Whelp, it was a week of lots of news. It just happens to be that all are in upside down world. Oh and I’m involved in some smaller “news” if you want to call it that.
Are They Serious?
Is this guy serious? Does he not see the total projection that he is performing? He whinges about some hypothetical scenario that Elon Musk (who now will own Twitter) spins elections in favour of Republicans using Twitter by blocking people and supressing news. Yet he apparently does not see that is exactly what Twitter and other social media platforms did in the 2020 US Presidential Election.
All the social media companies constantly limited what President Donald Trump and his allies could do. Then they repressed the story about Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden. What did the story say? That Hunter was corrupt and his father participated in that corruption. Oh and it wasn’t just monetary corruption for Hunter; there were illegal drugs and prostitution. Guess what this was all documented his own laptop. That’s right, a first-hand account of facts was suppressed.
In any case, we know what to expect from the Left. so I won’t waste any more time. You can watch the video if you would like to see what the Left should have said 2 years ago if they were actually objective.
The ABC Is Objective?
Once again, the Twits on Twitter seem to think the ABC is right-wing and want the Coalition to win. We know very well how the ABC wants a left-wing Labor/Green government and since the Twits don’t want that, they want the full Chairman Mao, anything less than that is deemed to propaganda for the “conservatives”.
I don’t find Laura Tingle to be objective in any sense. But remember that to the Left, objective means that the worldview is the same as theirs. Let’s take an example from a recent article.
Both sides want to capture some nondescript centre. The Liberals feel the breeze at the margin from populists and agrarian socialists, while Labor doesn’t want to be seen to be not just “green”, but not “left” (whatever that means in this day and age). In the absence of substantive policy debates, we see dog whistling about transgender people in sports, as a modern version of John Howard’s claims of the 1980s and 1990s about how people resented “political correctness”. In Howard’s era, the political correctness was often about race and immigration. That’s harder these days when you are chasing the multicultural vote. And instead, we now face a conversation about a confected gender issue which the PM says reflects the fact that “a lot of Australians” feel they have to “walk around on eggshells” in the office or their community and “feel that they just can’t, you know, be themselves”.Laura Tingle
So basically calls it “dog whistling” to want to have women in women’s sports and Australians in Australia. Even if you disagree with the second example, the first is a clear case of biology. The real dog whistling is the meta application for the phrase. The phrase is a dog whistle to the Left to call Liberals and conservatives bigots because they want women in women’s sports.
The real joke is that as the rest of the article points out, there is no difference between ScoMo and Albo, politically speaking. One wears a blue tie and the other wears red but both want to be your PM. So I’m not sure why Laura kicks up a fuss about this since both parties are authoritarians who want to control your live; the difference is that one hides it better than the other. So, the only reason Laura does this is to spark the Twits, who are in a symbiotic relationship; they need her and she needs them.
Except, most of them, that I saw, didn’t call Liberals bigots for wanting women in women’s sport, which is surprising. Most of them picked one thing that Labor apparently wants to do differently but reality is just the same policy done a different way. Hmm… And I thought all the Twits were Green shills. Maybe they are just Labor shills that won’t admit they fit better in the Greens because they want to pretend they’re cool, moderate and Aussie like Bob Hawke. Then again, why would they like him since he was an old, straight, white man?
What Is Free Speech?
That’s not correct. Why? You can’t have freedom of speech if not one is listening. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you can hold your views, whatever they are and interact in public debate. You can’t do that if everyone blocks you.
Also, blocking doesn’t equal non-compulsion to listen. Why? You can not listen anyway. I don’t often listen to Adam Bandt that doesn’t mean that I block him. Maybe he will once have something helpful to say and I should keep that option open. If we don’t do that, we are suppressing free speech, just in a different way.
The whole point of free speech is that others listen. It’s the trade off you have. Here’s a quote from quite a decent thinker.
In order to able to think, you have to risk being offensiveJordan Peterson
That’s the whole point of things. We trade off people offending us so that we can speak freely too. Otherwise you get a ridiculous phrase like “freedom from speech”, which is exactly want this people are trying to smuggle in. Now they’ll all say that they’re pro-free speech yet they think you’re allowed to reject speech you don’t like but only at a person level. It’s just logically inconsistent and I think it’s just a coping mechanism from people on the Right who formed their own echo chambers after rejecting the COVID-19 propaganda.
Khan He Be Serious?
Hahahahahaha. So true.
What Is Free Speech? 2.0
Here’s another person on the Right, in the freedom movement who says that free speech has zero to do with listening and blocking. Oh and for extra hubris, if we disagree, we’re apparently stupid. I had some thoughts.
The short answer to that question is no. You can watch the long answer here. Yeah, that’s all I have to say for this one, I talk about it more in the video linked.
This is plain wrong and fundamentally anti-Christian. We are supposed to believe apologies and not patterns because our patterns are awful sinful human beings. So, we should definitely believe actual apologies no matter what people do. And I brought up Paul, a prominent Christian, who wrote down plenty of the New Testament in the Bible.
Except, before Paul was a Christian, he was a prominent anti-Christian who persecuted Christians. And if we were to believe Evelyn, we would dismiss his transformation since the patterns showed an anti-Christian. And people at the time certainly doubted his transformation for a while. It shows why we should trust true apologies and not patterns.
A Thinly Veiled Attack
From the saga that’s occurred with Evelyn, where I called her out for not giving a reason for her argument about free speech, I can tell this is a thinly veiled attack against me but not an accurate one. When I speak, I have the courage to name the person and not hide things pettily to pretend this has nothing to do with a specific person. So too, I don’t insult people. I insult bad ideas. My overall is, if you have something to say, say it to their face and name them.
It’s kind of funny how she mocks how apparently I have no hair because I’m apparently a teen or something but that’s because I shave so I’m professional. I bet if I was unshaven then I’d be label uncouth or something. Oh and I do have body hair, not that it’s important but it is a matter of facts. I just don’t think everyone would like to see me prove it. But be careful what you wish for, Evelyn, if proof you desire, proof you shall get.
Have I “recently finished school”? Maybe I have. Define “recently”.
Do I live with my parents? Does one count?
The end is just the typic Evelyn snarkiness and sarcasm. Even if such things that she wrote were all true. All that matters is that what the person says, comes from the Bible and we shouldn’t be dismissed because of our age. It let her know this and she *liked* it so much she just had to, well, I’m not sure how to say this because I’m new to Twitter but something like ‘headline Tweet me’. What I mean is that it went on her main feed.
As you can see, I wrote basically what I wrote above. Most importantly, I didn’t take her bait and get angry either time and insult her back (since I had two opportunities to after she replied to me) but simply showed the Bible the first time around to prove how she shouldn’t insult people because of their age and in the second time around I showed that hardly any of her insult actually pertained to me and questioned why she would imply that her initial comments were about me, which I knew already but now she admitted.
So Why Was It About Me?
You’re probably wondering if the insult had no relation to me, how did I know it was directed at me? Firstly, Evelyn has a history of these vague posts and you just have to read the comments or something else to work out where things came from.
Secondly, no one put their names and faces to things, and I did in my livestream, that I linked above, when I discussed her lack of explanation for her words. Oh and she called that stream “slander” by the way despite my just reading her words and my words in the comments section of a post. It gets even funnier since she wants to do a live with the guy who apparently slandered her. Ooops.
Thirdly, I vaguely match the appearance she wrote if you sort of look at me for 5 seconds. But if you closely look, you can see of my chest hair which proves I’m not any “bum fluff” kid. Anyway, I don’t like any of this. It feels so vain to do this and why am I even writing about my hair on the internet? I guess I have to because people like to make up stuff, I guess.
Oh and I’m not sure where she got the “acne” part from since I have no pimples that you can see. Maybe she looked through my personal Facebook profile and not my account? Or maybe this was a bit of misdirection so she could plausible deniability that this post wasn’t about me. Either way, enjoy your free speech, Evelyn, you can say what you like but that doesn’t make it true.
Worst Week’s Post- So un-Christian
There were a few contenders for the worst post of the week but think this one is the worst. I think that’s because it’s getting a key Christian issue wrong.
There was another saga involving Dave Pellowe that’s gone on for a little bit and you read more about it below. But for now, let’s address the Tweet that I had to access without logging in because Dave blocked me. I also talked about this in the livestreamed linked above.
It’s not pharisitical to judge people. What’s pharisitical is to judge hypocritically and/or to use a standard other than the Bible, which is what I used. I judged a fake Christian because he pretends to be one but really is not because he promotes a immoral vaccine, ignores freedom and embraces segregation.
However, to give the short version, Dave didn’t like that. And he didn’t answer what would be a reason to call someone a fake or false Christian. He gave no line in the sand to say that a person is not a Christian, no matter if they say they’re one. I echoed that point repeatedly to Dave. It’s okay to disagree that someone is a heretic but it’s not okay to have no point where someone becomes a heretic.
If you have no line, then Mormons can be called Christians despite them believing that God is actually a god that was a man and that you can become like that made up god if you follow the Mormon teachings loosely taken from the Bible. It also means that you can call Richard Dawkins a Christian despite him being a prominent atheist since he said that he called himself a “secular Christian” a “cultural Anglican”.
The point is that there is a line. The line is when someone goes against what God says. If they say it is okay to lie or steal or cheat or commit sexual immorality, etc, then they are not Christians. So it’s not only that there’s a line that Dave (and every Christian) needs to agree to but actually if someone crosses that line. So maybe he does think there’s a line and the person I described didn’t cross it but he never said so. Instead, he talked about side issues, a theme prevalent across both… conversations… with Evelyn and Dave.
A Little More to The Story
I just have to say this is the absolute garbage that allows people to smear and slander Christians are self-righteous, pretentious, pontificating… well fill in whatever expletive you desire or none at all. Aside from all the just plain wrong things here, this Tweet is just hot garbage, an overused term but one that applies here.
I mean, these clear anti-Christians running the mainstream media are able to put a nice cohesive story together and convey it to the populace through propaganda. What do some of the people in the so-called freedom movement (including Christians) do? They whinge and moan like schoolkids that someone said something that they didn’t like, even though it’s 100% true. These people ruin the reputation of the group and just show themselves to be either massive hypocrites, controlled opposition or shills for attention or money.
Come to think of it, where do these people make their money? Dave Pellowe runs a free-to-read website and Evelyn Rae lives on a farm. Though to be fair, Evelyn has revealed how she works as a private military contractor. The point is, they all seem to be able to sit around all day and make comments from on high as we plebs are the arrogant ones for calling them out on certain issues, as good Christians should.
Now, a quick read of Dave’s LinkedIn shows his various ties to various technology businesses (as well as CPAC Australia) as either as a consultant, director or manager. That’s where the rubber hits the road. Dave knows as a smart man and knows where the desires of the internet are. But it would be a bad look for him, in terms of how companies think, to actually stand for some principles and “name and shame” people. So that’s why he makes nice broad statements about standing for freedom, etc, without getting specific.
I work for no one and in a free speech sense, that’s a good thing. I can say what I like and I don’t have corporation saying I have to choose between speaking and having a job and if you job does that then maybe it is a good thing to leave. But I can safely assume there is some degree of influence that these roles have on Dave and Evelyn. And actually, come to think of it, maybe Evelyn is so pro-Russia because she is a connected to the Wagner Group which is associated with Russia. Now I don’t know if she is linked to them but it would make sense. And I have asked her about that. I wonder if she’ll reply.
You know what I have to do, own up that I made a mistake. In my initial comments to Dave Pellowe (which eventually led to him blocking me), on a post that references a post from Tim Keller, I believed that he was in fact Tim Costello, a contributor to the fake Christian news website called Eternity.
Now when you see them, both older, bald, white men with glasses, you may see how I made such a mistake. That doesn’t excuse it, of course. It doesn’t excuse either that Tim Keller isn’t a Christian for his own promotion of the immoral poisonous COVID-19 vaccines. I got something wrong and I’ll own up to it. That’s what I’ll do here. I won’t shy away from my mistakes and I’m sorry. My words were completely directed at a different person and despite them being very similar in their views, like I said, that doesn’t excuse my point.
What it does raise is why Dave didn’t bring this up with me? Why didn’t he say that Tim Keller doesn’t contribute to Eternity and that I may be confusing him with Tim Costello? Did he not read my comments well? I clearly stated that this person, who I was wrong about, was not a Christian but most importantly details that were about Tim Costello.
I mean, if someone commented why I was supporting Christopher Hitchens, then I’d have to explain that, no, that’s not Christopher but his brother Peter Hitchens. Overall, it shows that if you just cool down for a few moments, things could be cleared up. But instead of that, Dave leapt to Tim (the wrong Tim’s) defence and I singularly focussed on that and not that I had the right Tim.
My point is not to excuse my actions but show that as much I as was so wrong about which Tim I was talking about, Dave was so wrong to block me and suggest that there is no place for judgement, which there is, it just has to be not hypocritical and Biblical. If we all stopped blocking each other then guess what, I could apologise to Dave and Tim Keller for getting the wrong Tim whilst firmly placing my original comments at the feat of Dave, Tim Costello and new appropriate remarks for Tim Keller who promotes the poison.
Oh and the rest of the Tweet about listening and forcing people to listen, I talked about above. Also, I did do a livestream going over this so this isn’t an 100% and it doesn’t need to be.
That’s my rant over. I guess if you’ve watched my livestream then you’ve got two doses of me saying similar things but I wrote this before the stream because I had to write my apology right when I knew my mistake. But oh well, such is life. Oh no, I quoted Ned Kelly, violent criminal. Oops.
20 Words or Less- Don’t Follow Blindly
Trust God and not man. Don’t blindly follow anyone but test them according to the Word of God.
Sources (In order of use)