The Pen is mightier than the sword, but the Pen must sometimes move the sword against corruption if the corrupt are not moved by the pen.. An idea without an implementer is useless. "The Rulers do not carry the sword in vain"Rom 13:4

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Anzac has hijacked our History?

So claims a not too well disguised socialist progressive in the form of one David Stephens in an Onlineopinion article.
The problem is... in his article he cites "Historian Henry Reynolds" which is enough to place the whole article in the garbage bin of irrelevance. Reynolds is one of those self loathing Australians (term used extremely generously) who the Evil Dr Colin Tatz claims is part of his 'evidence' for a Holocaust against Australian Aboriginals by British Colonialists.

Tatz of course want's to now expand the definition of "Genocide" such that a) The arrival and settling of Australia can be regarded as genocide, and b) British/white Australians can be made to PAY via high court actions which will be pursued by Tatz ethnic and 'progressive' mates in the legal industry.

Anzac is a bit bizzare in one way.. the inclusion (at least this year) of Turks in the ceremony/memorial service. We invaded their country for goodness sake! (and rightly so).
Well.. I guess it will all work out somehow.

The Great RMIT Software Debacle.

So proclaims the providers website for the software that RMIT purchased for the princely sum of


and...which they are now advised to SCRAP!

One wonders how a major educational institution can just tear up $47mil of our money and get away with it ???
The reasons for the trashing of our tax payer dollars was not, it seems in the quality of the software itself, but in the implementation. So..in order to get the benefits heralded in the promo above... (Oracle was the supplier of RMIT'S ERP software) you need a number of things working in your favour.. not the least being some well qualified hands on and on going management. Both of which RMIT appears to have neglected according to the ombudsman's report.

But what I don't get is why it has to be "scapped".. then there is the issue of what would replace it?
IF....it is to be scrapped because of inherrent problems in the software itself.. surely there would be comeback against Oracle/PeopleSoft? If it's the implementation side.. it raises the obvious question about "what's changed" on the implmentation side.. have they hired new qualified IT people? If they have.. why not apply those talents to the 47million system already there, just scrub all the data and re-set it all up..but this time using the correct procedures!  Surely that will cost less than anOTHER system which costs us all arms and legs?

But at the good ship RMIT there is definitely all smiles going round.. why? aah..because they have been INSTRUCTED to have a happy appearance.. this is supposed to be good for their image.

Recent reports of staff bullying at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology have been overtaken by the university flagging a new bizarre behaviour modification scheme called the ''Behavioural Capability Framework' (BCF).
The BCF wants staff to adopt more positive attitudes and concomitant behaviours and these will be assessed against a yearly work plan. (Malcolm King OnLineOpinion)

 "Smiles on the dials" for short I guess.  Tends to make the place more like the 'Truman Show' where everything was completely staged and artificial. Perhaps the producers of the Truman Show knew something we didn't ?

Anyway...nothing would surprise me about RMIT.. my own former centre of learning. One minute they are trashing 47 million tax payer dollars and the next they are trying to please the Muslims by making the Multi Faith spiritual centre an exclusive Mosque type thing and denying other faiths an equal opportunity to use it.

What has been will be again,
 what has been done will be done again;
 there is nothing new under the sun.  (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Are Norwegians Insane ?

I'm guessing there's only about 40,000 insane Norwegians.  That's how many came out to sing the 'Rainbow' song in mocking ner ner ism against the very sane but also very criminal Anders Breivik.  The song is mean't to celebrate multiculturalism and diversity.  The problem though is not in the ideas of multiculturalism or diversity per se.
The problem is 2 fold. 1/ How MC is interpreted and understood by minority cultures and perhaps more imporantly, how the courts with their liberal magistrates are likely to apply the Human Rights laws in that context,  and 2/ How these cultural minorities themselves see the idea of Multiculturalism!

For example.. if a cultural minority see's an opportunity to advance it's numbers and political influence, and uses that opportunity to the max, you could end up with the ludicrous situation where the former (disgraced) British Labor 'Justice' minister, a Muslim Shahid Malik who, when addressing a gathering of Muslims in UK... said this...

"Pretty soon ALL members of Parliament will be Muslim", but don't believe me, believe Malik himself...and see exactly what he said, and you might also consider that this is one reason for Breivik's state of mind..and also why the EDL exists.
He tries to weasel his way out of potential scandal by saying "In case any Journalists are here..this is not my aim"....and then he continues to show that it is at least his hope and aspiration, which amounts to the same.

Political Liberalism or.. "confusion reigns"

That all so elusive commodity... true tolerance and social harmony is the holy grail of many philosophers. Not the least of these philosophers is John Rawls.
It is said of him: English philosopher Johnathan Wolff argues that "while there might be a dispute about the second most important political philosopher of the 20th century, there could be no dispute about the most important: John Rawls. His student Samuel Freeman says that Rawls’s work will be recognized 'for centuries to come.'"

So, we now know where he fits on the peck order of modern philosophers.
But what was his contribution and how does it relate to true tolerance and social harmony?

It seems that he believes, in a nutshell, that people of diverse religious belief can just look at the overlap between their faiths and use this as a basis for all getting along. *UTOPIA* has will arrive!
What this means of course is that Rawls simply does not understand the idea of true faith and divine revelation. Most religous communities are founded on the idea that their 'holy book' is from the Almighty and is the final Word to mankind about how society and life should be arranged.

So..if we have one group where it's holy book contains very aggressive commands such as "fight those who do not believe (as we do).. until they are subjected" (Quran 9:29) then, in so doing... it  makes the ideas of tolerance and all getting along rather moot... they simply don't enter the equation.
Actually that's not entirely true. Tolerance and all getting along simply take on new meanings in such theocracies. The 'established' faith is to be tolerated and promoted, but foreign or alternative ideas cannot. The members of that faith community are to tolerate others of the same ilk but not those outside the 'fold' if those outsiders infringe on the accepted theocratic wisdom so to speak of the theocratic establishment. 
The idea that different faiths which all depend on the concept of a 'Final Word' from the Creator will suddenly all forget the content of that revalation and just 'get along' on every level of life;  dwells more comfortably in the minds of  terminally optimistic (though deluded) Liberal thinkers who, not sharing such a faith can in no wise enter into that mindset.
Because of this fundamental spiritual and intellectual barrier, it is virtually impossible for the secular liberal to understand why his or her ideas about tolerance have not, don't, and will never work with such a community.  The only recourse for the secular liberal towards the militant religious person is to regard those who take such commands as "fight the unbelievers until they are subjected" absolutely seriously as being 'fanatics...extremists' etc.  In reality, such people are simply living out the most basic of the human/ divine encounter (as they see it) ie..."obedience".

But because the secular liberal is unable to penetrate this mental world view due to his or her own, they are left with no recourse other than to call such a dedicated and devoted person ugly  names. The most common is 'bigot...intolerant..extremist' etc.

The important point here is to distinguish between the kernel of the various faiths, and differentiate between those which are inherrently aggressive and violent, and those which are not. For Christianity, the words of Christ must form the basis for any serious evaluation of whether a 'devout' Christian is likely to pursue a violent ambition towards non Christians in order to bring them into 'the fold'. Jesus parable about the lost sheep and his prohibition of Peter defending him with the sword, must inform any view about true Biblical Christianity.

12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish. (Matt 18)

It seems quite crazy that a religion would make violence and military dominance a criteria for converting the soul. All such an approach can ever do is enforce outward compliance, not inner faith.
For this reason, this blog urges the reader to closely examine the contextual and literal meanings of Christ's sayings. Christ does indeed refer to 'violence'... as any journalist would refer to it in passing as part of a story.  This is why context is so important.  A passage often cited to 'prove' Christianity is 'violent' is Matthew 10:34 and following.

 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Looking at this in full context it becomes clear that it is not the believer who is urged to be violent towards others, but it is a declaration that the price and cost of believing in Christ may well be that the believer's own family will become his or her enemies and could inflict physical violence on the believer.  That is the 'sword' to which Jesus refers.  There is not the slightest hint or suggestion that the believer him/her self should take up arms against their family.

But back to Rawls.  He does make a very important and creative contribution to the idea of establishing 'justice' and fairness in society. It's called the "Veil of Ignorance".  Essentially it goes like this. "IF....you could not determine what gender or skin color you would have in an imaginary world, would you make any law which could disadvantage you IF...you happened to be created as a member of a particular skin color or gender".....not bad !  Of course, Rawls liberal secular thinking limits his appreciation of how the 'devout' follower of a divinely revealed faith will react. For example, the Muslim is bound by the Quran and Hadith. If those documents declare that the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of 2 women... would you want to be a woman in such a society? I think not!

But there's the problem.. Rawls idea cannot get past such a difficult barrier. Only if the Muslim renounces his or her faith in the Quran could they then embrace a system of law or society as envisaged by Rawls.

In summary, Rawls ideas don't and cannot work no matter how much the secular liberal would wish it. When it comes to other non religious issues such as Multiculturalism etc.. the poor secular liberal is left wondering how to deal with people who disagree that this is a problematic thing.

Anders Breivik.    The dimensions of this philosophical problem are clearly revealed in the attempt by the secular liberal progressives in Norway to have Breivik declared "insane"... because this attempt is NOT because of what he did, but of how he thinks.  The thinking which they are aiming at is not  his violence and murder, but because of his views on Multiculturalism and Immigration.
If they are successful, it will criminalize 'thoughts' in a way that George Orwells evil main character "Big Brother" would be proud of.  That ruling would then become a precedent which will be then taken up by courts in other places..including Australia and used as a legal  blunt instrument against Conservative segments of the social order.

If the Norwegian progressives and socialists can succeed in having Breiviks' thoughts  on Multiculturalism and unfettered immigration criminalized, they will have achieved a victory of such grandiose proportions, that we should all begin to look behind us daily.  I hazard a guess that such demented and willfully ideological extremists would consider such a victory 'worth' the loss of life that brought it about. They will simply declare the dead and injured 'Martyrs' and move on as if they only matter for the struggle to impose a socialist ideology on Europe.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

McCarthyism or McCarthywasm? The Reds in our beds!

Joe McCarthy was a US senator who waged a war on communists in the USA. He attacked those who were in high position and in Hollywood.  He was on the US House on Unamerican Activities Committee.(HUAC)
Many people who had been or were a member of the Communist party were destroyed as a result of his work. (and rightly so in this blogs view).  This included a number of writers and screen identities from Hollywood.  There was something called the 'blacklist' which named individuals who fell into the situation being targeted by McCarthy and the HUAC.

Eventually, McCarthy's crusade started to annoy Liberal Republicans and ALL Democrats. One Liberal Republican, Senator Margaret Smith,  attacked McCarthy and made a speech called "Declaration of Conscience"...in which she outlined a number of things which she considered "Americanism"....

  • The right to criticize;
  • The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
  • The right to protest;
  • The right of independent thought.
While she has fair points, being liberal she also missed a rather huge one. Being a member of the Communist party could only mean one thing... you were dedicated to the destruction of the United States and it's incorporation into a World Socialist/Communist structure, led by the Soviet Union.
She also seems to have missed or ignored the clearly spelt out aims of Communism to eliminate the family and private property.
There is a heck of a difference between having 'thoughts' and holding 'unpopular beliefs'  being a member of an organation which is deliberately trying to destroy your whole society and freedom.

MURROW and McCarthy's downfall. 

A highly respected journalist during the war years was Edward R Murrow, he used his celebrity to attack McCarthy and aided in McCarthy's eventual disfavour in the Media and consequently the wider population. Interestingly... this 'respected' journalist had his own demise for this:

 Murrow's reporting brought him into repeated conflicts with CBS, especially its chairman Bill Paley, which Friendly summarized in his book Due to Circumstances Beyond our Control. See It Now ended entirely in the summer of 1958 after a clash in Paley's office. Murrow had complained to Paley he could not continue doing the show if the network repeatedly provided (without consulting Murrow) equal time to subjects who felt wronged by the program.
Fascinating isn't it.  This man was attacking McCarthy for going after 'reds in our beds'.... and not giving them a fair go... yet he himself lost his job over complaining about giving alternative viewpoints equal time on TV!... his complaint that these alternative viewpoints should NOT be given equal time!
Well... in this blog McCarthy is the hero and Murrow is the scoundrel and traitor, no matter how good his War reporting might have been.

CONCLUSION. This blog hereby declares Senator Joseph McCarthy to be a true patriot, a firmly true American, and a hero of freedom, something which would be lost if Communism ever did take control.

Yes...you have a human right to protest..but THAT'S not what we are here about! (Labor Councillor)

The English Defence League  is intending to have a lawful and peaceful protest march in Luton (UK) on May 5th. In an interview with the Labor council head  Hazel Simmons and EDL co leader Kev Carroll, Simmons agrees they (EDL) have a democratic and human right to protest in the town centre.

She then goes off on a Left wing tangent and tries to deny this with everything except the direct prohibition "No...you don't have a human right to protest".... she says (when pushed hard by the Radio Journalist) "This is not about them being able to march, this is about whether JOBS and businesses should be closed down during that time, it's about this and that and the other thing..yada yada yada.. "
EVerything BUT their human right to protest.

So..I say to all you poms over there, specially those in Luton, wake up! and get behind the EDL as it is probably one of the few voices which truly stands for  British values and freedoms. Specially freedom from IslamoFascism.

Just look at how hard it is to remove/extradite Islamofascist/terrorists from the UK to places like the USA.. what is used to keep them living the high life on benefits in the UK ???  aaah.. "Human Rights".

It's about time you poms got serious about your lives and tossed out these bums like Simmons. Look reallllly 'closely' at Simmons, and those she serves.. look at their economic interests.. look at what deals they get and jobs they are given by senior labor functionaries over time...  Look at their pay, their benefits..and then, perhaps you might catch a glimpse at why they are so paranoid about a group which seems to have honesty and integrity at their heart... the EDL.

Remember Robin Hood..and his band of merry proletarian heroes?

A Communist Plot?

Well..of course the title to this blog is misconstrued a tad. The real show was titled The Adventures of Robin Hood (and his band of merry men).....

Was this show in reality a 'communist plot' to brainwash a generation of television viewers?  Sounds outrageous doesn't it.. smacks of 'conspiracy theory madness' of course.... but.. wait,- there's more.

Here are the dots connected.

The Hollywood 10... a number  of communist hollywood screen writers and producers who were blacklisted by the American 'Council on Un-American Relations' (CUAR) and on which Joseph McCarthy played a lead role. Hence the now often derogatory term "McCarthyism".

Perhaps McCarthy and his CUAR had some valid points...  look at who turns up writing for Robin Hood.

Edward Dmytryk, another of these Hollywood Ten, later, in 1951 testified before the HUAC that Scott pressured him to put communist propaganda in his films. (wikipedia)

Who was this 'Scott'?  In short he was a hard nosed Communist who did as the quote above claims.
Scott seems to have eventually left prison, and then turns up writing for the Adventures of Robin Hood.
If he wanted Dymtryk to put communist propaganda into his films.. it is reasonable to infer that he himself DID put that kind of propadanda into the Robin Hood series. 

It's not had to see.. Robin is the one 'stealing from the rich' to 'feed the poor'... a classic Marxist theme.
The Rich are portrayed as extremely evil and domineering, and the poor are exaggerated in their downtrodden-ness. (I used to love the show).. oh how I hated those rich capitalist bastards (The Sherrif of Nottingham).. but they weren't called 'capitalists' then... it was left for the subconscious to absorb.
Now...having lived a lot more life, studied much about history and communism, I find I 'hate' as it were those morons like Scott who were messing with my own brain during my childhood. Not being a communist, Scott clearly failed, at least with me.

It's worth noting the name of the series producer Hannah Weinstein.... another Jew, left winger and among those who left America  after Joe McCarthy dealt with them. It's amazing how many times the words "Jew", "Left wing", and "Progressive" or "Communist" arise in the same context.

Weinstein hired American writers who had been blacklisted by the McCarthy Communist hearings (  Waldo Salt, Ring Lardner Jr, Ian McLellan Hunter  and others), using pseudonyms, and instituted elaborate security measures to ensure that the writers' true identities remained secret. (Wikipedia)

Considering we have my favorite enemy Dr Colin Tatz here in Australia and his clone Prof Andew Jakubowicz both (along with former Federal Court Judge Ron Merkel and others) all trying to (in my view) destroy Australian culture and identity, it's easy to relate to why these people above were blacklisted.  Perhaps we need another 'blacklist' for Un-Australian Activities?

If the Slipper fits....wear it.

Oh how sad and sorry Australian Politics has become. It's like a bad dream which suddenly went to a whole new level of 'down' and evil.

We had a High Court Judge who is homosexual (Micheal Kirby), we had a married  bisexual NSW surpeme court Judge who sought grubby sexual liasons in public toilets (David Yeldham), we have a senior lecturer in UNSW public health faculty who  is homosexual and who believes that 11 yr old boys can engage in 'informed consent' based gay sex. Now we have Peter Slipper, the speaker of the House of Representatives involved in a murky sleazy immoral scandal that the media are having a feeding frenzy on.