The 100 Days of Bill Shorten, PM

Comedy…or reality…gold?

Michael Copeman lets you decide.

Australians opt for the shorter of two options on July 2. What follows brings delight in industrial quantities to wind-turbine operators, gay-studies faculties and a Cecil B. deMille cast of rent-seekers, revenuers, republicans, grievance mongers and social engineers

With just a 4% two-party-preferred swing on 2nd July, William Richard Shorten could become the 30th prime minister of Australia. Let us pause to imagine what the first 100 days of his ALP Government might bring. Remember, what follows is only imaginary — for now.

Ten days in, with the last marginal seat finally declared, the new Parliament is convened urgently to pass a Bill for Marriage Equality. Two ALP Members threaten to resign rather than vote for the bill, but are persuaded not to bring down the Shorten Government, and decide to abstain instead. The bill passes and is celebrated by an impromptu Mardi Gras parade the following weekend. The PM is enthroned on the first float — a hero to the ecstatic 1 million-strong crowd, lining the full length of Sydney’s famous Oxford Street. Several churches indicate they will now be referring all couples to non-religious wedding celebrants, thus avoiding entrapment by gay provocateurs pounding on their doors and demanding to be united in accordance with the law’s dictates.

The new PM also foreshadows that there will be a referendum (not a plebiscite) to make Australia a republic, via the “minimal” change of making the Governor-General the President, in late 2016. If passed, it is planned to swear in Australia’s first President on 26th January, 2017, “Invasion” Day, thereby disavowing the shame of British colonisation and genocide.

Two weeks in, new Treasurer Chris Bowen reveals that the state of the government’s books is much worse than what was forecast in Scott Morrison’s budget of May 3. In a joint press conference, Bowen and Shorten outline their plan for new taxes to balance the budget within three years. Shorten renews his promise that no government spending will be cut in the process.

The discount on taxation of capital gains from longer-term investments is to be scrapped, and from 2018 the family home will be subject to the capital-gains tax. Bowen says the discount and family-home exemption allowed the rich to get richer. The change is projected to raise $2 billion a year.

Federal death duties are also brought in, confiscating 40% of estates over $1 million. Shorten points out that this is similar to the inheritance tax in the UK, under a Conservative government. He notes that the tax will “level the playing field”, previously tipped in favour of wealthy Australians who often inherit untaxed property worth millions. This change is projected to raise $1 billion a year initially, assuming house prices don’t drop markedly as a result of sudden divestments by older people. The following Saturday, record low auction clearances are reported for homes in all Australia’s major cities except Hobart.

Because 2015 was officially the hottest year on record, Shorten says his government has decided to act urgently to reintroduce a Carbon Tax at $25/tonne. This is projected to raise $7billion a year, with $2 billion will be paid back in subsidies to ensure that poorer Australians are not disadvantaged. The measure is aimed to rapidly reduce Australia’s still-high CO2 output per capita. As a result, airfares rise by 10-15%, but this won’t affect politicians or public servants’ travel.

The Medicare levy — which has only ever covered part of Australia’s growing health expenditure — is to be doubled from 2% to 4% for taxpayers earning over $50,000. This will raise $5 billion, which will be spent on health — the majority going to the states to keep their public hospital systems running.

Finally, Federal Government funding to private schools charging fees of more than $5,000 a year is to be discontinued. It is estimated that $2 billion per year will be saved, the promise being that it will be ploughed back into education. Champagne corks pop in gender-, womyns- and gay-studies faculties across the country, where Safe Schools 2.0 lesson plans materialise overnight.

The ASX 200 plunges 10% in its first day of full trading after all this news, with resources and energy stocks plunging up to 50%. But shares in renewable energy companies soar an average of 150% as rent-seekers dust off schemes for wave generators, solar farms, “promising” battery technologies and a wind turbine on every hill. Unfortunately, almost all will be imported. On cold, clear but windless nights around Southern Australia, power costs will soar as high-cost gas-burning plants come on line to make up the missing energy.

Coal companies announce plans to phase out their Australia operations. All steel mills, aluminium and nickel refineries in Australia are to close within two years. The price of standard unleaded petrol at the bowser begins to rise, widely expected to hit $2 a litre within six months.

Fortunately for some Australian oil and LNG producers, a re-drawn treaty with East Timor has moved the huge Sunrise seabed field into East Timorese territory, exempt from Australia’s carbon tax. The producers and the East Timorese are both very grateful.

The next week, Australia’s first indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney — newly elected in the redrawn Sydney seat of Barton — announces that she is working on a treaty to be signed on behalf the government of Australia and all Australians with indigenous blood. She envisages that the Treaty will include reparations – probably in the order of $10 billion (given the $3 billion projected total cost of the Maori reparation program in New Zealand). More significantly, the treaty will re-create individual indigenous territories across Australia, each to have their own law-making parliament, elected exclusively by Australians with indigenous blood from that region.

Ms Burney indicates that it could be important for completion of Australia’s reconciliation process if the Aboriginal flag were also to be chosen as the new Australian flag. Another plebiscite on the flag (to be held along with the Republic referendum) is announced for late 2016.

Deputy PM and Minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, unveils a landmark Equality at Work Bill, which will require that at least 50% of the employees at all levels of any organisation be women, and that the take-home pay of female employees, averaged across all employees in all departments and jobs, be no lower than that of males. Companies that fail to meet these targets within five years will be subject to higher corporate taxes.

Two weeks later, the new Australian Union Powers Bill is unveiled by the PM himself. This Bill gives union organisers rights to enter any workplace in Australia, to inspect which workers are there (and check their Union membership), and review corporate employment and pay documents. Where Union organisers find any discrepancies, the company’s executives may be ordered to a compulsory meeting, chaired by a Fair Work Australia official with “relevant” union experience. The ASX slumps another 10%.

Richard Marles, Minister for Immigration, announces that all detention centres are to be closed, and Australia will provide reception centres in Indonesian ports for asylum-seekers considering taking sea voyages to Australia. To satisfy the ALP’s left factions, and the crucial Green Senators, all would-be immigrants will be flown to Australia on chartered commercial flights and housed “in the community”. Coincidentally, much of this housing is in marginal seats, with cynics noting that the influx of new arrivals can mostly be expected to vote Labor. Airline shares – which fell 50% after the carbon tax announcement – now rise 100% on this news.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Health, Catherine King, announces plans to re-nationalise Medibank Private, and compulsorily take over all other private health insurers. She notes that Australia’s Medicare system is the envy of countries round the world, and that the Government is determined to see all Australians participate in Medicare, rather than a divisive two-tier public/private system.

Within a fortnight, a million Australians drop their private health insurance. Struggling private hospital operators call for urgent talks regarding buy-back of their facilities by the Government. Government spokesmen note that private hospitals were the domains of “the rich” and the move is intended to promote “fairness”.

During a quick trip to the United Nations HQ in New York, Bill Shorten announces that Australia will be backing his former boss, Kevin Rudd’s candidacy for UN Secretary-General. Only this way, Shorten states, can Australia’s reputation as a decent, progressive and fair-minded country be restored. Kevin promises to come and visit Australia within six months of his election as Secretary-General.

In London, the PM and his wife dine with Her Majesty and HRH Sir Philip at Buckingham Palace, and assure them that Australians will always have a soft spot in their hearts for the Monarchy, even after the likely passing of the referendum to create the minimalist model Australian Republic shortly. Bill and Chloe tweet a selfie from the Queen’s private dining room at the Palace to their many followers. The Duke of Edinburgh is heard to mutter something characteristically colourful about the noxious nature of short people

Over the next three weeks, Bill and Chloe visit and meet with national leaders in Washington, Berlin, New Delhi, Beijing and Jakarta. President Obama notes that Bill Shorten reminds him a lot of himself just eight years ago. Hillary Clinton is too busy fending off investigations looking into her use of a private email server but sends him a best-wishes message.

The PM finally arrives back in Melbourne just 98 days after election. Working late in his office on the 99th night of his prime ministership, he hears a knock on his door. Deputy PM Plibersek enters with some bad news. As Shorten remembers it later, the words of another ousted Labor PM came back to him and he recalls that, as Julia Gillard once did, she walked in ‘ice cold, ice cold’.

The next day, Australia had yet another new Prime Minister.


A New Authoritarianism

As any religion has its creeds, so too does Progressivism.

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution. As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country. Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

Safe Schools Coalition Founders: “Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. “

So when the founders of the “Safe Schools” anti-bullying program admit that it’s not about bullying and instead all about homosexual and transgender indoctrination, will anybody be willing to face this revelation?

Or is it ears closed as usual?

Are you really okay with Marxists indoctrinating your children into pervere and promiscuous sexual practises with crazy reality-denying philosophy to boot?

The two people on stage, in the video, are Roz Ward, Coordinator of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, and Joel Radcliffe, Project Officer of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria.


Roz Ward:

We’re going to talk about visibility. And it’s one of the challenges, I think, of working – and we work deliberately and specifically around sexual diversity and gender diversity. Not all forms of diversity. We’re talking about sexual diversity and gender diversity. And both of those things are not necessarily visible. You can’t look around the room and be like “You’re sexually diverse. You’re gender diverse. Whatever.” It’s not the same as saying “Oh. There’s a lot of people from different cultural backgrounds. I can see them in here.”

Not all cultural diversity is visible but there are, ya know, there are those triggers to make you think “Are we doing stuff to make those students from different cultural backgrounds feel included?” There’s not the same triggers around sexual diversity. People can be invisible and there are schools where they say…still…we don’t necessarily work with them but we hear the stories of “But we don’t really have any gay students in our school.” Because they’re not necessarily visible, right? So we’ve gotta think about really explicit, visible cues that are very clearly about gender and sexual diversity. So we think very specific posters work really well, very specific messages from school leadership, very specific things written in your school newsletter, that Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. About same-sex attractive. About being transgender. About being lesbian, gay, bisexual – say the words – transgender, intersex. Not just “Be nice to everyone. Everyone’s great.”


Roz Ward

…positive parents have driven that change in schools, and out of 132 schools, we have had one complaint from a parent about being part of Safe Schools Coalition. One complaint. And that’s not what the schools thought was going to happen. All of the school leadership, or a lot of school leadership said “What can we do when a parent complains?” We give them some advice and then they’ll come and we’ll be like “Did anyone complain?” and they’re like “No. It’s great actually. Somebody called us and said congratulations for joining.” And it’s way more likely to be that we find, than people complaining.

If, and when, and sometimes, in that case when the parent did complain – we have complaints sometimes directly from parents who are not [inaudible] in what we’re doing. When people do complain, then school leadership can very calmly and graciously say “You know what? We’re doing it anyway. Tough luck.” Basically. In a nice way. “What can you do? This is a program that’s about supporting safe and inclusive schools. We’re going to celebrate IDAHO day, and we’re going to do it with our junior campus, and so, ya know, it’s unfortunate that you don’t agree with that. We’re going to do it again next year, and if you really, strongly disagree and you want to take your kid out of school that day, that’s their loss, really.”

Joel Radcliffe:

It’s important to know that it does come up a lot. People say “What about the parents?” a lot. Schools give parents…Parents have a lot…seem to have a lot of power over schools. Parents don’t have the power to shut this down. There’s an insignificant minority that might have an issue with it. None of them really ever say anything. I know one person that does. The Principal knows how to deal with that person. They know what the message is. They know why they’re doing this work and why it’s so important. That’s part of the school culture. That’s part of the school community. You’re either a part of it or you’re not really, at the end of the day. And no one’s taken their kid out of school…

Intollerant Homosexual Lobbyists Vandalise And Destroy Cory Bernardi’s Office Over “Safe Schools” Program

Mud slinging, name-calling and Ad hominem’s are a Leftist institution.

Indeed, I’m not sure you can truly be a “Progressive” Marxist unless you are willing to lower yourself to the point of tarnishing the reputations of your ideological enemies.

As a Leftist, your ideas are bankrupt and entirely unsupportable because of the relative nature of your foundational naturalistic atheist worldview and so if you have no real option in winning arguments, what are you left with?

Personal abuse and violence!

You accuse, you abuse, you vandalise, you violently force, you riot, you slander, and you avoid actually arguing the merits of your convictions at all costs (because if people knew your Marxists goals and your insane utopian idealism, they would be horrified).

This is the case with the indoctrination of Australian school-aged children into homosexuality, transgender, and premature sexuality through the laughably titled “Safe Schools” program, a program marketed as being about “anti-bullying”.

What teaching children to bind their breasts or penis has to do with bullying is anyone’s guess? 

Bill Muehlenberg’s piece Seven Things You Must Know About The Safe Schools Program discusses this sickly perverted, government-funded and promoted program in detail and is a must read for all parents.

But back to the vandalism and abuse of Leftists who are, in this most recent instance of hilarious hippo crush, have harassed the office staff of Cory Bernardi and throw in vandalism to boot.

What was Bernardi’s offence?

Well, he dared to highlight the content of the “Safe Schools” program, namely a course designed to fully indoctrinate and confuse children into homosexuality and transgender theory, even primary school-aged children.

Here’s the report:

Two dozen students have trashed Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi’s Adelaide office, protesting against his stance on the Safe Schools Program.

The students, who stormed his office chanting and scrawling slogans on both the exterior and interior walls of the office, also overthrew furniture and threw papers onto the floor.

In a tweet, Senator Bernardi said the protesters “threatened his staff”.

He said it was unfortunate he was not in Adelaide to “assist his amazing team”.

“Gutless actions like this will never stop me speaking the truth,” Mr Bernardi tweeted.

Police said a man had been reported for marking graffiti on a road sign.

They said they would review CCTV footage and witness statements, and further charges may occur.

Senator Simon Birmingham also slammed the protesters, calling them hypocrites.

“I have seen some of the pictures from Adelaide and for people who say they are standing up for tolerance and for understanding to then think that destruction of public property, that violence of that manner is appropriate, is deplorable, is hypocritical,” he said.

“I would have hoped we would see much better, indeed from all sides.”

The program, according to the website, offers resources and support to equip staff and students with “skills, practical ideas and greater confidence” to create a safe and inclusive environment for same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students, staff and families.

Coalition MPs indicated earlier this week they would push for an inquiry into the anti-bullying program.

Senator Bernardi said some of the material in the program was “age inappropriate” and would “horrify parents”.

He claimed the “innocuous-sounding” Safe Schools program actually provided links to sadomasochism sites and encouraged 12 and 13-year-old children to experiment sexually.

Praise be to Jesus that a review of Safe Schools is underway.

Perhaps it might even become a program that actually makes schools safer.’s-adelaide-office/7258388

“Safe Schools”, An Anti-Bullying School Program In Australia, Is So Interested In Teaching Children About Homosexuality, Gender Theory, And How To Bind Their Breasts And Penises That They Forget To Care When Christian Kids Get Bullied

My favourite part is where the one kid asks why teachers are pushing sex on them so hard if they don’t want them getting pregnant. 

Touché kid.

Bill Muelenberg’s write up disturbs:

The ‘long march through the institutions’ as Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci put it is working out real well. Instead of taking over a nation with tanks and bullets, why not just subvert it from within? Take over the main institutions of power and influence, such as the media, schools, churches, courts and so on, and you can capture a culture.

This is what we call cultural Marxism and we see it especially being played out with the so-called Safe Schools Coalition. I have written often about this pro-homosexual indoctrination program disguised as an anti-bullying program. Others have as well. A terrific piece by Paul Kelly in the Australian the other day is worth quoting from here:

This is much more than an anti-bullying program. Most people know an anti-bullying program when they see it. But this is something else — a pervasive and radical ideological agenda. Indeed, it does not even pretend to be anything less.

Senior ALP figures Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Kate Ellis and other politicians stridently defending the program and attacking its critics are misleading at best and deceptive at worst. The materials, literature, instructions and recommended class activities are pervasive in their ideological content and often extraordinary in the activities they recommend for years 7 and 8 students. This story is a case study in hijack: how a program of social and sexual engineering was inducted into the school system by a lobby that won huge institutional support. The program is legitimised by a need whose validity is beyond question: preventing the bullying of LGBTI students.

In many ways the program is the purist example of the disruptive cultural and power changes sweeping through Australia. Its content would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. It reflects a transformation in thinking about sex and gender, the collapse of traditional and religious norms, the confidence of the progressive class that its moment has come, and the ability of a minority lobby to seize the ascendancy and command a majority position.

He concludes:

Shorten branded Bernardi a “homophobe” for criticising the program. Opposition education spokeswoman Ellis attacked Turnbull for pandering to “views of extremists”. ALP Senate leader Wong said: “This is a Labor program, we funded it in government, it’s a program designed to address the terrifying statistics of self-harm, of abuse, of discrimination and of bullying of same-sex attracted and transgender kids.”

Amid defenders of the program it is hard to discern any concession whatsoever that there are problems with this program. There is no serious sign of respect for parents who have reservations. Just the reverse — they are patronised and insulted by indirect linkage as extremists and homophobes. It is hard to find another example where the political class has been so arrogant in its imposition of a new and far-reaching agenda. Let’s confront the truth: there is a process of intimidation at work. It reminds of the mother on the ABC television’s Q&A program a few weeks ago, upset her son was encouraged to cross-dress, reduced to saying, “but it was a science class”.

There is no doubt the cultural norms are changing. This program constitutes dramatic evidence. But the progressives have overreached — their arrogance and intolerance and on vivid display. Turnbull, however, will find this a difficult issue to manage. And any politician asserting this is just another anti-bullying program is naive or engaging in a gross deception.

Let the children speak

But as good as such critiques are, the best thing we can do is let the children speak. They are the ones feeling the full force of this cultural Marxism, with everything homosexual being rammed down their throats. Let me offer the stories of two young people, sent to me by a distraught mother.

These children are attending public schools in Victoria and are experiencing on a daily basis anti-Christian bigotry and homosexual bullying. The first story comes from a 15-year-old:

Impacts of “Safe Schools”

-Spoken about in almost every subject, especially health subjects. It claims it is an opt-in program but when you are forced to do a health subject where it is integrated into all of them you can’t get out of it.

-Becomes a higher priority than other more important world issues. One day the wall was filled with students’ posters about health issues in other countries and morbidity and mortality rates but then the next day the posters were gone and replaced with LGBTI posters.

-The posters are plastered all over the school. If you walk down the hallway you find posters. Entering the coordinators you find about 15 stuck in various locations. The posters are everywhere you go and it is impossible to not go by one every day. This means the content is taught as the truth to everyone even if they don’t really want to know about it. It is subconsciously being taught to everyone all day without them even noticing.

-It makes students who aren’t LGBTI or who don’t agree with it feel inferior and those who do feel superior to others. No one speaks about heterosexual relationships anymore as it is how conception occurs and no one really wants to get pregnant while still being in school. Those who are LGBTI comment about how cruel those who disagree with them are and talk bad about them, but never actually get into trouble as it is “just their opinion” but if someone mentions they disagree they get excluded from the other peers, making them feel unwanted and as though their opinion isn’t as important.

-It dramatically sexualises relationships from a young age. If teachers don’t want us to get pregnant then why are they approving posters about who would like to sleep with who? Many students believe that the only purpose of life is to have sex. These posters around the school make students think of this a whole lot more than they should. LGBTI relationships are the only ones that seem to be supported, as they don’t result in an unintentional pregnancy. This also adds to how those who are heterosexual feel less important than those who are.

The second story comes from a 13-year-old:

Bullied Because I’m Christian

When you’re a Christian people don’t like you. They try to do everything they can to put you down. I am only thirteen years old and I have been physically and verbally bullied because of my beliefs. Last year I moved to high school and at first I thought it was great but as I get settled I find that if I tell people that I am a Christian people will treat me like crap.

The first time it happened was when I was telling one of my friends the good news about God. And the next week or so I get pulled out of class by my teacher and she told me that my friend’s parents complained because I was bible bashing their son. I told my teacher that I am not a closet Christian and I wasn’t telling the boy that he has to believe, I was only telling him the miracles that God has done. Later that boy approached me and started calling me names that are better left unsaid. His father called me one name that was very rude. Eventually the boy moved schools at the end of the year.

There have been a few incidents that have only happened within the last month. My friend mentioned that I was a Christian and some people in my class heard her say it and then they looked at me and said, “I hate Christians.” This made me very upset and on the same day someone who I thought was my friend said that she doesn’t believe in God and that whoever believes is stupid. Then she started saying God’s name in vane and laughing about it.

To protect this family, I of course have had to use anonymity, but I can fully vouch for these stories. And tragically, there would be plenty more such stories. We sure do need to hear these stories. All that the mainstream media wants to do is run with stories of homosexuals, but never of those adversely impacted by these pro-homosexual programs.

Since the MSM refuses to do its job, I certainly will do it for them. If other readers have similar stories to tell, please send them to me and I will happily run with them. The truth must get out into the public arena. And please pray for this family, especially the two students. They are going through hell.

And pray for all the other families who are on the receiving end of this homosexual indoctrination campaign.

The Dangers Of Digital Currency And A Cashless Society

We are headed towards a cashless society and the potential for totalitarianism abounds.

Like many evils, it will appear dressed up in all sorts of glamorous promises but in the end, it will only bring oppression.

Cory Bernardi once again brings the wisdom:

Today I am going to write about money. More specifically, what the government wants to do with your money.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports this morning that Australia is ‘on an unstoppable march towards a cashless future’; with the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Alex Hawke MP saying that a move to a purely digital currency “will lead to countless benefits for all Australians in convenience and security, and will save billions in transaction costs every year”.

He’s correct that it will enhance convenience for many and will save government huge amounts of money but he omits one very important aspect of such a change – our right to privacy.
I have repeatedly warned over the years that the move to digital currencies will begin in Europe (it is already being trialled in Sweden) and spread throughout the world. The justifications will include those points made by the Assistant Minister but will soon include the ‘need to fight the flow of funds to terror organisations’.

Whilst these may be noble and worthy aims, they are mere excuses. The real reason governments want to impose an all-digital transaction economy on us is so that no aspect of the financial system is beyond their scrutiny. To put it plainly, it’s about taxes – and every government wants more of them.

Governments have an insatiable hunger to gorge themselves on taxpayer dollars.
The political elite consider that they know how to spend your money much more effectively than you do and thus no level of taxation will ever fully sate the leviathan of government. There is always a new program, a new agenda or a new initiative that promises to be an amazing success if only enough money is thrown at it.

The evidence is quite the opposite and frankly, every year sees me come to the same conclusion: whenever the government steps in to fix a problem it ultimately creates an even greater one.

And so, as the unsustainability of the great socialist experiment of the welfare state becomes clearer by the day, governments across the world want to make sure that no transaction can escape their net.

They don’t want cash kept under the mattress or buried in the back garden. They want you to be forced to keep it electronically in a bank where they can charge you for the privilege via negative interest rates.

A digital currency will mean no transaction, however small, can escape the tax demands of government.

Some readers will think this abundantly fair, and so it may be – if we could trust government to act in our interest instead of their own. However, there is an even more dangerous aspect to such a proposal.

The digital currency process will mean that almost every aspect of your financial privacy is gone. There will be a record of every dollar spent, every item purchased and every donation made. Is it really the government’s business what food you purchase or what medicines you use? Seemingly simple daily choices could have a large impact on your life because every aspect of your spending data would be detailed for scrutiny.

It’s not too far-fetched to imagine an application for health insurance to reference your spending history in relation to fast food, alcohol and tobacco. Your lack of gym membership could count against you in seeking medical treatment. Perhaps you’ll be effectively blacklisted from employment opportunities because you donate money to a particular organisation.

In short, nothing would be beyond the examination of government. Any safeguards built in to the system would ultimately be diminished as the tentacles of government continue to expand into every aspect of our lives.

The best opportunity to prevent such expansion is at the very point of inception. The move to a digital currency is just getting started. If we are to safeguard against it, the time to act is now.

“Philosophically, Morally, Historically, and Economically, Progressivism Is Bankrupt”

There is no human established system or institution that functions perfectly but when a society broadly recognises and honours Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God will seep into a society on every level and lead to a blessing of that people.

Progressivism, which is doublespeak for the cultural Marxist, Leftist ideological movement, is antithetical to biblical Christianity and this is no more evident than in its attempts to usurp Christian culture in the West and replace it with abject failure at every societal level.

So far, Progressives have been highly successful and that’s not so much a credit to their efforts as it is a recognition that it is in human nature to choose the easiest, most self-serving, and fleshly pleasurable path in life.

The Leftist ideology is almost always the lowest common denominator, feeding it’s elect groups on victim mentality propoganda and corroding those that refuse to blame anyone and everyone else for their lousy predicament.

The following article by Merv Bendle summarises the disaster out impact of this unstabilizing religious system (yes, religious!) on the only societies of the world that managed to find stability:

Progressivism’s Collision With Reality
Philosophically, historically, and economically, progressivism is bankrupt, sustained only by the very capitalist system and productive middle-class it reviles. As the gargantuan costs become utterly unsustainable, it is this chimera in which Turnbull and his supporters invest their hope and rhetoric

The civil war within the NSW Liberal Party between the conservatives and the progressivists (the so-called ‘moderates’) is a further episode in an ideological conflict that has been underway in Anglosphere countries for two centuries. Malcolm Turnbull and his progressivist supporters seem to think they are ‘on the side of history’ when, in fact, they have aligned themselves with a bankrupt ideology.

In a recent Quadrant Online article I observed that “the terminal weakness of progressivism is presently being revealed — it is little more than state-empowered libertinism, iconoclasm, and antinomianism, financed by mortgaging the future and culminating in civilizational suicide”. I took as my starting point the claim by the political commentators, Peter van Onselen and Paul Kelly, that “the conservative movement within the Liberal Party is at a crossroads”, that there is a “new paradigm”, and that “Australia is a frontline test case” in a powerful global trend against traditional conservative values. Leading this is Turnbull, who is “a social progressive who champions same-sex marriage, serious action on climate change, a multicultural society, a repudiation of the monarchical trappings, and an economy, entrepreneurial and innovative, geared to aspiration”. As a progressive, Turnbull allegedly offers an unprecedented political synthesis of “economic adaptability with social progressivity [sic]” that leaves behind “the social conservatism of Howard and Abbott”, in favour of an “appeal to feminists, gays, environmentalists, ethnics and youths”

This is all hot air. To begin with, it is highly unlikely that feminists, gays, etc., are going to flock to the Liberals, Turnbull or not. Even more obviously, it is absurd to claim that there is a powerful global trend against traditional conservative values when the most powerful form of militant political activism on the planet is Islamism, an arch-reactionary creed being systematically imposed on 1.5 billion Muslims (and the rest of the world where possible!). Similarly, both China and India, accounting for nearly 3 billion people, are drawing upon traditional belief systems to sustain their national identities as they undergo accelerated modernization. In Europe, there is an increasing move to the right and far-right as the technocratic progressivism of the central EU powers, such as Germany, France, Italy and the Scandinavian countries, proves to be utterly impotent in the face of the mass Muslim insurgency presently overwhelming their meagre border defences. In America conservatism continues to be an extremely powerful force, as the present presidential campaign is demonstrating. Of the other continents, Africa and Latin America are home to innumerable dictatorships, kleptocracies, and failed or semi-failed states where jihadists and crime syndicates run amok and talk of a conflict between progressivism and conservatism would be not only beside the point but bizarre.

What van Onselen and Kelly are referring to concerns mainly the Anglosphere nations (which account for only about 15% of the global population). Progressivists there do have an extraordinary grip on the key academic, media, legal, political, cultural, and corporate elites, and these will tend always to project their own obsessions, desires, and self-image onto the rest of the world. They are the vehicle of the adversary culture, discussed below, which targets the values of the middle class and serves as a corrosive and parasitical force living off the largesse of liberal democratic societies, while being their most vocal and influential enemies. However, like Turnbull, they are held hostage to the baleful history of progressivism and its fatal flaws.

First amongst these is the central characteristic of progressivist policies – these require the seizure and mobilization of state power to impose and police new systems of values and behaviour upon society that would not otherwise have evolved in the desired direction of their own accord. As I have argued, these values and behaviours (e.g., in the area of sexuality and the constitution of the family) would not have arisen spontaneously from within society and, therefore, their imposition requires draconian laws and the bureaucratic regulation of everyday life. This in turn involves the core progressivist presumption — that the almost infinite intricacies of social, economic, and cultural life can be grasped, modelled, manipulated, and directed by the apparatus of the state. Historically this has always been the progressivist agenda: systematically to erode the power and autonomy of the individual, the family, the community and civil society, and to replace those with the power of the Leviathan State, with its great tangled mass of bureaucratic tentacles reaching down to surveil, regulate and ultimately strangle the most intimate of personal and social relationships in every area of life.

It has become common to dismiss this Leviathan fatalistically as the ‘Nanny State’, as if government is no worse than an over-solicitous grandparent who needs to be indulged. However, this label obscures the deadening effect this omnipresent monstrosity has on everyday life. It suggests that the state plays a nurturing role in peoples’ lives, when in fact it more often has a stultifying and exploitative impact, destroying initiative, disempowering people, and draining money and resources from the productive sectors of society to fund its progressivist obsessions.

An excellent example of such state-empowered progressivism is the drive for same-sex marriage or so-called ‘marriage equality’, of which Turnbull is also a vocal proponent. Despite its bogus egalitarian trappings (well analysed by Peter Kurti) this is actually a legislative Trojan Horse that will allow LGBTI activists to mobilize the power of the state through bespoke laws and star-chamber tribunals like Australia’s many Human Rights agencies and Victoria’s Commissioner for Gender and Sexuality. For a further example, consult the complaint against Catholic bishops now before Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissars. These actions can be deployed against any persons or institutions (especially churches and schools) that LGBTI folk claim are discriminating against them in terms of employment, education, training, ‘hate speech’, or religious ceremony, etc. Their explicit agenda is to use state power to impose their views of human sexuality on society at large, especially children via the education system. It will be (and is intended to be) a lawyers’ picnic that will expose those in the cross-hairs to crippling legal costs (as demonstrated already in the area of race) and thereby further corrode the traditional family as the foundation of society.

This brings us to the second main characteristic of progressivism – its adversarial ideology. In the medium term this dates back to the birth of progressivism during the Enlightenment and particularly to the incredibly influential assertion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau that society is a prison – “man is born free but is everywhere in chains”. In the longer term it draws also on the iconoclasm and antinomianism that have long been important tendencies within the Western tradition. These have previously erupted on a massive scale on a number of occasions, with devastating results. These include the 8th and 9th centuries in the Byzantine Empire and the Protestant Reformation, as well as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which saw the destruction of an immense amount of priceless art and cultural artefacts. In its contemporary form the progressivist adversary culture defines itself in terms of its opposition to ‘bourgeois’ or middle-class society and its traditional values, especially religion and the family, which it always claims to be ‘challenging’ in an iconoclastic fashion, usually with efforts of unrelieved banality.

The role of the adversary culture was highlighted by the first generation of neo-conservatives, including Lionel Trilling in Beyond Culture (1965), Irving Kristol in “The Adversary Culture of Intellectuals” (Encounter, October 1979), and Daniel Bell in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1975). Some of its leading ideological proponents are discussed by Paul Johnson in Intellectuals (1988) and Roger Scruton in Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (2015). It is extremely influential in Australia, where the ABC, the universities, the arts, and the media are its principal vehicles, exemplified by Q&A. A typical iconoclastic artwork is the notorious ‘Piss Christ’, which was exhibited at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997 and remains on display in America and Europe. (Revealingly, attempts to have it removed from display at the NGV were rejected on the basis of the artist’s right of freedom of expression – a right that progressivists never, ever extend to their opponents.)

Contemporary progressivism developed its adversarial ideology in the Sixties, when its proponents began their ‘long march through the institutions’, as advocated by the German New Left activist Rudi Dutschke (a founder of the Green Party) and the neo-Marxist philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, in Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972). This strategy involves promoting radical political change and subverting established institutions and professions (especially education and law) while working within them – in effect, reaping the lucrative benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism while seeking to destroy it. In this fashion, the state becomes both the vehicle and target for the adversary culture and radical political change. In Australia, the best example of this strategy (apart from the universities) is the agit-prop activism of the Green-Left cadre within the ABC, as described by Nick Cater in The Lucky Culture and the Rise of an Australian Ruling Class (2013). The ABC has proved, of course, to be a protected species under Turnbull’s stewardship.

The focus of this adversarial ideology began in Sixties with class but quickly shifted to race, and sexuality and gender, driven by the feminist and gay liberation movements. These concerns became obsessional and have dominated progressivism for the past 40 years, during which time the original agenda for change and reform was achieved. This victory has not been enough, however, especially in the realm of sexuality, where the antinomian determination to reject limits or boundaries has imposed itself. This is illustrated by the evolution of the LGBTI designation to refer to an alleged community of folk which identify with various non-mainstream forms of sexuality and gender. In the Seventies, the term “gay community” was used, but then GLBT was adopted to accommodate those who felt restricted by the label ‘gay’. This became LGBT in deference to women, and was then expanded to LGBTI to include yet another form of ‘intersexual’ gender identity. More recently, it has become LGBTIQ, to accommodate those who ‘question’ their sexuality. There is no reason to expect that the acronym will not expand further as new forms of sexual expression seize the progressivist imagination.

Sexual antinomianism reached a crescendo in the Sixties, led by Marcuse with his advocacy of an extreme form of progressivist ‘polymorphous perversity’ in Eros and Civilization (1966). As Roger Kimball observes:

Eagerly embraced by countercultural enthusiasts who wanted to believe that heating up their sex lives would hasten the demise of capitalism and bring forth the millennium, it outlines a portentous struggle between “the logic of domination” and the “will to gratification,” attacks “the established reality in the name of the pleasure principle,” and fulminates against “the repressive order of procreative sexuality.

The roots of this go back to what have been called the ‘black writers’ of the Enlightenment, and above all to libertines like the Marquise de Sade, who came very much back into vogue in the Sixties and inspired Michel Foucault, the shaven-headed grey eminence of postmodernism and champion of ‘transgressive’ behaviour who died of AIDS in 1984. As Kimball recalls, Foucault had a “penchant for sadomasochistic sex” and pursued “certain specific erotic practices [within] a mutually consensual theatre of cruelty.” And in this he followed the lead of the Marquis de Sade, who had long been one of his prime intellectual and moral heroes. (…) Foucault came to enjoy imagining “suicide festivals” or “orgies” in which sex and death would mingle in the ultimate anonymous encounter. Those planning suicide, he mused, could look “for partners without names, for occasions to die liberated from every identity.”

Foucault was “wracked by unfulfillable fantasies of absolute ecstasy” and consumed by a “demand for liberation from every fixed form,” of civilized behaviour, a core progressivist tendency. As James Miller discusses in The Passion of Michel Foucault (1993), it is rumoured that before his death Foucault set out to infect as many other men as he could via his innumerable bathhouse encounters.

Sociologically, the role played by the adversary culture promoted by progressivists can be understood in terms of the model provided by Daniel Bell in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Bell proposes that post-industrial, knowledge-based societies can be analysed in terms of three distinct but articulated realms: the economic, cultural, and political spheres. As he argues, the developments of contemporary capitalism have led to a contradiction between the economic sphere, which sustains society but requires stable, reliable, hard-working, and productive individuals capable of deferred gratification, and the cultural sphere (historically always controlled by progressivists), which is largely adversarial, narcissistic, hedonistic, consumerist, and devoted to immediate self-gratification.

Crucially, the massive growth of the welfare state has produced a further – political – imbalance in the shape of a vast population of unemployed making no economic contribution except as consumers. Ominously, they are dependent upon government for their income and many other forms of support, and they have come to form a political constituency in their own right. Over the past 50 years an implicit pact has emerged: the progressivists act as champions of this constituency in its endless pursuit of government largesse; in return they can rely upon its electoral support as they pursue their political and cultural agenda.

Unfortunately for progressives and the welfare-dependent underclass with whom they share a co-dependent relationship the historical and economic forces that have sustained progressivism are presently moving ever more deeply into an intractable crisis, as I will now outline.

Historically, progressivism has been revealed to be bankrupt, giving birth to social monstrosities. Although they appear only dimly aware of it, Turnbull and other contemporary progressives are heirs to a political ideology that has mutated several times since it emerged during the Enlightenment, sometimes quite grotesquely. Based on a belief in the perfectibility of man and the conviction that reason and science can solve all humanity’s problems, progressivism emerged some 250 years ago as an historically unprecedented faith in the possibility of human progress. Indeed, as John Passmore points out in The Perfectibility of Man (1970), “The idea of progress … is a peculiarly modern one. It is scarcely to be met with … before the first decades of the 18th century”. Whereas ancient systems of thought saw history in terms of decline from a Golden Age, or as moments in an endless cycle of events, Enlightenment thinkers envisaged an ascending path towards a secular paradise. As the French philosophe Turgot exclaimed in 1750, as humanity becomes enlightened it “marches always … towards greater perfection”.

In the 19th century, progressivism melded with apocalypticism (which involves the irruption of the Divine to redeem a fallen world) and spawned communism. In the pivotal work of Karl Marx, this took the form of a messianic ideology that purported scientifically to establish the historical inevitability of a secular paradise. This utopianism seized the imagination of the intelligentsia and has been the dominant ideology on the left ever since, enjoying a resurgence after the Global Financial Crisis.

It is usually overlooked that progressivism preceded conservatism. Indeed, the latter arose in the frightening aftermath of the French Revolution and the Terror that engulfed the most powerful nation in the world. Inspired by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), conservatism emerged as a modern political ideology in reaction to progressivism’s excessive claims for the power of science and reason, and its ignorance of the irrational and violent side of human nature exemplified by the Terror and the Napoleonic Wars that convulsed Europe and consumed millions of lives.

This order of appearance is often misunderstood because progressivism, by definition, must see itself as the highest point in the evolution of human thought. It literally can’t handle the notion that a subsequent ideology can emerge that rejects progressivism as inadequate and looks behind it to the modes of thought and society that existed prior to its appearance. Its own logic compels it to depict conservatism as a regressive form of thought instead of an indictment of its own failures.

It is this desperate need to conceal the inadequacies of progressivist thinking that drives its militant proponents to deny their opponents any right to free speech or criticism. Simply put, progressivists refuse to allow debate because they know they can’t win. This is the principle, for example, behind Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is designed to prevent any questioning of the favoured victims groups that live off the largesse of the state. It also allows allegedly aggrieved parties to claim massive amounts in damages in civil cases for alleged hurt feelings. Turnbull, having initially expressed misgivings has now revealed himself as a strong supporter of this section.

Despite the ongoing conservative challenge to its underlying premises, progressivism reigned supreme during the 19th century, finding profoundly influential expression in communism and technocratic state socialism, exemplified by Auguste Comte’s positivistic science of society, (ably critiqued by F.A. Hayek in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952)). Towards the end of that era it gave birth to major statist and collectivist political movements, including Fabianism in Britain (and subsequently Australia), communism and fascism in Europe, and the Progressive movement in the United States. President Woodrow Wilson (an Ivy League academic) was a leading progressivist within the Democratic Party and his faith in the power of the League of Nations to resolve international disputes typified the movement’s tragically misplaced optimism about the role and power of nation states.

In its extreme collectivist form, progressivism in this era viewed human perfectibility in terms of class, nationalism, and/or race. Consequently, Stalin set out to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” in 1930, initiating a systematic campaign of repression, deportation, and executions that left tens of millions of the better-off peasants dead, imprisoned, or poverty-stricken. Elsewhere, eugenics programs flourished amongst the advanced nations and found ghastly expression in the Nazi obsession with the purity of the ‘Aryan’ race and the need to expunge ‘inferior’ races from the human species, culminating in the Holocaust and the death of many more millions.

Indeed, the cataclysm of the Great War was followed by 30 years that saw the rise of totalitarian communism, fascism and Nazism, the Great Depression, World War II and the Holocaust. This period of unparalleled devastation should have extinguished progressivism’s excessive faith in the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man and the benign nature of the state, but instead it saw an unprecedented concentration of state power. This was accompanied by an increasingly blind faith in the power of government to protect, regulate, supervise, and direct human affairs. Psychologically, this was diagnosed as the ‘fear of freedom’ exhibited by people desperate for the security promised by an all-embracing state. Indeed, it constituted a ‘cult of the state’, as Jonah Goldberg describes it in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008). This is characterized by ‘the Totalitarian Temptation’ to succumb to total governmental control and involvement in everyday life.

This brings us to the second force that is undermining the progressivist project. Economically, progressivism has driven liberal democratic societies into a cul-de-sac. Throughout its history it was sustained by the enormous productive capacity of the very capitalism it desperately desired to shackle and ultimately destroy. After World War II its multitude of programs were funded by the apparent success of Keynesian economics during the 30-year post-war boom, until the mirage was extinguished by the ‘Oil Shock’ and ‘stagflation’ of the 1970s. This economic crisis produced an anti-Keynesian reaction in the subsequent Thatcher-Reagan era in the 1980s. This period saw significant neo-liberal economic reform and a fleeting attempt by Anglosphere nations to wind back the excessive presence of the state in economic and social affairs. 

In Australia, this was led by the Hawke and Keating governments and later built upon by the Howard administration. (Unfortunately, Australia was also invaded in the 1980s by leftist academics from Britain desperate to escape Thatcherism, and this cadre had an intellectually regressive impact, further entrenching neo-Marxism and postmodernism in the universities, helping to make them progressivist strongholds and no-go zones for civilized intellectual debate.

This conservative revolt was inspired by works like Hayek’s study of The Road to Serfdom (1944) and The Constitution of Liberty (1960), which showed how it is the constitutionally guaranteed liberty that promotes economic and social wealth and happiness, while increased government interference leads to torpor, impoverishment, and servitude. Hayek’s work was a re-statement of the form of classical liberalism that has long been a central component of conservatism in the Anglosphere countries. It directly challenges progressivism because it refutes the notion that centralized state planning can efficiently guide economic and social affairs. Instead, Hayek insisted that no government apparatus can ever adequately understand the complexities of advanced societies, that there is a spontaneous order at the basis of all social life, and that the most viable, productive and resilient societies are those that enjoy the maximum possible amount of individual liberty under a minimally-intrusive state.

Despite this neo-liberal reform process, the power and reach of the state continued to increase, especially in the area of social and cultural programs, as did the proportion of national populations partly or entirely dependent upon government largesse. This continued dependency upon the state accelerated after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08, and promoted a resurgence of faith in Keynesian-esque economic policies and a shift away from neo-liberalism. This reinforced the determination by governments throughout the world to finance massive and ever-increasing public expenditures though government borrowing on a scale never previously approached in history.

As a result, the economic foundations of the progressivist project are now in tatters. For example, the utterly untenable situation of the EU is infamous. Similarly, America’s total government spending has more than doubled since 2000 and national debt is now about US$19 trillion –or over 100% of GDP. This amounts to some US$58,000 (A$80,000) per head of population, or US$158,000 per taxpayer, and growing. This is a level of government indebtedness not previously seen in American history (apart from when America mobilized to fight World War II), and it largely funds costs in health, education, pension, and social security, rather than investment in infrastructure.

In Australia the national debt has grown in a similar fashion over the past decade, from A$58 billion to over A$440 billion, or over 27% of GDP, on which about A$14.5 billion in interest is presently paid annually. National debt is now equivalent to some A$19,000 per head of population; quite apart from the massive individual debt Australians shoulder (total household debt is about A$1.7 trillion). Obviously, this method of funding present-day programs through borrowings consumes massive and increasing amounts of money in interest payments and also involves a ‘generational shift’ of the huge financial burden of progressivism into the future. However, that future is rapidly becoming the present and the system is heading for imminent collapse.

Philosophically, morally, historically, and economically, progressivism is bankrupt. It has been sustained for over two centuries by the very capitalist system and productive middle-class society that it reviles and seeks to undermine and destroy. However, progressivism is about to enter its death throes as the gargantuan economic costs of its policies become utterly unsustainable. Incredibly, it is to this bleak scenario that Turnbull and his supporters want to attach the credibility and future of the Liberal Party. They must be resisted.

The Failed Marxist Logic Of Tax-Free Tampons

Not only are the bunch of the protesters fighting for this disgusting and vulgar (no, having a menstrual cycle isn’t vulgar but wearing white pants and allowing memorial blood to soak your pants in protest is – a typical leftist-style protest) but their logic is a complete and utter failure.

The story goes that the usual government taxes on goods and services are apparently sexist because women’s sanitary products are “necessitated by biology.”

The solution in the minds of these uber-feminist Marxist-types?

No taxes, of course.

After all, free stuff is a right, especially if you are an entitled leftist.

I wonder when they’ll be fighting for tax free food and water, given these are actually necessitated by biology.

Sanitary items are actually closer in nature to clothing, which is socially and even legally necessitate but certainly not biologically – you don’t actually need either. Yes, I am saying that nudity and free-flowing menstruation won’t cause you to die but we don’t want either out in society.

But if this is really about equality as these types always claim (really double speak for special privileges and greater power for Marxist types), then we should expect to see them calling for taxes to be dropped from all sorts of products that relate to specific groups of people.

Babies need nappies, so ditch that tax!

So do old people sometimes!

What about dental work because decaying teeth is a biological trap from which no one escapes?

If my body starts failing in other ways, whether gout, heart attack, aching arches or diabetes, why should I pay taxes on the fixes?

But leftists have a keen habit of selective, double standards and this is just another example of their dangerous religion at work, dividing society into groups and insisting some deserve special privileges because the others are hateful, oppressive enemies (in this case, all men everywhere!)

Contrast this with Christ Jesus who unites people in love for God and for humanity.

In summary, this is not a victory for women, it’s a victory for leftists! A victory from which very few people benefit and in the long run, none.

Men and women dressed as bloodied tampons is not a common sight in the streets of Paris, but over the past few weeks, activists have been congregating to protest against the French tax on feminine hygiene products.

Why, they asked, should women pay extra for essential healthcare items?

Members of feminist collective Georgette Sand, which spearheaded the campaign for the ‘tampon tax’ to be abolished, carried a clothesline swathed with blood-stained underwear.

And their protests worked. After initially rejecting an amendment to abolish the tax, French MPs on Friday voted to make life fairer for half the population by lowering the VAT on pads and tampons from 20 per cent to 5.5 per cent.

The government had previously been opposed to the proposal, saying it would cost $60 million, but on Friday announced it had “found the money” to back the measure.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls described the move as a “step in the right direction”, while Finance Minister Michel Sapin said the reduction was “in the interest of half of humanity”.

Georgette Sand hailed the amendment as a “victory”, and called on manufacturers and retailers to pass the reduction on to consumers.

France’s move to drop the tax on feminine hygiene products has renewed calls for the Australian Government to follow suit and stop taxing women for their basic biology.

Greens co-deputy leader Larissa Waters praised France’s leadership and called for the Government to reconsider its decision earlier this year not to remove the GST from feminine hygiene products. It must be removed, she told the ABC, because it “increases financial gender inequality”.

“Other health items that both women and men buy, like sunscreen and condoms, are exempt – why should it be any different for essential health items that only women need?”

In May, a CommunityRun petition urging then-treasurer Joe Hockey to remove the GST from menstrual products garnered more than 100,000 signatures and reignited the long-running tampon tax debate.

“People who get periods don’t buy pads and tampons for pleasure, so why are we forced to fork out an extra 10 per cent every two, three, four weeks?” petition founder Subeta Vimalarajah said.

“Taxing Australians for getting their period isn’t just sexist, it’s fundamentally unfair.”

Appearing on the ABC’s Q&A program, Mr Hockey agreed the GST “probably should” be removed from tampons, but in August ruled it out after a meeting with state and federal treasurers “failed to come to a unanimous agreement”.

Following a request from the Federal Opposition, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in June estimated removing the tax on tampons would cost the budget $480 million over 10 years, or $70 million over the first two years of its operation from mid-2017.

Government ‘not doing enough to address gender inequality’

Senator Waters, whose August petition to axe the tampon tax also collected more than 100,000 signatures, said the Government was still not doing enough to address gender inequality.

“There was no mention of the tampon tax in the COAG communique last week, showing the Coalition Government is failing to work to address this issue of blatant gender inequality,” she said.

When contacted by the ABC, the Federal Treasury said the GST on tampons was “a matter for the states and territories to comment on”.

Despite their sympathies, however, it seems the state governments — specifically Western Australia and New South Wales — are leading the push to keep the tax in place.

WA Treasurer Mike Nahan, who opposed removing the GST from feminine hygiene products at the August meeting, said the ongoing debate on the matter highlighted the complexity of the tax.

“The GST treatment of goods and services is not dependent upon whether they are considered to be essential or not, with a number of everyday items subject to GST, including electricity and gas services, baby nappies, toilet paper and toothbrushes,” Dr Nahan told the ABC.
“The nuances in the application of GST can appear confusing and unfair, and are often caused by the extent of exemptions in the GST base.

“Minimising exemptions from the GST and ensuring that it applies to as broad a base as possible helps to keep the GST rate lower than it would otherwise be.”

Dr Nahan said the GST was intended to be a broad-based consumption tax, with revenue distributed to the states as part of a wider range of reforms.

“Western Australia considers broader reform of the GST distribution process… to be our main priority,” he said.

When contacted by the ABC, NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian reiterated a statement she made in August in which she opposed abolishing the tampon tax.

“Whilst I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t support it,” Ms Berejiklian said.

“We can’t tinker with the GST with one-offs.

“We need to address these issues holistically.”

Axing the tax around the world

Activist groups around the world have staged numerous campaigns over the years calling on governments to “axe the tax” on tampons, which in many countries are considered non-essential or luxury items.

Women wearing white pants gathered outside London’s Palace of Westminster in November to “free-bleed” in protest of the European Union’s 5 per cent “luxury tax” on tampons.

“People are so quick to tell people that the tampon tax is something we shouldn’t be upset about … But then they get upset when I show them the reality of the necessity of sanitary items,” protester Charlie Edge wrote on Facebook.

“Maybe bleeding on their doorstep will get the Tories to do something about this?”

Canada removed the GST on sanitary napkins, sanitary belts and menstrual cups in July after several online petitions calling for an end to the tax amassed thousands of signatures.

“This is a victory for all women. It shows what a group of determined women and citizens can do,” said New Democratic Party MP Irene Mathyssen, who sponsored a private member’s bill on the matter.

“The women who made this an issue, their voices have finally been heard.”

Western Leaders And The Mainstream Media Facilitate And Are Complicit In Islamic Terror

Bill Muehlenberg tells it how it is:

I am angry – really angry. Angry at the Islamic terror attacks in Paris? Yes, of course. But I am also absolutely outraged at the lamestream media and its despicable coverage of this tragic affair. I spent most of Sunday having the great misfortune of listening to the Australian MSM on the attacks.

One fool journalist after another, one clueless media person after another, and one useless “expert” after another spouted off so much utter PC baloney and dhimmi idiocy that it made my blood boil. No one wanted to mention the “I” word. No one wanted to mention that there is an enemy which has vowed to destroy us.

No one wanted to mention that a particular political ideology, masquerading as a religion, has been doing this sort of stuff for 1400 years now. No one wanted to mention that it was not the West’s fault, but the fault of devout Muslims, taking their faith seriously.

Even 8-10 hours after the attacks there were still mindless wonders assuring us we cannot be sure who did this. Obama also said that he would ‘not speculate on who was responsible’. And how often did I hear nonsense like ‘We must not stigmatise Muslims’.

How many pointed the finger at the West? How many of these ‘experts’ managed to say that France and the West had brought this upon themselves. And right on cue, the dhimmi commentariat were mentioning the Crusades! Yep, 400 casualties in Paris are all OUR fault! Of course.

And the chattering classes were especially loathe to see any Islamic conspiracy here. Amazing how eight lone wolves could coincidentally do so much damage at the same time, and without any ideological basis for it. Likely disgruntled Sunday school teachers. And it is probably all Tony Abbott’s fault anyway.

After a while the lamestream media could no longer deny that this was terrorism. But not one commentator had the guts to tell us the truth: this is ISLAMIC terrorism. Not Baptist terrorism. Not Confucian terrorism. There is a political ideology behind all this. Until we identify who and what we are up against, we will keep losing, and more innocent men, women and children will horrifically die.

I actually saw one loon claim that the attacks were caused by capitalism! Cluelessness abounds. Just two days ago the American Dhimmi-in-Chief assured the American people that “ISIS has been contained” and that “ISIS is not gaining strength”. Yeah right, try telling that to the French.

And clueless critics are already saying I and other realists are fear mongering. Umm, stampeding Muslims massacring infidels do a pretty good job of instilling fear I would have thought. No need to shoot the messenger. Telling truth is always crucial, especially when you are under attack.

However a few brave souls here in Australia did get it right. Miranda Devine spoke some much needed truth here:

Beautiful Paris has been attacked by Islamist terrorists again. There’s no point pretending there’s any doubt about who the perpetrators are. Not a “lone wolf” gunman, not “disaffected youth” or “un-Islamic” madmen.

Less than a year after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the land of “liberte, egalite and fraternite” has been attacked at its heart, yet again, by Islamist fundamentalists driven by a murderous totalitarian ideology that cannot be appeased.

Co-ordinated, militaristic attacks by suicide bombers and gunmen on soft targets at six locations across Paris are designed to cause maximum casualties and maximum terror.

Survivors say terrorists wielding Kalashnikovs yelled “Allahu Akbar”, as they opened fire on young people watching a rock concert at the Le Bataclan theatre, scene of a dramatic police operation to rescue hostages from the carnage where 100 people were reported dead

And Andrew Bolt wasted no words on this:

Spare me the empty talk of politicians talking of their “shock” and “resolve” over the Paris massacre. Spare me the weasel words of our new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who yesterday could not bring himself to even whisper the word “Islam”.

But, no, here we go again with the same evasions, this time after more than 120 Parisians were slaughtered by Islamists for not being Muslim enough. “This is an attack … on all humanity,” declared Turnbull from Berlin. Er, no, it wasn’t. This was an utterly inevitable attack by Islamists on the French — indeed the West — for not submitting to their brand of faith

Or as Brendan O’Neil from the UK put it:

Less than 24 hours after the barbarism in Paris, the bodies of more than 120 concertgoers, Friday-night revellers and children barely cold, and the apologism has already begun. They couldn’t even wait a whole day, these cultural appeasers, whose kneejerk response to every act of terrorism is to ask what we the wicked West did to deserve it, or to argue that we the wicked West will make things worse with our response to it. The simple fact of our existence makes us ripe for murderous assault, apparently; and the folly of responding to such assaults with either police activity at home or military activity abroad makes us riper still for attack. We’re damned if we stay still, damned if we take action. Our citizens must die because our nations are nasty.

Indeed, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott had been warning Europeans just days ago about not allowing porous borders and open slather immigration policy. He was of course one hundred percent right, yet our current PM Malcolm Turnbull actually attacked Abbott for his sensible and proper remarks.

Many have warned that IS terrorists are quite happy to implant themselves in with the masses of migrating refugees in Europe, and that seems to be a successful strategy indeed. Some news reports already have mentioned that some of the dead jihadists had Syrian passports. Said one news item

One of the terrorists responsible for the slaughter of 129 people in the Paris attacks held a passport used to enter Europe from Syria, officials have claimed. The shocking development suggests the killer may have been posing as a refugee before travelling across the continent to carry out the atrocity.

Officials have also revealed a second man who carried out the mass murder was likely to have passed through to the continent in a similar way. A Greek government official revealed the first terrorist, who died in the series of attacks on the French capital, held the document of a man who had passed into the southern European country, probably by refugee boat, last month.

Much more sensible commentary is starting to emerge on these horrific attacks, so let me quote from a few of them. David French offers some advice on the way forward:

Francois Hollande is pledging to wage “pitiless” war. Good. Now let’s see if France backs up its words with actions. While France is often the butt of jokes about its military prowess, it not only has a centuries-old tradition of military valor, it breeds warriors still. May they be unleashed.

Fourth, if European leaders (and the Obama administration) retain a shred of sanity, they’ll rethink their approach to the migrant crisis and start to close their borders, quickly. There are almost certainly more terrorists who have recently arrived in European capitals, awaiting only weapons, organization, and an opportunity to launch the next attack.

And as usual some of the best commentary on this comes from Mark Steyn. His article “The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates” is spot on. let me offer some of his insight and wisdom here:
As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I’m so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like – whether it’s the town where my little girl’s favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen …or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there’s nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell “Allahu Akbar!” are there waiting for you …when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They’re there on the train… at the magazine office… in the Kosher supermarket… at the museum in Brussels… outside the barracks in Woolwich…

When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?…

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable”: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless. Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away….

I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.
Yeah, I’m getting pretty sick and tired of all this as well. But as long as we have dhimmi dunces for our leaders, and the media filled with clueless wonders, we can expect a whole lot more of this.

When Refugees Turn Out To Be Terrorists After All, Exactly As We Warned

The West should certainly take refugees but we need to stop acting like fools about it.

The primary topic muddling our brains is Islam and the fact that Islam is the cause of most of the world’s refugees, a reality the West is playing hide and seek with…because of leftist cowardice.

Never mind that countless wars were spent defending Europe from Islam across the Millenia – because leftists want easy votes, they are prepared to wager even their flesh-indulging, atheistic humanist culture on the hopes that more Muslims than not will become just like them: self-worshippers out to better themselves at everyone else’s expense.

The problem is that their only model for the past few centuries has been Christians, who tend to go quietly into their underground churches when they apply cultural pressure.

It seems the Muslims who stay true to their beliefs (for those not getting it: historical Islam based upon the Qur’an, the Haddith, and the Sira) equally stay true to their willingness to brutally murder non-believers rather than become like godless, prostituting Westerners (whom they ironically envision as “Christendom”).

Here is more proof that those of us warning the West have been right all along:

Paris terrorist held Syrian refugee passport, says Greek government official

ONE of the terrorists responsible for the slaughter of 129 people in the Paris attacks held a passport used to enter Europe from Syrian, officials have claimed.

Greek officials said the passport of the man showed he was Syrian

The shocking development suggests the killer may have been posing as a refugee before travelling across the continent to carry out the atrocity.

Officials have also revealed a second man who carried out the mass murder was likely to have a passed through to the continent in a similar way.

A Greek government official revealed the first terrorist, who died in the series of attacks on the French capital, held the document of a man who had passed into the southern European country, probably by refugee boat, last month.

The passport was found near the body of the terrorist. Greece said the holder of the document arrived in mainland Europe from the island of Leros, suggesting he had made his way there by sea.

It has been revealed the man was one of the suicide bombers at the Stade de France. He was not known to the French authorities.

Citizen Protection Minister Nikos Toskas, in charge of police forces in Greece, said: “On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder had passed from Leros on October 3 where he was identified based on EU rules.

Christians ought to show love to refugees and welcome them into Christian community as is the job of Christ’s ambassadors.

But make no mistakes, the Australian government are not ambassadors of Christ and their job is not to share the gospel (but if only they would embrace Christ).

Rather, their job is to protect Australian citizens by upholding righteous laws and punish wrongdoing to preserve the safety of our nation, exactly as scripture makes clear regarding all governments.

Time for the government to start doing its jobs.