Consider if you will four units in four wars. Tarleton’s British Legion from The American Revolution. The Natal Caribineers of The Second Anglo-Boer War. The Auxillaries (Royal Irish Constabulary) from the The Irish Independence War and finally the Selous Scouts from the Rhodesian Bush War. All four units were improvisations designed to fight fire with fire during protracted Counter Insurgency camapigns associated with Britains Empire.

Of these four only The Caribineers existed before the conflict and survived as a permanent reserve unit.

Of the four, only The “Auxies” were, (officially at least) supposedly a police para-military unit. Only the Scouts were an elite unit in our post WWII understanding of the term complete with a selection course, coloured berets and the whole institutional palaver. The Scouts are also the only one of the four (to the best of my knowledge) not to be featured on the silver screen.

Tarleton’s Legion are prominant villians in Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot”. Audiences could be mistaken for thinking The Caribeeners were an Australian, rather than a South African unit after watching Bruce Bereford’s magnificent, yet morally ambigous, “Breaker Morant.” The Auxies could be said to feature in Ken Loach’s dreary, orthodox Marxist “The Wind that Shakes the Barely” but the paramilitaries featured are gruff other ranks (ORs) types so probably the director had hazy ideas of the “Black and Tans” much like most of the general public. (This is ironic as the “Tans” role was to accompany civil police on their normal duties much as Australian Army Reservists were to do for Solomon Island Police almost a century later.)

Importantly, all four units rapidly became infamous and in the case at least of the Auxies/Tans and Tarleton’s Legion, persist to this day. Even today, some 125 years after the War, the tactics of the Anglo-Boer War are a topic that I would not discuss with an Afrikaner unless I know the individual very well and to be a dispassionate military historian. Bizarely, only the Scouts, despite efforts at the time to smear them as monsters for their very successful cross border raids, have melted into a haze of general historical obscruity and whose infamy/glamour (depending on your point of view) is inseparable from that of the rest of Rhodesia.

I argue that this very infamy is in fact a high form of back-handed praise. It is indicative of them being extremely effective and as a result seriously getting under the skins of their enemies. Their subsequent dark reputation may be viewed as mostly a form of permanent retaliation from their adversaries. The moral of the story, such as it is, is for us to be on our guard and sceptical of the usages of tactical guilt.

Acquiring a dark reputation for its own sake would be both easy and destructive. By the same token Wars simply cannot be fought according to the wishes and limits imposed by the enemy. At some point, as distasteful as it is, the fight has to be taken to the enemy. Effective insurgency is almost indistinguishable from gangsterism and in turn effective counter insurgency is going to involve a degree of Venn diagram style overlap. Morant’s famous “rule 303” speach in the movie directly addresses this point.

It is a difficult point for some of a simple disposition to accept that their favourite historical enemies and villains were in fact simply good at their very rough jobs and were usually playing by the rules set by their adversaries. Sydney George Fisher in his masterpiece of frankness, “The True History of the American Revolution” makes this abundantly clear and pulls no punches about revolutionary methodology. Surely any balanced evaluation of Tarleton and the British Legion would have to take this into consideration? Similarily I am much indebted to Ernest McCall’s “Tudor’s Toughs” to helping me see through the inherited romantic haze of Irish nationalism.

For more modern examples many may be minded of parallels with say, the Zero units and or Khost Protection Force in Afghanistan. I can only judge them by repution and may admittedly be a victim of exactly the sort of tactical smearing I have just described but I would characterise my four example units not as death squads but units capable and willing to stay in the field long term and truly out guerilla the guerilla.

Infinitely more obscurely, when I was with the pro-demeocracy forces in Burma in the 2000s, we recieved reports of special “Black Shorts” units being formed from the Tatmadaw’s (Burmese Government Army) Light Infantry. Instinctively the name told you everything you needed to know about the tactics, dress, mission and mindset of these units and their determination to winkle out the pro democracy and ethnic forces from the jungles of the Dawna Ranges and the Salween River. Circumstances being such they failed but it was clearly, from a military point of view, the correct tactical approach.

Put simply, all the technocratic safety concerns spouted by the AFL as reasons for this suppression utter nonsense. My previous article explained why but sufice to say there is not a shred of evidence for this outlandish claim. This is because in fact we are denied the exciting spectacle of the traditional centre bounce because it is difficult for women to perform as well as men because men and women are physically different. Thus the centre bounce was abolished in order to lie that men and women are completely equal so that in the name of equality of outcomes women could be pushed into senior umpiring roles by the AFL at the expense of men. This war against reality is woke and DEI ideology in action which at heart, are essentially Maoism.

If I sound bitter it is because I am. I grew up enthralled watching the drama of the centre bounce and was determined not just to learn how to do it but to do it well. I spent many, many hours learning to do so and although my umpiring career was strictly amateur I know players appreciated the implicit respect correctly performing a centre bounce for them, the spectators and the code.

The game, our game, has been a result of the AFL’s action, deliberately diminished and degraded perhaps forever. Moreover we are humiliated by a pure demonstration of how our game is now the property of a large corporation utterly indifferent at best to our traditions and entirely determined to conform to the fashions and fads of a government and corporate far removed and hostile to out own

.

Aristotle was apparently once asked if slavery could be abolished. He replied that theoretically it could in the unlikely event of machines being built to somehow replace human labour. And lo, albeit some 2000 years later, this did indeed come to pass. Machines replaced slaves, (and then poorly paid labour) because machines replaced human labour in every field from harvesting crops (including cotton) to kitchen appliances.

It should be obvious then that the next step of this process, the development of robots and AI, is a continuation of this tendancy. But rather than dissipate this labour production into various assorted expensive gadgets it will be concentrated into an artificial servitor that may well be completely virtual. It may though be housed and identified within a particular robot and this in turn might be a talking rubbish bin or a proper pipedal and humanoid in appearance like Japan’s “Asimo” or the Boston Dynamic’s “Atlas”.

The whole point of the exercise though, as Robert Heinlein portrayed (as recently pointed out in a post on substack which I failed to refind; soz) in “The Door to Summer” with his creation of the “servant girl” domestic robot. (More on this later.) The point, you will observe, is not to play God and construct an artifical play mate for a humanity which, despairing of ever truly conversing with aliens, Sasquatch or ghosts, finally decided to simply roll up its selves and make one ourselves. The point is to reconstruct a form of slavery that even liberalism and humanism can have no possible problem with because the proposed slaves are not even animal, let alone human.

Yet the entire weight of current culture clearly has the exact opposite project and desperate desires AI robots so that they can be manumised and lifted up into full personhood. Never mind that what is being lifted up has the soul of a kitchen table the narcissism of the romantic Byronic impulse to uplift the downtrodden will not be denied. Much as the realife Apollo programme and the at least the first series of Sar Trek was a search for replacement frontiers after all the earthly ones had been exhausted so subsequent series and movies from IT to Bicentennial Man are a search for simmilar surrogates for the great unwashed. A great deal of the febrile excitement for AI is due, one suspects, to the imagined brave new frontiers for performative and condescending virtue signaling. That, for such minded people, are essentially what AI is for.

In the end though this can only ever be a simulation of intellence and self awareness, not the real thing. Intelligence cannot be disembodied or dispassionate and Spok like. Human consciousness is not the by product of a mushy biological computer but something larger than the sum of the parts of the brain and frustratingly elusive. A friend of mine in IT told me of a bizarre (yet no doubt highly paid) new occupation of therapists for AI traumatized by all the mean bad humans not being nice to them. Of course this trauma is nothing more than the IT reflecting back through the programme what they feel ought to be the reaction of anyone being similarily mean to them.

This reflective nature of so called AI can clearly be seen at the other end of the spectrum where the push to develop AI is clearly an attempt to create an omnipotent artificial Diety to replace the one clubbed to death by the demons of modernism like a baby harp seal. Interestingly, both Musk with Grok and Google with Chat GPT, are clearly doing this in order to save Liberalism from itself. It turns out that the consent of the governed is not enough and that for all its self proclaimed materialism and rationality Liberalism still requires ungainsayable, transidental absolute authority in order to its absurdities to be accepted. Of course, inevitably, all that has been achieved is, as one would expect, is to merely reflect the all too predictable mid-witery of the programmers. Alas, all the world, dear Horatio, is gay and retarded and that goes double for AI.

My position, in contrast, is that although they maybe one day be pretty good (in theory at least) simulations and reflections of people, AI and robots by their very categorical nature remain inanimate objects and tools. Thus tools such as one’s dishwasher or lawnmower are there to be used so to should we also use the new tools of hominid robots and AI. In Blake’s 7 Avon uses his computer as a useful logical sounding board without fooling himself into thinking that it is somehow a person. Like wise Goerge Jetson communicates his wishes to his housekeeping robot without letting his imagination go riot. Both rtd2 and c3po from Star Wars were useful yet appropriately obsequious. (Nobody likes uppity bots.)

However because they enter the uncomfortable valley of being humanlike (whilst remaining inanimate) the use of these tools may, if you are so minded, cosmetically resemble actual slavery. This is moral nonsense as no humans, or even persons, are involved thus creating a mere simulation of servitude that even passes the rigourous muster of Liberal ethics. But if you are genetically predisposed to see such eratz beings and big babies forever in need of your frustrated motherly impulses, this is irrelevant. So too is it irrelevant if your concern is the asethics of Maoism of the enforced equality of the labour camp and your moral compass derived from secularised Calvinism.

I anticipate that this attitudual conflict will be sharpest over the question of sexbots. From Pagan Rome to the Barbary states to the antebellum South slavery has always invovled sex. For good or for ill it is naive not to anticipate this to be also true for AI and Robots. Indeed pornography and profit, even more than mass surviellence and War has been a prime driver of IT. Much like the Romans turning to the Sabine women to replace their own feckless wives, future incels and normies will no doubt seek to break the generalised sex strike that is feminism with sexbots.

Obviously this activity, being in essence glorified masturbation, would very quickly see the end of most Western and North East Asian societies within a generation. One the other hand one might, addittedly also naively, hope that just enough sexbottery occurs to signal to women that meaninful competition does exist and that they need to adjust accordingly whilst encouraging enough incels to be brave and flirtacious comforted in the knowledge that rejection is now in fact, and not just in theory, no biggy, and thus give humanity a chance.

Idle musings aside it is clearly a site of future conflict based upon unreconcilable differences. Using the full power of a crumbling regime feminism will attempt to ban all sexbots and urgently insist upon their full emancipation with a righteous fury that would embarrass John Brown. Echoing the dynamics of Gamergate they would thus excite the opposition of later day Calhouns determined to protect what actually would be private property and convinced that they must die on that hill lest they be condemned to a life that they would know from bitter personal experience to be not worth living. I further expect that amongst all the epithets that will inevitably be slung at them that of “neo-Confederate” would actually be very appealing, evoking as it does authentic rustic charm, old world dignity and gentlemanly stylishness. I envisage an army of Cartmans demanding appropriate respect for “muh attoritay!” and “muh propertay!”

As say that in the classics, “yeh ha!”

I propose, humbly, that Britain's House of Lords be fully restored to its pre Asquith condition with all its prerogatives and responsibilities, and all the post Blair bounders and mountebanks shown the door. Furthermore the rightful fortunes of Britain and Ireland's great families, shamefully stolen from them through such blatant targeting such as Death Duties, need to be restored to their rightful owners.

The only quid pro quo that I would demand in order to protect the Aristocracy from effeminacy and degeneracy is to mandate jousting for all male Lords below the age of say, 45. Jousting on horseback and in full armour would define the restored Aristocracy and be the basis of their collective claim to merit and rank.

Jousting used to be the sine qua non of what it meant to be a European Aristocrat. Since its abandonment in the 16th century the Aristocracy story has been one of constant decline. One cannot restore Britain without restoring the Aristocracy and that in turn, I argue, requires Jousting.

Jousting has enjoyed something of a renaissance in Germany but without being linked to social rank is mere sport however pukka. Some nay sayers may cant that this is a ridiculous basis for government. Given the current regime of misrule, treason and tyranny this is absurd. The restored House would merely exercise a much needed veto and Jousting would ensure that those doing so would be both patriots and total chads.

Jousting would of course be televised, and be as emblemic for the Aristocracy much as darts used to be for the traditional native British working class. As such, knocking an opponent clear off his horse ought to be rewarded with resounding Russ Bray style 180 points. No doubt Jousting would soon occupy the same niche on British television as Sumo does in Japan. Interestingly Sumos officially hold the otherwise redundant rank of Samauri.

I thank the kind reader for your indulgence of my admittedly eccentric proposal but we live in revolutionary times in which absolutely everything is possible and all our institutions demand radical and reactionary reimagining.

I write to protest and critique the AFL (Australian Football League) move to deprive our beloved code of Australian Rules Football of the Centre Bounce. As a former amateur umpire I will explain why the AFL's rationalisations are nonsense. I will explain why this is an act of spiritual violence against our code and how it reflects very negative anti normative trends throughout Australia and the western world.

For years it has been axiomatic amongst fans that the AFL was campaigning like Billyoh behind the scenes to abolish the Centre Bounce. This was plainly obvious since 2017 when the AFL unfairly ( not least to Eleni Glouftsis herself) pushed a female umpire into a finals umpiring slot that was not ready for. During the match Glouftsis wisely elected to throw the ball up. But this resulted in a final of umpiring ball skills no different from that one would find at Auskick

But for their pains perceptive fans have been branded paranoid and conspiracy theorists. Yet again events have vindicated those those thus smeared and their intuitive spider sense appreciation of the agenda and nature of the AFL proven correct. They know that when confronted with the choice of lifting people up to reach ever higher standards or dragging the whole sport down the AFL wouldn't hesitate. “Up there Gazaly” not so much.

And lo, it has indeed come to pass. Firstly let us address the technical rationalisations for the move.

Years ago, the concern was that ruck contests were dangerous to players in the long term. Not only did the introduction of the 10 meter rule address this issue but the inevitable slight irregularity that the bounce entails strongly mitigates against rutman playing their opponent rather than playing the ball. Thus the center bounds is safer for players than the throw up.

But to justify the complete ban the AFL claims that umpires themselves have complained about the physical and psychological stress of the Centre Bounce and called for its abolition. I call BS on this anonymous third party reported testimony. The AFL simply does not have the credibility to make such claims. Does anyone seriously believe that the AFL has not carefully cheery-picked the desired opinions of a few individuals to support its long-term objectives?

But for the sake of argument let us steel-man the AFL's argument and accept that this is the passionate position of 100% of all current senior AFL umpires. My responce is, “So what?” If there were masses of discontented umpires, (and happily Idon't believe there are) unequal to the challenge of mastering the full skill set of being an Aussie Rules umpy and following in the footsteps of generations before them then I would advise and prefer them to find another part-time gig that pays an eye-watering $150,000 per year. If you are not prepared to live up to give your very best to the players and the fans and to pass onto the next generation of umpires a standard and a status as high as you inherited then why are you here?

And make no mistake, the challenges are ssevere. The game is a non-stop chaotic melee that is extremely difficult to officiate. But that is what Aussie Rules is all about. Our code of football is superior not because it is easy and stress free but because it is exciting and challenging. No other code demands mastering such a broad range of ball skills including, uniquely and spectacularly, the umpires. I simply cannot believe that anyone would surrender this and diminish their own standing in the sport.

It has further been claimed in defence of the AFL that rather than fuss over such frivolities as the Bounce umpires would do well to concentrate on other more important matters such as making authoritative calls and getting their positioning right.

In response I would reply that as the Bounce occurs at the full arm extension in front of the umpire's body it places the umpire automatically in an ideal position. This is in contrast was the throw which necessitates the awkward backward jog of the umpire to get the hell out of the way. Because of this, whenever possible, I opted to Bounce as the neater, cleaner method.

Furthermore nothing automatically establishes credibility and respect from players, barrackers and even sniping jackal coaches from the get go than starting the game with a Centre Bounce. It is a skill that takes years of dedication to learn. Much like a golf swing, if you think about it you'll mess it up but getting it right excudes self confidence. No one learns to do the Bounce by accident. It is evidence of dedication, commitment and experience. Players know at an unspoken intuitive level that they are in good hands.

But above all, the Bounce honors our code. The first Center Bounce of any game is a solem and dignified moment. The crowd love it. It is a treasure and losing this impoverishes our game. So why then is the AFL so key to do such violence to our game? Since the AFL is opaque about their motivations we can really only speculate but my guess is that the intention is to feminize the sport.

Essentially the AFL for purely idological reasons which is to have at least as many women umpires as men for stop for this to happen the bounce has to go. Why? Because it requires strength for stop men and women are different and men are simply stronger than women. So the AFL has decided to the unilaterally deprive fans and players of a vital historic and spectacular part of our sport and degrade the role of umpires in order to push an illusionary political gender of absolute quality of outcomes of physical reality.

For the record though I wish to state that I have no objections to women umpires in Aussie Rules officiating men's games. I have no objection to them climbing as high in umpiring as they can. I do however have serious problems with the sport, and especially the umpire's role in it, being degraded and impoverished to artificially promote this so that reality conforms with fantasy.

It is an ideology that has in recent years motivated a number of very large corporations to do a great deal of harm to their bottom line and throw away billions of dollars. It is moreover an ideology absolutely antithetical to the rough and ready Aussie egalitarianism of Rulz and the inate striving for competitive excellence. Some may critique these sentiments for their w@nkiness but can anyone with a straight face deny that this gratuitous spiritual violence is not one a whole range of fiendish, mad, unpleasant impositions and oppressive measures from on high whose sole purpose is to diminish, demean and demoralise? How is this not woke and DEI not further destroying everything we love?

Some may deride my objections as essentially conservative. Well as the historian Robert Conquest once observed people are conservative about what they love. The AFL simply do not love Aussie Rules or care about the history and culture of our sport. Our sport ( not theirs) that our forefathers played in leagues all across Australia decades before anyone had even imagined such a thing as an AFL.The sport we grew up with and which our childhood was saturated in. They certainly do not care about the fans or the safety or stress levels of anyone in the sport or even the bottom line of providing an entertaining spectacle. Bring back the Bounce!