Heaping On the White Guilt

I went to bed last night in a rage, having been told by ABC panellists that my presence in this country is illegal. That my mother, brother, and young daughter were all criminals trespassing on Aboriginal land.

Once again (yeah, it's getting pretty tedious, it's it - we were lecture on the instituitonal racism of this country. The governments of years past had enabled racist, divisive policies such as the White Australia policy, and because of this flawed past racism has remained a disease of the Australian mind.

Germaine Greer, though admitting to being in London 8 months of the year, still thought she knew enough about Australia's current social climate to judge us all as racist remnants of a distant past.

Of course, my anger eased once I told myself that the panellists lecturing me were just a remnant themselves. A remnant of a distant past when Australians were judged as racist idiots. Don't listen to them, I told myself, you're smarter than that.

The Fine Art and Gentle Science of Medical Murder

In retrospect, reading an essay on after-birth abortion probably wasn't a good way to start the day. Infact it was the worst thing I could have read. While the semantically tip-toed drivel of Drs Albert Giublini and Francesca Minerva didn't contribute to my morose mood this afternoon it certainly did make me want to throw up, even on the packed City bound train. 

In their essay, for the "Journal of Medical Ethics," entitled "Why Should the Baby Live?" Giubilini and Minerva give examples of cases where it should be permissable to perform an after birth abortion. 

Here's dumbass me thinking doctors were supposed to save lives. 

So what "reasons" do Giubilini and Minerva (I will not be referring to them as doctors for the remainder of the article because I feel they have lost the right to that title. I will be doing what I can to influence their deregisteration.) 

Cases in which after birth abortion might be practised:   

1- "A woman whose partner leaves her after she discovers that she is pregnant." 

Say a young lady is 3 days off her due date. Her partner (probably a drug addict scumbag) courageously leaves her and his unborn child. 

The woman gives birth on the due date, but then decides, arbitrarily, that she can't afford to look after the child by herself. 

So a murderer posing as a doctor comes along and slays the child while the mother watches. Cackling maniacally at the same time. 

See, in the Western world we have a thing called social security, and welfare. Single mothers have access to help from the government in providing for their child. The affordability argument has never be more to me than a bad excuse for legalised infanticide. 

But what other examples do the learned quacks give? 

Emotional impact on family members. That includes parents, siblings. 

The murderous twosome argue that the emotional burden on families, the emotional burden on siblings as well, should be taken into account. 

Yeah, it's hard being a kid these days. One minute you're turning 12, the next some cute little poser has just popped out of your Mum and started hogging all the affection. 

I know how devastated I was when my brother and sisters were born. 

If only there was some way that the older siblings didn't have to feel the emotional pain of having a beautiful little baby enter their lives. 

The essay also says that children may be an "unbearable burden on the family and society as a whole." 

There was once a man who thought certain "burdens" on society should be eliminated. He had a funny moustache, wore a brown shirt, and really loved birthday parties at Nuremberg. 

Yeah, THAT guy.   

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you  Giubilini and Minerva, here for all your unwanted disposal needs. 

Throughout the essay the authors refer to newborns as "potential persons." They aren't persons because they are "incapable of looking after there own interests. They are potential persons though. 

Strangely, animals are considered to be persons by the authors. 

So because little bub doesn't have the physical strength to go out and get a job to pay the mortgage, or feed himself, it's okay to kill him. 

That's what you get when the medical world that once used to save lives so eagerly sells it's soul to Satan. 

The authors go on to make more strange assumptions. Such as suggesting that mothers may face more grief and psychological stress giving up their baby for adoption than they would if they aborted it. 

Yes, it can be so stressful knowing that your child is alive and well, being raised by another family, breathing the air, playing at the beach, learning the beauties of life. Why didn't you just kill it when you had the chance. 

Things Giubilini and Minerva think are more important than newborn babies. 

- animals 
- the mother's psychological state  
- the bratty siblings 
- the dead beat father 
- Imagined future society   

But I think the saddest thing is that many of these children are left to die alone on slabs of cold metal. In trays. In bins. No one to hold their hand as they die a lonely death. 

Alright that's enough of this topic. 

Next week something amusing.    


God bless the innocent dead. Your cries shall not be ignored. 

This article is dedicated to the victims of the greatest holocaust of the modern era. May they see Jesus threw the darkness of their final lonely hour. 

  

      

 

  

           














 

 

Questions On Gay Marriage

I have two questions about gay marriage. 

1. Why is it that it has only become an issue in the last few years, suddenly gripping the public conscience? 

2. Aren't there many more important things governments need to be worrying about? 

I should clarify my position. I view gay marriage sort of the same way I view fairy floss and pony rides. Neither have caused any lasting harm to society, nor have they had any lasting benefits. 

I support the right of people to get married, just as I support the right of people to ride ponies. I just think it is an issue that can wait. I also don't think it's that important.  

Is it going to help anyone? 

How many gays in Iran are going to be spared unjust torture and execution if gay marriage laws are passed? 

I should finish by saying that I don't think a gay person needs to have their love for their partner "validated" by the government. As a libertarian, my view is that the government should stay out of people's relationships. 
Legalising gay marriage would only give the government a stronger hold on another section of the community.  

Gays should be allowed to marry. They just shouldn't put themselves at the mercy of the government. 

Don't let your government define love.     

The Farce of "Earth Hour."

There aren't many things about my country that don't make me proud to be a citizen. Australian doctors have made ground breaking medical discoveries; several Australians have won Nobel Prizes; and Australian men and women excel in sport, the arts, film, music and science. There's nothing about Australia that could make me feel shame... Oh, wait, there is Earth Hour. 

What is Earth Hour? 

Earth Hour is a crock of shit thought up by the Left Wing newspaper    Sydney Morning Herald, and the World Wildlife Fund, an organisation that has been hijacked by militant Greens. 

What happens during Earth Hour? 

Hippies, Greens, Hipsters, guilt ridden suburban trendies and naive teenage girls all turn off their lights, TVs, computers and other electrical devices. A lot of people light candles - which really defeats the purpose, doesn't it - I mean it is supposed to be a sacrifice. If environmentalists and conservationists substitute candles for electricity they aren't really feeling the pain of the sacrifice, are they. 

And I should point out that candles are made from a crude oil, fossil fuel base that emits carbon dioxide when burnt. 

Has Earth Hour acheived anything? 

Yes. It's contributed to the feeling of smug self satisfaction among celebrities and concrete conservationists. And I'm sure it hasn't done any damage to Al Gore's over blown, over grown ego. 

So late next month, when all is dark and quiet, I will be leaving as many lights and appliances on as I want. 

Climate Change is a scientific myth  invented to restrict third world development. It is a political ideology disguised as environmental concern. 

An empty, symbolic gesture to save a planet that doesn't need saving? 

Ha ha ha.    

      

Trouble Makers of the World Unite

It's not looking good for Kim Sattler. What more did I expect from a union representative, left wing brute. Sattler is the kind of progressive, feminine, left leaning labor lunatic who loves to start trouble, but runs when the fighting starts. 

Actually, that's not very fair. Sattler didn't run. No. She took out her phone and filmed the scenes on Australia day. The scenes of a prime minister and opposition leader running scared from a mob of Tent Embassy savages. 

She can be seen on television news footage, smiling as she films the panic. That she then denied this and - not only that - claimed falsely to have "helped manage the situation," shows what a lying, deceptive, sociopathic serpent this woman is. Well, maybe her figure isn't so "serpentine." 

She repeated to members of the Tent Embassy the claim that Opposition Leader, Tony Abbot, had called for the Tents to be pulled down. He hadn't. He should have. But he hadn't. Sattler was a secondary witness to Abbot's statements about the Tent Embassy. 

See. That's why courts have a thing called "hearsay." Repeating something you didn't hear yourself, but rather, learnt of from someone else, is the surest way to turn facts into lies. Anyone who has ever played Chinese whispers will know how hard it is for a message to survive verbatim from one source to another, and another, and another. 

Tony Abbot had only remarked that Indigenous people should be "proud" of all the rights they have obtained; and that maybe it was time to move on. 

Abbott acted in a polite, professional manner as accusations were thrown his way. To remain calm after nearly being assaulted by a mad mob - all because of a misinterpreted comment - is worthy of deep respect. The kind of respect Sattler would get, if we weren't laughing so hard at the egg on her face.      

Parent's Group Breeds Culture of Fear and Intolerance

One night, when I was a teenager, I was watching a telemovie about the life of Jesus. In no way was it 100 percent accurate; but it was interesting, and, for any non-Christians interested in learning about Christianity, it was a digestible introduction to the religion. 

One such "non-Christian" who had an interest in the life and work of Jesus, was my stepbrother, the son of my father's fiancé. I use quotation marks because my stepbrother was every much a Christian as I am. He may only have attended a few sporadic church services; he didn't own a bible; but he was a Christian because he expressed interest in who Christ was, and what his message was. 

Sadly, his interest had been suppressed by his militantly atheist mother, a woman who feared religion more than she hated it. When she "caught" him watching the telemovie she switched off the TV in such a passionate hurry that an outsider might be forgiven for assuming it was a porn he was watching. 

It is unfortunate that this irrational fear continues today among the wider atheist community. 
 
On Saturday I read of a parent's group known as "Fairness in Religion in Schools" or "FIRIS" here in my state of Victoria, Australia, that is pressuring the education department to end special religious instruction in Victorian schools. Here are some statements from their website: 
 
"We support education about religion consistent with Australia’s multicultural character and believe that families can be trusted to attend to the religious formation of their children. The current school policy is a result of political intimidation by a small number of church activists."


"This policy divides children and school communities by requiring families of minority religions, or of no religion to withdraw their children from school time."

Firstly, a multi-cultural society should not excuse intolerance towards the majority religion
of that society. If we are to embrace all cultures, we would do well to keep the traditions of our own.   

Secondly, there should be no reason to withdraw non-Christians from Christian religious classes. Teaching non-Christians about the history and beliefs of the Christian Church is no more harmful than teaching vegetatarians about where meat comes from. 

These classes don't indoctrinate children. They aren't lessons in abstract brain washing. Only a fool refuses to learn about things with which he does not agree. I am a Christian, yet I know more about Islam than most of my friends, and have long had an interest in the history and customs of the Jews (my stepgrandfather was a holocaust survivor). 

No, it is not the religious classes that are divisive, rather the proposal of "FIRIS" to ban them. It is prejudiced as well as divisive.       

It is prejudiced because it picks on a single religious group: Christians. Groups like "FIRIS" (why do all socially Left groups have such ridiculous acronyms) don't have the balls to criticise Islamic schools; so they harrass the harmless folk who just want to teach children about a harmless religion that has thrived for two thousand years. 

A religion that just happens to be the foundation on which Western democracy and rule of law began. 

A religion that is the building blocks of the values that even disillusioned atheists follow. 

It is divisive because it says to Christian children that their beliefs don't belong in the modern world. That the fashionable religion of "ethics" is prefered over the very much "unfashionable" Christianty. And that's really all there is to it: fashion. 

It's the reason schools that long ago ended religious instruction still force children as young as 5 to learn about the religions of Australia's indigenous people; including the story of how an eagle and a snake created the earth. That's trendy, you see. That's the way of the future; and the future looks very grim.