We’ll another week has past and if things weren’t Orwellian, they are now. Let’s see what happened.
- What’s A Pronoun?
- It’s 1984 Every Single Day
- Statement From The Air
- Consultation Isn’t Supposed To Written Into The Constitution
- Doing The Lord’s… I Mean The Devil’s Work
- Lie Wars
- Go Woke, Don’t Go Broke?
- Worst Week’s Post- 3/3 Pinocchio Fact Check
- 20 Words or Less- No Matter What
- Sources (In order of use)
What’s A Pronoun?
For those who haven’t seen Kamala Harris introduce herself, it’s really cringy. Now the typical Twitter mob say that Lavern is wrong and that she is using pronouns right there; which she is.
This whole episode displays how Twitter is not good for actual discussions. It doesn’t allow you to easily way precisely what you want to say.
In this case Lavern was trying to say she’s never used pronouns to introduce herself or used made up pronouns. However, she didn’t articulate that and so that battle with the Left ends in a draw.
It’s 1984 Every Single Day
This attempt to change of the definition has to be one of the most egregious examples of pure lying by institutions over the past 2 years. It’s not even like a so called “vaccine” which had its true motives hidden and people genuinely believed that that COVID-19 “vaccine” would prevent infection. This time the US is in a recession and the institutions are just lying. They are all telling you a recession isn’t ‘two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth’ when the definition is that quote right there.
So when they’re caught out lying, they just try to change the definition. They did the same to marriage, racism and women; to name three prominent and recent examples. This is gaslighting, propaganda and lying of the highest order. No one says you can’t change definitions but you’re not changing reality. You can’t define away a woman or anything else.
The issues are continuous definition changes are just unsustainable and some generally… well… simple (and/or weak)… people can be swayed by the change in definition of a word, follow that new definition using the old word and shift their perception of reality on the basis of that instead of sticking to the same concept. So if you want to insist that a man can be a woman, we’ll just make a new word to describe a woman (or anything for that matter), an adult human female with XX chromosomes. And we’ll keep going until you give up. So give up now and let’s not confuse everyone with a vitually new language.
Statement From The Air
He didn’t announce anything of substance. Zero details. I think this has to be the first time a referendum was announced with everything based purely on virtues. Another referendum of an equally important nature had a whole convention designed to outline what people were actually voting for. It was actually called a “Constitutional Convention” and they decided there the model of a republic that was put to the voters in 1999.
Where is our “Constitutional Convention” on something put in our constitution? I doubt it will happen and this virtue signalling “Voice” will go straight through.
Consultation Isn’t Supposed To Written Into The Constitution
James says it perfectly, what’s the point of having this “Voice” in the Constitution if it’s just consultation. Nothing changes. Except, as is implied by James, this “Voice” isn’t everything the wokesters make it out to be. Let’s wait and see what they have in store for us and push back.
Doing The Lord’s… I Mean The Devil’s Work
What is secularism? Well it’s not having no religion; unless of course, this is the newest word to be redefined. I just love the irony of people using the secular. It is brought up whenever there’s some religion that offends people. Then when Christians say if secularism is banning practices, they oppose it. Then secularists cry afoul and insist secularism isn’t banning religious practices.
That cycle goes on and on. So what is the definitive definition given by these people? I have no problem calling Australia a secular country, no secularism as an idea. That is when secularism is the separation of church institutions and the state. Christianity, at an institution level, is corrupted by power and non-religious issues. So I support secularism.
However, if you tell me secularism is the banning of religious practices, I am not in favour of “secularism”; that is Atheism. Now it’s technically not the banning of religious practices but just the ones that Atheism opposes because everyone has a religion and a worldview. In that case, those who decry “Christian Theocracy” are merely applying that theocracy but with Atheism as its religion.
So, fine, you can not like the Lord’s Prayer and want it removed but the justification is completely wrong here. If you say the removal is because less than 50% of people in Australia put some answer that the government accepts as “Christianity” as their religion then I understand that. But all I see are power hungry anti-Christians looking to remove a daily reminder God is King and there is sin, punishment but also restitution. They don’t want to accept God’s offer of grace to all who put their trust in Jesus and His sacrifice so they want to destroy that reminder for everyone. Let’s keep reminding them God is Lord!
This is an insane redefinition of phrases, rivalling Biden’s (well who else do I blame, I can’t see his puppet masters) redefinition of recession by institutions. When you end a war, you bring every party to the table and reconciliate a mutually agreeable outcome. When you win a war, you achieve everything you want, the other parties aren’t owed a single thing.
Albo isn’t trying to end the “wars” on “climate change” by negotiating an outcome for all parties; those who believe the lie that the world will end by carbon, those who don’t care and those who oppose the lie. He is merely ramming the lie as he said, “The Government has just introduced legislation for stronger action on climate change.” That’s not a negotiated deal.
Now Albo doesn’t have to negotiate a deal but when you say you’ll end a war, you have to do it. He hasn’t and people will keep standing up for the truth and people will keep lying. Nothing is changed by this, except a ruined economy and nation, if this passes. With the culture wars going on despite this and worse nation, this bill should not proceed
Go Woke, Don’t Go Broke?
Typically wonderful writing from James Macpherson as always. He points out the fact that this outrage (over the homosexual pride jersey and the players refusing to wear them due to their “religious and cultural beliefs”) was designed to be generated; piss everyone off and make money.
A few loud Christian and conservative voices opposing means nothing to the NRL because we generally don’t give them any money. But it helps to awaken the Lefties who will snap up these sinful jerseys to virtue signal their homosexual pride.
Worst Week’s Post- 3/3 Pinocchio Fact Check
It’s time for another type of worst post analysis, fact check. Let’s go.
Claim 1, False
The First Fleet didn’t invade anything. There was no nation where it landed.
Claim 2, False
Australia was not fully inhabited by any reasonable definition. You can case that Australia has about a million people living in it in 1788. And we have many more people now. Are we fully inhabited? These people want more migration so the answer is no.
If by “fully inhabited” it’s meant that Australia’s inhabitation was fully formed, yes, Australia was “fully inhabited”. It contained people. Though it’s a stretch to make this claim because it involves breaking down the phrase logically fallaciously; the etymological fallacy. Simply it’s the breaking down of words to their core parts in a way that isn’t in line with how the words are used. For example, if I were to say ‘I read a book’, that means I read an actual book and not a per breaking down the phrase, reading the words ‘a book’.
Claim 3, False
Terra Nullius was not and is not legal fiction. Even if it was fictional, that changes nothing. That “Terra Nullius”, meaning land owned by no one, doesn’t mean you are justified to commit crimes.
Claim 4, False
Forced assimilation isn’t genocide. Genocide involved killing, assimilation does not. And I’d be interested to know if this person applies their false definition to Christians living under Muslim rule by various caliphates and the Ottoman Empire where they’re forced to pay a tax because they weren’t Muslim; unless of course they began Muslim.
20 Words or Less- No Matter What
God is King no matter what people say. Make sure to always say it and spread the Gospel.