One of the strange things about politics today is the attempt by Left-wing activists to demonise ‘nationalism’.
For normal people, loving one’s country is a natural feeling. It gives them a sense of belonging, the comfort of having a clear national identity.
Most Australians are proud of our country’s achievements. For many decades, this was the unifying purpose of Australia Day: celebrating the greatness of our nation and the Western civilisation that arrived here on 26 January 1788.
We know Australia is a wonderful place because so many people from overseas want to come here (often by any means possible).
But in recent years, the Green-Left has tried to turn Australia Day into a day of division. They want to ‘change the date’ or even abandon the celebrations altogether.
The Australia-haters have come from within. They want to make us feel guilty about our love of country and ashamed of our national day. Read on…
Billionaire George Soros opens his wallet to transform America
Three years ago (2013), a Supreme Court ruling paved the way for gay marriage.
After it, the mainstream media had one question: What was next for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement? They had, after all, won the big fight. In addition, many corporations had adopted policies barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and two of America’s most watched shows at the time “Modern Family” and “Glee” featured openly gay characters.
“I really do believe [the Supreme Court ruling] is the domino that is going to tip over the rest of the dominoes,” Wilson Cruz, an LGBT activist, told CNN at the time. “Do not get in the way of this train, because it will run you over.”
To ensure things ran full-steam ahead, billionaire George Soros, through his Foundation to Promote Open Society, dedicated at least $2.7 million to the cause that year, according to his tax returns.
Some Republicans at the time mistakenly thought the LGBT movement had reached its pinnacle, that the culture wars had ended. They thought the party could now focus on fiscal concerns, which weren’t nearly as divisive.
But that was foolish — the LGBT movement was just getting fired up, and Soros-affiliated groups were already plotting their next prize. Read on…
Those of us who had serious reservations about the logic of the Mabo jugdment and where it would lead have been justified in our fears by the stage at which some Australians of Aboriginal ancestry (AOAAs) have brought their political campaign. Keith Windshuttle in his book The Break-Up of Australia (below) has shown just how far we other Australians have come in surrendering our country to a superior cast who feed on the toil of a servant population. The facts and statistics are frightening. If Australians don’t do anything else, they should at least read the two excerpts of the bookQuadrant published .
Australians are not being told the truth about the proposal for constitutional recognition of indigenous people. The goal of Aboriginal political activists today is to gain ‘sovereignty’ and create a black state, equivalent to the existing states. Its territory, comprising all land defined as native title, will soon amount to more than 60 per cent of the whole Australian continent. Constitutional recognition, if passed, would be its ‘launching pad’.
As Quadrant’s Keith Windschuttle details in The Break-Up of Australia, recognition will not make our nation complete — it will divide us permanently.
The capitulation of the establishment to the politics of transgenderism has been astonishing. I’m struggling to remember any other time when a new and contested ideology has been so uncritically embraced by the powers-that-be.
We have a Tory government pushing a Gender Recognition Act that would allow anyone to change his or her gender without so much as popping a hormone pill. An established Church which yesterday issued guidelines to its schools encouraging them to let kids ‘explore gender identity’. Police forces exchanging helmets for caps because ‘gender-based headgear’ is disrespectful to trans people. And of course a university system — the nurturer of future leaders — in which women’s colleges are throwing themselves open to people who were born male, students are told to use gender-neutral pronouns, and anyone who says ‘Men cannot become women’ can expect to be hounded off campus. Read on…
Most leftist activists aligned themselves with different interpretations of Marxism (Trotskyist, Maoism among others). By the 1960s, after the Russians crushed the Hungarian uprising in 1956, New Left ideas began to modify their Marxist vision. For an explanation of the fundamentals of New Left thinking, so important to the growing hegemony of the left, I will draw on philosopher Roger Scruton’s work. Before doing so, I want to cover the basics of classical Marxism to put the developments into context.
The core of Marxist theory is that any society is made up of an economic base (the forces of production and production relations) and a superstructure of laws, government, conventions, customs, art and so on. The base determines the superstructure of government. The economic base is not static. According to Marx’s key concept of dialectical materialism, a society will experience a clash of classes between those in power and those exploited. The clash will result in a new economic order and a new superstructure determined by that order. This is the working out of the dialectic process. The clash of classes will go onto until classes cease to exist, and people live in a socialist paradise where the alienation of the worker from his essence as a human person will dissolve. Marx claimed we are at this time in the final phase of the clash of classes: capitalists (the exploiters) with the proletariat or workers (the exploited).
Dr Jordan Peterson is the Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. He hit international headlines because of his refusal to use ideologically made-up pronouns that anti-discrimination legislation is forcing on people throughout the Western world. In the following piece he accurately describes the link between Marxism and Postmodernism/Identity Politics.
Communism was not popularized in the West under the direct banner of communism. Instead, it came largely under the banner of postmodernism, and aimed to transform the values and beliefs of our societies through its Marxist idea that knowledge and truth are social constructs.
Under it, a new wave of skepticism and distrust was applied to philosophy, culture, history, and all beliefs and institutions at the foundations of Western society.
The postmodern philosophy “came into vogue” in the 1970s, according to Jordan Peterson, Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, “after classic Marxism, especially of the economic type, had been so thoroughly discredited that no one but an absolute reprobate could support it publicly.”
Peterson said it’s not possible to understand our current society without considering the role postmodernism plays within it, “because postmodernism, in many ways—especially as it’s played out politically—is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits.” Read on…
The shocking accusation by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò that Pope Francis helped cover up sexual misconduct — an accusation the Pope has so far declined to answer — as well as the litany of sexual abuse cases among clerics, force any Catholic to ask the question: how could this possibly take place in the moral institution that is the Roman Catholic Church?
One possible — little known, but very important — answer dates back to the Bolsheviks and their Communist leader Joseph Stalin.
Recently, I came across a video on Youtube of a presentation by former Soviet KGB propagandist Yuri Bezmenov, aka Tomas Schuman, who worked for the Soviet Union’s Novosti Press Agency until he defected in 1970. In this 1983 video, he claimed that the West was slowly being subverted into Marxism by the methods of “ideological subversion,” a form of warfare the KGB used against America…read on
My original post was a rather complicated explanation of my proposed reorganisation of the Winterbine series. To keep it simple, I will take the backstory out of The Castle of Heavenly Bliss and In This Vale of Tears as the basis for a new novel.
The new novel will be the first book in the series with In This Vale of Tears the second, and The Castle of Heavenly Bliss the third. The chronological sequence would then be right. The fourth book is still in the planning which makes the series a tetralogy.
Book One will develop the early story of Fr van Engelen, his niece Anneke, and Gerda Vrouwendijk with the location of the story in Holland and England (Middelburg, Amsterdam and London). New characters, some Australian, will appear. The period will be from 1946 to 1972. The social background will be the 1960s student revolution. The themes of Gnosticism and the Goddess will be established. There will be no change to the story although I will make small adjustments in The Castle of Heavenly Bliss. This first book, with the provisional title A Time of Distress (from Luke 21), will provide the groundwork for the following three books.
I will begin developing Book One in January 2019 after I have finished with Tony Abbott: The Times of Revolution. Stay alert for developments.