Humanhaters

Panic! Christian Moral Dilemma!

2011-05-03T17:19:00.000-07:00

So Obama got Osama. Wow. Quite the hullabaloo in the papers and such.

The twisted spaghetti of political irony here is so rich, it's hard to know where to start. But I'll leave that alone, mostly. Needless to say, my favourite politcal narrative is making a huge comeback, i.e. "If only the big bad West would stop being nasty to poor Islamic cultures, they would stop attacking us..."

Well, of course. And if only we'd stop spraying water on bushfires, they would leave us alone. Islamic brutality towards others (and itself) began around 1,300 years ago. That's a little while before George Dubya's father was even born (I looked it up).

This particular narrative only seems to be useful when certain people are in power. In 2008 we were told that we were in the grip of conservative evil which must be stopped. Obama will save us from all this horrid warmongering. He's the lightgiver, the peacemaker, the hope bringer.

He will make us cool again. He will bring us free healthcare and pay our mortgage. He will make us popular with Muslims and poets and all the other people who hate us. He will bring racial harmony. He will continue to detain terror suspects without charge. He will carpet-bomb Libya with neither Congressional approval nor any kind of plan. He will order extra-judicial killings via incursions onto sovereign territories...

...oh wait...

So, those various media folks who assured us that Obama would never do those types of things which, personally, I quite respect him for, are now faced with a frustrating irony. Fortunately, they found something with which to distract themselves, and us: The alarming images of 'Murkans celebrating the death of Bin Laden.

You see? Those gun-totin', right wingin' 'Murkans are being evil again. They're celebrating someone's death. That's horrid. Martin Luther King and Jesus told us not to do stuff like that.

Whatever was the personal motivation for those on the fringe who made light of OBL's violent, gory death, I am not able to judge. Who knows, they might have actually been celebrating the countless lives that have been saved by OBL's messy demise.

What I do know is that the media machine will kick back into action- this time to convince us that such bloodthirstiness makes us no different than our enemies. That old narrative must be dusted off, and beefed up.

It must be etched into the hearts and minds of people, especially young people, everywhere. We must lament our own evil and not judge others. Only self-examination and guilt will bring peace (...just ignore all that stuff which proves Obama is not the saint we once said he was)...

One place where this narrative can have a field day is, sadly, the church. Churches can be a veritable smorgasbord of oft-naive compassion, just waiting to be exploited by those with a political agenda.

Christians have a very healthy habit of seeing all people through the prism of the only true equality we have- the equality of sin, and the equality of value in the eyes of God.

We are all forgiven. Osama was God's child, too. Jesus said "turn the other cheek", and "blessed are the peacemakers" and "love thy enemies".Yes. Yes He did say those things.

Osama was one of God's children. He just happened to be one who was responsible for mass murder. Jesus mentioned the word "repent" once or twice, too. Osama didn't repent. So he got shot by some soldiers.

Christians get this, mostly. But then we interprete Western jubilance at OBL's demise as something which renders us no better than the Jihadist brutality we are supposedly fighting. We do this impulsively because we confuse eternal equality with moral equivalence.

A bunch of 'Murkans being jubilant at the death of a mass murderer is as much a Christian non-issue as the cuss word I uttered last week after hitting my finger with a hammer.

It took a 10-year long manhunt to make the USA a little glib at the death of a wanted terrorist. Jihadist glee at the murder of innocents happens every week. Streets and city icons all across the Middle East are named after Islamic murderers and terrorists. Don't get me started on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, and a few other places and people including ones currently being bombed by Obama. Here's a tip: Wait two weeks, then google "Bin Laden Street" and see how many hits come up.

You may have missed the murder of the Fogel family at the hands of Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank on March 11th. The media's excuse was the prevalence of the Japanese earthquakes. Fair enough, but I'm going to make the bold assumption that they wouldn't have wasted ink on it anyway. You would therefore also have missed the Palestinian celebration of the murders.

Perhaps you still want to argue that our cultures are equally corrupt and evil and that's the end of it. I've provided a mere snapshot of the evidence. Extremist Islamic cultural celebration of murder has a degree, depth and scope which is wide, far-reaching, and largely unreported by our media. Perhaps you refuse to accept this, and apply God's eternal equality to our harsh moral realities. That's fine. The fact is, we are free to debate this, and that's a good thing.

In the type of society desired by the Bin Ladens of the world, they are not free to do any such thing. Criticism of your own culture and government is the first thing that will get you killed. At the risk of sounding glib, the very fact that we are debating moral equivalence proves that there isn't any.

I'm going to have a risky crack at the Christian dilemma here: God views individuals as made equal by sin, and equal in precious value. Therefore, so should we. Societies and cultures however, are a different issue. In fact the Big Guy Himself was responsible for some capital punishment back in the day, when it came to cultures which celebrated brutality.

Well-meaning Christians might be genuinely struggling with the "correct Christian response" to this violence and counter-violence, as though we have some kind of default obligation to express outrage at whatever cause du jour invades our TV screens, and regardless of how ignorant we are of the important details.

The "correct Christian response" is, if you'll excuse the bluntness, to mind your own business. Literally. You see, when Jesus said all that stuff, he told YOU to do it. He didn't mean for you to go and tell someone else to do it. I think this bit here, from 2 Chronicles 7, is very interesting:

"if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Note the wording: if MY people...humble THEMselves...turn from THEIR wicked ways. That's us. Not them, out there. Us. OUR job is to testify God's grace through Christ. OUR job is to turn the other cheek. OUR job is to love our enemies.

On the other hand, the job of the US State Department, the CIA, the Marines, Mossad, Shin Bet, the Israeli Defence Forces, the SAS, our Diggers, and all those folks, is to protect our various backsides from terrorists and other existential threats. I'm not going to get into a Christian flap about how they achieve that.

In fact I'm rather grateful for those who are prepared to do unpleasant things on my behalf to keep me safe.

If you want to argue that ... go for it. Let's debate. Until we no longer have the freedom to do so, where's the dilemma?

Zionist Talking Witch Pants

2011-01-17T16:19:00.000-08:00

I couldn't help noticing, while walking past Dymocks the other day, that David Hicks has an autobiography. How utterly unsurprising. I must have missed the big release and the signing.

Do I even need to ask whether the masses would consider a Guantanamo detainee credible?

I give you Anti-Jewish Conspiracy Theory number 3,765,481...

behold, the ZIONIST TALKING WITCH PANTS.

(Released detainee) Walid Muhammad Hajj: "The most common method to wear down the brothers was witchcraft... there were, of course, Jews among the [staff of] Guantanamo..."

"we knew that (a fellow detainee) was under a spell. ... he said to me: '...The birds on the barbed wire would talk to me, and tell me to urinate in the milk. When the guards pass by my cell, the sound made by their pants talks to me.'"

Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair: "When Jewish pants talk to me, they usually just pass on a few investment tips and tell me not to buy retail..."

.

Those aren't cross-hairs...

2011-01-10T21:39:00.000-08:00

After the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 , it was almost tragically comical to watch as the media found different ways to avoid mentioning the religion and painfully obvious motivations of the killer.

Let's not jump to conclusions, said everbody from CBS to the US President.

"What could it have been?" they implored to ask. of the man with the Muslim name, Muslim faith, who gave powerpoint presentations on the merits of Islamic Jihad, and who yelled "Allahu Akbar" moments before killing unarmed people. Yes, what indeed, geniuses.

Down here, "our" ABC spend eight minutes reporting the murders, without mentioning the M word once.

That same ABC, in the wake of the recent boat tragedy, so desperately tried to hide the painfully obvious fact that "compassionate" laws such as the scrapping of offshore processing, lured these people to their deaths. Instead, they chose to condemn conservative columnist Andrew Bolt for "politicising the tragedy", barely minutes after the bodies washed ashore. Bolt had, indeed, politicised the tragedy...before it happened. He was concerned, rightly, that people might die.

Then we arrive at the shooting of, among others, Democrat congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona on Saturday.

How warm, still, were the bodies, including that of a 9-year old girl, before the media was awash with guilt-by-association stories, pointing the finger at Sarah Palin and her "crosshairs" map from a year earlier, and lamenting her "incitement" and that of the conservative Tea Party movement? All, by their own admission, without the slightest piece of evidence other than their feelings?

How soon before our ABC ran a web poll asking (preaching) Is America’s right-wing political ‘hate speak’ responsible for the Arizona massacre? Less than two days.

I'm not even going to dignify the bleeding-heart, vacuous, empty and fact-free emotionalism of associating tough political analogy with the actions of a lone, crazed gunman, who in fact held the political views of someone far from conservative.

Do these Democrat town criers and Leftist intelligentsia even bother with the pretense of logic, consistency or balance any more?

But since these commentators insist that any strong disagreement with their ideals is "hate speech" or "creating a climate of hate", I would like to quote the following:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbours. I want you to talk to them... whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Sen. Barack Obama, September 18, 2008

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Sen. Barack Obama Radnor Middle School in Wayne, PA, June 14, 2008
Oh dear. A gun reference. Were there some shootings immediately after June 2008 which we can blame on Obama?

“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,”
President Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
So we're agreed. Taking a stand on political issue can be talked about in combat terms.

“We’re gonna punish our enemies* and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
President Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
Now, this one is particularly interesting. He was not talking about state enemies, he was referring to those who would vote against his healthcare reform or immigration policies. In other words, not only do we want to pass our bills, we want to punish those who didn't help. See the problem there, kiddies?

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
President Barack Obama March 2010
Fair enough. But when Republicans get angry, they must keep it to themselves. Check.

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“
President Barack Obama June 2010
Ah, nothing like a good purge.

“Punish your enemies”
President Barack Obama October 26, 2010
See above.

"I’m itching for a fight"
President Barack Obama December 7, 2010

“It’s time to fight for it.”
President Barack Obama October 19, 2010

Here's another pearler from a slightly less prominent source:

"That (Republican Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him...He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook."
Democrat Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, October 2010

The same Kanjorski now says, in light of the Tucson murders;
"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation..."

In other words "conservatives should play nice and agree with us, so we'll always be in power". Well, that must be what it means. He can't possibly be condemning strong political rhetoric, surely. That would condemn him.

Democrat campaigners used militant target graphics against Republicans. They targeted images of people, as well as district maps. Democrat activists overtly called for the assassination of George W Bush. Prominent TV commentators on CBS, MSNBC and CNN openly wished for the death of their conservative counterparts. Actors called for the violent rape of Sarah Palin, while unfunny talk shows joked about raping her 14 year old daughter. Violent rhetoric? Uncivilised discourse? The list is endless.

But that's different...right? Of course it is. Because their cause is just. And when your cause is just, you can ignore your own rules. Heck, you don't even have to make sense. You can politicise tragedy, providing your politics belongs in the correct group.

.

Top Gear Does Jesus

2011-01-10T19:40:00.000-08:00

Ah, the bittersweet aroma that is "freedom of speech".

As I was attempting to grow up, I would generally fall into lockstep with the Christian outrage generated by the entertainment industry's increasing tendency to slag off at Christianity, Jesus, us, and our faith in general. More recently, however, I have learned that while we must speak up for the truth, we must also accept that we live in a free society. This means people are free to be irresponsible. A symptom of this is that people will bash easy targets to make themselves famous. Targets like Jesus.

Okay, lets get one thing out of the way for any secular readers unfortunate enough to stumble across this blog. So you don't believe that a) He existed b) He was the Son of God or c) He rose from the dead? No probs. It's a free country. In fact, that would qualify you to be a Uniting Church Minister.

But one would have to assume from a pragmatic review of the evidence that Jesus/ Yeshua/ Issa was a peaceful man whose life was extremely constructive, and inspirational to countless millions. Yet when it comes to scoring cheap laughs or publicity from religious icons, the entertainment elites deride, ridicule, mock, scorn and put down this man, and this man only, with His followers next in line.

This man. Not the "Prophet" of Islam, no. Which is strange, because it's not as if Mohammed didn't give the elites enough comedy material. What with, among other things, him divinely claiming to know where the sun sets (in muddy pools, apparently) and claiming to be virtuous while fiddling with nine-year-old girls. The man whose name is used as a fashionable expletive did nothing as ridiculous. Not even close.

No, and we all know why this man, and not the other. I will spell it out in meticulous detail:

Because the entertainment industry are, collectively, a bunch of cowards. I'm generalising, of course, for the sake of brevity. Not all of them are cowards, just most of them.

Well, no. All of them.

For me, watching TV these days constitutes little more than adding to The List of yet another hitherto-admired comedian, writer, author, entertainer or production who/ which has sold their creative talent by taking cheap, easy shots at targets which don't fight back. All to soak up the adulation of The Crowd, who will laugh and fawn at pretty much whatever they are told to. Comedians like Kitty Flanagan, for example. Such a shame. I loved her in The Sketch Show.

Then, the very same elites apologise for, and even defend, the most unbelievable and dangerous belief system in the world. Because they are petrified of it. They are shaking in their narcissistic little boots.

Let 'em, I say.

You see, when they're done creating the illusion of their own brilliance and fame (and believing it), these elites then attempt to create the impression that by being cowards, they are actually being brave. They will attempt to tell you that by attacking "religious icons" (i.e. Jesus), they face the wrath of those "Christian fundamentalists".

Those Christian what now...? Is this a relative term?

Let's have a look: Recently my beloved Top Gear travelled through the Middle East and ended up at Bethlehem, where they did a parody of the Christmas story. It included a manger, not with a baby Jesus, but a baby Stig.

Personally...? Well, I don't feel offended. Perhaps it's because I don't think Jesus of Nazareth was born in an animal stall, so I only see a parody of Roman/Pagan-influenced human traditions. Or perhaps it's because I've learned to stop being offended, because it's my choice. Either or both.

But now, see the headlines: "Top Gear... sparks anger from (Christian) viewers ", and Top Gear...incurs wrath of Christians...

The story behind the headline? That hordes of angry Christians (two of them, to be precise) have taken to (wait for it...) writing on internet forums to voice their outrage! Not bishops, military leaders, politicians, people of influence baying for blood and igniting the fervour of a willing army of activists...but two people, writing on their computers, at home..

Internet forums!

Two!

Writing!

Using words!

Breaking News!!

Is everybody okay??

When the same entertainers wore burkas, of course, Muslims were insulted, and their reactions were (and I wager will continue to be) a little more...um...tangible. Yes- the fact that Top Gear reminded us of the existence of this insulting piece of barbaric clothing...well, that's insulting to Muslims, you understand.

Kudos to Top Gear for being consistent. They have stayed off The List for one more episode. Which is good, because I'm running out of things to watch on TV.

Now, I won't detail the countless other incidents of violent, deadly Muslim outrage to the most innocuous, insignificant infidel references to their faith. Nor will I mention the more-than 16,500 deadly terror attacks (and counting) in the name of Islam since 2001.

No, I won't mention them, and neither will the people on your telly.

Yes Virginia, the bittersweet aroma of free speech; they are free to bash Jesus and cower from Mohammed, and we are free to call them what they are- cowards. Not out of spite, but out of pity. You see, those who bash the things which mean no harm, and cower from the things which threaten, soon become insignificant and irrelevant. Best to steer clear of them.

Next time they kick Jesus (probably in around five seconds from now) you can protest, write letters, and be offended if you like, but I think it's a waste of time. Because tomorrow, they will still be cowards. Best to focus your attention on those brave enough to listen to truth.

Such a furor! Letters were written, I tell you...!

.

Impeach God ! (or Gaia)

2010-04-21T19:34:00.000-07:00

Ah, the religious zeal of the Greens.

David Spratt, who authored one of the zillions of preachy climate alarmism books, has written a letter to the Melbourne Age. Being the Age, I'm surprised it's not being presented as an article, written by an "expert".

In any case, he's rejoicing that a volcano is doing what evil humans should have done a long time ago; grounded aircraft.

Eyjafjallajokull may be Gaia's revenge. At the least, we should be thankful for a practical demonstration as to how dependent we have become on industries and patterns of mass consumption such as aviation, which are simply incompatible with a safe climate.

First of all, kudos for writing out Eyjafjallajokull. I admit, I simply copied and pasted it. So sue me. I have yet to hear someone pronounce it easily in any context.

Now, to take his typical Green logic further, another thing which is "simply incompatible with a safe climate" is breathing.

But I hope he realises what the implications are when he fawns over the beloved deity Gaia. After all, Eyjafk, Eyyhjah, Elaj...that volcano in Iceland has spewed out more greenhouse gas in the last week than humanity could in a year. Straight into the sky.

Clearly, Gaia is guilty of a little self-abuse here.

.

How to not be called an anti-semite when you actually are

2010-03-31T17:26:00.000-07:00

Worship at the altar of....

2010-02-09T14:52:00.000-08:00

"We are Palestinian before we are Christian"

- Marwan Toubasi, chairman of the Arab Orthodox Council in Palestine.

Just in case we had any doubts about the true idols of the Orthodox Christian leaders in Palestine.

This comment was made during an uproar about Greek Orthodox leaders being accused of land sales to (gasp) Jews.

.

I'd rather be an illogical President than...

2010-01-26T17:01:00.000-08:00

Following Obama's quote to ABC news...

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president"

...Fox's Charles Krauthammer delivers a scathingly obvious piece of logic:

Well there’s a third option he didn’t consider, which is that he could be a mediocre one-term president. ...because mediocrity does not usually encourage the electorate to re-elect you, that might account for being a one-termer.

You know, I would never had thought of that (if I'd kept listening to nobody except Obama...)

.

Ramming awareness

2010-01-10T18:57:00.000-08:00

Since when did Batman have a garage sale? And since when would arch-capitalist Bruce Wayne sell to a bunch of eco-terrorist clowns?

Sea Shepherd are an anti-whaling group so extreme they are even shunned by Greenpeace. Their founder Paul Watson is a true human-hater. Even worse, he doesn't have a boat licence.

Neither, it appears, do his volunteers.

.

Listen to Greenpeace!

2009-12-10T19:51:00.001-08:00

No, I haven't turned. I was, however, challenged to an email debate/ exchange with a young AGW believer (and a Christian) who was pleasant, rational, friendly and accommodating, a welcome relief from the shrill green-left preachers. He probably feels the same way about conservatives.

As a result I decided that, on my personal journey, it was time to face the boogey man of "Big Oil payouts drive Climate Change scepticism". All in the interests of fair play, since I finally met an AGW supporter who can talk without cussing and isn't wearing a hemp shirt.

So, I stopped by Greenpeace's website exxonsecrets.org to see what they say, just in case I'm accused of listening to my own conservative echo-chamber. Good ol' Greenpeace. Fair play to them, they've done a lot of work. It's a site to "document Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change sceptics".

You assume, therefore, that the long list of over 130 institutions, ranging from commerce groups, policy analysts, media watchdogs, thinktanks and science departments, are all recipients of EM's billions. And, naturally, that they are all enviro-trashing, Gore-hating, Poley-Bear murdering Climate denialists.

Indeed, there's a lot of money. I provisionally calculated over $12-15 million in contributions over a minimum 10 year period. That's around 0.00025% of EM's global yearly profit. One could rightly suggest that this figure doesn't exactly betray a sense of urgency on their part, to spread this allegedly corrupt gospel. You'd also have to ignore the fact that Climate Alarmism actually gives them an alibi to raise oil prices. Those poor oil execs, how torn they must be.

But sure, that's a scandallous amount of money. If you also ignore the fact that private enterprise has been funding research or political institutions since time began.

However, there's a couple of real problems. Firstly, half of the listed groups receive no money at all, which makes me wonder why they're on a site dedicated to documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change sceptics.

Also, thanks to the site's detail, you can find several of these groups with nary a smatter of the wicked climate denialism which Greenpeace are so gallantly proclaiming (I suspected this when, amongst the institutions listed, I often spotted the word university).

It seems Greenpeace are flagging some of these naughty institutions for any associated conservative crime which could be linked to the dire transgression of climate scepticism. Among them are media watchdog groups, legal foundation groups dedicated to protection of property rights, a Racial Equality Congress which has, in the past, been "critical of environmental groups", and some medical gang concerned with malaria vaccinations in Africa.

Malaria vaccinations.

In fact, amongst the donations was $100,000 given to an Environmental program "dedicated to researching new options...which have the capability to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions". For some reason I included that in my above approximate. I wonder how many others I perhaps should have excluded but didn't.

But let's just assume the worst, like you do with capitalism, and that it really is around $15 million bucks. Possibly more, if the Greenpeace researchers occasionally had to return to their day jobs and missed something.

So we get it. Climate sceptics are not driven by a genuine desire for truth and transparency, nosiree. They are all greedy money grabbers. The Green Warriors, on the other hand, are as pure as the driven snow which keeps popping up every time Al Gore is in town to tell us how hot we're all going to get.

Which makes this following episode of follow-the-money, as summarised by the Wall Street Journal, a very inconvenient truth:

Firstly, our friend at the centre of the CRU email scandal, alarmist Phil Jones received, between 2000 and 2006, around $19 million in public grants.

The EU Commission's most recent pass-the-hat-around-for-climate change netted almost $3 billion, and that doesn't include the funds donated by EU member states. They were private donations. Yes, private enterprise has funded AGW.

The US Gov is donating almost $2 billion to AGW-friendly NASA (when don't they need funding??) and two other Climate institutes.

The louder you cry doom, whilst flashing your PhD, the more money flows in. Yours and mine, not the profits of some evil oil cabal.

Meanwhile, the HSBC Bank calculates that over $90 billion (that's billion, with a B) has been raised for (for, not by) "green energy" interests. These are the stimulus funds which will make the green energy divestment/ investment brokerage firm Kleiner Perkins, among others, ridiculously rich.

And the CEO of Kleiner Perkins is..? Al Gore. Just sayin', is all.

Then there's the whole spin-off franchise boom; universities, advocacy groups, and lobbyists. Greenpeace, Climate Action Now, Clean Air Cool Planet, Alternative Energy goups, the entire Australian Department of Climate Change...all hanging out for a piece of that multi-billion dollar pool. Some of it was possibly spent on a website telling us how Exxon-Mobil has funded sceptics.

That's what's been spent. Of course, it will all be a drop in the ocean compared to what can be extorted by Cap And Tax / ETS / Copenhagen deals and the rest.

$15 million vs $93 Billion. Mathematics is certainly a more exacting science than Climatology.

Thanks for the info, Greenpeace.

UPDATE: Another take on who's-in-the-pay-of-big-oil by James Delingpole.

How dare they

2009-12-09T20:10:00.000-08:00

I heard an interesting theory recently that one of the effects of the Climate Change craze was that children were being turned against their parents. Subliminally, at least, they would be made to look at their parents and say "YOUR industry, your pollution, your cars, did this to MY future".

I genuinely believed that no reasonable person who supports man-made GW would ever consciously do that. I really, really wish I was right. As if we needed any more proof of the delusional, deranged, divisive, humanity-hating intent of the Green Left:

Recently defeated Greens candidate Clive Hamilton, on an ABC website, writes a mock letter to a child who's father works for, well, just about any industry. This disgusting exploitation of childhood naivete and parental disrespect is downright chilling.

Hi there,

There's something you need to know about your father.

Your dad's job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia's carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world's climate in very harmful ways.

...Deep down your dad knows all this, although he probably pretends he doesn't. ...He has to tell himself these things because otherwise he would feel too guilty and could not sleep very well at night.

...So your dad is not really a bad person. He is not deliberately making the world a worse place for you and all the other kids. But he is telling lies to himself so he does not have to face up to the truth about what he does at work.

I am sure it's hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him.

...Tell him that you know he will feel much happier inside if he is doing something to make Australia and the world a better place, instead of going to work every day to make it a worse one.

Absolutely reprehensible. Inexcusable.

Read it all here.

.

Tony, meet Sarah...

2009-12-07T18:32:00.001-08:00

The parallels between the US and Australia are remarkable.

In the "elected" corner: We have two leaders who are smooth talking, have more spin than substance, got elected by appearing centrist but are ultimately left, and who think that apologising for what other people have allegedly done somehow constitutes courage on their part.

In the "opposing" corner: We have two figures who are maligned and even sexually vilified by a mass media who throw away their own rulebook on tolerance in the process. They apologise for their own shortcomings rather than others', don't apologise for speaking the truth, and take a stand on issues rather than skirt around them in constant campaign mode.

The rather savvy Lloyd Marcus sums it up at American Thinker:

We the people are so sick of namby pamby "middle of the road speak" focus group-tested candidates. "Don't say this because you will offend this crowd and don't say that because you will offend the other." For crying out loud, just say what you mean and mean what you say. Show us voters who you are. These are the kind of candidates we voters are longing and tea partying for. And this is why Sarah "what you see is what you get" Palin is a rock star.

We The People. I love those words.

When previously dormant voters see someone of true character, in begins to show up in those not-conclusive-but-compelling approval ratings. It's started happening to Obama. Up to now, Rudd has been shielded by the clear absence of a formidable opponent, or more accurately, by an opposition leader who was actually his clone.

I expect to see that change now. Watch those annoying-but-interesting polls.

.

Is that an ETS in your pocket or are you just pleased to see us?

2009-11-29T16:24:00.000-08:00

The papers are making a big thing about a couple who scammed their way into the White House and caused concerns about national security.

But enough about the 2008 US election. Closer to home it's all climate Change, climate change, climate...guh... I'm so sick of those two words I am, for the rest of this article, going to replace them with something similar but different.

Time to 'fess up, people. Cubic Centimeters is starting to smell a little dubious. I have been suspicious ever since Al Gore, in his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth, uttered those famous quotes:

This is NOT a political issue,
and
The debate is OVER!

My first thought was; since when did the Academy Awards have a category for "best Microsoft Powerpoint Presentation"?

My second thought was that, when a failed politician says those words, you can be sure of at least two things. Firstly, it's a political issue, and secondly, there should be more debate.

There is actually one thing more alarming than the recent expose of agenda-driven scientists fudging core figures central to the debate on Cletus's Chevvy: The state-run and mainstream media's denial of it.

The ABC and SBS have gone out of their way to avoid mentioning it, other than in passing and amongst the words "popular with deniers", just in case we need reminding that only the fringe of society would dare question the science of Clunker Cashing. They've even made these criminally negligent and corrupt scientists-with-massive-grants out to be the victims.

Well, that fringe is getting bigger. And bigger. And bigger. And it isn't all cashed up by "Big Oil Money". In fact, if you must play follow-the-money, it doesn't bode well for the Crazy Critter Alarmists...

Oh, there is another thing as alarming as those previous two: Our Prime Minister's readiness to put his personal ambitions ahead of the nations' interest. Sure, pollies have done this kind of thing since time immemorial. But the narcissistic fervour which has accompanied our PM's environmental-saviour complex is downright disturbing.

Firstly, there was his messianic rant to the Lowy Institute where he isolated and marginalised anyone who questions Chinese Checkers. So much for ..."those of you who didn't vote for me, I'm your Prime Minister too..." He even named a handful of "deniers", including the (two or so) conservative journalists in our nation's media.

So, if you're like me and don't accept the so-called "consensus", and think that TV and movie stars should just stick to the acting and stay away from the preaching, your Prime Minister just insulted you. He called you a "radical" and accused you of being a danger to your children. And your children's children, and your children's children's...

...etc. I wonder if we'll ever receive an apology for being the "insulted generation".

Secondly, as I have long believed, this PM's real ambition is to be SecGen of the UN. What better way to throw his resume into the ring than to "lead the world" in tackling Charlie Chaplin. To stroll into the Hopenchangen summit as the Pioneer of Pointlessly Taxing the Crap Out of People For the Greater Good.

If the problem was really man-made, our ETS will do N*O*T*H*I*N*G, repeat, N*O*T*H*I*N*G to affect it. Since Captain Crunch is most probably not man-made, then the ETS will simply do a different kind of nothing: Rather than just destroy us economically for no tangible improvement to the problem, it will simply destroy us economically for no tangible reason at all.

Now to expand the conspiracy theories: There are plenty of people who will tell you that Complex Carbohydrates is just a brilliantly co-ordinated alibi to repackage that century-old chestnut of worldwide socialism. They will tell you that socialism has been weighed and found wanting, citing annoyingly accurate reasons such as socialism's 100 years of miserable, abject failure to produce a coherent, functioning society. And the small matter of over 100 million people murdered by it's adherents.

Instead of decrying "Global Governance" theories as being of the crackpot religious right, how about looking to the claims of the global governance cabal themselves? It seems they don't have any inhibitions in laying out these fringe ideas. For the Greater Good, of course. More true confessions here.

They say you must keep your friends close, and enemies closer. Apply the same rule to your government.

UPDATE: The ETS is dead. Kevin will have nothing to take to Copenhagen but his charm.

.

Wall bad. West good.

2009-11-09T21:04:00.000-08:00

I almost let the 20th anniversary of the removal of the Berlin Wall pass without noticing.

One of the reasons it slips the notice of many is because we've been numbed to the significance of it. With articles like this in the UK's Guardian it's no wonder.

And, with creeping socialism throughout our mainstream politics and media, it's no wonder.

I'm almost bemused to see some influential people reflecting on the euphoria of the Berlin Wall's destruction. These same intelligentsia who constantly champion the very things which put it up in the first place.

Let's break it down into two often-quoted expressions of socialist romanticism (I have actually heard these very things first hand, from "East German" friends):

There was no poverty in the GDR.

There was no crime in the GDR (former East Germany).

Indeed. Poverty is relative. There was no poverty in the GDR because everyone was poor.
And correct- there was no crime amongst the citizens of the GDR. All the crime was being committed by the government.

I was also once told this: Secret State Police? Everyone has them! Australia has ASIO, no?

Difference? Here, our "secret" police protect us from terrorism. In the GDR, they protected the regime from criticism. Using whatever brutal means necessary.

Happy little socialists. A wall mural in Berlin.

If you're like me and you never paid attention when the wall actually fell, and the true significance was lost...perhaps now might be a good time to start paying attention. Better late than never.

.

Who can bear terrorism?

2009-11-05T16:56:00.000-08:00

If only western society had the such moral clarity: A Kashmiri bear dealt decisively with some terrorists hiding in his cave (and possibly eating his porridge).

I'm expecting the Greens to condemn this act of oppression towards a freedom fighting religious minority group.

Perhaps not.

.

Bold Boris

2009-11-05T16:50:00.000-08:00

It's official. If a left-wing activist is ever mugged, they'd much rather be rescued by a conservative.

.

Who needs God with an ego like this

2009-10-13T15:24:00.000-07:00

Off the political rants for now.

Normally my daily drive up Melbourne's western ring road only causes me traffic-related stress. However on this particular morning, I had a whole new reason to laugh, cry and cringe all at the same time.

But first, a preamble: Doctor Francis Macnab, a qualified psychologist, is a revolutionary in post-modernism. When it comes to Christianity, he is full of opinions. The narrative runs to an age-old theme: Only raving fundamentalists would believe in a virgin giving birth, God becoming a human being for a spell, and a guy walking out of his grave after being dead for three days. We all know those things don't happen because, well, I didn't see them.

In fact, Dr. Macnab was behind a $120,000 newsprint and billboard campaign back in late 2008 stating that the Ten Commandments was "the most negative document ever written". It was to promote his views that, among other things, Abraham is a concoction, and Moses was a mass murderer. Free invites to the Jewish community, then.

Plus, Jesus obviously wasn't deity, didn't die for our sins and certainly didn't walk out of the grave. In fact, I think Macnab is ambivalent as to whether he even existed or not, because it's nice to be flexible. God, by the way, is not a distinguishable personal entity but a concept we can find within ourselves through personal reflection and...so on...

This is all fine. It's a free country. The thing is, Dr McNab is a Uniting Church minister. He's the UCA version of John Shelby Spong.

As one commentor on a Macnab article wrote "Just WHAT does it take to get someone de-frocked these days?"

That's a good question, and I don't know. Believing in absolute truth, perhaps? That certainly isn't a great career move for men-in-frocks these days. But, being a "Christian" leader who re-defines what being a "Christian" really is, by tearing up the original instruction manual...well, that makes you a revolutionary. A hero. An agent of change. It means book sales, book signings, the public speaking circuit at smug, academic humanist universities and, if you're really controversial, a spot on the telly.

On that logic, I should be able to advertise as a brothel, and when clients arrive, put them through a course of Valiant Man. Viva la revolucion.

There's a more detailed look at Dr. Macnab here in the Melbourne Anglican.

Back to my fateful trip on the western ring road on this particular day- Doctor Macnab has a new advertising campaign. While the UCA are trying to offload property and send the proceeds to the needy, Macnab has spent (presumably around another $120,000) on these:

Three people listed in order; NIGHTINGALE, KING, MACNAB.

Good to see Macnab has found his inner god.

.

Life Panels

2009-10-08T17:32:00.000-07:00

The outrage against Citizen Sarah Palin's use of the term "death panels" to describe a provision in Obamacare, continues in the US.

Call the words what you like- a monumental benefit of her using them was that it actually sparked national debate. Not bad for a private citizen posting on Facebook.

Otherwise, the 1000+ page Obamaplan, which hardly any Democrat Congressperson even read, was to be thrust through Congress without consultation with the American people.

What Palin said, paraphrased: " 'Death Panels' we be deciding on eligibility for end-of-life care for your loved ones, and those not considered to be conventionally useful to society". (Note Palin used quotes in her original statement, indicating she was clearly being tongue-in-cheek with the term, using it metaphorically to make a clear political point).

What Obama said, paraphrased: "There won't be 'death panels'. This is scaremongering. There will simply be an independent, arbitrary group, appointed by the government, who will provide consultancy and guidance on critical health care issues..."

Right. In other words, death panels. But spoken with more Ivy League smoothness.

After Obama accused the naysayers of "scaremongering", he then suggested that if we don't adopt Obamacare, "more people will die".

Here's a quote from a supporter of Obamacare:

"Sarah Palin said "death panels". Well I got news for you honey. If we were gonna get rid of useless people, you'd be the first to know" - CNN political commentator Bill Maher.

Charming. The concern for human life oozes from every word. Here's a quote from an opponent of Obamacare.

"(Down Sydnrome child Trig Palin) has proven to me that every innocent life does have purpose, and there is no accident. And I’m gonna choose the creator’s idea of perfection over society’s definition of perfection any day." - Sarah Palin.

OBAMACARE UPDATE: A very salient quote from Dr. Russell Blaylock, a "respected medical professional" (I haven't vetted this source and don't count on the veracity of that description, but it is a widely agreed point):

"One of the things that concerns the legal minds of this country is that any bill that contains arbitrary language can be interpreted after it's passed any way they want to. And in this bill (Obamacare/ HR 3200), virtually every page gives arbitrary powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services."

As if they needed more czars.

.

The Goldstone Echo Chamber

2009-09-22T18:49:00.000-07:00

The "Goldstone Report" is out, accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza, riddled with anecdotal claims, systematically debunked by the evidence, but being gobbled up by the West in a predictable flurry of anti-Israel hysteria.

Sure, one day it will be exposed as the biased, stacked, pro-Palestinian echo chamber that it is. In fact, this has already been done. But nobody will care by then. In honour of this auspicious occasion, I will simply post this cartoon.

It's official, You may now accuse Jews of harvesting organs, drinking the blood of Christian children, or planning to take over the world, and you may do so with impunity, regardless of how many Islamic fascists and their friends in the left use your words to excuse themselves as they murder Jews. Welcome back to the 1930's!

.

Wishful vs Lateral Thinking

2009-08-27T18:51:00.001-07:00

My disdain for the mainstream info-tainment media is based on a very rational set of concerns.

One of them is that normal everyday people will never truly have the opportunity to consider or debate a relevant public issue, because they will never truly have all the information.

The healthcare debate in the US is a case in point. Following current pop culture trends, it seems that to oppose the Obama Administration's 1,000+ page healthcare reform package, means that you obviously oppose health care reform, want poor people to die, and are a scaremonger.

Oh, I almost forgot: And you're probably racist. Since November 2008, there seems to be a bit more of that going around.

In the real world, as opposed to that whacky alternate dimension to which the media are an effective portal, it doesn't mean any of that. For starters, and unlike the hordes of Democrats trying to sell it, it means you've actually read the healthcare package.

Is this plan to provide more care for more people, or to save money, or both? It can't be both. That's not possible. You can't simply say you're going to provide more people with more health care, and it's going to be cheaper.

While there is much back and forth between the parties on the details, none of which are particularly clear anyway, someone has thought outside the circle.

Someone has suggested that you cannot have health care reform without tort reform.
Medical Liability leads to more insurance. More insurance leads to more cost.

”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs. .." says Dr. Stuart Weinstein, of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Quite simply, it is too easy to sue a doctor, particularly with pro-bono allowances which make for more ambulance-chasing lawyers. Then, practitioners will move to states where liability laws are less severe, but even then, will shy away from high-risk practices.

Apart from more costs and less services, less people then want to become doctors and surgeons. Logically, now they want to become attorneys. And as I've always said, attorneys are like Idol winners. We love them, really we do. We just don't need any more.

Care standards drop, and therefore the potential for malpractice increases. These costs are spun to the consumer as "high health care costs" when really, they are legal and insurance costs.

To cut a long and litigious story short, the current tort system is estimated to cost the US health system around $200 billion per year.

Talk about thinking outside the circle. Before you can genuinely reform health care, you must reform the tort system. Less pro-bono, more loser-pays. Less frivolous lawsuits. More caps on lawsuit payouts. More rule-of-law deciding genuine malpractice cases, less ankle-biters trying to profit off someone else, for their own lack of responsibility.

I don't doubt that many people have expressed this idea. But when Sarah Palin expresses it, it actually gets heard.

How does a housewife from Wasilla, Alaska, get the White House to remove a major section of the bill pertaining to end-of-life-care and rationing, merely by posting on Facebook? .

But of course, Palin is just parroting. She's just a pretty neo-con reading hate speech from someone else's script, right? Well, sure, if that rocks your prejudice boat. Except she was governor of a state which had caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers, pioneered the “loser pays” system to deter frivolous law suits, and inhibited "quack" court testimonies against real doctors. That's walking the walk.

Using facebook is a stroke of pure genius. It won't stop the delusional hatred of her by the Obamabots, but it will make sure her words arrive at the ears of her millions of listeners complete, pure, unfiltered and unaltered by a delusionally biased media.

.

And again: It's a S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y F-E-N-C-E

2009-08-20T20:52:00.000-07:00

You know it's a slow news week when SBS and ABC have to dig up some fringe, anecdotal claims of Israeli not-very-nice-ness and run it as though a press-stopping world event has just occurred.

Hamas are in the business of anti-Israel propaganda. Sometimes I wonder whether western news agencies actually give them ideas, instead of the other way around.

I recently watched an SBS "report" from the BBC (surprise) about Palestinian children being detained for throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. Naturally, no mention was made of a string of injuries to which the IDF were responding. But even after wading through the usual excuses given (by the BBC, not the Palis), about occupation and oppression, I was still left aghast at how, exactly, this is supposed to be news.

I would love to test that theory by telling my son to go and throw bricks at council officers, call it a "legitimate expression of frustration against council rate rises", then see what happens.

Likewise, when it's a slow news week anywhere, attention invariably turns to Israel's security barrier in the West Bank, to placate the media's appetite for all things anti-Israel. The ecumenical social gospel choir of the World Council Of Churches once called it an "obscene concrete barrier" which "surrounds the West Bank".

This is despite the fact that the boundary is 90% wire fence, the concrete section of which barely covers the northern third of Bethlehem. This is the "wall" which activists, from substance-abusing recording artists, to known terrorists, to Bishops and green politicians, to Israel's own left-leaning university academics, refer to as the "apartheid wall". Yessir, you know a country is truly free when career-seeking individuals within it's public system use that very freedom to launch baseless attacks on that country's integrity.

The West Bank security fence facilitates border checkpoints and crossings to screen Palestinians crossing over into Israel for work, shopping, medical attention or other reasons (since they have so much trouble doing those kinds of things in their own territories). It's much the same practice as that in airports, when they assume the worst so they can achieve the best. Ever been through a checkpoint at an aiport? Did you cry "apartheid"? Why not? Those who aren't catching a plane don't have to go through such humiliation!

This crazy, draconian mentality on Israel's part might be something to do with the 1,000 plus Israelis killed since the "peace process" was put forward at Camp David in 2000, where Yasser Arafat bellowed his righteous refusal and stormed out like a petulant child. Yes, the ensuing "intifada" was a masterstatement of the Palestinian preparedness for peace. 1,000 Israelis dead, from violence emanating from the West Bank. Even when the intifada slowed down, sniping of Israeli children and passing motorists from valleys in the West Bank valleys continued.

Although I'm no military expert, I'm going to hypothesise on the possible options Israel had to deal with this:

1- Send in the IDF and shoot the place up until it stops, no doubt causing civilian deaths (despite their world-beating standards on preventing civilian casualties in the face of an enemy who enjoys death)
2- Bomb the armaments and weapons caches (same as above)
3- Carpet bomb the entire place (worse than both of the above)
4- Ask the PA to stop the violence. (Just kidding. I know it's ridiculous too. I just wanted to add an extra number)
5. Build a wall

Here's part of the barrier

Can you say "passive defence"? There are, indeed, more pragmatic reasons why the barrier is neccessary and in fact several reasons why the Arab bloc should welcome it if they truly seek stability in the region and a two state solution.

And here's why it's needed

The concrete portion of the fence is, indeed, obscene. It's obscene that it is needed to stop bullets entering Israeli towns. A cursory look at Google Earth will demonstrate how the proximity of the concrete sections achieve this, while the rest of the barrier is wire fence and trenches. It's like an enima. It ain't pretty. But it works.

Airport checkpoints aren't very nice either. Sure, this analogy hardly addresses all the salient issues surrounding the Israeli SECURITY FENCE, but I'm not trying to address those. I'm trying to understand why the World Council of Churches, SBS, ABC, and The Washington Post among so, so many others, make such shrill, focussed efforts to portray Israel's defence of it's people as anything but what it really is. And why, for all the hand wringing, emotional terms and lamentating the inconvenience of Palestinians, the brutality which lead to it's construction is totally omitted.

Oh, and I can't help but wonder why not the same impassioned, heavily spun stories on the following (courtesy of American Thinker):

-A 112-mile-long barrier, with concrete, barbed wire, watchtowers, minefields and ditches -- that has sliced through Cyprus since 1974 to separate Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriots.

-A security barrier built by India through disputed Kashmir that runs hundreds of miles to blunt intrusion by Pakistan-based terrorists.

-Saudi Arabia's barrier to prevent infiltration of terrorists from neighboring Yemen, itself built in areas under dispute.

-The barrier that separates Protestants and Catholics in Belfast, which somehow has escaped any pejorative description like "apartheid wall." It's commonly known as the "Peace Line" -- a label that equally fits Israel's security barrier along the West Bank.

-The "Wall of Shame" -- a sand and stone barrier, mined in some places -- that protects Moroccans from Polisario terrorists in the Western Sahara.

- The U.S. barrier along the border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants

I guess I'll never know.

.

When Baptists attack...

2009-08-04T20:42:00.000-07:00

Not days after a terrorist plot was blown open in Australia , the apologising begins.

The article I linked to above goes out of its way to avoid using any reference to the religious affiliations of the alleged perpetrators. It's an ABC article (feign shock and surprise here).

You haven't guessed yet? They're Islamic. I guessed that all by myself, from picking out the words "fatwa", "Al-Shabaab", "links to Al-Qaeda", and "Broadmeadows".

An article in thepunch.com goes on to tell us that it’s clear terrorists don’t look like anything in particular and could be living in your street. It then ridicules what it calls "racial profiling", telling us that terrorists now hail from Indonesia, East Africa, Lebanon and other Eastern Mediterranean areas, Pakistan and Adelaide, and of varying ages.

Good, so you won't mind then if we put at the top of the profiling criteria "Men of Islamic Extraction". No race required.

Naturally, the ABC goes on to afford the suspects some kind of victim status by association:

Doctor Berhard Ahmed from the African Think Tank in Melbourne fears there will be a backlash against Somalis living in Australia following the raids.

Thanks Doctor, but the immediate threat seems to be from jihadis toward Aussies who actually love and serve their country. Let's stick to that for now, as it seems to be more important than your hand-wringing paranoia. Here's a little tonic for your fears: There was no "backlash" against Muslims after 9-11, no "backlash" against Indonesians after the Bali bombings, and no "backlash" against Pakistanis after the Mumbai massacres. We are, it seems, mostly decent people here in not-Muslim land.

"...some people are even commenting that these people have to go back," he said.

How awful of them. They used words, you say? Awful.

The report mentions that one of the suspects travelled to Somalia to seek the fatwa, and many Somalis are frequently travelling back to Somalia to "fight". Whatever unspeakable horror forced them to flee to good ol' Down Under, couldn't have been that bad, since they go back voluntarily.

But, since you don't want us to "send them back", then here's what we'll do. We will try them under our criminal law. Then, if they're found guilty, we won't behead them, rape their daughters, murder their family and massacre their tribe. Instead, we'll send them to jail where they will get three round meals a day, TV, exercise, and a chance to chat with other jihadis and compare notes.

Then, we'll ask them if they can provide us with information which might help us prevent any other jihadis from attacking more innocent Aussies. We promise to ask nicely.

But however nicely we ask, an army of university students and human rights lawyers will rise up to express outrage at our treatment of these poor victims of western oppression and eventually pressure a government who will, in desperation to be popular, release them.

We then repeat the whole process from the top of this post.

.

I stand by my (a)morals

2009-07-29T21:32:00.000-07:00

A common problem among journos who fancy themselves as political commentators is that they confuse satire with personal mockery.

If you're smart (unlike me) you'll try and remain voluntarily ignorant about politics full stop. But try to avoid, at least, thinking that all political bents are the same. Take the 1970's socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky for example. His book Rules For Radicals, a step-by-step handbook on how to rise to power, has been used frequently by various US Democrats.

This useful instructional tome reads like it's a workshop manual for VW Beetles, but with bigger words. It has some marvelous pointers on stuff like; how to discredit and personally destroy your opponents, how to deflect criticism, how to create job vacancies (i.e. "push" people out of your way) and such like. It even contained an "over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: Lucifer". Quite the magnanimous hat-tip coming from a militant atheist.

It has been long since proven that Obama was a student of Alinsky's method to the letter. It shone in his election campaign, and continues to be so in his governance.

Here's one of Alinsky's famous methods, paraphrased somewhat: Force your opponents to live up to their own standards. When they don't, attack them.

Matthew Littman was a Democrat strategist and a speech writer for now-VP Joe Biden (which may explain why Biden so often strays from his script. Tragically, he's even worse at ad-libbing). In an article in the factually-challenged news portal Huffington Post, Littman wrote of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 US presidential race...

I am offended by the attacks on Senator Clinton because there is no question that the slams against her are hypocritical and come because she’s a woman...

Such a nice thing to say albeit where his grammar is slightly awkward because also the lack of punctuation makes the sentence look a little strange and because he can't write quite right.

Yes, as speechwriter for one of Clinton's opponents, it's really quite sweet of him to be worried about Hillary mainly due to her scary woman-parts (that's a feminist term so don't get snarky). I totally agree with him.

But wait. The same Littman, in a recent interview, made comments about resigned Alaskan governor Sarah Palin which were, by his own logic, misogynistic and sexist. And, of all the media-driven twisted, sick and depraved mockery of Palin, Littman excused it, and joined in. The bi-partisan feminist website New Agenda has the story. He even talks down to a female co-interviewee in the most hideously patronising manner, clapping at her like a dog.

Okay, so the guy is a low-brow, bigoted hypocrite who enjoys being nasty. Check. But isn't he running contrary to the much-heralded, Democrat-practised Alinsky method?

Not at all. He's adhering to it fastidiously, actually. Because, like many of his political allies, he has no moral standards at all. So there's nothing to hold him to. In the US, Republicans lose when they have standards, but can't hang on to 'em.

In that light, I would almost have to disagree with the Sarah Palin response to "comedian" David Letterman's jibe about her daughter, were it not for the fact that the media generally incited Palin into responding. You see, Letterman had nothing to apologise for. He has no standards to adhere to. So, building a "joke" around statutory rape of a 14 year-old girl is just another day at the office for Dirty Old Dave.

Likewise, when the leftist gossip site wonkette.com made fun of republican nominee John McCain's daughter recently. Megan McCain was desperately trying to help an unknown person who sent her a twitter message saying that he wanted to kill himself. She contacted Twitter, and even the Seattle Police, such was her concern. Wonkette.com mocked her for it, calling her "hyper-emotional" and saying she was going "progressively nuts" for attempting to help some guy who was just "writing some sadsack stuff about wanting to die".

Nope. Wonkette.com, a gossip site who desperately want you to think that their brand of personal mockery is actually savvy politcal satire, have not done anything wrong. To call anything "wrong" is so yesterday.

That last example resonates somewhat more than usual. You see, down here in Victoria, a 14-year-old girl and former classmate of my daughter's best friend, committed suicide after repeatedly receiving demeaning comments on the internet.

Any suicide is a tragedy. That it was someone so young is exceedingly heartbreaking.

But then, my broken heart is my own fault. If only I didn't have standards....

Chanelle Rae.

Warning: this message brought to you by beauracrats...

2009-07-28T17:40:00.000-07:00

I've always struggled with the ever-increasing epidemic of government-sponsored advertising telling us what to be afraid of. The latest climate change alarmist message telling us to "think of the children" is a case in point, along with, don't get me started, most road safety commercials.

It's not enough when then government introduce some new legislation to charge us more money, scare us into doing something/ not doing something or generally burden our lives with more cumbersome nannying. Not only do we have to put up with it, we have to agree with it.

The Centre for Independent Studies have produced some very relevant and pragmatic research on a whole range of topics. A recent CIS article has caught my attention. It deals mainly with the stimulus package and how the government have spruiked it's glorious effect on public infrastructure. However, it also contains some good points on government advertising in general, a subject which alone would warrant pages of (boring) research to make a very salient point. A point which is most probably lost on the majority of TV punters, and that's just how the government likes it.

These (infrastructure) ads do not convey information of direct and immediate relevance to ordinary people’s everyday lives. It is ‘feel good’ advertising and a subtle way of making voters feel more favourably disposed to the party in power.

In which case, why are we paying for these ads?

And so it goes with any fear-mongering advertisement to convince us that they are right to force us into something we don't want, whether it be staring at our speedometers, or turning off our airconditioners when it's 40 degrees.

The only thing we should fear is an even bigger government to do more of this. Article here. It's short and sweet.

.

Ground control to The New York Times

2009-07-20T05:41:00.001-07:00

Mel Gibson once described it as a "beacon of journalistic integrity". No-one does sarcasm like Mel.

The New York Times, otherwise known as the Treason Times for reasons beyond the scope of this post, ran yet another in a long line of baseless drive-by assults on Sarah Palin. This latest piece of hilarity claims the Alaskan Governor is a stressed, underweight basket case with thinning hair. We know this folks, because her hairdresser told us.

They link this, and this alone, to her decision to resign as Alaskan Governor. Hear us, dear readers...clearly she is unhinged by all the criticism...obviously couldn't handle public life...the poor dear... she's sinking slowly...I mean, imagine if this woman was POTUS...geddit? You've uncritically accepted this as fact? Good little sycophants...

It even managed to fire up MSNBC, a network whose integrity I doubt even Mel Gibson could adequately describe. They echoed the piece on TV. Their anchor, the delightful Keith Olbermann who thinks making misogynistic boob jokes for five minutes counts as journalism, was so concerned about poor Sarah's health and wellbeing it was almost touching.

It was yet another in a long line of fashionable hit-and-runs, from those elitists scrambling to gorge themselves on this sadomasochistic anti-Palin orgy before she quits as a public official and is, basically, untouchable.

Never mind that the NYT has, yet again, told an outright lie. You might even ignore the fact that this latest piece of sanctimonious whining is not even worthy to be news even if it was remotely true. If it was, Joe Biden's hair plugs would be on every prime time slot. And have you seen the headline "Concerns for President Obama's mental well-being after disparaging remarks about the Special Olympics..." ?

No, what is gloriously ironic is that they've done it around the 40th anniversary of the first Lunar Landing.

You see, in 1920, the NYT scoffed at the idea that a rocket launched from earth could reach the moon, and lampooned respected physicist Richard Goddard who believed it could, by claiming he lacked "the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools" and that no rocket could work in the vacuum of space.

Aussie columnist Alan Howe looks back with nostalgia at this rather telling indicator as to the credibility of the NYT.

When it comes to Palin and her conservatism they, and their fellow ideologues, are getting more desperate, shrill, infantile and irrational by the minute. One can only wonder why this is so. After all, she's a moron, a lightweight, a joke. She wouldn't even be a blip on the political radar, right? What possible reason could there be?

While you ponder that, I'll close with this totally unrelated and up-to-date Rasmussen Poll on preferred candidacy:

Obama 45% Romney 45%

Obama 48% Palin 42%...

...and climbing...

Hat tip: Red Planet Cartoons

.

Killing for the common good

2009-07-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

Most civilised people, those who consider humanity, for all it's flaws, to be basically a good thing, would and should find horrifying the notion of any public figure calling for

- Women to be forced to abort their pregnancies
- The world population at large to be involuntarily sterilized by infertility drugs
- Mothers to have their babies seized from them and given away to other couples to raise;
- "Undesirables" to be required by law to exercise "reproductive responsibility", i.e. be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A unilateral "Planetary Regime" to arbitrarily control the global population through the above means using an armed international police force to enforce it.

The doomsday industry is alive and well at present, in many forms. The particularly insidious doomsday cult of population control has been festering below the surface for some time. All of these ideals, and many more, are a feature of the 1977 book Ecoscience. These particular words and ideas are the personal work of co-author Dr. John Holdren. Here's some snippets:

compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained …

It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child...might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The law regulates other highly personal matters.... Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region...

All for the environment, of course. After all, it seems every generation is caught up in some man-made environmental catastrophe which will surely cause Armageddon if left unchecked.

Seen enough? Perhaps I'm quoting out of context. Well, perhaps not. The context is worse (available here). Or, perhaps I'm spinning my own yarn by quoting some crackpot fringe fanatic from the 1970's.

How I wish. This chap, who to date has not renounced nor even attempted to deny this ideology, has just been appointed Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, by the Obama administration.

He is in the news for his support on alarmist climate change policies. As if you expected otherwise.

On it's own, this appointment would be alarming enough. But it's not alone. Those of us who truly value human life in all it's forms recognise BHO's Senate voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 and 2002. For the uninitiated, go here for more information. If you want to see BHO's reaction to the legislation, read the Senate transcripts for 2001 (go to page 84) and 2002 (go to page 28).

Ideologically speaking, I've always given BHO the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to try. Problem is, the doubt seems to be getting smaller every day...

.

Desperate Journos

2009-07-06T04:45:00.000-07:00

Sometimes art imitates life, sometimes life imitates art, and sometimes people get the two confused.

It would be impossible to document the full depth, scope and scale of the mass-media savagery of former US Republican VP and Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. It would be even more impossible to document the all the evidence which debunks every piece of dirt that has been raked up to bury her. The National Review does a magnificent job of trying, with this standout line on the snobbery of the elite:

"While we rightly argue that the Sarahs of the world, if they are to be taken seriously as leaders, must read and study more, why do we not also suggest that the Baracks of the world could do a little more chain-sawing, run a coffee shop for a summer, or drive a Winnebago cross-country? (Who knows, he might meet a fellow woodcutter who knew there were 50 states or that it was dumb to make fun of the Special Olympics.)

Vanity Fair magazine, whose name alone reminds you that they are better than you, recently ran a drive-by assault on Palin by one Todd Purdum. The piece was called It came from Wasilla. The title of the article, equally, reminding you that they are the self-confessed authorities on pop culture narrative and you must accept their view uncritically, lest you want to feel tragically left out.

Here's the standard pop culture narrative on Palin, or as it is known by those who think somewhat more critically, Palin Derangement Syndrome;

She's a political joke. She said "I can see Russia from my house" (a line parroted by a previously unheard-of comedienne, which many to this day still attribute to Palin...seriously). She didn't know that Africa wasn't a country (an unchecked, unattributed claim "leaked" to a popular blog, totally false, yet adopted by mainstream press)...

She has no experience for the office position, a lightweight (despite having more administration experience than Obama). Everything she says is stupid (yet Democrat VP Joe Biden is seemingly unable to open his mouth without having to change feet)...

(Take a breath) she's a crackpot creationist (even though her Pa was a science teacher, a subject she majored in). And Matt Damon scoffed at this being a concern for someone who "could have the nuclear codes". Yes, that wonderfully cool guy in those Bourne movies. The actor. The one who is paid to be something he's not.

(Another breath) she shoots moose, poisons wolves, and murders salmon. Which means her idea of "Right to Life" extends only to humans. How backwards is that?

And so on. All uncritically accepted, rehearsed and repeated throughout pop culture.

And none of it actually real. Although, like all good lies, based on a (heavily spun) grain of truth.

So, this Vanity Fair piece has Palin with "clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan" and then lists some, in a (vain?) attempt to appear coherent. I do so love it when the media tell us there is scandal, and then promptly fabricate some, often from thin air, in order for their claim to ring true, just in case you actually read past the headline and into the hyperbole.

Here's a taste of Purdum's list, a little light on supporting evidence:-

-a slew of formal ethics complaints against her in her home state.
These included a complaint that she wore a jacket with a small logo relating to her husband's fishing business during an impromptu TV interview. At current count, 15 out of 15 dismissed as frivolous. You'd think this would count as relevant in Purdum's narrative, but relevance has never been a strong point amongst those who are trying to make a strong point.

By the way, this ethics complaint system, born from the right ideas, has turned into a ridiculous hate-fest much like the Victorian Vilification Laws which tried to stop pastors speaking truth here. The complainants pay nothing for the fun of ruining others' lives with baseless lies.

- surprise pregnancies.
This is controversial? Well, I suppose it would be to those who would much rather abort their 5th pregnancy upon learning it's a Down Syndrome child. That's so much more enlightened. And let's face it Vanity Fair readers, having any children is inconvenient.

- the two-bit blood feuds.
Since Purdum is not big on providing references and evidence, it's not entirely clear what is being referred to here. Perhaps he means the "Troopergate" incident, where Palin dismissed a state trooper for Tasering a 14 year old boy. Actually, she offered the trooper a re-assignment and he quit. Purdum doesn't clarify whether or not painfully Tasering a 14 year old boy is considered "controversial". Had Palin dispensed of said trooper using a Moose rifle, Purdum might have had the makings of a valid point.

That one belongs in the standard Palin Derangement Syndrome list. Along with
- "she had over $150,000 worth of clothes supplied during the GOP campaign". Clothes which were returned- washed and dry cleaned I believe.
- The scandalous "Family Travel expenses on the Republican campaign trail". The only thing scandalous there is that she offered to personally reimburse a proportion of them, when the hundreds of other statesmen and women who rack up the same manner of expenses do not.

It's ironic that, like most people, I knew and cared little for the subject of Sarah Palin's VP selection in '08. In fact, I'd heard of Bristol Palin before Sarah. The time elapsed between the announcement of the Republican VP pick and the hordes of media rummaging through her garbage (literally), was about equal to the flight time of a Piper from the Lower 48 to Alaska. At least they had lots of daylight once there to rummage around for dirt.

Nope, I really didn't know much about Palin then. But I'm simply so fond of using pop culture narrative as a barometer of how little truth prevails in the info-tainment media, that I just had to find out. So, thanks to Palin Derangement Syndrome, she has another fan Down Under.

AND Bree Van Der Kamp is a conservative! Purdum's ability to connect the dots is astounding...

Which brings me to my favourite soundbyte from the Vanity Fair piece. Purdum states that "Palin's life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure".

My, how quick are the info-tainment media to use a TV Show analogy. Why? Because that's the world they live in.

You see, serial liar Michael Moore and several other self-righteous activists insisted that Sarah's youngest, Trig, was not actually hers, but was an out-of-wedlock birth to then-16-year-old daughter Bristol, covered up to avoid a scandal. They even demanded to see the birth certificate (this, from people who insist that seeing the birth certificate of the president is not necessary). This fable was echoed on news blogs everywhere, even down here, and by people who didn't care if it wasn't true.

Yes, a plot which comes straight from the script of Desperate Housewives. Perhaps I shouldn't scorn the media so much for creating fantasy. Perhaps I should pity them, as their minds are ruled by their own creations. In layman's terms, they believe their own lies.

I rather like Desperate Housewives. It's fun. The difference is, I know it's not real. On the other hand, Mr. Purdum, Palin's life is quite real. It's your writing which reads like an unholy amalgam of TV soaps, sitcoms and women's gossip magazines.

UPDATE: Alaskan Governor's office announces a 19th "Ethics Complaint" against Palin, one of them illegally published in the media by the complainant, a breach of the very same ethics laws! How apt...

.
Campaign Spot story here

Real Clear Politics

Weekly Standard

Well done America. Next....

2009-05-03T18:34:00.000-07:00

I'm re-iterating here my view that the biggest congratulations for the US elections goes to the American people, less to to Obama. Perhaps now worldwide perceptions of US attitude toward race may be less influenced by Hollywood and more by their democratic choices.

I continue to be confused as to Obama's direction, though. While the world swooned at his inauguration speech, kleenex at the ready, he parroted much of what GWB said. Much of his election campaign was based on divide-and-conquer. I don't knock this, I quite respect it. But some of the campaign capitalised on the popular delusion that Islamic terrorism would stop if only the US hadn't done so many naughty things under GWB.

Now this quote from BHO, addressing the Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, April 3 2009:

"AL Qaeda is still bent of carrying out terrorist activity...Don't fool yourselves, because some people say 'Well, if we changed our policy...with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or if we were more respectful toward the Muslim world, these organisations will stop threatening us. That's just not the case"

Well said, BHO, and I don't simply mean because he said it without a teleprompter. Those words have substance. Now, to see if it fits with greater party policy.

Meanwhile, if the US want to consider another "president of colour" in 2012, and a woman..! Consider Condaleezza. I don't agree with many of her actions in the Middle East, in particular her designs on negotiations with Fatah. But I simply love the knowledge, clarity and civility when dealing with ideologically-enhanced but factually-challenged university students (or, to put it a little more simply, "university students"):

.

Hamas' Family Day

2009-01-08T03:07:00.000-08:00

More snapshots of the black soul of Hamas.

From Jeffrey Goldberg, Author of PRISONERS- a story of Friendship and Terror, writing an article entitled The World's Pornographic interest in Jewish Moral Failure, answering the question as to why we get to see so many gruesome photographs of dead or injured Palestinians, especially children;

I'll tell you why, again from firsthand, and repeated, experience: Hamas (and the Aksa Brigades, and Islamic Jihad, the whole bunch) prevents the burial, or even preparation of the bodies for burial, until the bodies are used as props in the Palestinian Passion Play. Once, in Khan Younis, I actually saw gunmen unwrap a shrouded body, carry it a hundred yards and position it atop a pile of rubble -- and then wait a half-hour until photographers showed... And it's typical of Hamas. If reporters would probe deeper, they'd learn the awful truth of Hamas.

But Palestinian moral failings are not of great interest to many people.

And this, on their courage as warriors, from a terrorism thinktank report:

In other cases, civilians are simply used as cannon fodder or human shields. Reports out of Gaza say residents who attempted to flee their homes in the northern area of the Strip were forced to go back at gunpoint, by Hamas men.

Arab media reported that in an IDF strike on a UN school 30 civilians were killed, but there is no legitimate way to prove gunmen were among those killed as Hamas tends to bury these bodies quickly, thus eliminating evidence in Israel's favor.

Other civilian complaints state that Hamas gunmen pull children along with them "by the ears" from place to place, fearing that if they don't have a child with them they will be fair game to the IDF. Others hide in civilian homes and stairwells, UNRWA ambulances, and mosques.

Another letter from Sderot

2009-01-07T02:06:00.000-08:00

Laura Bialis is a US Documentary filmmaker originally from LA who moved to Sderot, Israel, two years ago to find a subject through which to film life in that town. The subject she chose as a platform for her doco was the local musicians and bands.

Her blog is one of the most candid I have seen on this issue. Rather than swoop in with her cameras to film the locals' hardships like a voyeur, she settled down and became a local, sharing the grief, trauma and comradeship of living in "the most bombed city in the world". Nobody is more directly in the shadow of the mass Islamic hatred for the Jewish State than the residents of Sderot.

She even married one of her documentaries' subjects!

Following her blog timeline of rocket attacks and their devastating, sometimes fatal effects for two years, is fascinating. Back in March 2008;

Saturday, sometime between 5 and 7AM:
One or two Tzeva Adoms (Red alerts for incoming rockets- 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter, part of the Sderor way of life). I don’t remember. I don’t get up, I don’t wake up. I just stay in bed. Screw it all. If they want to bomb me, go ahead.

Saturday, Noon:
Helicopters. I get online. I can’t help it. What does it say in the news. Thirty-three qassams from yesterday until now. Twenty-six people killed in Gaza, including some civilians. Several IDF soldiers injured. (This was a minor IDF response to terrorists digging tunnels and smuggling weapons)

I look at the press from the West and get very angry. Its mostly about their injuries. Another article about Palestinian protests about our attacks. This is ridiculous. If there were no rockets raining on us the IDF wouldn’t have anything to do there. I don’t like the way we are portrayed. We don’t want this war. They are dragging us in. What can we do? There are rockets raining on us daily. But in the media we look like the aggressors. It feels so unfair to be sitting here and reading that. My entire perspective has changed. I used to think that Israel needed to take care of how it looked to the Western World — that we can’t look like monsters. Now I know it doesn’t matter. They will paint us however they want. I just can’t read the news anymore, it makes me too angry. We need to move forward with our lives, protect ourselves. The government has a responsibility to protect its people. The question is, what is the best way to do that?

Angry with the press coverage back in March? Laura, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Jump forward to the commencement of Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008:

December 27 1:30 pm
Now its all over the news. The bombing is not stopping. There have been counter attacks. We are advised to stay inside near bomb shelters. Netivot and Ashkelon have started to get hit- one person has already died in Netivot.

As usual, I am worried about how this is being covered by the international press. I turned to the CNN web site, and was aghast. It described the situation as “dozens of rockets have been fired into Israel” since the cease-fire broke down. This is preposterous. It has been hundreds. Just this Wednesday there were 70 rockets, yesterday 20… the proportion looks totally different from the outside looking in.

Please take some time to read it, and think about the lives of these people who care about life.

sderotmovie.com/.

.

Fauxtography awards

2009-01-05T19:04:00.000-08:00

I expect there are already many doctored or staged photos from the press coverage of Israel's Gaza defence. There were numerous provably falsified images and other staged horror for vulturous western news agencies during the failed Lebanon war in 2006. From adding missiles to photos of warplanes in flight, to physically placing soft toys atop piles of rubble, there seemed no limit to what the western media allow in order to make Israel look evil. There's a very interesting analysis on the mere Rhetoric blog .

once more with hatred..

Even the seemingly innocent "human interest" stories can be, and are, overdone to stir up not compassion for the proclaimed victims, but rage against the alleged perpetrator. Personally I think if you need a journalist's ashen, morbid tones describing a sorry scene to lead you to compassion then I would question your capacity for compassion in the first place. Give me moral clarity any day.

Hamas know exactly how the West works. They know they cannot defeat Israel militarily, but they know how to defeat them politically. They know how to harness the power of every extreme left, human-rights campaigning, fake compassion-spouting, narcissistic elitist who wants to atone for their own sins by standing up for a fashionable, high-profile cause.

Hamas even boast about their willingness to exploit the death of their own people to turn the world against Israel. I have not seen one of these boasts covered by the mainstream media.

Oh, by the way, when I say "their own people" I mean civilian men, women and children. As I write this, Hamas commanders are currently hiding in purpose-built bunkers.

No, this "human interest" approach to such a conflict does not manufacture compassion. It creates rage. Rage against Jews.

Here's an incident recounted by leading US Attorney Alan Dershowitz, in a very clear article on the subject. A salient point from the article:

In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets. It was a clear military target...But the house was also being lived in by a family. So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family before the house was attacked. Hamas...immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house.

...In this case, Israel did learn of the civilians and withheld its fire. The rockets that were spared destruction by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians. (Emphasis mine).

UPDATE: Media outlets, including serial Israel-basher The Melbourne Age, ran stories on Israel bombing a UN-run school and killing all those inside, civilians seeking refuge from the fighting.

What really happened? The school was run by UNWRA, the United Nations' relief agency. They are known to be the largest employer of Hamas operatives in Gaza. It was booby trapped with a massive amount of explosives. Of this there is no doubt. Anecdotal reports from soldiers are suggesting that approaching IDF troops received fire from the school.

So, Hamas hole up civilians in a booby-trapped building, assault IDF troops and then stand back and milk the results for world sympathy.

And we still blame Israel.

.

Don't shoot the messenger

2009-01-04T15:41:00.000-08:00

Hamas' statements on how much they value their own people's lives are very telling, see my previous post.

Here is a post in an Israeli military forum from a rank-and-file Palestinian. It's almost as telling.

A message to Israel :specially people of the south

To all of you who think that the attacks on Gaza are going to stop the Resistance from firing rockets , I assure you that is not going to happen .
The attacks are only making the Palestinian resistance stronger , Hamas is getting stronger and stronger everyday , it's popularity ratings are higher than ever .
The rockets will not stop , so you either leave or die !
Our fighters are waiting for your land invasion , if that happens , you'll know what it's like to fight someone who's goal is to die.
The IDF soldiers just want to finish this and go home , but Hamas fighters leave their homes knowing they're going to die , and they're happy about it .
Killing so many people in Gaza is pointless , because we don't fear death !
Death is something we wish for.
We will continue to fire rockets , and we will keep you hiding underground .

I would like all those who protested against Israel across the western world of hypocrites, naive do-gooders and the cultural elitists (although I doubt I will hear from Annie Lennox) to explain to me how Israel are supposed to negotiate with that?

I've said it before, and here again: we love Jews when they are being massacred. We hate them when they fight back.

.

Let the vilification begin...

2009-01-03T02:37:00.000-08:00

It took a couple of days, but finally the mainstream news networks in Australia are feeding us with all the information we need to uncritically accept the lie that Israel are, yet again, the bully of the Middle East.

SBS tonight screened around 15 seconds explaining why Israel are still hitting Hamas in Gaza and the next 15 minutes showing all the fine, peace-loving people protesting Israel's "atrocities"...just in case we all started thinking for ourselves and stepping outside the popular consensus.

We even heard from my sparring friend in The Melbourne Anglican letters section, Michael Shaik (scroll down, and note that he wrote his letter without disclosing his position as spokes-liar for Australians for Palestine). Shaik appeared on SBS spouting his usual facts-from-upside-down-land to clutch at his Israel-hating straws.

The irony is that for the first time only, Australians are hearing about (some of) the 4,000 plus rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza which have peppered Southern Israeli towns since Israel pulled all Jews out of Gaza in an attempt to bring peace. There have been some creative efforts in playing down these attacks. Creative efforts from people who don't live under the threat of these deadly rockets. These apologetics for terrorism are typified by this article in The Australian, courtesy of Amin Saikal, who says

...the primitive Qassim rockets fired by Hamas militants last week, in response to the Israeli killing of three Hamas figures at a time when there was supposed to be a ceasefire in place, has taken only three Israeli lives...

Let me get this straight Mr. Saikal: No mentioning the other 4,000-ish rockets fired since 2005. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians are okay in response to well-targeted attacks on terrorists. And these rockets are "primitive". They're nothing, They're just Palestinian kids firing bottle rockets on Guy Fawkes night. "Primitive" is interchangeable with "home-made", also a popular term with media commentators wishing to create the same pathetic impression.

Yep, "primitive". They're harmless, those Kassams. Made in Iran, smuggled through the Sinai in tunnels, up to 90kg total weight and up to a 40km range depending on how much of the 20kg allowable payload weight you pack with explosives and ball bearings. Fired indiscriminately into civilian areas.

Some kids playing with fireworks. Photo courtesy of boy-on-a-bike

But the most hideous of intentional understatements is; has taken only three Israeli lives...

Only three? (last week's rockets, that is). Why would that be? Because Hamas mean Israel no harm? Or because Israel do a better job of caring for their own?

Example: All Israeli residents must have adequate bunker or bomb shelter protection in all homes built. Their emergency response crews are second to nobody in speed and their early warning systems are constantly developed.

Mind you, their EWS gives Southern Israeli schoolchildren 15 seconds to get to a shelter. That's less time than Israeli Defence warnings give to Palestinian Gaza residents to evacuate before their air strikes.

And the other reason for such a large discrepancy in death toll? Hamas, as with Islamic terrorists in general, love death. Whether their children die from being brainwashed into suicide bombing duty, or an Israeli missile, it's all the same to them. These are not my words, these are their own words.

Or try this article, in an Iranian newspaper...(which was promptly closed down).

The rising tide of anti-Israel bias is way beyond the scope of this post. If you're concerned about facts on the ground, go to Israellycool for live blogging updates and all the links you need for real information. And do what all smart, pragmatic people do; prepare for war, pray for peace.

.

More from the real human haters

2008-12-04T04:10:00.000-08:00

There's certainly no room for jokes in light of the recent Mumbai massacres. Different people deal with senseless, violent tragedy in different ways, which means sheer frustration and the need to cry out "why" can be expressed differently. The brilliant, irreverent satirist Iowahawk deals with it the only way he can.

Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving member of the 10-man team of Pakistani gunmen that left hundreds dead or wounded after a bloody three day rampage in Mumbai, today blamed the mayhem on an "email mixup" that left him and his colleagues unaware that Barack Obama had won election as President of the United States.

"Boy, talk about having egg on the face," said a visibly embarrassed Kasab. "If we knew Bush was on his way out, obviously we would have called off the crazy random baby-shootings and martyrdom stuff, and signed on with the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity. At this point I guess all I can say is 'my bad.'"

Again, nobody is making light of the tragedy, but look carefully and see the point. It's not about Kashmir, or Palestine, or George W Bush, or US foreign policy. US foreign policy does not make a human being capable of smashing a four year old girl's head against a rock until her skull cracks open. GW Bush's "invasion" of Iraq in 2003 does not make a person tear apart babies in Lebanon in the 1980's.

No. We have not "radicalised" anybody. This is about Jihad, it's been going for 1300 years. And it starts with Jews. The full Iowahawk satire is here. (Warning, some coarse language).

.

E.T.S. phone home

2008-11-24T16:05:00.000-08:00

This is a little old, but apparently UFO sightings across the UK have experienced phenomenal increases this year. The phenomenon was studied by Strange Phenomenon Investigations, a group who I really, really, really really hope are not Government funded. And note that I squeezed the word "phenomenon" three times into the first paragraph (four including that one) in true UFO-reporting tradition.

A spokesmoonbat from Strange Phenomenon Investigations said of the phenomenon (six now)
"Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet."

O........kay. "Some experts". But should a quasi-scientific thinktank really be consulting Leonard Nimoy, Steven Spielberg and David Duchovny?

Now I'm going to attempt to sound balanced, un-dogmatic, humble and apolitical. Here goes. Even if it's true that human activities are causing catastrophic weather pattern changes (WHICH IT'S NOT) and that destroying capitalism and evil human achievements will stop it (WHICH IT WON'T even if it was true, WHICH IT'S NOT) I am officially incapable of ever believing it. Ever. That's just what happens when truth gets turned into religion. Or when remotely plausible theories are used to embellish theories which are completely insane.

Now if this Strange Phenomenon Investigations group want to make themselves really useful perhaps they can investigate phenomena which is truly baffling and challenging to the human race. Like why do photocopiers break down at the moment of highest urgency. Or why at work, after two hours of absolute quiet, two dozen customers suddenly and simultaneously pile drive their way into my warehouse, elbowing their way through the door all at the same moment, all claiming the same problem. Or why people still believe what they see on MSNBC or CBS and laugh at David Letterman's jokes.

Still, the SPI theories do help to explain one thing, and that is why we keep calling them "little green men". Now, if these, um, experts, are so sure that aliens are concerned about mankind's inhumanity to the planet then we are assume that those impressive flying vehicles of theirs, which by the way are currently cluttering up the amotsphere above Britain, do not emit greenhouse gases. Otherwise that would make them little green hypocrites.

And we have more than enough of those down here.

.

Savaging Palin...the Hangover...

2008-11-19T16:20:00.000-08:00

The mainstream media has achieved their at-all-costs goal of an Obama victory. So what of the unprecedented savagery unleashed upon the Republican VP pick? What does this bode for the future of journalism, or more importantly, the ability of the average Joe or Joanne to be reasonably well informed?

It does not bode well. Salon.com 's Camille Paglia words it more eloquently than I could, and realise this is from a far-left website who hardly have a respectable thing to say about any conservative:

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I could not agree more. The sheer will of the mainstream to veil anything detrimental to the Democrat ticket meant all bets were off, all rulebooks thrown away (if indeed there were any). The lows to which they sunk to sink Palin are now going to be normal. That is frightening.

And then there's this survey, a further insight into the sheer power of the mass media over people's everyday perceptions. This is not intended as a slight on Obama supporters. I will be more than happy to stand corrected should BHO do a sterling job as POTUS. But that's not the point. The point is that this jealously guarded power of the main media cannot keep on like this without doing some serious social harm.

Before we dismiss this as an insignificant or biased snapshot of Obama voters, there was this Zogby poll:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, a "comedian" Palin impersonator who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

I repeat: this is not to question the intelligence of Obama supporters. What this survey does is literally track the path of media indoctrination.

Get informed- turn off your TV.

want peace..?

2008-11-13T00:58:00.000-08:00

Arab moderates are claiming that a win for Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel's forthcoming elections would actually be a better thing for the region.

Bearing in mind that Netanyahu is considered right-wing and hawkish, yet most economists in the Arab league believe his experience and strength will bring much needed stability because "a stable Israel means a stable region".

Here's the most telling comment, from business owners in Southern Lebanon: "When the wolves smell weakness they attack ... Sadly, when this happens it is Lebanon's economy that pays the heavy price". And this, of the center-left Tzipi Livni: "Livni is weak and inexperienced, and this is too much for our wolves to resist. Netanyahu is not nice, but he is strong, not a pushover. I believe that he is our best chance for quiet."

Read the full article here. Very interesting stuff, that there are moderates in the Arab world who recognise that "tough" and "not nice" can actually bring peace. I wonder if the West will pay any attention.

.

Letter from Sderot

2008-11-10T21:17:00.000-08:00

This could be any letter from an 18 year old to her grandparents abroad. It's so totally normal.

Except this young lady, writing to her grandparents in the US, lives in Sderot, a little town in southern Israel, close to the border of Gaza. Since Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, in return for peace, Sderot and the town of Ashkelon have been peppered with Kassam rockets. Over 4,000 fell in one year. They live like this every day. The fear and stress is massive, as well as the economic impact.

This is an innocent, simple little snapshot of living in the valley of the shadow of death.

Hat tip to Israellycool
and The Israel Project for the photos

Dear Granny and Grandpa

I wanted to thank you so much for the beautiful card you sent me for my 18th birthday. I love getting birthday cards from you, they’re always so unique.

I’m really excited this year, I finally feel a little grown up, living in an apartment in Sderot with 7 other girls. I live in a very nice neighborhood with both religious and secular families and a lot of cute kids. (It’s great to earn some extra money babysitting).

As you probably know already, I’m teaching about Judaism to secular kids in kindergartens, elementry schools, junior highs, and in nearby kibbutzim. The job is tiring. We work about 11 hours a day. In the mornings we’re teaching and in the afternoons and nights preparing for our next classes. We’re only four girls in this program, so it’s really hard work, but very enjoyable and satisfying. The girls I’m working with are all fun and very dedicated. Even though it’s only been a couple of months, we’ve been through so much together that it seems like we’ve always known one another. They’re really nice girls (one girl, I discovered, was with me in kindergarden- it was very funny).

We all pitch in to keep the apartment at least a little clean and try hard to eat proper meals, though it’s really hard. For one thing, food is so expensive and we get paid so little. We mostly eat bread and pasta. A lot of pasta. Pasta, past, pasta…

In Sderot itself, we’re all together twenty four girls doing national service. Some girls are counselors in high schools, some are the heads of the youth group that I used to be in, called “B’nei Akiva”. Some are tour guides, some work in soup kitchens. I recently decided to spend some of the little free-time we have, volunteering as a counselor in a youth group for girls called “Ariel”. I’m in charge of about twenty-five screeching little munchkins. It’s weird being a counselor again (remember when I was a counselor in Beer Sheva two years ago for two years, for boys and girls around the same age as these munchkins), but I love kids! and these girls are so sweet!

Sderot is a very special city, not only because it gets bombed so often, but because so many of the people who live there are so amazing. For one thing, they’re always inviting us over for meals, and despite everything they’re going through, the fear for their houses and constant worry for their children – when they’re at school and when they’re at home, the lack of customers at their stores & restaurants, they smile and talk to you on the street. People in Sderot are happy to share what they have. They have this special warmth in them, which helps you have courage.

About the “kassamim”. Technically, there is a cease fire, and before last week only once in a while they still shot a rocket or two just to remind us that they don’t mean it… Last year there were days when sixty rockets would fall. This week the IDF found a tunnel that the terrorists had dug next to the border in order to kidnap and kill more soldiers. When our soldiers went in to destroy the tunnel, there was a battle and they killed six of the terrorists. As revenge, they fired forty rockets towards the settlements around Gaza, including Sderot.

I’ve been in Sderot when a “kassam” fell, but the experience I had the other day was a little different. At four-thirty in the morning the siren that gives us 17 seconds to find shelter went off: A voice on a loudspeaker blaring “tzeva adome” “tzeva adome” (”color red, color red”), telling us that a rocket had just been fired. My friends and I jumped out of our beds and ran to our protective room and shut the door. A second later we realized we had forgotten to wake two of the girls. Somehow they didn’t hear the siren and were still sleeping. We felt so bad that we didn’t wake them, but we all went back to bed thanking G-d that no one was injured from that rocket and that we were all safe.

The next day, at school, we asked the kids how they felt. One little boy answered that he was tired, because like all of us (well, most of us) he woke up in the midle of the night from the siren and couldn’t fall back to sleep. This is how people have been living for the last 7 years! I hope we won’t need to experience anymore of this running and hiding, it’s pretty annoying I can tell you. Unfortunately, everyone knows it is far from over.

I’m so glad I finally found time to write to you. I love you so much and so want to hear about how you’re doing. So, are you happy about Obama’s win?

I miss you. Do you know when you’re coming yet? I can’t wait to see you guys.

Write when you get a chance.

Have a great Shabbat, I love you guys so much!
Tzippora

"It's over!" (Um...WHAT's over?)

2008-11-05T13:10:00.000-08:00

Just as I thought. As per the previous post, maybe the cultural elite, both in the US and here, can stop their righteous whingeing now.

The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt points out:

John McCain is beaten, and this is what I haven’t yet seen or heard:
Screams that the vote was rigged.
Lawyers taking the result to court.
The loser blaming anyone but himself.
Angry celebrities vowing to move overseas.
Stickers claiming the winner stole the election.
Furious reporters denouncing ads by the losers’ critics.
Furious reporters blaming the winner’s evil genius.
The bitter losers warning the country “is more divided than ever”

No riots either, despite the democrat campaigners' fearmongering and the myth of "republican rage".

Well, okay, give them time. If a republican speaks out of school, I'm sure the mainstream media will have it splashed all over the universe in a nanosecond. Here's how I think most republicans are reacting.

Even more to the point was The Australian's Greg Sheridan, who reckons that maybe instead of idolising Obama, we should also be congratulating America. We know Michelle Obama will, since she was never proud of her country until they nominated her husband as the Democrat Candidate. This election victory marks the point at which Michelle Obama is proud of America for the second time in her life! (Applause).

Anyhow, Greg Sheridan writes:

In a nation supposedly enthralled by fundamentalist religion, the presidential ticket with two mainstream, Protestant, capital-C Christians lost to the ticket with a vice-president of Catholic background who favours abortion on demand, and a presidential candidate who drifted into religion when he drifted into politics and who has one of the most pro-abortion records of any legislator.

The left liberal caricature of America was always nonsense. The militarism of American society is vastly overstated, just as its profound willingness to make sacrifices for other people's freedom is under-appreciated.

Emphasis mine, and it isn't emphatic enough.

There's still political points to score, of course; the Bush Derangement Syndrome will continue. There will still be the hysterical opposition to his conflicts, despite the fact that no US civilian target has suffered a terrorist attack in the last 7 years. The Wall Street Journal have an interesting take on that.

But the real test for Obama will be whether he ceases playing the race and class victim card going forward. I hope he does. Cease, that is.

That leaves only one other problem. If the cultural elite do stop their whingeing about how evil America is...whatever will they do with their time?

UPDATE: Get busy, BHO: Russia have just promised to park offensive missiles right along the border with their western-friendly neighbours, not hours after the election result. When you're all quite finished agreeing with Russia about how it's all Bush's fault, what's the solution?

.

Can we stop feeling guilty now?

2008-11-04T20:02:00.000-08:00

Okay America, you've finally elected a black president. So can we finally get over this colour thing now? Is it time to drop the hyphenated-American thing and now be called "Americans"?

Believe it or not, racism and class distinction haven't been major issues in the US in recent times. By that I mean there have been no major racial incidents, and no sudden increase in the gap between the lower and middle classes. And yet, these two things have been in the headlines more than ever before during the US Elections. Why?

Because the Obama campaign couldn't exist without it. They stirred it up, brought it up, and rode the wave. Divide and conquer. Agitate the toiling masses with a "them and us" mantra. It's the Alinsky method. The consistency between Obama's past and his 2008 campaign methods form a kind of poetry.

From his days as a "community organiser" with vote fraud enterprise ACORN, relationships with a host of marxist radicals (including convicted murderers), to his election speeches denying those very associations, to his campaign office's boycott and bullying of any groups or individuals daring to mention them, to the messiah-like status adorned on him by an adoring media and pop culture elite, to the $600 million campaign expenditure (dwarfing McCain's $85m)- it all flows together like a perfect plan, straight out of the Alinsky socialist handbook Rules For Radicals.

It's actually quite impressive, almost as if Obama's life has been scripted and coordinated by some hidden power. I'm sure many Christians would agree with me there. The question of "which power?" is where we might differ. Sure, no world leader is placed where they are without God's permission. However that is not to be taken as an endorsement...

Speaking of endorsements, interesting enough was the Obama campaign's last effort to put voters off his opponent McCain. It was a fairly standard "guilt by association" ad, big-noting that McCain was endorsed by the incredibly unpopular Dick Cheney (who also once got into a spot of bother when he accidentally shot a friend in the face. Oops!). Fair enough, worth a try.

I doubt this piece of "guilt by association" had much bearing on the election result. I sincerely hope not. Otherwise, now that Obama is victorious, and working on the naive assumption that his bureaucracy will allow freedom of speech, Americans may yet learn more about who endorses Obama:

US Communist Party
North Korea, rogue state who recently threatened to turn South Korea into "debris"
Columbian Terrorist and Marxist Militia FARC
Terrorist group Hamas, whose foundational charter is the destruction of Israel
The Parliament of Iran, who refer to Israel as "cancer" and constantly call for their destruction
Terrorism sponsor and Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi
Syrian President and terrorist sponsor Bashar Assad
Al-Qaeda, an indirect endorsement (they will always hate whoever is in charge of the US!)
The Black Panthers, some of whom attended polling booths to intimidate republican voters
The charming race-baiting, Jew-hating Jeremiah Wright, Obama's only pastor for 20 years

The mainstream media continued to savage and smear Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin, portraying her as stupid. They failed to notice that the Obama campaign ordered their VP Joe Biden to keep his mouth shut, lest he say something, well, stupid, as he continually seems to do. So, no media appearances for Joe, while Palin pounded the pavement with press conferences galore, feeding the liberal media savages and their entertainment pals plenty of material for their cheap, depraved mockery.

But before Biden was told to zip it, here was his last gaffe. Gird your loins, he said, for a major international crisis which would "test" the brilliant Obama. He's going to need your support, Biden says, even if it appears as though he's wrong. Just do as we say. Got it. That's sobering.

Now, let's just say this crisis involves one of the groups listed above. The question is, will anyone care? Did the Obama campaign exploit the "victim industry" so successfully that we are all compelled to feel guilty? Are we to accept that the above list of murderers and haters are genuinely and morally permitted to hate us? There is no "guilt by association" on Obama's part, because the guilt is all ours?

Joe Biden wasn't really being stupid (not this time, anyway), just honest. He knows they endorse Obama because Obama has exactly what they want- the promise to acquiesce. They're not stupid, either. If this "international crisis" comes to pass, evil will be coddled, negotiated with, bargained with, empowered, and it will grow. That's not just an opinion. It's history.

By the new President's own admission then, we're in for some interesting times ahead.

.

RUDD RAMS BUSH

2008-10-28T21:57:00.000-07:00

A satire of this.
Followed shortly by this. And of course this.

HUGE BREAKING MASSIVE INSIDE SCOOP POLITICAL STORY By a political correspondent somewhere gunning for the Man Booker Literature Award.

It was 10.40pm on a mild, temperate evening. The harbour water sparkled with reflections of Sydney's capitalism. Kevin Rudd was entertaining guests at Kirribilli House. It was just like any other social gathering. The chink of wine glasses. Polite, erudite conversation. Occasional bursts of civilised laughter. Cate Blanchett would smile that illuminating smile as Rudd regaled them with stories of the gloriously successful 2020 summit only months earlier. Kevin would blush at her solictitude. It was just like any other gathering.

Only at this one, their quaffing was to be interrupted by an event which would shake Australian politics forever to their core.

Rudd's aide approached hesitantly, almost furtively, with the news. There was a phone call. It was George. The guests tried not to fuss, but the sudden hush gave away their tension. Kevin stood, erect. Purposeful. It was George. That George. "Excuse me" he said, with a knowing nod in the direction of Hugh Jackman. "I need to take this call". With a swift tug to uncrease his rented suit, he strode off in the direction of his study.

The most powerful man in the world was lost in the messages on hold. Kevin picked up, hit the speakerphone and fired a firm but polite instruction to his aide: "Take notes". He caught the POTUS halfway through humming the jingle.

Very, very informed sources very close to the real sources, smuggled out of Kirribilli against the wishes of a humble Rudd who clearly seeks no attention for himself, have confirmed it. This was the conversation which took place:

"Gud-day" said GWB, attempting the traditional Aussie greeting. Kevin winced. "I just rang to talk about this economic summit we got..."

"Damn it George" Kevin blasted, politely but firmly. "You know how I feel. G7 just won't cut it..."

"...but Kevin..."

"Don't 'but Kevin' me, George. You know damn well we need China. I love Europe as much as anyone, who doesn't. But they don't have the stones to deal with Asia Pacific financial matters. For starters, everything in Europe is really close together, so transport is cheaper than here. I know. I've been there. I was there last week".

He was right. He had. And the month before that. And the month before that, twice in July, and once in June with a stopover in Dubai where he met the Maktoums. He repeated. "We need China, and you know it." He was firm, but polite.

"...but Kevin.."

"Damn it George. We're in a dangerous new phase and all you want to do is pander to your Euro friends. We need China. We need South America, and the Middle East. Hell, if you don't want to talk to China, I will. I speak Mandarin, you know..." He was right. He did. GWB wouldn't hint at it, but Kevin knew he was impressed.

"...but Kevin..." again, and again the Prime Minister stood tall. "You know we have to go G20 George, it's the only way." He waited. The pause grew longer. Kevin, and his aides, could hear GWB's breathing labour on the other end of the phone. Slowly, Kevin was flooded by a shocking realisation, his countenance changed as it does when his polls drop.

"George....?" Kevin said politely but firmly. "George? Don't tell me...you don't even know what the G20 is, do you?" The response was silence. "Good God" said Kevin, glancing at his aides and shaking his head discreetly. There was fire in his eyes now.

There was a muffled response. Another realisation, almost as shocking. "George..." said Kevin, firmly but politely, as a parent counselling a guilty child "George...are you holding the phone the wrong way up?"

Shuffling and scratching sounds at the other end. "Of course not, Kevin. I know how to hold a dang phone". The Texan accent was beginning to irk Kevin. "Fool" he said under his breath so that only his aides could hear. He didn't care if Washington heard it too. He was past worrying. There was a worldwide economy to centralise and plan. The puppy love cravings of an outgoing American president were the least of his problems.

"I've spoken to them all, George. Get with it. Taro, Bambang, Ange. They all agree with me. What about you George? What's it gonna be?".

As one aide told me later "He was like a bull terrier- polite, but firm. He stood up to the most powerful man in the world, made him look deep inside himself and question his manhood. Kevin exposed this supposed world power broker for the bumbling, uneducated buffoon that he is and in doing so became a real, credible, world political player himself. It was inspirational. It was damn near sensual..."

It's history now that within two days GWB had caved, defeated, deflated, and called a G20 summit for Washington, just as Kevin had urged, politely but firmly.

But for now, it was all about K. Rudd. To the rapturous applause of his assembled aides, some in tears, Kevin Rudd, erect, proud, strode back to his guests on Kirribilli's slightly browning lawns. They too stood and applauded, barely able to quantify the realisation of being in the presence of sheer political will. Kevin smiled, raised his hand. "The Flirtinis are on me."

This time, it was Cate Blanchett who blushed.

What media bias?

2008-10-22T02:24:00.000-07:00

I must get around to reading Rules for Radicals one day. I might really learn something. The manifesto of how-to-grab-power by the militant, amoral socialist Saul Alinsky has long been the activist handbook for many Democrat-funded groups in the USA. It was the creed of the vote fraud enterprise ACORN, from which Obama bravely (read: falsely) distanced himself in the final presidential nominee debate.

In brief, Alinsky's mantra was one of rise-against-the-establishment, and get what you want using whatever means possible (including physical violence and intimidation). Agitate others to get alonside you. No, you are NOT happy with your lot! You are oppressed! And disadvantaged! And you are angry! And it's the government's fault, and big business's fault!

To give you further insight, Alinsky positively acknowledged "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom". To whom was this professed atheist referring? That's right- Satan.

Well, that was in the first edition of Rules For Radicals. The Democrats eventually realised that praising Satan might lose them one or two Christian votes, so they had it removed. Who says Democrats know nothing about the Bible?

But I really want to know if fear-mongering and stigmatizing your opponent's supporters is one of Alinsky's radical rules.

The claim amongst Democrat boffins recently of "Republican Rage" (how adept they are at giving their alleged hate crimes special names) was so well coordinated it made it onto Australian primetime news. Democrat advisors were interviewed, with their ashen faces and morbid narratives of "we're really worried about the anger and incitement from the republican crowds...in some cases people calling to 'Kill Obama'. What will they do if he gets elected?". At this point I was surprised they didn't break down in mock tears, only to be comforted by their adoring media friends.

Please. Firstly, the "kill him" allegation has been investigated by the Secret Service and found to be false. The journalist for the Pennsylvanian newspaper who broke the dramatic story seemed to be the only one out of several thousand who actually heard the offensive remark. The newspaper never retracted it, naturally.

In fact, the only known case of this kind of thing is that of an assault charge against a Democrat supporter who attacked a Republican demonstrator in NYC. It's actually real. But I never saw that on the news here. So, only the fantasy stuff makes it onto the mainstream media.

It gets worse. American News Project, a leading freelance journalism portal, is convinced that they can find more evidence of this hate crime phenomena which doesn't actually exist, by offering to pay people to get it. Here is a snippet from an open email from ANP's chief editor to all registered freelance journalists:

ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks...
...we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4, we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.
...If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.

In the email, they enclose a YouTube piece giving their example of "Republican Rage" to demonstrate what they are looking for. In the video, an elderly man uses the word "nigger", and a very inarticulate woman worries that the country will be run by black people. That's it. The rest of the comments are typified thus:

"I believe (Obama) is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I think Sarah Palin is full of the Holy Spirit and she will bring honesty and integrity to the White House".
Well, they can't possibly think using a well-known cliche involving animals is hate speech, that would make Obama's "pig and lipstick" reference to Sarah Palin a little awkward. Perhaps the references to the Holy Spirit was the problem?

"He is friends with terrorists of this country". Correct. His ties to William Ayers are provably deeper than Obama claimed at the last debate. Surely telling the truth, anecdotal or otherwise, is not hate speech.

"I am concerned that Obama and his wife might be anti-white". Fair concern. Being under the wing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't good for you if you're trying to avoid racism. And references to "white greed" in some of Obama's speeches whilst a state senator would be called racist under any other circumstances.

All other comments were equally innocuous. So, the filmmakers then wave Obama/Biden signs to passing Republican supporters to see what horrible hate crimes and violence they can provoke. The only audible reference made is a republican supporter calling out "baby killers...you can call it what you want but that's what it is".

I presume they were referring to Obama's attempts as a senator to block the born alive infant protection act in 2000. Or perhaps they were referring to his promise that he would enact the Federal Freedom Of Choice Bill if elected, effectively removing all state restrictions on abortions and opening up federal funding of abortions. At least, this was what he told the Planned Parenthood movement in 2007. He denied it when talking to a Christian group in 2008, as well as denying his attempts to block the infant protection act in 2000. But you can read all about that here.

The point is, the filmmakers then cried persecution and feigned fear of attacks from these crazed republicans. It was the most incredible display of conniving, sabre-rattling and brilliant acting I have ever seen.

But the most morbidly laughable thing about this "evidence of republican rage" movie to illustrate ANP's point- it was provided by Al-Jazeera.

Al-Jazeera! The mouthpiece of terrorist dogma!

Okay, so even if these were legitimate examples of gun-toting, raging, frothing-at-the-mouth republicans threatening to kill everyone who even thinks about voting Obama, here's the problem; ANP want to pay people to produce similar "evidence". In any legal forum, where evidence is required to prove a crime, evidence paid for is tainted and inadmissable... for reasons which should be painfully obvious.

I'd love to think Democrat supporters are above dressing up in republican garb, spewing racist, violent rhetoric while their mate films them, and sending it to ANP to cash in. But watching that YouTube footage again, quite clearly, and sadly, it is totally possible.

UPDATED 24th Oct: Here's what makes the mainstream news: This assault on a McCain supporter was proven to be "false". So, let me get this straight:
- the MSM give airtime to democrats decrying "Republican Rage" without the slightest piece of tangible evidence (a bit like giving them free campaign time)
- an actual case of a democrat supporter assaulting a republican is nowhere to be seen on the MSM, however
- the discovery that a republican claim of democrat rage was falsified gets prime time.

No media bias? Please....

Is it really all a game?

2008-10-19T20:15:00.000-07:00

"It's gonna be a looong night at MSNBC if I manage to pull this thing off..." Senator John McCain

Nobody can help be exposed to coverage on the US elections, but I feel almost envious of anyone who is trying to avoid it.

Like most, I have my leanings, best summarised here. But forget that for a second, and examine the massive weight of media bias and that of the cultural elite, Hollywood and the arts. It is so abundantly clear where their affections lie. From the cheap, nasty, personal and at times sexually depraved savagery of Sarah Palin, to the cynical vilification of John McCain's young wife, the coverage of dirt has been heavily weighted to one side. The underhanded way journalists from the Treason Times (sometimes known as the New York Times) approached McCain's daughter on facebook to dig for material on her mum was an exercise in shamelessness.

Some of the detective-like tasks given to journalists by their respective media bosses to uncover (any) dirt on Palin was enough to even make some of the journalists ashamed. Now that is something! Journalists developing a moral value. Pity they didn't stand by it.

The ideology war over the hearts and minds of the public is fought less by the nominees themselves and more by the media. And it's a one-sided battle.

Which is what makes the Alfred E Smith memorial dinner such a delight, and it makes you wonder whether all the muck-shovelling is really the result of genuine political beliefs and passions, or just a game.

Certainly there are speech writers involved, but some people can just pull it off well. Senator Obama's speech was beautifully delivered, wickedly funny and done with relish. Senator McCain's was a little less eloquent, but still incisively funny, barely touching on unwanted political issues and even so, with light hearted apolitical humour. His quips on the absent Bill Clinton had Hillary in stitches.

Notably absent from Obama's speech however, and I don't say that to be provocative, was magnanimity of the kind which came from McCain, delivered with obvious, genuine sincerity;

I don’t want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in eachother, but I’ve had a few glimpses of this man at his best, and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing, that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party, and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when a mere invitation of an African American to dine at the White House, was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.

How nice it would be if such good spirit prevailed in the respective parties, and more importantly, amongst their supporters. But it won't. Because the media will not allow it. They will continue to give maximum prime time to anything, regardless of it's relevance, which shows the Republican ticket in bad light. They will continue to ignore Obama's extreme socialist history, no matter how relevant it is to the shaping of Obama's political present and future.

This means, the only people who can highlight these alarming priors- are McCain and Palin. But if they do that, it's "smearing". No wonder it all looks so dirty.

.

The Church who wanted to belong...

2008-08-05T18:24:00.000-07:00

The Anglicans are up to it again, conforming to the world and trying to belong. And remember, I am permitted to offend Anglicans, I still consider myself one, albeit half-caste Baptist. This time, Arch Bish of Melbourne "Doctor Phil" Freier, wrote an op-ed in that beacon of Global Warming alarmism, The Age, just prior to World Environment Day (which I must have missed) in June.

Now, I know I shouldn't cherry-pick things out of context, and should give credit to the Anglos where it's due. But shouldn't a Christian leader, given an opportunity to communicate via mass-media, use it for a message which a) people really need and b) people haven't already heard a gazillion times in the mass media?

Besides, it's my blog and I'll sling if I want to. Bish's words in italics, and my rantings in bold:

It is ironic that as we are preparing to mark World Environment Day on Thursday the world is in a panic about the rising cost of petrol, food and other essentials. We were preparing to mark World Environment Day?

... And yet, as some thoughtful commentators have argued, sky-rocketing fuel costs may be exactly what we need to force us to find ways of living that are not so dependent on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Erm, I presume you mean "CO2", Phil. Carbon is that hard black stuff coal is made of, but okay, we'll presume it's a socially acceptable abbreviation. By the way, breathing emits "carbon". Can we find ways of living that are not so dependent on breathing?

Since we're mentioning western dependence upon oil, perhaps this might interest the Anglican Bishop. It might even make the church see something good about Israel after all !

We have become almost entirely reliant on the private car, and now we are learning to our cost just how unsustainable that is, and not just because of the price factor. As a planet, we would actually be in grave danger if petrol supplies were both infinite and cheap. Yes, because everyone would be able to afford a Lamborghini and they’d die from speed-related…oh you meant the planet would be in danger. You weren’t talking about people…

Petrol is not the only culprit where global warming and environmental degradation is concerned. Coal-burning power stations, over-use of insecticides and other chemicals, thoughtless water use and short-term irrigation practices… No mention of Nuclear power? Some friend of the earth you are…

For years now, scientists have been warning us about the danger, but most of us either chose to ignore them or were confused by those who insisted they were wrong. I see. If you preach warming catastrophe, you're a “Scientist” …if you don't, you're just “those”. And they're confusing. You poor man. I hope you never meet “those” 31,000 (scientists) who signed that paper debunking man-made global warming.

Now the evidence is clear: we have no choice but to try to mend our ways if we want planet earth to survive as a habitable environment. No the evidence is not. But you’ll be really popular for saying it is. And being popular says more than any evidence ever will.

This is a key moral issue of our time. That’s right! Just ask that woman who aborted her baby because she couldn’t bear to bring another carbon footprint into the world. Just as we have had to say sorry to Indigenous people for the way we treated them in the past, you mean when we rescued them from violence and sexual abuse? and to the victims of child sexual abuse, whoa, you’re all over the place there… we must also repent of our self-centred abuse of creation. Am I apologising for anything in particular or do you just want me to be guilty for the sake of it?

Increasingly, we are coming to realise that this abuse is damaging not just the earth, but also ourselves as spiritual beings…For religious bodies, the responsibility of caring for the environment … is now being taken much more seriously than in the past. Probably because we’ve just realised how badly we suck at our responsibilities toward humanity.

Unfortunately, some earlier generations of Christians applied the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, (thanks for clearing that up) to give human beings the authority to exploit and dominate the earth for their own benefit, regardless of the consequences. They saw the earth and everything in it as there for the sake of human beings only, who could treat it just as they pleased. Really ! Care to name these misguided people? Reformists? Church of the Industrial Revolution? The Amish?

This understanding - not entirely restricted to Christians -has had tragic consequences. Sure did. Unfortunately God forgot the Environmental Impact Study before He let loose all that sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah. And then there's the billions of tonnes of carbon from volcanic eruptions. I hope God reads The Age, He really needs to change His Ways.

As our awareness of the danger our planet now faces has grown, theologians have reminded us that in the Genesis account, God gave humans the responsibility of caring for all living things, including the earth itself. Humans were to live in harmony with other creatures, and with the land. They were to respect and value the entire physical environment. He also told them to sacrifice perfect little Lambs to illustrate how shocking our sin is to Him. I wonder which message was more important?

If only we had! We would not now be in such real danger. Yes! We’d never had needed Jesus! It is all very well to talk about theological principles. We need to act on them…Great idea! From now on all Anglican farmers must leave their land fallow every seven years.

The Anglican Church and other faith communities are now struggling to get up to speed in terms of our actions. ..Increasingly parishes, like all responsible households, are conducting energy audits, changing their light bulbs and heating methods, recycling their rubbish, installing rain water tanks, and altering their housekeeping and gardening practices. Forget your lost friend who is going to spend an eternity separated from God. Preach grey water instead, brother! Salvation by works! Hallelujah!

But it is even more important that we all focus on the spiritual dimension of our relationship to the environment, to ensure that as a society we respond from the heart. Yes, not from the head. Remember what we said about evidence…

I invite people of all faiths, … to celebrate creation, say sorry for our misuse of the earth, take a step in caring for the earth, and to pray for the future of the earth. Who do I make my non-specific apology out to…God or Gaia?

.

Iran photoshops victory over the Zionists

2008-07-15T05:19:00.000-07:00

The report into the fatal 2006 Black Hawk helicopter crash has been released. And boy, haven't the media jumped on it as a cover-up-conspiracy-safety-standards-deliberately-reduced-to-save-costs
-and-people-died-and-JohnHoward-knew-and-did-nothing-about-it story. It was almost painful listening to ABC Newsradio's Jennifer Byrne trying to harangue the ADF's Neil James into admitting that defence funding cuts were directly responsible for the deaths of these young soldiers. He wouldn't, but did mention that lack of resources prevailed during the 80's and 90's. Labor years. Oops.

Some salient points from the report included factors like "personnel... took higher risks during operations...had a 'can-do' attitude.... were not adequately supervised..."

Higher risks? Can-do attitude? Working unsupervised? Egads! We cannot have that in our defence forces! And let me get this straight; military personnel tried different, often risky, maneuvers to land helicopters, as part of their training??

Yes, this IS shocking. After all, when they are called to extract wounded soldiers from the Afghani-Pakistan border under heavy Taliban rocket fire, they should take it slow and easy. Relax! The Taliban are fully respectful of Australian Occ Health and Safety procedures. Don't fire on the chopper, Aziz, he's obviously a learner. The last thing we want is the worksafe inspector spoiling our jihad, with his high-viz jacket and clipboard an' all that. That would be really bad.

In more news, those madcap and zany mullahs in Iran have been test-firing rockets as a show of strength. They even sent one happy snap for western photo albums. Naturally, Reuters and AP jumped on it:

The Revolutionary Guards released this photo to the world to demonstrate it's unflinching readiness to defensively respond to the Israeli threat of responding to the Iranian threat to wipe out Israel. Problem is, some farsi-speaking genius in the Iranian agitprop department discovered how to use photoshop and one of those missiles isn't actually real. Here is the real, un-altered photo:

Well, okay, not entirely un-altered. The camera was way to far off to hear the clicking noise. But you get the point. Personally, if I was an Iranian Revolutionary guard, I'd be quite happy with three out of four Sahabs getting off the ground. After all, they were purchased at a Russian garage sale. So why the need to digitally alter a photo- to enhance the appearance of military might or computer geekness?

Of course, environmental groups were delighted. If you must insist on exterminating 6-7 million Jews, photoshopping the appearance of firing a fourth missile instead of actually firing it, reduces your carbon emissions by 25%!

Which got me thinking- why stop there? Surely Ahmadinejad can simply photoshop a picture of him standing atop the Temple Mount, above miles of decimated Israeli population, so the Iranians will have the impression of a conclusive victory over the Zionist cancer. Reuters wouldn't even find out unless someone tells them. It would keep everyone happy and nobody has to die.

Anyhow, the major news agencies were advised about the deception. Not only were the photos pulled but in some cases the "farsi-cal" event made it's own story. Which is unusual, since normally the media stops caring once they've sold their quota.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, however, were not swayed by the whistle blowing. They then released what they claimed was the REAL photo.

THIS time we're serious, Israel...

Global Warming...can I have a grant now?

2008-07-11T03:49:00.000-07:00

It's encouraging so see some (long overdue) pragmatism emerging over anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But there are still some alarming omissions from what the public are allowed to know.

It's bad enough that C02 emission trading schemes are being thrust upon already crippled societies to solve a problem which doesn't exist. It's bad enough that green religious zealots are screaming "unclean!!" at those who would dare deny that humans are ruining the planet and must pay. Even worse that these green zealots are in our parliament and our media, shutting down all debate by saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.

I stumbled upon this post on Andrew Bolt's blog by an unidentified poster. If what he's saying is true, and it certainly appears credible, the implications (whilst a little subtle) should be shouted from the rooftops with the same hysteria as that practised by AGW disciples.

I've edited some of the heavier scientific concepts and added some emphases:

As a retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist in the geoscience - sedimentary rock discipline, I strongly support the view that there is substantial real hard empirical science that refutes the notion that carbon dioxide is driving climate change, which is a natural continuum. Further, evidence (not assumptive modelling) suggests man-made carbon dioxide seems to be a trivial component in the full scope of climate variation.

The highly beneficial ... effects of carbon dioxide are largely ignored; ... recent modelling from Cornell University (Mahowald) shows a reversal in desertification is possible. If reversing the time-direction in climate prediction models cannot emulate known past climates, why should we believe their forward modelling?

This full science appears to be actively suppressed by much of our media. Let’s have a Royal Commission now, and sort this out for ourselves publicly. A close inspection of the real data from sedimentary layers in the ocean floor, lake floors, in ice-cores, stalactites, coral accumulations etc show a clear record of past climate, temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Understanding and integrating all the disparate data ...is required.

On the bright side, there is some real hope contained in existing technologies to *re-cycle* CO2 as nature does with photosysthesis. I have provided pointers to this information and a proposed solution to recycle carbon dioxide into food and fuel - directly to all political parties by emails, and at the Science in Parliament Day in Queenland in 2003, and to colleagues in CSIRO. This technology was viewed at the time as highly disruptive, as it undercut research funding into (uselessly) burying CO2, and what increasingly seems like a fraud that underpins the calls for Emissions Trading.

Technology has existed for over 25 years to convert CO2 into algal protein and microbial oil using solar digestors, algae like Chlorella and Spirulina, and bacteria like Arthrobacter and yeasts like Candida. We require coal-fired base-load power stations to be oxygen fired, and then pipe the concentrated CO2 stream to solar farms for a closed-system recycling into food and fuel. Laboratory trials in Toronto in the early 80s suggested amazing yields of up to 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per hectare per year, as I recollect. At this rate all of Australia’s annual fuel requirements could be produced by 1600 hectares.

Worth a few dollars to investigate I would think, but it has not been funded appropriately if at all. Why?

That's a bloody good question.

.

World Council of Churches "Action Week"

2008-07-11T03:47:00.000-07:00

From June 4th, The ecumenical World Council of Churches launched it's Global week of International Church Action for Peace in Palestine and Israel.

I'd like to think the WCC are more than just a genteel collection of men in purple frocks and newly-ordained women fresh out of seminary. I'd like to think the WCC have stood tall and effectively for some noble issues. If their attitude to Israel is any guide, sadly it appears to be just another champion of social gospel crying for modern relevance.

Yep, we should all want peace. John Lennon wrote songs about it. It's the right thing to fight for. Sorry, did I say fight? Shame on me. The problem with peace, is that not everybody wants it. And if one side doesn't, it's pointless to pressure the side who does. Those who do may momentarily feel as though they have made a difference, but it's just the line of least resistance.

Orthodox traditional Christianity has always had an incessant desire to belong. Now they join the rest of a secular humanist society to push for a peace which cannot exist, and it's not for the first time. The WCC's Global week of International Church Action for Peace in Palestine and Israel reads like a how-to guide on coddling Islamic terrorism and Jew-hatred.

It says "me too!" to the growing number of those who are pressuring a shrinking Israel, to give whatever battered limbs they still have to a people who seek their total destruction .

Why is it that everyone, from Islamic radicals thinly disguised as moderates, to self-loathing Jews, to former Prime Ministers, current MP's and religious leaders, puts the maximum pressure on Israel? Answer: Because they can.

They can send a bunch of purple frocks to walk along the Israeli defensive wall in Judea frowning and talking about the Berlin Wall and apartheid. They can send them to be "educated" by the top five pro-palestinian groups and self-loathing Jews, and claim to have heard "all" sides of the conflict.

They can say "these groups risk public censure and their personal safety" for "speaking the simple truth about the occupation", and so on. The irony of that. If it really was true, they wouldn't be there, with their tour groups and concerned, compassionate faces, making a true difference in the world. Try pulling those stunts in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea...in fact just name any Islamic state.

It's not effective advocacy. It's actually quite cowardly. The parties most deserving of pressure are the most violent. Going after them is difficult. It's the line of most resistance. Neville Chamberlain wrote the book on it. Instead of standing up to Chancellor Adolf Hitler in 1938 he handed over half of Czechoslovakia. And boy, didn't that work a treat.

It's so much easier going after the ones who don't kill you for your trouble. In layman's terms, it's called "meddling". In Christian terms, this is called "salvation by works"- atoning for one's sins by attempting something which only God is capable of doing. Pointless.

Let's look at what the Australian chapter of the WCC are asking for, and what they're not asking for;

"...persistent advocacy for a freely and peacefully negotiated solution …whether in the form of two states or one"

A two state solution has been offered. It's been refused. There was never any nationalistic ambition from Palestinian Arabs, only a desire to inflict a "war of extermination and a momentous massacre" on Jews, to quote Arab League secretary General Azzam Pasha. And they lost, each time.

A “One State” solution already exists. Israel is free for people of all ethnicities and faiths - indeed the only country in the Middle East to be so. The Palestinian Authority makes clear in its constitution that it is an Arab Muslim country, with Sharia law as the only law.

"greater recognition of the plight of Palestinians after 41 years of military occupation;"

What a perfect way to empower terrorism with the sense of victimhood. The "plight of the Palestinians" enjoys massive western media coverage, because sensationalism sells. The cultural elite build an entire industry on the "plight of the Palestinians", in doing so giving social legitimacy to savagery, murder and terrorism. The lines between good and evil have been so muddied it's hard to tell whether or not these cultural elites, WCC included, care one tiny bit for the Palestinians rather than their image.

The term “occupation” is a fashion statement. It's popular, it evokes outrage, and makes for a soundbyte heavily critical of Israel. There's only one problem with it: it's entirely incorrect and shows a flawed reading of international standards.

Firstly, in order for there to be an "occupation", there needs to be a nation to occupy. France, Czechoslovakia and Poland were occupied in 1939. Tibet is occupied. Palestine is not occupied. It was never a nation.

There are numerous other reasons why "occupation" is just plain incorrect. At best, it can be argued by international lawyers ad nauseum. At worst, it is an outright lie. The WCC fashionably and uncritically use it as a given.

"a quadrupling of Australia’s aid contribution to the social and economic development of Palestine;"

Good grief. This is either terrifyingly naive or deliberately malicious.

Already, Palestinian territories contain the highest welfare-dependant population per capita on Earth and yet have substandard hospitals and schools, major human rights abuses by the controlling Palestinian powers, increased terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, education and media hell-bent on indoctrinating children to Jew-hatred and violence, and persecution of Christians. Now the gatekeepers of Christian compassion insist we must reward this terrorism?

Talk about empowerment- supplying them with even more money to spend on arming themselves to the teeth, while their rank-and-file starve. No wonder they think we're stupid infidels.

So those were some of the calls of Australia's church leaders. Here's some snippets from the WCC's worldwide statements, beginning with their poetic, heart-wrenching and culturally elitist message “It’s time for Palestine” ;

"It's time for people who have been refugees for 60 years to regain their rights and a permanent home".

Are they referring to the Palestinian refugee problem created by the Arab states who marched in and called for the Arabs to flee while they annihilate Israel, beginning in 1948? Or are they referring to the 800,000 Jewish refugees driven from their homes in now-Arab lands (including Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt et al), whose property was confiscated and never returned, all of whom were successfully absorbed by Israel?

Shouldn't the Arab refugees be given a permanent home in the countries who belligerently attacked Israel, who promised them annihilation of Jews and more land...but failed? You live by the sword...

"It's time to assist settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to make their home in Israel".

Isn't that nice! We need to "help" the Israeli settlers leave their own sovereign land because the Palestinians refuse to live with them (did I mention the 1.5 million Arabs who live prosperously in Israel?). Yes, we "helped" them leave Gaza in 2005 in return for peace. What Israel got instead was a massive increase in rocket attacks from Gaza.

It's time for Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities to be free to visit their holy sites.

The point is...? They currently are, at least in Israeli controlled areas where people of all faiths are free to visit their proclaimed holy sites. On the other hand, Muslim Waqf controlled areas such as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, have highly restricted access for Jews. Remember, Palestine and it's Islamic sponsors don't believe there is anything holy to Jews here at all, and insist there never has been, despite the masses of historically verifiable documents, texts, records and archaeological finds to the contrary. Perhaps this is why they continue their total destruction of Hebrew archaeological finds on the Mount.

When the town of Nablus was under Palestinian control, the tomb of Joseph was totally destroyed. Access is not really the most serious issue here.

Here is more from the WCC's website which clarify their thin attempt to appear neutral:

"This year (2008) is 60 years since the partition of Palestine hardened into a permanent nightmare for Palestinians. It is also 41 years since the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza overwhelmed the peaceful vision of one land, two peoples".

Such lamentations! But have these Christian leaders read Proverbs? They would find a thing or two in there about the destructive power of words.

The “partition” planned prior to 1948 was to give the Palestinian Arabs a state, the very goal they claim to have today, to hide the real goal of annihilating any Jewish presence. They failed to achieve that goal then, and have failed repeatedly since, and their welfare has degenerated as a result.

The WCC is implying that the “nightmare” for the Palestinians was their failure to wipe out Jews. What, exactly, are we supposed to be lamenting here?

And let's get something straight. There was never, at any time, a “peaceful vision of one land, two peoples”. The UN’s 1947 partition plan was for two lands, two peoples. Accepted by Israel, rejected by Arabs. Their intent was for one land, one people. One without Jews.

The WCC should know this. Their own book says they are "without excuse".

"In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, causing further waves of refugees. There are now some 4 million Palestinian refugees scattered throughout the Middle East and Palestine, many living in permanent refugee camps".

Ah yes, 1967. No mention of how Israel fought for it's survival against 5 nations and armies 50 times their size, who lined their borders with weapons and troops while their radio crackled with the commands to "drive them into the sea". No, the impression is that Israel just walked in and put down stumps.

But that's not even the main problem with the statement. There are not 4 million Palestinian refugees. There are some 750,000 refugees who had children and grandchildren. The UN definition of refugees clearly defines refugee status as not extending to children born in exile. Only in regards to the Arab-Israel conflict is an exception to this definition made. Why?

"Palestinians have the right of self-determination; their duly elected governmental authorities must be recognised, including the current leaders"

They MUST be recognised? Unconditionally? Because Hamas was "duly elected"? No mention that Hamas are a terrorist organisation who openly advocate and practise the destruction of Israel and the spilling of Jewish blood? Israel is, quite correctly, boycotting Hamas until it recognises Israel's right to exist and renounces violence. That the WCC demand one without the other is starting to look like more than simple ignorance.

"Settlements are illegal, as is their expansion; they are prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and incompatible with peace. Israeli soldiers and settlers must be withdrawn".

"The Fourth Geneva Convention"- words almost as popular as "occupation" and equally as abused.

It is precisely the often-quoted fourth Geneva Convention which defines all Israeli settlements as totally legal. The Fourth Geneva Convention pertains to territory conquered in an offensive attack. Israel was not the aggressor. It also refers to situations where the conquering force expel the conquered population. Israel never expelled Arab population from 1967 to 1994. In fact, the Arab population increased by over 1 million during this time.

Israel removed it’s settlements from Gaza in 2005, and were “rewarded” with a massive increase in attacks. There is no mention of this on the WCC website.

"The Separation Barrier is illegal. It is a grave breach of international law and humanitarian law, and must be removed from occupied territory".

I presume the WCC mean the West Bank security fence built to protect Israeli citizens from constant rocket attacks, snipers and homicide bombers. The mainstream press use "quotation marks" to de-legitimize it. After all, if Israel says it, it must be suspicious. Of course, if you were an Israeli citizen being peppered by rockets, or whose children are sniped by gunfire, you wouldn't question the term security fence.

Well, at least the WCC don't use quotation marks. Instead they give it a name which associates it with apartheid. So they've read Jimmy Carter's book. And they're just as wrong. The security fence’s illegality has never been established. It's another fashion statement.

It's not a separation barrier, an apartheid fence, the Berlin Wall, a Palestinian misery wall, a Pink Floyd wall, or any such like. It's a security fence. No quotation marks. It works. It has successfully reduced the number of fatal terrorist acts against Israelis by 90%.

However, in order for this to be relevant, you would need to first acknowledge that these attacks actually take place, and then you'd have to care about them. To the WCC, are the lives of Israelis of lesser importance than the convenience of Palestinians?

"Certain economic measures are legitimate forms of pressure for peace. The WCC encourages member churches to avoid investments or other economic links to illegal activities on occupied territory, and to boycott settlement products".

It's disturbing how much the WCC resort to obfuscated wording to give the illusion of impartiality, when in fact they are pointing the finger in only one direction.

They mean a boycott of Israel. The WCC base their policies and advocacy on the popular non-truths of “illegal occupation and settlements”, among many other misconceptions. Given this, the WCC is encouraging church congregations to unjustly prejudice Israel, a nation which is in desperate need of our support.

In fact, couldn't that be called a form of "collective punishment"? Doesn't the WCC themselves say “It's time to name the shame of collective punishment and to end it in all its forms”?

There's only one pattern forming here. The same old, tired calls for action based on perceptions which are without truth, aiming for a goal of peace without a partner, and with only one common thread of consistency; Israel is always to blame. The same types of people; some who hold to a faith, some who don't, but all trying to atone for their sins and gain salvation by works- the works of uncritically accepting the claims of a minority and "bravely" opposing their alleged enemy- namely those who will never harm you for criticising them.

Forget salvation by works, and try compassion. Compassion is more than philanthropy. Compassion is empowering people to be free from the influences which cause them hopelessness- drugs, prostitution, hatred or terrorism. It may entail pressuring them to renounce something. Compassion is advocating for moral clarity, not blithely apportioning blame based on the political claims of the oppressed. That's only the line of least resistance.

In the case of these poor, wretched Palestinian Arabs whose welfare and grief has been shamelessly exploited to make the world hate Jews even more, compassion does not mean political support and empowerment. Only the opposite will actually help.

So, World Council Of Churches...what's really your point?

Blood Libel. The Final Solution

2008-07-11T03:45:00.000-07:00

I'll take a break from writing and post an exerpt from an article which, despite still being the tip of the iceberg, says it all. This was written in 2000 on WorldNetDaily.com by David Kupelian, the greater article being entitled "Who killed Mohammed al-Dura?"

"When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons."
-- Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister from 1969 to 1974

12-year-old Palestinian 'martyr' likely killed by his own people

Twelve-year-old Mohammed al-Dura and his father Jamal were on their way home in Gaza when, at the remote Netzarim junction, they were caught up in a firefight between Palestinian snipers and the Israel Defense Force.

Crouching in terror behind his father, who struggled in vain to protect his son from the gunfire, Mohammed was shot. He died there, cradled in his father's arms, after both father and son frantically pleaded for help. Since that day, Mohammed al-Dura has become the poster child, rallying cry and virtual symbol of the 2000 Al Aqsa intifada.

The dramatic footage of al-Dura's Sept. 30 death has been broadcast the world over. Palestinian television has created an edited version wherein pictures of an Israeli soldier shooting have been spliced into the original footage. Heart-wrenching photographs of the father and son have been posted alongside roads throughout the West Bank. And Egyptian authorities are reportedly naming the street on which the Israeli embassy is located after Mohammed al-Dura.

The Israeli military was quick to apologize for the deaths -- some say too quick.

The theory, backed by considerable evidence, has now emerged that the unthinkable actually occurred -- that a Palestinian shot the boy in cold blood to create a needed martyr -- on film -- to advance the Palestinian nationalist cause.

'The martyr is lucky'

Most Palestinians believe the establishment of the state of Israel was a terrible mistake, an injustice involving the forcible relocation of many of their forebears. Indeed, Israel's very existence has never been accepted by many in the Arab world.

As a result of this perceived injustice, many Palestinians teach their children, from the very earliest ages, unbridled hatred toward Israelis.

But to free the children to act on that hatred, a second teaching is deeply inculcated throughout their childhood. The Palestinians teach explicitly, as do many Arab nations, that to die in the "jihad" -- holy war -- against Israel purchases the "martyr" instant acceptance into heaven. And it is a very red-blooded and lusty male heaven they are promised, characterized first and foremost by endless sex with a multitude of virgins.

Recently, the mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, Sheik Ikrima Sabri -- the highest religious authority in the region -- was interviewed by the Egyptian weekly, Al-Ahram Al-Arabi about his admiration for child "martyrs." Dozens of Palestinian youths reportedly have died since late September in violent clashes with Israelis after the meltdown of the doomed Clinton-brokered "peace process."

"I feel the martyr is lucky because the angels usher him to his wedding in heaven," said the mufti, appointed by Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. "There is no doubt that a child [martyr] suggests that the new generation will carry on the mission with determination. The younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect him."

Lavishing praise specifically on the sacrifice of Palestinian children to the cause, Sabri reflected: "One [child martyr] wrote his name on a note before he died. He wrote: 'the martyr so and so.' In every martyr's pocket we find a note with his name on it. He sentences himself to martyrdom even before he becomes a martyr."

The interviewer then asked an incredible question: "Is this why the mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons' death?"

"They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom," answered the mufti. "It is a great display of the power of belief. The mother is participating in the great reward of the Jihad to liberate Al-Aqsa."

In an apparent reference to the widely held belief that martyrs who die killing an infidel will be given 50 virgins in heaven, Sabri added: "I talked to a young man ... [who] said: '... I want to marry the black-eyed [beautiful] women of heaven.' The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage. Such a son must have such a mother."

The Jerusalem Post's Oct. 27 edition revealed the shocking aftermath of the violent deaths of some Palestinian children.

"Interviewed by journalists after [recent] tragedies, some of the parents of these young victims refer to their children as shahids (martyrs), whose lives were given willingly and proudly to the Palestinian cause in fighting the hated Zionist enemy," wrote Post writer Gerald M. Steinberg.

"In an unbelievably shocking scene, one mother boasted that she bore her son precisely for this purpose, and the father proudly claimed credit for providing the training. The parents will also receive a sizeable financial 'reward' from the Palestinian Authority," he added.

The preparation for martyrdom begins early.

In a Palestinian television program called the "Children's Club," young children are shown singing songs about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and to take up "a machine gun" to direct "violence, anger, anger, anger" against Israelis.

During the show, which features children aged 4-10, one young boy sings, "When I wander into Jerusalem ... I will become a suicide bomber." Afterward, other children stand to call for "Jihad! Holy war to the end against the Zionist enemy." In another segment, a boy who appears to be no more than 8 or 9 years old chants: "My patience has run out. ... All Arab existence cries for revenge" against the Jews in Israel.

Media biased against Israel?

The Associated Press photo published in the New York Times and other newspapers in late September said it all: A club-wielding, screaming Israeli soldier stood above a blood-drenched Palestinian on the Temple Mount. Further proof of Israeli brutality against the Palestinians.

Except the "Palestinian" in the photo was not Palestinian at all, but a 20-year-old Jewish student from Chicago, named Tuvia Grossman, who was studying at a yeshiva in Jerusalem. He had just been savagely beaten by a mob of Palestinians, and was, as the photo was taken, being protected by an Israeli policeman against his Palestinian assailants.

The New York Times, long criticized as biased against Israel, has plenty of company.

On Oct. 1, shortly after the outbreak of Palestinian rioting, National Public Radio's Jennifer Ludden reported: "Today is a repeat of the last three days ... You've got this Goliath of an Israeli army with guns. In some places yesterday they used armored tanks. There were battle helicopters buzzing overhead. At one point in the Gaza strip yesterday, Israeli soldiers fired an anti-tank missile. All this directed at young kids with stones."

But according to the pro-Israel group CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), this is just another example of extreme and long-standing anti-Israel bias on NPR's part.

"None of the Israeli weaponry cited has been 'directed at young kids with stones,'" according to CAMERA. "At that point, the tanks had not fired one shot at anyone, but were positioned as a deterrent. The helicopters had been brought in to help rescue an Israeli shot by Palestinians who was trapped and bleeding to death in defense of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. The anti-tank missile was used against Palestinian snipers firing at Israelis from high-rise buildings at the Netzarim junction in Gaza."

In the aftermath of the Al-Dura shooting, the international media glibly reported that "a French photographer" or "a French television crew" had filmed the tragedy. In reality, although the news organization was French, the photojournalist who actually filmed the shooting was a Palestinian named Talal Abu Rahma, who lives in Gaza. Rabbi Avi Shafran weighed in on anti-Israel media bias in the Oct. 13 edition of the Providence Journal-Bulletin. "When baseless biases are openly voiced, they are seen for what they are: ugly, evil, human faults," he wrote. "When subtly layered, though, into journalistic products' choices of photographs, captions, turns of phrase, stories' spins, they often slip by unnoticed, and proceed to infect and deform countless hearts and minds."

While National Public Radio correspondents routinely portray Israeli soldiers as jack-booted thugs, some in the international news media are even more openly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than the major American press:

Riccardo Cristiano, Mideast representative for the official state-owned Italian television station, RAI, placed an ad in the Oct. 16 edition of the main Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al Hayat al Jedida, promising he would never think of giving any bad publicity to the Palestinians or their cause.

"My dear friends in Palestine," the ad began. "We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah."

He was referring to the brutal beating and murder by a Palestinian mob of two non-combatant drivers in the Israel Defense Force, at a Palestinian Authority police station in Ramallah.

Apologizing for a rival, private Italian television station's filming of the brutal lynchings, he assured readers that it was not the official Italian news media that did so.

"Israeli television broadcast the pictures," Cristiano bemoaned, "as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RAI) took these pictures. We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way," the ad continued, "because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine. ..."

Cristiano added, "We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We do not (will not) do such at thing. Please accept our dear blessings."

'Only one possible solution'

Palestinian leaders, realizing the profound influence world opinion will likely have on the ultimate outcome of the Middle East crisis -- particularly on the effort to "internationalize" Jerusalem and install U.N. "peacekeeping forces" in the region -- are very public relations-conscious. In fact, they are notorious for playing to the overly sympathetic and often one-sided international media's camera.

USA Today ran a story showing how the Palestinian news media have invented "atrocity" stories by reporting supposed Israeli soldier attacks on different Palestinian towns, which upon verification have turned out to be complete fabrications. There have also been reported instances of Palestinian ambulances sent out to pick up fake wounded -- for the sake of eager Western cameras.

Although there are moderate Palestinian voices, the leadership holds to a long-held, ambitious and somewhat secret (to the West, at least) ultimate objective -- to take over all of Israel. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be understood unless it is recognized that the complete "liberation" of Palestine (which to the Palestinians includes all of Israel) is, and always has been, the endgame of the Arab leadership toward Israel.

Based on an enmity many trace back to Abraham, most Arab leaders -- as distinct from courageous souls like the late Anwar el-Sadat as well as many moderate Arabs both in the Middle East and throughout the world who have risen beyond this cultural and spiritual hatred -- still cling to the "jihad," the struggle to "reclaim Palestine," as a holy mission. Current Mideast leaders like Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat continually fan the ancient fires of hatred toward Israel that first burst into flame against the modern Jewish state one day after its establishment in 1948:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence

"The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel ... Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer." -- Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 1954

"I announce from here, on behalf of the United Arab Republic people, that this time we will exterminate Israel." -- President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, speech in Alexandria, July 26, 1959

"We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your [Israel's] blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea." -- Hafez Assad, then-Syrian Defense Minister, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria's president

"The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist." -- Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi, al-Usbu al-Arrabi (Beirut) quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973

"There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country ... On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel." --Rafiq Najshah, PLO representative in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian News Agency, June 9, 1980

"The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel's borders, but about Israel's existence. We will never agree to anything less than the return of all our land and the establishment of the independent state." --Bassam Abu Sharif, a top Arafat aide and PLO spokesman, quoted by the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986

"The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the entire territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction."
--Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) interview with Al-Safir, Lebanon, Jan. 25, 1988

"We will enter Jerusalem victoriously and raise our flag on its walls ... We will fight you [the Israelis] with stones, rifles, and 'El-Abed' [the Iraqi missile]..."
--Yasser Arafat, reported by the Associated Press, March 29, 1990, at the start of the Gulf War

"The hands of the U.S. are fully stained with the blood of the Palestinians. There is only one possible solution to unrest in the Middle East, namely, the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."
-- Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a "prayer sermon" at Tehran University addressing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, Dec. 31, 1999

Yom Hazikaron in Melbourne

2008-07-11T03:43:00.000-07:00

7th May 2008

When it comes to sticky issues, you either straddle the apathy line or you make a choice. I've made my choice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am a Zionist. I am for the following two reasons;

1. It's a Biblically sound choice
2. It's a historically and geographically sound choice.

You can take away the first one and it's still a sound choice.

Sadly I don't know any Jews personally. I don't want to seem like George Costanza from Seinfeld, in the episode where he went out of his way to "make friends" with a black person- just because someone accused him of being racist. However, with Israel's 60 years of independence celebrations taking place this week I was determined to at least observe a Jewish gathering.

Yom Hazikaron is the "Day of Rememberance", a commemoration for Israel's fallen soldiers and victims of terror, traditionally held the night before the official day of independence celebrations. Yom Hazikaron Melbourne was held at Monash University's Clayton campus on the evening of May 6th, and I was able to attend.

Sitting in the car waiting for the hall to open open, there was no escaping the significance of the event whilst listening to ABC News Radio, on a summary of the headlines-in-brief; "...and, Israel celebrates it's 60th anniversary since independence. How many others would celebrate with them if the occupation ended?..."

"Occupation"?? Even in a headline soundbite, someone has to editorialize.

I probably don't look in the least bit Jewish, if there is such a thing, so the door security officer pulled me up and politely asked me some questions. I was happy to oblige, as it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that a mass gathering of Jews would be an ideal target for protests (especially at a University)...or worse. The problem was I stumbled over my own tongue trying to explain to this friendly security guard (who could have been Mossad for all I knew) that I was not Jewish but I cared about Israel. He smiled politely at my attempt and showed me in. Ah! I can hear them all now...The racism of Zionists! Stopping anyone who doesn't appear Jewish! Racial profiling! No...it's called efficient security.

The tone of the evening was set by the instruction in the program: In keeping with the solemnity of the occasion there should be no applause. In the main hall, I was all alone, people-watching. There were young and old, ultra-orthodox and liberal. To me, demographically, it looked no different to a church gathering, but with yarmulkes, and even so not everybody was wearing them. There was no boisterousness, bad language, lack of manners...just a community of people, behaving pleasantly. They looked solemn, but with a mischievously gleeful glimmer of hope.

The young Jewish man beside me was deep in conversation with a young female friend. It was heavy stuff- relationships, disagreements between friends, some kind of crisis, but it was handled pragmatically by both. I heard the young lady say "You know what Jews are like...word gets around". It all sounded so normal. They wound it up pleasantly and she left.

The presentations were mostly done in Hebrew, and it flowed so much I almost developed an ear for it. I could pick up words like barach (blessing) and Ruach (wind/ spirit) and boker (dawn). They picked specific soldiers and victims of terror with links to Australia, and told their stories, and the relatives/ loved ones lit candles for them in a progressive sequence through the night.

Visiting Israeli paramedic Steven Friedland spoke of how he treated dozens on a battlefield in the second Lebanon war. His friend Itay Steinberger carried his medical equipment uphill so he could get to the injured faster. Steinberger then shielded him from a Hezbollah shell and died right there. It was only this which saved Steven and enabled him to tend to the wounded.

The incomparably Aussie-sounding Joe Salfas, who served in both the IDF and the RAAF, spoke of his cousin Ruth Moritz, who died in the first war of independence in 1948. Following evacuation orders she ran back up the minaret of an old mosque to fetch a missing comrade and was overrun by Jordanian troops. She was 18.

A video montage of images from the second Lebanon war was run. The pictures showed only funerals, grieving Israeli soldiers, embracing, united by loss. You couldn't watch it without crying, if you have a heart. Perhaps it's because we are conditioned to seeing death and murder in that region being cheered and celebrated. Yes there is grief and anguish from Palestinian Arab mothers. But I confess- I struggle to cry for them when, away from the western TV cameras, so many of those same mothers teach their children to desire and crave martyrdom through killing Jews. This is the same culture who sent their Persian children to clear Iraqi minefields, with the "keys to Paradise" hanging around their little necks. I'll cry for them-for entirely different reasons.

Scan the Israeli media and try to find bloodthirsty Zionist indoctrination of their schoolchildren, or ecstasy, celebration and cheering at the death of Palestinian terrorists. You won't. The terrorist boast is we love death more than you love life. How wrong they are. They underestimate how much Israelis love life.

Here was the revelation of the evening for me; we "celebrate" ANZAC day and remembrance day, the 11th hour, 11th day, 11th month. We proudly honour our war heroes as heroes. To do this, by inference we are asserting moral standing. It's simple. They were wrong, we were right. We defeated them. We fought them. We killed them, and we lost our own in the process. We have WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. Our defence forces were, and are, heroes.

Israel have to do this remembrance every day. They have been at war every decade they have existed. While we obediently and willingly sent people overseas to assist the world, occasionally without a choice, sometimes with, Israel have fought for their own survival out of sheer necessity. These heroic, tragic, heart-wrenching stories are a part of their daily life, etched into their being and culture. Yet our mainstream media and cultural elite deny Israel the same moral standing which we afford ourselves.

I was caught out as prayers were offered and "will the gentlemen please cover their heads". Oops. Not only was I unaware of this practice, I had nothing to put on my head. Still, I wasn't the only one. As we sat down, the young Jewish man beside me quips "five minutes with your hand on your head....just doesn't work!". It's refreshing. He seemed to be there only because he felt he had to. Perhaps he is a non-religious Jew. Perhaps he wishes he wasn't identified with this estranged, harangued, libelled and endangered species. But he's there anyway, still being indentified, once and always, a Jew. A living, breathing, walking miracle.

His Excellency Yuval Rotem, Israel's ambassador to Australia made a speech, entirely in Hebrew. it included the following notable snippets;

Israel is not perfect. We have sinned. We have even been discriminatory. Sometimes our actions have been excessive and perhaps our reprisals too harsh. But in the final analysis it must be said that Israel have always tried to extend the hand of peace.

and this

We have two large hands and a very large heart. One hand is to protect our people, and the other is to offer to our enemies, for peace, if they so desire it, or a fight, if they desire that.

Looking at history his words were, if anything, understated. I was caught out yet again as they sung the Hatikva (The Hope), the Israeli National Anthem.

Afterwards there was little or no socialising. I had no opportunity to chat to anyone. It was probably a barach in disguise. What on earth would I say? I'm a Christian Zionist...sorry about the 1,800 years of church-based anti-semitism? I blew my opportunity with the young man who chuckled about by non-head-covering during prayer time, where I could have explained that my excuse was "I'm not Jewish"! Perhaps I needed the opportunity to claim my Christian position, and graciously accept whatever the response- rejection, disdain, a warm welcome. I wondered if I was really capable of graciously accepting any response, had I been faced with it.

Way ahead of me however there are worldwide alliances of solidarity between Christians and Jews, albeit with Australian chapters slow to get going. If you were going to find only one commonality between us it would be this; Israel has a glorious future.

Even though the invitation to this evening was to "The Community" I got the feeling I was possibly the only Gentile there.

But what a privilege.

Another Titanic Fraud

2008-07-11T03:41:00.000-07:00

2nd August 2007

Oh dear. Here we go again. The Alzheimer's Story-telling troupe are on the march again. You know the ones- they go around to Alzheimer's sufferers and tell them the same story every night and charge them money each time. The patients don't know any different. They think they're hearing a new story.

The mockumentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus is now afflicting commercial television, as if making a big fuss on pay TV's Discovery Channel wasn't enough. Worse, it's executive producer is James Cameron of Titanic fame. As if I needed more reasons to detest that movie. No surprise that the network showing The Lost Tomb, is the one famed for pushing the boundaries of good taste off the edge of a cliff- Channel Ten.

And it's riding on a fresh wave of Jesus-conspiracy-theory-mania caused by the Da Vinci Code, itself a masterpiece of profiteering from old, overdone and completely implausible theories, dusted off and re-branded for a new generation of the unsuspecting...

In a nutshell this "dramatic discovery" that will "rock Christianity to it's core" (ho hum) was the discovery of a tomb in the Talpiot area of Jerusalem. The tomb contained ossuaries (boxes with skeletal remains) etched with names suggesting they belonged to people named Jesus, Joseph and Mary, and another Mary speculated to be Mary Magdelene. Yep- if it was, that means Jesus and M. Magdelene must have been married! Apparently if you piece together enough bits of rubbish, you almost get a fact.

Add to all that some DNA testing of old bones having absolutely nothing to compare them with, some fancy forensic-based technologies falsely linking one ossuary to another to support the speculations and voila, here's a groundbreaking piece of infotainment. One which tells you about the real Jesus, the human Jesus, the revising of history! Be enlightened by prime-time TV, with promos telling you in deep, booming voiceovers that it will "CHALLENGE---- EVERYTHING----YOU-----BELIEVE !!"

I disagree. I believe a fool and his money are soon parted. That hasn't been challenged at all.

So who exactly is making these ground-breaking and controversial and ratings-grabbing speculations? Archaeologists? Historians? Linguistics experts? Nope. Hollywood movie producer James Cameron and writer Simcha Jacobovici.

Here's some snippets from the real world:

1) Joe Zias, the curator for anthropology and archaeology at the Rockerfeller Museum of Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997, personally handled the Talpiot ossuaries when they were discovered in 1980 (yes, that's right. 1980. Not yesterday). His references to the Lost Tomb of Jesus docko are thus: “Projects like these make a mockery of the archaeological profession.” and "have no credibility whatsoever” and “are intellectually and scientifically dishonest.” I doubt Channel 10 will be using those testimonial soundbytes on their promos. Joe's own summary of the documentary can be found here

2) Professor Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary, an expert in early Christian antiquity, pointed out that the names on the ossuaries, which were not so much etched on, rather they were crudely scratched, were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There is absolutely no reason why a family tomb would have a Greek inscription when the earliest Jewish Christians spoke Aramaic. "This is a story full of holes, conjectures and problems. It will make good TV and involves a bad critical reading of history"

3) Amos Kloner, the Israeli archaeologist who supervised the original dig in 1980 and authored the official report, pointed out that it was a typical Jewish burial tomb containing some of the top ten most popular names in early Judea, and questioned why a Galilean family's tomb would be in Jerusalem. He said of the documentary in an interview with the Jerusalem Post: “It’s impossible. It’s nonsense.”

Strong words. He obviously knows nothing about television.

Furthermore, Kloner's original report in 1980 claimed the tomb was broken into and vandalised early in it's history.

Vandalised? Crudely scratched names? Interesting.

Wait. There's more. Jacobovici reckons the famous "Ossuary of James" , discovered separately, also belonged in the "Jesus Tomb". You see, James was a brother of Jesus. If it was in the same tomb, it would add weight to the speculation of a family tomb containing a very dead Jesus Christ! A crime lab method called "patina fingerprinting" is used to forensically link that ossuary to the others. This is the film's core reasoning behind this particular claim.

A quick history on the "Ossuary of James". The Israeli Antiquities Authority released a report in 2003 suggesting it was a forgery. The owner of the ossuary, a private collector by the name of Oded Golan, was arrested for forgery relating to other artifacts. In fairness, he was not charged. Personally I couldn't care less if this ossuary is of James brother of Jesus the messiah, or James brother of Jesus the fish salesman from Gaza.

Firstly, Golan had this ossuary in his collection from 1976, way before the Talpiot Tomb was discovered in 1980. And it's characteristics, including it's dimensions, differ it far too much from the Talpiot ossuaries for it to have been included.

But here's the bit that really gives me a giggle. The "Patina fingerprinting" method was a crime lab method never meant for archaeological use. The director of the crime lab consulted by the filmmakers issued a written denial of the docko's claims, saying he never said the ossuaries were a match and that "much more testing would be needed in order to draw any conclusions".

Naturally this is not the only case of the documentary giving a token academic the appearance of agreeing with the producer's findings, when in fact they don't. Jacobovici uses footage of distinguished epigrapher Frank Moore Cross reading the script of the ossuary inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph.” It is very clear from the footage, it's intended for the viewer to believe this scholar supports the view of two Hollywood filmmakers.

In fact Cross said to Jacobovici that he found it impossible to make such conclusions about this tomb. He was "upset" at the way Jacobovivi used footage of him. Likewise Isreali scholar Tal Ilan..."outraged" at misuse of her words by Jacobovici. In fact, Joe Zias said the following of the scholars used in the film: "...totally unaware of the premise of the documentary...totally opposed to the evidence as presented...edited in such a way as to give the false impression that they are in agreement with the film"

Yet the New York Times' review reads "almost all of the scholars interviewed support the filmmakers' case". Wrong, wrong and wrong. Still, this is the same newspaper who said The Da Vinci Code was "impeccably researched". I ask again: Who researches the New York Times?

Naturally the docko leans on the Gnostic Gospel craze to support it's Mr. and Mrs. Jesus theory, that other tired old speculation re-hashed so effectively by the Da Vinci Code. I won't waste time on that, other than what you can read here. I'm sure I saw a Gnostic Gospel for sale in an antique shop once. They really are starting to get up my gnose.

Hershal Shanks is a non-believing Jew from the Biblical Archaeology Society, and a close friend of Simcha Jacobovici. He describes the married-Jesus theories, and specifically referring to the logic used in Jacobovici's film, as "building very slim possibility upon very slim possibility until likelihood dissolves into evanescence". Amen, Hershal.

There is clearly a big difference between proving your speculation and selling it. James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici have done a masterly job of selling, but then they had $4 million and a sea of gullibility fresh from the Da Vinci Code. Even a non-believer who would say it's not impossible for this tomb to be that of Jesus of Nazareth, would question why such deception is neccessary to convince people it is.

Personally I'm surprised that Channel Ten didn't wait until Easter to screen this latest piece of re-hashed Jesus conspiracy mania. This is the usual modus operandi of the secular media. But there is actually something comforting for Christians. These very tedious attacks simply prove the very writings that they attempt to undermine. This bit, for example:

Even as there shall be false teachers among you, ... even denying the Lord that bought them, ... And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: - 2 Peter 2:1-3

Spoken by someone a little closer to the facts than the people who do magic tricks using TV. The translated word "pernicious" is reasonably accurate- it refers to a lie that causes great hurt or damage.

I've quoted from a verifiable 2000 year-old document which has already given us all the information we need about the Tomb of Jesus. They found it. It was empty.

Turn off your voice of reason

2008-07-11T03:39:00.000-07:00

6th September 2006

I love The Simpsons. They have a history of cutting-edge and witty humour. Plus the kids love the funny voices and cute characters. Sure there are some adult concepts which I would often try to keep the kids away from, but generally the subject matters were "sharp but reasonably harmless"

Whilst the humour is topcial without being too preachy, it's unavoidable that, like everything else on television, people feel as though they are informed and educated about real life through a popular show like this.

Occasionally little Lisa Simpson represents the "voice of reason", often standing up for some leftist views like Bhuddism or planet-worhipping disguised as environmental concern, And, with a couple of "token Christian" characters like the pushover Ned Flanders or the couldn't-care-less Reverend Lovejoy in the mix, Christian toes are tread upon. There are the usual secular themes and baseless stereotypes.

But considering just how venomous anti-Christian TV rhetoric can get, I could always take the Simpsons- the media and showbiz got their lashings also. This meant that The Simpsons never sold out to the popular politically-correct godless ideology, they cruised along at their own pace.

How times change. A recent episode played the theme of evolution taught in public schools. As though realising it for the first time, Ned Flanders and Reverend Lovejoy use it to create a case to force religion back into schools, culminating in a court case attempting to ban the instruction of evolution. Naturally the voice of reason was Lisa Simpson ("But creationism isn't science!"). Through a mildly funny process involving Homer acting like an ape, evolution wins. Lisa consoles the useless Ned Flanders with "I really respect your beliefs and that you are so passionate about them, but religion really shouldn't be taught in schools any more than you would want science taught in church". How wonderfully patronising.

Along the way were the usual stereotypes- the irrational Ned Flanders screaming at his kids that evolution "just isn't true...because it just isn't", museum displays entitled "Irrefutable Fossil Evidence", and characters attacking evolution using nothing more than angry name-calling, manipulation and trickery.

So, there you have it. Evolution is fact. Simple. Anyone who opposes it is a brainless, unscientific rube who is actually dangerous to progress and education. The only people who oppose evolution are religious nutcases. Once again, pop culture comes to our rescue with lessons learned through entertainment.

Sure, evolution is science. The bit where species adapt to their environment? Not under any dispute whatsoever.

It's the bit where a bacteria grows arms, legs, brains, reproductive systems and a gazillion other brilliant things from a series of accidents, that we struggle with. As is the bit about DNA developing new, previously non-existent information magically from nowhere. Christians aren't the only ones who struggle with this. So do many eminent scientists. The theory of irreducible complexity also struggles with macroevolution. Heck, even those who promote macroevolution, such as Jay Gould et al, litter their theses with words like "possibly" and "maybe" and "probably" to fill in the massive blanks!

Did you hear all the fundamentalist, irrational, superstitious, Jesus-hysteria oozing from every sentence there?

Well yes, according to TV.

I can only presume the Simpsons' writers were drawing from Inherit the Wind, a movie/play about the Scopes trial. John Scopes was a teacher in the 1920's who was tried under a Tennessee law that prohibited the teaching of evolution, and the case was made into a token religion vs. science debate. Or so the movie would have you believe. I thought the Entertainment Industry could not sink any lower in making fantasy from the Scopes' trial, in order to misrepresent the Christian view on this topic and stereotype Christians poorly.

Well, the Simpsons just sunk lower.

In The Simpsons, it was the religious rubes who "used" the question of teaching evolution to make a case and initiate the whole process using force and influence. In the Scopes' trial (the real one, not the movie version) the emerging American Civil Liberties Union were looking for a platform from which to start a campaign to have religious instruction thrown out of public schools. They initiated the whole process. The agressors, you might say.

Tennessee prohibited Darwinian teaching, albeit a light, conditional prohibition, so the ACLU placed an ad in the local paper asking for help in "tesing this law". It was answered by George Rappleyea, a Dayton county businessman who figured the community would benefit from the publicity. He pressured John Scopes into becoming the mule "accused" of teaching evolution. Scopes was a teacher without a degree in biology who had substituted for the ill biology teacher for a mere two weeks. He could not even remember teaching evolution, but he mentioned something about biology.

This was good enough for the ACLU, who offered to pay all expenses AND for his subsequent further education if he agreed to be their mule. Someone dobbed on Scopes to the State and so it began.

The prosecution simply wanted to put the evidence for evolution against evidence for creation as their case, and actually enlisted William Bryan, an experienced orator with sound scientific and political background, to do so. Bryan had studied Origin of the Species and had a well-prepared line of questioning.

According to the movie and The Simpson's parody, he was a loudmouth, fanatical, finger-pointing fundy lunatic, citing only religious dogma as his basis. Inherit the Wind had the case dragging on, with threats from the Christian community affecting jurors, and all sorts of treachery, until the final "tragic" loss of the case. Science and reason defeated by supersition and oppression! Yet the fanatical tyrant Bryan was still not satisfied. He screamed for blood.

In real life, before Bryan got to state his well-prepared case, the defence copped a plea and ended the trial early. They had planned this all along, to prevent Bryan from sounding rational.

The theatre version of Inherit the Wind had even more insidious low-brow swipes at Christianity with it's pathetically unreal stereotypes of redneck, uneducated fanatics screaming abuse at the enlightened pro evolutionists. Even the ficticious local Reverend calls down a curse on his own daughter for dating the Scopes' character.

In real life, even the openly anti-Christian journo HL Mencken reported that there was no animosity between the Christian townsfolk and Scopes' defenders.

Now why on earth would such corruption of the facts be neccessary? Could it be that evolution's salespeople need the sympathy vote? Strange. Because it seems that on TV the Christians are the angry, irrational ones manipulating public opinion, yet in the real life TV claims to mirror, it is their opponents exhibiting such behaviour.

No space for evolution arguments here. Suffice to say that the refutations to this popular theory are wide and scientific. Nobody "signed off" on evolution and concluded that, if you don't believe it, you do not belong in mainstream society. Yet turn on your TV and this is exactly what you hear.

More's the point is the use of evolution as the method by which to portray Christians (not Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists, Humanists mind you, but Christians) as mindless, unscientific, blundering and backwards. Lisa Simpson summed it by saying "we don't want religion taught in schools any more than you would want science taught in churches".

That's right Lisa- us Christians even think light globes are evil and would have burned Edison at the stake had we half a chance.

Actually, we teach science all the time.

The law of Thermodynamics, for example-the observed, recorded fact that the universe is in a constant state of decay and energy loss, is something we don't mind reminding people.

The Bible itself; the whole reason we regard this collection of writings as a dependable account of the events it claims to describe, is because of science. The science of archaeology, hermenuetics, linguistics, etc.

We often mention that it was God who instructed Abraham to circumcise male children on the eight day. Biological science demonstrates that an infant's peak blood clotting and immunity is on their eighth day. Interesting. How did Abraham work it out- trial and error?

Christians seem to be the only group prepared to discuss the true, scientific biological properties of the deadly HIV virus. Nowhere on TV do I see that condoms cannot prevent the transfer of the virus, that there are recorded cases of infection from body contact sports and mosquitos, and that it is developing the ability to become airborne. Oh, and that the highest risk group is the homosexual community.

The Entertainment Industry prevents those facts from becoming known, because it will offend the gay community. The very same Industry tells us to believe that Christians are the enemies of science and information. Interesting.

Lesson? If it's on TV, it is most probably rubbish. If you want to see real life, turn off your TV. Do it soon before you actually start believing the stereotypes, although for some, I believe it may be too late. And if something says "Based on a true story", be afraid. Be very afraid.

Pity. I used to like The Simpsons. Now they've sold out.

There's something about Martyr

2008-07-11T03:36:00.000-07:00

15th May 2006

Martyrdom. No, I'm not talking about the joy of blowing yourself up to please Allah and go to his big brothel in the sky (where DO they find all their virgins??). I'm talking about your normal, everyday martyr.

Or, another title to this topic could be "The power of victimology".

Haven't we all been, or been affected by, a martyr at some stage. Haven't we all resorted to the ancient art of victimology.

You know the scenario- person A insults person B, by saying something rude, disrespectful, manipulative, a complete put down. Person B reacts, as one would expect, either aggressively, sternly, critically or whatever.

Person A responds with "Oh, no.....you MISUNDERSTOOD me. You see, when I said you were ugly, stupid, and your mother dresses you all funny, you TOOK IT THE WRONG WAY."

Geddit? "YOU misunderstood ME". It's not my fault. In fact, I'M the victim of a misunderstanding. Not only am I going to avoid being accountable for my despicable behaviour, I'm going to make YOU feel bad. I'm going to get upset that you have ACCUSED ME of being rude!

An insult eloquently worded, is still an insult.

Clever, huh? Yet we all do it. The art of victimology. Friends do it, families do it, colleagues do it, governments do it. Countries do it.

Back in the 1930's, the oddly-named National Socialist Party of Germany convinced their people that Jews meant harm to the Ayrian race. THEY had stolen, THEY had cheated, THEY had persecuted. Look what THEY have done to US.

The same government wanted a region of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetan highlands, and could not conquer it by force. Furthermore, France and Britain had promised protection to the Czechs from ANY hostile incursion. So, Adolf and friends convinced the world that Czechoslovakia was mistreating a minority of "Germans" (i.e. German-speaking Czechs) in the Sudetan region. Despite the ex-pat Germans in the region being perfectly well off as Czechs, the Nazis convinced them they were hard-done-by, and stirred up enough dissention to provoke the Czechs into a military response.

Bingo. Job done. Now the ex-pat Germans in the Sudetanland were an "oppressed minority" living in "occupied territories". Poor Adolf was just sticking up for his kinsmen, said the British and French. He doesn't WANT to intervene with force, but he may HAVE TO, to stop the oppression. This would ignite war in Europe. We must convince the Czechs that they are better off trading a small amount of land "for peace", said the world's greatest pacifist, Neville Chamberlain.

So, without any consultation with the Czechs, Britain and France handed the region over to Hitler. Betrayed by the very people who had vowed to protect them, Czechoslovakia was then overrun by the Nazi military. In came the tanks, 6 months later, WW II. 50 million people dead. Some peace.

But that's some amazing demonstration of the effectiveness of victimology.

So, what have we learned from this? Well, nothing. Now we have entire nations who still desire the extermination of Jews, using "Palestine" as the victim. Palestine, a region that has never, ever, in 2000 years, been a self-governing or autonomous nation. Palestinians, who are infinitely better off under a productive Israel, than under the rule of an authority that takes billions in charity from the west and spends it - not on education, healthcare or housing, but on terrorism to destroy the very people giving them money. Yet the whole world is convinced that Israel is the big, bad, oppressive giant.

Back to the Nazis. SS chief Himmler was obsessed with the occult. He revered witches and witchcraft. He was a believer in Gnosticism, the old/new-age mysticism made popular by a recent bestsellling book and film I've been mentioning. Secret wisdom and knowledge was the key to power. He took up massive amounts of state resource to find evidence that witches and seers were persecuted and killed by Jews. Of course you can't just go out and kill Jews. You need to have a legitimate reason.

He didn't find any evidence, of course, and after a while the small matter of WWII took precedence and it all got shelved.

But, sooner or later, someone is going to point out that in fact it was Catholics who killed lots of witches and seers. Add a few zeros to the actual number killed (as was done by that bestselling book I mentioned) and bingo, you have a legitimate reason to kill Catholics. Or, instead of being quite so drastic you can simply persecute, slander and ridicule them, telling them it's their own fault and they deserve much worse and they should think themselves lucky. All this in a tolerant, politically-correct society, of course.

Speaking of religion- there is one that has been spread by the sword, by murder, assasination, suppression, censorship and terrorism. One that sends otherwise wealthy countries into a mire of corruption, poverty and ignorance. Yet this "religion" cries victim loud enough, blaming their own shocking lack of progress on everyone else, and blaming the body count it causes on the bodies themselves. And we believe it. Society panders to it. Nobody ever says anything contentious of this religion, it's founders or it's proponents, either factually or within the framework of fiction. Nobody dares. The last person who did was a Dutch film maker. Even the people who attended his funeral were mocked and threatened.

Job done. Not only are they never held accountable for their own despicable behaviour, they actually make everyone else feel bad about it. Like the child abusers teaching their victims that the abuse is all their own fault.

Another religion (for want of a better word), despite all it's faults, teaches "turning the other cheek" if your enemy strikes you. Love thy neighbour. Don't think you're better than anyone. Accept that you are no better. Don't play the victim.

Secular society, under the veil of "freedom of speech" insults, mocks, lays out false stereotypes and publically attacks one of those religions. Guess which one. Perhaps I'm running the risk of playing the victim with these words, but no matter. A spade is a spade. Look around you and see. I love freedom of speech. I just wish it was available to everyone. I wish you could tell everyone that the media is fooling everyone, shaping popular opinion to suit them, that even the 6 o'clock news is mostly rubbish. It's not news, it's a placebo. Something put there to make you feel like you're being informed.

But how would you tell everyone all this? You'd need the media.

You have to appreciate the effectiveness of victimology. Whether it's a country, or a religion, or an abusive person. There's something about being a martyr that just works. Political correctness is constantly revised and reshaped, proportional to how loud the martyrs are crying victim. I am guessing this is exactly why it is perfectly politically correct to insult Christianity. Not only do you get away with it, you can profit from it.

Letter to Dan Brown

2008-07-11T03:34:00.000-07:00

3rd May 2006

Dear Dan,

Congratulations on the whole movie thing. I bet after Angels and Demons/ Digital Fortress bombed you never thought you'd be a household name like Grisham. Quite a bonus for someone who started out simply wanting to "challenge long-held beliefs about religion". Since I am hoping that you are true to your roots, I have an idea for a big project that would be right up your alley.

You’ve proved that "research" is as simple as reading someone else’s conspiracy theory book, then uncritically accepting it when it suits your idea. No pesky cross referencing at the library, no consulting qualified peer-reviewed documents, with all their long papers and big words, no interviewing experts in the field. Nope, just snip, lift, paste, paraphrase a little, and it's yours. Heh heh, I like the line that your "expert historian" character Leigh Teabing says about Christianity being "the greatest story ever sold". Wasn't that the name of one such book you used?

Sure, the authors of these earlier books may get a little jumpy about that little thing called "plagiarism". But they know if you pull it all off successfully, their old books get dusted off and put right back on the shelves! Complete with fancy new covers and catch phrases like "before The Da Vinci Code, there was…". They love it, really. Their publishers won’t admit it though.

Nobody cares that both secular and Christian scholars totally debunked these conspiracy theories. Heck, that was 20 years ago. Nobody remembers them in the first place. That’s the whole point. It’s like milking a dead cow! It’s like repeatedly selling the same stories to people with Alzheimer’s disease!

So your claimed "facts" are nothing more than wild, baseless church-bashing speculation designed to generate publicity. Even if your fans find this out (fat chance), it’s still not the end of your intellectual reputation. Not by a long shot. If you’re ever confronted by that annoying reality of evidence, you can simply launch into the good old "what is Truth?" cliché (Pontius Pilate said it- that is, if he really existed). Dazzle everyone with philosophical semantics about truth being relative, the need to challenge accepted history regardless of the verifiable it is, and lament that you are simply trying to further wisdom and enlightenment, and so on.

Nope. You'll never have to answer to anyone, not even the real people and organisations affected by the slanderous inferences of your "fiction". We live in such a secular society. Everyone loves a good Jesus-bashing anti-establishment conspiracy theory. Besides, now that it's a movie you can just stay hidden away and let Ron Howard and Tom Hanks explain to the masses how the story isn't really offensive to Christians or Catholics. Artists are so good at making things look right even when they're just plain wrong.

Sorry to digress. So I have a project that I reckon will be a pushover for you. It involves hardly any research whatsoever. And I’m sure it will get massive publicity and make you even more money.

When it comes to fabricated, covered-up religious claims made by one person, to mislead and indoctrinate people and create wealth and power, look no further than ISLAM.

Okay, you wouldn’t be the first to write the horrifying legacy of Mohamed into a juicy "fiction based on facts" story. But then you weren’t the first to do that to the Leonardo thing either…just ask Lewis Perdue, author of 1983 "The Da Vinci Legacy" (yep, he made the same mistake as you with the artists’ proper name…but "The Leonardo Legacy" just sounds all wrong, doesn't it? ). Bad luck to him. You’re the one who made it a success, cashed in, and warded off those pesky plagiarism charges.

Well, now you can do exactly the same to the story of Mohamed and his army of poor, mislead followers. All 1.3 billion of them. How’s THAT for publicity?

Now, unlike your previous project, you don’t need to read, blithely accept and selectively pluck bits from a heap of existing, unoriginal conspiracy theories (or "plausible hypotheses" as your mate Michael Baigent likes to call them, since he can’t call it fiction, and can’t call it fact!). Oh no. Everything you need to piece together "possibly the biggest cover-up of our time" is IN THE KORAN and OFFICIAL ISLAMIC WRITINGS themselves!

Sure, there is a little chronological re-ordering to do, but from these very sources (verified by the religion of Islam itself) you will find out that;
- There is substantial evidence Mohamed was neglected, abused and molested as a child, subsequently becoming the abuser himself
- Mo was rejected by his mother and the women who were his unpaid carers, hence his, and Islam’s treatment of women
- Mo’s uncle was involved in profitable religious scams and cut him out of the inheritance, making Mo crave power and revenge
- "Allah" is not Arabic for "God", as Mo claimed to try and seduce Jews and Christians, but is actually one of 360 Arabic pagan gods. Indeed, earlier "revelations" from Mo named his magic God as Ar-Raman, an early Yemeni pagan idol.
- The illiterate Mo had to get third-hand accounts of the Torah and Bible to sound like a prophet, and needless to say he butchered them almost as badly as he butchered thousands of people
- Mo made up Islam as he went along, usually to justify some current lust or craving for booty, blood or slap and tickle.
- Mo suppressed people who spoke out against him, such as many poets of the time, by killing them. Much cheaper than advertising.
- The modern behaviour of terrorists is perfectly in sync with the legacy of Mo and Islamic teachings, not actually a "hijacking of peaceful Islam", as so many immams and politically-correct world leaders keep telling us.

And that's just a snippet. Just about every page of these documents (I use the word "documents" because it sounds more like there's a cover-up) is crying out to be exposed. Just waiting for a hero like you to "free the world to see the truth". Sorry to pinch a line from the Leonardo story. I hope I got it right. It might have been "The truth should be free", or was it "free the world from the burden of becoming properly informed about Christianity". Oh, by the way, I only have one problem with that line...the "truth" wasn't free. The hardcover edition cost me $24.95 (yet people have offered to GIVE me the gospels for NOTHING. What's up with that?)

Now Dan, when you are, ahem, "researching" all this, be sure and use older versions of the Q’uran and Hadiths, like Sirat Rasul Allah Bukhari and Sahih Al-Bukhari and Ishaq. Recent Muslim scholars have changed some bits, especially the bits that portray Mo’s atrocious behaviour, or the true meaning of "Jihad", or references to the true pagan identities of his "God", and lots of other stuff. A "cover up", you might say! Funnily enough they haven’t covered up the bit about Mo marrying a six year old girl. Maybe they figured it wasn’t so bad. After all, he didn’t consummate the marriage until she was nine. Wouldn't we call that paedophilia? Juicy stuff, huh?

Really, what better epic could there be than the illiterate Arabian camel-herder, abused and neglected as a child, hungry for revenge, power and boobies. He rustles up a massive following by pretending to be a prophet whilst not actually prophesying anything at all. All the ingredients are there- marrying into money, buying support, winning over uneducated, illiterate tribes with constantly changing divine "revelations", or just killing those that didn’t believe him. Maybe you can have Robert Langdon discovering all of this by reading a Koran in his hotel room whilst catching some rays in the Saudi Arabian desert.

You can impress readers with more "impeccable research", as the NY Times said of the Leonardo Code (I wonder…who researches the New York Times?). You’ll need to get into some history books on pre-Islamic Arabic culture to demonstrate how violent conquest only emerged post-Mohamed. Okay, so I lied- there may be a little research involved, but not much. If it does get too much for you, just do what you did with poor old Lewis Perdue. Look up guys who've already done all this- one is Craig Winn and he wrote some books which you’d find useful. His website is http://www.prophetofdoom.net/. There are many others, but why strain yourself?

Let’s face it, with all the terrorism these days, and coupled with your new-found popularity it’s a sure thing that you’d get bags of publicity. I know you’ve already succeeded in convincing everyone that the worst religious extremists out there are albino Catholic assasin monks, but remember those guys who flew those planes into those buildings (I mean in real life)? I don't think they were Southern Baptists. But I could be wrong. After all, what is Truth?

Yep, the whole world would flock to buy it. You could even write it with no plot or character development whatsoever and they’d still flock. Not that you did that with the Leonardo Code, of course. It sold purely on merit, not publicity.

And then...the movie! You would be the first to have a story that places Muslims smack bang in the middle of a nasty scandal. Nobody's done it yet. Well, I heard about some Dutch fellow making a film portraying Muslims mistreatment of women. But it couldn't have been that good, because nobody has seen or heard from the guy since. There was that movie "The Sum of all Fears" in which terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb in America. The book had them as Islamic terrorists, but Hollywood changed it to Neo-Nazis and South Africans so as not to offend Muslims! When will they ever learn that any publicity is good publicity? Even the Jewish Steven Speilberg pacified that whole "Munich" thing and portrayed the Jews and Muslims as equally culpable, over that real-life incident of Muslim terrorists killing Jewish athletes. To use Muslims as the token bad-guy would make you a pioneer!

After all, you said you wanted to "challenge long-held beliefs about religion". I reckon that’s a great idea. You’re not going to stop with Christianity, are you? You’re certainly not worried about offending people. In fact, that’s the modus operandi of any true writer- if all other publicity fails, offend someone (preferably someone who doesn't fight back, ). What’s the difference between offending Christians and Muslims? It’s all "religion", after all.

Don’t worry, I won’t expect royalties or intellectual property fees. It’s all yours if you want it. Even if I do have a change of heart later and sue you, think of the publicity.

Yours in conspiracy
Paddy

New Gospel discovered!

2008-07-11T03:33:00.001-07:00

Now for sale on Ebay

24th April 2006

Some folks have asked me about the significance of the much publicised "Gospel of Judas". The story of this "gospel"'s discovery surfaced around Easter time. Funny that. Around the time that people might get to hear a peep or two about the notion that Jesus was supernatural in some way, and whammo, some new "shocking truth about Christianity" gets major media air time. The Gospel of Judas even got a mention on Rove Live. Well, then, it must be true.

The GoJ was part of a collection of antiquities that was dug up around 1970 then auctioned off to a rich Egyptian in 1982. But it only got all this publicity in Easter 2006.

In a nutshell this manuscript suggests that Jesus told Judas to betray him, among other things, and has Jesus rabitting on about aeons, luminaries and virgin spirits. It also had him scoffing at his disciples constantly, in a manner that would have earned him, not the adoration of crowds of Jewish peasants and fishermen, but a punch in the mouth. Blah ...This one gets thrown into the "Gnostic" pile. If you want more info on the Gnostics go here. The Gnostics did pretty much what the academia and media/ entertainment gurus of the world do today; design their own Jesus. In fact, the term "Gnosticism" has begun to be coined by the New Agers of late, since the New Age movement goes through constant facelifts.

In the case of the Gnostics, secret wisdom was the key to salvation. That's about the only theme one can derive. Apart from that, the Gnostic Gospels are an incoherent babble of esoteric, vague philosphical claptrap. The early Church fathers such as Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) acknowledged freely the heresy of the Gnostics, and there are reasons for them being being labelled heresy.

But, (sigh), as the world, and especially Australia, is prone to side with the underdogs, the term "heretic" gets redefined as "those poor free-thinkers who were persecuted by the big bad church for having their own ideas".

The main point here is that such a piece gets thrust down everyone's throat as though it has some kind of academic merit. Or even more ludicrous, that it should change early Christian history. Why? Because the Secular Poltically-Correct (SPC) insist on this thing called diversity. That Jesus was just this clever guy who told us all to be nice to our mothers and made a few slick comments. That Christianity fabricated the notion of Jesus' deity and singular path to salvation (a la Da Vinci Code, or should I say all the tedious conspiracy novels plagairised by it), when we'd much rather pretend that he promoted a whole glut of different spiritual ideas.

The SPC don't like the singular idea. Diverse spiritual ideas sound much better.

In much the same way, I don't like the idea of gravity either. But I have to put up with it sometimes.

What is particularly ridiculous about all this, is that the SPC are so desperate to promote the "other gospels" because of the attractiveness of diversity, that they lose sight of the only gospels that actually have consistency, sense, meaning and are the most textually verifiable.

You see, the bizarre collection of Gnostic gospels, to which the so-called Gospel of Judas belongs, are so completely devoid of any singular meaning or consistency the only diversity is diversity of error. In the Gospel of Phillip, for example, we have Mary Magdelene elevated to high priestess, giving the message of Goddess worship, yet in the Gospel of Thomas we have Jesus telling Mary to go away and uttering that women must become like men to enter heaven. So much for Goddess worship. We have a mish mash of strange, etherial spiritual beings, firmaments, ghostly events, and none of them collude or form a coherant message. It is quite evident the gnostics had way too much spare time to muse over their own fantasies.

Let's apply the secular logic another way. In 1000 years or so, archeologists dig up the lyrics to Rolling Stones songs. They will, no doubt, presume that the central religious belief of our time was worshipping the gods of Satisfaction through the high priestess Honky Tonk Woman, and that everyone was encouraged to have Sympathy for the Devil. All that silly Christianity stuff was a notion invented later by some corrupt oppressive regime.

That some ancient writings may promote "diversity" is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is what actually happened, and what the evidence says.

It's quite simple. The four gospels we have in the Bible:
- are the only ones that together make coherent, consistent sense
- were written in the first century by eyewitnesses or in close collusion with eyewitnesses of the events they describe
- were written with such cultural, geographical and textual accuracy that they demonstrate absolute scholarly credibility, and are often used in secular studies

These very Gospels tell of a Jesus who claimed to be God manifest as a man. A Jesus who was executed, dead and buried, then got up and walked out of his grave. These are the gospels which say that God dealt with the consequence of our own sin and this is the only answer for our screwed-up lives. A singular, specific idea. That's why society doesn't like it.

The contents of the Gnostic gospels, on the other hand
- resemble the ravings of an illiterate rock star with a drug problem
- were written at least 150 years after the events they claim to describe
- demonstrate little or no cultural sensitivity to the environment in which Jesus lived and worked, clearly don't know much about 1st century Judean life and therefore have no historical credibility.

But you see folks, none of that makes a good 60-second grab in the news or current affairs shows. So the great uninformed continue to believe that what they see on TV is actually information instead of cheap entertainment. Nobody, of course, will actually admit that.

The Gospel of Judas is being promoted by the Entertainment Industry. Like everything else there, it's not real. You don't get informed by people whose sole qualification is that they managed get their face on TV, or they sold a book, or they look good in a frock. The truth doesn't come to you for $24.95 at Dymocks. It's not sold to you with advertising on commercial TV. The truth is actually free.

Paris-Tine

2008-07-11T03:29:00.000-07:00

First published 5th November, 2005

As much as I try to avoid news and current affairs these days the images of burning cars in Paris and neighbouring French cities have been compelling enough for me to have a closer look.

I simply presumed that a law enforcement officer of some kind has been sprung beating up an unfortunate member of a minority group or a particular race.

No, we discover that the riots began for a somewhat different reason. But the actual reasons seems to be buried in a mire of political repercussions and calls for "peace-talks" that would be more appropriate in a war zone. Check all the news reports now and you'll find little reference to what started it all. Instead, you'll find lots of talks about outrage from community leaders and "demands" being made, in return for quelling the violence, and a mess resembling the Gaza strip or Afghanistan. Apparently, there has even been talk of "occupied territories". In Paris. Oh dear.

Another thing you don't seem to hear regularly on the mainstream news is that the rioters are Muslims. Occupied territories. Peace talks. Demands made in return for ceasing violence. Sound familiar?

Oh yes, the reason...? Some teenagers were indulging in their harmless hobby (stealing cars), a pastime which they normally enjoy uninhibited. On this rare occasion, the police chased them, which was highly offensive to the teenagers. Two of them hid in a power station. Incredibly, they were electrocuted. Subsequently, riots broke out. Police brutality? Excessive force? Who knows. But now the French have needed to send in enough Police and Military to make the perpetrators act like the victims.

Now if you believe everything in papers etc, the consensus is that terrorism only happens when George W invades an Arab country. If there is a terrorist attack on Aussie soil it will be JOHN HOWARD'S FAULT. When Islamic suicide bombers blow up Jews, it's the Jews fault. If Israel trades land there will be peace.

Yep, just like British PM Chamberlain forced the Czechs to trade "land for peace" with Hitler in 1938. Some peace.

God bless the French. They secularised their society so as to separate Church from state. They refused the inclusion of any references to "God" or "Christian" in the EU charter. Humanism rules supreme. To achieve peace they appeased terrorist demands in the 1980's. The result? An explosion of terrorism (pardon the pun). Then generous immigration policies have allowed Muslims in, to integrate and become French.

The problem is, it seems that some Muslim communities don't want to become French. The leaders in some in areas consisting of over 80% Muslims, are calling for a "Millet" system (a system allowing legal autonomy for Muslims, where they can adjudicate over matters using Islamic law). Their idea of assimilation with the French culture is driving out traditional French shopkeepers, businesses, and closing down non-Islamic activities such as cinemas, theater halls and dance venues.

As a side note, if they have succeeded in shutting down a few sleazy strip clubs and brothels- personally, I don't think this a bad thing. But that's not the point.

These communities have also managed to incite thousands of youths to see themselves as the victims after some nasty policemen tried to apprehend criminals in the act of committing a criminal offence. Under the Islamic millet system I am presuming it would be okay to steal cars, providing the cars being stolen belonged to non-Muslims.

The French now have no choice but to appease. They must listen to the demands of the law-breaking, violent and destructive criminals (sorry, the oppressed Muslims in occupied territories). It's the only way to achieve true peace. The dangerous rioters must be given autonomy and the right to self-determination. French Military out!!

If history teaches us anything it's that we've learned nothing from history. If someone is making demands through claims of oppression it helps to check the validity of the claims before acquiescing to the demands. Sadly, the history of Islamic conquest is littered with cases of political manipulation where military force fails. Hitler did it with Czechoslovakia and it worked a treat. The fact that they can attempt it in France means anything is possible.

The Da Vinci Commode

2008-07-11T03:24:00.000-07:00

First published 26 April 2005

I cringe when I see the name "Da Vinci" these days. Which is a pity because the most famous owner of that name was quite a clever bloke. He painted great pictures and invented some really neat stuff and blueprinted some amazingly advanced contraptions. It shouldn't be like that.

Just as the Theory of Evolution is the best marketed and most brilliantly promoted piece of ideology masquerading as fact (another word for this is "religion"), the Da Vinci Code is the latest pop culture savvy swipe at a popular target, packaged as fiction. However, the author Dan Brown actually claims in his preface that the allegedly fast paced page-turning fiction is based on facts.

In a nutshell, the driving premise behind his "fiction" is that the Christian Bible speaks only of a historically misunderstood Jesus. The real Jesus (being only mortal, naturally) actually married mary Magdelene and they had children, the lineage of whom can be traced to modern day. Furthermore, Christianity is just a male-dominated abberation of an originally goddess-based religion or philosophy. Ergo, Biblical Christianity is built on a lie.

All speculation is based on claims of secret gospels, secret societies and secret documents, and misinterpretations of the medievel concept of "Holy Grail". All claimed by Brown to be facts underpinning his fiction.

So before anyone cries out "But you haven't even read the book..how can you blah blah blah" please spare me and my brain. I don't need to read how an albino bludgeons a Nun over the head with an impossibly heavy candlestick or how somebody got murdered in a big library in that city where people speak in outrageous accents. I'm only interested in the wild speculation that poses as "fact" cleverly implanted in it's pages... like so many of it's non-fiction predecessors you find in the (curiously-named) "religion" section at Angus and Robertson. The ones which tell you some "new" conspiracy theory about the Christian Church and have made the authors famous... because notoriety sells.

As for Catholicism, and I'm not even a Catholic...Phillip Jenkins, distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University (and a Protestant) writes.''Almost as troubling as the sheer abundance of anti-Catholic rhetoric is the failure to acknowledge it as a serious social problem. In the media, Catholicism is regarded as a perfectly legitimate target". Do that to any other social demographic or religion and see what happens. You will get ripped off the bookshelves for being a "hate criminal"...or worse.

When interviewed 2003 on Today show, Brown acknowledged in the affirmative that he wanted to "challenge certain long-held beliefs or truths about religion."

Perhaps I should clarify something first; I totally acknowledge that people are entitled to choose for or against Christ or any religion. The issue I am taking is how offensive it is when people question the integrity of my "faith" using utter, baseless rubbish.

Hence nobody has yet been able to explain to me why I should not be offended by The Da Vinci Code. I am still waiting. Nor has anyone sufficiently explained to me why an author would claim things are facts when they clearly are not. That's why I wrote this tome... to try and explain it myself!

Why would an author claim things are facts when they are not? Ignorance? Scurrillous merchandising lies? Or socio-religious upheaval and indocrination?

Now, make sure you only start reading the rest after reading this;

All descriptions of authors, documents, hoaxes, historical incompetence and bigotry in this blog are accurate

Who Plantard the "evidence"?

Here's the first bit of factual fictional foundation (try saying that with a mouthful of nobby's nuts);

"FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci..."

Whacko. Apparently, this secret organisation has been the custodian of the artifacts and documents which reveal the SHOCKING TRUTH about the identity and personage of Jesus Christ (and the "Holy Grail") since 1099! Protecting a secret which IF REVEALED, could cause WIDESPREAD DISCREDITING of the Christian religion! Juicy conspiracy theory stuff.

The notion that Isaac Newton was a member is laughable. This great historical and scientific mind was the biggest advocate of Gospel innerrancy.

The main problem is...the priory of Sion does not exist. Well, it kinda does... it was made up by a French bloke called Pierre Plantard, who, pardon the pun, Plantard the evidence by fabricating documents claiming genealogies going back centuries. This was actually admitted by Plantard's main henchman. He was assisted by two men. One of them was an actor, who considered the whole ploy a creative, theatrical muse. A public form of art.

Plantard however may have possibly been trying to claim some French royal birthright for himself. When a keen journalist (who must have thought he had uncovered the secret of the millenium) published the details, Plantard denounced the whole thing to avoid libel. The so-called secret dossiers, including a genealogy back to Christ, and the list of the Grand Masters of the Priory were forged. The forger signed a confession to that effect.

Zen and the psychological art of selling books

The most disturbing aspect of this is that Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, who wrote the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (seemingly one of the inspirations for Brown's epic) based the majority of their claims on the Priory of Sion theory. They were warned prior to publishing, that the hoax had been blown and the confessions were written. Despite the overwhelming lack of credibility behind their claims, they published anyway. Naturally they sold a bucket load of Holy Blood Holy Grail and made a fortune.

In a 2005 documentary The Real Da Vinci Code hosted by British actor, researcher and genealogist Tony Robinson (aka Blackadder's Baldrick) Baigent was quizzed about this. When told that the hoax was irrefutably uncovered by competent researchers he offered nothing more than "No" and "they are wrong", without any supporting arguments. His only feeble attempt to back his claims was "...because I studied the Les Dossiers Secrets for six years, and I am satisfied...". It was almost embarassing. Here is someone with no qualifications other than "psychologist", not a historian, archeologist or antiquities expert, examining documents that practically have the forger's signature on them, asserting his claims. On the strength of this I wouldn't let Michael Baigent proof read a postcard.

Vatican Heavies

FACT # 2: The existence of a Vatican organisation called Opus Dei, is asserted here by Brownie. That part is fine. They are presented as a "Vatican Mafia" to create a stereotypical bad guy for plot thickening and violence value.

Apparently these "monks" assasinate people from the Priory of Sion if anyone blabs any of those shocking secrets of the TRUE gospels which, if uncovered, could discredit Christianity blah blah blah etc... In his preface, Brown claims they have been investigated for various machinations, and they have a headquarters in the USA.

In reality, It's full name is "Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei" It was founded in 1928 by a 26-year-old Catholic priest, Josemaria Escriva. Jose died in the 70's and was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2002. It is a kind of Catholic order promoting rigorous devotional routines, meditative retreats, courses, and other such acts of committment and self-sacrifice. You know, the kind of thing society hates.

They also have quite a ministry in a major American city assisting underprivaleged youth. Perhaps this is the headquarters Brown is referring to. But they don't have "monks".

History lesson? Ask the tea lady

FACT # 3: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate". Dan Brown, interview The Today Show 2003
"If I was to write a non-fiction book on the same subject, I would do it pretty much the same" Dan Brown, interview The Today Show 2003

Even without the above statements, fiction can heavily manipulate. Animal Farm, Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Satanic Verses...need I say more. The cries of "but it's only fiction! Leave it alone, you fanatical Christian Fundies!" are poorly considered.

Now, say I was to write a fiction novel with fictional characters and one of them happens to say "In the 1940's, Adolf Hitler began exterminating up to 6 million Jews. He also read bedtime stories to a large, scruffy Chestnut Mare he affectionately called 'Bubba' ". Chances are, the readers are going to say "This author really knows his history", and I may just have them believing the bit about Bubba.

At any given time, some writer, movie character, advertisement, or stand-up comedian has said something detrimental about a religious or political demographic. And we've all believed it. We all nod meaningfully and say "sure, it's only fiction/ entertainment. But it makes you think.."

Then, when someone has the courage to go against the popular social standard and challenge it, we all say "Sit down and shut up. It's only fiction."

Brown's novel has characters, like "historian" Leigh Teabing saying all sorts of believable stuff. Here's a central piece:

"In 325 AD, the Nicea Council voted to make Jesus a deity. Up until then, his folowers regarded him as nothing more than a mortal prophet.....and it was a close vote".

Yep, there was a thing in 325 AD called the Nicean Council. I don't know where to go from there. The deity of Jesus Christ was well and truly agreed upon prior to that date and the synoptic Gospels were accepted and acknowledged by early church fathers. Hundreds or thousands of Christian martyrs were made because they declared Christ to be their Lord and God and would not worship the Emperor. Perhaps they misunderstood the question before the axe fell. Many Church fathers were recorded as clearly referring to Jesus as God way before this date. Here are some of their greatest hits:

There is One God who manifests himself through Jesus Christ his son"; "Son of Mary and Son of God…Jesus Christ our Lord…God Incarnate…Christ God," etc. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 110):

Polycarp of Bishop of Smyrna (A.D. 112-118), in his letter to the church at Philippi, assumes the divinity of Jesus.

"being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God" "...both God and Lord of hosts." Justin Martyr (~A.D. 150):

"our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King."Irenaeus (~A.D. 185)

"truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because he was His Son."Clement of Alexandria (~A.D. 200)

This is just a snippet. That's an awful lot of fuss for a mortal prophet. Not to mention the letters of Paul in the NT which make numerous references to Christ's deity. These books were written no later than 50-60 A.D.

The Nicea Council met to agree upon details of the trinity and the relationship between God the Son and God the Omnipotent "Father". It was not a close vote, unless you call 318 to 3 "close".

Again, I am not telling everyone to believe in Christ's deity. That's your choice. But if anyone tells you that no-one did until they were forced to in 325 AD, they're talking rot.

Brown's fictional historian (who, in a real university, would be demoted to tea lady) claims Constantine made Christianity the religion of the state. In fairness to Brownie, everybody makes this gaffe. Constantine cautiously revoked the persecution of Christians and made it co-exist with Roman religions, since he managed to win a battle by invoking the "Christian God". He never made Christianity the religion of state.

Hyperbole, or just plain bile?

Naturally, Brown cannot resist but place into the mouth of his "reputable" historian Teabing, the most cliched and vague of skeptical allegations against the Bible, e.g. that it has "...evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”

Puh-lease. Only idiots listen to hyperbole and consider it effective argument. The "countless" translations are no more a problem for the Bible than for any other book. We have many languages on Planet Earth. This does not hinder the accuracy of the Bible's message(s) any more than translating War and Peace, Gulliver's Travel's or Green Eggs and Ham.

Neither do additions or revisions present a problem. The Bible has been subjected to textual criticism and has, if I may use the word "countless" conferring textual copies to back it up. Far more, interestingly, than history writings such as Tacitus or Herodotus which are readily accepted by scholars as accurate. Besides, would anybody care to name or specify these "additions and revisions"?

So, next time you hear a loud person at a party using these arguments to justify their spiritual choices, just smile and say "Congratulations. So you've read The Da Vinci Code". But don't use words like "hyperbole", they probably wouldn't know what it meant. Such people should either name, specify and support the arguments... or just use their mouth for other pursuits such as eating.

Oh, and I cannot resist another Teabing moment: “Fortunately for historians…some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate (ugh! I'm not going to touch that one, it smells bad!) managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s ...”
FACT: The DSS were found in 1947. They contained no "gospels" since they pre-dated the New Testament by hundreds of years!!

White with two, thanks Mr. Teabing.

Stick it up your Gnostrils

Now we come to the famous Gnostic Gospels, another centrepoint of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other conspiracy theorists. The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of often weird, esoteric documents written way after Christ's life, and which turned up in Nag Hamadi / Egypt in the 1950's. In some (uninformed) minds they constitute some kind of "real" story which was suppressed by Constantine to make way for his allegedly fabricated canonical gospels and power regime.

Apart from the dubious use of the word "Gospel" to label these fragmented old documents, here are only a few of the reasons the Gnostic Gospels don't hold a candle to the Canonicals.
a) most are esoteric and un-Jewish, therefore being of no credible value with regards to Christ
b) they are dated at earliest 150 AD (The Gospel of Thomas) long after the synoptic gospels (60-70 AD latest)
c) many are written mostly under Pseudonyms, further lowering credibility value
d) many are so fragmented that some details are pure speculation
e) were largely inconsistent in ideology, due probably to gnostic ideals constantly changing to avoid persecution, which indicates more unreliability.
f) many contain literary and textual evidence that they must have sourced some of their details from the canonical gospels

Some have fantastic, unauthentic accounts of Jesus' childhood, where His behaviour makes Bart Simpson look like Ned Flanders. Seriously, read The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It's a larf.

According to the loveable and believable heroes of this book, there were around eighty of these "other gospels", and the synoptic gospels were chosen for the "final cut" with the "suppression" of all the others, initially by that cad Constantine. This makes for a great conspiracy story but is wrong on so many levels.

The fact is, the Synoptic New Testament gospels were chosen because they were the most authenticated, verifiable, early-written eyewitness related, not to mention historically, culturally, geographically and literally accurate.

Why do people insist on using words like "suppressed" instead of "treated with the scholarly priority they deserved"? To embrace the gnostic gospels over the canonised ones is unscholarly and reeks of agenda. In this case, the agenda of selling a conspiracy theory.

For amusement value, the Da Vinci Code predictably refers to the Gospel of Phillip, a so-called gospel which is so fragmented it practically has every second word missing. Brown's tea-lady historian claims that the "Aramaic word for "companion", referring to Mary Magdelene, actually meant "spouse" ". Fair enough, us gospel freaks are always using translative exegesis to explain tricky stuff.

Except the Gospel of Phillip was written in Coptic, not Aramaic. Good one, tea-lady.

Your brains will save you

Gnosticism was an early "new-age" religion which promoted the idea that secret wisdom and knowledge was the key to salvation and enlightenment. The Gnostic gospels attempt to link Jesus to this religion, but belief in their validity is speculative and without basis. The more verifiable Synoptic Gospels clearly contend with this. Jesus said the key to salvation was trusting Him, whether you are an intellectual or not.

Personally I find the notion that I will only be saved if I'm intelligent to be a very scary one.

But there's more! One of the hardest-hitting claims of this book, and it's equally invalid predecessor Holy Blood Holy Grail, is that "original" Christianity was actually based on goddess-worship, or at least matriachal in principal. This adds weight to the conspiracy-boosting claims of a patriachal, male dominated church "supressing" the "true" Christian gospels to create an oppressive, patriachal religion. The notion is cleverly embellished by the wild speculation of Mary Magdelene's relationship to Christ.

To put this claim to sleep like the sick animal that it is, simply read some of the Gnostic Gospels. The people who wrote them really hated women. Particularly the Gospel of Thomas. According to the gnostic philosophies, women had to become like men, relinquishing their feminine identity. Compared to the Gnostics the real Gospels and early church letters elevate the status of women considerably. Perhaps Brown, Baigent etc need to get the feminist vote for the conspiracy theory. They will no doubt succeed, providing feminists who read their books are allergic to facts.

Funnily enough, the Gospel of Thomas is not mentioned in The Da Vinci Code.

FACT: There were heretics running around in the early 1st and 2nd centuries writing all sorts of rubbish about Christ. It's that simple. Nothing new under the sun. Attempting to discredit your opponents is nothing new. Neither, it seems, is uncritically accepting other groundless claims as "scholarly" just because they're in print and you like the sound of them.

Experts or preachers

What a beautiful big, convenient and profitable conspiracy theory. Holy Blood, Holy Grail co-authors, Baigent and Leigh have the following qualifications; psychology. That's about it. An internet source said Leigh is “a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica”. Tell me when I am supposed to be impressed.

But I wish I could believe that Brown has re-hashed an old, disproven, debunked theory simply to sell books. I really do. But I noticed the following;

Teabing, one of the central characters in the Da Vinci Code, has a first name of Leigh, and his surname is an anagram of Baigent. No prizes for guessing that Brown has read their book. But just how much of it is used as foundation and source? And is it a case of mutual-admiration? Apparently not. It turns out that Baigent and Leigh are suing Brown's publisher for plaigarism. Leigh: "It's not that Dan Brown has lifted certain ideas ... he's lifted the whole architecture - "

And Baigent "It makes our work far easier to dismiss as a farrago of nonsense". Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, Mr. Baigent. That's been easy for 20 years.

So, there's no honour among thieves. And now I know what passes for "research" in novels nowadays. All you need to do is uncritically lean on someone else who has done as little research as you, so long as they are published.

But here's something I find interesting. The main character's name is Sophie Neveu. This is Latin for New Wisdom. It's a great little piece of cryptography.

I suspect Brown is a disciple of Gnosticism, using the veil of fiction, a very powerful medium, to push it. Either way, he will indoctrinate legions of uninformed millions into denying the integrity of the Christian Gospels and, therefore, the Christian faith. Clever, isn't it? The so-called "new age" notion of wisdom and enlightenment is as old as the hills, and every bit as seductive and appealing today to those who consider themselves illuminati. And there's nothing like a good, anti-establishment conspiracy theory to make it even more appealing.

So, never let the truth get in the way of good indocrination. Funny, isn't that what Christianity is always accused of?

As a parting shot, I would like to make the preposterous assertion that there was (and still is) a book which actually predicted the Da Vinci Code almost 2000 years ago. It said;

Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them......And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you
2 Peter 2:1-3 (emphasis mine).

I would like to see Dan Brown and co write something like that.

The Bible is often referred to as "The Anvil which has worn out many hammers". Sure, there are still a massive number of people yet to be dis-informed by Brown's Da Vinci Code (through it's veritable gravy train of follow-up books, movies, TV specials and even tourist groups!). But the only reason the entertainment industry has the opportunity to make money from their groundless speculation is because the Bible is still here after 2000 years, all the time withstanding more of the same.

I have heard that the Da Vinci Code is a thrilling page-turner. That's fine. But the evidence is overwhelming that there is a deceptive and dishonest agenda behind the fiction. If it was directed at any other religion or group, it would be howled down as inflammatory vilification. The fact that this is allowed...is just plain sad.