Divide and Conquer

The two most important figures in Oz politics are not Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull, or even Tony Abbott, but an almost obscure Italian marxist, Antonio Gramsci  who died several decades ago; and that old, very long surviving character we variously call Lucifer/ Satan /Beelzebub: he who is the Prince of Lies. Gramsci was an acolyte of his. Indeed we have many such smaller and far more piddling acolytes too, in the labour party, the Greens and yea even in the Liberal mob that make up the Oz Parliament.

And they make mischief. If that was all they do we would have little to worry about, but they also cause chaos and dislocation, dissention and dissembling.  

Gramsci theorised that the 'working class' in the west would never revolt because things were already too good for them and would continue to get even better. He was an astute fellow.  So he proposed infiltrating the Institutions and rotting the west's Democracy from the inside. He was right there too, as we have been seeing.

Another destructive bastard was Saul Alinsky who proposed 'dividing' society into ever smaller and aggressive minorities that would be like a plague of fleas on the dog of Politics. 

It was he who spawned the political ideas and path of both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The Lord sent plagues upon Egypt

 and He has now set a plague of fleas on Oz.  

It is a start.

Alinsky, who is better known and felt in Amerika, created some new terms for use in this effort, including such gems as 'social justice', but better still for him and his ilk he proposed stealing well-understood words and twisting their meaning. He did very well there. 

 'Peace' fell fairly early on and now we are up to our necks in 'Diversity' and 'Tolerance'. 'Consensus' - meaning now that you agree with them; and 'Divisiveness', meaning you disagree with them. 
This latest term is an epithet.  They divide but YOU are divisive if you stick to older tried and tested and true meanings.

And the current mob of fleas biting the political dog is the 'Gay Marriage' infestation. By the Lord Harry there is a lot of divisiveness going down.  A tiny and hitherto 'tolerated' minority has within a few years come to dominate the 'discussion'. Jennifer Oriel had a few things to say in the Oz bar. A fine gal and a bit intellectual unless you have had a few pints. So let me fill your glasses. 

You are going to need a few bevvies to get through the dark goings on in the bars tonight.

‘Green-Left’ stifling democracy with threats, tantrums on plebiscite

In the gay marriage debate, the Labor Party and Greens want to silence public reason to impose their will on citizens.

They believe the state should rule the citizen, not the reverse. They regard the will of the people as a threat to their power. Thus, they seek to deny the Australian people the opportunity to engage in public reason on the question that forms the foundation of a healthy society: what is the meaning of marriage and family?

Now you might think that the meaning of Marriage and Family is fairly clear cut. They have been the foundational institutions of western society for a thousand years. Hense they are ripe for attack according to Gramsci. 

The proposed plebiscite is an opportunity for the Australian people to revitalise democracy by engaging in a process of public reason as we consider the meaning of marriage and family in the 21st century. It is a positive opportunity to learn from each other and challenge ourselves as we exercise reason, logic, free thought and speech to question the most fundamental social institution of society.

 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/greenleft-stifling-democracy-with-threats-tantrums-on-plebiscite/news-story/56bc52059127dd9f31e3d85c1b11fe06?nk=1dc4d9f3f2a05effc85fce79fb2efc8a-1474259170

Gay and bisexual people should not be held captive in the centre of the marriage debate because it does not begin with the question of homosexuality. It begins with defining marriage and family and the role of the state and church authority in relation to each.

A part of the reason that the marriage debate is so angry is that the Green-Left is hostile to the exercise of public reason. Like children who throw tantrums because they lack verbal fluency, Green-Left politicians must learn to use their words. It is possible that they do not know how to discuss the question of gay marriage because they are uneducated in the philosophy of marriage, family and society. An intelligent person would take that ignorance as an opportunity to learn.

Hmmmmm. Personally - and I remind you that I am but an 'Umble Tavern Keeper - I think they know very well what they mean and are well enough educated on the subject. The issue is that they want to destroy marriage and Family.  Get it?

But the Green-Left’s ignorance is equalled only by its arrogance. 

Its activists learn only to confirm their worldview.  

The 'Consensus'. 

In the classroom of the Green-Left, the citizen learns what to think, not how to think. The mind is stunted, vital questions wither on the branch, the world contracts, the citizen is hollowed out and over time, democracy begins to die. In the classroom of the Green-Left, the lights go out on enlightenment.

We renew our faith in enlightenment and human reason by affirming that democracy begins with the citizen, not the state. It is built by each generation anew on the foundations that preserve its perpetuity: the secular separation of state from church authority, universal law, political liberty, formal equality, freedom of speech and public reason.

The degradation of the foundations of democracy by the 21st century Left has no parallel in Western history. 

The hard Left attacks democracy using rhetorical and political tools born of a profoundly anti-democratic impulse. They seek to quash a free people’s vote on the meaning of marriage the plebiscite endorsed in the federal election by enforcing rule from above.

They replace public reason with emotionalism, objectivity with bigotry, freedom of speech with the mobbing of those who dissent from the Left party line.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson supports the plebiscite because he believes in free speech and democracy. Last week on Twitter, he was subjected to abhorrent abuse by Left activists who took their cue from Labor leader Bill Shorten and Greens leader Richard di Natale to accuse plebiscite advocates of hypothetically killing children. They smeared Wilson as a “disgrace to humanity” and a threat to gay youth.

But consider who poses the real threat — the politician who puts Australians’ right to free speech and democracy before his personal yearning for gay marriage, or Left activists who respond with tweets like: “F..k you hard”.

The violent bigotry of the anti-democratic Left emerged once more when gay marriage activists forced the censorship of a group hoping to discuss the proposed plebiscite in relation to Christian ideas about marriage. 

Not content with targeting gay politicians who dissent from the Left party line, activists allegedly threatened violence against hotel staff for agreeing to host the small Christian group meeting. 

As reported by David Crowe in The Weekend Australian, the Accor Hotels group was so concerned about the threatening calls by gay marriage activists that it cancelled the function. The silencing of Christians by Left activists represents a gross violation of the human rights to freedom of thought and speech, freedom of movement and assembly.

The Left was once a constructive force for public reason powered by free thought and speech, objective scholarly inquiry, logic and the art of rhetoric. But in the 21st century, the Left has become what it once fought; a stifling orthodoxy of irrational establishment conformists who dominate by means of oppression and rule from above without reason.

It is the embodiment of a negation. 

It negates freedom. It negates universal law. It negates the scientific method by replacing reason with subjective emotion and political correctness in scholarly inquiry, public debate and jurisprudence. It negates secularism by denying the separation of powers between state and church authority, seeking instead the expansion of state power over the church.

And in the most self-annihilating doctrine of the modern Left, its members have negated formal equality by erecting a regime of codified minority supremacy. 

Having dispensed with liberalism and formal equality, the Left is now turning on democracy. The marriage debate has exposed the fundamentally anti-democratic constitution of the Green-Left.

Public reason is the marrow of democracy. The process of political deliberation and debate infuse democracy with meaning by encouraging the free flow of ideas towards resolution in informed choice by the majority. The majority of Australians have chosen a plebiscite to resolve the question of marriage reform.

In ancient Greece, the birth of democracy by public reason was held in contrast to politics by divination. The idea that the citizen should create and re-create the state by actively engaging in public reason is the constitution of progressive democracy. Rule from above by appeal to divination — religious or ideological — marks the end of democracy as an enlightenment project.

The proposed marriage plebiscite is the idea of democracy made manifest. Let the people speak — and be heard.

The Gay agenda tries very hard (and largely successfully) to control the debate through manipulation, threat, disruption and violence.  Heck, one could almost be talking of the Greens and Left in general. The 'Plebicite' should it occur at all with be a Question put to the people. Who gets to write the question has the advantage.

Charlie had a few words to say on that.

A ROCKY ROAD AHEAD FOR GAY MARRIAGE

...because it will be all about the question

At the moment the question something like “Do you agree to the marriage Act being changed to allow same sex couples to be married?” 

 http://pickeringpost.com/story/-/6430

Sounds pretty reasonable eh? I mean who could possibly object to that? Unfortunately the gay Left intends changing far more than that. And if the “No” case is presented truthfully the plebiscite hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in hell.

Labor doesn’t dare be honest about what they intend just yet and it’s the very reason they don’t want a plebiscite... simply because they suspect it will not pass a people’s vote. 

What the Labor Party wants changed in the Marriage Act is this, and it’s not merely a “change” to the Act as the question implies, it’s the entire “destruction” of the Act:  

First to go is the mention of him, her, she, he, groom, bride, husband, and wife. Of course there can be no religious or theistic connotations such as, “...according to God's holy ordinance” and all that stuff.

In place of all the gender specific nomenclatures above will be the gender neutral title of “persons”, although most of the words, “love”, “cherish” etc are to stay, but the despised word, “obey” will be stricken from all ceremonies as being highly sexist.

The Labor fear that alternative lifestyles will be hurt by a national debate is unfounded as Australians are inherently fair and understand the dilemma, but the LGBT community must also respect traditional marriage and what it means to straight Australians.

Labor will claim a “yes” vote means yes to a gender neutral Act. And that’s where the fun starts. 

Using public funds the Greens, Wongs and Pliberseks will set out to mislead those intending to vote “yes”. 

They will lie in the best of the Left’s tradition and then claim that Australia agrees with trashing the Marriage Act.

But if the question put to the people was the truth, like, “Do you agree to the Marriage Act being trashed and replaced with neutral vows that only apply to gays, transgenders, dunno who I wanna bes and lesbians”, then of course the plebiscite “no” vote bolts in and gay marriage gets shelved for a couple more decades.

So the upshot is that the debate so far is a bloody joke and the LGBT activists are living under a misconceived rainbow that they themselves created.

But, one might ask, as someone in a dark corner of the bar did. just what agenda is the Gay Lobby following?  Well one Michael Smith, a chap who would not last long in the Tavern, provided us with an answer. 

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, …wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. …We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed…”

Michael Swift – Boston Gay Community News – February 15-21, 1987 (From the Traditional Values Coalition Special Report, Vol. 18., No. 10).

Get it now?  One may have to dig deep to see just what dark and dirty stuff occupies the minds of those who would call us 'divisive' and 'intolerant'. 

Clearly not everyone in the homosexual movement is an extremist. Many are solid, law-abiding citizens who make important daily contributions to our society and do not believe in confrontation or hard-line rhetoric.

http://www.smashculturalmarxism.com/the-real-homosexual-agenda/

http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_agenda.html

However, many militant homosexuals and their supporters have different beliefs. They have adopted the following tactics with the goal of forcing their beliefs on society:

• eliminating free speech by harassing and attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with them;

• preying on children by indoctrinating and recruiting them into their lifestyle;

• imposing their beliefs on others through activist judges and lawmakers requiring that everyone actively promote homosexuality in every institution (schools, workplace, churches, etc.);

• destroying marriage and undermining the traditional family in order to annihilate any moral standard of behavior;

• intolerance toward anyone who does not willingly submit to their agenda;

• fighting for a discriminatory and unconstitutional double standard of justice by demanding that crimes against homosexuals be punished more severely than the same crimes against heterosexuals through ‘hate crimes’ legislation; and

• deceptively portraying homosexuality as a harmless and victimless behavior.

The homosexual agenda is based on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them and is a well-coordinated, well-financed, wide-ranging, intensive effort to infiltrate and influence organisations and society at large in order to spread misinformation with the goal of recruiting children.

Children are the prize to the winners of the cultural war. 

Those who control what young people are taught and what they experience will determine the future course for our nation. The predominant value system of an entire culture can be overhauled by those with unlimited access to children. 

Homosexual activists understand very clearly how important children are to their cause.

“Tolerance” is the buzzword and central theme for the homosexual movement. However, few people understand what they really mean by “tolerance” and how they have twisted its meaning to support their agenda. As a result, most do not recognise the threat it poses to us, our children and our freedoms.

“Tolerance” means simply to recognise and respect other’s beliefs and practices without necessarily agreeing or sympathising with them. However, when many homosexuals use “tolerance,” they mean going far beyond respecting their rights; they also demand approval, praise and endorsement of their beliefs, values and lifestyle. What other group in this country could demand that? Their attitude and demands are neither fair, right nor constitutional.

Our children are being bombarded in school with the homosexual version of “tolerance.” 

In other words, all beliefs are equal, all values are equal, all lifestyles are equal and all truth is equal. 

This is the basis upon which our children are being indoctrinated by the propaganda that their beliefs and values which they learned in their home are no different from those of a homosexual, or a pornographer, or someone involved in adultery or fornication, etc. Children are being taught that all truth is relative to the individual. 

Knowing right from wrong doesn’t matter. 

To say something is right or wrong is not being tolerant. 

This is today’s “tolerance” pushed by homosexual activists.

It is clear that the distorted definition of “tolerance” has many dangerous implications, and unless society stands up for what is right, we will increasingly find ourselves with fewer and fewer freedoms. 

First, if our young people are confused about truth and believe the definition of “tolerance” they are being subjected to, they will not be able to determine right from wrong. 

In fact, in a national study among youth, it was discovered that children who do not accept an objective standard of truth become: 36% more likely to lie to you as a parent, 48% more likely to cheat on an exam, 2 times more likely to physically hurt someone, 2 times more likely to watch a pornographic film, 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs and 6 times more likely to attempt suicide. 

It is clear that how our youth think about truth has a definite effect on their behavior and the choices they make.

Second, our freedom of speech is being taken away little by little every day. We see that happening throughout society. If anyone exercises their Constitutional right of free speech and disagrees with the homosexual agenda, they are met with intolerant hatred, shouted down and called names. Homosexuals attempt to justify their actions by claiming any view different than theirs is ‘intolerant’ (using their definition) and should therefore be repressed.

Third, with the twisted version of “tolerance” comes a double standard. A few years ago, an “art” show displayed a crucifix, a Christian symbol, suspended in a jar of urine. While it enraged people of faith, it was supported by the homosexual community and others as “art.” However, why is it that displaying a homosexual symbol in a jar of urine would be considered a hate crime? Using the same criteria they use on others, then a crucifix in a jar of urine would also be intolerant and a hate crime.

The danger and hypocrisy of this distorted version of “tolerance” are clear. 

What they call “tolerance” is really persecution of anyone who disagrees with them. 

Our society is based on the free exchange of ideas and if any group is successful at taking that away and silencing the opposition, then we are all less free. What they are doing to others is exactly what they claim others are doing to them! 

Phew. See what I meant above? I was pulling pints like a flood all evening.

Take note. Drink up.

Pax.