Home Blog Page 546

Trump hurts somebody’s feelings: Progressive media convinced this is the end

Donald Trump pointing offensively.
Donald Trump pointing offensively.

The other day at an event somewhere in America, somebody attempted to use their status as a designated “oppressed minority” to accuse Donald Trump of not being nice. As expected, Donald Trump refused to virtue signal his way out of the trap, and instead told his questioner why he thought they were wrong, and then went on the attack in questioning their motives and calling out their hypocrisy.

The “oppressed minority” person, who had failed to defeat Donald Trump one-on-one in a verbal stoush, was later interviewed by progressive media. In multiple interviews, he claimed that Donald Trump had hurt his feelings by refusing to accept that he is not nice.

Throughout the evening, progressive media analysed just how badly Donald Trump had hurt the feelings of the person from an oppressed minority by refusing to accept that he is not nice. They also engaged experts to place this latest example of Donald Trump’s hurting of somebody’s feelings in the context of a pattern of behaviour, whereby Donald Trump regularly hurts somebody’s feelings.

By the start of the next day, progressive media had concluded that this latest example of Donald Trump’s hurting of someone’s feelings would finally make all the stupid people who like him realise that he is not a nice person. They even explored the possibility that many of the stupid people who like Donald Trump are, in fact, evil.  However, by the end of the next day, progressive media was confounded that even more stupid, evil people like Donald Trump.

They were further confounded by the apparent reason for Donald Trump’s increased support: apparently, most people think that progressive media is stupid and evil, and they no longer believe or care about what it says.

In response, progressive media has concluded that the progressive media is failing to make a convincing enough case to the stupid, evil supporters of Donald Trump that he is not nice. Inside sources suggest that progressive media has found a new way to prove, once and for all, that Donald Trump is not nice, and they are convinced that this time, all the stupid, evil people who like him will come around.

It’s your XYZ.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Refusing to Kneel to Islamism

On Tuesday 26 July 2016, two jihadis entered the parish church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in Normady, France.

A small congregation had gathered for the morning Mass which was being celebrated by Fr Jacques Hamel, the parish’s 85 year old auxiliary priest. The jihadis, armed with knives, a handgun and a faSource: FRANCE 24 English (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHmrRH7bKpM)ke bomb, took Fr Hamel, two nuns and two other members of the congregation hostage. The Islamist attackers then attempted to make the elderly priest to kneel down, but he refused. At this point, the jihadis forced Fr Hamel to the ground and slit his throat, screaming “Allahu akbar” as the old priest died.

Fr Hamel has been acclaimed by many as a Christian martyr, killed for refusing to kneel and submit before his Islamist terrorisers.

Unlike the elderly French priest, many in the West have already submitted to Islamism, whether it be out of fear, ignorance or cowardice. Despite the ever increasing prevalence of Islamic terrorism, many continue to dismiss or excuse the actions of Muslims, and refuse to acknowledge the violent, oppressive and expansionist teachings of Islam’s founder, Mohammed, and the reality of Islamic political ideology.

For non-Muslims who live under Islamic rule, there are usually just two choices, and sometimes a third. They are:

  1. Convert
  2. Be killed
  3. Submit to the rule of Islam as a third-class “dhimmi”.

Fr Jacques Hamel refused to kneel and submit to Islam, and it cost him his life. But the alternatives are worse, as the history of Islam and Islamic nations testify.

The West is now at a crossroad. Will we as a civilisation refuse to kneel, as Fr Hamel did, or will we submit to Islam and its sharia? The decision is ours to make.

 

Conformist Culture of Contemporary Higher Learning

There was once a time when university education sought to push the boundaries of knowledge and learning, and to expand the mind.

Even as recently as the 1960s, students took to task the received wisdom of their time, and rebelled, challenging those who held power and authority. Those very same students who pushed the boundaries at universities in the 1960s are now in charge of our institutions of higher education. Yet, intriguingly, our universities are no longer places where the received orthodoxy is challenged. Rather, they have become places where conformity is enforced.

Nick Cater, in his 2013 book, The Lucky Culture and the Rise of the Australian Ruling Class, states that:

“From the early 1970’s, as graduates began occupying positions of influence in the US, a paradox began to emerge: the journey of higher learning was intended to broaden horizons, yet the emerging intelligentsia had a narrower, more homogeneous outlook than their predecessors.”

This culture of conformity through higher education has continued to gather pace, and is reflected in the remarkably homogeneous views of those in West’s educated class. From issues spanning gender and sexuality, climate change and multiculturalism, there is little tolerance for deviation from now established, yet remarkably arbitrary, norms.

As Cater continues, the endorsed views from higher learning and our educated class are generally held and championed with an evangelical fervour. Apostasy will not be tolerated, and heretics are denounced as “bigots”, “racists”, “haters” and “deniers”, or diagnosed as having some kind of intellectual or moral impairment, or phobia.

Universities in the West are now invariably policed by student bodies, perpetually on the look out to quash and punish ‘crimes’ of thought or speech. While leftist revolutionaries and radical Islamists are welcomed with wide open arms on campus, conservative commentators are picketed by protesters, or blocked from appearing and speaking at all. At the modern Western university, Witch hunts, character assassinations, and flag burnings are par for the course.

Even leftist and so-called ‘progressive’ heroes of bygone eras are not welcome on campus if they even slightly deviate from the orthodoxy of the cult of higher learning. Germaine Greer is one person who comes to mind. Her crime? Stating that men who think they are women are still actually men.

Teachers are finding it ever more difficult to impart learning and engender free thinking in a culture in which suppression is rife, with its ‘trigger warnings’, ‘micro-aggressions’, and ‘safe spaces’ where the light of reason cannot illuminate.

Our culture and institutions of higher learning are in desperate need of reform – perhaps now more than any other time in history. Nothing short of a Copernican Revolution is required to revive universities as the places of open debate and free enquiry that they ought to be.

Photo by Mark Morgan Trinidad B

Using the Term “Aware” Instead of “Phobia” – Thought of the Day

Today’s XYZ ‘Thought of the Day’ has come to us from one of our viewers:

We all know that a “phobia” is defined as an irrational fear.2687076629_69fdc45861_fear

How about we encourage the use of the term “aware” instead of “phobia” when there are reasonable bases for the fear. E.g. Sonya Kruger may, perhaps, be considered “Islama-ware” rather than an “Islamophobe.”

What do you think?

XYZ Thought of the Day

 

 

Photo by binababy123

Sacrebleu! French media takes denialism to new levels

By Chips O’Toole

Who needs media censorship with a media so willing to censor itself?

7954976648_f60a208442_French-newspaperIn the wake of the latest wave of Islamic terrorism – which, beginning with the massacre in Nice that killed 84 people, has seen seven attacks carried out across France and Germany in the space of a fortnight – several prominent French media outlets have made the extraordinary decision to no longer publish the names or photographs of those responsible.
The near uniform justification given by the likes of Le Monde, BFM-TV and Europe 1 radio has been the ostensibly noble motive of avoiding bestowing “posthumous glorification” on those responsible.

But viewed in the broader context of the dominant media trend of denialism, which has seen former Republican congressman David Stockman dismiss the actions of Nice terrorist Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel as the “demented suicide of a mentally impaired wretch” and “not a planned jihadi terrorist attack” (despite all evidence to the contrary) and the BBC laughably attempt to spin the facts of the Ansbach suicide bombing under the title “Syrian migrant dies in blast”, it’s hard to view this self-imposed blackout as anything other than what it truly is: perhaps the most blatant attempt yet by the media to disguise the abundantly clear link between Islam and the ever-growing terrorism threat in Europe.

After all, we’re always reminded in the immediate aftermath of these incidents not to point fingers until all the facts are revealed. What better way, then, to prevent the drawing of any unpleasant conclusions, however accurate they may be, by suppressing the facts altogether?

That one of the publications to fall victim to this collective fit of self-righteousness is Catholic newspaper La Croix, beggars belief in light of the latest of these Islamist attacks, the brutal slaughter of an 86-year-old priest in front of his Normandy congregation, which must surely be viewed as a direct assault on the Catholic faith and its values.

It’s a combination of counter-intuitiveness and complete apathy towards self-preservation bested only by John P Sundholm, who inexplicably managed to use the Pulse nightclub shooting as a platform for launching a tirade against both homophobia and anti-Islamic sentiment while completely overlooking the direct link between Islam and hatred of gays.

These people need saving from themselves almost as much as they need saving from Islamic extremists. In the meantime, this latest spin tactic seems far more likely to fuel the public’s growing distrust of the media elite than to temper any concerns over the impact of Islam on the West.

Chips O’Toole: Australia’s favourite son and a real dirty, rotten scoundrel.

Photo by x1klima

Educating the Next Generation is More Than Just Teachers

By Ayrton Rand

e831b20f28f2003ecd0b470de7444e90fe76e6d310b6184890f1c3_640_school-sportsPresently, you cannot seem to avoid the many news articles broadcasting the apparent creep of political correctness into our schools. You could be forgiven for feeling like all of the schools in Australia seem to be doing anything but teaching the basics, the “three Rs”, and Science, Politics, History etc, and doing everything to teach our newest generation about gender studies or whatever else is the latest social theory fad. At the bottom of every online news article into this subject you can quickly find many voices decrying the deterioration of the quality of education in our schools and the decreasing competitiveness and metrics of our education system when compared to other nations.

Why is this happening? I theorise that it is being caused by several factors:

Firstly, we seem to be more interested in making our teachers quasi-parents by expecting them to do the hard elements of parenting, i.e discipline, gender education, social conventions, answering those pesky, “but why?” questions while driving the car home after a long day…

Teachers are exactly that: they teach your children and educate your children about subjects they need to continue in the education system and eventually be employable in the workforce. Parents cannot continue to absolve themselves of more responsibility by continuing to ask more of the Public Education system and the teachers and administrators that work within it. Your responsibility by bringing a child into the world is to raise it – it is no-one else’s responsibility or job to do that for you. But if you want to pay for your own children to be taught by a school of your choice, that is a question for the Private education system. If you have an issue with what is being taught, exercise your democratic right to change the system, or vote with the power of the dollar and move schools.

Secondly, our curriculum is a battleground of political thought. There are significant amounts of stakeholders involved in the development of the Australian curriculum, and all of these people want different things. Powerful teachers Unions and the Left will seek to manoeuvre the curriculum toward their own ends, the Right generally to the opposite. But all of this is detracting from the primary audience: the next generation of Australians. We need to be empowering them for the future, whilst providing them with the opportunity to think independently and scrutinise what they are being told.

The Teachers Unions are protecting their people and their jobs. Teachers need the Unions because they are not well paid, they work very long hours (in the case of classroom teachers) and they are vulnerable to parents taking them to task for being negligent for the rising amount of reasons directly linked to increasing imposition of parenting responsibilities on teachers. Teachers want a safety net because they are often not interested in fighting battles with parents in courts of law; they do not have the resources to do it themselves.

Teachers are also losing the ability to discipline children due to a reversal of trust within the teacher-student-parent dynamic; what was once a parent trusting the teacher and blaming their child for their results has polarised to a situation where parents are now blaming teachers almost exclusively for their children’s results. This phenomenon is stripping teachers of authority and their precious mandate from parents to teach their children with their trust and support.

Thirdly, our budgets and funding are also intertwined with politics. The Gonski Review called for redistribution of funding to schools with disadvantaged students and lower results over others in a better position with higher performing students and better facilities. While the public system does exist for everyone who wants to use it, it doesn’t seem like throwing money at the problem of poor results and disadvantage is the proverbial silver bullet. In a move typical of the left of politics, the unions and Labor got behind Gonski, hoping to glut themselves on more money to create more bureaucracy, more inefficiency and more waste, for the sake of trying to help some kids whose circumstances are nobody’s faults except their parents. You can’t protect everyone. You also can’t fund responsible parenting.

I will agree with the notion that it is somewhat optimistic at best to think that education of the young will never be a target for politicians and academics pursuing their own version of utopia. But one of the things that we must preserve is freedom of thought and freedom of speech. That starts at school through things like debating, political education and philosophy. Not through gender theory and censorship of controversial ideals. It has to be well rounded. It must educate on the past from many perspectives. We must preserve the ability for people to hear things that resonate with them and things that do not, they challenge and anger them. Why?

Because if we don’t, we are allowing our future generations to be sheltered from a world that, when it comes to the crux of it, doesn’t care about our feelings. We have existed in a society that has sheltered us for so long from the horrors of bloody conflict and injustice. We do not know the cost of war. Many of us do not know what it’s like to live in a time of true economic hardship like previous generations. We have allowed ourselves to become so comfortable that any notion of sacrifice is dispelled and borderline punished for venturing such a preposterous suggestion. It is time for us to do the lifting in Australian society, and that started when we joined the workforce en masse. It continues when we become parents, because we inherit more responsibility for the country. Don’t let the lucky country go to waste – let’s make it great and lead the way.

The next big thing: French Presidential Election

When we consider the big events of the last year, the year of Western Revolt, three movements spring immediately to mind: Brexit, Trump, and the rise of minor parties on the Australian right.

What all three have in common is: concern over the lack of control of immigration; concern over the growing influence of Islam in the West, and the threat it poses to our security and way of life; and opposition to left-wing political correctness which stifles our ability to deal with these challenges effectively. The ongoing ramifications of the political decisions made by the electorates of Great Britain and Australia will be exciting to watch, and the potential of a Donald Trump Presidency at the start of next year, positively scintillating.

13765930124_d3aa7e6d24_Marine-Le-PenA fourth equally as important event is coming up early next year, and not a moment too soon: the French Presidential election.

The following cannot be said any clearer, and cannot be considered for a moment to be hyperbole: Europe, and particularly France, stands on the brink of civil war. A guerrilla army now resides in Europe. If you have the time, this extensive article in Gates of Vienna from November last year expands on exactly this reality. Attacks by this guerrilla army are surprisingly predictable. Anywhere there are crowds of Europeans living their lives freely, any time the people of Europe celebrate important events that epitomise who they are, any place that is a symbol of European freedom, culture religion and identity, is a target.

Each Islamic attacker (and they are always Islamic) shows in hindsight to have left a trail of clues as to their mindset and their intent, whether on social media, through personal interactions, or actual criminal records. Entire communities exist in Europe which harbour, sympathise with and produce the soldiers for this guerrilla army.

Governments across the West are constantly increasing surveillance, increasing dialogue with the Islamic community, and spending more money on counter-terrorism. However, incidents of Islamic terrorism are only increasing.

In France, where all of these issues are at their most intense, there is only one political party which has a chance of defeating Islamic terrorism: The National Front, led by Marine Le Pen. The reason the National Front is the only French political party with a chance of defeating Islamic terrorism is because it is the only party which treats the issue of Islamic terrorism as Islamic terrorism. It is the only party that is prepared to openly and explicitly draw the link between the ideology of Islam and the terrorism it inspires.

Should Marine Le Pen win the Presidency, her task will be monumental. There will be incredible opposition from the French and European political and cultural elites, media, academia, and unions. There will be widespread and organised resistance from French citizens on the the left, in concert with the Islamic community. And Islamic terrorism would most likely spike.

But the election of the National Front in France, whatever one may think of them, will lead to a renaissance of European identity; we are witnessing the reemergence, the mainstreaming of the idea that Europeans have an identity, based not on loose weasel words such as “tolerance” or “openness,” but on their identity as Europeans. Furthermore, the election of Marine Le Pen may build momentum for a Frexit, which would help reinforce the victory won by Great Britain in winning back its independence from Europe, and all but doom the anti-European European Union.  And a government in the heart of Europe determined to deal head-on with the root cause of Islamic terrorism – Islamic Terrorism – allied with an independent Great Britain and a Trump-led USA, may have a hope of defeating terrorism in the West.

The fact that an opinion poll last month suggested that Le Pen is now favoured above both Hollande and Sarkozy in the race for President is very positive.  Next year’s French Presidential election will be yet another key moment in what is turning out to be a pivotal epoch in which we are living.  The future of France and of Europe depends on it.

In short, watch this space.

 

Photo by theglobalpanorama

Fair Suck of the Shawarma! The Real Concern with Halal Certification

By Eh?Nonymous

If you ever find yourself being lectured by a regressive leftist on the subject of Halal certification or your concerns about it, it’s easy enough to explain things concisely to them, provided that they’ll actually listen.

Firstly, there’s no real need to get into the semantics of Halal slaughter. Is it more or less humane than a run of the mill abattoir? I wouldn’t know… both are far less humane than hunting, but the regressive left will never admit that because the mere thought of a guy sneaking around the bush in camouflage with a compound bow after a feral goat is always going to make their collective minds explode, regardless of how much more humane or environmentally friendly this kind of sustainably sourced meat is than anything commercially available. So don’t even bother trying to get into that discussion with them. They’ll never see reason, and it’s irrelevant as to why Halal certification is so insidious.

The concern about Halal certification for the vast majority of us has absolutely nothing to do with how the food is prepared, or the ingredients, or any real or perceived change to its flavour profile. These things are of no consequence in regard to why we need to be wary of the practice. An eccentric minority may disagree and think that Vegemite tastes different now (it doesn’t, and I love the stuff), and all that this minority has achieved is providing the ABC and other regressive left news sources with a straw man excuse to completely ignore the real concerns about this topic.

14639237482_853a570919_Lamb-koftaSo no problem with how the food is prepared, how it tastes, or the ingredients. I love Hummus, I love Lamb Kofta, I love Falafel. They’ve been making these delicious dishes the same way for thousands of years. And strangely, they got by just fine without the red tape of Halal certification for all those thousands of years. Funny that…

Now, I’m sure that at least some of you are outraged by the fact that the Catholic Church and other denominations enjoy tax-free status. They don’t pay a cent. We do subsidise religious schools with our tax money, but education is education. That’s a whole different issue. We’re paying money so that kids can learn to be functioning members of society. Personally, I’m not against funding any kind of religious school provided that everything is above board, and the money is only going toward things like reading, writing, and arithmetic.

All of the religious aspects should be paid for willingly by parents who believe this to be an important part of how their kids are raised. This is how it should be. Same goes for private secular schools. If you can afford to send your kid there, great. More power to you. It’s fine for the taxpayer to foot the bill for the same services you’d find at Minto High. You pay taxes just like they do. But if you expect taxes contributed by parents of a Minto High student to subsidise an Olympic sized pool at Kings College, then you’re dreaming.

Imagine for just a moment if Christians demanded that a representative of their faith said a prayer to St. Christopher (patron saint of travel) over every new vehicle, boat, train, or aeroplane manufactured or imported into Australia for a fee that is undisclosed except to the person paying it. This fee would then be quietly and secretly appropriated by those sneaky “Bible Bashers” to be used in any manner they see fit without any transparency or checks and balances whatsoever.

This fee, of course, wouldn’t come cheap, because the Reverend has to travel from his home, paperwork needs to be processed, data entered, and a little sticker needs to be printed and sent out to go beside the compliance plate. A cute little logo of St. Christopher brought to you by the people who came up with the Australian Made logo. It’s all very esoteric and it’s hard to pin down how much all of this certification process actually costs to implement. It’s perfect.

Who is going to ask a Catholic priest why it costs $10 grand for a new light rail train to go through the St. Christopher certification? Nobody. To do so would be very rude and sacrilegious. It just isn’t done, so the person in charge of accounts quietly pays and it’s all profit for the Church.

I’m sure that a St. Christopher certification would be wonderful for Christians. What could be more comforting than knowing that your boat was endorsed not only by a very holy representative that you respect, but by the guy that carried Christ on his shoulders across a swollen river?

But at the end of the day, it would amount to the equivalent of a cut-and-dried goods tax imposed on people of all faiths, and those with no faith, by a religion. It would represent a massive (and very concerning) leap from tax-free status to a whole new troubling level… tax collection.

The only difference between this and any government tax or levy, as defined in Webster’s dictionary, is that a religion would be collecting the money instead of the government. Instead of it going into the public coffers, it goes into the ether of a parish with no questions asked about where it all ends up.

I’m sure a lot of you would find the idea of paying what in any language amounts to a compulsory goods tax to a faith that you do not adhere to, and perhaps don’t even condone, to be obscene and outrageous. I’m sure a lot of you would go even further, finding the whole concept nothing short of bats— crazy.

And you wouldn’t be the only ones. No doubt we’d have Slimy Sam Dastyari (he of the “I’m only Muslim on Mondays for Tony Jones… Tuesday to Sunday I think Islam is problematic, but I won’t be admitting that to the Q&A audience’ crowd,”) complaining that, “It’s disgraceful that I have to pay a levy on my ticket every time I fly to Canberra because a Priest prayed to St. Christopher over the 787 I’m on when it rolled out of a factory in Seattle, and neither the church or Boeing are being forthcoming with this unspecified amount.”

He’d probably even demand a royal commission into this organisation that is blurring the lines between religion and politics, and even more insidiously blurring the lines between themselves and the ATO.

It sounds like a crazy concept of course, and obviously I’m exaggerating with this hypothetical scenario just a little. But despite what the ABC’s Fact Check might try to tell you in their mealy-mouthed dancing around the subject on their web page, you are currently, for all intents and purposes, paying a similarly conceived goods tax levied by a religion, despite the fact that it claims that it isn’t also a political ideology. Which one will it be then? Is Islam a religion or a tax-collecting bureaucracy? It’s that simple.

ABC’s Fact Check scoffs at allegations that the proceeds of Halal Certification exceed $3 trillion worldwide, but then concedes that, “there are no regulations compelling Australian companies and organisations that certify Halal foods to disclose their fees publicly”. ABC Fact Check’s Halal Certification page is riddled with half-truths, incomplete data and missing statistics. I guess the science is settled… or something.

The complete lack of disclosure surrounding Halal Certification makes ABC’s Fact Check completely irrelevant to say the least. I’ve dealt with people shy of giving actual numbers before. When they’re trying to sell a business, it means they aren’t making much money. When they are a regulatory body, it invariably means that they are making a lot.

Fact Check’s big “Aha!” moment is that the best evidence that we can find of links between Halal certification and terror is funds being funnelled to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered a terrorist organisation by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Their big gotcha moment? The Brotherhood is not currently recognised as a terrorist organisation in Australia. The Moors Murderers were never wanted in Australia either. Didn’t make them a local glamour couple.

So Fact Check disputes that any of the global Halal Certification coffers has found its way into the hands of terrorists. Further evidence for this? Well, they haven’t found anything yet (but likely haven’t been looking very hard). We have to take them at their word, and we have to take the CEO of Halal Australia, Muhammed Khan, at his word when he categorically denies that any of the funds raised by Halal certification bodies worldwide are used to fund terror networks. But he would say that, wouldn’t he?

I’m as quietly confident in the statement from Muhammad Khan as I was in the words of all those well-to-do Calabrian waste management gentlemen who earnestly told officials that the Mafia doesn’t exist. I mean honestly, what would an Italian garbage collector living in a palatial mansion have to gain by fibbing about such things?

19400539412_2a6cb3d6a6_Halal-australiaFact Check also alleges that the cost of Halal Certification is not passed on to the consumer. This opinion is to be expected from journalists who have never been in the private sector or been exposed to its harsh economic realities. That’s why the annual ABC budget is astronomically larger than that of Newscorp’s annual Australian press budget and they still whine about cuts.

Those of us who are in business realise that such a statement is pure bunkum. Any extra process always adds to the cost of goods and services. Of course food manufacturers aren’t going to come right out and blame it on Halal certification. You don’t get accused of Islamophobia when you cite the rising cost of electricity or a scarcity of ingredients as the reason for a price hike, so it makes obvious good business sense not to mention the elephant in the room when it comes to rises in the cost of goods.

Is any business owner really going to be foolish enough to come out publicly and complain that handing over a couple of grand every year to pay pointless lip service to a religion is hurting his bottom line? Of course not. Price rises always get vaguely blamed on ‘rising costs’. Price rises are often blamed on something that isn’t a contributing factor whatsoever, and that’s something that’s impossible for ABC fact check to measure with any authority.

We can play devil’s advocate and approach Halal certification from a dietary perspective. But this approach still doesn’t explain why a completely transparent and accountable secular government agency isn’t administering the whole process. Nor does it explain how Muslims managed to eat prior to this certification racket.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that something that is Organically certified is always more expensive than something conventional, and that’s fine. Organic goods fill a niche market. There are always other options. Those that want and can afford organic-certified can pay a little extra. The rest of us can buy the other, cheaper stuff.

The problem with Halal certification is that it is being rolled out as a uniform approach to the things that we eat. If, for whatever reason, you’re dead against supporting things like sustainability every time you eat, it’s easy not to contribute by not buying organically certified. Not so easy with Halal certification. If Weetbix and the Aldi equivalent brand are both Halal-certified, you may need to go for the bacon and eggs if you are principled.

At any rate, regardless of how much money is raised, or where the revenue does or doesn’t go, we have to ask ourselves whether we feel morally comfortable with any kind of religion essentially acting as a tax collector. A levy with a sermon if you will. We need to decide whether those who are not adherents of that faith should be obliged to pay extra for basic goods because of a religious levy.

And the Cultural Marxists at ABC’s Fact Check need to realise that these concerns are not about the way our food tastes or is prepared, but about what is essentially an added unnecessary theological goods tax. A rort that they’d never defend, and would be outraged and triggered by, if the Vatican had thought it up.

Australians are a funny lot. We were ropable at the prospect of a small Medicare levy to keep an ailing health system propped up for pensioners and low-income earners, but we swallow paying a completely unnecessary levy on virtually everything we consume, with no questions asked, for fear of being branded bigots.

At the end of the day, Halal Certification is very much on the nose, and indefensible any way you look at it. At the end of the day, if all logic fails, all you really need to say to a regressive left Halal Certification apologist is, “fair suck of the Shawarma!”

Eh?nonymous was a thoroughly repellent unemployed social justice warrior until a one in a million glitch in his Facebook account affected the algorithms in his news feed, omitting posts from his much loved left leaning Huffington Post and I F**king Love Science, and inexplicably replacing them with centrist and conservative newsfeed items that slowly dragged him kicking and screaming into the light beyond the safe space that Mr. Zuckerberg had so carefully constructed for him. It’s a long road to recovery, but every Mark Steyn share he sees in his newsfeed is like another day clean from social justice addiction.

Photo by Metropolico.org

Photo by helloandrew

K.Rudd “Not Suited for Job”

Earlier today, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced that the Australian Government will not be nominating anyone, namely former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for the top job at the United Nations.9150780507_aac1151471_kevin-rudd

In a press conference, the PM asked:

“When the Australian Government nominates a person for a job, particularly an international job like this, the threshold question is, “Do we believe the person, the nominee, the would-be nominee is well suited for that position?'”

Answering his own question, Mr Turnbull then stated:

“My judgement is that Mr Rudd is not, and I’ve explained to him the reasons why.”

In other words, sorry Kevin, we just don’t see you that way. Especially after your megalomaniacal, power-lusting, drama-queen persona was unleashed on Australia and the world in ‘Kevin07’.

Despite the PM’s snub, one thing is for sure – we haven’t heard the last of KevUN16. The drama has only just begun.

XYZ Quote of the Day, 29 July 2016.

 

Photo by DonkeyHotey

Extended Incarceration of Convicted Terrorists

Guest

6286717366_e594972326_JailBefore legislation on the above subject is formulated, one should look closely at omissions from the current debate about extended incarceration of convicted terrorists in Australian Gaols, if they are unreformed at the end of their prescribed sentence.

While many could be in agreement with allowing the court system to extend a prison sentence if it is justified in order to protect our society, nothing has been raised about some of the losses that prisoners should be subjected to during their incarceration, or, for that matter, the “rights and privileges” that the convicted person seems to still enjoy under the mantra of, “we must respect their human rights”!

One must remember that there is an unwritten compact in the modern nation state, whereby the nation state guarantees to protect its citizens in return for their loyalty and forfeiture of individual weapons (except of course in America).

My first thought was that, “if you need to be removed from society for its protection, then you have no ‘rights’ as these are forfeited to the criminal justice system until such time as you have earned them back”.

Typically, the custodial system of punishment for a crime committed against civil society involves both a retributive and a restorative function, if that person is to be returned to full privileges enjoyed by members of civil society. The retributive function of imprisonment involves removal of the offender’s privilege of freedom, and incarceration restricts that freedom of both movement and association of friends, family and normal law abiding society.

The restorative function of incarceration, in previous times, involved the prisoner being compelled to attend Christian religious services on Sundays, access to a Bible, together with chaplaincy intervention and programs designed to train the offender into right-minded thinking of their obligations to other members of society. In times past this was a period of penitence, and the place of incarceration was known as a penitentiary.

What seems to have become fashionable in the current time, is that those who offend gravely against civil society still have “rights”, and I call your attention to the police commander in the Lindt siege giving the lame excuse that he did not order a breaching of the cafe because he was concerned about infringing the “rights” of the terrorist who had a gun at the head of one of the hostages.

These rights of a serious offender, or convicted terrorist, seem now to include access to a theological text such as the Qur’an and the Haddiths, plus visits from a spiritual advisor of their choice, even if he is an extremist preacher of Islam from a local radical mosque. One really is at a loss to understand how a serious terrorist offender is to be reformed if he still has access to material that was instrumental in guiding them down the path of violence and terror against civil society, which is spelled out in minute detail in the texts listed above?? Yes, the mind boggles!!

If the forthcoming legislation is to be agreed to by all states and territories, then the states must either reform their prison system to remove the logical absurdity just described, or the Commonwealth Legislation will need to prescribe the removal of rights and privileges that are not conducive to the offender being rehabilitated.

Now, we have the additional problem of getting bipartisan agreement in the federal sphere, when the ALP have as their shadow Attorney General a long streak of left-wing legal misery from South Australia, whose cultured dulcet tones will no doubt put us all to sleep with irrelevancies on the subject.

Following on from here, if we have a conference chaired by the Commonwealth, with all states participating, this in turn will raise the spectre of specifically pleasing one of those state premiers, “a hunchback socialist who would seek to transform the great state of Victoria into a satellite state of the USSR”. Would he, or the secretary of the United Fire-fighters Union, sign up to this legislation which is against their very atheist neo Marxist / deconstructive agenda?. This agenda is intent on destroying all norms of civil life that may be attributed to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

If all this was not enough to dampen one’s faith in intelligent and rational thought by the political classes, we have the spectre of these incorrigible, hardened and violent terrorists being housed in close proximity to the normal criminal classes doing time for their stupidity, and being caught. This can only exacerbate the problem of additional terrorist recruitment amongst the criminal classes of society.

Failing this, we have probably the better solution to the problems listed above. It would be a cheaper option, guaranteed to excise the cancer of terrorist violence whilst at the same time providing a lurking deterrent for those who are contemplating going down the path of terrorist adventure.

It is called CAPITAL PUNISHMENT – and it certainly removes evil from the land.

Vive Madam Guillotine.

Photo by Terrazzo