|
| The Nature of the Beast August 2017 |
 |
 |
| Above: US celebrity attorney Clarence Darrow (left) could not resist getting in on the act at the Scopes "Monkey" show trial of the 1920's, representing "defendant" John Scopes (right). | |
The so-called "Scopes Monkey trial" of the 1920's, and the 1960 film based very loosely on it, "Inherit the Wind", have served perhaps more than anything else to establish in the mind of the public the impression of the creation/evolution controversy that prevailed for most of the twentieth century, namely that of the "brave, inoffensive evolutionist" under fire from "ignorant biblical fundamentalists".
US law professor, Phillip E. Johnson, however, is not one to be overly impressed by pop legends.
Johnson is something of a legend himself. He is most well known for his efforts, especially in the 1990's, to draw public attention to essential flaws in Darwinian evolution theory. Needless to say, he takes a more realistic view of the Scopes trial than the one propagated by Hollywood and the mass media. "As with many legendary incidents", he explains in his most well-known book, 'Darwin on Trial', "the historical record is more complex."(1)
In fact, what goes often overlooked by casual observers, is that the Scopes trial was not an action brought truly in earnest against substitute biology teacher Scopes, but a publicity stunt engineered by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a test case for a 1925 Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution in school classrooms - a law that was passed by the then Tennessee governor only on condition that it would never be enforced. Scopes volunteered to be the defendant in what was essentially a show trial.
Johnson, a legal scholar, contends that the problem with what he calls the "Inherit the Wind" characterisation of the creation/evolution debate is that it is hopelessly and dangerously out of date. In fact, it is highly questionable whether such a characterisation had any real substance at all, even last century. According to Wikipedia (which could hardly deny it):
"... the film engages in literary license with the facts and should not be relied upon as a historical document. For example, Scopes is shown being arrested in class, thrown in jail, burned in effigy, and taunted by a fire-snorting preacher. William Jennings Bryan [attorney for the creationist side] is portrayed as an almost comical fanatic who dramatically dies of a "busted belly" while attempting to deliver his summation in a chaotic courtroom. The townspeople are shown as frenzied, mean-spirited, and ignorant. None of that happened in Dayton, Tennessee during the actual trial." [Note the subtle and unsubstantiated Wikipedia suggestion that such things may have happened at another time, and/or elsewhere.]
In fact Scopes was never even arrested, let alone thrown in jail and burned in effigy, and William Bryan good-naturedly offered to pay Scopes' fine if "convicted". Despite this, the propaganda film (originally a Broadway play), has been remade for television no less than three times since 1960, the last time in 1999, and is probably due for a timely "refresher" on the small or big screen some time soon. Not bad for a film that originally lost money at the box office.
In any case, with respect to the "Inherit the Wind" characterisation, it is no exaggeration to say that the situation has been turned precisely on its head. In more recent times, the ACLU has used its considerable resources to drive other pro-evolution legal causes, and unlike the Scopes trial, these are not just for show.
One example is the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case ("Dover" for short) in the US state of Pennsylvania in 2005.
Though the only real requirement for presiding judge John Jones was to make a ruling on whether the good people of the Dover School Board had been motivated by the desire to endorse a particular religious viewpoint in formulating their biology teaching policy, Jones decided that he would take it upon himself to make additional determinations about scientific questions. Apparently the possibility that his may not have been the most appropriate forum for such determinations did not occur to him.
Jones is certainly ambitious if nothing else. On the list of scientific questions to be decided by himself was the validity of "intelligent design" (ID) as a scientific theory. For those unfamiliar with the cutting edge of the biological origins debate, ID is a relatively new line of scientific inquiry that (unlike Darwnism) does not preclude the involvement of an intelligent agent in the design of living organisms, but rather presents compelling evidence in support of it. The Dover school board had adopted the not unreasonable policy of telling students briefly about ID theory before they began on the topic of biological evolution theory. The board did not, however, count on Jones and the ACLU, the latter promptly suing them for breach of the so-called "Establishment Clause" of the US constitution(2).
In fact, at the Dover trial Jones went so far as to rule that intelligent design was not really science at all, while revealing himself to be nothing more than a mindless stooge for the ACLU - a comparison of Jones' "decision" about intelligent design, and a brief given to him by the latter showed that:
 |
90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. (3)
Even the typographical errors matched, apparently.
 |
| Judge "Johnny Jones": American sock puppet |
Moreover, an analysis of Jones' largely borrowed section on ID reveals it as a typical exercise in nitpicking sophistry and superficial erudition, designed to appeal to a judge inclined to delusions of grandeur about his capacity to understand the scientific issues and the scientific enterprise. While it argues, spuriously, that ID is untestable and not based on empirical evidence, the fact that Darwinian macro-evolution theory is conspicuously lacking on both points goes unheeded. The argument that evidence against evolution does not constitute evidence for ID is predictably emphasised, while the simple requirement that one ought not to apply standards to opposing positions that one is unable to meet with one's own, is overlooked.
Testimony by chief advocates of ID theory that failed to match pre-determined (and in fact pre-written) conclusions is simply ignored and in some cases misrepresented entirely, while testimony from ID opponents is cited unchallenged, even when it had been effectively rebutted at trial. Similarly the efforts of scientists throughout the trial to enlighten Jones about the critical difference between science and a popularity contest, especially when considering the validity of new and inevitably controversial ideas, are also disregarded. Or what is just as likely, frankly, Jones simply failed to understand the principle. In one instance, the mere quantity of material allegedly in support of an evolutionary argument is presented seriously as somehow sufficient in itself to demonstrate the argument's validity, since there can be no possibility that Jones had actually read the material. Keep in mind that he had taken it upon himself to rule on a scientific question.
He even appears to have failed to understand the basic legal issue. For example, the fact that ID proponents might have their own personal opinions as to who the designer in intelligent design might be, clearly does not have to mean that teaching students about the strictly empirical evidence for design in living organisms is unconstitutional or unscientific.
Not that the Dover ruling matters fundamentally, of course. Regarding Jones' foray into thinly-veiled and ideologically-motivated judiciary activism, US biochemist Professor Michael Behe sagely observed:
"[it] does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judge’s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories." [Behe was a leading witness for the Defence at the trial. Read his full rebuttal of the Jones ruling on ID here.]
Meanwhile there are those who, like Phillip Johnson and Seattle’s Discovery Institute, favour a more objective and less politicised approach to science than the one forced upon the people of Pennsylvania by Jones and the ACLU. And many have noted the brazen double standards inherent in the Jones ruling. They argue that evolutionists are not above using the science classroom for preaching their own naturalistic/humanistic religion while busy accusing creationists of seeking to do the same. Such arguments are not easy to ignore. And for those who have any doubts about the "evangelical" zeal of some scientific naturalists, many examples of explicit and unabashed espousals of the atheistic materialism underlying Darwinism can be found in public school biology text books to prove the point. The Discovery Institute neatly summed up the prevailing ACLU hypocrisy in a statement released about the Dover case:
"It has been said that selective enforcement of the law is the hallmark of tyranny. It took the ACLU less than two months to file a lawsuit in Dover, protesting a statement read in one small school district that briefly mentions intelligent design. Yet for over a decade, the ACLU has ignored statements in textbooks used by thousands of students in public schools across the nation, using evolution to promote philosophical materialism (i.e. the view evolution is “random and undirected” and works "without plan or purpose.”) Given that plaintiffs’ experts admit that these descriptions of evolution constitute a religious viewpoint, the absence of ACLU lawsuits over such statements is clearly selective advocacy. When will the ACLU file lawsuits over usage of textbooks such as these in state schools?"
Astute observers are not holding their breath.
Indeed one is inclined to wonder at the true motives of an organization like the ACLU, that purports to be about protecting civil liberties while increasingly revealing itself to be the well-funded enemy of any kind of free speech and open debate not compatible with its own ideological bias. The sheer hypocrisy is breath-taking. In fact, despite occasional, token gestures of impartiality, the ACLU would appear to be nothing more than a tool for waging a full scale litigation war against all dissenters from the party line. (Christianity is particularly targeted.) Even science must be politicised. And make no mistake, this is not simply an anomalous and temporary departure from first principles for the ACLU. The truth is that nothing has really changed, only the mask cloaking such organizations in counterfeit notions of liberty, democracy and egalitarianism is falling away, and the true nature of the beast is being increasingly revealed.
Let's follow the money.
The chief donor to the ACLU, at least until 2009, and to the tune of over 20 million a year by 2008 (a whopping 25% of the ACLU's entire operating budget), was none other than Jewish Wall Street investor David Geldbaum(4).
Readers may recall Geldbaum as the central figure in the Sierra Club funding scandal, in which an influential and venerable US environmental group, in the tradition of the great John Muir, was utterly corrupted and reduced to a mere mouthpiece for the globalist agenda after accepting a 100 million dollar bribe from Geldbaum(5). Perhaps that helps explain why so-called environmental groups around the world now seem incapable of looking up and seeing the environmental elephant-in-the-room that is climate engineering. It certainly explains why the Sierra club did an abrupt about face on their stance on immigration, which until that point actually did reflect the best interests of the American environment. And of course, in both backing away from sensible immigration policy and denying climate engineering, compromised environmental groups world-wide have the full support of the Jewish dominated and controlled mainstream media narrative.
Other major donors to the ACLU have included fellow members of Geldbaum's tribe and persuasion such as George Soros, Peter B. Lewis and John Sperling(4). The latter two, we can report, have since had to answer to their Creator, and Mr. Soros, safe to say, won't be too far behind, but in any case it is precisely this kind of over-representation, both in funding and leadership, that prompted Jonah Goldberg to observe as far back as 1996 that:
|
within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.(6)
Clearly "donations" from such sources always come with strings attached. (Is there really anyone naive enough to think otherwise?) And donations made to the ACLU by Godless, anti-Christian elements are no exception.
Consider the leadership of the ACLU. The current president is atheistic Jew, Susan Herman. Second in command, the executive director, is obligatory homosexualist, Anton Romero. Readers of the article "Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?" on this website may notice the exact parallel with the leadership of the APA (American Psychiatry Association) which also boasts an atheistic Jewess and homosexualist as number one and two in their foul hierarchy. (But then who else did we expect to find astride the Beast?) Both organizations have a long record of over-representation in leadership positions by essentially anti-Christian, minority elements, especially Jews. Clearly this is no mere happenstance.
Consider again the above mentioned Dover case and attendant publicity. It really is the simplest of matters, if one is prepared to be minimally honest and call a spade a spade, to reveal it as a Jewish operation from start to finish.
Legal counsel for the ACLU case was Jewish attorney Eric Rothschild of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an organization otherwise known for its campaigns against prayer in public places, and its support for abortion, same sex "marriage" and US government funding of degenerate "art" blaspheming Christ. An organization very much in the mould of the ACLU in other words - in fact it is currently led by a former ACLU lawyer.
The Jewish controlled mainstream media also did their bit for the Dover "cause".
Indeed the ink was barely dry on Judge Jones' copy and paste job ruling on intelligent design in the Dover case, when production started on a TV docu-drama (i.e. propaganda piece) about the trial. After all, it wouldn't do for the US public to be getting notions into their heads about the whole affair that were not suitably placed there by the perception management machine. Otherwise there might be all kinds of unacceptable opinions gaining traction, like the one expressed by those trouble making scientists at Seattle's Discovery institute for instance, who went so far as to describe the PBS drama-cum-documentary entirely accurately as "a lopsided, incomplete portrayal of the Dover trial based largely on Judge John E. Jones’ poorly argued and scientifically inaccurate ruling."
The dramatisation of the Dover court case was aired by US broadcaster PBS and bank-rolled by Vulcan, both Jewish controlled entities.
PBS is led by Jewess, Paula Kergeer, who is both president and CEO of the company, and Vulcan is chaired by Jewish tycoon, Paul Allen. The executive producer of the program was Paula Apsell, another Jewess, who made the docu-drama as part of PBS's NOVA science series, a series which had until then confined itself to at least the appearance of science, but which made a conspicuous exception for the ideologically motivated Dover case program, combining court room dramatisations with interviews and narrative. All specially selected, edited and acted out of course.
Indeed, though the NOVA website describes the courtroom scenes as "historically accurate" in the sense that they conform to actual court transcripts, one would have to be particularly naive to believe that such a condition alone guarantees a fair depiction of the trial, or any other event for that matter. Obviously, what is left out, can be just as misleading as what is put in. In addition, the performance interpretations of the script by actors and director can be very subtle in their divergence from reality, yet highly distorting nonetheless. After all, so much of how we communicate and how impressions are conveyed is non-verbal. Who do the people at NOVA think they're kidding? And besides all that, the inherent sophistry of the courtroom arguments chosen for inclusion in the program can also be misleading.
In an interview on NOVA's website, Apsell (who has a degree in psychology) sought to justify the making of the docu-drama by claiming:
"Evolution is the absolute bedrock of the biological sciences. It's essential to medical science, agriculture, biotechnology. And it's critical to understanding the natural world around us.....We're a country built on our command of the sciences and technology. But we now face a crisis in science literacy that could threaten our progress in these areas and ultimately threaten our quality of life. So, at NOVA and at Vulcan, we feel that understanding the importance of evolution, and enhancing science literacy in general, are more crucial than ever."
The fact is that the Darwinian explanation for derivation of species. i.e. "speciation" (the changing of one species to another) by a gradual process of random variation and natural selection, has never been observed by anyone, anywhere in the real world. How can it then be "essential" to the science of technology, agriculture or medicine, which are based necessarily and exclusively on objective scientific methodology, that is, inference from observation that is both testable and applicable in such a way that can be objectively replicated? Obviously it can't. Darwinian evolution theory and the philosophy of scientific naturalism for which it serves as a creation myth, are both entirely superfluous to the science of technology. And to say otherwise in a public forum as if one is stating an established fact is both misleading and manipulative, even for an idiot.
In other words, business as usual for a tribe that consistently seeks to promote its own interests at the expense of everybody else in utterly brainwashed host nations; nations in which the vast majority apparently lack the good sense, or more likely, the uncorrupted and uncompromised political representation, to look after their own interests. (Or to even know what they actually are.) One wonders when it will occur to this majority, this sleeping giant, that Godless, secular materialism is not a sound basis for political integrity and never has been, and those that would rule over them with an iron fist know this only too well. And one wonders when it will occur to same majority that that is precisely why would-be tyrants and their well-paid lackeys are so busy promoting secular Godlessness all the time, to their would-be slaves.
In any case one thing is certain, when the day of awakening comes for that sleeping giant, as it surely will (in fact it is already stirring), it will be a day of dire reckoning for the tyrants and parasites who have for so long abused and exploited it while it slept.
 |
| You have a pretty good case Mr. Pitkin. How much justice can you afford? |
Meantime, while groups like the ACLU, the APA and the mainstream media work relentlessly to undermine Christian morality in the West, we feel compelled to ask: what gives these degenerates the right to dictate to the American people, and by extension the whole Western world, what does or does not constitute science? I mean, does anybody really believe that these people are up to such a task? And are we going to allow the mere possession of obscene amounts of lucre to decide such questions for us in our utterly corrupted legal tribunals, halls of academia and media channels, or are we going to decide them for ourselves by a genuinely objective appraisal of the facts as they really are?
As a wise man once said long ago, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But if some or even most Christians in the present day, or anyone else for that matter, think that we will be afforded victory over the Beast while refusing to acknowledge its nature (which may also mean swallowing a bitter pill or two about ill-conceived elements of our own sense of identity), they are sadly mistaken.
July 2017: It has come to my attention that a Jewish organization, the ADC (Anti-Defamation Commission), has now been granted, by our so-called "political representatives", full access to Australian classrooms, especially Victorian ones I hear, for the purpose (we are told) of "teaching" Australian children about "racism" and "hate" on the internet.
The ADC initiative titled "Click against Hate" is funded by Jewish billionaire John Gandel and is offered free of charge to schools. (How kind of him.) A video just published on Youtube includes an audio recording (taken surreptitiously) of one of these talks and is revealing. Indeed, though the program is suitably wrapped up in all the usual egalitarian pretensions and mainstream media spin, it is in fact little more than a thinly veiled and frankly cynical attempt to recruit young Australians for the war against free speech in the one information forum that Jews do not completely control.
Anyway it occurs to me that if Australian children really must be subjected at such an early age to what amounts to propaganda and brainwashing by Jewish interest groups, then in the interests of balance and a more well-rounded understanding, there ought to be a follow up talk for same children, immediately after the one given by the ADC hireling preferably, that might go something like this. The talk is called:
Changing the Subject
Hello boys and girls!
You have just heard Mr. So-and-So talking about "racism" and "hate" on the internet.
Now I don't know if he mentioned it, but Mr. So-and-So is a Jew. Do you know what a Jew is? It is a religion and it is also a race.
Anyway Mr. So-and-So has been sent here by a group of Jewish people that kind of look out for one another, and I thought I'd just mention that because it's got to do with what I'm about to tell you now.
You see, I'm also going to talk about racism and hate, but in a different way. I'm going to talk about how the words "racism" and "hate" can be used to "change the subject".
What do I mean by "changing the subject"?
Well to help you understand what I mean, imagine that you go to a school where all the boys and girls have purple skin. All that is except for one boy who has, let's say, green skin. (It's a very strange school!)
Now one day while you are all out in the school yard you notice that one of your purple friends is picking on the green boy. So, being the nice person that you are, and feeling a little sorry for your green friend you say to the purple bully:
"Hey, why are you picking on him? He's done nothing to you."
To which the purple bully replies:
"Leave me alone. I hate green people!"
Now that's pretty "racist" isn't it? And probably hateful too. You all understand what that word "racist" means, don't you? I mean, it doesn't have to be skin colour, of course, it can be other things too.
But I hope you also understand that just because you don't hate someone who is different to you doesn't mean you have to agree with them about everything, or that you have to want the same things that they do.
To see what I mean, imagine now that the very next day in that green-and-purple-people school yard, you see your green friend again, but this time it is him that is picking on a purple boy. What will you do?
Well, I'm going to imagine that you are a very fair person, and pretty smart, and you know that right is right and wrong is wrong no matter if you're green or purple, or if somebody is a friend or not a friend, or anything else.
So you say to the green bully this time, exactly what you said last time:
"Hey, why are you picking on him? He's done nothing to you."
To which the green bully replies - now listen carefully to this because he doesn't say what the purple bully said the day before, he says something quite different - he says:
"Leave me alone. You are a racist. You just hate me 'cause I'm green."
Now that's what I mean by "changing the subject".
You see, "green" and "purple" and "racism" and "hate" really had nothing to do with it, did they? What Greenie was doing, picking on the purple boy, was wrong, full stop.
But it gets worse.
Now imagine that Greenie starts to cry and everybody believes him that you were being racist and hateful, and feels sorry for him. Do you see what has happened? You are now the bad guy, not Greenie, even though it was him that was in the wrong in the first place!
Well that would be the end of the story except for one thing.
You see, Greenie discovers an amazing thing. He discovers that he can get away with just about anything if he just calls other people "racist" or "hateful" and acts really upset whenever they accuse him of anything bad. Not only that, he finds that in much the same way he can get everything his own way, all the time. Wow!
And you know what? He does get away with everything, and he does get everything his own way, (he even gets to go into schools and tell others about how badly he has been treated by everybody else!), and though that may sound like a pretty good thing, it really isn't, you know. Do you want to know why?
Because if you are never corrected and you never consider others, then you never learn anything and you never grow up, and you never become a better person.
In fact our mate Greenie is well on the way to becoming a little monster. And sooner or later he's going to realize that nobody wants to have anything to do with him any more.
Now what does all this have to do with Mr. So-and-So who just gave you the talk about racism and hate on the internet?
Well you see, as I said before, Mr. So-and-So is Jewish and the Jews have a country far away called Israel, and they have neighbours there who are called Palestinians. The Jews have a much bigger army than the Palestinians and many people in the world think that they treat the Palestinians very badly. In fact many people think that the Jews can be the most awful bullies, and not just to Palestinians, but to everybody else as well.
(By the way, a long time ago, Jesus told a very famous story called "The Good Samaritan" to try to teach the Jews, and us too, to be kinder to our neighbours. Do you know that story, boys and girls? I hope you do.)
The problem is that every time anybody says to the Jews:
"Hey, stop picking on the Palestinians", or "Stop using all the money and influence you have to push other people around", you know what they do? Yep, you guessed it. They change the subject.
"You're just racist they say, you hate Jews, leave us alone."
Well actually they don't say "racist" so much, they have their very own word which means the same thing, but only when used about them. Do you know what it is?
The word is "anti-semite".
The second part of that word "semite" means "Jew". And the first part, "anti" means "against". So to be an "anti-semite" means you are against Jews. Maybe you've heard that word before. It works just like "racist" to change the subject, only better.
They have other words too that work just as well, like "Holocaust" and "Holocaust denier", and sometimes also "conspiracy theorist", but I'm not going to talk about those words today.
Now there is a very famous Jewish professor called Professor Finkelstein and he is very worried about his own people. He thinks that they are going the way of our mate Greenie at that colourful school we were talking about before, and becoming a monster, and I think he might be right.
And there are other people too who say that the Jews have made up really horrible stories about them, or exaggerated stuff that did happen, just to make everybody feel sorry for them, so they can get their own way. And I think those people might be right too. What's worse I think that a lot of Jews (and non-Jews too) really believe those stories though they didn't see anything themselves. And others just pretend to believe them.
So you see, you have to be careful with those words "racist" and "hate". 'Cause they can be kind of like weapons too, can't they? Or a shield. And it's wrong to use them that way.
It's wrong to hate someone just because they are different to you, that's true, but it's also wrong to accuse someone of hating or being racist when it isn't true, just so you can get your own way.
And that's all I wanted to say to you today, boys and girls. Tomorrow we are going to talk about something called "politicial correctness".
Thank you for listening.
Homosexualist indoctrination of Australian children now underway
Unfortunately, the current indoctrination of Australian children does not appear to be limited to phony measures taken ostensibly against "racism" and "hate" on the internet. Apparently the psychologically immature, vulnerable and impressionable among us must be also given a dose of homosexualist ideology, all in the name of "safety", of course. And in Victoria, at least, that means with or without parental consent.
But then really, what else would we expect with treasonous tools like Andrews and Merlino supposedly "representing" us in Victoria? This pair of "useful idiots" have made it possible, despite federal government recommendations to the contrary, for "teachers" to effectively side step parental consent to a homosexualist indoctrination program devised by the so-called "SSCA" for primary and secondary school students. Of course, in true Orwellian fashion, this exercise in bullying parents is being promoted as, you guessed it, an anti-bullying measure.
Meanwhile, those of us without a covert political agenda, and a modicum of common sense, are inclined to ask why the issue of bullying in schools need be fragmented at all? Surely the issue is bulling, full stop, not the bullying of any one group or groups in particular.
We see the same fragmentation in the much publicised issue of "violence against women". Does anybody really believe that men are exempt as victims of violence in society? Or that women are never perpetrators? (Keep in mind that a woman is nonetheless a party to the use of violence or intimidation though she has someone else act on her behalf, including government and legal agents.) Why fragment the matter? The issue first and foremost is violence, not gender; or more to the point, the inappropriate use of coercion or force. (Like when government seeks to impose unwelcome and unhealthy ideology on citizens for instance - that also is a form of violence.) And the fact is, that fragmentation of an issue is the surest way of never getting to the bottom of it.
Is there any one of us that did not experience bullying at school at one time or another? Either personally or as witnesses of the fact? I don't recall anybody being too much concerned with introducing specific anti-bullying programs into schools back then, do you? Now suddenly there is all this apparent concern about homosexual-related bullying in schools. Are we to understand that the Victorian government is not concerned about bullying that is not homosexual-related? And if they really are, then why does the program offered to (or imposed on) parents need be homosexualist in nature? The so-called "Safe Schools" program specifically identifies itself as such.
Clearly the pertinent question here is this: are the homosexualist social engineers lurking behind the so-called "Safe Schools" program, and the lackey governments that do their bidding, prepared to accept that while they claim to be concerned with children growing up "to be happy, healthy and resilient", the parents that actually love same children may have entirely different and opposing views about what it takes to ensure such an eventuality? And are governments and homosexualists prepared to accept that these latter views may in fact have nothing to do with the legitimising or promotion of perversion to children, and everything to do with bringing them up in a truly safe and sound family environment, that is to say, with values that are in fact the very basis of same environment?
Or is it to be only the hireling so-called "experts" and minders of soulless, corrupted and compromised Big Brother government that make such decisions for our children? (In which case home-schooling may in some cases be the only real option for serious parents.)
The truth is that despite all the usual, meaningless platitudes and rhetoric, the ostensibly benevolent causes of "anti-bullying" and "safety" are being used here, quite typically, as a cover for introducing homosexualist ideology into Australian classrooms, for no good reasons. And in Victoria that means in addition, quite regardless of whether parents like it or not.
See also the articles, "The Sex Deception: A Young Man's Guide" and "Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?"
False flags and other antics: the standard Jewish response to truth dissemination
When all else fails in the Jewish attempt to suppress the truth in host nations, a false flag publicity stunt can always be arranged, with the full co-operation of the mainstream media of course.
For those unfamiliar with the term "false flag", it might be explained thus: imagine a group A and an opposing group B. Members of group A pretend to be members of group B so as to influence public opinion about both groups A and B.
Obviously, the advantage of arranging or paying others to pretend to be representatives of one's opposition, is that they can be made to say the most silly or reprehensible things, or to act in a likewise manner (even criminally), thus securing sympathy and support from the public for one's own (false) position, while encouraging antipathy for opposition. In a similar way, lackey politicians can be given a pretext for implementing ostensibly suitable "counter-measures".
Jews have been getting away with such tactics for a very long time, truth be told. (For a recent example, see the article here.) The strategy has been particularly effective in the past for the simple reason that most members of the public in host nations have been slow to understand/believe that anyone could be so duplicitously cunning. Having said that, one senses that the method is beginning to wear thin now, through sheer overuse.
The Jews are particularly well-situated to make use of false flag operations because of their control of the mainstream media narrative, particularly in the West, and also to a large extent the major internet information outlets. In this way, even if the desired effect of a false flag does not immediately ensue, press and TV and paid shills in controlled internet comment sections and sites can apply damage control, or can concoct an impression of the prevailing public sentiment regarding the false flag event that does not in fact exist, in the hope that the "herd" will follow suit, or will be discouraged thus from expressing their own alternative views about it publicly.
A similar effect to the one aimed at by a false flag operation can be achieved by simply planting stories in the fake news media (and Google etc.) that characterises opposition groups, or those presenting inconvenient arguments, as ridiculous or crazy or even dangerous and criminal. Again such groups can either be suitably misrepresented or impersonated for the purpose, or select people can be chosen as the focus of media stories precisely because they are not very serious or credible or either. Labels (eg. anti-semite, holocaust denier, conspiracy theorist, neo-nazi etc.) can then be applied to these carefully selected "strawmen" in ways that are reminiscent of the labels used by same media sources to describe the genuinely problematic opposition. The overall effect is to associate the lack of credibility of the former with the latter in the public mind, in the hope that it will discourage any attempt to look seriously into the much feared message (i.e. the plain truth) being presented by the latter. Thus, the timing of these mainstream media exercises in mass distraction, or "hit pieces", is commonly made to coincide more or less exactly with the dissemination of some message by the genuine truth movement that is considered to be particularly alarming, that is to say, elucidating.
Such tactics are employed constantly by Jews in ways that are not even very subtle, and indeed, increasingly obvious. Serious readers of this website need only watch carefully to confirm the fact.
(Click the Note number to return to its position in the article.)
(1) "Darwin on Trial", online pdf version, p.3, chapter1
(2) Of course the great irony (and tragedy) of this is that interpretations of the American constitution are now being used to undermine the only kind of culture, i.e. a Christian one, that could ever have produced such a document in the first place.
(3) "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover" by David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin [p.7]
(4) New York Times, Dec. 8, 2009
(5) "How Deeply Did Wall Street Investor David Gelbaum Damage the Sierra Club?" by Brenda Walker.
(6) "Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment", 1996. The citation is courtesy of Professor Kevin Macdonald's article in the Occidental Observer, "Jews are the financial engine of the left", Dec.10, 2009.