Thursday, October 27, 2011

Multiculturalism is the old Fascism

If I put up on this blog an untruth based on ideal rather than hard empirical evidence that was so blatantly dishonest in its presentation as to be immediately obvious to even the simpleton, I would expect to be roundly criticized for my foolishness in trying to hoodwink you, the reader.
Criticism of my 'untruth' would then force me to rethink why I had actually put that 'untruth' up in the first place and probably cause me to withdraw it from the site. Criticism which is fair and constructive in response to that which is perceived as untruthful, or as against current social trends, should always be encouraged. Criticism should never be denigrated, as is the custom today, by those who believe they have a particular 'moral' right to publicly discount fair criticism rather than engage in open debate and be forced to publicly defend their ideals.
Cultures, or societies, can only move forward or progress, when novel, or new ideas being introduced into that society are openly debated, or criticized by opponents and either accepted or rejected. Forcing the citizen to adapt to ideals that do not ring true to those citizens will in the end, only raise their ire and their opposition to such unwanted impositions. Once opposition is detected by the idealists who insist on imposing their new ideal without due mandate, for example; a democratic vote, counter measures will then be introduced through special restrictive rules and laws designed solely to enable the new ideal to be socially embedded without lawful challenge. That is fascism!
Multiculturalism is one of those unwanted impositions that have been forced onto the West without mandate, and I stress, ONLY the WEST and its aspirants have allowed this imposition to occur. No other culture has been stupid enough to accept the false tenet of multiculturalism which is; that ALL cultures aspire to the same ideals therefore ALL cultures openly embrace the ideals of equality, pluralism and secularism.
Whoever thought that one up did not venture outside of their own living room and experience the real world, because nothing could be further from the truth than that false multi-cultural ideal. A couple of weeks spent in any Islamic nation, or other third world country for that matter, and without being chaperoned, will soon convince even the most ardent Multiculturalist of the fallacy of their ideal.
Either that, or the people who thought up the concept of Multiculturalism had a more sinister plan in mind, like the deliberate destruction of the West's culture for political ends. Think that is a little over the top? Then don't read on!
The 20th Century was largely played out in war. It was a century that had only one decade, the 1920's, that had relative peace without a major war being fought somewhere around the Globe. It was a century of idealism versus practicality and Conservatism, where Socialism, in its now many forms of Marxism, Communism, National Socialism, which eventually spawned Progressivism, was forced through revolution or civil war, onto unsuspecting populations that had no say in how they were to be governed. The 20th Century was therefore, a test bed for socialist ideology which has largely proven to be a failure.
The Socialists hate competition, especially from conservative thinkers who will defeat the case for socialism argument point by point at every public debate. However, this did not stop the Soviets from going to great lengths to implant their brand of socialism onto the rest of the world by using their agents to infiltrate the West through its unions, educational, business, media and political establishments by targetting, and then nurturing, those who held sympathy with the Communist cause. The Soviets knew they could never defeat the West militarily so resorted to subjugating the West through its institutions, just as the 'soft' Islamic Jihad is doing today. We are now witnessing in all Western nations the result of that program to undermine the West that has been continuing since the 1930's. Ever wonder why the Soviets supported the Arabs in the Middle Eastern wars?
. Hardly a day will pass now where someone will not be subject to a fascist law based on discrimination, offense, or hate speech. These are laws designed to gag the dissident and alienate those who may be thinking similar thoughts. These laws must be seen for what they really are; attacks against freedom of expression by those who can't successfully argue their socialist stance in a public forum, and who wish to silence the majority from exposing their agenda.
All brands of socialism exclude any thinking outside of the socialist square, and as the history of the 20th Century has shown, dissidents are seen as vermin and are to be treated accordingly. We are now witness to the same kind of thinking where those who feel compelled to speak out, or criticise that, which is obviously detrimental to the society they live in and wish to maintain as harmonious, are publicly labelled as being racist, bigotted, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, or any other nasty epithet that the socialist wishes to cast their way. And always remember this: Given the right opportunity, those who now use nasty epithets against their perceived political enemies rather than argue their case, will one day turn those words into bullets to the back of the head!
Multiculturalism has allowed the Socialists to gain what they now have; control of the media, our educational establisments, some business operations, most unions and some major political parties. Through the socialist doctrine of multi-culturalism, the Human Rights industry has grown exponentially into an industry of pseudo laws that actively discriminates against the host culture in favor of the immigrant, or minority group, that seeks to remain exclusive and apart from the national character of the land they choose to settle in. Those who see the social problems ahead that multiculturalism is fostering, are by those same pseudo laws which are designed to embed the socialist doctrine of multiculturalism, forced to remain silent while the slow collapse of our western cultures into socialist states continues unabated.
Welcome to the new fascism which is the same as the old fascism.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Why the West must support Israel

There is an avalanche of ignorance within the West concerning the state of Israel, particularly from the so called main stream media which appears at best uninterested, and at worst, blatantly partisan against Israel without any hint of balance whatsoever to the fundamental issues that has kept the Middle East in a state of anxiety, terrorism and war readiness for over six decades. In this regard, Israel is on the front line against the Islamic Jihad which the West, through its myopic view of history, seems to be totally ignorant of.
The main issue, that is, Islamic intolerance for the infidel and the Jew, has driven a wedge between Israel and its Islamic neighbors and is poorly understood by the so called 'Western intelligentsia' that are supposed to be learned people. However, the level of knowledge of those who would be called 'intelligentsia' is little more than parrotted bias learned in the halls of Socialist educational facilities such as that which now passes for the Western university of today. Some left wing academics, journalists and politicians who, when feeling compelled to write, lecture or make policy about Middle Eastern issues, should at the very least have a basic understanding of how the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism affects the stability of the Middle East, and not be persuaded to present politically correct, or leftwing biased views as opposed to a more balanced picture.
Here are some facts regarding those issues that should be of paramount importance to those who believe they are more able than others to make policy and persuade those less informed on such issues:
1. Israel came into existence as a nation on May 14, 1948, by a United Nations Act. In effect, the state of Israel was being returned to the rightful owners who had been dispossessed of their land in AD 70 by the Romans. All Arabs that were displaced by the formation of this new nation were guaranteed accommodation within Israel. Those Arabs who accepted this offer now have their descendants living there. The United Nations offered land to other Arabs who refused to stay in Israel which was rejected by a Cabal of Arab leaders that determined instead to attack Israel the very first day after receiving its nationhood. That attack became the first Arab-Israeli war.
2. Prior to the formation of the nation of Israel, there was no nationality at that time being refered to as 'Palestinian.' Inhabitants of Palestine at that time were either Arabs or Jews without nationality as there was no recognized state by any of the major powers. The term 'Palestinian' can be traced back to the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was an Arab front for gaining recognition and legitimacy within the West as a political arm of the PLO, which in reality was nothing more than a terrorist organization with a charter to annihilate the state of Israel, and one that really came into its own by initiating lethal terrorist attacks which targetted selected European and Israeli interests. The PLO model of terrorism tactics has also been employed by current Islamic terrorist organizations that have since 9/11, spread world wide with a view to overthrow the West and instal a world wide Islamic caliphate under Sha'ria Law.
3. There are direct links to todays Islamic terrorism with that of the PLO and its many acts of atrocities carried out against Western and Israeli targets which are being totally ignored by our cowardly Western governments. What occurs now world wide in Islamic terror attacks is a continuation of an ancient war that Islam has been waging ever since its inception in the 7th Century. This is a pre-ordained war ascribed by Mohammed against the infidel which has since been continually fought against the unbeliever in every corner of the Globe. This fact is fundamental to understanding what it is that drives Islamic thinking and the thousands of Islamic terrorists acts that have been carried out since 9/11, yet this root cause of worldwide terrorism is completely ignored by those who are in a position to act on it, and should act on it. I guess this lack of intestinal fortitude by our current crop of politicians in the face of an obvious enemy that is against everything we in the West are supposed to hold dear, and to stand for, is a graphic example of how the West is now directed by moral cowards!
4. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. All its neighbors are either ruled by Monarchies or Dictators. The liberal left like to champion social democracy except when the championing of such ideals includes the state of Israel. The hypocricy and dishonesty of the liberal left is simply astounding!
5. Israeli's enjoy a standard of living comparable to any Western nation while most of its neighbors citizenry languish in poverty, illiteracy and squalor. Insh'allah is a powerful word, and I would advise you the reader to look up this Arabic word as its utterance on a daily basis by some of the most destitute people in the world speaks very loudly as to the mindset of those Muslims who are affected by the dominance of Islam.
6. Israel has a population of some seven million Jews and Arabs. In comparison, Jews are not permitted to live in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. These four Islamic nations surround Israel on the land side and have a combined population of around 103 million. Israel truly is the underdog that finds itself in a situation that one could liken to the battle between David and Goliath.
7. Hamas, which governs Gaza, has a charter that determines to eradicate the state of Israel and all who live in it. In comparison, Israeli's just want peace and provide all kinds of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza who only give bullets and bombs in return!
8. The so called 'Palestinians' have been offered their own state on at least three occasions by the United Nations and American presidents, but all offers have been rejected! Why? Because only total eradication of the state of Israel and the genocide of 7 million Jews will satisfy the Arabs.
Israel does not have many friends in this world, and those who call themselves friends, at times, can be very fickle about the relationship. For example; the current American president, although not uttering words to the effect, has sanctioned many actions against Israel which any attentive person would immediately identify as anti-semitic in nature. To bow waist deep to the Saudi King but keep the Israeli Prime Minister waiting for 40 minutes in the White House while he went and had dinner without him, Obama's actions can only be seen for what they are, he is pro-Islam and anti-semitic. Yet not a peep from a very compliant socialist main stream media who in less politically correct and biased times would have exposed Obama's deep anti-semitism.
The history of Israel is one of a nation having to continually sleep with one eye open, not ever being able to trust any of its neighbors who would rather see them dead. What is it about 7 million Jews that 103 million Arabs and Egyptians would wish to kill? Why can't they leave 7 million Jews to live in peace and then get with on with their own lives?
Since their many defeats in war by tiny Israel, the Saudi's and other Arabs have been channeling billions of petro-dollars into the many Islamic terrorist cells spread throughout the world. They finance Mosques in all Western nations while refusing to have just one Christian Church or Synagogue erected within their own lands. They provide funds to Western universities under the 'diversity' of multiculturalism which is nothing more than a legal bribe with which to push the Islamic agenda of domination via stealthy infiltration of our educational, business and political establishments.
Israel is the thorn in the side of the Islamic beast that refuses to be dislodged. While Israel remains a viable democracy it will always be the enemy to Islam which issues much money and energy in trying to bring Israel down. The doctrine of Islam is a self perpetuating cause that must dominate all before it. Islam is a political/social system, akin more to an ideology with a smattering of religious dogma to justify its existence. Islam is not a religion as some would have us believe and in comparison to Christianity or Judaism, does not possess a defined moral code as its basis like the Ten Commandments has defined the Wests moral codes for millenia. Islam is for Muslims only, and its tenets justify the harsh treatment of the Jew and the infidel. There is no mercy, or tolerance for the non-Muslim in Islamic society ruled by the Sha'ria. Israel is on the front line of the worldwide Jihad that the main stream media have been hiding from us ever since the PLO established itself as the face of 'modern terrorism.'
It must therefore be an obligation on us, those who value what is left of our freedoms, to openly support the only democratic and viable culture in the Middle East, the state of Israel. Human decency demands it!

Friday, October 21, 2011

The dishonesty of the liberal mindset and the consequences for society

I am of the opinon that what people do behind their closed doors should be of no concern to the rest of us, unless of course if they are acting criminally. What most folks do to amuse themselves in the privacy of their castle should be kept within the boundaries of their castle and not taken to the streets where their 'particular pleasure', such as homosexuallity, is made public with the view to legitimizing what to most of us would be seen as perverse behaviour. That is just plain dishonesty, because the 'pusher' of non-criminal, but abnormal practices knows that his/her 'particular pleasure' is generally accepted by society as being of abnormal behaviour.
Abnormal behaviour by some will always be considered abnormal behaviour by those of us who have consideration for the social cohesion of our culture. That is why Homosexuals of both genders have their own categorization as being homosexual, that is, throughout recorded history they have always been considered apart from main stream socially acceptable norms, and calling Homosexuals 'Gays' is another dishonest attempt by the liberal left to force the public to recognize the homosexual lifestyle as normal when the fact remains, that being sexually intimate with a person of the same gender is anything but normal.
Before the politically correct word 'Gay' was forced onto us as a more acceptable definition of someone who enjoys the sexually intimate company of their own gender, the Homosexual was seen within society, but unlike today, was seldom heard. Was that really a bad thing? Was the social enforcement of keeping one's sexual orientation behind closed doors, so to speak, and out of the public arena oppressive as some would say?
Should one's sexual orientation be made public as we have often witnessed with that celebrity or this celebrity openly proclaiming their 'coming out' as a badge of honor? Does a public expression of 'sexual difference' really promote the homosexual cause or does it do more harm than good? Since when has it become socially acceptable to be outing one's sexual preferences as if the statement contains a kind of morality, and why do some consider this important?
We all have a choice in life of how we behave. Each of us instinctively knows what is right and what is wrong. How we utilize that instinctiveness is what makes us individuals, but we are individuals who mostly choose to live in societies that contain rules of behaviour to protect the collective society from the abnormal behaviour of the individual, such as the criminal. Without this mutual acceptance of collective law and societal norms which governs individual behaviour, there would be no culture, no society. While there is inalienable rights for the individual in most Western nations, the rights of the individual, or the minority group, should never be placed above that of the collective because the collective society will fracture and disintegrate as we are now seeing, and as an example; the recent riots in Britain. There would then be only individuals or minority groups with certain rights, but no collective society in which to practice those rights, in other words anarchy with no rule of law. The liberal left would have you believe that liberty is first and foremost their consideration for the individual. The liberal left though, will never inform you of the consequences for any culture once minority groups, or individuals, are granted certain rights above that of the collective as is now occurring under the Gay Lobby, Multiculturalism, Islam, Racial Discrimination Acts, Human Rights Commissions and a myriad of other 'rights' for minority groups or individuals.
If the West is to survive as a culture, then ALL Western nations need to protect their 'collective society' and begin to wind back the policies that are leading us to our own destruction. Individuals will always have their inalienable rights as citizens under the law of the land that they reside in, but minority groups special privileges, as is currently practiced and is plainly against the host culture, need to be curtailed and then terminated.
We can't survive as cohesive societies while we continue to live under the mind numbing spell that is the false ideology of the liberal left. To continue to do so is to die a slow death!

Monday, October 17, 2011

The Observer and the Sceptic

What kind of thinking is conducive to mankind's advance, observational thinking or the thinking of the sceptic? Does being of sceptical mind force conformity to a particular method of analysing data as shown which is therefore open to interpretation, or worse, mockery and ridicule? Or do the observant among us, who receive the data as shown as something tangible and therefore worthy of acceptance, give higher benefit to overall wellbeing of the society we all have to share?

But first, what is the meaning of observant?

From the Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary; 1. observing or regarding attentively: watchful. 2. quick to notice or perceive: alert. 3. careful in the observing of a law, custom, or the like.

And what is the meaning of sceptic?

From the same Dictionary; 1. one who questions the validity or authenticity of something to be purporting to be knowledge: 2. one who mistrusts and maintains a doubting pessimistic attitude towards people, plan, ideas etc: 3. one who doubts the truth of the Christian religion , or of important elements of it: 4. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, or any thinker, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

So what we have according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is two different methods of thinking when presented with the same data. We have the observer who readily grasps the data and accepts its implications and the sceptic who discounts the authenticity of the data while doubting its importance as of evidentiary value.

How does this twin system of analysing co-exist in a so called learned society or culture? In my opinion it can't! Once upon a time it was common practice to value that which was obvious and readily recognized as being of benefit to that socieity or culture, for example; education is traditionally based on what others have observed and accepted as the norm. However, that kind of thinking is no longer dominant, and has been replaced steadily, and through stealth, by the sceptical way of thinking in our educational establishments. But is this a bad thing?

Should one be a sometime sceptic, or a complete sceptic?

I believe that life cannot be seen simply in black and white issues. There are many gray areas out there that tend to escape the attention of serious study due to the predominant attitude of scepticism within our so called Main Stream Media, and educational institutions. And for lack of serious scientific study we as a species are missing out on what we should all be learning about. Even the most primitive tribes are able to adequately (as far as they are concerned) explain their reason for existence on this planet which leaves those among us, and who would wish to remain as sceptics when pondering such questions, as ignorant about life as they believe those primitive tribes are.

No, I don't think being a sceptic is conducive to advancing our culture or anyone else's for that matter, because scepticism can lead to a closed mind and the kind of arrogance which in turn produces the thinking that is now so dominant among the liberal left.

Which leaves the observer model as the kind of thinking that is truly conducive to elevating mankind above his animalistic urges. Conservatism is based on the observer model which is careful observation for that which works within a society and that which doesn't. While I champion observation = conservative values which have been proven to maintain a cohesive society, I do not accept that all conservative values should be endorsed without careful observation as to the effect its implementation has on society in general. Not all values suit all societies or cultures, especially Islamic cultures.

The thing to remember in championing conservative values to those who deny their legitimacy is that the sceptical way of thinking has proven to be self destructive as the 20th Century so readily identifies. Conservative values endure because conservative values have been proven to work over hundreds of years of civilization.

I am an observer. I hope you are too!

Saturday, October 15, 2011

The subject of Trust.

I have started this blog due to being recently 'kicked off' another blog which shall remain nameless and that I had been invited to contribute on with various articles from time to time. There were no hard and fast rules outlined at the meeting with the Blog Administrator, just that I put up articles of interest and that had a general topical appeal.
The operating system of that blog (Wordpress) was totally alien to me, which impression I conveyed to the blog operator of my concerns for not being familiar with its operating procedures. Nevertheless, I persevered with 'swimming rather than sinking' and became somewhat familiar with what to do to get those articles posted. I noted during my tenure on that blog that even the blog owner had troubles with the system from time to time, and he was far more familiar with it than I!
Over time it became standard practice to communicate by email with each other on those 'problems' we encountered and by which practice generally fixed any concerns raised.
So imagine my astonishment to find that ALL my posts had been deleted from the blog without so much as an email or a comment left on the blog by the owner as to why he decided on this act of childish vandalism. What had I done to deserve his spiteful wrath?
Which now gets us to the main topic of this short essay; Trust.
Trust is a short word, a simple word even, but it is a word that contains a lot of meaning. To trust someone or something is to place an amount of faith in that someone or something which you become reliant on to fulfil a certain obligation. For example; you may be an employer who relies on employees to fulfil a contract to provide their labor, or expertise, or both, that allows you the employer to provide a certain service to clients which in return earns you money which you then give to the employee as wages or salary. In other words, a level of trust must be in place in order for that arrangement to work at its most efficient.
Once upon a time a man's word was taken as his bond, and a level of trust was raised as an expectation that what one man promised to another would indeed be carried out. How many people today would you trust and accept that what they said as a promise, and therefore, to be taken as a guarantee to a conclusion of mutual satisfaction? I am of the old school that still believes a man's word is his bond, call me old fashioned or a dinosaur even, but throughout my life taking a man at his word unless proven otherwise, has always worked for me.
Getting back to that blog owner who decided to end my participation on his blog. What caused him to do this? Did he no longer trust me to provide to him what he required? Would something as serious as deleting an invited participants writings from a blogsite not warrant at least sending an email to the participant? Would you as that blog owner not wish to reinforce in your own mind that what you were about to do was justified? If I had been that blog owner I would have sent that email just to satisfy myself that the conclusion I had reached about the invited participant, for whatever reason, was the right conclusion. So what was it that got him so upset that he decided to terminate my contribution to his blog?
Apparently when posting one of my last posts I ticked the 'No Comments' section, which I did not know existed at that time, and was not aware that I had somehow 'deliberately' done this until the next day after putting up that post. Much to my bewilderment the blog owner had inserted his own short post denouncing 'No Comments' as an infraction of his 'rules' which I was not made aware of until then. I answered with a comment to another contributor that the 'infraction' was not an issue as I knew at the time that I had not 'turned on' the 'No Comments' deliberately and if indeed it was caused by me it was done unintentionally and without my knowledge.
A simple email from the blog owner would have cleared this up, but no, there had to be a 'song and dance' and then complete elimination of ALL my posts without any reasons given.
So it appears that while I had some trust in the blog owner he decided he had none from me which is a pity because I did nothing that would warrant such a loss of faith. Trust can only work when two parties have faith in each others ability to continue the 'contract' of mutual unwritten consent that each will endeavour to provide to the other what is expected of them. Sadly, I have been let down by someone who is so engrossed in his own mission, has become so intolerant of other humans and their mistakes that even a minor infraction of his rules by those he has chosen to be a team with, will not be tolerated.
If I had known that the blog owner was of such a pygmy mindset I would have declined his offer to contribute in the first place.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

21st Century Democratic Socialism

The liberal left recognize no limit to what they will do to enforce their bleeding heart ways onto rest of us who can see the nightmares that will eventuate from out of their ideological thinking. For instance: Take what occurred at Federal Parliament on Wednesday, October 12, with the introduction of the Carbon Tax, a tax that the current Prime Minister told the electorate there; "Will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead," while on the hustings and only days prior to the federal election in August last year.
Apparently lying to the public, and blatantly lying which verges on criminality, because by uttering the 'No Carbon Tax' mantra on many occasions prior to last years election, this Prime Minister is guilty of conning the Australian public and if this promise was set in an ordinary civilian business setting could be held accountable for fraudulent misrepresentation. But of course politics is a law unto itself and the criminal codes that govern the rest of us are of little consequence if you happen to be a politician with some authority telling the public what it wants to hear, but on gaining office doing otherwise. That the public have been duped by this Prime Minister is widely acknowledged by the majority of Australians concerned as to where this nation is heading, but of course, this is really of no concern to the liberal left who believe the phrase, by any means necessary means exactly that, and that only they know what is good for the rest of us!
Believing that you know what is good for others, or that you are better than others, is very dangerous thinking and has led to some quite horrendous episodes of mass murder, or more applicable, genocide, at the hands of those who believed they were better suited to running a nation than the populations elected, or non-elected representatives. National Socialism (Nazi) Communism (Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc) between them have been responsible for killing
over 100 million of their own citizens deemed to not be thinking in the socialist way, and therefore risking the security of the state which is absolute in any Socialist system.
It may chill you to realize that the United States is close to being a socialist state. Am I being paranoid you ask? Which country that you know of readily invokes National Security, or more to the point, State Security, whenever answers to questions raised by concerned citizens are to be avoided, or the state needs to control that which it deems needs controlling? Am I paranoid, or is the United States Government going beyond its constitutional boundaries?
I've been hearing a lot lately about national security matters being raised by this current Socialist government now holding the reins of power in Canberra, especially when 'boat people' are being mentioned and the questions raised become a little too hot for the government. Am I being paranoid, or is our government going beyond its constitutional powers?