Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

By Ranting Panda, 31 December 2022

Communism and Socialism are often equated with the Soviet Union and China. While both these nations claimed to be Marxist, they were not operated in any way that Marx would have identified as aligning with his theories and propositions. 

Sure, there was a seizing of property, but Stalin missed the point of redistribution to meet the needs of all people. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Stalin missed the point of workers having power over the means of production, of workers having power within government. Stalin operated a brutal totalitarian regime that stripped workers of what little they had and then exploited and persecuted them further. This was not Marxism. 

Marx and Engels stood for the working class. These days, most workers do not see themselves as part of a working class and generally see capitalism as their only hope to achieve wealth and meet their needs. Left wing groups have also moved away from working class struggle to identity politics, in which they will stand for certain social causes, such as environment, race, sex and gender. issues These causes are important and must be addressed, but ultimately they have fractured the left-wing into competing factions and diverted attention from the worker struggles identified by Marx. This plays into the hands of capitalism which thrives on left-wing disunity and has turned workers against the very solution that would end their exploitation, namely socialism. Capitalism has succeeded in this because they have been able to equate Marxism with Stalinism; its purges, severe exploitation, famines, pogroms, torture, disappearances, totalitarianism, lack of freedom of speech or thought, censorship, and so on. Each of these things is not what Marx stood for. They are contrary to Marxism, but they are what Stalin stood for in the name of Marxism. What worker in their right mind would want a revolution that replaced the relative freedoms of western democracy with a totalitarian Stalinist regime?

In 1949, China experienced the 'People's Revolution' which swept Mao Tse Tung to power. Chairman Mao claimed to be Marxist but fashioned himself on Stalin, including the use of purges, removal of freedoms, and a closed economy.

Marx did not advocate for closed economies. He understood that socialism would only succeed in an open internationalist environment with the cooperation of every nation. Marx advocated for socialism in all countries, not socialism in one country or in a centrally controlled government. Because of this, nationalism is anathema to Marxism, yet Stalin violently imposed centralism and nationalism, not internationalism. Stalin focused on socialism in one country through a closed economy and ensuring other socialist nations were merely satellites of Moscow. Hence, the so-called 'Iron Curtain' that imposed Soviet Union control over socialist nations in Europe.

Marx described a workers' revolution in which the working class would have control over the means of production and government. Marxism is the ultimate in democracy and freedom. It ensures people are treated fairly and equitably. Workers have a voice and have control. Stalin stripped workers of their voices and certainly did not give them control. Quite the opposite in fact. Anyone who dared challenge Stalin's power, politics or practices was liable to be tortured in Lubyanka or transported to the Gulags for years of harsh punishment and forced labour, often dying in the camps. 

Licenced from Shutterstock

The 1917 Russian Revolution was led by a triumvirate consisting of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Following the revolution, Lenin became the first leader of the new Russian socialist state, which was initially founded on the principals of Marxism-Leninism. It gave power to workers, removed Russia from the first world war, and gave equality to women. Lenin however, was not a well man and he died in 1924. Prior to his death, Lenin penned a letter stating that leadership of the Russian state should be passed to Trotsky. He specifically stated that it should not go to Stalin, because of Stalin's desire for power at all costs. Lenin knew that Stalin was a megalomaniac who was using Marxism for his own narcissistic benefit. Unfortunately, on Lenin's death, Stalin ensured the letter did not immediately see the light of day. Prior to Lenin's death, Stalin had begun positioning himself to weaken Trotsky's position within the government. On assuming power, Stalin proceeded to besmirch and ultimately exiled Trotsky. Even after Trotsky was forced out of the country, Stalin used him as a scapegoat to arrest anyone who appeared a threat to him or for any other political purpose. People who Stalin wanted to get rid of were often accused of being Trotskyists. Stalin's obsession with Trotsky resulted in show trials against Trotsky and Trotsky-loyalists throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Despite Trotsky not even being in the country for many of the things he was accused of, the show trials found him guilty of anti-Communist activities. Many of the charges and accusations blamed Trotsky for things he had never been present for and which were completely fabricated. For decades, Stalin portrayed Trotsky as a bogeyman or bugaboo. It had nothing to do with Trotsky being anti-Marxist, but everything to do with Trotsky being a leader who posed a threat to Stalin's grip on power. 

Trotsky settled in Mexico, where he wrote numerous papers and books on Marxism, including 'The Revolution Betrayed' (published in 1936) which exposed Stalin's crimes and showed him to be an anti-Marxist megalomaniac who had betrayed the revolution, the people, the proletariat. In 1938, Trotsky and his exiled supporters created the Fourth International, which accused the Communist International  (ComIntern or Third International) of being Stalinists, anti-Marxists and traitors to the revolution. Even with that, Trotsky did not want the ComIntern destroyed, as he was hoping for socialist unity. He blamed the Third International and Stalin as providing impetus for the rise of Hitler and Nazism. After living in several countries, including Turkey, France and Norway. Trotsky had relocated to Mexico in 1937. Stalin eventually succeeding in having Trotsky assassinated in 1941.    

Even after his death, Stalin and the ComIntern continued to portray Trotsky as anti-Marxist and an enemy of the Soviet state. However, Trotsky was far more Marxist than Stalin had ever been. Trotsky's issue was not with Marxism, but with Stalinism. Trotsky correctly portrayed Stalin as having betrayed the revolution. Stalin claimed to be Marxist, but his actions did not align with Marxist policies and practices. 

Stalin's purges made the 'Reds Under the Bed' paranoia of 1950's USA look positively harmless in comparison. The 'Great Purge' of 1936 to 1938 resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 700,000 and 1.2 million people. The purges resulted in an estimated 14 million being sent to the Gulags. Most of these people were imprisoned or executed on trumped up charges, with the Comintern relying on the most absurd propaganda. 

Initially, the Russian Revolution successfully supplanted the brutal and delinquent Tsar Nicholas II with a Marxist government led by Lenin. However, by 1924, rather than being the leader of a workers' state, Stalin emerged as just another Tsar with a brutal and totalitarian regime that served himself at the cost of the people. 

In his book 'Animal Farm', British author, George Orwell described this transition from a workers' revolution to a government that was almost identical to the regime the revolution had replaced. Not surprisingly, like Trotsky, Orwell was portrayed as anti-Communist. Similar to Trotsky, Orwell did not have an issue with Communism per se, but with Stalinism.

Orwell is revered by some capitalists as being a conservative who detested communism. However, Orwell was an anarcho-Communist who fought for the left-wing Republicans in the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939. It is a little ironic that anarchists fought for a government, as left-wing anarchism doesn't believe in government and is based on selective Marxist principles. Petr Kropotkin, a leading 19th century anarchist, described an anarchist state as one in which the people ruled themselves without government. Although a Marxist of sorts, Kropotkin was highly critical of the communists and the communists were highly critical of anarchism. Kropotkin unleashed on the communist version of Marxism in his 1899 book The Conquest of Bread. Lenin returned the favour in his 1917 book The State and Revolution. 

The democratically elected Spanish Republican government was made up of a variety of left-wing groups, including communists, socialists, and anarcho-communists. In 1936, right-wing nationalist forces led by rebel elements of the Spanish military attempted a coup to overthrow the government and implement a right-wing Fascist regime. While the coup was unsuccessful, Spain descended into civil war. However, this was not just a war between republicans and nationalists. 

Numerous nations joined in the war, with countries such as Germany (under Hitler), Italy (under Mussolini), Portugal, Britain and United States siding with the fascist-aligned nationalists, while the Soviet Union (under Stalin) and Mexico sided with the republicans. 

Further, there was a 'war within a war', because the republicans were not a unified force. The various leftist groups were often fighting each other. They were comprised of a variety of leftist factions, including the communist Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), The Popular Front, anarchists (CNT-FAI), unionists (UGT), Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), Catalonian nationalists and Basque nationalists (not to be confused with the fascist nationalists who were fighting the Republicans). These were just the local Spanish groups. They were also joined by the communist International Brigades (international recruits under the control of Stalin).

Even though multiple nations were fighting on the side of the fascists, the UK and the USA were particularly concerned with appeasing Hitler as they were gravely worried that Germany would wage war throughout Europe. Similarly, although Stalin sided with the republicans, he too was concerned with not provoking Hitler for the same reason.  

To put it bluntly, the Spanish Civil War was a clusterfuck. It resulted in around 500,000 deaths and destroyed much of Spain, leaving it unable to effectively participate in World War II, although it's fascist president, General Franco, sided with Hitler and offered what little assistance he could.

Some commentators described the Spanish Civil War as the Second World War because of the number of nations involved in the conflict. It essentially ended in April 1939, only months before Hitler invaded Poland and initiated what is now known as the Second World War, but which could be argued was actually the Third World War. 

Stalin had sent more than 2000 Soviet officers and troops into Spain to both assist with the war effort and to infiltrate the leftist forces and undermine them. Some of the officers would report on other leftists as being traitors or Trotskyists if they dared to criticise Stalin, sometimes resulting in those leftists being executed or imprisoned by the Communists. Not surprisingly, the other leftist groups retaliated by firing on the Communists. It was clear that the Communists were being directed by Moscow. Stalin was more interested in shoring up his own power in Spain, than in winning the war for the Spanish. He even ordered the creation of concentration camps for leftists who did not kowtow to Stalinism. The Communist attacks on other leftists forces created a civil war within the civil war. It's no wonder that Franco and his fascist forces won. 

During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet NKVD exported their torture, persecution and executions to Spain; establishing dozens of concentration camps around Madrid. Although the Russian Communists claimed to be anti-fascist and allied with the Republicans, it wasn't only the fascists and Nationalists who the NKVD imprisoned, tortured and executed. The Soviets had deployed the NKVD and SIM to Spain to persecute, torture, imprison, and execute anti-Stalinists, including other leftist groups, such as the anarchists, unionists, the communist POUM, and anyone who dared criticise Stalin or the intentions of the Communist Party in the Civil War. It should be noted, that the Nationalists also were guilty of imprisoning, torturing and executing people. Between the Soviets and the Nationalists, it is estimated that up to 200,000 people died as a result of torture and execution; accounting for approximately 40% of all deaths in the civil war. After the war, the Nationalists executed a further 50,000.

The Communists claimed victory over the nationalists when they attacked Madrid in November 1936, even though the Communists only accounted for around 5% of the leftist forces. The majority of forces were from other leftist groups. The Communist declaration of victory was extremely premature, with the war dragging on for another two and half years. By late 1938, the Nationalists were clearly winning the war. The Communists wanted to continue hostilities even in the face of imminent defeat. Stalin had been hoping for victory in Spain to increase his power and influence in Europe by turning Spain into a satellite of the Soviet Union. The Communists wanted a centralised government that they controlled, which did not fare well with other leftists, who were not particularly endeared to Stalin.

Local Spaniards just wanted peace regardless of who would win. Not surprisingly, they too had become disillusioned with the Communists, because of their arrogance, anti-Trotskyist paranoia, brutality towards civilians, fascists and other leftists. 

British writer, George Orwell and American writer, Ernest Hemingway, both travelled to Spain to fight on the side of the Republicans. Orwell fought for the Anarchists. In seeing the brutality that Communist forces and the NKVD unleashed against fellow leftists, Orwell became disillusioned with Stalin's version of Communism. 

Not much has changed since the Spanish Civil War. Leftist groups still have disparate views of what a Marxist state would look like, and whether it would be achieved through revolution or reformism. Revolutionaries consider that the only way to introduce Marxism is to overthrow the capitalist state . Reformists have the view of incremental change through election of left-wing groups to government within the capitalist state.

Disappointingly, most socialist or communist groups spend more time criticising each other than in working together against the forces of capitalism and to end the exploitation of workers. Sociologist and economic historian, Immanuel Wallerstein referred to '1000 Marxisms' in describing the fragmentation of political parties and groups that align themselves with Marxism. They all have different interpretations of Marxism and different priorities. Many describe themselves as revolutionary, others as reformist. Until Marxists have at least a modicum of unity, there will be no successful socialist revolution. 

Workers in the west do not see themselves as needing socialism. They are terrified of it because of the association with the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao. In his book 'A Short History of Progress', Canadian author, Ronald Wright, paraphrased John Steinbeck with a quote that perfectly encapsulates the issue that Marxists face in motivating workers to rise up in revolution:

'Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'. 

Illustration by Greg Newbold for the Wall Street Journal

In the current environment of contrasting Marxist groups, reformation is the best that can be hoped for through the promotion of identity politics in lieu of workers seizing the means of production, and the election of left-wing politicians to democratic governments. This is far removed from the workers' state that Marx had in mind, but it is better than nothing. Until Marxists can decouple themselves from Stalin, unify their position and articulate the need for Marxism in a manner that is meaningful to workers, then there will not be a successful socialist revolution. Perhaps, it may be worthwhile to decouple from Trotsky and Lenin as well. The association with the Soviet Union makes a toxic brand for Marxists. Instead, go back to the basics that Marx and Engels proposed and start afresh. 

Right-wing governments have been using bigotry and xenophobia to stoke fear in people and subsequently encouraging nationalism to galvanise support from the electorate. They turn workers and the electorate against others, against minorities, against 'woke' agendas, against socialism. The danger with this is that we saw what happened previously with extreme nationalism through the rise of Hitler and the use of nationalism by Stalin. Even though Stalin and Hitler were politically on opposing ends of the political spectrum, they both established regimes based on nationalism, totalitarianism and xenophobia. 

Marxist groups need to counter this through promoting unity and internationalism. The brutal exploitation of capitalism needs to be exposed. People consider slavery to have ended in the 19th century, however, as of 2021 there were an estimated 50 million people enslaved across the globe. Slavery exists in all countries and its victims are from all works of life. Much of it is driven by the insatiable desire for reducing costs while maximising profits, which happens at the expense of workers.

Many other workers are exploited through wage theft, underpayment of wages or working longer hours than they are paid. There some who are known as the 'working poor'. They have jobs, sometimes several jobs, and still struggle to make ends meet or are homeless. Meanwhile, corporate profits and CEO wages grossly outstrip workers' wages. Marx described profit as being 'the surplus value, or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the working man is realized'. In other words, profit is realised through the underpayment of workers. Marxism ensures an equitable sharing of products and wages with workers, while workers also have control over the workplace. 

Workers are still an exploited proletariat, they just don't realise it. Capitalism appeals to people's greed and individualism, while politicians manipulate them through nationalism and fear. Marxist groups have to address this and convince people to share and care for each other, to build community cohesion, to stand against exploitation of people and the environment. Conservatives call this being 'woke'. Well, it's time for workers to wake up and see that they are the exploited, they are being manipulated for corporate greed, and that the real enemy is capitalism, not minorities or other workers. Workers need to unify against the capitalist oppressors in order to end exploitation and liberate workers globally.

Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, in which they called for worker unity. The sentiment is as true and necessary today as it was back then.

Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.  

Image of Karl Marx licenced from Shutterstock

Sources

Beevor, A, 2006, The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 

Briggs, W, 2020, Removing the Stalin Stain, Zero Books

Kropotkin, P, 1899, The Conquest of Bread. 

Lenin, V, 1917, The State and Revolution.

Large, DC, 1991, Between Two Fires: Europe's Path in the 1930s, WW Norton & Co

Marx, K, 1865, Value, Price and Profit, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Marx, K, & Engels, F, 1848, The Communist Manifesto, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

McCannon, J, 1995, Soviet Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: A Reexamination, Russian History, Vol 22(2), pp 154-180, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24657802

Orwell, G, 1938, Homage to Catalonia, Mariner Books (2015)

Romendik, D, 2014, The dark history of Lubyanka, 11 February, Russia Beyond, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.rbth.com/arts/2014/02/11/the_dark_history_of_lubyanka_32985

Trotsky, L, 1936, The Revolution Betrayed, Dover Publications (2004)

Walk Free Foundation, Global estimates of modern slavery 2022, https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-slavery-2022/ 

Wall Street Journal, ‘Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck’ Review: The Poison Cup of Gold, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/mad-at-the-world-a-life-of-john-steinbeck-review-the-poison-cup-of-gold-11601567960

Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

By Ranting Panda, 27 December 2022

In the words of John Lennon, 'so this is Christmas, for weak and for strong, for rich and the poor ones, the world is so wrong'. 

Is Christmas for the poor ones though? Lennon is correct that the world is so wrong ... it's wrong in its treatment of the poor, of the marginalised. And Santa, hero of the capitalist world, perpetuates the marginalisation of the poor.

Most people look forward to Christmas, if for nothing more than having a few days off. However, for children it is usually the biggest day in their calendar, often eclipsing even their birthdays. So what's wrong with this picture? Santa Claus. That's what's wrong with it.

Now, we could argue that Santa is based on the real life character of St Nicholas, a 3rd century monk who was also known as Kris Kringle. St Nicholas gave away his inherited wealth and spent his time helping the sick and the poor. 

While the modern day Santa also ostensibly gives away wealth to children across the globe, there is a big difference between the contemporary version and his 3rd century namesake. The difference isn't the obvious fact that one was real and one isn't, but more that modern Santa maintains a Naughty or Nice list in which he supposedly only gives gifts to the 'Nice' kids, the 'Good' kids. You may wonder what is wrong with that.

I'm glad you asked.

Santa Clause is not real. Ok, that may not be a revelation, however, that means that the parents or carers for children are required to step in for Santa. This may not be an issue for people who have money, but there's a lot of people across the world who don't have that much money. Therefore, poor kids are made to feel they are naughty, that they are bad.

The 1989 comedy, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, referred to this very situation. Clark Griswald's niece, Ruby, is from an impoverished family. She says to Clark that the previous Christmas, Santa hadn't brought her and her brother anything, so they must have been naughty even though they had tried to be nice all year. 

Santa Clause represents the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor. While Christmas may be an exciting time for privileged children, for impoverished families it is a time of stress by either not being able to afford much for their children or going into debt to keep up appearances. 

Santa Claus's Naughty or Nice list reinforces negative stereotypes by stigmatising the poor as bad, naughty, misbehaved, and not deserving of his gifts.

Of course, Christmas isn't just about Santa and gifts for privileged kids, it is also meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. You may know of him from a book called the Bible. It is irrelevant whether you believe in Christ or the Bible. What is relevant is that Christmas is a Christian celebration. Yes, we can argue about the pagan roots of it, but Christmas by definition is about Christ. I'm labouring this point because Christ also preached a message of loving and caring for all people, not just rich or privileged people. Yet many who celebrate Christ's birthday also disenfranchise the poor by perpetuating the myth that those who don't receive presents from Santa must be naughty ... instead of acknowledging that those kids may be poor and in need of help.

Christ condemned the accumulation of wealth and preached a message of sharing and redistribution wealth. Christ was a socialist. The original St Nicholas or Kris Kringle also practised socialism by giving his wealth and time selflessly to those who needed it. As Karl Marx penned, 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Interestingly, this mirrors some bible verses, namely Acts 4:32-35:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Even the Old Testament got into the creed of sharing to meet people's needs. Exodus 16:16-18:

16 This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.’” 17 The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. 18 And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.

Capitalism is about accumulation, greed and selfishness. Socialism is about sharing of wealth, selflessness and caring for the poor and disenfranchised, ensuring that everyone's needs are met. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated through the exploitation of others, particularly exploitation of the poor. Socialism achieves wealth for all through sharing the gains of fair productivity to meet the needs of all. 

The modern day Santa Claus is a capitalist misrepresentation of the original message of Christmas that was preached by Jesus and practiced by St Nicholas. It rewards the rich and demonises the poor. 

Every Christmas, privileged Christians will claim that there is a 'War on Christmas', because someone dares to say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas'. Meanwhile, these very people have completely lost the message of Christmas, which was not to accumulate wealth, but to redistribute it, to care for the poor, not to exploit them, to love the poor, not to stigmatise them. Such a 'war' is a concoction of the rich who are more interested in fairy lights & flying reindeers, than they are in redistributing wealth or ending the exploitation of the poor. War on Christmas? As Guns N' Roses sang in Civil War, 'I don't need your civil war, it feeds the rich and buries the poor'. 

The avarice of Christmas and Santa's 'Naughty or Nice' list only benefits the rich and besmirches the poor. 

Rinehart, netball & genocide

Rinehart, netball & genocide

- by Ranting Panda, 6 November 2022

'Those that've been assimilated into, you know, earning good living or earning wages amongst the civilised areas, that have been accepted into society and they have accepted society and can handle society, I'd leave them well alone. The ones that are no good to themselves and can't accept things, the half-castes, and this is where most of the trouble comes, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in future and that would solve the problem'. 

- Lang Hancock 1984 (Australian Screen Office 1984).

These are the words of the late Lang Hancock, mining magnate, founder & former CEO of Hancock Prospecting, speaking of the so-called 'aboriginal problem'.  Upon Hancock's death in 1992, his daughter Gina Rinehart was appointed Executive Chairman of Hancock Prospecting, a position she continues to occupy. Rinehart, who has a majority ownership of the company. is currently Australia's richest person and among the 10 richest women in the world, with net worth of around $30.2 billion (Sandler 2022). 

In September 2022, Rinehart offered a $15 million sponsorship deal to Netball Australia. Part of the deal included listing the Hancock Prospecting logo on the players jerseys. Donnell Wallam, an Indigenous player for Australia's national netball team, the Diamonds, objected to wearing the logo of a company whose founder had proposed genocide of Indigenous people. The Diamonds stood behind Wallam and protested the sponsorship deal with Hancock Prospecting. As the furore erupted, Wallam decided she would wear the logo on her uniform for the sake of Netball Australia (News.com 2022).

Even with Wallam's concession, Rinehart threw a temper tantrum that a 4-year-old would be proud of. She immediately withdrew her $15 million sponsorship. To make things worse, Rinehart knew that Netball Australia was in dire financial straits and her withdrawal of the sponsorship deal could have caused the organisation to collapse, potentially resulting in significant disadvantage to netball players across the country. One of the world's richest women acted like a bully and a petulant child who can't handle criticism. Rinehart clearly showed she wanted to hide the ugly history of her company and her father's genocidal racism at the expense of a sport that does so much to benefit young women in Australia. 

Rinehart's puerile withdrawal of the sponsorship deal only made her look like a racist who agreed with her father's disgraceful statements. However, had she been willing to discuss the issue like an adult, she could have handled this easily by distancing herself from her father's comments. She wasn't asked to apologise for the comments because it wasn't her who said them. However, the statements by Lang Hancock are directly associated with the company she runs. Rinehart could have stated that she didn't agree with the comments and certainly didn't believe in genocide of Indigenous people. In fact, Rinehart had several cards she could have played here, including showing that her actions over the years have demonstrated she has never agreed with her father's proposed genocide. Rinehart has undertaken many philanthropic activities, including sponsoring scholarships for young, under-privileged girls in Cambodia to help them get an education, supporting some of Australia's Olympic athletes, sponsoring programs for domestic violence and at-risk youth, contributing to redevelopment of hospitals, and importantly funding social and education initiatives in Indigenous communities (Hancock Prospecting n.d.). 

In the wake of the Netball Australia sponsorship fiasco, it appears that Rinehart's philanthropy is just a smoke-screen to hide her ingrained racism. 

Why hasn't she ever disavowed the comments of her father? Particularly considering she sits at the helm of the company he founded and which still carries his name.

Not surprisingly, the issue galvanised Australia. Many conservative commentators, politicians, and sportspeople supported Rinehart. Apparently, the Diamonds should be grateful for the handouts; bowing down and kissing the feet of Rinehart, regardless of the abhorrent history of Hancock Prospecting. Many other people however, saw Rinehart as a petulant, entitled autocrat who expects sycophantic fealty in return for her self-serving philanthropy.

Immediately following Rinehart's withdrawal of the sponsorship deal, the Diamonds played a game against England in Newcastle, with debutante Wallam scoring the winning goal. Days later, the Diamonds played England at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre. Wallam was critical in this victory, scoring 25 points from 26 shots on goal, and securing Australia a 3-0 victory over England in the best-of-three series (AAP 2022).

As Netball Australia came to terms with the loss of the sponsorship deal, the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews stepped up to the plate by generously providing a $15 million sponsorship from Visit Victoria (Hytner 2022). This deal will both support the game at elite levels, while encouraging grassroot participation, particularly in culturally diverse communities. Andrews' moral fibre is in direct contrast to the selfish and petulant Rinehart's lack of moral commitment.

Rinehart considered the stance by the Diamonds to be 'virtue-signalling' and that it was 'unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as a vehicle for social or political causes' (Whiteman 2022). Conservatives like to throw around pejoratives, such as virtue-signalling, whenever their myopic, racist, bigoted views are challenged. Why shouldn't athletes be involved in raising social and political issues? They have the public platform and profile to ensure they are heard. They represent their communities and their country. 

Australia is a multi-cultural and highly diverse country. Unfortunately, many conservatives have this naïve view that to be 'Australian' means everyone acting and thinking the same, without ever acknowledging the diversity of the population or daring to challenge Australia's history. Indigenous people are often told to stop living in the past by conservatives who are too gutless to acknowledge some of Australia's unsavoury and racist history. Conservatives certainly have a hard-time of saying sorry, so it is no surprise that they hide their cowardice and racism by hurling insults, such as 'virtue signalling' or 'do-gooders'. They fail to understand that there is still systemic racism in Australia's health, education, employment and legal justice systems. 

Athletes aren't there to be voiceless court jesters, entertaining the rich and privileged. They should speak up whenever they see injustice ... as should anyone. Virtue-signalling? Do-gooders? It is better they have virtue than bigotry. It is better they do good than do nothing, or worse, do harm. 

Source and references

Australian Associated Press, 2022, Wallam puts off-court drama behind her to lead Australia to England sweep, 4 November, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/nov/03/wallam-puts-off-court-drama-behind-her-to-lead-australia-to-england-sweep

Australian Screen Office, Couldn't be fairer,  the clip is taken from the documentary Couldn’t Be Fairer (1984), a collaboration between prominent Aboriginal activist Mick Miller and filmmaker Dennis O’Rourke, https://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/couldnt-be-fairer/clip2/#. 

Hancock Prospecting, n.d., Philanthropy - Education and Community, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/projects/philanthropy/education-and-the-community/.

Hytner, M, 2022, Victoria to sponsor Australian Diamonds netball team after Hancock Prospecting exit, 31 October, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/31/victorian-government-to-sponsor-australian-diamonds-netball-team-after-hancock-prospecting-exit.

News.com, 2022, ‘Really naive’: Lisa Wilkinson drops netball truth bomb, 24 October, viewed 6 November, https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/really-naive-lisa-wilkinson-drops-netball-truth-bomb/news-story/cab88ba5e7536a285d5fd824672ff1a9.

Sandler, R, 2022, There aren’t many women billionaires, but the 10 richest are worth $401 billion, Forbes, 5 April, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/04/05/the-top-richest-women-in-the-world-2022/?sh=5d8c0514446a.

Whiteman, H, 2022, Billionaire dumps Australia netball team in dispute over father’s racist comments, 24 October, viewed 6 November 2022, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/23/sport/australia-netball-rinehart-diamonds-sponsorship-spt-intl-hnk/index.html.

Climate change - the basics

Climate change - the basics

By Ranting Panda, 23 October 2022

In understanding climate change and global warming, it may help to distil the issue down to the most fundamental components:

1. Hotter weather causes more severe storms. Warmer oceans tend to create stronger cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons. Heat fuels the intensity of bushfires. 
2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and affects global temperatures. 

Neither of these points is disputed in modern science. It would be surprising to find a climate change denier who would actually dispute either of these points. 

The main dispute they have is whether the world is warming and whether humans are the cause of it. 

The fact that the world is warming has been quantified in numerous studies, which I'll cover in more detail below.

CO2 emissions have risen dramatically since the mid-20th century and are around 50% higher than they were prior to the Industrial Revolution. Humans are contributing around 36 billion tons per annum of CO2 and other GHG. By comparison, volcanoes contribute around 200 million tons per annum. To make things worse, deforestation is reducing carbon sinks, so less CO2 is absorbed. Agricultural practices release more carbon from the soil, while our heavy reliance on beef has seen a dramatic increase in cattle populations, which produce significant levels of methane, also a GHG. All of these activities are caused by humans and are within our power to control.

Climate deniers have some regular talking points for rejecting the science behind anthropogenic climate change.

They will say that it is part of the common cycles of the Earth, or that back in the day there were hot days, strong cyclones, bush fires etc. They seem to think that scientists aren't aware of previous weather events. However, scientists benchmark and peer review. That's what they do. They actually account for previous weather events and climate changes. Scientists are not stupid, nor are they ignorant. No scientist wants to be known for getting something wrong, so they will test and review their hypotheses ad nauseum before publishing them.

However, there are many who still dispute the very obvious evidence of anthropogenic climate change, so the following points challenge some of the false claims made by climate change denialists.

The world is not warming

The first thing that scientists do is benchmark things. They analysis data to benchmark the current climate and then analyse data to determine how current climate compares to years gone by. These analyses show that the climate is clearly warming. Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000 (NASA n.d.[c]).

It is just part of the natural climate cycles of the Earth

Climate change needs to be forced by some external factor. In this case, it is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Funnily enough, scientists are an inquisitive lot, so they have measured the current CO2 concentration and compared it to concentrations of years gone by, going back millions of years. They know that prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were 280 parts per million and that today they are 400ppm.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it acts as an insulator to retain heat in the world, somewhat like a doona or a big old blanket. This is not in dispute by any scientist. We know therefore, that increases in CO2 concentration will force the planet to warm.

Milankovitch cycles

Milankovitch cycles are essentially the angle of the earth's rotational axis. Funnily enough, the axis doesn't go straight through the north pole to the south pole. It's a little off-centre. Milankovitch cycles are comprised of three key elements:

• the shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity)
• the angle that the Earth's axis is tilted at (obliquity)
• direction Earth's axis of rotation is pointed (precession)

Eccentricity is on a 100,000 year cycle. Obliquity is on a 41,000 year cycle. Precession is on a 25,771 year cycle. On such long cycle times, insignificant changes to Milankovitch cycles over the last century cannot account for the dramatic increase in CO2, global warming or climate change (Buis 2020). 

Scientists are making it up

Yeah, but science! Climate is controlled by the laws of physics. Let me illustrate. Most people know that cyclones only form over warm water. Even the most ardent climate denier will agree with that. It is also known, that the warmer the water, the more intense the cyclone will be. Warm water helps create and intensify cyclones.

Ocean temperatures are increasing because of global warming, particularly because of the albedo effect. Albedo measures the ability of a body to absorb or reflect heat. Lighter bodies reflect heat, darker bodies absorb heat. The ocean is a dark body and has a low albedo. In other words, it absorbs almost all solar radiation and heat. Water expands as it heats, which is one of the causes of rising sea levels. As oceans warm, their ability to diffuse CO2 reduces, which means that more CO2 remains in the atmosphere. 

Ocean heat content (Kaufman n.d.)

Increased warming is also melting land ice, particularly the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, both of which are already contributing to increased sea levels. Think this isn't a problem? The Antarctic ice sheet covers 14 million square kilometers and is on average around 2 kilometers thick, although is more than 4.7 km deep at its thickest. It has the ability to raise global sea levels by around 200 meters if it were to all melt.

 

Heat is also one of the key ingredients in the intensity of fire. The hotter the weather, the more intense the fires will be.

This is all basic and proven science. Scientists are not making this up.

It's all speculation and the 'other side' should also be taught

Ok, so what other side? That heat doesn't intensify storms, cyclones, hurricanes, or typhoons? That heat doesn't intensify fire, warm water or melt ice?

Scientists have quantified increases in CO2 concentrations. This is not in dispute.

Scientists have quantified that the world's climate is warming. This is not in dispute.

The only thing in dispute is whether anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving it. Scientists have run models showing what the climate would be like if there wasn't the increased anthropogenic carbon emissions. These models show that if there had been no change in anthropogenic carbon emissions since the industrial revolution, the world's climate would likely be in a cooling stage now.

Climate change deniers will often state that 3% of scientists dispute anthropogenic climate change. However, studies have found that the conclusions in those papers were faulty and unable to be replicated. Unlike the 97% of papers that found that global warming is real, is problematic and is largely caused by human activity. It should also be pointed out that of that 3%, not all of those scientists actually study climate in any form. This would be tantamount to asking everyone with a trade to comment on the effectiveness of electric vehicles compared to internal combustion vehicles. While some trades would be related, e.g. mechanics, auto-electricians, and even electricians installing EV charging stations, other trades wouldn't have a clue, e.g. butchers, bakers or carpenters. So when unrelated science fields are removed from the survey results and only climate scientists and associated scientists are included, more than 99% believe in anthropogenic climate change and 100% agree that humans are either primary or secondary causes of increasing CO2 emissions.

The sun is warming the planet

The Earth has seen a dramatic increase in warming and greenhouse gases. Yet, there has not been a corresponding change in solar irradiation or warming that would account for the dramatic changes experienced on Earth. The solar energy that Earth has been receiving has followed the natural 11-year cycles of the sun, with no significant changes over the last century that would explain Earth's global warming.

Perhaps the strongest indicator that the cause of Earth's warming is coming from the Earth itself, is that the surface atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) has been cooling. If the sun was causing global warming, then the stratosphere would also have warmed (NASA n.d.[b]). It is clear that the cause of warming is terrestrial and not solar. 

Solar irradiation cooling compared to global warming (NASA n.d.[b])

What about the Medieval Warm Period?

Again, science! Scientists do actually include such episodes in their research. Guess what? The world is warmer now than the Medieval Warm Period. So what caused the MWP? There was increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation that brought much warmer water into the North Atlantic, which caused increased temperatures in Europe. The MWP was largely confined to western Europe and Britain, while other areas of the globe experienced much cooler temperatures. 

This differs to today's warming trend, which is global and not simply confined to western Europe or other geographical areas.  

The hockey stick graph was fabricated

The infamous hockey stick graph. Perhaps the most controversial graph in modern history. 

The graph was a combination of raw instrumental data and proxy data, measuring temperatures from the year 1400 to 1998. The raw instrumental data (e.g. thermometers) was used to record temperatures since 1950. The proxy data was used for data prior to the 20th century. Proxy data is often used in scientific analysis as a substitute for raw measures when scientific instruments are not available. Proxies are generally a good substitute as they provide indications of the phenomena being studied. For example, tree rings are wider during years of higher temperatures and humidity. Ice core samples capture C02, which can indicate higher temperatures. Proxies used by Mann et al in preparing the hockey stick graph included ice core samples, ice melt, ice accumulation, coral growth, tree rings and tree growth trends. They took into account natural climate forcing factors, such as volcanic activity and solar irradiance. 

Original hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1400 (Mann et al, 1998, p 783)

Some have queried the use of proxy data, however an analogy of the use proxies may assist. Dr Chris Cogswell runs a podcast called The Mad Scientist. When discussing proxies used for determining historical climate data, he provided an analogy to simply explain their effectiveness (Cogswell 2017). 

The analogy looks at measures of household income. We may have data from some households in which we know specifically how much they earn. This is similar to the modern temperature records where we know exactly what the temperatures have been over the last few decades. However, say we also want to measure wealth in areas where we don't know the actual income. The specific data shows that wealthier households also tend to have larger houses in more upmarket neighbourhoods, they have more holidays and vacation in expensive locations, they own more vehicles which are generally more expensive. These measures are proxy indicators of wealth. Applying those will provide a good estimate of household wealth. However, like any scientific study, the data needs to be calibrated for accuracy. In doing so, it may be determined that the amount of holidays does not necessarily indicate wealth. After all, it may be that executives are under great pressure and expectations, so end up holidaying less, while workers at lower levels in the organisation may have more opportunity to holiday. Of course, location of holiday could still be an indicator of wealth. The hockey stick report by Mann et all (1998) discussed calibration of its data as well.

In 1999, Mann produced a new report measuring temperatures from the year 1000. The revised graph is shown below. 

Revised hockey stick graph showing temperatures from 1000CE (Mann et al, 1999)

Although the original hockey stick graph was questioned at the time, there have been a multitude of studies since, which have used numerous other methods for reconstructing historical climate patterns. These reports have confirmed that there is a significant increase in temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial revolution and in particular, since the mid-20th century (Skeptical Science, 2016). 

Further studies have considered data over much longer periods than Mann et al did. Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in around 1 million years.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they've been in around 1 million years (NASA n.d.[a])

Conclusion

Global warming is happening and it is forcing climate change. It is imperative that we reduce our carbon emissions to net zero as quickly as possible. The big concern is that we reach a tipping point, in which the world will continue warming under the weight of the increased atmospheric CO2 reservoir which will drive greater feedback, that is responses to warming, which in turn contribute to climate forcing factors that continue increasing GHG and forcing up temperatures. The tipping point is a point of no return, because at that point, our ability to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be outside our control and the world will continue warming uncontrollably. Sea levels will continue to rise, species will become extinct (as we are already starting to see), some plants will be unable to grow. All of this will affect our ability to continue an existence as we know it. 

Sources and references

Beernick, E, Lakey, A, Zarzuela, K, 2017, It was hotter in the Medieval Warming Period than today - brief responses to climate change denialism statements, 25 October, viewed 23 October 2022, CPSG 200 Science & Global Change Sophomore Colloquium, https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator16.html

Benestad, RE, Hayhoe, K, Nuccitelli, D, Lewandosky, S, Hygen, HO, van Dorland, R, Cook, J, 2014, Learning from mistakes in climate research, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

Buis, A, 2020, Milankovitch (Orbital) cycles and their role in Earth's climate, 27 February, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Cogswell, C 2017, Climate Change and Climate Denial, Episodes 20 and 21, 16 May, 31 May, The Mad Scientist Podcast, https://www.themadscientistpodcast.com/episode-20-climate-change

Deacon, B, 2022, Strong Antarctic polar vortex adds to south-east Australian rainfall and flood risk, BOM says, 23 October 2022, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-23/antarctic-winds-drive-rain-south-east-australian-flood/101537816 

Earle, S, 2021, A Brief History of the Earth's Climate, New Society Publishers.

Kaufman, M, n.d., The carbon footprint sham, viewed 23 October, Mashable, 2022, https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1998, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, 23 April, Nature, Vol 392, Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Mann, ME, Bradley, RS, & Hughes, MK, 1999, Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millenium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, 15 March, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 26, pages 759-762. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900070

NASA, n.d. [a], Graphic: the relentless rise of carbon dioxide, viewed 23 October 2022, https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

NASA, n.d.[b], Is the sun causing global warming?, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

NASA, n.d.[c], Vital signs, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

NASA, n.d.[d], Evidence, viewed 23 October 2022, NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

National Science Foundation, n.d., Ice sheets, viewed 23 October 2022, https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/science/icesheet.jsp

Pearce, F, 2010, Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph, 3 February, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change

Romm, J 2018, Climate Change: What everyone needs to know, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York.

Saunders, T, 2022, A shift in wind direction across Sydney is behind the city's record wet year, 22 October, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-22/sydney-record-wet-weather-2022-due-to-shift-in-wind-direction/101562826

Skeptical Science, 2015,  How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?, 7 July, viewed 23 October 2020, https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Skeptical Science, 2016, What evidence is there for the hockey stick, 12 October, viewed 23 October 2022, https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

---0---

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

by Ranting Panda, 26 June 2022

Conservatives are at it again: forcing their religious beliefs and vacuous 'moral' codes on the rest of society. This time, they have managed to overturn the1973 US Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, which had legalised women's rights to access abortion. 

Conservatives think that they are saving lives by banning abortion, although the opposite is true. When former President George W. Bush defunded family planning clinics that either undertook abortion or even gave advice about abortion (the so-called 'Gag' Order), abortions rose by 40% compared to when his predecessor, President Clinton, had continued funding these clinics (Bendavid, Avila & Miller, 2011). Research from the University of Colorado Boulder, indicates that banning abortion will result in a 21% increase in the deaths of women from unsafe abortions (Stevenson 2021). This is replicated globally, in which access to sex education, contraception and medical abortions is essential to reducing the rate of abortion and the likelihood of women dying from the procedure (Amnesty International, n.d.).

All that conservatives have managed to achieve is to drive abortion underground. Perhaps they have forgotten the deaths of women and the horrible disfigurements of babies born after botched backyard abortions. Interestingly, there is a higher rate of abortion in countries that ban it, than in countries where it is legal (Guttmacher Institute, 2018). 

So-called 'pro-life' groups claim they are defending the rights of the unborn, however they are actually creating worse conditions for abortion than if it were legal. Firstly, the main reason that women seek out abortion is because of poverty (Oberman, 2018). Conservatives oppose every means of providing such support. Ever see a Conservative support welfare, community housing, public education, or socialised healthcare? Of course not. These 'pro-lifers' are too selfish to share their income through tax redistribution, not to mention, they are terrified that community programs equate to socialism. They protest against raising the minimum wage, let alone providing welfare to address poverty. Welcome to Capitalism 101: selfishness, avarice and complete disregard for women or the lives of babies born into poverty. Conservatives think that socialism is anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.

The religious right has been pushing their agenda of Christian Nationalism for years. The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade is a major step in progressing Christian Nationalism, which regresses modern society to the days of patriarchal rule, where women were nothing but chattels for men to control and rape. The Supreme Court decision is a highly sexist, retrograde one that makes women nothing but breeding incubators to fulfil the sexual desires of men. Those same men are not held to account for their women they impregnate.  

'Pro-lifers' claim that they are concerned for the lives of children, yet they refuse to part with their precious firearms, even though school shootings are a regular occurrence. The deaths of hundreds of children from gun violence isn't enough to concern the pro-lifers who treat their access access to guns as a basic human right. As at the end of May 2022, the United States has seen more than 250 mass shooting events in 2022. On 24 May 2022, 19 children were gunned down in Uvalde, Texas. Since then, there have been another 38 mass shootings (Ladir & Rabinowitz 2022).  

Access to guns is not a human right. Access to abortion is a healthcare requirement and a basic human right enshrined by the United Nations. Forced pregnancy, including the denial to safe abortion, is a crime against humanity under international law (Amnesty International, 2020, p 10).

Pro-life conservatives bemoan a 'leftist agenda' being thrust upon them. You know, the sort of things that actually don't impact them at all, such as the right for same-sex marriage. Yet, it is conservatives who are constantly thrusting their beliefs onto everyone else in order for control and to appease their sensitive, snowflake feelings of entitlement and supremacy. They are the first ones to whinge about their liberties being infringed if someone so much as wishes them 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas', or dares to suggest that Black Lives Matter, or that Critical Race Theory shows there's more to history than the white supremacist colonialist fairy-tale. 

The control that these conservative extremists are trying to exercise is nothing short of totalitarianism. They want to dominate others with their nationalist agenda. They claim their religion or morality is superior to everyone else's. They claim they are doing the 'work of the Lord'. They claim they care for others, when they only care about themselves. There's a big difference between caring for others and controlling others. Ironic then, that US conservatives spent decades demonising Islam as depriving women of freedom, only to do the same thing in the name of their perverted 'christian' values and warped sense of 'democracy'. 

Conservatives will not stop at abortion. These extremists will now target same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas said as much in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. For conservative Christians there have only been two big issues they are concerned with: abortion & homosexuality. Neither of these issues were even mentioned by Jesus; not that these bible-bashing hypocrites have ever followed Christ's teachings. 

There is also concern that other rights which were enshrined prior to Roe v Wade could be at risk, including the right to contraception and the right to inter-racial marriage (Papenfuss 2022).

It is a dangerous place to be in when conservatives are dominating with their fascist politics. 

References

Amnesty International, 2020, Forced pregnancy - a commentary on the crime in international law', 30 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IOR5327112020ENGLISH.pdf

Amnesty International, n.d., Key facts on Abortion, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, Miller, G, 2011, United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa, World Health Organization Bulletin, 27 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260902/

Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Highly restrictive laws do not eliminate abortion, 25 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2018/highly-restrictive-laws-do-not-eliminate-abortion

Ladir, J, & Rabinowitz, K, 2022, There have been over 250 mass shootings so far in 2022, The Washington Post, 8 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/

Oberman, M, 2018, Motherhood, abortion and the medicalization of poverty, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 18 October, viewed 26 June 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110518804221.

Papenfuss, M, 2022, Decision Destroying Roe Threatens Legal Right To Interracial Marriage, Experts Warn, Huffpost, 24 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-v-wade-same-sex-interracial-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_62b64cd3e4b0cf43c864baaf#

Stevenson, A, 2021, A research note on the mortality consequence of denying all wanted induced abortions, SocArXiv, 1 September, viewed 26 June 2022, doi:10.31235/osf.io/sb5f2