Friday 31 December 2010

Inversionism

Professor David Daintree on a dishonest and dangerous omission that leaves children ignorant of the faith that bred their most crucial freedoms:
THE draft national curriculum for history opened an exciting prospect.
Here was a chance, I thought, to defend the honour of Christianity amid the cut and thrust of educational theory, pitting myself against the intricate arguments of those who would deny, or at least downplay, the greatness of the influence of Christianity in the unravelling of the great events of the ages.
Yet the compilers of the draft curriculum have chosen the simplest strategy of all: deliberate, pointed, tendentious and outrageous silence. In its 20 pages, the draft ancient history curriculum mentions religion twice. There is no reference to Christianity anywhere in the document.
The draft modern history curriculum is 30 pages long. Christianity is simply never mentioned, at least not explicitly. The word religion appears twice, the first occurrence in the context of Indian history, the second in the context of Asian and African decolonisation. However the precise phrase in which it is found discloses the agenda of the compilers: “The effect of racism, religion and European cultures.”
But presumably this is OK:
Alarmist Tim Flannery, who claims global warming is about the science, predicts the physical manifestation this century of the green god:

We’ll never be able to control the earth, there’s no doubt about it. We can’t control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks really will exist. This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.
It causes me to rationalise that my decision to homeschool the children has been more than a practical one.


Monday 27 December 2010

ideological myopia

The current unwritten (but dramatically enforced in many different ways) code of conduct is to never doubt the prevailing majority 'expert' opinion, (we have moved light years away from intelligent questioning particularly in academia). However the current massive 'elephant in the room'  or 'emperors clothes' (choose your ideal metaphor) of the (current) ruling ideology i.e. 'environmentalism' has me quietly seething in the aisles. Thank goodness for this blog!

Whilst we have for some time now been assaulted by television programs telling us how to cut back on our electricity consumption (aka carbon footprint!), tonight happened to be the final straw for me. Once more we were lambasted with ideas, opinions and advice about how best to cut our electricity bills (which are going to more than double in the very near future) by turning off our technological 'toys', eliminating unnecessary usage (lets just all go live in a cave shall we?) and installing devices which 'monitor' our wastage's.

In effect the one thing that all of these 'experts' are saying is; that it is our responsibility to cut our power usage and therefore our costs, which translates to mean that if we cannot curb our usage and prices continue to soar, the only people to blame is ourselves.

Ingenious, blame the suckers who actually have nothing to do with the cost of power for the rising prices.

Also never mind those who have no choice in the matter; the MS sufferers who need to control their temperature environment, or those who rely on life support systems etc. Initially they would be subsidised that is until handouts are longer viable due to the public purse strings snapping, then the radical environmentalists would be free to activate their more extreme social programs (programs which have already been documented and discussed), programs which include euthanizing the medically imperfect and not only from birth (which is currently being implemented) but at any time...of course with the agreement of two or three doctors!!!!

Of course at this time such a program would not include the socially irresponsible (i.e. those who excesses have left them incapacitated through drugs, booze, std's etc) or minority groupings, both of which remain left wing shibboleths. However in time and factoring in one of the primary foundations of the environmentalist dogma i.e. that human beings are the the earths most destructive virus, how long do you think it will be before any who do not live up to the Utopian ideal will last (think Hitler's Aryan perfection).

I am not advocating that we should be wasteful or polluting, on the contrary we should strive to constantly better our stewardship of this marvellous planet, but let us look at the actual facts before us. The current crisis re the price of electricity is not because we lack the means to produce cheap power, not at all, instead we have been sold a lie called anthropogenic global warming, a lie which is unravelling rapidly but will never be defeated by reason or fact because too many people have invested their futures, reputations, bank balances and lives on it.

A huge fat lie is the cause and the only way to defeat this lie is for someone courageous enough and in a position to unravel the mechanisms to do so. Please vote for courage in the next election.

Monday 20 December 2010

The real threat behind AGW

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

Do yourself a favour and read about the man whose weather predictions have proved devastatingly accurate.
If his method is true (he could be a fake or lucky!) then the current obsession with global warming and its constant use as a bogey by warmists to undermine cheap sources of electricity (the lifeblood of industry and medical procedures to name a few) is all a big production to line the pockets of those who invest in alternative energy sources, in other words the rich. The question then is what will be the result if the prediction of a new ice age actually comes true and by that time electricity is so expensive?

Of course if global warming is true you also have to consider that far less people die from heat than from cold.

Utopia=distopia

"Strikingly, it is the intelligentsia, the people of reason, who are the main problem. Bigotry is now correlated with education and class.
The lower down the social and educational scale, the more people are sane and realistic and decent about the Middle East and the threat to the free world from radical Islam. But as soon as you get people who’ve been through higher education, you find that so often they’re the ones who are bigoted and irrational about such matters. They make truly ridiculous claims about Israel, such as its perpetration of apartheid or ethnic cleansing – claims which, to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the situation, are demonstrably ridiculous.
So how can it be that the most educated are now the most irrational?
The short answer is that among the progressive intelligentsia, evidence and truth have been supplanted by ideology – or the dogma of a particular idea. Ideologies such as moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism. Across a wide range of such issues, it’s no longer possible to have a rational discussion with the progressive intelligentsia, as on each issue there’s only one story for them which brooks no dissent. This is because, rather than arriving at a conclusion from the evidence, ideology inescapably wrenches the evidence to fit a prior idea. So ideology of any kind is fundamentally anti-reason and truth. And if there’s no truth, there can be no lies either; truth and lies are merely ‘alternative narratives’.
So the way has been opened for mass credulity towards propaganda and fabrication. The custodians of reason have thus turned into destroyers of reason – centred in the crucible of reason, the university. Far from promoting enlightenment, western universities are not only the prime source of falsehoods about the Middle East and hatred and bigotry towards Israel, but also of intimidation against those who try to present a balanced and factual picture and who find themselves professionally and socially ostracised as a result.
All these different ideologies are utopian; in their different ways, they all posit the creation of the perfect society. That is why they are considered ‘progressive’, and people on the progressive wing of politics sign up to them. That helps explain the distressing fact that so many Jews on the left also sign up to Israel-hatred, since they too sign up to utopian ideologies to which Israel is such an impediment.
But when utopias fail, as they always do, their adherents invariably select scapegoats on whom they turn to express their rage over the thwarting of the establishment of that perfect society. And since utopia is all about realising the perfect society, these scapegoats become enemies of humanity.
For Greens, such enemies of humanity are capitalists; for anti imperialists, America; for militant atheists, religious believers. Anti-Zionists turn on Israel for thwarting the end to the ‘Jewish question’: the reproach to the world over Jewish suffering which Europe believes would be redeemed if there were peace in the Middle East. The key utopia that Israel’s never-ending wars are thwarting is the redemption of European guilt for the persecution of the Jews in which they have been complicit through the centuries.
What these various very disparate ideologies of environmentalism, scientism, anti-imperialism, moral relativism, anti-Zionism and Islam also have in common is – remarkably — hostility to Judaism, Israel and the Jewish people.
It was Judaism that laid down the moral law which forms the very foundation of Western morality which is under attack from moral relativism. It is the Book of Genesis that draws the wrath of the environmentalists, who wrongly interpret the Biblical ‘dominion’ of mankind over the earth as an example of divine imperialism or colonialism—a hierarchy which must be destroyed by removing man from the pinnacle of Creation and substituting the natural world itself in his place. It is Jews who are the principal targets of the attacks by anti-Americans and anti-imperialists on the ‘neoconservatives,’ the euphemism for those who were alleged to have formed a conspiracy to subvert American foreign policy in the interests of Israel. And it is that issue, Israel, which is now the greatest symbol of Western irrationality. The hatred of Israel and the Jews that drives the Islamic jihad against the west is not acknowledged or countered by the west because its most high-minded citizens share at least some of that prejudice.
Both western liberals and Islamists believe in utopias to which the Jews are an obstacle. The State of Israel is an obstacle to both the rule of Islam over the earth and a world where there are no divisions based on religion or creed. The Jews are an obstacle to the unconstrained individualism of western libertines and to the onslaught against individual human dignity and freedom by the Islamists.
Both the liberal utopias of a world without prejudice, divisions or war and the Islamist utopia of a world without unbelievers are universalist ideologies. The people who are always in the way of universalising utopias are the Jews."
This is an extract from a Melanie Phillips article at: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=786
and marvellously illustrates the Gramscian victory over the intelligentsia of the West.

If we give credence to these 'voices' we will not only facilitate our own demise but we will doom Western culture (the culture that provided the greatest freedoms to the largest number of people in the entire history of the world) to the footnotes of history for generations to come, i.e. our children's, children's, .....etc,etc.

Ask yourself the question, do you believe that the Utopian ideas expressed by the voices of movie stars, rock gods (Imagine!), green lunatics and leftist ideologues are achievable and desirable?

History gives ample evidence of the results achieved by those who believed that they new better, that they alone had the key to perfect harmony (messiahs), in reality they sacrificed millions of ordinary people on the altars of their vision, misanthropes every one!

Sunday 19 December 2010

Refuge or subterfuge

Having some time to waste on Sunday I made the unusual decision to read through the tortuous Sunday Mail to which my wife subscribes purely for the TV magazine (they threw in the Saturday newspaper for free, probably can't give it away anywhere else). Unusual in that the Advertiser brand is just about the most pathetic newspaper franchise I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed to. It is one dimensional and features some of the most jaundiced propaganda masquerading as journalism that I have ever read . Its overall content standards could be compared unfavourably with the gossip magazines from the supermarket checkout stands (tabloid format = tabloid content?).
On this occasion however I noticed an article penned by the honourable Nick Xenophon on the refugee crisis: "Lets unite on refugees". And although I have disagreed with Xenophon's philosophy at times, it is the mans commitment, tireless work ethic and his genuineness that gives me pause on my own stance on the issue in order to give ear to his, and is that not the aim of any good polly?

The piece begins with a plea for bipartisanship, i.e. that the issue is neither left nor right wing and whilst I agree with the sentiment I think it is somewhat disingenuous for the simple reason that very few issues in life are simply black or white.
He then puts forward the argument that these people are not queue jumpers (in his opinion; I wonder if those in the refugee camps were asked what they would say?), nor are they arriving in unsupportable numbers (yet), that the latest incident is a tragedy (unarguable) and that we need 'sensible policies' to deal with the influx, specifically ones that deter the boats from arriving. No argument from me on the latter part of the argument.

He then comments on the statistic that the boat people only make up 2 % of the refugee intake.
I have read differing stats on that but for the sake of argument let us assume this to be true, however it is not the percentage intake which is potentially disturbing but rather it is the way that many, perhaps most of these 'refugees' are said to be arriving undocumented. In fact it has been reported that many deliberately discard their documentation just prior to arrival in Australia. What better way to infiltrate terrorists (even bludging the welfare system is seen by the jihadists as weakening the 'enemy') into this country, people who by the way, think nothing about losing their lives in pursuit of the cause, which renders the argument that because these people risk life and limb they should afforded special consideration meaningless. And before any readers who view this blog accuse me of fear-mongering re: the goal of terrorism within Australia, consider if you will some of the stated aims behind the Hizb ut-Tahrir rally in Sydney during July 2010:
HT is dedicated to the creation of a single Islamic state, or caliphate, that ‘will reach the whole world and the rule of the Muslims will reach as far as the day and night’. It believes there is a timeless conflict that governs relations between Muslims and ‘unbelievers’, a conflict it encourages.. 
His contention that the opposition's sloganeering is designed merely to impress the voters rather than actually being viable is patently ridiculous given that John Howard reduced the flow to three boats per year.
His use of the Vietnam immigration 'bipartisan' experience as exemplar for the rightness of his argument should be reprised in the light of recent revelations about massive drug and gang related travesties attributed to Vietnamese criminal organisations.
Xenophon then embraces the tried and true method of adopting the virtuous 'high ground' (even quoting his 'good friend' Tim Costello) and attempts an emotional coup de grace with: "...and just start thinking about right and wrong". Although this 'moral uppercut' is intended to end the argument, I fear that just as in his peroration it strikes a disingenuous note because the issues at stake are not; 'either / or', but 'both / and'!

For example; the decisions I make about who I allow through my front door are most definitely influenced by my moral worldview (i.e. right and wrong), but equally so it has plenty to do with what that person is bringing into my house (would you allow an aggressively armed person to sit at your dinner table?) and who they are...therefore to question these aspects of the refugees is not to be immoral, xenophobic or fear-mongering; au contraire, it is being intelligently careful, a gatekeeper if you wish, and have we not elected our officials to do just that, act as our gatekeepers ?

Some commentators have rightly pointed out, that many of these 'refugees' have travelled vast distances, through numerous fairly stable countries, many of whom share their values, why then are they so fixated on Australia? perhaps the freebies, freedoms and culture of Australians appeals to them, fair enough, but if the circumstances they are escaping are so deleterious, surely to spend some time being processed in an intern camp shouldn't be too much of an ask for the genuine escapee...one would think they would be eternally grateful (rather than rioting over air-conditioning, a perk that many Aussies do not enjoy).
Sorry Nick, although I agree with one of your points (deterrence) the main gist of your argument has not convinced me to accept without reserve the claims of bleeding hearts and anarchists who scream that to be rational is to be immoral.

I agree with unity; but unity for the sake of unity is form over substance.

UPDATE
"The vast majority of those arriving by boat are being granted residency. The approval rate is roughly twice that of applicants processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)… The High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that large numbers claiming asylum status in Australia are not refugees…"

New Millenium religion

"Just why green schemes are so prone to flop or be fleeced is no coincidence. The word “green” - or “sustainable” - is like holy water. Sprinkle it on a sinner and even the greatest conman is redeemed."
Carbon credits are being touted as the new 'indulgences', sold to ameliorate guilt for living with excess.

As I have said previously, this current predisposition towards a mystical reverence for something, anything, stems from our human need to worship someone greater than ourselves, a desire built into our DNA...open your eyes, look and see how history and current trends provide the evidence? Where does guilt come from, medial science tells us that only the true psychopath feels no guilt. Some would have us believe that guilt is a mechanism 'developed' by humanity as a 'tool' to prevent murderous intent! Why develop such a tool (as if we could independently decide to do such a thing) if survival of the fittest was our only goal, surely to obliterate the 'other' would be an advantage, why would we need to 'invent' a 'safeguard?
Truly, the theory of evolution as espoused by Darwin (a failed and delinquent seminary student who blamed God for his misfortunes) requires more than blind faith to hold onto its precepts, it requires that you euthanize your reason voluntarily.

Saturday 18 December 2010

Values reversal

Today my wife and I watched the beautifully danced and staged ballet La Dame Aux Camelia,  an interpretation of the novel by Alexandre Dumas fils which was advertised as;"...about a society willing to sacrifice passion on the altar of social respectability". What interested me is, that although I am diametrically opposed to maintaining a 'false' sense of respectability, it is not because I choose to live life without parameters, but because such an 'illusion' of respectability is what the Pharisaical aim for. Living a life which is truly 'respectable and free' is one that willingly accepts restrictions on behaviour (see Galatians, in particular ch5).

No, what interested me about this interpretation was the negative spin afforded the idea of living in a society that would 'sacrifice its passion'! Horror of horrors (and rightly so in the true sense of the word) but we in the modern West have been so indoctrinated to believe that 'passion' is in fact living with as little restraint as possible, i.e. giving full reign to our lusts, emotions and feelings that anything short of such 'freedom' is seen as; repressive, controlling, inhibited etc. I have lived and worked in the Arts for four decades now, and can testify to this reality!

This erroneous and dangerous interpretation of passion has been consistently hammered into the Western psyche through the controlling influences of the media, entertainment and literary establishments who have in turn, been influenced by the successes of Gramsci's 'long march through the institutions' which have undermined the Judeo/Christian foundations of western society and are paralysing the wills of the populace at large.

Freedom without self-control is not freedom at all but licentiousness, and its only restraining control is brute force, welcome to the the flip side of 'freedom without a foundation', an anarchic world driven by the will to power...Mad Max as Emperor! 

Friday 17 December 2010

The truth behind sickly green

Some interesting trivia from Andrew McIntyre's blog!

Janet Albrechtsen suggests
Labor can expose the Greens as a party with a BANANA agenda (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).
A couple of weeks ago Greg Sheridan likened the reverential welcome the ABC extends to Bob Brown as if he were an Anglican Bishop from 50 years ago. He analysed their website and was scathing about their policies.

However, a cursory stroll through the Greens website shows just how extreme and destructive their ideology is. It’s built on a hatred of modern Western society and as such is the logical successor to the Communist Party, just as many Greens were former communist activists or their progeny.
The latest wrap from Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald, talks of the Greens flakiness with their kickbacks, union funding, voodoo economics, allegiances with Israel loathing activists.
The Greens are a fraudulent brand. There are not enough letters of the alphabet to encompass the image fraud this party is perpetrating on the electorate. It is simply not a party preoccupied with the environment.
And of course this is the party whose policy makers believe that we must hand over control of our lives, our taxes, our energy and defense policies to a world-wide bureaucracy based in the United nations, a group controlled almost exclusively by third world dictators. Please will those guilt-ridden-middle-class-urban-based lunch 'doing' too-much-disposable-income ladies and ladyboys from Melbourne please realise that these con men and women do not have your best interests at heart. Do yourselves a favour, vote them out completely at the next election.  

Welcome to the circus

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

If this excerpt from Orwell's 1984 doesn't sum up the left world view as articulated by the hypocritical voices of media hacks from the ABC, SBS and various newspapers such as the Age et al, then I don't know what does. Think about the various scare tactics, the failed stimulus policies and the spin on everything that has gone wrong...and then make sure that we don't continue voting for these anarchists whose sole aim is power, power power.

Thursday 16 December 2010

Perception vs Reality

This is one of the most important battles in today's world, not the issue of what is true or false but what is perceived to be true or false. This is why the main stream media have become so powerful, why Hollywood 'stars'many of whom have lived lives of compromise and depravity, once famous, become modern sages, why men (and women) in white coats are perceived to have 'expert' knowledge that is more believable than common sense, and where names prefixed by Prof, or Dr, are believed to belong to people who are more credible than those without. This is perception at work and its dubious affects allow lies to triumph over truth. It was Dr Hans Rookmaaker who said that manipulation only works when it operates as a 'hidden persuader', and one does not have to go any further than the Nazi head of propaganda Dr Goebbels who (in)famously stated that if you tell a lie often and effectively enough it will soon be perceived as the truth.

Which brings me to a recent article by Mark Poynter on  the Tasmanian forestry industry:
"Yet the reality that only a minor portion of Australia’s forests are now used for timber production has not even slightly deterred those campaigning against it as though nothing has changed since the 1970s. Despite timber production now being so limited in extent and so highly regulated that it is acknowledged to be a negligible environmental threat, the opposition to it has grown stronger rather than diminished as would have been expected."
and....
"He explained that the move was primarily prompted by a realisation that the science of forestry under which the industry operates has lost out to an emotional, unscientific and populist anti-logging mantra in shaping the public conscience. This should hardly be a cause for celebration yet was soon being hypocritically lauded by many who, in relation to other causes such as climate change, are otherwise insistent that science must prevail.
          and...
"Responsible environmentalism requires appreciation of a bigger picture of resource use and conservation. Only a few who voice opposition to native forest logging have any appreciation of the history of Australian forestry, let alone even a rudimentary knowledge of the proportional extent of forests used respectively for timber production and conservation. Almost none would know or care about the adverse consequences and implications of what they are striving for.
Largely through uncritical media publicity given to environmental activism, we have become a society in which “green” urban myths are accepted as absolute truths, while rural realities are dismissed as self-serving myths. With regard to forestry issues, it is clear that the influential city-based media is predisposed to reporting from the sensational “green” angle. Many long-standing environmental journalists have spent their careers acting as a mouth-piece for the environmental movement rather than as objective reporters."

This fear of depleting our forests has been one of the prime movers of the Australian Green movement, and to give credit where it's due there have been some significant benefits, but this is a new era, yet the radical environmentalists have not relented in their  rhetoric against logging, even at the expense of current and future job creation. Why? because too many of these environmental 'warriors' are ideologically as opposed to issue driven, religious even. Unfortunately those of the Gaian faith like all fundamentalists are generally unmoved by reason and their goal is almost always a 'will to power' and in their commitment to this end they will say and do whatever is necessary to gain or stay in power, hence the 'poll driven' policy making.
Those of the Gaian faith have become convinced that the only solution to 'saving' the planet is to destroy modern Western society, which of course perfectly suits the watermelon brigades (WMB) who have infiltrated their ranks (my enemy's enemy is my friend etc) the real tragedy is of course that as soon as the WMB's realise their goals they will treat the intellectual/hippies/geeks in the same way that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot treated theirs.
If I were not committed to loving others as the good book says we must I would be inclined to say; serves them right!

Madness of the academic left

In another age Bob Marr would be locked up or laughed out of town, instead he is given pulpits to proclaim his lunacy. It speaks loudly about the brave new world we currently inhabit where bad is good, dark is the new light, spin defines the new truth and the moral highground is occupied by a mob of misguided misanthropes. It is hard to find another Australian commentator so consistently wrong in his proclamations or so blinded by the hate he bears those whom he views as being on the other 'side'.
Regarding the current crisis of the wreck of the Christmas Island boat people his rhetoric is so twisted it is almost beyond belief yet many still give ear to his lunacy. His leprous finger points and blames everyone except those who are obviously guilty. So far he has blamed a government 'conspiracy', the rescuers, the witnesses to the tragedy, the navy, now he blames the immigration department for not providing the necessary lifejackets...even writing about this verbal vomit makes me sick. if this moron is still given any credence after this display of madness, then our media culture does not have far to go before it reaches rock bottom.

Tuesday 14 December 2010

Brave New World speak

Energy minister Patrick Conlon speaking with a forked tongue on the 6 o'clock news stated that the reason energy prices have increased by +12% is because we don't have a carbon price!!!!!!!?
I sometimes wonder whether I am going mad...do these pollies actually believe that the average person is completely bonkers???????
Later in the program on Today Tonight  various 'experts' are interviewed about the carbon offset trading taking place on the Internet (guilt offerings) and the potential that this creates for rorting. So far so good, but again no one questions whether the fear mongering undertaken by these potential snake oil salesmen is even true. What appears to be taken for granted is that Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an accepted fact all the while ignoring the climategate scandals, the RK Pachuari scamming and the woeful lack of credible evidence that man is actually causing global warming. Consider this brief quote from JoNova:
"It appears the warming of the 20th Century has been done before.  It’s just business as usual for the planet.
Frank Lansner has been hard at work again, and we’ve been discussing the Vostok ice cores. This time Lansner was looking to see if the current warming trend was unusual, and if there was evidence to support the high climate sensitivities the models suggest. As it happens, most of those high climate sensitivities that the models “estimate” come not from carbon dioxide directly, but from the feedbacks (the way the planet responds to any small change in temperature).
The models assume the net feedbacks are positive. These same feedbacks ought to have been working 100,000 years ago, and if so, there should be some hint of it in the ice cores. Lansner has been hunting for large swings in temperature during the periods when Earth was at a similar temperature to present day conditions — but what he finds is that the current claimed rise of 0.7 degrees C over the last century, even if it were true (and not exaggerated by thermometer siting, the UHI, inexplicable adjustments, or selective use of records) would still be a dog-standard rise."

These same 'climate models' were used in an experiment to determine the climate in hindsight and were incorrect! We have all experienced how climate 'experts' fail to predict the weather for tomorrow never mind decades away, and yet we are willing to bet billions of dollars and who knows how many jobs on them being correct?
Just as corrupted officials of the medieval Catholic church sold 'indulgences' to the ignorant we now are faced with the Gaian church undertaking a similar scam....and they call Christians gullible and 'flat-earthers!!!! 

Mob ignorance

The Telegraph's Miranda Devine (whose writing I admire) writes about the new 'revolution' going on in cyberspace and how the world's 'geeks' appear to have the upper hand in this new 'conflict'.
After detailing how said 'geeks' organised themselves into a movement and committed mass vandalism on  those company websites that had been seen to denigrate their new found cult leader, Julian Assange, she then poses a question about an age where group think takes precedence: "Would mob rule descend into totalitarianism? Or would it be what James Surowiecki’s 2004 book, The Wisdom Of Crowds, described as the optimisation of human intelligence? He claimed large groups of diverse individuals - perhaps like the collective “hive mind” of the Internet - make better decisions than the smartest individual in that group.

That anyone might believe that the mob mind could aspire to greatness indicates to me that such a person has obviously never been in, observed or been anywhere near a real life mob. Plus the fact is it that these massed geeks have already committed anarchy (and no doubt massive costs which are invariably borne by the innocent) by attacking those whom they view as complicit in denigrating Assange (sound familiar?).

Unfortunately these are the sort of ideological musings made constantly by ivory tower dwellers. They speculate endlessly about what could, might or should happen in any given situation without any thought actually being given to the impact on real life and/or real people and such musings completely ignore the reality of human nature, particularly mob human nature. The idea that a 'hive mind' could make a collectively better decision that the smartest member of the mob is straight out of Transactional analysis's theory of the 'homo-gestalt' where the sum of the parts is greater than the part's themselves.
It is a flawed theory that completely ignores the power of emotion over the massed will of individuals.  To present a classic 20th century example one has only to reach back to Hitler's time to view how emotional rhetoric can sway the reason of the masses.The theory that the 'hive mind' can be superior to the individual also ignores the fact that decisions made on the Internet are made individually and usually in private, away from the emotional maelstrom that is the mob. The Spanish artist Francesca Goya created a series of masterpiece etchings entitled; "the sleep of reason invites nightmares" which captured the excesses of mob behaviour, I wish that more of those who believe in mob intelligence would view them.

If I were not convinced that there is a final, transcendent solution to all such human folly I would despair about the fact that the so called 'intellegentsia' have completely ignored the evidences of history regarding human actions and are thus setting themselves up for repeat performances. As President Truman opined: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Thankfully the end of history as we know it will bring with it, not a bang nor a whimper but a kiss.

Monday 13 December 2010

Elephantine myopia

Watching the ABC (news?) and wading through the Oprah worship we arrive at multiple whinges about the rising costs of electricity. Some forecasters are claiming that electricity costs will double in the next 3,4,5? years and triple soon after. Various cut-away shots of pensioners doing it tough are interspersed with 'experts' telling us how to cut costs...but no one dares to talk about the elephant in the room.
Why are electricity prices rising so rapidly?
Why are we who live in one of the worlds greatest coal reserve nations having to deal with such enormous costs?
Simply stated it has everything to do with green totalitarianism. The greens are committed to bringing down the industrial base of the western economy's. Some, no doubt, do it from a sincere (but misguided) desire to 'save' Gaia, reflecting the never ceasing hubris of the human condition.
An increasing number however, i.e. those of the 'watermelon' brigades, are motivated by a more sinister agenda and will not cease until they have destroyed 'capitalism' and replaced it with their version of the workers utopia......God help us all if they succeed.

Saturday 11 December 2010

Junk food

Eating junk food is like culinary masturbation, a momentary high followed by long term disappointment.

Wednesday 8 December 2010

Unmasked

What is very interesting is how under pressure the true face of the Anthropogenic Global Warming tribe is beginning to emerge. At Cancun, the opening address was made by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in it she invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel as the ruling influence over the conference. She noted that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving, and 'prayed' that the goddess would inspire the delegates to; "weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."
The fact that the increasing spotlight on the evidence behind AGW only exposes faulty reasoning and science as well as the corrupt political machinations (aid for influence) does not seem to phase the faithful at all, but it has had the affect of causing the man-in-the-street to question the whole caboodle and everyday support has plummeted. What this has achieved has been to uncover the hidden secret behind so much of the 'green' agenda worldwide.
It is a pagan mystical impulse whose adherents dedication to Gaia causes them to seek first the well being of the earth even (often) at the expense of what the green gurus call 'the earths greatest virus, man'.
It appears that many of the more ardent believers actually believe in this philosophy even when their 'leaders' often live lives diametrically opposed to the message...such faith!

Tuesday 7 December 2010

Give & Take

When I and my family first arrived in Australia we were informed (jokingly, I think) that Australians voted Labor to improve social benefits and Liberal to restore the budget once labor had exhausted the necessary handouts. I laughed at the simplistic analysis yet now ponder at the half-truths hidden therein. Consider the fear mongering dumped on the public head re: the global financial 'crisis' and the dubious financial 'benefits' which have resulted. The amount spent versus the number of jobs saved has been calculated at some staggering sum akin to 500,000 dollars per job 'saved'. Given the almost unbelievable malfunctions which occured in the administration of these financial 'stimuli' it appears that almost any benefits have been solely confined to imports and the public sector and for those outside of those sectors little has changed except that we are now faced with a massive public debt.
Perhaps the real eye opener has been in the exposure what both the Rudd and Gillard governments have become justifiably (in)famous for, that is; SPIN.
Steven Kate  in his article The economic mess Australia is in  says: "The stimulus was always a matter of making sure that the data came out OK rather than actually generating a recovery of any worth. The fantastic negative consequences of the GFC as prognosticated by Treasury turned out to be wildly pessimistic so that, in the end, when unemployment rose from just under four percent to just under six percent it looked better than the forecasts that had existed a few months before.

The real damage about this whole exercise  is not so much the creation of crippling debt, as terrible as that is, but a giant leap forward in a very real 'worldview' battle being waged, which is not over who spends and who saves, as much as it is in the creation of a dependent mindset (and lifestyle) that expects the government to do everything for the citizen and consequently blames the government for everything that goes wrong. For those possessed of a totalitarian mindset no public position could be better.
The government blame-game was one of the first things we noticed when arriving in this country.
At first we were amazed at all the benefits and quite enjoyed the generosity of the 'lucky' country and for that I both thank and applaud the effective administration of the many taxes. However I am beginning to view this largess with a more jaundiced eye after 13 years and I have to wonder how this existing (and growing) dependence on government handouts is affecting the long tern viability of the average citizens ability to cope independently of government assistance. Are we creating a paternalistic culture?
Just thinking, only asking, herewith inviting argument!!!!!!!!!!!

Self hate

In a blog by Tim Blair he ends with:  Hitchens on Assange: “In his fantasies he is probably some kind of guerrilla warrior, but in the real world he is a middle man and peddler who resents the civilization that nurtured him.”
I think the same could be said for a large portion of the current crop of 'green' adherents in Australian society, many of whom seem to be living in the lap of luxury and yet railing against it, perhaps it is the inevitable result of worshipping a world class hypocrite like Al Gore and his climate mafia. 

Proving a negative

For 20 years and at an approximate cost of 200 billion dollars the Anthropogenic Global Warming scaremongers have dominated the weather 'market'. They have built 'consensus' by removing or cowering all dissenting voices, much like the Darwinists have done in the field of worldviews, and as with the Darwinists the AGW have had a compliant media.
Today if you want to work in for example, the field of humanities in a university anywhere in the Western world and claim that you believe in a personal God, you do not stand a snowballs chance in Hades of getting a position, and this pretty much applies in the arts as well. In science departments it is the same and
the situation is now being exacerbated by the AGW 'faith'. What is becoming very clear is the degree of difficulty that the (rapidly growing numbers of) 'skeptics' are finding in being given a platform to stand up and argue against global warming because the 'warmists' have cleared the field of any dissenters through attrition and hiring practices, in fact a primary issue to emerge from the 'climategate' scandal was the overt manipulation of facts and people to believe in the 'orthodoxy'.
Unfortunately because these folk have the 'high ground' (power) they make the rules and therefore like in the case of the Darwinists; i.e. to argue for God, requires that you need to prove that God exists (Plantinga has thankfully punctured that balloon), ...to argue that anthropogenic global warming is not deadly to the human race means that you are required to prove a negative, because to argue that the AGW proponents have not proved their case is no longer enough, it is as Peter Smith says: We have a witch trial and the witch has to prove she ain’t a witch".
This is not science, it is an ideology, and these global utopianists are acting like totalitarian tyrants.

UPDATE: from Prof. Bob Carter:
"Given the wide range of natural environmental variation that we (but not, apparently, Mr Al Gore) observe around us, the null hypothesis regarding changes that we observe on the planet today is that they are natural, unless and until evidence emerges otherwise. In this regard, global sea-level change is proceeding along the same lines that it has for the last 100 years (gentle rise of between 1 and 2 mm/yr), the area of sea-ice on our planet currently equates to the estimated long term average, and no compelling evidence exists for a significant increase in extreme weather events. Amongst the tens of thousands of refereed scientific papers that address these matters, not one yet provides data that invalidate the null hypothesis of natural change".

Monday 6 December 2010

Moral hypocrisy

We live day in and day out with people on the TV, at the bus stop, in the supermarket, at work and in the press, blaspheming the One whom we hold dear. We have become so used to forgiving the blasphemers that we no longer even find the blasphemy uncomfortable, and too many have become so familiar with the trend that they in fact blaspheme themselves. Of course the common retort to such a complaint is "what constitutes blasphemy' and out spill the vacuous arguments which invariably amount to little more than moral relativism and in the end we capitulate to political correctness and non-rocking boats.
Spare a prayer for the poor woman in Pakistan who faces the death penalty for 'allegedly' making a blasphemous remark. We don't even know what she said other than it was 'allegedly' disrespectful to Mohamed. She says it was payback for some other misdemeanour, but hey, even a sniff of disrespect towards mo is sufficient to have the clerics and mullahs foaming at the mouth.
And do we hear our fair-minded (ahem!) 'free' press and/or intellectual elites standing up and protesting vigorously in her defence (never mind the right to free speech)?
Not a peep! At best a mere brief reportage on the subject.
Can you imagine what would happen if this was a 'Christian' country perpetrating a like crime on a citizen?
Some brainless hillbilly 'pastor' threatens to burn a book and the whole world goes ballistic.
The mind boggles at such hypocrisy and I would be truly depressed if I was not certain that the root of the whole problem goes back to a single source and that He who is being truly blasphemed by this degradation of human worth, is actually in total control. Gloria in excelsius Deo 

Saturday 4 December 2010

The secular 'truth' vs true Truth

Unfortunately the net result of the endless cycle of lies and propaganda fed to the general population by the philosophical relativists, climate fear mongers, the tribal divisionists, the millennium 'buggers', i.e. all of the post-modern 'End is Nigh ers', is that everyone becomes skeptical of everything and there is no longer any basis for believing in Truth. What might the logical consequences be of such a lack of any foundational basis for debate and consensus...Nietzsche hit the prophetic nail on the head  with his 'will to power', which is why too many of the worlds political elite will do anything or say anything to gain  power where they are then able to do what they believe to be right irrespective of what the other 'side' thinks. At street level, antipathy and ultimately violence increases as the voice of reason dwindles...welcome to Huxley's brave new world....thank the good Lord that true Truth actually does exist. Do yourself a favour and use this season of awareness to find it before the wave of cynicism breaks and drowns it out for ever. 

Thursday 2 December 2010

The Age of Escapism

Forgive my grumpy old man cynicism, but I think that the increasing attacks on the essence of ancient realities such as: the accuracy of historical facts (people without hindsight often lack foresight and are therefore more easily manipulated) marriage as defined over the last few millenia  (a lifelong commitment to the one person with whom one can raise a family which embraces eternal values as well as how to live a contributory and full now life) the illegality of drugs (so that the irresponsible can 'party' without running the risk of earning a police record), 'carbon credits' (so that the rich can preach living with constraint, but don't actually have to live it)...amongst the many other 'evolved' ways of thinking are actually hallmarks of a culture living out its declining years rather than the peak of human development as the Darwinists would have us believe. Archaeological evidence indicates that so-called 'neolithic man' actually had a brain 30 percent bigger than modern man, it shows!

14/12:  Winston Churchill remarked that the further back you look the further forward you can see.

Monday 29 November 2010

The AGW faith

To the shrinking but still faithful believers in Anthropogenic global warming read this:
 http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6144429/frankly-more-sense-is-spoken-by-his-plants.thtml

I do believe that we ought to become more faithful stewards of the natural world around us, as i believe that we ought to live less wastefully and greedily, but the AGW fanatics want to create a Utopian society at the expense of living in a modern society. Plus the great hypocrisy about many of the most vocal proponents is that they often live the most wasteful and excessive lives whilst preaching to others to reign in excess. Ultimately lies such as the AGW scare cause the most harm to the vulnerable rather than the tiny elite, such is always the result of a totalitarian impulse and the current Environmentalist movement appears to more of a Gaia inspired  faith than a genuine attempt to balance living with stewardship.

UPDATE:
Have just read an interesting essay on the Quadrant website written by Alex Stuart about the facts of warming in the atmosphere as opposed to the assumptions garnered from 'modelling'. I offer the concluding paragraph: "Meanwhile, urgent environmental issues threaten millions of people today but, tragically, aren’t given the priority they deserve - because so much focus is misplaced by so many on something so theoretical and long-term as man-made climate catastrophe. We should focus instead on real, urgent, life-threatening issues like preventable disease, lack of fresh water, degradation of the oceans, deforestation and species extinction, while we wait to see what real observational data - not just theory - tells us about the drivers of our changing climate".
Alex Stuart is Chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation 

Saturday 27 November 2010

Marxist naivety

I have just read an article which reflects, in my opinion, the twin failings of  the materialist ideology. On one hand there is an incredible naivete regarding human nature and on the other the classic Romantic goal of creating a workers Utopia often exhibited by those of the materialist persuasion. The piece is titled ' Marxism holds the key' written by John Sutton,(national secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union), and reflects his opinion of who or what caused the global financial meltdown.
The opening paragraph of his essay begins with his origins as a poor but morally upright child: "My dad went blind when I was young, so I worked hard from an early age to assist the family" and is de rigueur for someone whose vocation it is to keep others on the right track: "Now the challenge for people such as me is to keep the federal Labor government honest and hold it to its election commitments to implement policies that will create a fairer society".
In this statement he automatically assumes a position of moral superiority. To give him credit he is upfront about his belief that the only true philosophy is Marxism, however when he adds "imperfect and unfashionable as it is today" he asserts his belief as a 'faith'.
He then outlines his position regarding capitalism as: "Working in a union allows you to see the excesses of capitalism. While many employers want to do the right thing, the cut-throat nature of business in industries such as construction forces many to put on moral blinkers. Some do not hesitate to cheat and steal from working people".
What is immediately obvious is that in his declaration of Marxism being the 'truth' he automatically positions himself as someone who is ideologically predetermined to find fault with the business community (capitalism the term his god/prophet/guru coined). One wonders how this helps the workers whom he supposedly represents, which is a troubling issue with unions who are represented by leaders who are more motivated by ideology than by the need to help their members.
The next point of interest I would highlight in this extract is how he automatically assumes employers would 'not hesitate to cheat and steal' without acknowledging that workers are probably just as predisposed to cheat and steal as their employers.This of course would not occur to someone who views human nature as fashioned solely by social and environmental influences rather than the 'fallen' human nature as described by the bible.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are employers who would steal there are also workers who steal, I am also aware that there are many who view fellow humans as 'beneath' them, either by virtue of birth or some other equally spurious reasoning, however this form of elitism is not reserved only for the 'ruling classes' as multiple evidence in history (and literature: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) have illustrated. There is an equal elitism from those who view themselves as 'workers' or the 'downtrodden' an elitism which Dorothy Sayers termed;'The snobbery of the banal'.
The crux of the essay lies in trying to argue that capitalism does not work and that corporate greed is the cause of our current financial woes.
Unsurprisingly I do not agree with this proposition and would like to suggest that the true causes of these problems lie in the fallen nature of humanity, a condition which occupies innumerable forms and lies behind many worldviews not least the philosophy behind big government (big brother) as well as perhaps that most ubiquitous condition of man which Nietzche referred to as the "Will to power", especially when one considers John Sutton's closing statement:  "It has upset me to see union power weakened in this country during the past few decades. But I remain confident that trade unionism is an enduring concept and that many struggles for industrial and social justice lie ahead".
 respect to the involvement of big government in helping to create the conditions for our current dilemma I would recommend the following link:  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/neo-liberal-greed-did-not-cause-recession/story-e6frg6zo-1225704138278

Inversionism

While the make-believe world is trying to become more 'real' with 3D technology, the real world is becoming more superficial. Huxleys brave new world is upon us. Romanticism is an ideology and should not be confused with Romantic; meaning engaged with your emotional side. Romanticism sees the world through Utopian eyes and more damage has been done as a result of this perspective than any other including religion, which has in fact often operated incognito, as an arm of the romanticists ideology. Romanticism views human beings as essentially good where the history of mankind gives overwhelming evidence that in fact the biblical perspective is undoubtedly the correct version. Romanticism has taken hold of Australian politics and the consequences have been disastrous:
Aboriginal sin?
Fifty years ago, the Australian Left strongly favored literacy, health, and the assimilation of indigenes. It was a broadly sensible goal. But Left progressivism is incompatible with the romantic idealization of hunting and gathering: the one wants to go forward, the other wants to go back. As anthropological romanticism triumphed in the sphere of social policy, the Left embraced “Aboriginality” over literacy and vocational skills, assimilation was denounced as supremely evil, and Australia’s northern indigenes began their slide into the oblivion of fixed dependency—illiterate, vocationally disabled, desperately in need of help. But to intervene, let alone to remove children, is today howled down as cultural genocide.
That has been the baleful long-term consequence of the myth of the Stolen Generations. By exposing the whole matter, by refusing to euphemize unavoidably ugly issues, by examining a mass of historical data nobody troubled to look closely at before, by revealing the shoddiness of his adversaries’ research, and by realistically reducing the fanciful figures they proposed, Keith Windschuttle has placed the nation in his debt.

Is there any reason to believe that in the future, results will not prove as disastrous given the fact that at least 15 percent of the population has been  lobotomised by the Green propaganda machine?

UPDATE
Good news: It appears that the Australian people have woken up to what the Greens really want, which is to destroy western civilisation and reshape it into their own image. Unfortunately other power hungry ideologies with little of the understanding, compassion and freedoms spawned by the Judeo/Christian foundations of western society would have soon stomped all over the tree huggers, but it would have probably been too late by then if they had had the chance to establish a beachhead. Hopefully the Victorian elections have created the opportunity to turn back some of the more pernicious influences the Green loons have  introduced into Parliament.

Friday 26 November 2010

Look see

For those who still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but are open to reading a divergent view or are having a few doubts given the almost daily unveilings of bad science, shonky politics and blatant hypocrisy on the part of prominent global warmists; then please read  http://joannenova.com.au/.

If any one reading this blog is a friend of mine please say hi in the comment box.

Ripping apart the fabric of history

One of the more pernicious developments of the post modern deconstruction of truth is how those in power subvert and fabricate historical 'facts', initially to position and then reinforce their ideologies. A major power centre has been established at the core of the Australian educational establishment, i.e. the schools and universities, and in the latter case particularly within the humanities where Gramsci's 'disciples' have ended their 'long march' and established an 'intellectual consensus'. Since the early 70's these disciples have been deconstructing truth in order to re-construct an alternative view of Australian history, fabricating facts to suit their ultimate agenda and they do it under the auspices of academic consensus, much like the ( thankfully rapidly dissolving) 'consensus' around anthropogenic global warming.
A few courageous individuals have stood against these egregious fabrications and they have done it by arguing from documented facts and scientific methodology as opposed to the ad hominem attacks made by a large percentage of those who claim the perceived moral authority of 'consensus'. These doughty few have established a beachhead of resistance to the lies and by using the www.  have made the facts widely available. I have been following the serialisation of Windshuttle's book on the fabrication of Australia's history on Quadrant and have just read John Izzard's review of the official rebuttal to this book.
Washout: On the Academic Response to the Fabrication of Aboriginal History (revised edition), by John Dawson; Macleay Press, 2010, 416 pages, $39.95.
It is well worth the read but concludes with a rather sobering thought:

"As Dawson points out, “What Attwood implies is that Reynolds should have stated proudly that his narratives were fabricated, which would have left revisionists [like Keith Windschuttle] nothing to expose.” Welcome to the academic world of Australian history! With the twenty essays of Whitewash to consider, and the new seven Epilogues to digest, the reader of the new edition of John Dawson’s Washout can only gasp at the utter nonsense and deception that high school and university students are being subjected to. Their courses should have warning labels attached. Those indulging in this sort of Orwellian mindset are winning the race, particularly in our education establishments, the media and in politics. We desperately need more Windschuttles and Dawsons." John Izzard, who lives in Tasmania, is a frequent contributor to Quadrant

As a teacher and one who has a vested interest in truth I believe that we owe it to both our current and future generations to contribute in any small way we can to an open and honest evaluation of the veracity of  truth claims  and to provide alternative perspectives where and when they are needed.

Wednesday 24 November 2010

Having just watched an interview with a visiting representative of the World Drug Alliance on channel 24 I am once more convinced George Soros' ultimate goal is the weakening of Western society from within. Almost every current attack on the Judeo/Christian foundations of our society turns out to be funded directly or indirectly by Soros.
The WDA mans appeal for the legalisation of drugs was almost entirely an argument from authority, i.e. heavily sprinkled with 'expert' opinions (I think it was C S Lewis who said something to the effect that given the pitiful state of  University academia, if sufficient funding is on the table one could find an 'expert opinion' that fits almost any prejudice on any subject on earth). The fellow was replete with 'studies' that showed the benefits of decriminalising drugs, unfortunately (for him) there are just as many if not more 'studies' to prove the opposite. The argument that we cannot win the war on drugs could be applied to criminal activity in general, so should we decriminalise crime completely? He spoke about 'regulating' drugs, isn't that a code word for greater bureaucracy, more government lackey's handing out more taxpayer money to more people making immature or selfish decisions? His contention that regulation will enable greater control of the inevitable negative consequences of drugs firstly implies the fact that drugs do cause harm and secondly that we should as a society become 'our brothers keeper'. I can understand that worldview as a Christian but where does he gather his 'compassion from'? Isn't the Darwinian mode one of allowing the weak to die off so that the strong can grow stronger?
This fellow is subtly promoting the idea that drug-taking should be regulated as a sort of a sport, with children taught how to do it without hurting themselves, the central core of the ‘harm reduction’ approach which is a Trojan horse for drug legalisation — and which, dismayingly, has made huge inroads into the thinking of the intellectual establishment throughout the Western world. Soros' man is now here in Australia to 'bring us into line' with the rest of the 'developed world', here he uses the tactic of shame on Australians that we have not 'caught up' with developments in the more 'advanced' Nations, a sure fire appeal to Australia's well documented cultural cringe if ever I heard.
We seem to have forgotten that the law is about consequences not compassion.
Compassion can be implemented (if needs be) during sentencing and dependent on mitigating circumstances, but the law itself should always be unemotional and inviolate.
It is precisely because the western world has become almost completely lobotomised by Hollywood's superficial 'feel good for a moment' soap opera emotionalism (its first overt demonstration being Princess Diana's death) and the spread of techno-emotions induced through YouTube and the net that we can embrace such inane suggestions from the intellectual elite.
Oh for a reflective public, may I once more promote the case for teaching logic and argumentation in Christian  schools.

For a good perspective see:http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_drug_use_not_a_victimless_crime/

Monday 22 November 2010

The meek shall inherit the wind

Doesn't it strike you as hypocritical that the so called 'progressive' folk in Western society call for the abolishment of the death penalty on vile and murderous thugs on the grounds of 'human rights' and compassion then turn around and demand the 'right' to kill the most defenceless in our society, the newborn (or not yet born) and those with incurable diseases or disabilities.
Truly the  progressive agenda is summed up by Green 'Guru' McPherson when he declared that human beings are a "virus on the earth".
The Greens and their ideological ilk are dedicated to eradicating this virus (excluding themselves of course) and use the gullibility of (amongst others) the ideological followers of the UN's  'human rights' agenda to spread the philosophical foundations of this agenda through campaigns such as the anthropogenic global warming scam, the extreme homosexual lobby, euthanasia, abortion on demand (which recently won the 'right' to full term abortions), and legalising drugs.
They advocate open borders and the abdication of nationhood to global 'one world government' yet curse global business development.
They applaud multiculturalism, tribalism and the creation of division along sexual, generational and gender lines and deplore the traditional family, a unit which has been the bedrock of civilisation for millenia.
I do not understand how a Christian can support the Green agenda (a number of whom have openly said so to me) and welcome those who do, to debate the reasons why. perhaps I have missed something essential and if so I implore those with wisdom to correct my error.

Sunday 14 November 2010

Lies, damn lies

There seems to be an informal competition on the blogosphere as to who can expose the most lies told by the Gillard Government. Whilst the results are both amusing as well as frightening they should not be surprising given that both the Rudd and Gillard Governments only guiding principle has always appeared to be: 'The will to power'.
When power is your goal, principals are by definition flexible, malleable and open to interpretation.
What truly frustrates me is that the hardcore labor voter seems unable to sacrifice a lifetime of tradition to see that labor is no longer the Party it once was and that its original and admirable intentions are no longer strong enough to compete with its current Nietzschian  pragmatism. Equally disturbing is the weak response from the opposition to some of the huge moral failings evident within current and pending legislation, it appears that the same pragmatism infects both sides of Parliament.
Oh for a will to leadership even if its immediate end appears to be failure, for often in defeat are sown the seeds of abundant success.

Friday 12 November 2010

Tattoo or not tattoo

I have had quite a few debates recently about the fairly recent phenomena amongst young 'fashionistas' to gaffitti'ing their bodies with permanent disfigurements. I do not apologise for disliking both the (apparent) intentions as well as the results of such a practice (although I will confess to finding one on a colleagues instep rather sexy) but I realise that it is a 'live and let live' world, that we are not to judge a book by its cover, and that we are to love all equally as important to the Lord, all positions which I adhere to. However where I do take exception is when some would seek to offer biblical justification for their practice and even go so far as to claim that Jesus himself  wore a tattoo and although I fully expect that some will disagree with my argument I would like to offer a letter that I wrote to the elders of my church as my official position on the subject and thereafter absolve myself of the need to debate this issue furthermore.
A QUERY?
As one who consistently falls short of my potential in Jesus I have by and large adopted a back seat re; my contribution within the church, and for this I apologise. Being sure of my position in Christ, i.e. forgiveness and acceptance I accept intellectually but too often struggle with it in reality, and again I apologise (to the Lord). Having said this, my intentions now are to speak out whenever I feel burdened to do so, thus I run the risk of becoming not only a pain-in-the-butt, but worse still, a ‘Pharisee’. If this occurs I once again apologise and wholeheartedly commit myself to being corrected and if necessary disciplined.
The more I research the more I fear that the current redefinition of ‘tolerance’ has muddied our theological waters, particularly given the aforementioned notion of absolute acceptance, which while it is how we are to view God’s Grace regarding us, what too frequently occurs is that in order to ‘be accepting’ we run the risk of ‘fudging’ scriptural verity. For example I think few would argue with the principle that God cannot contradict himself. If such a thing appears to be the case, I believe the correct assumption should automatically be that our interpretation of scripture is at fault.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

My perceived contradiction at the moment is the notion that Jesus in Revelation 19 was ‘tattooed’. Unfortunately I have heard such a claim uttered a number of times from the pulpit and have been told of it being propagated by some of the leaders at youth.

Whilst I realise that this is not a major issue in life, and though I am personally un-attracted to tattoos nevertheless, some of my best friends have them, to quote a cliché. For those who continue to succumb to this current fashion ( the latest version being branding [Reuters last week]) or have for other reasons indulged in personal ‘graffiti’[1] I hold no animus in my heart. For example how can we view with anything other than compassion those who were tattooed in the concentration camps or others who were/are branded as slaves or have been cut/marked/tagged by tribal or gang affiliation. Our position must be one of acceptance without proviso, no question about it. However, and herein lies the rub, this is a vastly different perspective from not only accepting it but clandestinely or consciously promoting it, even in jest or through ignorance.

WHY?
Leviticus 19:28 quite clearly indicates God forbidding His people from acquiring tattoos. The problem is that there were quite a few other taboos as well, many of which are disregarded by today’s society, which raises the question of what to do about tattoos. Research indicates that God expected an elevated lifestyle from his chosen people. He wanted them to ‘rise above’ the standards of the pagan world surrounding them because he knew how those influences could weaken[2] and distract His people from worship and obedience to Him. Paul however shows that Jesus died to save us from the ‘cleansing laws’, that no matter what we did or didn’t do we are forgiven and accepted (thank God)! Therefore it logically follows that to acquire a tattoo is not a sin or to be ‘unclean’ in any way, and the only real question that remains is to debates ones motives, preferably in concert with the standards outlined in James 3. Is it to attract attention? Will the tattoo be a source of contention for my loved ones? Will getting a tattoo cause me to disobey my parents? Will my tattoo cause someone who is weak in the faith to stumble? Etc, etc, it all becomes a matter of personal conscience.

However, to assert that Jesus himself was tattooed is to take liberty with the truth (heresy). Would it not be advisable to examine the actual interpretation of the words used before ascribing meaning within popular culture, particularly when making claims about the actions of God Himself? Would Jesus break His own law?

The Greek word for ‘written’ in Revelations 19:12b and verse 16 is: grapho[3] and is about script, it could have been written on his skin with a texta or blood for all we know, however what we do know is that it most certainly does not translate as a tattoo: kethobeth[4] , besides, regarding the garment on which ‘King Of Kings...’ (vs 16) was also written, was that ‘tattooed’ as well? To muddy these waters is to perpetuate the impression that the problem with the Evangelical mind is that it should not be unduly examined.

In conclusion however, and with reference to brandings in the apocryphal writings... what I do see in Revelations 13 is that all people will receive a mark: charagma[5] on their right hands or foreheads, a branding (concentration camps prophetic?) to identify them as ‘property of the beast’.

Question: Will we at that time preach against body branding, or will we leave it up to the individual conscience?

Musing: Could this current obsession with branding merely be blurring the lines for such a time as that?

This is an issue which is beginning to cause me and some others a problem, and I humbly appeal that the concerns be addressed.

Yours faithfully




[1] Actually I think graffiti is a blot on any ‘landscape’.


[2] And of course some of the dietary requirements were a protection to His people.


[3] To write, with reference to the form of the letters, to write with reference to the contents of the writing, to fill with writing. (Strong’s concordance)


[4] Impression, inscription, mark; in the flesh. (Strong’s concordance)


[5] A stamp, an imprinted mark, thing carved. ( Strong’s)

Multiculturalism = multidivision

Thank goodness for commentators like Andrew Bolt who daily face the wrath of the 'enlightened' (indoctrinated) chattering classes for speaking truth into the market place. In his postings today re: the denigration of Australian culture (and as a recent [12 years] immigrant I can assure you there is a culture) that makes it difficult for people to celebrate being Australian, I couldn't agree more. We as a family are proud to call ourselves Aussies, we could hardly wait the two years to get our citizenship. We agreed as a family even before we arrived, to celebrate and encourage all things Aussie including the various sporting teams which we therefore support even above those from the country we were born into and spent (in my case 40+ years) much of  our lives. It is a little like a good marriage i suppose, (another institution demonised and under attack by the 'elite') when a wife takes on her husbands name she takes on his allegiances as well, much like the biblical Ruth who when her husband died refused to leave her mother in law (Ruth 1:16 "where you go I go, and where you stay i will stay. Your people will be my people, your God my God").
Instead we have the cultural elites preaching a postmodern form of racism, that of tribalism. Rather than encouraging multi-ethnicity within one culture which is healthy and vibrant and creates a colourful, creative mix of ideas, textures and colours, they preach multi-culturalism, encouraging separation of cultures, difference, division, suspicion and ultimately conflict.
The hypocrisy of the issue reminds me of the left wing 'peaceniks' who use violence to make their point and the environmentalists who live in massive houses and fly constantly around the globe telling the rest of us to reign in our 'carbon footprints'...one wonders if anyone is at home in many of these heads, and if so who is ultimately pulling the strings?

Thursday 11 November 2010

Green madness

I have just finished reading Ken Andrews outline of the Green Party's manifesto and it provides for some chilling reading. To deny the Marxist ideology underpinning their aims is to ignore the elephant in the room.
What irks me the most is how many Christian friends of mine appeared to favour the green party during the last election. I can only believe that they have not read their manifesto or if they have then my friends theology differs from the Nicene creed (all the creeds) about as much as does Peter Singer's.

Good sense

I have just read an essay: "No, No, No" by James Allen on Quadrant Online. It was one of the first Law Professor commentaries that gave me some hope for the future of the judiciary in Australia. Give this man the top legal job in the country please Mr Abbott when you win the upcoming election.

Something to say

I have been encouraged by many friends to start a blog so that i might have a venue to express my thoughts on the world we live in...now that i have one i find myself at a loss for words. Nevertheless i shall persevere because i do believe it is the impersonal nature of the medium that interferes with a free flow of ideas, and it is this impersonality that i shall endeavour to overcome in the days ahead.

Day one:
Having endured my read through of various blogs and reports on the net i am once again amazed (and alarmed) at the almost monolithic left-wing consensus in the educational, artistic and main stream media camps. It appears that Gramsci's 'long march through the institutions' has indeed been successful and pretty much any dissenting view to those of the embedded 'experts' is treated with mockery, disdain and dismissal. In fact it appears that across many fronts i.e. Global warming, Evolution, Environmentalism; dissension is viewed as heresy not merely a differing of opinion  and those who dare to articulate opposite opinions do not have their arguments analysed and systematically opposed, but are treated to ad hominem attacks of a most vicious kind. Perhaps i am even opening myself up to such an attack, if so I look forward to the conflict.

Monday 8 November 2010

Genesis

 Hi bloggers a tentative start to a new phase of musings