Gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gasp if you will, at the prescience of columnist extraordinaire Miranda Devine in this piece: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/from_the_vault_were_all_paying_for_the_tin_ear_of_the_left#91055

Left right!

Regarding the latest distraction/cultural manipulation instigated by the Gillard experiment on the Australian military. What happened in America?

 Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered.

That's why instead of pushing openly gay servicemen on the military, patriotic gays should come out against girls in the military. Fair is fair. (In 1994, the first year servicewomen were allowed to serve on naval aircraft carriers, 39 women assigned to the USS Eisenhower alone ended up pregnant.)

But liberals enjoy engaging in wild social experiments with other people's lives, safety and money in order to feel better about themselves.(Coulter 3.9.11)

The last comment truly sums up the Lefty's preoccupation with 'progressive change'.
Their primary impulse is usually to alleviate some misguided sense of guilt they hold with regard to their or their parents/grandparents mischievously appropriated wealth by adopting a liberal, moralistic high ground, all the while screeching like demented harridans against perhaps analogous moral positions as espoused by 'conventional' religious personalities. (I use the word conventional because most Lefty's pursue their beliefs in ways that could almost definitely be regarded as religious!)

Hypocrisy and irony are the bedfellows of ideological passions.

Slippery Sideshow!

We are already well down the path to rule not by an elected government, but rule by an ideologically installed, oligarchy of legal indoctrinators, i.e. judges. Welcome to the Brave New Australia.

For the judge was of the view that “language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised. It is language which invites the reader to not only read the lines, but to also read between the lines.”

When judges begin reading between the lines and finding illegalities in those spaces, we should all be deeply worried. (Piers Ackerman 30/9/11)

SIDESHOW BOB'S INTENTIONS: RULE VIA JUDGE!

Hate others as you hate yourself!

"So young women are mutilating their most intimate body parts to satisfy a false pornographic ideal. Female self-hatred is the final tragic manifestation of our sex-saturated culture."

Another downward step on the ladder to civilizational self-immolation.

Horrorland

Melanie Phillip's on political correctness:

The answer is surely that political correctness means you can’t criticise anyone who does wrong if they belong to a group of people who are considered marginalised or oppressed.

This is effectively to give such groups a free pass for any bad behaviour. And anyone who dares criticise is accused of ‘demonising’ such groups.

This means, of course, that those who criticise such bad behaviour are themselves demonised.

Indeed, they can be positively victimised and even threatened with their lives by vicious campaigns on Twitter or the internet – all on the grounds that they have ‘demonised’ some ‘victim’ group or other.  If this wasn’t so terrifying, it would be hilarious.

The result of this hijacking of the language is that debate becomes impossible because words like rights, tolerance, liberal, justice, truth and many more have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.

The result of this inversion of right and wrong is that morality itself has been reversed or negated. Politically correct language is thus a way of shifting the very centre of moral and political gravity.

So what was once considered far-Left has become the centre-ground; and those who stand on the real centre-ground are now dismissed as extreme.

The attack on BC and AD is merely the latest salvo in the war of the words, part of the defining madness of our time.

Our entire culture has fallen  down the rabbit hole.

Post Moderns hate history.

The new TV production of Camelot is a typical post-Post Modern rewrite of history ala Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'.

Wonderful production values, good acting, great cinematography and the whole caboodle wrapped in a rampant post-modern message, a reality which makes the series almost impossible to watch.

Lithe and beautiful young things are the brave and noble 'truth bearers', just like the renaissance values of beauty=truth. When they read from a text it is some philosophical treatise, when they quote a truth it is almost always from the Greek classics. They espouse justice, 'faith' and morality but provide no clues as to where they have acquired such values.

All 'Christians' i.e. the religious persons are duplicitous and evil. The sorcerer is the source of education and  truth and though some of his power is 'special', much of it is 'scientific', he is also remarkably multi-cultural and multi-faithed just as a competent 'community organiser should be! The Woman are feminist and strongly opinionated even simple village woman. The men are all budding democrats with the village men acting like union leaders and labour organisers demanding justice and berating the king when he makes the wrong decision, something the gentle (but dangerous) young king handles with remarkable and quite unhistorical aplomb.

A series low on intellectual or historical content but large on emotional and erotic stimulation very much like the world we live in today.

Cash Cow...ards.

The 'stolen generations' are stealing money hand-over-fist, note the 36 organisations 'helping':

Even the then Bracks Government’s Stolen Generations Taskforce, chaired by Aboriginal spokesman Jim Berg, conceded there had been “no formal policy for removing children” from Aboriginal parents in the state. Indeed, while the Taskforce could find 36 organisations helping the state’s “stolen generations”, it could not find one truly stolen child, even though it ran advertisements pleading for them to come forward.

Praise Evolution!

In Western Australia a woman is being hailed as brave after deciding to have both breasts cut off and a hysterectomy in order to beat a 'maybe' cancer after having already beaten breast cancer but receiving a less than perfect genetic test:

 Although she made a good recovery after treatment for breast cancer two years ago, an inconclusive result from genetic testing left her worried. She potentially faced a 50 per cent chance the disease would develop in her other breast, and a 60 per cent chance she would get ovarian cancer.

Forgive my insensitivity but I would call her stupid not brave. Perhaps I should amend that to merely pathetic.

What this tragic story indicates to me is how 'science' has weakened the human spirit. I can quote endless tales of medical 'prophecies' coming up hollow. Good friends of ours were told to abort their twin babies after being informed that one was dead, which proved incorrect. When later informed that both were still alive they were told that both would suffer serious birth defects...both have graduated high school and are 'perfect' in every way.
I myself was told I had three to six months to live 6 years ago.
The moral of the story is to amputate both your legs if you lose one; 'just in case'.

Why are people who submit to fear consistently upheld as 'brave'?
Our 'brave new world' has truly turned meaning on it head; bad is good, stupid is smart, bravery is perceived as ignorance and honour is old-fashioned.

Haven't we 'evolved!'  

Eat your Greens!

This marriage-made-in-hell, the Green/labor coalition, is currently accelerating its takeover of the Australian way of life and has emerged into the light with its here-to-fore hidden agenda. Read this blog:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/are-armed-bombs-hidden-in-the-carbon-tax-we-need-to-go-through-this-carefully/#more-17168 and be prepared to shake in your boots.

The truly amazing part of it is when the last election happened and reasonable people I know voted Labor, I warned them of the consequences. Some even voted Green...a decision which I cannot even pretend to comprehend never mind accept.

This lot are trashing Australia's democracy and ultimately yours and my freedoms...it is nothing short of a totalitarian world-view:

Again, revered customs that normally protect democracies are tossed out the window:

To describe such poison pills as unusual would be an understatement. Provisions that merely hinder future parliaments have long been viewed as abhorrent, as they undermine the democratic process

The Labor Party is destroying the power of the people to choose anything other than their own “anointed” plan

The 'long march through the institutions' has been so spectacularly successful that I am sure Gramsci must be grinning inside his asbestos suit, perhaps even getting a steamy pat on the back from his gruesome guru somewhere in the sizzling suburbs of you-know-where.

We do have an option this side however...get rid of this government before they make it impossible to do so, and annihilate their gruesome Green comrades in the process.

The Big Whimper Theory!

Pondering out loud...something that will no doubt require further meditation and research.
It appears as if the western world (America, Australia, Europe, England) is rapidly approaching a similar position to that which it occupied just prior to the 2nd World War. Mounting financial chaos, philosophical, moral and family breakdown, despair and an aristocratic/wealthy 'elite' with few scruples (Hollowmen!) who were willing and able to exploit these conditions to their advantage.
Is this an echo of what is to come once more? And yet the world's superpower seems exhausted by war, and the rest have no stomach. Nothing to live for translates very well into nothing to die for. Perhaps the new 21st Century Caliphate is closer than we think? Are we heading for T S Eliot's view of the end?

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Hail Caesar!

Read this article: http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/9/why-are-pirates-getting-away-with-it
and you will see how 'human rights law' has emasculated our culture. Most of the anti-western cultures couldn't give a toss about the 'rules' a bunch of limp-wristed, neo-Marxist, ex-lawyers cobbled together in order to undermine the rule of law and ultimately to establish themselves as a world ruling oligarchy. (Conspiracy theorists applaud loudly!!!)
I would like to see the current 'civilized world' adopting the old-world civilizational methods of Julius Caesar and stamp out these vermin who used to be viewed as a common pestilence.

I need to express my non-politically correct views as quickly as possible before Stephen Conroy's 'commission of enquiry' outlaws any alternative (to the allowed perspective) views from all and sundry media outlets including the WWW blogs.
Welcome to the new world order according to the Green/Labor marriage!

History repeating.

Talking about barometers of spiritual toxins:

The BBC’s Thomas Dinham is worried by Egypt’s revolution and the casual bigotry in its streets:

While walking in the street someone pushed me from behind with such force that I nearly fell over.

Turning around, I found myself surrounded by five men, one of whom tried to punch me in the face. I stopped the attack by pointing out how shameful it was for a Muslim to assault a guest in his country, especially during Ramadan.

Relieved that a seemingly random assault was over, I was appalled by the apology offered by one of my assailants. “Sorry,” he said contritely, offering his hand, “we thought you were a Jew.”

Egypt has an interesting history of first accommodating then oppressing the Jewish folk. Seems it didn't turn out so good for them 3000 years ago, I am quite sure its not going to be any different today.

PUPPET-MASTER

From Andrew Bolt's blog on the pending muzzling of Australia's free press. This is very dangerous people, and we should be doing all that we can to resist it.

Communications Minister Steve Conroy half-heartedly claims that he’s resisted Greens demands that his media inquiry go after the News Ltd papers and their owner:

Conroy stopped short of asking Finkelstein to examine media ownership, which was identified as a key issue by the powerful Greens party, a key partner in the government’s coalition rule.
Despite a stinging attack in which he accused “some organs” of News Limited, of “running a campaign against this government”, Conroy denied the inquiry was a “witch-hunt” against Murdoch’s firm.
“In terms of a witch-hunt to demand that we break up News Limited, the fact is we are not interested,” he said.

But Greens leader Bob Brown, whose idea this was inquiry was, says Murdoch’s ownership will indeed be investigated:

TONY JONES:  It’s the second term of reference; it talks about the impact of technological change on the business model of newspapers and asks how diversity can be enhanced in this changed environment. Is that what you see as the foot in the door to examine newspaper ownership?
BOB BROWN: No, it’s not a foot in the door, Tony, it’s the door wide open. And of course, the commissioners will be able to look at the concentration of media ownership which has 70 per cent of the newspapers in the hands of one corporation, that’s the Murdoch empire here in Australia; nothing like that in the rest of the world.

Gosh, who to believe? The Government or its puppet-master?

Beam me up Scotty!

I love the way Jo Nova says it like it is on the Anthropogenic global scaremongering: "No one from the big scare campaign is even pretending that this is about the science anymore. It’s just tribal name-calling, voo-doo dolls and poo jokes from preschool."

It is a real mystery to me how supposedly rational people appear to prefer any solution other than a loving God. Even the prospect of unfriendly 'aliens' is preferable:

 Al Gore  hopes he has reality on his side. But the reality is the relentless slide of the polls. It’s the crashed Chicago Climate Exchange, the kaput green jobs. It’s the long list of countries who are are shaking themselves free of the eco-shackles. The apostles of a bygone cult are reduced to saying that warming causes cooling, death, disease and even prostitution in Ghana. The babbling last players standing are talking about saving the world from aliens. Sadly, those are not the nutters, no, they’re the ones from NASA.

It mirrors that moment almost forty years ago when the Anthropic Principle was first introduced to scientists and they exploded with; "must we now believe in God?". Of course the 'scientific geniuses' of the time replied with: "No, but we must consider other options to Evolutionary theory"...and subsequently revived (and reworked) the 'Panspermia hypothesis'.

Panspermia: (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.^[1][2

I.e. life comes from outer space.

Well I suppose there is a modicum of truth in the supposition...life did in fact come from ulra-ultra out-of-space, another dimension in fact and there are 'aliens' of course; the bible specifically mentions them. Check it out.

R.I.P. VERITAS

Read this article by Paul Kelly and you will understand what Churchill means in the above quote. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/manne-throws-truth-overboard/story-e6frg6z6-1226136169550

The so-called 'intellectuals' of this Post-Post-Modern (PPM) age have done such a disservice to scholarship that I fear for a revival of interest and respect for intelligent curiosity. Truth has been trashed to the point where many, perhaps even most, people in the West question its existence. This uncomfortable position bodes ill for the sciences as well as the humanities and even worse for law and order.

It has been well said that the law works only as an adjunct to an inner correcting attitude and can never effectively replace or corral the baser compulsions of mankind. Without that inner 'policeman' (conscience) the most the law can do is to create an illusion of order and, as time goes by and attitudes coarsen (as they do in the absence of restraints), the 'law' must become harsher and harsher in order to maintain the same 'illusion'. What history illustrates is that when this absence of 'conscience'(i.e. a 'fear' of God)  reaches its nadir, the only way to contain the resultant chaos is through brute force and extreme restrictions. History also shows us that repressive measures only work for a time, and in the current PPM period that time is becoming shorter and shorter as new technology gives opportunity for discontentment to spread. One only has to view the worlds current political hot spots to see how technology aids the rebellious and how chaos feeds on itself. Pain and destruction are the bedfellows of the revolutionary!

What we in Australia are witnessing with the Green/Labor coalition is an increasing paranoia about being cast as the 'bad guys' when they possibly really do believe (benefit of the doubt!) that what they are doing is the right thing. Unfortunately their responses betray their incompetency as well as their ideology.

• They blame others for their ineptitude...Tony Abbott is the bogeyman  in everything!
• They blame 'outside' forces i.e. the global financial meltdown, Murdoch press, etc,etc,
• They attack the 'other' ad hominem rather than the arguments themselves; they appeal to a moral high ground whilst often occupying an opposite position themselves all the while ignoring their obvious hypocrisy.Witness the views of Gillard Govt. defender and 'prime time intellectual' Robert Manne and his pomposity in the above mentioned article.
• They seek to contain the 'others' influence...by legislating morality, by restricting what the 'other' can say about the green/Labor policies, with the latest ploy being to establish a committee whose sole purpose is to see by how much they can get away with restricting the freedom of the press. 

The heretofore hidden inner-totalitarianism of the Australian left increases proportionally to additional pressures on their policies and the amusing aspect of it all is that they have the effrontery to 'project' this destructive attitude onto the mythical 'other' as a form of deflection.

However, perhaps the worst 'sin' of this incompetent and incestuous duo, is that they hold the electorate in such poor regard that they actually believe the Australian public incapable of seeing through such deception.
I look forward with relish to the next election.

PC not OK

The politically correct thought police are increasingly intruding into our freedoms, particularly the liberty to speak freely:

In such a climate, time-honored national characteristics are easily extinguished. A generation ago, even Britain’s polytechnic Trots and Marxists were sufficiently residually English to feel the industrial-scale snitching by family and friends that went on in Communist Eastern Europe was not quite cricket, old boy. Now England is Little Stasi-on-Avon, a land where, even if you’re well out of earshot of the gay-outreach officer, an infelicitous remark in the presence of a co-worker or even co-playmate is more than sufficient. Fourteen-year-old Codie Stott asked her teacher at Harrop Fold High School whether she could sit with another group to do her science project as in hers the other five pupils spoke Urdu and she didn’t understand what they were saying. The teacher called the police, who took her to the station, photographed her, fingerprinted her, took DNA samples, removed her jewelry and shoelaces, put her in a cell for three and a half hours, and questioned her on suspicion of committing a Section Five “racial public-order offence.” “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark,” declared the headmaster, Antony Edkins. The school would “not stand for racism in any form.” In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said they took “hate crime” very seriously, and their treatment of Miss Stott was in line with “normal procedure.”

...Thus, after Anders Breivik gunned down dozens of his fellow Norwegians, just about the only angle on the story that got the Western Left’s juices going was the opportunity it afforded to narrow the parameters of public discourse even more. They gleefully fell on his 1,500-page “manifesto,” wherein he cites me, John Derbyshire, Bernard Lewis, Theodore Dalrymple, and various other names familiar round these parts. He also cites Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Twain, Hans Christian Andersen, and my leftie com­patriot Naomi Klein, the “No Logo” gal and a columnist for The Nation in the U.S. and the Guardian in Britain. Just for the record, my name appears four times, Miss Klein’s appears four times.

Yet the British, Canadian, Australian, European, and American Left—and more than a few likeminded Americans—rose as one to demand restraints on a very narrow sliver of Anders Breivik’s remarkably—what’s the word?—diverse reading material.

Even Australia gets a mention:

“I cannot understand that you think that it is fine for people to go out and say we should kill all Muslims,” sighed Tanya Plibersek, the Australian minister for human services, on a panel discussion, “and that that has no real effect in the world.” Because, after all, calling for the killing of all Muslims is what I and Bernard Lewis and Theodore Dalrymple and Naomi Klein and Hans Christian Andersen do all day long.

She was addressing Brendan O’Neill, a beleaguered defender of free speech on a show where the host, the guests, the studio audience, and the post-broadcast tweeters were all lustily in favor of state regulation, and not of human acts but of opinions. And not just for inciters of Norwegian nutters, but for Rupert Murdoch, too. To one degree or another, they were also in favor of the government’s taking action to whip the media into line. Into line with what? Well, with the government, presumably. Whether or not they’ll get their way Down Under, in London the British state is being actively urged to regulate the content of the press for the first time in four centuries.

One can only wonder at the double standards employed by those who, on the one hand scream blue murder about Julian Assange's (Wikifreaks) 'right' to publish the 'truth', and on the other scream bloody murder at the 'hate-mongers' who speak out against the lefts favourite topics.
It appears that there is a massive disjoint between what ideologues view as 'free speech'.

Be aware,Winston Smith lives next door.

Aware the times!

Remember what I said about Jewish folk being the 'mine canaries' of a cultures spiritual toxins?
Melanie Phillips' latest blog outlines disturbing trends in England:

What is happening to us? they murmur. It's unbelievable, astonishing, terrifying. The bias, the hatred, the lies. Where is it all going to end? And an increasing number say there's no longer any future for us Jews in Britain.

Almost every few days brings fresh examples of the Israel Derangement Syndrome that so disturbs and frightens them. Last week, anti-Israel hooligans disrupted a Promenade concert 'where the Israel Philharmonic was playing, causing the BBC to abort its live broadcast.

Last month, a St Andrews University student was convicted of racially abusing a Jewish postgraduate student over his support of Israel. And week in, week out, Israelis are blamed for defending themselves against mass murder.

By now, it must be obvious to all but the most supine or hostile to Israel within the UK Jewish community that what is happening is an evil uniquely targeted at the Jewish people. For the demonisation of Israel is of a nature and type extended to no other country. While atrocities by tyrannies and rogue states provoke almost total indifference, Israel is treated as in a class apart: apparently the very worst country in the entire world, a kind of global blight which has to be expunged altogether from civilised society if not from the face of the earth.

When she poses the question of how is it possible for a Tory government to be in such an Israeli hating position...her answer carries with it a powerful symptom of political dis-ease currently being played out in many (if not all) Western cultures:

Why? Because the callow and opportunistic Cameroons are blank slates upon which can be written the fashionable bigotry and historical illiteracy of our times.

This is the fundamental problem of the West. Gramscian thinking since the 1960's, and culminating with the advent of radical Post-modern relativism, has so white-anted the philosophical underpinnings of Western culture (i.e. the Judeo-Christian value system) that the ethical chaos which has resulted has given form to a gneration of politicians who lack fully articulated value systems; blank slates (the tabular rasa, ironically an Aristotelian concept built upon by 12th Century Islamic scholar Ibn Tufail) on whom any powerful force, usually driven by popularity polls, exerts the greatest force. In essence our political leaders are driven hither and thither by the 'winds of change' irrespective of whether said breezes are fair or foul. That is until an immovable force enters the equation and thus begins the new age!

UPDATE: Consider what Piers Akerman says in his current blog about this white-anting:

Today, Western nations which responded so magnificently and heroically to earlier threats against their culture and values are being eroded from within as much, or more, than they are attacked from without.

The Western nations have permitted their values to be diminished through the acceptance of a hard left-wing culture masquerading as environmentalism, as pacifism, as progressivism, and being taught from infancy to our children through the media and through our schools.

Or Paul Sheehan in (among all things!) the Age:

A disconnect has grown between the will of the people and the legal activists who successfully circumvent democracy by waging ''lawfare'' - the practice of using the courts to achieve policies rejected at the ballot box.

Ideological lawfare is now clogging the entire legal system in the name of refugee rights. The people enmeshed in this campaign against Parliament range from the Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French, to the ideologues toiling in the lower courts and refugee tribunals.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/end-lawfare-by-ditching-unworkable-un-policies-20110907-1jxr3.html#ixzz1XhrW9NI2

Sideshow Bob's booboo.

                                                                         DOH..OH!
Bob brown is usually treated with kid gloves by the press corps. This is probably because of the general left-wing bias exhibited by the 4th estate but I suspect that it also has something to do with the fact that Brown is somewhat of a political nincompoop. I have heard him tell some tall tales and fumble atrociously through intErviews...this excerpt from the Media Watchdog illustrates just how incomplete his knowledge of world affairs actually is. The true shame of the Australian press corp is how they eviscerated Pauline Hanson and John Howard yet venerate a buffoon like sideshow Bob.

Has Greens leader Bob Brown ever been subjected to a tough-minded interview by ABC Radio National presenter Fran Kelly?  Certainly MWD has no memory of such an occasion.  Like many of her colleagues on the public broadcaster, Ms Kelly criticises both the Coalition and Labor – but invariably from the left. Since the Greens are the only genuinely left-wing party in contemporary Australia, Senator Brown and his colleagues are rarely – if ever – subjected to tough minded interviews on the ABC.

On RN Breakfast last Monday, Senator George Brandis (the Coalition’s shadow attorney-general) received a tough interview from Fran Kelly on offshore processing.  On Tuesday, however, Senator Bob Brown received the softest interview on the same subject.  Fran Kelly even remained mute when Senator Brown made the following (false) claim about asylum seekers during the time of Malcolm Fraser’s Coalition government:

Bob Brown: What would have happened if Malcolm Fraser had said “Turn back the boats” at the time of the Vietnamese people escaping the war in their country and coming to Australia. How much better off is this country because of that Vietnamese influx?

Senator Brown made two historical howlers in a mere 40 words – and Fran Kelly corrected neither. Here they are:

1.    Saigon fell to the conquering North Vietnamese Army – which was supplied by the communist dictators in the Soviet Union – on 30 April 1975.  Malcolm Fraser was appointed prime minister of Australia on 11 November 1975 and the Coalition, under Mr Fraser’s leadership, won a convincing victory at the December 1975 election.

The Indo-Chinese refugees, mainly Vietnamese but including Cambodians and Laotians, did not come to Australia as a result of “escaping the war in their country”.  Not at all – since by 1976 the wars in Indo-China were over and the communists had gained power in all of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

The Vietnamese and others who came to Australia during the time of the Fraser Government were not escaping war – as Senator Brown claims.  Rather, they were escaping from the communist dictatorships which had been set up following the communist victories in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in 1975. In other words, the Indo-Chinese who came to Australia after 1975 were escaping their so-called communist “liberators” – something which Senator Brown does not wish to acknowledge.

2.    Very few of the Indo-Chinese refugees who arrived in Australia between 1976 and 1982 came by boat.  These are the official figures for unlawful boat arrivals in Australia during the Fraser years – they can be found in official Immigration Department documents and are confirmed, among other places, in Malcolm Fraser and Margaret Simons Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs.

1976 – 111

1977 – 868

1978 – 746

1979 – 304

1980 – 0

1981 – 30

1982 – 0

A total of 2059 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat during the entire period of the Fraser Government – i.e. around 300 a year.  This total is less than a third of the numbers who arrived during one year of the Howard and Rudd governments – i.e. 5516 in 2001 and 6879 in 2010.

Malcolm Fraser’s Coalition government generously accepted tens of thousands of Indo-Chinese asylum seekers. However, the overwhelming majority of these refugees were processed off-shore by the United Nations in such places as Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore and hand-picked by Australian officials.  Moreover, all these refugees arrived in Australia by air with valid visas.

Senator Bob Brown should know this. And so should Fran Kelly.

Infecting the innocent

Building on my previous blog I quote again from Merv Bendle's article in Quadrant, illustrating the dangerous ideologies held by so many Western 'academics' in Australia's universities and educational establishments. These are the institutions we pay for our children to attend in order to gain knowledge and maturity...what they find instead are the viruses of agitprop, ideological bile and an ingrained hatred of Western values.

The affinity between Islamism and Western radicalism is based on their shared totalising view of the world, and their shared rejection of the pluralism of liberal democracies. It is expressed most vividly in a shared hostility towards civil society, where ordinary people in Western societies live their lives and pursue their own interests, largely free of political and religious interference. Although one ideology is secular and the other religious, both forms of radicalism demonise this realm of freedom, presenting it as thoroughly politicised and corrupt, and therefore as a legitimate target for terrorism.

This explains why so many apparently non-violent intellectuals and academics readily accept the mass murder of innocent civilians in railway stations, office buildings, nightclubs, and other targets in civil society; and why, for example, the mass murder of people relaxing in a bar in Bali, or waiting for a train in London or Mumbai can be considered a blow against America and the West by Muslim jihadis and Western intellectuals alike. The latter mimic Islamist ideologues in viewing such victims as not innocent, but as guilty and complicit in the actions of the state apparatuses of their societies—culpable proxies of George W. Bush and John Howard—simply by virtue of the fact they are citizens of their societies and pay taxes, as Ayman al-Zawahiri stated explicitly in the Al Qaeda declaration on “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents”. Even at their most charitable, Western intellectuals regard such victims as acceptable collateral damage in their morbidly romanticised narrative about the “anti-imperialist struggle”.

When we relativise evil and radicalise politics we engender hatred, murder and the annihilation of conscience.

Australia is struggling in this area, as the federal government seeks to develop a coherent counter-radicalisation policy that will meet national security requirements while also accommodating the demands made by the radical orthodox academics and intellectuals who seek to control policy formulation in this field.

Consequently, the federal Attorney-General gave a major address in June this year on terrorist activity without mentioning Islam or Muslims. While he conceded that four major terrorist plots have been detected in Australia since 2000 and that thirty-eight people were charged and twenty-three convicted on terrorism charges, he chose to emphasise that “significantly, 37 of the 38 people prosecuted are Australian citizens and 21 of the 38 were born in Australia”. The nation’s chief law officer makes no mention of the fact that all these people were radicalised Muslims, implying instead that they were a product of the Australian population as a whole, and that the problem lies within the social fabric of Australian society and not within an identifiable group of disaffected fanatics manipulated by foreign forces.

Political correctness forbids us to even identify the perpetrators, sort of like a scenario where you get mugged  by a violent woman and are banned, by radical feminists, from stating that fact to the police. Imagine trying to catch someone when you don't even know what sex it is!
A theatre of the Absurd which negates any ability to determine and therefore convict criminality thus undermining a fundamental of a civil society...the right to justice.
The 'culture wars' are becoming very real to the man-in-the-street, and unless we begin to engage with it, at whatever level we can, we are going to lose.
Believers are admonished by Paul to make every effort to live in peace. I believe that a significant part of that effort is to be aware of the Zeitgeist and to counteract its evil elements in any way that we can thus enabling ordinary folk, like ourselves, to live in peace and freedom:

Such timid political correctness is deplorable because Australia has only avoided a successful terrorist attack due to the incompetence of the local terrorist cells and not because of any flaw in the basic jihadi strategy. One of these cells aimed to use huge bombs to kill a thousand people, at railway stations, Crown Casino, or football matches, including the 2005 AFL Grand Final. While this attack was thwarted, it is likely that the necessary mix of competency, skills and fanaticism will eventually be achieved by a local jihadi cell, with tragic results. This likelihood increases exponentially if the processes of radicalisation that lead young Muslims into jihadism are not disrupted.

Radicalisation must be addressed; we ought to be preparing our young people to take part in the political process, to engage in the debates on history, art, humanities, education etc, etc...we should be encouraging them to look at long term consequences.
An important point to be emphasised is, that although this particular blog and the quotes I have used feature Islamic jihad, I believe that the general attack on western values (and Israel) occurs concurrently with the stage of decay in Arnold Toynbee's analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations. His thesis was that each civilization follows a cycle of growth, maturity, and decay, and that the amount of progress and the rate of decline are determined by how well a civilization responds to human and environmental challenges.
We are failing on both counts.
He spoke about an indicator of this collapse being the schism that develops between the 'elite'(intellectuals) and the 'ordinary' (bourgeoisie) people in a culture.
He also held that only the application of Christian principles could prevent the collapse of Western civilization.

However, even as I write this I realise how difficult such a task is. I am aware of how much the rot of corruption and sinfulness has impacted our society. I confess how dramatically I have failed even with my own children and therefore my opinion is little more than armchair pontification, and for that I apologise...but what choice do we have but to pick ourselves up and work towards a better future for all, and trust that one day truth, and honour and kindness will rule?

Twisting & turning

An informative, scholarly article on the inadequate response by Western Academia to the threat of terrorism. A must read:  http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/9/9-11-and-the-intelligentsia-ten-years-on
The following passages are extracted from the article and highlight the twisted worldview of too many western 'intellectuals', that is the same people who are indoctrinating our children.

I have also observed the more general academic response to the crisis, which clearly represented a great challenge for academics, especially in the arts, humanities and the social sciences.

It was a chance for academics to demonstrate their capacity for rigorous, objective and fearless research, illuminating one of the most important issues facing the modern world. But it was a challenge that few academics revealed themselves prepared to meet, with far too many trapped in the left-wing postmodern intellectual monoculture that pervades university life. When academic voices were heard in connection with 9/11 it was usually to exploit the tragedy opportunistically to gain funding and to promote ideological or apologetic agendas, dominated by this radical orthodoxy.

According to the radical orthodox perspective, the world must be analysed exclusively in terms of “class, gender and race”, which leaves no room for any consideration of religious dynamics, such as the emergence of Islamism and jihadi terrorism. Consequently, these phenomena were assimilated to a simplistic and uncompromising secular narrative of generalised oppression, allegedly directed by a system of Western patriarchal and racist capitalism, dominated by “American imperialism”, and mobilised against “the Other”, the great mythic realm of victimhood, which, after 9/11, was quickly extended to include 1.5 billion Muslims, who were added to the select set of groups deemed worthy of special favour, advocacy and support.

To facilitate this, the new thought-crime of “Islamophobia” was invented. Accusing interlocutors of this new form of Western depravity makes it possible to silence debate about the activities of Islamists and other Muslim extremists, while also making anyone brave enough to raise their voices vulnerable to the various laws that have been introduced by the Left to suppress free speech.

Another semantic game is the insistence that “terrorism” has no real existence or cannot be adequately defined. This is an error, as the term is no more or less precise than any other concepts that seek to encompass dynamic phenomena, while history and current official usage confirm that terrorism is accurately defined as unlawful actions or threat of actions made by a non-state entity intended to harm, coerce, intimidate or interfere with the government or the public with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

The radical orthodoxy seeks to invalidate the term, as it views its use as an intolerable affront to its favoured groups. It resorts instead to moral relativism and simplistic clichés (“one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” and the like), so that concerns that the West is under terrorist attack can be rejected as attempts to negatively “label” these groups. Alternatively, reference in the definition to “non-state entities” is ignored, and terrorism is defined so broadly that it encompasses military action by sovereign states, making it possible to claim that the actions of Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups are no more immoral than those of American and Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

This self-imposed blindness, silence, confusion and moral culpability meant that many vital issues escaped scholarly attention in the aftermath of 9/11. For example, there was clearly a need to identify and explore the nature of the deep-seated crises within the Muslim world, and to explore the emergence and nature of Islamism and jihadism as responses to these crises. There was also a vital necessity to compare and contrast jihadism with the relevant ideological, organisational and operational aspects of the history of terrorism and violent extremism dating back to the nineteenth century.

Misinformation tactics.

I am so sick and tired of Ruddites claiming that he 'saved' the Aussie economy from a new depression. He was fortunate to inherit a surplus which he rapidly and with malice aforethought turned into a deficit, how then can the brainless twits who populate the 4th Estate think of him as having 'saved' our economy?
Its the same pattern of misinformation being fed to the people by the infernally biased press corps as that which they spread about the housing market collapse in the USA, the supposed 'trigger' to the financial collapse worldwide.
Ann Coulter has some interesting things to say about the causes of the GFC and before you rear up on your hind legs about the source, consider the evidence displayed on daily TV screens as well as in the press about 'liberal' motives, and I think you might just realise that these 'accusations' ring true with what is. Check the facts: (I have highlighted in bold those aspects I deem important to reflect on.)

Over and over again, Republicans tried to rein in the politically correct policies being foisted on mortgage lenders by Fannie Mae, only to be met by a Praetorian Guard of Democrats howling that Republicans hated the poor. In 2003, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee wrote a bill to tighten the lending regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Every single Democrat on the committee voted against it. In the House, Barney Frank angrily proclaimed that Fannie Mae was "just fine."

Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., accused Republicans of going on a "witch hunt" against Fannie Mae and attempting a "political lynching of Franklin Raines" (which, in a game of "bad metaphor Scrabble" would have been a double word score).

Fannie was pressuring banks to write mortgages with no money down and no proof of income. What could go wrong?

In 2004, Bush's White House Chief Economist Gregory Mankiw warned that Fannie was creating "systemic risk for our financial system." In response, Barney Frank went to a champagne brunch with his partner "just because."

Democrats saw nothing of concern in the Fannie debacle. Bad mortgages don't contain sodium, do they? They don't engage in "hate speech." And they don't emit carbon dioxide. There was nothing to catch a Democrat's eye. In 2005, when the housing bubble burst, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a bill allowing Fannie Mae to buy up even more schlock mortgages, apparently reasoning that if owning some toxic mortgages is bad, owning lots of them must be better!

He accused Republican opponents of his suicidal bill of being against affordable housing. (And that is a specific example of how liberals love the poor so much, they promoted policies to create millions more of them.)

The highlights expose the number one impulse of the left; ideology trumps reality always!

The highlighted bits are I believe the causes and effects of 'soft liberalism' of the type favoured by 'deep greens' and the Labor left. Policies that alienate, divide, create class consciousness, and demonise difficult questions. To question the lunacy of the left causes the inevitable reactions of accusations such as being 'racis't even when the issue at hand has nothing to do with race at all, such as Gore calling climate 'deniers' racist, and particularly when the term is used to denigrate anyone who believes that Islam is a threat to Western values...even when Islamic scholars state boldly that Sharia Law is their goal over all Australians!

Those who wish to rule autonomously are masters at deflection; thus we observe that when a policy decision is questioned, the automatic response is not to answer the question, but a kind of "how dare they question my competency" reflex in the form of an ad hominem attack. Questions of bad welfare management are answered with; "liberals are against the poor", and questioning of open-door immigration policies generates cries of; "Liberals are racist". No attempt to argue the merits or failings of each case, just deflection and name calling.

Luvvies also tend to employ selective memory, for example; they currently blame John Howard for the boat people crisis, Tony Abbott for the foul ups of the Gillard government and in America they blame Bush for the GFC crisis.
It would be hilarious if these were not the people who are 'in charge'.

Masters of the Universe

Say what you like about Ann Coulter, she tells it like it is:

September 2011:  "From Tawana Brawley, Mumia and the Central Park rapists, to the Duke lacrosse players and Karl Rove, liberals are always on the wrong side of a criminal case. A few times could be a coincidence; every time is evidence of a psychological disorder."

As described in "Demonic," liberals defend the guilty and impugn the innocent not only because they side with barbarians, but because a fair and just system of law challenges their hegemony as judges of the universe.

June 2011: Liberals despise the rule of law because it interferes with their ability to rule by mob. They love to portray themselves as the weak taking on the powerful. But it is the least powerful who suffer the most once the rule of law is gone.  

Liberals' relentless attack on the judicial system is yet another example of their Jacobin lunacy in opposition to calm order. You will note that they never ask: Who did what in this case? All they want to know is which class of people are on trial. Social justice is the only justice that interests the Left because it's the only justice that can be delivered by the political agitation of a mob.

Could it be that the same 'spirit' that pervaded the French revolution, is alive and well and active in the lives and minds of  today's left leaning 'luvvies'? I must qualify this statement with a plea not to embrace the extreme 'right' side of politics either...both extremes lead to disaster and lives ruined instead of enhanced. 

A new social order.

Labor with the help of its 'deep green' cohort is busily de-constructing Australian society. A subtle anarchism is white-anting our foundations in favour of a bleak 'new vision': "WE will remake how we experience what it is to be Australian." (Gillard. June 17, 2011)

A fundamental foundation being targeted is the Judeo-Christian worldview which underpins the very structure of Australian Society: "The Reverend Fred Nile said the deletion [of BC & AD in favour of BP] was an 'absolute disgrace...the direction of the national curriculum is towards almost a Christian cleansing to remove from our history any references to the role Christianity had in the formation of Australia and still has today." (Sept. 1, 2011)

  

Why? To ostensibly make way for a more enlightened Utopia with fundamentals such as: Fraternity, Equality and Liberty!

Where have I heard that before? The truism that revolutions always end up in the same place is playing itself out. These new 'Jacobins' use different methods and words such as: reconciliation and multiculturalism, but they mean Fraternity. They seek 'Equalite' by redistribution through taxes and the demolition of 'cultural hierarchies'(truth) and their version of 'Freedom' borders on anarchy as the rule of law is diluted and trashed with every new 'judgement' by the elites ruling our courts.

How do they disseminate their radical agenda? Through the willing pens/keyboards of the many useful idiots of the fourth estate, plus the philosophical theoreticians safely ensconced in their ivory towers and the 'new class' elites of the public 'service'. These are the people who hate this culture. They parrot ad nauseum the lies which cast Australia as an irredeemably wicked culture committed to racism, intolerance, rampant consumerism and even genocide, never quite reconciling how their own so-called 'enlightened' policies are exacerbating (even causing)the very things they accuse ordinary Australians of.

And woe betide anyone who dares challenge their hypocrisy for to do so is not to be chastised for being merely wrong, but to those who dare question these directions the attack is vicious, unrelenting and dangerous. Consider Kathy Jackson's fate when she dared to question union corruption...even as a union head herself. Consider my previous blog re the cover up that is under way even now. Disagreement is viewed as immoral, in denial,a racist, homophobic, or horror of horrors; Islamaphobic! 

Regarding this final slur (excuse the pun) consider well the current climate of building anti-Semitism. The Jewish population of a country is often like a mine canary; that is, attitudes towards them are frequently the most effective and truthful state of a cultures 'invisible toxins'.

Beneath the veil?

This could be happening in Rwanda, South Africa or Zimbabwe surely not in Australia.
What is being squashed here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2011/09/what-are-they-hiding
Who is being protected...surely someone in power needs to get to the bottom of this!!!!
This speaks to the very heart of government in this nation!
Who is running this country and why are we floundering, which begs the question; is this mess deliberate?

Wolves in wolves clothing.

The parry, cut and slash of descriptive erudition by Theodore Dalrymple on youth culture today:

"The vulpine lope or swagger, the face that regards eye contact with a stranger as a challenge to be met, the adoption of fashions that are known to signify aggression and dangerousness, the grotesquely inflated self-esteem combined with a total incapacity for doing anything constructive: all could and should have sounded an alarm in our politicians."

Our 'queen' of hearts.

VETERAN political journalist Glenn Milne has been dumped from ABC TV’s The Insiders because of a column he wrote in News Ltd’s The Australian.

The column, retracted in full after furious demands from Julia Gillard, made claims about the Prime Minister’s one-time relationship with former unionist Bruce Wilson, the embezzlement of union funds and his eventual fraud conviction.

                                                              OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Art Souls!

I  have on occasion blogged about my appreciation of Matt Haydens blog: http://www.cultureofthearts.com/search/label/poets

I am going to quote from his latest blog here, but before I do that I would like to preface it with a warning to sensitive readers that a small degree of bad language ensues.
If you are easily offended then please do not read on.
 ..............................................................................................................................
The blog is about a recent Q&A session on the ABC, and may I begin by stating my recognition of Matt's admirable self-restraint in being able to sit through a whole program without pulling an 'Elvis' on the TV set.

The quote I reproduce is from the end of his blog and features the 'musings' (pun intended) of Poet Omar Musa. An opinion that like so many left-wing luvvies is so blatantly hypocritical that it reinforces my assumption that these people are either completely without understanding about the very notion of hypocrisy or are just unbelievably blinkered to it when issued from their own mouths, perhaps a sort of 'hysterical blindness'?:

I admire Musa's commitment to such noble principles. But strangely he calls Abbott a pugilistic shape shifting wing nut-knob head without trial.

Omar, you've forgotten his right to a presumption of innocence! That's a basic human right, remember. You can't deny him that, can you? As Tony Abbott might himself say, "I am not a pugilistic shape shifting wing nut-knob head. I am a human being!"

But nup. Omar thinks he's guilty as charged. And in a strange parallel with the Thomson affair, Abbott's perceived attitudes to prostitution inform this belief:

OMAR MUSA: Yeah, probably. I mean but, then again, this is a guy, it came out today, who said that he would be willing to sell his arse, you know, to get the support of the independents.

Omar was obviously trying to provoke conservatives here. But I fear he may have offended some of his fellow Greens voters as well. Surely it's a basic human right to sell your arse, isn't it? Clearly, it would be deeply homophobic and puritanical to say otherwise.

Intriguingly, he follows up with this:

OMAR MUSA: Yeah, but he'd even consider - I mean, that implies that he'd be willing to sell his soul as well.

Eh? He thinks people's souls are located in their arses.

Well, he certainly has a very creative mind. His poems must be wonderful.

If I may end with the observation that this rather imaginative passage reminds me of a description one could apply to so many 'intellectuals' and 'artists' I have met as well...arsesouls! 

When Red becomes Green.

This is the real issue facing us:

The global warming alarmists are not interested in our adaptation because they don’t want to let us voluntarily adapt. They want to change us, to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences, they want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. What is endangered is freedom; the climate is okay.

The whole issue of 'Global Warming' is one of control, of course it is control of the elite over the bourgeoisie and for 'their own good', we know this, because it has happened before and we, the 'bourgeoisie' have been called stupid, ignorant and naive long enough to recognise our 'betters' when we hear them...don't we? Consider one of the prime movers behind the whole debate (debacle?), Al Gore. What was it that he failed so spectacularly in before he became poster boy for AGW? Let us just thank someone on high that he didn't succeed in his lust for power because it is hard to imagine what he might have done with the (then) American superpower at his control.
More on the reality of the agenda:

The environmentalists have been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels—but for another reason. They naively warned against the exhaustion of natural resources, which proved to be total nonsense. They talked about the population bomb. They talked about imminent mass poverty and the inevitable starving of billions of people. The same people—shamelessly and unhumbly—talk about dangerous global warming now. They don’t care about resources, poverty or pollution—they hate us, the humans, they consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world—called communism—and I know that it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced. 

The Global Warming Doctrine is an ideology, if not a religion, which lives more or less independently of the science of climatology. Climate and temperature are used or more often misused in an ideological conflict about human society.

Furtherance of the argument, i.e. the old anti-capitalist Red masquerading in the new Green:

It seems that it is not any old consumption that upsets the Greens.  It is mass consumption.  The Green foodies don’t mind expensive organic free-range food, or hand-made cashmere sweaters, or costly Italian floor tiles.  They don’t rail against posh cheese shops or vintners.  The problem is not fine-art auction houses or Persian-rug sellers. The problem is mass production and consumption.  Greens John Cavanagh and Jerry Mander deplore the vulgar bargain hunter for whom, ‘everyday low prices are the ultimate human conquest.’  The Green group Earth First went so far as to organise a ‘puke in’ in a shopping mall.

It is not exclusive, expensive delicatessens, but rather the wicked low-cost supermarkets frequented by everyday folk which they find repellent.  It is a commonly heard complaint from Greens that things ‘aren’t expensive enough’.  The ‘rebels’ down from Eton for the anti-globalisation rallies threw bricks through windows – but not the windows of high-class restaurants.  Instead they smashed up and ransacked a working class MacDonalds when they marched down Piccadilly.  It is not the luxurious Heals furniture shop that makes them angry, but the proletarian IKEA, with its affordable sofas and lamps.

The mass production and distribution of food is deplorable to them.  In fact the mass production of goods, whatever they may be, renders those goods nasty and soulless.  The mass production of houses, the mass consumption of culture … everything to do with the masses, it seems, every form of economic activity that benefits the many-headed, is held to be vulgar and an offence against the natural order.

Bob n' Jules

                                                                        King & Queen

Re-education

Miranda Devine on the new 'educational' initiatives being proposed by the Gillard regime.

“The independent and Catholic schools have a lot to worry about,” says Victorian education consultant Kevin Donnelly, one of the few experts sounding alarm bells over the Gonski review.

He believes the long-term plan is to “integrate” independent schools into the government sector. The threat of withdrawing Commonwealth funding will be tied to demands non-government schools conform to certain expectations such as implementing the national curriculum, complete with any politically correct social engineering elements.

Education is a very powerful tool for manipulating the young and impressionable and has long been a primary goal of neo-Marxist theoreticians ala the 'long march' philosophy advocated by Gramsci so many years ago. A significant level of indoctrination already exists in the school system through the 'offical text books', something I was reminded of when attempting to argue a contrarian position against the  automatic acceptance of the theory of Anthropogenic global warming. The year 9 class were insistent that my opposition was incorrect because the text book said that AGW was true.
The more this Government has control over the educational agenda the further we slip into the re-educational modes exemplified by Pol pot and various marxist Oligarchy's.

UPDATE 5.9.11

Liberals - or leftists - of today can trace their lineage straight back to the radicalism of the late eighteenth century. All the tricks of the trade we find so characteristic of today’s radical left were present in this bloody revolution. The bloodshed, violence and demonic mob activity has been chronicled plenty of times before, but Coulter offers a nice summary.

Anything associated with the old order was targeted by the mobs, but anything having to do with the church was especially focused on. Priests, nuns and lay people were massacred in large numbers, while churches were destroyed and one sacrilege after another was carried out.

Some of the gruesome descriptions of what the mobs did to ordinary men, women and children are almost too hard to stomach. Rape, torture, mutilation, and hideous forms of killing were the norm. If one had to illustrate the actions of the demonic, surely this was it. It seemed there were not enough guillotines to keep up with all the carnage and slaughter.

And all the while the crowds were cheering this on. The Jacobin program of “de-Christianization” was especially ferocious and repellent. Indeed, “the word ‘vandalisme’ had to be invented to describe” their actions as they desecrated churches, looted Christian properties, and destroyed sacred art. The revolutionaries sought to “completely destroy Christianity and replace it with a religion of the state”.

Anything associated with Christianity was open to attack. Citizens were even forced to drop their Christian names. A new Revolutionary Calendar was established, with the months renamed, and even clocks were redesigned in decimal time.