Socialists Hate Speech

Socialists love propoganda, but they hate speech.

Two cases crossed my desk in the last 24 hours, and another is ever present.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff dared state in a private meeting that Mohammed, having married a 9 year old girl, "had a thing for little girls."

She was tried without jury and by a lone judge, who found her guilty of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion", and faces 60 days in prison.

Yup - y'know, those overcrowded taxpayer-funded holding centres need another inmate on account of her expressing accurate but "unacceptable" views.

Case #2 - I'm behind the times - but Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was directly asked on a public TV show what she thought of homosexual "marriage".

Taken by surprise by the unexpected question on a highly controversial topic, she answered with great grace and dignity :

we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.

Remember that in Marxist ideology, anything that advances "the cause" is moral; anything that hinders it is "immoral".

Accordingly, Miss California was targetted on public TV and in other media by high-profile media personalities and subjected to venomous hateful insults and accusations.

But remember - she's the one guilty of "hate speech".

Y'know, Perez Hilton calling her a "dumb bitch" and a "cunt" is not hate speech.

News anchor Giuliana Rancic called her "an ignorant disgrace" and said "she makes me sick to my stomach".

All for politely answering a loaded question by saying "you can believe whatever you want, but since you've asked my belief, I happen to believe xyz".

Clearly, to the Socialist clergy, "hate speech" is what they do - they hate speech.

They love propoganda.

But they hate speech.

Toe the "politically correct" line (i.e. the line that they made the politically correct line over decades - not any line that was politically correct say 100 years ago).

Or else you're a hateful bitch. Or bastard, doubtless, as the case may be.

Methinks, Hitlon, thou speakest of thyself.

Case #3 is of course the ever-present sea of pornography all around us.

We should embrace and celebrate it, apparently, because it represents "free speech".

Hmmm.

Last I knew, "speech" consisted of propositional communication.

I make a claim. You analyse it, and present flaws and/or counterclaims, ideally with evidence (although with Socialists, "what we believe is right" is sufficient evidence in most cases).

Much like what I'm doing here. Propositional communication.

My proposition is simple : Socialists hate speech. They hate it. They love propoganda - anything that enshrines their cause - but they hate speech.

And pornography is actually yet another example.

Supposedly we who oppose pornography in any significant way are blocking "freedom of speech".

That's as stupid as saying that if I get someone's permission to cut them into cubes with a chainsaw in full public view in Times Square, New York (taking said person from the land of the living to the land of the very dead) that to oppose me is to oppose "free speech".

"What a stupid example" I hear, because, after all, any claim and any story that doesn't toe the politically correct line is by definition "stupid" at best, and "hateful" if by any ridiculous stretch of the imagination one can deem it so.

But no, it is the stupid Socialists who are stupid. And the non-Socialists who fall in line who are even stupider - hence this article - let's awake from our stupour and unstupidify ourselves.

But enough stupid wordplay.

The point is, an act or display that is non-propositional, is not speech.

And so Socialists, championing pornography in the guise of "free speech", prove once again that they hate speech.

Or else I could justify any act of cruelty, violence, or even terrorism, in the name of "free speech".

Speech is propositional.

Socialism is propogandistic.

So they're not exactly best friends.

Sure, Socialism uses speech extensively. Because speech has power.

But try speaking against the Approved Beliefs. Not Halal.

Y'see, speech has power, but you must not use speech against Socialism. By Marxist definition, that would be immoral.

And in the meantime, we'll use "hate speech" laws to shut you up if you dare try.

Speech indeed is powerful.

Which is why little micro-speech sites like this shake the world. Y'know, "the pen is mightier than the sword", and all that jazz.

And which is precisely why those who hate speech, codify their hatred of speech in "hate speech" laws.

But Truth has a habit of remaining true, no matter how many people assert otherwise.

Which means by definition, Truth won't go away, no matter how many hate speech laws we create, and no matter how many Elisabeths and Carries we throw in prison or under the bus.

Your mission - nay, your responsibility, whether or not you choose to accept it, has always been the same : find Truth, live it, love it, and tell it.

If I don't see you in prison (or under the bus), it'll be because you spoke up and God had mercy, or else because you stayed silent and I went there without you.

But the nature of war is this : the battle will always come to you.

Always.

So you either step up and engage where the fighting's hot now.

Or it comes to you, and interferes with your "quiet life" some time from now.

Or if in God's mercy, it never gets that far, shame on those who slumbered whilst the battle raged.

Speak now.

Speak wisely.

Speak boldly.

Speak strategically.

Speak with love, gentleness, kindness, compassion, firmness, precision, bluntness, and even anger, mockery, scorn, ridicule and jest as befits the occasion.

Speak. Your enemies will not be silent.

Speak, 'til the tide is turned, and then some, 'til the tide is far retreated, and then some more, until civilisation is established where once there was sea.

Or speak until you are silenced, and not just with legal threats, confiscation, imprisonment, harrassment, threats, and physical harm, but until your tongue and your pen are silenced.

And then write with your foot.

And speak on and on whilst you have breath.

For speech is powerful. And those who hate speech want to silence it.

Love speech.

And use it.

Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

All we need is love, Google-style (pro-homosexuality)

So I'm a little behind the times, but I just found out today that Google, my favourite big tech company in the world, is in favour of the destruction of society's most basic instution : marriage.

A little extreme, you'll say.

Here's a one-liner version from their blog :

we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love

For such a smart company as Google, this statement is jam-packed with dumb assumptions :

Fundamental rights?

If it's all relative, then there's no such thing as a "fundamental" right - or are Google themselves "fundamentalists" of some kind? Watch out for those extremist fundamentalists like Google.

Or if it's not all relative, and there are such things as "fundamental" rights, then its obvious that there might also be a "fundamental" definition to marriage. Y'know, like one that maybe, perhaps, excludes homosexual partnerships.

Should not

And then of course there are strange assertions like "should not". By what law? Who says? A lot of people I know aren't too keen on being told what they should do with their life. "Should not" sounds a lot like moralising. Has Google supplanted Yahweh? I think they'll find they're not quite as ready for the task as they think...

Eliminate

By definition, if there is such a thing as a "fundamental" right, it is fundamental. It is impossible to eliminate. You can transgress (violate) someone's fundamental rights but you can't eliminate them.

For example, I have a right to my laptop, and if the government decides to pass a law banning laptop ownership, then I do not lose my right of ownership - the government is transgressing my rights and hence abusing its power.

You can eliminate non-fundamental rights. A non-fundamental right is granted by human will, and it can be revoked by human will.

But a fundamental right, by definition, is not capable of being eliminated.

Whatever their sexuality

Paedophiles, anyone?

Bestiality?

Like, if Google wants to be consistent, why aren't they campaigning for equality for people who want legal recognition of their sexual relationship with their pet goat?

They're not consistent. So they're either blind, or they're pulling the hood over our eyes, and the issue isn't at all what they claim it to be.

Right ... to marry

I have a right to be identified as a Black American. I feel like a Black American. Ok, so my skin suggests otherwise, but it's bigotry and discrimination to say I'm not a Black American, when clearly I am one. I feel like one.

"Wait a mo", you say, "Black American by definition excludes white boys like you". You have a point.

Marriage also by definition excludes homosexual unions.

The Person

Dude - how bigoted and antiquated you are. You need to seriously catch up with the times. Why settle for one? I quite like my threesomes.

And hey, the PETA folk will tell you that pigs are people. Humano-porcine sexual relationships must also be recognised, unless you're an intolerant fascist prude.

They Love

Awwww - all we need is love. That legitimises everything.

Like sex with my 12 year old neighbour.

Well, seriously, try telling her she shouldn't.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't so bad after all, sexually penetrating his 9 year old wife. So long as it was love.

Pity of course that love changes so fast. On again, off again. But that's what divorce is for.

Hey, might as well just give people temporary marriage licenses they can optionally renew - better than forcing people through the hassle of divorce when love takes its random course in another direction...

But seriously, if "marriage" is so unfundamental that we can redefine it from heterosexual to anysexual, it really is a bit extreme to exclude non-sexual and lifelong friendships. Y'know, Harry and I are housemates, and find each other quite agreeable, and really would rather never go through the hassle of finding another housemate. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing "between us" - you catch my drift - we're definitely just mates, in the best Aussie sense of the word. Good mates. He's a good bloke, and so am I. We just wanna, y'know, have some kind of recognition for our commitment to mateship.

We really care about each other. That's gotta be love, you agree?

So marriage it is then, for Harry & I. And Brigette, when you finally drop your prudish two-party restriction.

What now for homosexuals?

It's clear that there's nothing inherent to marriage itself that homosexuals need in order to "enjoy" their homosexuality. Marriage inherently is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently not so.

I don't call my love for icecream "marriage", but somehow that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of icecream, and I don't see it as a matter of equality. Homosexuality is no different.

So why all the fuss to pretend that the fundamental definition of marriage is not quite so fundamental when perceived new rights are?

The answer is clear : the agenda is to reshape society into a utopia that sheds all vestiges of Biblical morality. Others have tried and failed but people keep on trying. Strange they're so utopian when they deride all concepts of "heaven" - they are themselves believers, they just think they're the gods who'll make heaven on earth.

Sorry Google - nice sentiment, no substance.

When you don't have a leg to stand on...

Your views are offensive

Western second-world countries like Australia and the USA are rapidly inventing idiocy like never before conceived of in 6,000 years of human history.

The problem? Some politically-active groups repeatedly find that the more research mounts up, the more the facts stand against them.

The solution? Stop arguing logically, and lobby parliament for "anti-offense" laws.

That's right : you offended me, therefore you must not speak.

An official government advisory committee on homosexual issues has told the government that they want a law that prohibits people from any conduct that a 'reasonable person' "would have anticipated that the other person would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed".

Hey - I think anyone whose case is so weak they need to lobby for "don't ever say anything I disagree with or else it'll offend me" laws, is either an idiot, or, to be fair, they actually know exactly what they're doing and think you're an idiot 'coz they're counting on you supporting such a ridiculous law and not complaining too much against any government that brings it in.

So, I'm offended that the homosexual lobbyists think I'm so stupid that anyone would agree with their proposed legislative changes.

And any reasonable person could have anticipated that kind of offence.

Therefore the homosexual lobby has already broken the law they proposed!!!

Idiots.

Except once again that they're not actually idiots - they know exactly what they're doing - and they're counting on you and I, the voting public, to be idiots to get their bill passed.

Of course, the fact that the Labour party is eager to bow to them brings their own collective mental capacity or else deeper agendas straight into the spotlight. But a spotlight that most will unthinkingly ignore. Yup - that's right - it seems we are a great cloud of useful idiots these lobbyists/politicians are relying on to push society further from rationality and deeper into deep irrationality.

So anyway, let's play a game : who'll get to be fined/imprisoned first once the new laws come in?

Homosexuals are nice, loving people and all that - except of course some of the very angry and violent ones evidenced in places like San Fran - and except of course that so many of them (proportionally relative to the rest of the population) wrestle deeply with mental health issues (the which at least one study has clearly shown persist regardless of the degree of societal acceptance of their chosen lifestyle) - but, hey, they're still humans, made in the image of God (an image they choose to mar), and so they still have some of God's characteristics indelibly imprinted in them - e.g. a certain degree of lovingness and niceness - so hey, it's no surprise that I quite enjoy the company of my homosexual friends (nice, friendly, loving people) - but the idea that what offends me or them must not be spoken is ridiculous beyond words.

The world's most ridiculous law

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is completely unimplementable. They'll still be enough Christians left at the passing of said stupid legislative changes that there'll be people offended by the disgusting actions of homo-peddlers in the Sydney "mardi gras". What, shall they be permitted to accuse the soddies for their evident and predictably offensive actions in public during the parade?

"Of course not - they chose to be at the parade!" some angry soddie will cry. Yes, but equally, you soddies could choose not to visit the churches from whose pulpits you might otherwise hear speech that is so hideously and unreasonably "offensive" as to suggest that you shouldn't choose the sexual practices you do.

Yet the same pro-soddie lobbyists aren't into consistency - no, why be logically consistent, when inconsistency and hypocrisy further your aims?

The Advisory group is asking the Labor movement not to give ANY exceptions for RELIGIOUS discussion of homosexuality!

They even go so far as :

They actually mention "calculated sermons" as a specific example of homophobic harassment!

So let's get this straight : I sit down to write a sermon. Now, because I happened to prepare the sermon before I step into the pulpit, this makes it a "calculated sermon". Wow - deep logic, guys. That will make about 100% of sermons in Australia calculated. What - you think e.g. politicians routinely stand up at pre-planned public meetings but have no idea what they intend to say in advance? But you find it so offensive that pastors actually think about what they're going to say in advance? Idiots you are. Oh wait - except that really you're subversive, and think we're all idiots and will go along with you without much of a whimper. Worse yet - you might be proven right. Maybe Australia is full of idiots. Useful ones, of course.

So, well, you tell me : have the laws of logic changed somewhere in the recent history of the universe? Have things like "the law of identity" and "the law of non-contradiction" been supplanted by "the law of non-offense"?

Or if it is all relative - if homosexuality is "right" today because the community supposedly accepts it, then wouldn't it be true to say that homosexuality really was actually wrong back in the 1950s? And if so, at what point did it suddenly magically change? And all those people who campaigned for homosexuality to be "accepted", at a time when it was not, wouldn't it mean that they were actually doing the "wrong" thing if indeed at the time the widespread community was opposed to homosexuality?

See, attempts to defend homosexuality on grounds of it being acceptable to the majority - i.e. on relativistic grounds - simply result in contradictions.

And attempts to defend homosexuality on absolute ground - "homosexuality is and always has been right, because it is simply right" - beg the obvious question "yeah, but who says?".

"Nature" is about the only answer they can give. "Nature" supposedly makes homosexuality right. But then, all these claims that homos are "born" that way have crumbled, living on in the zealous minds of ideologically-driven academics and in the ignorant minds of the populance whose thinking in this regard is informed only by propaganda that deliberately leaves out the strong evidence against the "my genes made me do it" theories.

Australia, 2022

So anyway, where do we get to? We get to a police state, dominated by whoever is both loudest and angriest. Oh - that would be the soddies. But that's what they want, so I suppose they'll be happy. Well, except of course for their statistically much higher rates of depression. But I'm just repeating myself...

In short? Vote no to stupidity. Vote no to political groups that entertain stupidity. If the words "truth" or "reality" or "honest enquiry" mean anything to you, then a legislatively-enforced new rule of logic "thou shalt not offend" is as offensive and obnoxious as anything that can be mentioned. It utterly stinks. It reduces society to a perpetual clash of angry claims and counter-claims, rewarding those who are easily offended and have no control over their own emotions. It punishes anyone who questions the status quo. And it abolishes any concept of legal certainty because in fact anything you do will be able to be proven to be offensive to someone somewhere.

I eat meat - oh, fine me, 'coz I offended (and could easily have predicted I would offend) our moral-crusaders opposed to the eating of meat.

I breath - oh, sorry, my carbon dioxide is contributing to your much-hated "climate change" (just threw that one in for fun :o) ).

I have any children at all - oh sorry, I could easily have seen that the growing tide of human-haters who expressly refer to human babies as "human trash" would have been offended.

In fact, the only way to avoid being able to clearly anticipate that your actions will offend someone is to hide yourself in a cloistered hole, protected from the opinions of groups you are not part of. Oh wait - that's exactly what the media wants to do - provide you that endless stream of "sanctioned" entertainment in which you may protect yourself, and from which you may form your every opinion of societal acceptability. The media, I add, which is dominated by pro-soddie agends.

And now?

Feel free to leave comments, but don't say anything I might disagree with, 'coz it'll deeply offend me and you'll be in court before the ALP even has enough time to create this free pass for soddies!!!

Or read this interesting report by Cameron Spink : Harassing the Truth.

Australian constitution article 116 is also interesting : "The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". So if I happen to say I believe the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate, and that it portrays homosexuality as unnatural and unhealthful, and that I believe that modern scientific research clearly shows that homosexuals have far higher rates of physical and psychological health issues, and if I happen to say all this in a public seminar, someone will still claim offense. But if it is my sincerely held religious conviction, and I sincerely hold it to be confirmed also by scientific research, and I sincerely hold that part of my religious observance is to discuss topics of interest and relevance rather than just hide in a hole, then why are we entertaining a law by which parliament can prohibit the free exercise of my religion?

As I said on FaceBook regarding the religious protections in the constitution : "You'd think that would settle it. But the Greens and their bedfellows so loathe Christianity that they care not for such trifling restrictions. They've found the perfect way around it : assert a fictitious "right to non-offence" as a human right that supercedes even the constitution itself! Voila! Now we can silence those pesky Christians by requiring that they exercise their intolerable religion, _only so far as we gracious Greens deem their practice 'inoffensive'_. Clearly, giving a Christian school the right to choose Christian teachers is _terribly_ offensive - golly, what _would_ they think of next? - and so the purported "human right" to not be offended trumps the constitutional rights of the citizenry."

Also good is Common misconceptions about homosexuality - especially point six "Gays are born that way?".

Or this excerpt re genetics and homosexuality (from here):

Some assert that a gene triggers homosexuality. This view has several problems. First, the gene has not been identified, so this view is not science, but mere speculation. Secondly, statistical studies give strong evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, but is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is reported that:

“this ... suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993).”

And as regards the claim that the statistically abysmal mental health statistics for soddies are simply due to discrimination from society, consider :

No evidence that homosexuality has ANY link to suicide rates - "A panel convened by such groups as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Psychological Association, and the American Association of Suicidology made this finding: “There is no population-based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner”."

and :

Homosexual suicide rates do not drop even when homosexual marriage is legal and deemed "normal" - "Studies done in the Netherlands and New Zealand, for example, where there is generally high tolerance of sexual ‘diversity,’ found the same high rates of psychological difficulties as those done elsewhere."

or read this interesting article "Just what is behind [homosexual] suicides?"

Frank Turek points out :

Lesbian activist Chai Feldbaum, who is a recess appointment by President Obama to the EEOC, recently said regarding the inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” So much for tolerance. The people who say they’re fighting for tolerance are the most intolerant, totalitarian people in politics.

The final word? Sanity in the situation is evident, and evidently disregarded. Help your pollie see sense, or a soddie will rule you, and your children will never get to use the classical rules of logic.