? We can simply agree that Peter here is ‘right’ and we can all celebrate that!
In relation to protecting our ‘free’ speech, ‘religious’ freedom, freedom to be ‘far’ right… we again miss the point. Let’s just work on supporting those who speak truth. Peter, I would love to see an article on how we can protect those who speak truth, especially truth to power. We know who is in power. They are the people who invent and repeat lies with impunity!
Peter,
I enjoyed reading your article and the comments – until the MacBot broke his word and returned to plague the sane world once more with his rabbited ‘fossil fuel shill’ slander. Shouldn’t there be some sanity check on subscribers?
I will happily pay Quadrant twice his subscription if he goes away again so I don’t have to waste time refuting his endlessly repeated whines.
Global warming – yes, please – and as soon as possible with double the current CO2 as a bonus.
No time for more as I have a plane to catch …
Christianity has a lot to answer for with it’s apologetic approach for even existing. One of the most misquoted tenets of Christianity is ‘blessed be the meek for they shall inherit the earth’. Sadly the word ‘meek’ has been substituted for the original Greek word ‘preus’, which is as about as far removed that you can be from ‘meek’. The meaning of preus is linked to bridling and restraining a wild colt. It’s about self restraint and not immediately arcing up. The man/woman who possesses preus is slow to anger, but will act vigorously once unrestrained. It’s right up there with the other tenants of faith such as ‘blessed be the peacemaker. I see this are the role of the conservative; don’t just stand still so a dog can cock his leg on your, but take vigorous action to defend your beliefs.