Anything that helps reduce sexual assaults is good. Anything that reduces sexual harassment is good.
The #metoo "movement" went through a toxic & damaging phase where it was counter productive and frankly I haven't looked at the US phenomena for a very long time...but I do know some things.
I agree with the Ben Shapiro line of thought, name a perpetrator, state the offence and I'll very much support any victim justice. Not sure about Shapiro's idea of castrating & then jailing the guilty. I'll have to think about that although first thought is that's fine.
But if you make an allegation, name the person but not the detail then I cannot stand by that because its not how the rule of law & nature justice operates in the West.
Consider this false scenario yelled all over main stream media and insert your name where you see *INSERT NAME HERE*
"I want people to know that * INSERT NAME HERE* stole from me and you should not trust them at all, not ever for being a cold, heartless thief"
Is that enough to convict someone in court? No & rightly so.
Is that enough to convict someone on Social Media? For some it is, for some it's enough to have doubt about that person's character and yes it probably might result in some sort of legal action like defamation etc.
Bottom line is, without saying what was stolen, where and when whilst proving it you have tarnished someone's integrity...or potentially tarnished their reputation.
You cannot do that. The #metoo movement did do that or at least some people attaching themselves to the movement did.
The other problem is sexual harassment in the workplace. Yes it has to stop...in the workplace or anywhere but what is it? If there is any touching involved its pretty straight forward, but is flirting ok? Many people have married or had romances with co-workers.
Unwanted advances are sexual harassment? I'm sure they potentially can be but lines can be very blurry and among other things some employers are already worrying about productivity and reputational risk if there's a sexual harassment claim in their workplace. Not to mention any suffering it might cause people whether its true or not.
2 primary producers, different businesses, different districts (and although its irrelevant, different genders) said if it gets much worse they were only going to employ males.
This happened in the USA when some state passed a law regarding the equipment needed for workplaces that had disabled workers. Small shop front business found it easy. Any large business or factory it got hugely expensive with one factory need to install nearly a million dollars of modifications across their factory & the work yard when the disabled person was up front in a office doing data entry. Since the law came in the employment numbers of people with a disability plummeted noticeably.
So yes good intentions can have unintentional negative effects.
I'm also wary of stakeholders carving out a living as "experts" in the field of sexual harassment. I'm sure they're more knowledgeable than me on the subject but if they tout statistics or data that isn't scientifically collected and interpreted properly using sound methodology and peer reviewed...well its just an "experts" opinion on fallible data. That's not how we are supposed to make decisions.
This why I will quickly stand by anyone who does things properly, but if naming and not detailing allegations properly is to become some sort of norm we have a very big social problem ahead of us. We are gifting a free card to anyone willing to falsely smear another.
That is not how justice works.
Nor should it.
Yes I'm sure some people will get off the hook, they probably do everyday but unless proof and evidence convicts a person an allegation has to swept aside.
Its how our courts work much to the disgust and chagrin of the Leftist activist who really do embrace Post Modernist Marxism.
Monday, 5 November 2018
Wednesday, 31 October 2018
Who are the Alt Right & Why Infiltrate NSW Young Nationals
Start firstly with what is Alt Right?
It's Alternative Right & has a few key planks in what they believe that are common to most of the Alt-Right.
One thing for sure is they're not really from the Left nor are they Conservatives but in a twist of irony they do share some traits with the Left. However I don't expect them to be holding ideological hands anytime soon.
Alt Right is a greyish movement but the main reason it might try to infiltrate the Nationals via the NSW Young Nationals is probably a lot simpler than you might think. It's because as a movement, they are at times very loud but incredibly small. There aim is to come in and swing the Nats over. It really was only a matter of time before they got kicked out. It really was a plan that was never really going to last. I mean there's silly and then there's moronic. They tick the latter with this "plan"
Alt Right believe broadly in 3 common things.
1) It strongly rejects all notions of God/faith/religion
2) Strongly advocates White Supremacy Politics
3) And clearly wants the subordination/suppression of the individual to the will of the collective (or the state)
So in short these 3 facets are not Conservative Values At All.
Alt-right are not Conservatives.
Alt-Right is not of the Left but ironically it shares more traits with the Left than Conservatives.
One of them is a real biggy...
Race Based Identity Politics - The Left does this too, but while the left often calls for more things that favour ethnic minorities, the Alt Right calls for things that favour their ethnic majority. These are 2 sides of the one coin. Race Based Group Identity Politics where the Individual is set aside and things get group oriented. Neither wants the individual, irrespective of the race or cultural background to improve. They want their chosen group to benefit at the expense of others & the state to help control it.
Both the Left & the Alt-Right reject the Conservative ideal that race doesn't or shouldn't matter, that "all men are created equal". Both don't like matters of race put aside, both don't like individuals being allowed to flourish.
Both want the subordination of the individual to the will of the collective or the state.
You might think that sounds ultra right wing like fascism. Well it does. Except remember Fascism is actually from the Left. You can look up its philosophical founder, the Italian Socialist Philosopher Giovanni Gentile. He's pretty much the father of Fascism which he declared was the purest form of Socialism.
"But Nazis were fascists & they were ultra right wing" you might say. Well they were National Socialists. They believed in full & total state control of all things (Socialist) and it was based on country/cultural identity (Nationalism)
Now Nationalism is not in itself evil. Churchill, Roosevelt & Ghandi were Nationalists...keen on improving their own respective nations. Hitler was a mad man so you can call him anything at all really, but he was a fascist & that's National Socialism in their case. So ironically again Alt-Right, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism are all very keen on wiping away the individual, advance their chosen collective and having the state very much run everyday life.
You can see how neo-Nazis & some Alt Right can cross paths and find agreement.
Both the Left & the Alt Right are opposed to Conservatism.
There's another obvious difference with the Left & Alt-Right, the Left is huge and the Alt Right is tiny in numbers. Both seem to be the safe harbour for those who like to be subversive and opposed to conservative values.
The Nationals in Australia however are a Conservative Party. It was only going to be a matter of time before they were spotted in the Nationals (or NSW Young Nationals) ranks and be expelled. They were never going to be allowed to stay once spotted.
I think it was their aim to hopefully infiltrate, co-opt a few members with possibly a delusional view to annexe the entire party one day.
Sorry but for many reasons plus that, they are what's known as "a special kind of stupid"
It's Alternative Right & has a few key planks in what they believe that are common to most of the Alt-Right.
One thing for sure is they're not really from the Left nor are they Conservatives but in a twist of irony they do share some traits with the Left. However I don't expect them to be holding ideological hands anytime soon.
Alt Right is a greyish movement but the main reason it might try to infiltrate the Nationals via the NSW Young Nationals is probably a lot simpler than you might think. It's because as a movement, they are at times very loud but incredibly small. There aim is to come in and swing the Nats over. It really was only a matter of time before they got kicked out. It really was a plan that was never really going to last. I mean there's silly and then there's moronic. They tick the latter with this "plan"
Alt Right believe broadly in 3 common things.
1) It strongly rejects all notions of God/faith/religion
2) Strongly advocates White Supremacy Politics
3) And clearly wants the subordination/suppression of the individual to the will of the collective (or the state)
So in short these 3 facets are not Conservative Values At All.
Alt-right are not Conservatives.
Alt-Right is not of the Left but ironically it shares more traits with the Left than Conservatives.
One of them is a real biggy...
Race Based Identity Politics - The Left does this too, but while the left often calls for more things that favour ethnic minorities, the Alt Right calls for things that favour their ethnic majority. These are 2 sides of the one coin. Race Based Group Identity Politics where the Individual is set aside and things get group oriented. Neither wants the individual, irrespective of the race or cultural background to improve. They want their chosen group to benefit at the expense of others & the state to help control it.
Both the Left & the Alt-Right reject the Conservative ideal that race doesn't or shouldn't matter, that "all men are created equal". Both don't like matters of race put aside, both don't like individuals being allowed to flourish.
Both want the subordination of the individual to the will of the collective or the state.
You might think that sounds ultra right wing like fascism. Well it does. Except remember Fascism is actually from the Left. You can look up its philosophical founder, the Italian Socialist Philosopher Giovanni Gentile. He's pretty much the father of Fascism which he declared was the purest form of Socialism.
"But Nazis were fascists & they were ultra right wing" you might say. Well they were National Socialists. They believed in full & total state control of all things (Socialist) and it was based on country/cultural identity (Nationalism)
Now Nationalism is not in itself evil. Churchill, Roosevelt & Ghandi were Nationalists...keen on improving their own respective nations. Hitler was a mad man so you can call him anything at all really, but he was a fascist & that's National Socialism in their case. So ironically again Alt-Right, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism are all very keen on wiping away the individual, advance their chosen collective and having the state very much run everyday life.
You can see how neo-Nazis & some Alt Right can cross paths and find agreement.
Both the Left & the Alt Right are opposed to Conservatism.
There's another obvious difference with the Left & Alt-Right, the Left is huge and the Alt Right is tiny in numbers. Both seem to be the safe harbour for those who like to be subversive and opposed to conservative values.
The Nationals in Australia however are a Conservative Party. It was only going to be a matter of time before they were spotted in the Nationals (or NSW Young Nationals) ranks and be expelled. They were never going to be allowed to stay once spotted.
I think it was their aim to hopefully infiltrate, co-opt a few members with possibly a delusional view to annexe the entire party one day.
Sorry but for many reasons plus that, they are what's known as "a special kind of stupid"
Saturday, 8 September 2018
Why fear a debate on population targets for the Nation?
Dick Smith is in the news, not the main news but getting some air time. He's talking about the population numbers in Australia. Its heartening to see more people willing to talk on climate change, bullying, bullying in Parliament, female representation in Parliament and the effect of many other previously 2nd, 3rd or lower tier issues.
There is with all these issues pressure to shut people down of an opposing view or to rail against them personally in order to shut them down. Another ugly facet of the Identity Politics weaponry. It's very counter productive, its very adversarial centred and its intellectually bankrupt...and just plain wrong.
Forget the person presenting a view, stick to facts not feelings.
Here's the thing, in most things economical, there's pendulum swings & cycles but more often there's J curves. Clear & present growth with beneficial return until a point when things plateau or decline.
In the case of population numbers, after World War 2 and for a generation or two the nations that had high immigration ended up with strong growth in their economy. Jobs were plentiful and many people sought jobs eagerly and were less than fussy than perhaps some are today.
Today though we're not in a post war position. If anything we may be in a pre War economic expansion perhaps consolidation phase perhaps approaching the plateau of the J curve before the fall. Added into that mix is the increasing amount of automation. Even in Agriculture labour saving systems are rapidly becoming the norm which will reduce jobs in the regions. Internet is making it easier for people to do business with & from the bush but most of the new jobs won't be in the regions. People need health services and they certainly are better in the cities and large regional centres, but try coaxing med students to think about a career in central Queensland or central WA.
We are seeing now a growth in over the internet medical consultations on some things.
We are seeing a lot more natural centralisation. We're seeing more automation in cropping, we're seeing some farming systems going away from employed staff. One person with one modern header can do a lot more than 2 or 3 people with 3 average harvesters 30 years ago. Road trains are more common than the 1970s & 80s when there were very few farm owned prime mover/semi trailer grain haulers. Those bigger operators would now be road trains or contract road trains. Even the contractors have greater tonnages per driver. less jobs.
So there's not a huge work force required in the bush. Jobs growth there is still there but it'll specific and small in scope.
In the cities, there are many jobs of today that won't be there in great numbers in 20 years let alone 100. Many will disappear completely. Added to this is the vast number of people studying in social science degrees that really have little or no job prospects at the end.
We're training people to end up unemployed or at least leading them to job desperation.
In any economic pursuit there is sustainability, there are J Curves and there are points on the J Curve where re-invention or re-direction of resources is needed as the life span of a economic pursuit diminishes.
Population has to be looked at. Can we sustain 100 Million citizens in Australia in 100 years time?
All very well to say technology will answer many of the problems that haven't even arisen yet.
Its a great thing to have hope. In economics and national stability we see & know what a steady as she goes, she'll be right approach can bring.
It's not all gloom & doom, its not a doomsday scenario that's necessarily playing out but it will be if we don't discuss what population targets we aim for. Climate change your chosen battle to get triggered on? Can't go there without a sustainable population goal to aim for & to keep.
What about food security? Can't be triggered & signalling on that without making a discerning judgement on a sustainable population goal.
Economic outlook, national security, foreign trade, balance of trade...really need to look at a sustainable population goal.
Its a fear of the leftist that it means closed borders because there are many of the left who want fully open borders. Borders have worked for society throughout the ages for many sound reasons. Good fences mean good neighbours. It also means economic stability without full state control.
If we're to really future proof our nation and our planet with finite resources at some point we do have to set population goals. Can you imagine how China would be going today if they'd set an 6 child policy for families for 50 years?
Their one child policy was chock full of heart ache and serious damage to married couples. It wasn't the answer or it was an ugly response to a problem but had everyone been told to have as many kids as possible and their population been allowed to explode...
Right now China is buying lots of land in SE Asia to grow rice & other commodities. Jungle communities are disappearing and land clearing is going full steam. Timber is being exported and the rice is then exported back to China at very low cost.
Oh did you think there was going to be a huge market for Australian rice & other grains from China? There will be. But where ever possible they will go for the cheapest grain. If China is playing at the margins to pick up grain properties in WA its time to wake up. It will be state assisted business people who grow grain, export it like their own luggage and THEN sell it in market places will no tax can be gathered by the Australian Tax Office.
Its a complex matter but how China operates now is a result of how they're responding to their out of control population numbers which are not sustainable. When population gets out of control the other problem is life itself seems to become less sacred. Life is cheap.
Yes a discussion on sustainable population goals is not just wise, it's imperative despite the oddly emotional triggering it will cause some people. Getting it worked out properly will not be politically left nor right, getting it right will be conservative by nature. Keeping the political left & the political right out of it will be a huge task.
But our population J Curve is moving and the current rate of growth is not sustainable over the next 100 years.
We have to make it a political priority if we are indeed to leave our heirs & descendants a viable chance.
Future proofing is central to survival and survival is completely dependant on a sustainable population.
But gee it gets some people loud angry and willing to play the Identity Politics tricks to shut down debate.
There is with all these issues pressure to shut people down of an opposing view or to rail against them personally in order to shut them down. Another ugly facet of the Identity Politics weaponry. It's very counter productive, its very adversarial centred and its intellectually bankrupt...and just plain wrong.
Forget the person presenting a view, stick to facts not feelings.
Here's the thing, in most things economical, there's pendulum swings & cycles but more often there's J curves. Clear & present growth with beneficial return until a point when things plateau or decline.
In the case of population numbers, after World War 2 and for a generation or two the nations that had high immigration ended up with strong growth in their economy. Jobs were plentiful and many people sought jobs eagerly and were less than fussy than perhaps some are today.
Today though we're not in a post war position. If anything we may be in a pre War economic expansion perhaps consolidation phase perhaps approaching the plateau of the J curve before the fall. Added into that mix is the increasing amount of automation. Even in Agriculture labour saving systems are rapidly becoming the norm which will reduce jobs in the regions. Internet is making it easier for people to do business with & from the bush but most of the new jobs won't be in the regions. People need health services and they certainly are better in the cities and large regional centres, but try coaxing med students to think about a career in central Queensland or central WA.
We are seeing now a growth in over the internet medical consultations on some things.
We are seeing a lot more natural centralisation. We're seeing more automation in cropping, we're seeing some farming systems going away from employed staff. One person with one modern header can do a lot more than 2 or 3 people with 3 average harvesters 30 years ago. Road trains are more common than the 1970s & 80s when there were very few farm owned prime mover/semi trailer grain haulers. Those bigger operators would now be road trains or contract road trains. Even the contractors have greater tonnages per driver. less jobs.
So there's not a huge work force required in the bush. Jobs growth there is still there but it'll specific and small in scope.
In the cities, there are many jobs of today that won't be there in great numbers in 20 years let alone 100. Many will disappear completely. Added to this is the vast number of people studying in social science degrees that really have little or no job prospects at the end.
We're training people to end up unemployed or at least leading them to job desperation.
In any economic pursuit there is sustainability, there are J Curves and there are points on the J Curve where re-invention or re-direction of resources is needed as the life span of a economic pursuit diminishes.
Population has to be looked at. Can we sustain 100 Million citizens in Australia in 100 years time?
All very well to say technology will answer many of the problems that haven't even arisen yet.
Its a great thing to have hope. In economics and national stability we see & know what a steady as she goes, she'll be right approach can bring.
It's not all gloom & doom, its not a doomsday scenario that's necessarily playing out but it will be if we don't discuss what population targets we aim for. Climate change your chosen battle to get triggered on? Can't go there without a sustainable population goal to aim for & to keep.
What about food security? Can't be triggered & signalling on that without making a discerning judgement on a sustainable population goal.
Economic outlook, national security, foreign trade, balance of trade...really need to look at a sustainable population goal.
Its a fear of the leftist that it means closed borders because there are many of the left who want fully open borders. Borders have worked for society throughout the ages for many sound reasons. Good fences mean good neighbours. It also means economic stability without full state control.
If we're to really future proof our nation and our planet with finite resources at some point we do have to set population goals. Can you imagine how China would be going today if they'd set an 6 child policy for families for 50 years?
Their one child policy was chock full of heart ache and serious damage to married couples. It wasn't the answer or it was an ugly response to a problem but had everyone been told to have as many kids as possible and their population been allowed to explode...
Right now China is buying lots of land in SE Asia to grow rice & other commodities. Jungle communities are disappearing and land clearing is going full steam. Timber is being exported and the rice is then exported back to China at very low cost.
Oh did you think there was going to be a huge market for Australian rice & other grains from China? There will be. But where ever possible they will go for the cheapest grain. If China is playing at the margins to pick up grain properties in WA its time to wake up. It will be state assisted business people who grow grain, export it like their own luggage and THEN sell it in market places will no tax can be gathered by the Australian Tax Office.
Its a complex matter but how China operates now is a result of how they're responding to their out of control population numbers which are not sustainable. When population gets out of control the other problem is life itself seems to become less sacred. Life is cheap.
Yes a discussion on sustainable population goals is not just wise, it's imperative despite the oddly emotional triggering it will cause some people. Getting it worked out properly will not be politically left nor right, getting it right will be conservative by nature. Keeping the political left & the political right out of it will be a huge task.
But our population J Curve is moving and the current rate of growth is not sustainable over the next 100 years.
We have to make it a political priority if we are indeed to leave our heirs & descendants a viable chance.
Future proofing is central to survival and survival is completely dependant on a sustainable population.
But gee it gets some people loud angry and willing to play the Identity Politics tricks to shut down debate.
Tuesday, 4 September 2018
Why we shouldn't ban hate speech...or should we?
Most of the so called hate speech is rantings from idiots or bigots but should we ban them?
I hate Broccoli - expresses a hate, is it hate speech?
No I was told, its an opinion, its not inciting hate.
I hate Broccoli and you should too - I just incited hate, is it hate speech.
No I was told, its a vegetable not a person.
I hate broccoli and you should too as well as hate those who grow it, sell it & profit from it, they should be stopped - Is it hate speech yet?
No I was told that although I'm trying to tick all the boxes its a bizarre opinion worthy of discussion only to derail & dismantle it for the ridicule it deserves.
Why can we not as a society discuss anti Semitic hate speech then so we can dismantle it and show it for the horrid evil it is?
FWIW I neither love nor hate broccoli, it conjures up feelings of staggering indifference. Served on a plate I'll eat it neither loving it nor hating it, its nutritious fuel. I encourage people to eat it...because its good for you.
Should we ban Nazi speakers from overseas though? If they're likely to incite violence or recruit followers we should deny them visas, more so if they have a serious criminal record. The convicted US Traitor Chelsea Manning was convicted to 35 years jail for breaking the law. This person's views are not important but if this person wants to come to Australia for a speaking tour then no, entry should be denied. Let Chelsea Manning in we have to then let in a convicted criminal with a history of violence who wants to speak on killing Jews and/or other minorities.
On the matter of hate speech, if we ban it we risk sending it underground where it can then resonate with the dispossessed, those who feel betrayed, disenfranchised or for some reason push outside the fringes & margins of society. Then it picks up followers whether they understand the dogma of hate or not, most likely the subversive nature of the hate against society is a huge attraction.
It serves no purpose letting a hate group build numbers whilst mainstream society goes about life unaware of the growth of some forms of extremism.
I have never had the inclination of reading Mein Kempf or Mao's Little Red Book, but I think if they're banned they will gain some attraction. I think we should challenge hate speech and its sad that ABC Programmes like Q&A don't do the usual topical issues & run them through a panel but also grab some nuts and bolts hate speech issues and test them under fire on the belly to see what falls out.
We are in an age where the subversive is very popular amongst young people, its attractive...even when its counter productive to all involved.
Che Guevara is a pop art image nowadays. He's on shirts & posters when he was a mercenary, most likely a psychopath and wanted to bring in full socialist state rule. He was prepared not to argue for it, he was only ever going to get his vision by killing to get it.
Ned Kelly has become a brand too, but fact is, he was a killer. Had the train not been warned he would have killed an awful lot more. It would have been an outright massacre. Yet we only recall his stand against oppression, he's an iconic hero to many. He was a thief and an unapologetic cop killer.
No we shouldn't ban hate speech. We should ignore it and when it rises up society should sit down and dismantle it, inspect it & explain to the world what the hate speech really is.
Broccoli is ok. Killing minority groups is not. Revising murderous thugs as being bandits for freedom is wrong on every level.
The perfect answer isn't here yet. Banning hate speech may actually cause more problems and give indefensible ideas more followers.
I hate Broccoli - expresses a hate, is it hate speech?
No I was told, its an opinion, its not inciting hate.
I hate Broccoli and you should too - I just incited hate, is it hate speech.
No I was told, its a vegetable not a person.
I hate broccoli and you should too as well as hate those who grow it, sell it & profit from it, they should be stopped - Is it hate speech yet?
No I was told that although I'm trying to tick all the boxes its a bizarre opinion worthy of discussion only to derail & dismantle it for the ridicule it deserves.
Why can we not as a society discuss anti Semitic hate speech then so we can dismantle it and show it for the horrid evil it is?
FWIW I neither love nor hate broccoli, it conjures up feelings of staggering indifference. Served on a plate I'll eat it neither loving it nor hating it, its nutritious fuel. I encourage people to eat it...because its good for you.
Should we ban Nazi speakers from overseas though? If they're likely to incite violence or recruit followers we should deny them visas, more so if they have a serious criminal record. The convicted US Traitor Chelsea Manning was convicted to 35 years jail for breaking the law. This person's views are not important but if this person wants to come to Australia for a speaking tour then no, entry should be denied. Let Chelsea Manning in we have to then let in a convicted criminal with a history of violence who wants to speak on killing Jews and/or other minorities.
On the matter of hate speech, if we ban it we risk sending it underground where it can then resonate with the dispossessed, those who feel betrayed, disenfranchised or for some reason push outside the fringes & margins of society. Then it picks up followers whether they understand the dogma of hate or not, most likely the subversive nature of the hate against society is a huge attraction.
It serves no purpose letting a hate group build numbers whilst mainstream society goes about life unaware of the growth of some forms of extremism.
I have never had the inclination of reading Mein Kempf or Mao's Little Red Book, but I think if they're banned they will gain some attraction. I think we should challenge hate speech and its sad that ABC Programmes like Q&A don't do the usual topical issues & run them through a panel but also grab some nuts and bolts hate speech issues and test them under fire on the belly to see what falls out.
We are in an age where the subversive is very popular amongst young people, its attractive...even when its counter productive to all involved.
Che Guevara is a pop art image nowadays. He's on shirts & posters when he was a mercenary, most likely a psychopath and wanted to bring in full socialist state rule. He was prepared not to argue for it, he was only ever going to get his vision by killing to get it.
Ned Kelly has become a brand too, but fact is, he was a killer. Had the train not been warned he would have killed an awful lot more. It would have been an outright massacre. Yet we only recall his stand against oppression, he's an iconic hero to many. He was a thief and an unapologetic cop killer.
No we shouldn't ban hate speech. We should ignore it and when it rises up society should sit down and dismantle it, inspect it & explain to the world what the hate speech really is.
Broccoli is ok. Killing minority groups is not. Revising murderous thugs as being bandits for freedom is wrong on every level.
The perfect answer isn't here yet. Banning hate speech may actually cause more problems and give indefensible ideas more followers.
Sunday, 12 August 2018
How to deal with modern day Nazis effectively
With the rise of Nazis in more recent times we've also seen a rise in radical groups on the other side of the spectrum, the Antifa. Followers of Antifa declare themselves as the strong opposition of Fascism hence their name being a shortening of "Anti-Fascism".
But if we're to deal effectively with Nazi followers these days there's a number of things we need to do up front. We need to define criteria to ID who or what is a Nazi these days.
Reason being is there are many so called Christian churches that have departed from Christian Scripture. In essence it means there are some "Christian" churches that ignore, omit, reject or rewrite the Word of God.
They're claiming to be Christian but they clearly are not.
Same thing happens with the word "Nazi".
Some left leaning folk use it as a slur against people of differing views and some extremist folk embrace the description...but are they really Nazis at all?
Some might be but some definitely are not.|
For example, some outlaw gangs embrace the Nazi symbols. Mongrel Mob in NZ do, yet they're definitely not white blood that the depraved Nazi dogma of WW2 wanted kept pure. In a parallel universe where the Nazis won WW2 and ruled the planet the Maori gang members would not find any sanctuary with the 3rd Reich. They more likely would be put to work or put to death. I assume they picked up on the symbolism to further frighten the horses & be as subversive as possible.
The are organised crime gangs, possibly very brutal but not actually Nazis
What about KKK are they Nazis? Well they're definitely a depraved dogma but some of that they point to the Bible as justification even though the Bible does not point any reason to hate people of a different language, race or faith. In fact it implodes for them badly in so far as Christ Himself is very much opposed to hate of one's fellow man of ANY race.
Weirdest irony is KKK are very against what they think are foreign races, black, Asian, Mexican and even Jewish people and Jesus Himself was of course, a Jew.
KKK are probably just race extremists primarily and secondarily of a Nationalist bent but not NAZIs
Why is a Nationalist not a Nazi? Well in short, there's a number of Nationalists who were not NAZIs such as Roosevelt, Churchill and the list goes on for miles. Was Hitler a Nationalist? Yes, he was but he was National Socialist, that's what NAZI actually means.
He was Nationalist in that it was Germany all the way, even when he annexed nearby countries, it was Germany who was the Fatherland. Nationalist all the way. Sadly he was so Nationalist he wanted to seek world domination.
That's the first half of National Socialist, what about the 2nd half?
He was very much a type of socialist in that it was Totalitarian, where the State owns everything, everything is the State and there is nothing outside the state and everything within the state is controlled & directed by the State.
Nazis were in fact a form of Socialism that's called Fascist.
Anyone thought to be overly right wing or severely racist is regarded and called out as Nazis or Fascists. Oddly more often its left or extreme left wing like Antifa that tend to define who is a Nazi and/or Fascist.
Nazis & Fascist were not in favour of capitalist economy, they are solely set on total state control of everything. This is every thing the right leaning people of this planet are actually against.
For Trump (and I'm not defending or aligning with Trump) to be a Nazi &/or a Fascist he merely has to be in charge and rich. Oddly he's conservative not socialist. So pretty hard to a Nazi (National socialist) if you're not a socialist/fascist. He is Nationalist, but many people are.
Add to this many say Fascists & Fascism cannot be of the left, that ultra right wing.
It isn't, research it.
The philosophical founder of Fascism was in fact the Italian socialist philosopher Giovanni Gentile who really is consider the father of Fascism and indeed he believed fascism was the ultimate form of socialism.
Sadly terms like Nazi & Fascist have turned into slanging terms & demeaning labels just as "troll" has. It can be used effectively even if its patently false.
The so called Ultra Right aren't very conservative at all. Quite often they're race extremists, but they're not actually Nazis but sadly they decide to connect with Nazi history possibly because of the brutal genocide dished out to non Caucasian races. I don't think the Ultra Right, the neo-Nazis, white supremacist groups are left or right wing...I thing they're racist thugs, they're not all conservatives or left wingers.
To be a fascist a person would have to be a nationalist socialist.
There's more of those traits in the left extremist camps.
Sad irony is the fact that Fascism is of the left, not the right. Nazi-ism is of the deranged & perverse Left extremism.
Amazing how many people are fooled into thinking Fascism is of the left.
20 minutes of research into Gentile and his teachings will spell this out clearly & precisely...only rejected by ignorant and committed left.
So, how to deal with modern day Nazis? Out debate them...and the mega racist extremists of any stripe, but its actually more accurate to call a leftist a fascist.
But if we're to deal effectively with Nazi followers these days there's a number of things we need to do up front. We need to define criteria to ID who or what is a Nazi these days.
Reason being is there are many so called Christian churches that have departed from Christian Scripture. In essence it means there are some "Christian" churches that ignore, omit, reject or rewrite the Word of God.
They're claiming to be Christian but they clearly are not.
Same thing happens with the word "Nazi".
Some left leaning folk use it as a slur against people of differing views and some extremist folk embrace the description...but are they really Nazis at all?
Some might be but some definitely are not.|
For example, some outlaw gangs embrace the Nazi symbols. Mongrel Mob in NZ do, yet they're definitely not white blood that the depraved Nazi dogma of WW2 wanted kept pure. In a parallel universe where the Nazis won WW2 and ruled the planet the Maori gang members would not find any sanctuary with the 3rd Reich. They more likely would be put to work or put to death. I assume they picked up on the symbolism to further frighten the horses & be as subversive as possible.
The are organised crime gangs, possibly very brutal but not actually Nazis
What about KKK are they Nazis? Well they're definitely a depraved dogma but some of that they point to the Bible as justification even though the Bible does not point any reason to hate people of a different language, race or faith. In fact it implodes for them badly in so far as Christ Himself is very much opposed to hate of one's fellow man of ANY race.
Weirdest irony is KKK are very against what they think are foreign races, black, Asian, Mexican and even Jewish people and Jesus Himself was of course, a Jew.
KKK are probably just race extremists primarily and secondarily of a Nationalist bent but not NAZIs
Why is a Nationalist not a Nazi? Well in short, there's a number of Nationalists who were not NAZIs such as Roosevelt, Churchill and the list goes on for miles. Was Hitler a Nationalist? Yes, he was but he was National Socialist, that's what NAZI actually means.
He was Nationalist in that it was Germany all the way, even when he annexed nearby countries, it was Germany who was the Fatherland. Nationalist all the way. Sadly he was so Nationalist he wanted to seek world domination.
That's the first half of National Socialist, what about the 2nd half?
He was very much a type of socialist in that it was Totalitarian, where the State owns everything, everything is the State and there is nothing outside the state and everything within the state is controlled & directed by the State.
Nazis were in fact a form of Socialism that's called Fascist.
Anyone thought to be overly right wing or severely racist is regarded and called out as Nazis or Fascists. Oddly more often its left or extreme left wing like Antifa that tend to define who is a Nazi and/or Fascist.
Nazis & Fascist were not in favour of capitalist economy, they are solely set on total state control of everything. This is every thing the right leaning people of this planet are actually against.
For Trump (and I'm not defending or aligning with Trump) to be a Nazi &/or a Fascist he merely has to be in charge and rich. Oddly he's conservative not socialist. So pretty hard to a Nazi (National socialist) if you're not a socialist/fascist. He is Nationalist, but many people are.
Add to this many say Fascists & Fascism cannot be of the left, that ultra right wing.
It isn't, research it.
The philosophical founder of Fascism was in fact the Italian socialist philosopher Giovanni Gentile who really is consider the father of Fascism and indeed he believed fascism was the ultimate form of socialism.
Sadly terms like Nazi & Fascist have turned into slanging terms & demeaning labels just as "troll" has. It can be used effectively even if its patently false.
The so called Ultra Right aren't very conservative at all. Quite often they're race extremists, but they're not actually Nazis but sadly they decide to connect with Nazi history possibly because of the brutal genocide dished out to non Caucasian races. I don't think the Ultra Right, the neo-Nazis, white supremacist groups are left or right wing...I thing they're racist thugs, they're not all conservatives or left wingers.
To be a fascist a person would have to be a nationalist socialist.
There's more of those traits in the left extremist camps.
Sad irony is the fact that Fascism is of the left, not the right. Nazi-ism is of the deranged & perverse Left extremism.
Amazing how many people are fooled into thinking Fascism is of the left.
20 minutes of research into Gentile and his teachings will spell this out clearly & precisely...only rejected by ignorant and committed left.
So, how to deal with modern day Nazis? Out debate them...and the mega racist extremists of any stripe, but its actually more accurate to call a leftist a fascist.
Monday, 30 July 2018
WALabor, Policy Shape Shifting and Livex Truth
Yes, there's shape shifting for sure & certain on the Livex Trade right now from our Labor Government. The real problem is discerning which is genuine policy shifting and which is pretend change.
We spotted this Facebook post from beleaguered Upper House Labor MP Darren West MLC.
He's been under pressure & receiving flak for a number of controversial social media posts. Comparing rural education stakeholders with the deaths of 400 people in Syria, posting rape humour were just a few huge insensitive & highly unhelpful gaffs at his hands.
He even admitted in Parliament (Its in Hansard) that some of the budget cuts are in fct not about budget repair at all. On any given day he'd be toast politically.
But here's his latest post of untold blunder.
We spotted this Facebook post from beleaguered Upper House Labor MP Darren West MLC.
He's been under pressure & receiving flak for a number of controversial social media posts. Comparing rural education stakeholders with the deaths of 400 people in Syria, posting rape humour were just a few huge insensitive & highly unhelpful gaffs at his hands.
He even admitted in Parliament (Its in Hansard) that some of the budget cuts are in fct not about budget repair at all. On any given day he'd be toast politically.
But here's his latest post of untold blunder.
Firstly his opening statement about being "the only working farmer in the WA Parliament".
Curious statement.
He's apparently the follow...
- A working farmer
- A member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Regional Development, Agriculture and Food
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs & Trade.
Grab that...Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs & Trade.
I think he should focus on a job and do it full time, not be a part time farmer, part time public servant, part time reviewer of legislation, part time elected representative, part time parliamentary secretary x two, plus I assume he's on a few Upper House committees.
He made the "following observations about recent events" including the massive meeting at Katanning that he did not attend.
Now onto his numbered points.
1) "Labor supports the live trade" - Shape shifting. He's on the record as saying we need to transition to 100% on shore slaughter & processing. That is not supporting Live Export, that's CLOSING IT DOWN. WALabor's Pre Election Policy Platform clearly spelt it out as a "transition" not supporting Live Export most likely to try & gather as many of the then disillusioned Greens voters.
Unsure?
Now onto his numbered points.
1) "Labor supports the live trade" - Shape shifting. He's on the record as saying we need to transition to 100% on shore slaughter & processing. That is not supporting Live Export, that's CLOSING IT DOWN. WALabor's Pre Election Policy Platform clearly spelt it out as a "transition" not supporting Live Export most likely to try & gather as many of the then disillusioned Greens voters.
Unsure?
The plan the Industry Stakeholders want is LIVE & CHILLED, we need both in the market place. At present the price determinator is the Live buyers. Their competition is the main price competition, without them the market place price and therefore the farmgate price will plummet.
Going solely CHILLED will lose us markets such as Qatar one of the main Middle East markets. They want Live & Chilled, the latter going into the more higher priced market segments. Barnaby Joyce in his speech at Katanning already outlined that Qatar will not replace their Live Sheep with chilled, they will replace us as suppliers, most likely Somalia &/or Sudan who have no Animal Welfare standards & highly unlikely to ever. As we refuse to supply Qatar with Live Sheep they will most likely see it as an honour insult denying them food security and they will continue to buy Chilled, but not from us.
In effect, we could lose the entire Live & Chilled market in at least 2 of our biggest Middle East markets. Hardly a sensible outcome for Animal Welfare, for producers and all the associated satellite industries & any chance of maintain or increasing rural growth.
Wake up Darren. If WALabor & indeed you are in favour of retaining the trade, you've only just come to this position or you're just pretending. Fact is, 100% chilled is 0% Live.
Sorry, we have good reason to mistrust you & Labor on policy & economic matters.
Secondly on point 1, we all saw the 60 minutes footage, we were all appalled by it. No one I have heard of anywhere has enjoyed or defended it. There is no distinction or difference here except we know that even including the repulsive Awassi disaster the Transit Mortality Rate has STILL been falling for over 7 years. The Awassi event, as shocking & unacceptable as it was still remains a statistical outlier, NOT common industry practice. That is a point that NO LABOR MP has ever spread amongst the public. EVER.
The public have had enough. That's actually everyone, but seems some are not told the actual industry facts that its an outlier.
2) Who the architects are is not the issue, the so far undisputed industry data that WALabor haven't taken on board. Their actions that have not instilled any confidence in any stakeholders. Susan Ley for all her leftist proposed actions also lacks industry facts & data that WALabor some reason also omit. It was all along a federal matter so why the WA Minister was not trying to keep the Livex operating I do not know. I do know, the last 3 LSS ship loads of sheep had a 99.7+% survival rate which is many many times better than the Aust Pet Industry. Yes Margins are going to be tighter, but the Awassi is history and was long lost history when the Emannuel's office were raided by WA Government officials. Not federal, state.
Why does the WA Government, the minister spruik the industry & its improvements?
Why?
3) The Trade in WA was not paused, one exporter had their licence suspended. LSS could still export. There was no "trade pause"...and no one I know was complaining about due process being followed by the regulator. That's far different from "transition to 100% chilled"
This is a distraction deflection. Pointless point.
4) No Alannah did not. She offered a low interest loan of $5Million dollars to WAMMCO. That and either forgetting or deliberately not helping educate metro based people on the real advances in the trade. It's already been announced that the $5Million will help a little but will do nothing to replace the Livex market. It's a joke or a dire concern should anyone pass that off as a pittance to pay for massive industry shortfall. How's that likely to work out? Well don't take my word for it...
https://thewest.com.au/countryman/livestock/lack-of-staff-hurts-export-potential-wammco-ng-b88902805z
5) (a) I'll post the link for Alannah's speech video at Katanning. Watch it, check out the level of disrespectful abuse the minister copped. I think it put it exactly in context. Facts are best when presented in their entirety.
https://www.facebook.com/melinda.r.walsh/videos/1731844160256083/
Yes she was boo-ed by some. It was 8 minutes into the 10 minutes she was allowed to talk for. She unlike Barnaby & others, actually spoke for longer.
Its not about Alannah's feelings at being disrespectful, I've watched question time, there are no brittle petals & vulnerable snow flakes in any seat in parliament. She was fine. Noticeable were the organiser with arm gestures telling people to settle down. They did.
I'm not sure if Darren saw the entirety of the speakers there. I know Darren wasn't there. I was.
He was intellectually corrupt switching it to some sort of identity politics & playing the victim card on the Minister's behalf. Could have mentioned the unacceptable Awassi shipment thankfully being an outlier.
5) (b) The minister did focus on "where to from here" and it was not about saving Livex, it was in her own words "Plan B". She did not outline any plan or desire to focus on the sheep meat export trade being Chilled AND Live. Not once. She copped her worst abuse (as calm as it actually was) was mocking her for suggesting farmers needed to follow the new innovative idea of developing "dual purpose Merinos". The Parliamentary Secretary assisting isn't assisting the minister if she doesn't know the long established bleeding obvious. Perhaps he's not fulfilling his duties properly because he's a working farmer not focusing on the job we pay him to do as a public servant.
5) (c) Re Barnaby Joyce. As support goes, I don't support him or any action that caused him to be consider a disgrace. Its not directly relevant to the Livex Trade.
As for using a person's past behaviour as a way of dismissing the facts the put forward without addressing the facts, that is Identity Politics. Its dangerous and people should call it out as being Intellectually Corrupt.
Darren decidedly failed to address anything Barnaby put forward, either for or against. He played the personality game.
Barnaby pointed out that there are zealots in the game who's aim is not just fixing animal welfare. If they shut the trade it will not stop with sheep, they'll soon go after cattle trade export or not. They'll go after egg & poultry industry, bee keeping, transport of livestock, feedlotting and in fact they aim to shut down all use of animal farming and any animal based products.
If you want to know where these zealots get their philosophic grounding?
Watch this video of Animals Australia co-founder Peter Singer to get a better idea of the snakes hiding in the wood heap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDv3uhqqTI&t=3s
The damaging & obvious presence of these cultist zealots was not dismissed by Darren nor mentioned. These zealots will generally be voters that favour the Greens, Animal Justice Party and Labor, so Labor won't mention them. There are animal welfare supporters everywhere, all farmers are but amongst the metro based people are those hiding under an Animal Welfarist cloak who are in fact Animal Liberationists. They due to their cult dogma will assign personhood to animals and believe they have the rights not to be food.
It is of course a complete mess of an idea that implodes with the slightest scrutiny & spot light.
It is cult dogma and its these people who will continually use Awassi footage & references even though the clear majority of livestock in the Live Trade meet the plate with all welfare compliance boxes ticked.
In fact Darren didn't address this question from the floor at all. Why do the media still use the most confronting and horrific footage which represents a tiny outlier of the trade?
If Darren truly supported the trade he would have supported the trade in word & action, instead he's played Identity Politics against a interstate MP from one of the party's he deeply hates. He pulls out the Victim Card on behalf of Alannah that really doesn't exist.
He is anti Live Export.
He has put ideology before better practice in a vital trade that adds to our foreign exchange figures.
A trade that employs many Western Australians & helps hold the farm gate price.
He's gone full socialist economist path. State enters into the fray and abolishes what they dislike despite the improvements, the market place floor price that will plummet. Its about state control irrespective of the likely Animal Welfare standards and the assured financial decline.
If Socialist Understood Economics There'd Be No Socialists.
Monday, 2 July 2018
Debating the Left, Fascism, Distractions & Derailing
Here's classic example of how some leftists will use identity politics to derail a debate or discussion.
Why? Its quicker, faster & easier to upset the apple cart than using facts and actual researched data from history, science...you know accepted evidence.
A twitter poster went a little rabid on the anti side against the Save Moora College campaign.
All behind an anonymous twitter account. Why do it with hidden identity? More later.
Interesting is how very defensive the twit became on Labor's actions to close the college but as soon as the blow torch was applied there, that closed. Then it was just a defence of Labor by attack all those who were pro Save Moora College. This enabled the "moorjacker" to avoid the use of facts that directly apply to the closure of the college & the good reasons to leave it open.
Distraction launched.
The narrative they unfolded had two possible origins. Either it was a less than informed very pro Labor Party supporter or it was a very well informed and very close to, or inside of the Labor Party who need to use distractions to derail.
Yes I probably engaged longer than a should have but if you're to narrow theories on who's hiding their identity and using feelings not facts well you have to entertain them longer than you should.
It didn't take long before Goodwin's Theory was introduced, that is the debate stalls & the inclusion of Nazi Germany is used to bolster a failing argument. Time to go a little further a little deeper and let loose far more rope.
I posted up a video that explains that Fascism is actually from the Left not the Right and posted a video from Dinesh D'Souza ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA )
He clearly sets out the philosophical founder of Fascism, an Italian closely linked in the day with Mussolini. The Socialist Philosopher's name is Giovanni Gentile.
Now the Anon Tweeter could deconstruct the facts that D'Souza put forward. But no. Not once.
Instead the Tweeter researched D'Souza and claimed he was a convicted neo-conservative criminal who was pardoned by "comrade Trump". Think it speaks volume when he used a term from the left to describe Trump because "comrade" is often used as a negative by conservatives. It was very odd.
I made the point I wasn't aware of D'Souza's court history, I will look it up one day as at a guess the fact it was brought up without any links suggests there's more to it but the tweeter needed to stick to derailing.
I made the point that a person's criminal history does not mean everything they say is a lie. That by sticking to the facts and checking for accuracy it remains the case that facts don't care about your feelings, nor your court history.
I pointed out that Mandela himself had a criminal history. I would not dismiss everything he said because of prison term he served. Nor should any one.
This however translated into me thinking Mandela was the same as a convicted neo-conservative criminal wrongly pardoned by Trump. Again, identity politics, create victimhood to use as leverage to fill the void left by no facts.
I notice that on the 23 occasions I asked the Tweeter if they had ever been a defendant in a court case resulted in silence or another completely unrelated distraction. I did this because I thought well if by their standard people who are charged are somehow guilty of moral falsehood then we should start to look at facts about the tweeter.
So is Fascism of the Left? Yes it is.
Churchill was a staunch Nationalist, but he wasn't a Socialist.
Socialists are all about full state control and domination over the every aspect of the citizen's life because in their view only the state knows what's best, the citizens don't. Any citizen expressing a view contrary to the state is often in a Fascist/Socialist state deemed a traitor. Not a good ending.
Nazi Germany were, by way of looking at their very name "National Socialists".
Where some Socialist regimes are full state control in the fight against Class, the Fascists have a distinct National identity as being paramount and to a lesser extent class warfare. Exactly as Hitler's regime was. Near on full adherence to "the Motherland (Nationalist) as well as full control by the state (Socialist) = Nationalist Socialism.
It is of the left. Do extreme right wing elements attach themselves to Fascist ideals? Yes and many times many people therefore think that Fascism is extreme right wing, except right wing is conservative and very much against state control. The so called extreme right wing nutters only co-join with the racist aspects from Fascism.
So this is twisted by the anon tweeter and thrown back into the mix to distract & derail and very carefully bypassing facts.
This is one VERY determined person. One who is either decidedly and to the point of being an extremist, against the Saving of Moora Residential College. Why the hate for the college and why avoid any facts put forward by affected stakeholders?
Think they're not very determined anti Moora College. I think they're utterly devout and fully fanatical leftist true believers. This isn't so much about Moora College, its about a perceived threat to Labor. An attack Labor cannot sustain if facts are maintained nor if the so called equality nature of Labor dogma is used. They contradict their own dogma by closing Moora College. It's a breach of core Labor policy thinking.
That makes it a political threat. So who would be so worried about this genuine silver bullet heading Labor's way. Well no metro based Labor MP.
They just ignore it.
Sue Ellery blocks anyone with Save Moora College hashtags. So has Wyatt, Papalia and others.
Its not on their radar, they mute it from their radar. Its done, move on.
If its an MP its someone trying to prove themselves and its someone rural based, or non metro.
That gives you a fair few to choose from if it is an MP
I think its either an MP or someone very close personally or professionally to a rural Labor MP.
So who is it?
Well...it doesn't matter.
No seriously, it doesn't matter at all if its Labor staffer, Labor MP, or devout branch member somewhere. It matters not at all.
Facts do.
Stick to the facts & you'll notice the tweeter will falter.
They will have to try harder to hide their identity because when the sole focus is facts (not feelings, lies, twisted misleading narratives or identity politics) the tweeter will, no matter how hard they try drop bread crumbs that will lead to their identity.
Facts are their enemy. Stakeholders views are their enemy.
Their best & only hope is distraction and stalling for time.
Bad decisions can be ignored once they're done.
At present Labor is still stalling for time, trying to distract people until the end of the 2018 School Term when it all goes away and the badly affected stakeholders are split up and spread to the 4 winds. Moral blame can go to the previous government and it can be ignored & buried and Sue Ellery still won't need to visit Moora.
WA Nats en mass have visited Moora. Federal National, Senator Bridget McKenzie visited Moora. Liberal leader Mike Nahan visited Moora.
Labor...no they want it to go away. Sue Ellery made a decision without engaging with staekholders and still hasn't gone to Moora. Ben Wyatt and the Premier haven't either.
And they're not real keen on facts either. Its better to stick with emotional distractions or play ientity politics.
The Save Moora College movement is not going away, its growing and it's getting louder. Its growing great support from Perth voters, some of them Labor voters that see an age old Labor value being chucked out to buy votes in Perth. Some may never vote against Labor but its pretty uncomfortable with one Labor voter in the Darling Range by-election saying he'd voted Labor his entire life but he never signed on for this.
So if you engage with anti "Save Moora College" tweeters be very aware. You will be picked apart on any narrative outside of the Moora College to get you distracted (as I was) and kept away from the core central facts (which sadly for them I'm solely sticking to)
If they start lying about your character whilst they hide their identity then it probably is time to block them. To date I've only ever blocked 2 people, one is the Anti Moora person and another was a very abusive anti Live Export vegan.
Stick to the facts. Whether you like it or not, stick to the facts.
Facts don't care about your feelings, they care about the truth.
Stick to the facts central to keeping Moora College open.
Then sit back and watch.
Identity politic, personal attacks, false narratives, unrelated diversions will all increase as will the attempts to illicit a sharp emotional response.
Ignore. Stick to the facts.
The Moora College Movement is not going away.
Nor should it.
Why? Its quicker, faster & easier to upset the apple cart than using facts and actual researched data from history, science...you know accepted evidence.
A twitter poster went a little rabid on the anti side against the Save Moora College campaign.
All behind an anonymous twitter account. Why do it with hidden identity? More later.
Interesting is how very defensive the twit became on Labor's actions to close the college but as soon as the blow torch was applied there, that closed. Then it was just a defence of Labor by attack all those who were pro Save Moora College. This enabled the "moorjacker" to avoid the use of facts that directly apply to the closure of the college & the good reasons to leave it open.
Distraction launched.
The narrative they unfolded had two possible origins. Either it was a less than informed very pro Labor Party supporter or it was a very well informed and very close to, or inside of the Labor Party who need to use distractions to derail.
Yes I probably engaged longer than a should have but if you're to narrow theories on who's hiding their identity and using feelings not facts well you have to entertain them longer than you should.
It didn't take long before Goodwin's Theory was introduced, that is the debate stalls & the inclusion of Nazi Germany is used to bolster a failing argument. Time to go a little further a little deeper and let loose far more rope.
I posted up a video that explains that Fascism is actually from the Left not the Right and posted a video from Dinesh D'Souza ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA )
He clearly sets out the philosophical founder of Fascism, an Italian closely linked in the day with Mussolini. The Socialist Philosopher's name is Giovanni Gentile.
Now the Anon Tweeter could deconstruct the facts that D'Souza put forward. But no. Not once.
Instead the Tweeter researched D'Souza and claimed he was a convicted neo-conservative criminal who was pardoned by "comrade Trump". Think it speaks volume when he used a term from the left to describe Trump because "comrade" is often used as a negative by conservatives. It was very odd.
I made the point I wasn't aware of D'Souza's court history, I will look it up one day as at a guess the fact it was brought up without any links suggests there's more to it but the tweeter needed to stick to derailing.
I made the point that a person's criminal history does not mean everything they say is a lie. That by sticking to the facts and checking for accuracy it remains the case that facts don't care about your feelings, nor your court history.
I pointed out that Mandela himself had a criminal history. I would not dismiss everything he said because of prison term he served. Nor should any one.
This however translated into me thinking Mandela was the same as a convicted neo-conservative criminal wrongly pardoned by Trump. Again, identity politics, create victimhood to use as leverage to fill the void left by no facts.
I notice that on the 23 occasions I asked the Tweeter if they had ever been a defendant in a court case resulted in silence or another completely unrelated distraction. I did this because I thought well if by their standard people who are charged are somehow guilty of moral falsehood then we should start to look at facts about the tweeter.
So is Fascism of the Left? Yes it is.
Churchill was a staunch Nationalist, but he wasn't a Socialist.
Socialists are all about full state control and domination over the every aspect of the citizen's life because in their view only the state knows what's best, the citizens don't. Any citizen expressing a view contrary to the state is often in a Fascist/Socialist state deemed a traitor. Not a good ending.
Nazi Germany were, by way of looking at their very name "National Socialists".
Where some Socialist regimes are full state control in the fight against Class, the Fascists have a distinct National identity as being paramount and to a lesser extent class warfare. Exactly as Hitler's regime was. Near on full adherence to "the Motherland (Nationalist) as well as full control by the state (Socialist) = Nationalist Socialism.
It is of the left. Do extreme right wing elements attach themselves to Fascist ideals? Yes and many times many people therefore think that Fascism is extreme right wing, except right wing is conservative and very much against state control. The so called extreme right wing nutters only co-join with the racist aspects from Fascism.
So this is twisted by the anon tweeter and thrown back into the mix to distract & derail and very carefully bypassing facts.
This is one VERY determined person. One who is either decidedly and to the point of being an extremist, against the Saving of Moora Residential College. Why the hate for the college and why avoid any facts put forward by affected stakeholders?
Think they're not very determined anti Moora College. I think they're utterly devout and fully fanatical leftist true believers. This isn't so much about Moora College, its about a perceived threat to Labor. An attack Labor cannot sustain if facts are maintained nor if the so called equality nature of Labor dogma is used. They contradict their own dogma by closing Moora College. It's a breach of core Labor policy thinking.
That makes it a political threat. So who would be so worried about this genuine silver bullet heading Labor's way. Well no metro based Labor MP.
They just ignore it.
Sue Ellery blocks anyone with Save Moora College hashtags. So has Wyatt, Papalia and others.
Its not on their radar, they mute it from their radar. Its done, move on.
If its an MP its someone trying to prove themselves and its someone rural based, or non metro.
That gives you a fair few to choose from if it is an MP
I think its either an MP or someone very close personally or professionally to a rural Labor MP.
So who is it?
Well...it doesn't matter.
No seriously, it doesn't matter at all if its Labor staffer, Labor MP, or devout branch member somewhere. It matters not at all.
Facts do.
Stick to the facts & you'll notice the tweeter will falter.
They will have to try harder to hide their identity because when the sole focus is facts (not feelings, lies, twisted misleading narratives or identity politics) the tweeter will, no matter how hard they try drop bread crumbs that will lead to their identity.
Facts are their enemy. Stakeholders views are their enemy.
Their best & only hope is distraction and stalling for time.
Bad decisions can be ignored once they're done.
At present Labor is still stalling for time, trying to distract people until the end of the 2018 School Term when it all goes away and the badly affected stakeholders are split up and spread to the 4 winds. Moral blame can go to the previous government and it can be ignored & buried and Sue Ellery still won't need to visit Moora.
WA Nats en mass have visited Moora. Federal National, Senator Bridget McKenzie visited Moora. Liberal leader Mike Nahan visited Moora.
Labor...no they want it to go away. Sue Ellery made a decision without engaging with staekholders and still hasn't gone to Moora. Ben Wyatt and the Premier haven't either.
And they're not real keen on facts either. Its better to stick with emotional distractions or play ientity politics.
The Save Moora College movement is not going away, its growing and it's getting louder. Its growing great support from Perth voters, some of them Labor voters that see an age old Labor value being chucked out to buy votes in Perth. Some may never vote against Labor but its pretty uncomfortable with one Labor voter in the Darling Range by-election saying he'd voted Labor his entire life but he never signed on for this.
So if you engage with anti "Save Moora College" tweeters be very aware. You will be picked apart on any narrative outside of the Moora College to get you distracted (as I was) and kept away from the core central facts (which sadly for them I'm solely sticking to)
If they start lying about your character whilst they hide their identity then it probably is time to block them. To date I've only ever blocked 2 people, one is the Anti Moora person and another was a very abusive anti Live Export vegan.
Stick to the facts. Whether you like it or not, stick to the facts.
Facts don't care about your feelings, they care about the truth.
Stick to the facts central to keeping Moora College open.
Then sit back and watch.
Identity politic, personal attacks, false narratives, unrelated diversions will all increase as will the attempts to illicit a sharp emotional response.
Ignore. Stick to the facts.
The Moora College Movement is not going away.
Nor should it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)