 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Finding common ground | |
In politics, it is
sometimes too easy to de-humanize your opponents and forget that they have real
feelings. And it seems that members of the Religion of Peace are a more
sensitive group than many of us realized. Yes, the same religion which brought you September-11, countless
suicide bombings, infibulation, and the murder of several hundred innocent
people in Madrid and London have a sensitive side. Many of them have been
squealing like stuck pigs over the publishing of 12 cartoons of the prophet
Mohammad in a Danish newspaper. It seems that publishing cartoons of Mohammad crosses "one of Islam's sacred
boundaries". While most people in The West don't have a
problem poking fun at a thug turned warlord pedophile who has been dead for
1500 years, it seems that in the Middle East, this is a
violation of their citadel of dignity. Warlord pedophiles are to revered, not
mocked, in the cradle of civilization. The Weak-end Australian has labeled this as the biggest clash of cultures
between Christianity and Islam since Salman Rushdie dared to publish his
'Satanic Verses'. Apparently the spate of suicide bombings and a gulf war,
didn't qualify as a clash of cultures - they were just misunderstandings.
And the War Against Terror? Nothing to do with Islam. It's just coincidence
that the enemy are all Muslims. Even Dubya talks of Islam as being one of the
'Great Religions'. Well, if popularity is the measure of Greatness, then it
stands to reason. Over a billion people call themselves Muslims. Usually incidents of Islamacist ranting can be dismissed by Leftist apologists as merely
the opinions of a few 'hardline Islamic leaders' (ie psychopaths), and to deny
that they represent any significant feeling in the Muslim community. But in
this case that's a bit harder, as evidenced by the fact that it has obvious
widespread support - Danish products have been voluntarily boycotted around the
Middle East, and Danish companies are having to lay off workers as a result.
One misguided psychopath can attack an embassy or blow himself up on a train,
but one person does not have the buying power to cause mass layoffs in another
country. There can be few surer indications that the teachings of Islam are not
compatible with notions of freedom of speech, personal choice or even freedom
of thought. Ultimately any argument can be silenced with 'I find that
deeply offensive and it violates my sacred boundaries'. Many Leftists
might entrust governments with making a
fair trade-off, but how many are willing to trust a Muslim cleric? Democracy, it is often
said, is the compromise between beliefs. Different people in democracies want
different things, and democracy works because it tends to find a solution
which, while it doesn't please everyone, at least everyone can live
with. However there are some things which cannot compromise. There is no
compromise between the beliefs that 'I have the right to rape you' and 'You do
not have the right to rape me'. The two are not just different opinions
worthy of equal consideration and compromise. They are just incompatible
beliefs. Any compromise 'well then you can rape me on Thursdays' is not a
compromise at all. It is a capitulation to evil. Likewise the belief that blasphemy laws can be imposed upon non-believers
cannot be reconciled with beliefs about personal freedom. They are just
incompatible. These Islamic teachings are just not compatible with Western
culture, and have no place in it. On the other hand it could be argued that the Muslim world is becoming more
Westernized. In modern Western culture, everyone wants to be a victim - the feminists, the
Aboriginal lobbyists, the multicultural groups,
and now of course, the Religion of Peace is claiming that status. Maybe the
followers of the Religion of Peace are more Westernized than we realize?
|
|
 |
| Advance Australian's fare | |
Another Australia day has come and gone, and the honors list contains the usual
gaggle of elitist tax leeches. Exactly what qualifies someone for the honors
list isn't really clear, but it seems to have something to do with justifying
bigger government. We have come to expect elite sports people to be on the list. The masses are
forced to give money to people to play zero-sum-games (sports) to further their
own individual achievements so the government can glorify collectivism. This is
just puzzling. But it gets worse. Surely honoring a former head of an officious price gouging
government monopoly (ie Telstra) stretches the envelope of good taste. But the most offensive honors must surely be the ones given to former
politicians. Tax thieves using taxes to give honors to former tax thieves
is something which every decent human surely finds totally repugnant. There is truly honor among thieves. Not that yours truly is against the idea of having an honors list on Australia
day. On the contrary - yours truly would like to nominate Norm from the 'Life
Be In It' campaign. For those too young to remember Norm, he was the lovable,
animated, beer-gutted, 'all round sportsman' created with tax money who graced
our TV screens for a brief time some 25 years ago. Our government tried to
control our lives and get us to spend more time outside, and less time watching
commercial television. Norm was truly a champion. He has fallen out of the limelight since then, but
for the past 30 years he has consistently done his own thing. Presumably his
kids are fully grown now and no longer interested in going out and flying
kites, but Norm has stuck to his guns (or at least his favorite lounge chair)
and remained defiant in the face of peer pressure, government incentives, and
tax-payer funded health warnings about everything from salt intake to domestic
violence. He choose his own course in the face of collectivist pressure. Norm may have been imaginary, but no more imaginary than the collectivist
common good created by continual government intervention and social
programming.
|
|
 |
| Spot the idiot | |
Some people do stupid things - really stupid things. And in the modern age,
the rest of us get to watch many of those stupid things from our lounge
rooms. The bizarre suicidal practices of running with the
bulls in Pamplona and the Muslim stoning of
the devil at the Hajj have been noted before on this column but, after
recent events, it seems appropriate to compare them. At Pamplona, young men stand around until bulls are released into the
streets and then run away. It has something to do with 'machismo' and
impressing the opposite sex. Generally the best way to impress the opposite sex
is by demonstrating that you are intelligent and brave. Except they are neither
intelligent nor brave. If they were intelligent they would run away
before the bulls are released, and if they were brave they
wouldn't run away at all. While this is not strictly a Christian ritual, in a
country with a 94% Catholic membership, most of them probably are. And in Mecca, some 362 people
were crushed in a stampede as Muslims gather around a black
rock (which symbolizes the devil, or George W Bush or something) and stone it,
while kaffir all over the
world get stoned in front of their televisions watching it. And giggling. Going to the Hajj is "a duty for every able-bodied Muslim at least once. a
lifetime." With over a billion Muslims in the world, that's gotta be two
million souls at the Hajj each year. That's a lot of people to get within
stoning distance of a black rock. But it's very important. Important enough to
crush a few of your fellow Muslims to get to. Allah works in mysterious ways.
Apparently killing Christians is not the only way to gates of Heaven. Killing a
few fellow Muslims works too, in the right circumstances. In both Mecca and Pamplona, people put themselves in a position where (if
history is any judge), they have a good chance of being severely injured or
killed. Competition between Muslims and Christians takes many forms - some of
them downright stupid. If there is a prize in this competition, it must be the Darwin Award. The Darwin Awards, for the uninitiated
"salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove
themselves from it in really stupid ways". There's no sincerer sacrifice
to the collective good of the gene pool than pruning yourself off the evolutionary tree. And what
better candidates for the prize than the bull runners and the Hajj stoners? Ironically, in this competition between idiot Muslims and idiot Christians,
the one with the last laugh is Charles Darwin.
|
|
 |
| Risk vs Justice | |
The best way to control a population is by fear - something that some of
the members of the Religion of Peace know all too well. In the wake of the
Cronulla riots, hundreds
of cars and properties [were] vandalized when carloads of men of Middle Eastern
appearance rampaged through the beach suburbs. However no charges have been laid over the incidents. Of course it's not the fault of our conscientious and equal handed police force,
oh no. It's because witnesses are too scared to testify in case of reprisal
attacks.
Senior police have admitted the reluctance of some witnesses has hampered
efforts to lay charges.
So police have offered protection to anyone fearful of reprisals. Shocking news
- the police are actually going to take on the ethnic gangs? That would be a first. The police have a decade of history to undo. For years, the police have
done nothing about the ethnic gang violence, the harassment and assaults. It
was easier to charge a middle class family man for a trivial traffic violation
than to actually prevent crime. It was a better revenue earner for the Labour
government too. And recently police threatened to arrest people simply for
waving an Australian flag. The police were very quick to charge any Anglos who were involved in
rioting. But somehow the ethnic gangs always seemed to slip away. And the
police have allowed the situation get the point where people won't even
testify. The police took sides in this war some time ago. And the residents of
Sydney well know what side it is. Attempting some damage control, the man leading the investigation,
Superintendent Dennis Bray, has said
"Don't be intimidated be these people they don't run this state and they don't
run our streets,"
Actually they do - thanks to the actions (and inactions) of the NSW police force.
|
|
 |
| Kerry Packer | |
The late Kerry Packer is credited with
saying:
"If a working class Englishman saw a bloke drive past in a Rolls-Royce, he'd
say to himself 'Come the social revolution and we'll take that away from you,
mate'. Whereas if his American counterpart saw a bloke drive past in a Cadillac
he'd say 'One day I'm going to own one of those'. To my way of thinking the
first attitude is wrong. The latter is right";
Whither Australia? [Hat tip to Tim Blair]
|
|
 |
| Finger trouble at the OIC | |
Just as real men hate hearing 'is it in?', they also hate having to say
'I was wrong'. It takes a big man to do this, but this blogger is big enough to
rise to the occasion and admit it. Previously this blogger claimed that London won the
2012 Olympics through a bidding war with the other candidates. It is
generally recognized that the government who pays the highest bribes to the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) wins the right to host the Olympics. But it seems that on this occasion the race did not go to the swift, nor
the fight to the strong. London was an accident! Everyone's ABC reports:
A senior Olympic official is claiming London only won the right to host the
2012 Olympics because an International Olympic Committee (IOC) member pressed
the wrong button and voted for the wrong country.
As much as it feels good to point out that the corruption of the IOC is
surpassed only the United Nations, it sometimes pays to take your own advice:
Never attribute to corruption that which can be attributed to pure incompetence.
|
|
 |
| Take the red pill, Neo! | |
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time to
give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians. And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools? For the uninitiated, intelligent
design is the notion that the human body is too complicated to be the
product of mere chance mutations, and therefore must have been designed by some
greater being. The word 'God' of course is never mentioned, but it doesn't take
a degree in logic to make this step. Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended from
monkeys, and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig leaf by
Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state. The intellectual
elites of course all support this decision, because they recognize
Intelligent Design for what it is - God
bothering masquerading as science. Any self respecting
rational human would
object to this being taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution. Wouldn't they? Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the problem?
And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children, what's the
problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at school then
.. well .. what's the problem? A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of school
to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3 'R's curriculum, some
would choose schools with a deep commitment to political correctness, WIMMIN!'s
Studies, creationism or stamp collecting. Et viva la difference. The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that
all children have to be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to
mere parents to decide what the schools should teach - only a powerful
all-knowing government
could make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government policy
than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their own decisions. It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin. But so many are so adamant that force should be
used to stop others making mistakes. The inspiration that lets them know how to
stop others making the wrong decisions about their lives - it must be truly
divine.
|
|
 |
| Violence begets violence | |
Communism is a funny phenomenon. One of the apparent benefits of applying
communist doctrine is that it keeps racial violence suppressed. It doesn't stop
racism, it just keeps it in the pressure-cooker, under control. Of course when
the communist government collapses (as they invariably do) the lid explodes off
the pressure cooker, and very bad things happen. Yugoslavia is the classic
example, but East Germany comes to mind too. But left wing ideologies
(like political
correctness) have a similar effect. With a few notable exceptions (like the
One Nation fiasco) The
Left have successfully drowned out the rumblings of concern about
immigration, affirmative action and multiculturalism by
screaming 'racist racist!' at everyone who questions the policies. Not to
mention their hidden agendas. Today the lid came off the pressure cooker, at least momentarily, and we got a
glimpse of the anger felt by many Australians. 5000 Australians converged on
Cronulla Beach to express support for two livesavers bashed by Middle Eastern
gangs last weekend, and insisting that the beach should be safe for everywhere.
A worthy sentiment. Unfortunately mobs started to descend on anyone of Middle Eastern appearance,
and then the bashings started. No sane person can believe that attacking innocent people because of their skin
color will prevent Middle Eastern gangs harassing people on beaches. This is
not self-defense. It is not preemptive self defense. It is simply initiation of
force. This kind of violence will just beget more violence. Against Middle
Easterners, against non-middle Easterners, and ultimately against everyone. This is a sad day, but maybe there is a positive side - at least it is out in
the open. No-one can claim Australia is free of racial problems, and no
intelligent person can claim that affirmative action or multiculturalism are
the solutions. But it may be time to make a serious reassessment of our immigration policy.
|
|
 |
| .. looks like a black's camp. | |
Over the last few decades there have been two main schools of thought about how
to deal with the Aborigines: mainstreaming and curation. The mainstreamers believe that Aborigines are pretty much the same as the
'good white folk' but are just deprived of the opportunity to be 'just like
us'. It stands to reason that anyone who didn't spend 40+ hours every week
working their way to an early grave so they could pass an aging Mac-mansion, a
second-hand 4WD and an outdated plasma TV to their surly ungrateful children
hadn't been given the opportunity to do so. The curationists, on the other hand, realize the folly of this way of
thinking. It stands to reason for them that all Aborigines are victims of a
dreadful violation (the invasion of the white men). The Aborigines clearly want
nothing more than to return to their idyllic life of banging rocks together, mutilating
each other's genitals, making up children's stories about 'the dreamtime'
and shivering under lousy pieces of fur before dying of the first infection or
injury around the age of 40. In fairness, the many enlightened Australians recognized the folly of both
these schools of thought, and believe that (in true cultural relativistic
style) that the truth lies somewhere in between: that the government had to buy
them Mac-mansions and 4WD and subsidize their mutilating
each other's genitals. Unfortunately many Aborigines learned that drinking
alcohol was more fun than genital mutilation, and that the dream time was
simply no substitute for a drunken stupor. And mainstream Australia has been
ringing its collectivist hands ever since. Just recently this has broken out into yet another slanging match between
Indigenous Affairs Minister Amanda (The Killer While) Vandstone and the entire
federal opposition. The Killer Whale said
supporting the 1,000 smaller homelands across Australia might make people feel
good but it is not viable to provide services such as water and sewerage.
and that she
also wants Aboriginal children in remote Australia to have the same
opportunities as other Australians to move to cities and join professions such
as medicine or law.
What an outrage! Chris (Snaggy) Evans replied
It's very insulting to Aboriginal people, it fails to recognise their
relationship with the land, it fails to recognise their independent abilities
to decide where they want to live, and it's a real slap in the face for any
recognition of their culture. I think it's pretty insulting.
And it gets worse. A new
report has recommended camping at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (pictured
above) in Canberra be banned!
Federal Territories Minister Jim Lloyd says the consultant's report calls for
an educational centre to be built on the site.
What a great idea! A 'mainstreamed', affirmative-action educated Aboriginal could lecture fellow
Australians on the merits of keeping his fellow Aboriginals curated. Surely a win for both sides.
|
|
 |
| Very Happy, John! | |
Of all the dreadful violations inflicted on populations by collectivism, few
can be more morally bankrupt than compulsory unionism. The idea that people of
a certain profession, employer, skin color, hat size or educational institution
should be forced to give money to other people who share that profession,
employer, skin color, hat size or education institution is quite bizarre. That notion died a lingering, rotten, stinky death today in the nation's
collectivist capital. What a blow for the parasitic Canberra mindset. Of course compulsory unionism hasn't been a total loss. Watching the mental
contortions that The Left has gone through to prolong the last bastion of
compulsory unionism - Compulsory Student Unionism (CSU) has been a bit of
giggle. The notion that students are poor, therefore they should be forced to
steal off each other to make themselves a bit richer has been a good
one. Likewise the notion that being forced to subsidize someone else's
lifestyle choices (be it sporting clubs, WIMMIN!'s groups, gay 'social' clubs
or the PLO) strengthens civil society. CSU looked like it might survive another election term after
Barnaby (Backdown) Joyce crossed the floor. Barnaby recognized
that he had no obligation to subsidize WIMMIN!'s groups, or the gay lobby, but
somehow still thought that WIMMIN! and gays had an obligation to subsidize his
football team. Funny man. Just this morning he was beating his chest and saying.
"If you are playing sport on fields next year just remember that it's the
National Party that protected them,"
Get real, Barnaby. The rednecks already vote for you. Exactly why the
Liberals have formed a coalition with the Nationals has always been a bit of a
mystery. A party which praises free markets and small government teamed up with
a party formed to maximize rural subsidies is a bit strange, but politics
always makes for strange bedfellows. And in the end it didn't matter because Johnny (master of perception)
Howard cut a secret deal with Family First senator Steve Fields. Johnny played
the Field, and Steve's vote was enough to pass the legislation on the final
parliamentary sitting day for the year. As of July next year, students will have the choice of whether to join a
student union or not. Barnaby must be feeling a little lonely right now. Trying to force The Left to
subsidize the university footy team hasn't made him any friends on that side of
politics, the Liberals hate him and most of Australia just thinks he is nong. And The Left are writhing about in agony. Your ABC reports
The president of the National Union of Students, Felix Eldridge, says VSU will
create "haves" and "have-nots".
Yep - those evil capitalists who still have their $240, and those
collectivists who have-not. And guess who's going to come out in
front? Of course if The Left are to be believed, Howard's 'extremist' policy
agenda has alienated the voters, and the ALP are guaranteed of regaining
government at the next election. So why are they so upset? Well for two reasons. Firstly Joe and Joanne Average either agree with
Howard's changes, or will forget about them about a month after they are
introduced. Just like the GST was going to cause economic collapse and
mass starvation, people will realize it was a storm in a teacup and move on. Secondly, even if the ALP wins the next election, it will be extremely
difficult to re-impose compulsory student union fees on so many people who will
tell them to get stuffed. Students traditionally vote ALP, and telling an
impoverished student 'support the ALP so you can be forced to pay an extra $240
per year' will do down like a Catholic schoolgirl. They will lose a lot of votes. Student Unionism is voluntary or not. It's a little hard to 'rollback'. And the ALP just lost a major recruiting ground.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
