Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #1 
Outspoken Liberal Party senator Cory Bernardi has had his office thrashed by left-wing thugs who accuse him of being a "racist" and "bigot":
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/protesters-trash-cory-bernardis-adelaide-office/news-story/8c435956291f368add18f0fa92410052

We see here that these allegedly peace-loving and "tolerant" Leftists are in fact totalitarian and violent. We can see here that hardcore Marxists (Socialist Alternative et al) are behind this too.

Bernardi is a defender of traditional Western values, a critic of multiculturalism, Islamism and Political Correctness. He has also, I believe, addressed ACM meetings in the past.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #2 
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/shades_of_revolution_in_wanton_destruction/

Quote:
"Their frenzy was reminiscent of Mao’s China during the Cultural Revolution, when children were ­encouraged to denounce their parents as class enemies, and when young Red Guards smashed up homes, burned books and murdered teachers.

In Adelaide, the protesters brandished signs from Socialist ­Alternative, the insidious self-­described “anti-capitalist Marxist” organisation."



Some commentators have commented on the incoherence of a Left that promotes gay causes while also favouring appeasement of Islam, of cultural and moral relativism that would not be favourable to homosexuality. And the fact that left-wing movements have not always been friendly to either homosexuality or Islam.

I think the answer is self-evident. The Left really do not care about women, gays or minorities. It's not even Muslims or Islam they are in love with. The Left has a love of power and wants to monopolise power through totalitarian means. They are simply exploiting "victim" groups as a source of that power.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #3 
Jennifer Oriel again:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/heterosexual-men-who-lean-right-are-the-pc-hate-target-of-choice/news-story/f53690280d70018964994aa375fc788c

Quote:
Any doubt that Labor is captive to neo-Marxism was dispelled by its campaign to enforce compulsory queer political programming of schoolchildren under the misnomer “Safe Schools”.

Queer acti­vists trashed conservative senator Cory Bernardi’s office on Friday after Green-Left politicians, ­including Labor leader Bill Shorten, called him homo­phobic for opposing the strategy. Unlike Bernardi, state-designated minorities are protected by discrimination and affirmative action laws. Such laws provide a permanent position of victimhood to justify bigotry against the PC hate target of choice: heterosexual men who lean Right.

Proliferating minority groups claim special protection under ­affirmative action law while constructing the form of society it was designed to prevent: a society governed by codified inequality. Under the aegis of special measures, they use affir­mative action to enact new forms of exclusion on the basis of inborn biological traits such as race and sex.

In the recent Queensland University of Technology case, male students were barred from a computer room allegedly because of their race. Former administrative officer Cindy Prior, an indigenous Australian, asked the students whether they were indigenous ­before asking them to leave. In court documents, she cited the need for “safe space” on campus.

The race discrimination commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, Tim Soutphommasane, stated he would not comment directly on the QUT case to news.com.au but referred to special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act. The AHRC referred the case to the Federal Circuit Court.

Its website page devoted to RDA special measures states they are for indigenous people, some migrant and refugee groups. Impor­tantly, the AHRC differentiates formal from substantive equality. Formal equality is equa­lity of all citizens before the law and commonly ­associated with equal opportunity. Substantive equality is inequality under the law in favour of state-designated minority groups ­towards equality of outcome. Substantive equality thus reverses genuine equality. It is a prime example of the neo-­Marxist double­think that characterises contemporary Left thought and undermines universal human rights. Instead of sunsetting special measures past their use-by date, the hard Left uses them to justify ever more extreme forms of ­exclusion and bigotry.

The only group of citizens wholly ­excluded from the attri­butes list that comprises minority status under law are heterosexual, able-bodied men classified as “white”. The racial classification “white” is attributed generally to people of Celtic, ­English or European descent. In academe, it is common to find statements about the group that would be classified as hate speech if applied to any other. When I was an undergraduate, the phrase “the only good male is a dead white male” was ubiquitous in the humanities.

In an article on The Conversation, education fellow Sarah Pett complained about canonical wri­ters such as Shakespeare, Tennyson, Eliot, Sophocles, Ovid and Homer, calling to “push dead white men like Shakespeare out of the limelight”. In response to the Safe Schools ­debate, sociology lecturer Lucy Nicholas wrote: “While white, cisgender, heterosexual male politicians are quibbling over whether or not we should expose young people to the term pan­sexual … young people have never been queerer.”

Neo-Marxists use the minority politics of race and gender as communists used class, sowing envy and victimhood to create a revolutionary mass primed to attack a ­selected target. An extreme consequence of the PC bigotry came to light last year when academic journals ­refused to publish research demonstrating a steep rise in the suicide rate of white men.

Nobel laureate Angus Deaton co-­authored a paper with econo­mist Anne Case showing a spike in premature deaths and suicide among white, middle-aged men and women. According to Deaton, the research was rejected by academic journals on spurious grounds. Rather than offer sympathy for the suicide victims and their families, sections of the Left blamed the victims, claiming the premature deaths were caused by men losing their “white privilege”. The spike in suicide among middle-aged white Americans was thus reframed as an act of self-­indulgence, even when research suggested its cause lay in structural disadvantage owing to factors such as low education rate leading to mass unemployment.

The term “white privilege” is a corollary of neo-Marxist politics whose experts pervade critical race and postcolonial studies in universities. The term is used to justify bigotry towards people with racial, religious or cultural attri­butes deemed politically incorrect.

The AHRC recommends courses that advance the idea of white privilege as best practice for anti-racism education. In America, academic symposiums are ­devoted to it, including the Wisconsin National White Privilege Conference whose content illustrates the underwhelming intellectual prowess of the field: “The session begins with mind and body grounding in processes, proceeds to examining the biological wisdom of the human cell, moves to an analysis of race and class ­oppression/liberation dynamics … with particular attention to class supremacy and white privilege”.

Griffith University lecturer Marcus Woolombi Waters ­recently won praise on social media for his criticism of white privilege in Australia. After travelling overseas to deliver a keynote address, he wrote: “Generally every staff member is white on every major Australian airline. So here we are as black people, jumping on an aircraft of white people being served by white people, ­immersed back into a world of whiteness.” The perception that white people serving black people constitutes white privilege does seem rather at odds with reality.

The greatest erosion of human potential arises from the belief that some of us are born more equal than others. The creed was captured best by George Orwell in his satire of the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the 21st century West, affir­mative action ­regimes bestow state-approved minorities with rights and advantages ­denied their fellow citizens. They are more equal than others. We used to call that inequality. We once fought against it.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #4 
While I do not of course condone the vandalisation of his office, having briefly looked into Senator Bernardi his views seem deplorable to me, and I could never vote for a party that finds such a figure acceptable. The aims of the Safe Schools Coalition in contrast appear to me to be laudable. Responding directly to the last article you posted, while arguing for equality of opportunity is straightforward, equality of outcomes is a much more complex matter and needs to be treated with caution or it can lead to injustices as bad as or worse than those it seeks to remedy. Anti-discrimination legislation, often conflated with it, is not quite the same thing, being directed more at equality of opportunity. I am willing to approve of moves toward equality of outcomes only on a case-by-case basis, and usually with reservations. For an example close to my heart, selection of the South African cricket team (and I presume other representative teams in the country) is openly influenced by racial considerations, with a minimum number of persons of colour in each side, regardless of whether a team selected on merit alone would include all or any of them.

This might seem appalling. Was not the as open exclusion of persons of colour from all South African sides seen as an outrage, leading to an international boycott of all such sides? It was, but there is a perfectly genuine and reasonable argument that without such artificially created opportunities and, effectively, guaranteed inclusion even if you aren't quite good enough, the country will never be able to tap the full riches of its majority population, and the programme even if a short-term disadvantage to South African sport will be to its long-term benefit. The example might seem trivial, especially if you don't care about either cricket or sport in general, but I think is nevertheless valid as a case where positive discrimination can be seen as justified, and not just a means of paying off historical scores.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,830
Reply with quote  #5 
I don't think it's trivial at all, despite not being a cricket fan, but would come down on the other side, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

While not necessarily agreeing with all of them, I don't see that any of Cory Bernardi's views are nearly as "deplorable" as the republicanism that is openly espoused by many prominent Australians including the present Prime Minister. Yet somehow monarchists have managed to avoid trashing any of their offices.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #6 
If Peter thinks Cory Bernardi's views are deplorable, then you must think the views of many other monarchists including myself are "deplorable" as well. It isn't simply gay issues that Bernardi is attacked for, but also multiculturalism, Islam and freedom of speech. Bernardi is a critic of Political Correctness and the Left's war on free speech, and the Left want to eliminate all obstacles in their way.

As one reply on Twitter said, the Left scum who attacked Bernardi's office are "dogmatic little despots". The same for the whole "Black Lives Matter" and "Rhodes Must Fall" campaigns. All of this is part of an evident far Left assault on our civilisation, clearly of Marxist inspiration. As long as the Left has unabated control of our media and education this remains the case.

Furthermore, think about this for one. Do you think that the Left really care about women, gays or minorities? Is it really Islam and Muslims they are enamoured with? (If they really cared about Muslims, why aren't they concerned about the horrors of Iran, or the historic persecution of Muslims by Communism? Hmmm...) Actually, no. What the Left wants above all else is power. Their goal is revolution, a complete destruction of whatever is left of civilisation as we know it, and they exploit invented victim groups as useful idiots. Much as we can say that the Left are useful idiots where radical Islam is concerned, too many people are useful idiots where the real intention of the Left is concerned either.

The Left has already turned on Jews, and in fact aid and abet violent anti-Semitism from certain immigrants and made worse by the fact that (as Melanie Phillips and Pamela Geller have pointed out) liberal Jews are still suicidally siding with them. Surely this is a wake-up call to women, gays and others?

I recommend this article by a gay columnist, Milo Yiannopoulos. I hope more people can wake up before it's too late:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/16/im-a-gay-man-and-mass-muslim-immigration-terrifies-me/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #7 
And how would you like to be told that your relationships are 'uncharacteristic of the most basic elements of a marital union', that they are 'not the same as marital relationships and to treat them the same is to suspend common sense' and that society should not 'throw open the doors and welcome [you] into the fold'? Maybe you hold such views, but since you charitably refrain from expressing them I have no need to object.

I am under no illusions as to the nature of the Left. A touch of political correctness would actually have improved the Milo Yioannopoulos article and made it seem more reasonable and less demagogic, but I nevertheless share his concerns and fears. I do not forget though that historically Christianity has been every bit as cruel a persecutor of gay people as Islam. The centuries that have passed since the Enlightenment have greatly diminished the power of the churches to harm, but the will is still there. As people like Senator Bernardi demonstrate.

Replying to royalcello, I am not comfortable with what is known as the transformation programme in South African sport. But I can see that it has a reasonable basis, and that it is already beginning to pay dividends. It will I hope be time-limited, and lead to a future where South African sides include people of all races not because regulations require it but because people of all races have merited their inclusion by their achievements.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #8 
As far as I'm concerned, the "transformation" campaign in South Africa is widely seen as constituting the campaign to demonise white South Africans which is ongoing. South Africa is a tinderbox already and God knows what else could happen on the drain. The whole post-colonial narrative is responsible for creating a failed global system.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
As far as I'm concerned, the "transformation" campaign in South Africa is widely seen as constituting the campaign to demonise white South Africans which is ongoing.

I'm sorry, but that's just a kneejerk reaction. I repeat that the campaign has a reasonable basis, at least so far as sport is concerned, and in cricket is already paying dividends, with the emergence of players such as Kagiso Rabada, one of the most exciting young bowlers in world cricket, and Temba Bavuma, the first black South African to score a Test century. More generally, even you cannot dispute that South Africa's majority population (not to mention the significant Asian and Coloured minorities) have historically been grievously disadvantaged, and in great numbers still are today, especially the black majority. Is it so sinister that they should be given a leg up by means of guaranteed places in all aspects of national life?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.