Homo-Fascism Meets the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission - Gay Conversion Practices

Submission in Response to the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper : Conversion Practices Law Reform Options for Tasmania 

 

Submission by Peacock Public Policy Training

 

Totalitarianism is the Absence of Nuance – Anon

 

 

Introduction

 

I have followed the progress of the LGBT campaign for 20 years and done my own research on that issue. I have worked in law reform and public policy for much the same period of time. I was highly instrumental in bringing about Tasmania’s Elder Abuse Strategy, have worked extensively in residential tenancy law reform, and as a senior policy analyst with the State Government, was at one time privy to current Cabinet papers. I have studied public policy to Masters level (Flinders); her Excellency Kate Warner is my former law lecturer. My commitment to good public policy led me to develop an on-line training course in civics www.3ptraining.com.au

 

As a lay preacher and life group leader I have been personally involved at the coal face of human struggle and dysfunction; I have lived with and discipled both a recovering schizophrenic (who recovered) and a recovering alcoholic (who didn’t and died). This year I completed a Graduate Diploma in Ministry through Christian Heritage College. My family attends a small church in that Northern suburbs of Hobart, an area of social disadvantage. We meet at the Montrose Bay High School and support both the school and the wider community. As such I am personally invested in this proposal to the extent that the more extreme suggestions, if adopted, would likely see me in prison.

 

 

Key Points

 

The Proposal is Based on False Assertions

The paper is essentially an advocacy piece for the LGBT based on three known untruths:

1.    Homosexuality is not a medical, psychiatric or psychological condition

2.    Sexuality is fixed and binary – gay or straight 

3.    Sexuality cannot be changed

 

That is a gross oversimplification of reality. 

 

A ‘condition’ is what a given professional associates decides is a condition at any given point in time. That decision may or may not have a scientific or medical basis. In the USSR belief in God was considered a psychiatric disorder and people of faith were ‘treated’ in psychiatric institutions. Today in China they are kept in concentration camps and their organs are harvested. In the case of homosexuality the decision to remove it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatry was a values based decision following an internal political campaign led by the pro-homosexual faction. In the US at least, it was a coup-de-ta. In other words, it was a political decision not a medical one. The argument is/was that social stigma associated with the orientation resulted in negative mental health outcomes. That is true, but it is not a medical argument. It is also true that exactly the same argument can be made, and will be made, for every other sexual orientation. It can also be made for every psychiatric condition. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would be the end of psychiatry itself.

 

For most people sexuality is fixed and binary. They are gay or straight and that’s that. That is not everyone’s truth. It is certainly not the truth of my lesbian gay rights activist (then) neighbour who cheerfully told me that “I chose to become a lesbian because there were no good men in Melbourne or Germany” or the ‘Lesbian Avengers’ whose slogan is “ten per cent is not enough, recruit!” or countless other individuals who have left or joined the gay lifestyle. I agree with the TLRC observation that peer reviewed studies do not necessarily capture everything due to reporting biases, reporting barriers and other factors, and less academic sources are still useful. I would add that the take-over of the social sciences by the radical Left makes it unlikely that contrary narratives will ever be property assessed. In that context I note that the TLRC made passing reference to the Narth Institute. I have read their material in depth and it deserves more than passing mention. The TLRC could also have referred to the book ‘My Genes Made my Do It’published by the Institute. 

 

The Institute surveyed studies of success rates among homosexual people undertaking mainstream secular psychological treatment to change their sexuality prior to removal of homosexuality as a condition from the DSM. It found that substantial changes in orientation occurred in over fifty per cent of patients. That compares favourably with many other disorders such as alcoholism and depression.

 

In more recent studies, sexual orientation among study participants was found to vary on a spectrum with many self-identifying heterosexuals reporting feelings of same sex attraction of varying intensity. This included people in heterosexual marriages. Likewise, self-identifying homosexuals also reported varying degrees of opposite sexual attraction. These were found to change over time and in response to diverse factors. This is congruent with recent research into brain plasticity which has found that for many people sexuality is not fixed and can be altered, particularly during adolescence. Importantly the Institute found that many adolescents who were firmly convinced that they were homosexual were equally convinced that they were heterosexual by the end of high school. Unsurprisingly the LGBT seeks to promptly recruit any adolescent who reports homosexual feelings into the gay lifestyle and opposes a balanced approach to counselling under the guise of banning ‘harmful practices’.

 

Even a publication as biased as this TLRC report noted at foot note 53 on page 18 that in a review of 202 people who had undergone gay conversion therapy, 13 per cent found it helpful. Clearly, some therapies, some forms of socialisation and social support, some early direction in life, can change some people’s homosexual orientation. 

 

Contrary to the assertions in this paper and elsewhere, the LGBT does not want to criminalise gay conversion therapy because it does not work. They want to criminalise it precisely because (for some people) it does work. This can only be understood in light of the overall LGBT strategy (see further http://thesaker.is/the-truth-behind-the-lgbt-global-revolution/). It is essential to believe that homosexuality is fixed in order to make it accepted as a civil rights issue. The fact that some people leave the gay lifestyle and some people cease being homosexual is kryptonite to their campaign. Therefore this truth must be suppressed and all attempts at helping people to leave the LGBT must be outlawed. (See further:  https://insightpolicy.blogspot.com/2016/05/anti-homophobia-day-downunder.html). 

 

If gay conversion practices never helped anyone there would be no market for them. The fact that there is, belies the assertion that they are wholly harmful and without merit. If gay conversion practices never help anyone then those practices will die a natural death. If they help some people then they should not be banned. Either way there is no role for Government.

 

 

Why criminalise something that some people want, seek out, and find helpful?

 

 

Proposal Is Unbalanced

Having established that some people can be recruited into the homosexual lifestyle and some people can reduce or remove their homosexual orientation, let’s pan back. The LGBT is a recruiting proselytising movement through a variety of forums. That is at least partly the purpose of the purpose of the ‘Safe (sic) Schools Program’. Why else force pre-pubescent and teenage children to fantasise about homosexual relationships? Co-author of the program in Australia, Roz Ward, is on record as saying that the program “Is not about bullying”. 

 

According to the LGBT, the TLRC and the social left, recruiting a young person into homosexuality is just fine. Helping them leave should be a criminal offence. Given the poorer average life outcomes and public health issues associated with homosexuality, that is highly irresponsible. 

 

Interferes with the Basic Rights of LGBT People to Determine their Own Life Choices

I supported the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in Tasmania because it was then promoted as a civil liberties issue. The claim made by Rodney Croome and others was that “what happens between consenting adults in their own bedroom is none of the Government’s business”. I agree. Equally, what happens between consenting adults in churches, counselling offices, support groups, or the wider community is also none of the Government’s business. It is not the role of Government to deny homosexual people the right to seek out whatever intervention they believe may be helpful to them in any aspect of their lives including their sexuality. To say otherwise is to classify LGBT people as a class of people who are not fully adult and cannot be trusted to make their own life choice. 

 

It is not acceptable to refer to adult people of colour as ‘boy’ or ‘nigger’. That is essentially what this proposal does to homosexual people who do not conform to the LGBT ideology.

 

 

Definition of ‘Harm’ Absurdly Broad

This paper takes as it’s starting point the proposition that if something in society is deemed harmful the law should intervene. That is an unsustainable proposition, practically, morally, and socially.

 

This paper defines ‘harm’ in the context of gay conversion practices as essentially anything that makes someone feel bad about themselves, their life, or life in general.

 

Oh please?! 

 

By this logic and definition we must criminalise adultery. Adultery and separation certainly causes trauma and poorer life outcomes. What about abortion? Dare we admit the psychological repercussions of widespread abortion among (primarily) women? Should abortion therefore be banned based on the TLRC logic? What about feminism? Female fertility halves by 35 years of age, the age at which feminists suggest maybe trying to start a family now that a career is established. Dare we admit to the grief of women made childless by this ideology, or to a generation of spinsters who were lied to that promiscuity would be a path to relational fulfillment? Should we ban ‘Cosmo’ and ‘Cleo’ for encouraging promiscuity without stepping out the health dangers? Communism is a thoroughly debunked ideology that has caused perhaps 100 million deaths and unimaginable suffering but continues to be taught in universities. Should this be a criminal offence?

 

According to the New Atheists religion is a poison that harms society and causes psychological harm. For some people, that is true. For others, religious faith has not only saved their souls but their very lives. I have no doubt that some people have been and will be harmed by some gay conversion practices. Undoubtedly, others will be helped. At one time in my life I was part of a legalistic religious group. The discipline was hugely beneficial to people with otherwise out of control dysfunctional lives, but it was simplistic. The teaching around human sexuality was narrow and condemning. I can to some extent relate to the sentiment of a life unlived. Was I harmed? Perhaps. I was also helped. In the end it was up to me to grow up and embrace life’s complexity and uncertainty. That is a matter for personal responsibility, not for the law. These are the storys we need to share; to be present to one another’s truth. That is how healthy societies, over time, sort what is useful from what is harmful. It is messy and sometimes painful, but we have been doing it quite successfully for 2000 years. 

 

The alternative is some version of fascism. In Plato’s classical formulation of fascism ‘the wisest and best’ should rule. Those who are not in the elite group of enlightened ones get no say. Clearly the LGBT and the radical left believe that they are ‘the wisest and best’ and they have a right to exercise total control over speech, thought, belief, and action, because they are the only and ultimate arbiters of truth. Therefore anything that does not align with their ideology must be punished, including gay conversion practices. This basic approach to public life is what exists in common between the torture chambers of the inquisition, the soviet gulags, the killing fields of Cambodia, the public beheadings in Saudi, the ‘perfect Islamic State’ in Iran, and the proceedings of various ‘human rights’ and ‘equal opportunity’ tribunals around the Western World. Let us not forget that the worst atrocities of the last 100 years have been committed by idealists in the name of equality. We have been down this road. We know where it ends.

 

Continues the Cycle of Abuse

The gay liberation movement began in response to legal harassment, abuse and marginalisation. Since then all legal discriminations have been removed and consenting homosexual acts legalised and the promotion of homosexual life styles accepted. That should be enough for anyone actually motivated by compassion or fairness. It is clear that the LGBT now wish to use their social and political leverage to get revenge through legal harassment, abuse and marginalisation of anyone who stands in their way, and specifically the church. Systemic and predictable behaviours, observed world-wide, towards their perceived enemies, now include:

·      Threats of rape and murder of individuals, their partners, and children

·      Destruction of property

·      Physical intimidation including blockades of meetings, vehicles, and speakers

·      Threats against venue owners, publishers, employers, and sponsors

·      Lawfare against individuals and organisations

·      Harassment on social media of individuals, extending to family members and employers

·      Termination of employment

·      Social shaming

·      Forced social indoctrination at work places and in schools

 

These are modernised versions of tactics used by the Red Brigades, and the Hitler Youth. These may be the acts of a few but they are predictable, systemic, organised, and pass without censure by the liberal left. During the debate over the redefinition of marriage one gay rights activist remarked that he “wanted to hate fuck the homophobia out of [politicians objecting to same sex marriage]”. This passed without censure from the liberal left including the ABC. He kept his twitter account and his seventy thousand twitter followers, and his publications were not withdrawn. Imagine the (quite proper) outrage if a cleric had suggesting raping the homosexuality out of lesbians. The LGBT is thus fascist not only in its over-arching ideology but also in its modus operandi. The TLRC needs to understand that these are not all nice people who just want a fair and caring society. Some are. However homo-fascism is real and needs to be acknowledged for what it is in the public square. 

 

In promoting lawfare against people and institutions that are trying to assist people out of the LGBT, the TLRC is enabling homo-fascism. 

 

Opens the Door to Paedophilia

The ‘working definition’ of gay conversion practice proposed by the TLC would make illegal any form of therapy/counselling to change a person’s orientation towards paedophilia. This would make unlawful the moderately successful program run by the Department of Justice for convicted child molesters prior to release. After all, paedophilia is merely another sexual orientation that society does not accept. Sexual orientation includes sex with:

·      Close relatives

·      Animals

·      Objects

·      Robots

·      Children

·      Dead people

·      Dead animals

·      Unconsenting people (rape)

·      Sex involving various violent and degrading acts

 

…and whatever else people dream up from an alleged 60 different genders. ( I am guessing sex with cacti is off the menu but I could be wrong). Roz Ward has stated that many forms of sexual orientation can be expected to ‘flower’ as a result of teaching children to reject ‘heteronormativity’ though the ‘Safe (sic) Schools Program’.

 

To my knowledge (and I have looked) the LGBT has not anywhere ever publicly stated what sexual orientations/practices are off limits. If the rainbow flag does not mean that all colours/orientations should be accepted, which ones are excluded? What is clear, is that there exists a global pro paedophile movement. If there did not, a film like ‘Cuties’ could never have been produced, much less promoted on Netflicks. (See further: https://www.rt.com/news/492170-berlin-pedophiles-foster-children/?fbclid=IwAR2vmOot2wQmjX2nsM5XGoolO2arhRvRRwk1uAvgYsgDVzv2u1e1IgIiGTU)

 

It is not a ‘given’ that society would reject any of these practices. They were perfectly acceptable in the first century AD. It was only Christianity with its rigid insistence that sex was something exclusive to a heterosexual marriage, that made these practices unacceptable. Small wonder then, that those who want to return the Western World to the moral mores of the first century, oppose Christian ‘bigotry’.

 

In that context, a proposal that says to society that no one should help anyone change their sexual orientation must be understood as a conscious attempt to return society to the moral mores of the first century. Anyone who thinks this is progress or ‘progressive’ needs to get a handle on just how horrible the ancient world was for women, children, and the poor.

 

Answers to Questions

 

Question 1

After considering the background and working definition (see [1.3.23] on page 13), in your opinion, what are and are not ‘sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices’? 

Answer: The TLRC working definition adequately captures the concept. The Safe Schools Program is a sexual orientation and gender identity conversion program to convert vulnerable children and teens into the homosexual lifestyle.

 

 

Question 2

Should people be allowed to consent to SOGI conversion practices? If so, at what age and under what conditions? 

Answer: Yes, under any conditions either as adults or with parental consent.

 

Question 3

Have you been involved in or offered, or are you aware of, any forms of SOGI conversion practices in Tasmania? If so, what were the effects on you, or the person exposed to them? 

Answer: No, but if someone asked my help to overcome unwanted same sex attraction I would walk with them on that journey without presuming the outcome. 

 

Question 4

Do you think that Tasmanian law should be changed to address SOGI conversion practices? If so, should this be through comprehensive reform, amendment or both (a hybrid)? 

Answer: Tasmanian law should not in any way address SOGI conversion practices. These are a matter of individual conscience and personal responsibility and are not properly the domain of government.

 

Question 5

Should some or all forms of SOGI conversion practices be criminalised in Tasmania? If so, which, if any, should be dealt with as serious (indictable) crimes and which, if any, should be dealt with as less serious (summary) offences? 

Answer: Tasmanian law should not in any way address SOGI conversion practices. These are a matter of individual conscience and personal responsibility and are not properly the domain of government.

 

Question 6

Should some or all forms of SOGI conversion practices be made civil wrongs in Tasmania? If so, what sort of practices should people be liable for and how should those subject to such practices be compensated? 

Answer: Tasmanian law should not in any way address SOGI conversion practices. These are a matter of individual conscience and personal responsibility and are not properly the domain of government.

 

Question 7

Should any existing Tasmanian laws (besides criminal laws or the Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas)) be amended to cover SOGI conversion practices? If so, which ones and in what way? 

Answer: Tasmanian law should not in any way address SOGI conversion practices. These are a matter of individual conscience and personal responsibility and are not properly the domain of government.

 

Question 8

Are there any other models or approaches that are preferable to, or should complement, changing the law? 

Answer: Tasmanian law should not in any way address SOGI conversion practices. These are a matter of individual conscience and personal responsibility and are not properly the domain of government.

 

Question 9

Are there any other matters that you consider relevant to this Inquiry and would like to raise? 

Answer: Yes. This is an extremely dangerous, poorly though out and ill-advised proposal for the reasons given above. It enables homo-fascism and establishes a precedent for Government to meddle in any and every aspect of civil and personal life on the basis that what someone says, does or thinks, might hurt someone’s feelings. It is reflective of a conviction that society can be perfected by banning everything that’s bad. If that were true society would have been made perfect long ago. We have tried clericalism, communism, socialism, liberalism, capitalism, WOKEism and now homosexualism. When the church was the major social force we also spent a lot of time trying to perfect society by outlawing sin. In the United States we even banned liquor. It didn’t work. It will never work. On moral issues it is much better to accept the grace that is given and allow people to live by the lights they have. 

 

 

2020 Scrap Book

Well the Chinese have the ‘year of the rat’, the ‘year of the dog’ etc. I designate 2020 as the ‘Year of the Conspiracy Theorist’. 

This year the most crazy way out paranoid fantasies of the paranoid right were exceeded by reality. See further here: https://www.theorganicprepper.com/crazy-conspiracy-theories-2020/ 

 Oh yes, the plague. I was reflecting on what China has contributed to the West: the black death, SARS, opium, the Korean War, COVID, and the almost total theft of 500 years of intellectual copyright and almost our entire economy, plus the take-over of our land and institutions. But hey, we get to buy cheap plastic crap from K-Mart and Big W. 2020 was the year China stopped pretending to be nice, let their virus escape, and through their assets in the WTO ensured the spread of their virus around the world, then tried some PR stunts supplying second rate PPE, then tried to bully Australia with calculated insults and economic bullying into denying evident truths. Finally the regime in China is being revealed and that is a very good thing. To get a better handle on this, read the Epoch Times. 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have already declared a ‘peoples war’ against the US and its allies i.e. anyone who resists them. Sadly we are unprepared for war (https://insightpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/09/defence-force-pornography-meets-real.html ), but at least the current government has figured out that we need to refine our own oil in case of a naval blockade. This is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile a young generation rose up in Hong Kong to try and maintain some of the basic freedoms that we take for granted. At the same time they were protesting for personal freedom and capitalism in Hong Kong, radicals in the USA were protesting against personal freedom and capitalism. ANTIFA and BLM are now revealed as revolutionary communist organisations. 

Yeah, there was that black guy ‘Floyd’ who got knelt on by a cop. I did a lot of research on him. Turns out he is no Rosa Parks but rather a recidivist criminal and drug addict who not so long ago held a knife to a pregnant black woman’s stomach while his druggy mates ransacked her house….and no he wasn’t going straight either. He was arrested for another crime committed to support his drug habit. I found and read his autopsy report. He wasn’t murdered by a racist cop. He died of a heart attack due to a cocktail of hard drugs found in his blood. These are the people the Left now regard as hero’s. 

The cop knelt on him because he was a physically powerful and dangerous man and he was resisting arrest. I don’t know whether that was an appropriate level of force or not. I am not trained to hold down strong men who are high on drugs, but let’s face it, the world is a better place with Floyd not in it. The smiling face of progressivism then turned into the masked face of naked hatred and violence carefully orchestrated and planned in advance. Obviously if you don’t like racism the thing to do is burn down minority businesses, shoot black Trump supporters, and go on an anti-white rampage through the culture; declare the year zero and destroy all monuments, because you know, because cops are racist….

On the upside, under Trump’s leadership, black unemployment was the lowest since the civil war, black businesses were doing well, black churches were free, and race relations were moving in a positive direction when not misdirected by the Left towards mindless anti-white hate. Tump’s re-election was all but guaranteed. Then COVID happened, then the Democrats led states initiated hard lockdown, then they blamed Trump for… wait for it …. drum roll… lax border control!! 

Apparently, because of the China Virus we need a ‘Great Reset’ curtesy of that bastion of democracy and the working class: The World Economic Forum. Yes I am now being lectured by a middle aged German (Klaus Schwab) on why I should surrender the freedoms my grandparents fought for. Oh the irony. https://youtu.be/0QRKDia4BLU. For the record, the Nazis were very keen on being in harmony with nature. It was one of their core values. So with the Germans wanting a ‘Great Reset’ and the CCP waging global bio-warfare, obviously the thing to so in the West was move to a medically induced police state. 

To be fair, when the virus first arrived it was pretty scary. I found out very fast from a world bio-warfare expert that yes this was a genetically enhanced virus and yes it was intended to kill, and no there was no way it could be contained. It made sense therefore to lock down, social distance, and try and keep the spread within manageable bounds so that hospitals were not overwhelmed, and the country could keep functioning. That was the whole ‘flattening the curve’ idea and it made sense. 

Then the policy and the agenda changed from ‘flattening the curve’ to ‘beating the virus’ which was a code term for: 

• Total population surveillance 

• Mandatory vaccination 

• Social isolation 

• Control of movement within the country 

• Total media censorship using military grade techniques of propaganda and mind control 

• Loss of personal income 

• Government control of the economy 

• Digital currency 

• Micro-chipping 

• Shut down of churches and civil institutions 

• Mass social conformity 

• Spying 

 • Informing on neighbours and family 

 Does any of that sound familiar? It was like a totalitarians wet dream. 

Then several things became apparent at around the same time. Firstly the infection rates in some jurisdictions were being wildly and deliberately exaggerated. Pretty much anyone in the US who died and had a COVID positive test was written up as a ‘COVID Death’. That is ridiculous. It didn’t matter if they had a triple by-pass, diabetes, a heart attack and a car accident. COVID killed them. Also some tests were found to provide false positives. Then we found at that over 80 per cent of people infected were a-symptomatic. Then the rates of death from COVID were found to be somewhere between less than one per cent and three per-cent (not adjusted for underlying pathology). OK, that’s not nothing. I don’t want granny to die. But is it worth throwing away the freedoms our grandparents fought for? 

Surprisingly, Sweden, which has embraced every nutty left wing social fad since the 1970’s actually took an evidence based approach, didn’t lock down, saved their economy, and are managing as well or better than everyone else…..which could be why we never hear in the press about Sweden and their success. 

Meanwhile doctors who actually care about medicine went looking for solutions and found HCQ. This drug has been safely used to treat and prevent malaria around the world for over 60 years. Like all medicines, some people with some underlying conditions shouldn’t take it. However it is one of the safest prescription medicines available. HCQ is highly effective as a preventative against COVID. However if a serious COVID infection becomes established stronger medicines are needed. It is also very cheap. That means it can be rolled out on a population wide basis for relatively little expense and we can all go back to work. The Andrews government in Victoria promptly banned it as a ‘dangerous substance’ and continued with hard lockdown. I guess things like that are dangerous to people like him. Other jurisdictions have simply ignored the science and sunk billions into vaccines. Suddenly a safe drug that has been used for over 60 years causes heart attacks. 

Nothing to do with political donations from big pharma….. Doctors are still speaking out in favour of HCQ but are being silenced. However, see the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ for hope and get involved. 

So vaccines, yeah. Let’s smoke some weed (or just read the Guardian) and suppose the following are true: 

• Politicians don’t lie 

• Big pharma doesn’t lie 

• Neither politicians nor big corporations are corrupted by billions of dollars 

• Health regulatory agencies are incorruptible 

• The medical establishment is infallible 

• Whistle blowers are ipso facto always wrong 

• Drs who disagree are …… bad Right. 

Vaccines are good. They have saved millions of lives. I personally have been vaccinated a lot. Problem is, no matter how much money you throw at it, it takes 2-5 years to test a vaccine. It can’t be done by Christmas (sorry Trump). It just can’t. So no vaccine currently being rolled out can be assumed safe. Also, according to the companies themselves, the success rate is around 95 per cent. That sounds good except….it’s less than the success rate of our immune system. 

OK, so where that leaves us is ….. 

• the actual cure that works is banned or hard to get 

• lockdowns don’t work and are unnecessary 

• flattening the curve is no longer the objective even though that works and makes sense 

• government have taken billions of dollars out of our pockets and given them to industry insiders to produce a vaccine 

• we are now being coerced into being lab rats for their experiments with unsafe vaccines that are less effective than our own immune systems 

• Oh, did I mention adverse reactions are now common among people who have taken the new vaccines? 

• There are no other agendas. Repeat after me. No other …. 

That’s the best case scenario. It goes south from there. One subject matter expert and industry insider has risked their career and possibly their life so say that Remsivar can lead to permanent infertility in men:  https://2020news.de/en/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-and-call-for-co-signing-the-petition/?fbclid=IwAR1cexQbSnEIdvVNYxCB9XkuUEaZuoCbbdJuTFJyNgMaFXp4nMM7Twg5SuY

Now I am going to sit back for a moment and assume that the world isn’t a nice place. If you are a weaker power, and you want to destroy and take over a country, and you are a very long term strategic thinker, how would you do it? What if you could demolish their population through infertility? Gosh who would do such a thing? Well Bill and Melinda Gates for starters. They already stand accused of deliberately sterilising over 5000 African women through vaccination without those women knowing what was going on. Then there are all those nice people at the World Economic Forum who want to reduce global population to fix climate change (or whatever the latest excuse is)… and there is China. 

Does the ‘People’s War’ extend to your testicles? I don’t know, but apparently they have long term interest in Remsivar. https://youtu.be/Gdd7dtDaYmM 

Would you risk it? 

 Oh yes, and 5G. It’s everywhere. Tall buildings, towers, I mean everywhere, once you start to notice. I have not researched 5G and have no opinion on its health impacts. There has been a Parliamentary enquiry in Australia. If anyone wants to do some reading over Christmas …. Funny thing is, we just spent UAS $40 Billion on a national broadband network to fix our internet and now suddenly we need 5G. Really? 

Are we really not able to download our porn and watch Netflix fast enough? Remember all the drama about NBN? It was a huge political football, endlessly debated, heaps of media coverage. 5G …zip. It all just quietly went up. No one asked. No one told. Unlike NBN which is cobbled together in true Australian fashion, 5G is a military grade surveillance system from China designed to continually monitor human movement. Only 5G can manage that volume of data. 

Obviously that’s what the world needs, especially after the China virus and lockdown …. Turns out though, that totalitarianism is such a good idea that everyone wants a franchise. Boy did the CCP throw a hissy fit when Western government threw out their chips and built the network themselves. Guess it takes one to know one. 

Speaking of lockdown, remember how Trump was guaranteed to win re-election until COVID (actually lockdown) killed the economy? Well now he isn’t going to win any more. Bwahahahah ….um, except we don’t know yet. See it turns out that Trump wasn’t a temporary and easily erased glitch in the matrix. 10 million more people voted for him this time than last time. Somewhere between 74 and 84 million actual voters. That’s a lot. Clearly not believing their own polls the Left wanted a guarantee of victory. To do that, they had to rig a number of counties in a number of States….and they did. The evidence for that is now overwhelming. That may be why you have not been told about it. You will find some links in the previous blog and at defendingtherepublic.org If that’s too much to read, watch this: https://rumble.com/vbvwrv-2020-election-investigationwho-is-stealing-america.html?fbclid=IwAR3tMIMn2XOEt7bHTb0eVbbnAWlg72N0_eG2gTnBK5eejByqzji3QfRcBSM 

Sadly, the Supreme Court refused to look at that evidence, but increasingly people are. There are two sets of electors to the Electoral College. The election is not over and there is no ‘President Elect’. At this stage it’s a coin toss…. I could write a lot more but don’t want to bore too much. 

But it’s all good because Trump is a scum bag and Biden is Jesus incarnate, and he got up and did an inspiring speech where he denounced violence, denounced endless wars, promised to allow the free exercise of speech, religion and conscience, and rolled out a costed tax policy to fund education, health care, social housing, reconstruction, and pay down the foreign debt…except he didn’t. He basically endorsed ANTIFA which is a violent revolutionary communist organisation originating in Europe in the 1930’s. Kamala is a communist. A real one. After stating that they had the best election rigging system in the world (yes he actually said that) he also stated that if he and Kamala disagreed on something, he would get a bad disease and retire. In other words, he is a Trojan horse for the first unelected female communist president of the United States. Sigh….. 

So what can we expect from Kamala if they succeed in stealing the election. Well with a 100 year data set and many examples of where Communism has been tried, we don’t have to speculate too much. This in brief is the program: 

• Take everyone’s guns 

• Take control of the press 

• Shut down and censor everyone 

• Take state control of all independent institutions – the church, universities, independent schools, clubs and societies etc 

• Go after dissident academics, writers, preachers, anyone who resists 

• Centralise control. One education department and program. One police department. Etc 

• Suspend the rule of law 

• Build gulags of one sort of another 

• Take control of food and energy production and distribution 

• Use this as a weapon to starve opponents (the deplorables) 

• Indoctrinate children to be loyal only to them, not their parents, community or traditions 

• Go after the ‘true believers’ aka ‘useful idiots who actually thought this was about fairness and equality 

• Reduce population 

• Encourage family breakdown 

 • Replace the family with the State 

• As things fall apart, erase historical memory and force people to deny their own experience 

We have been down this road. We know where it leads. But there are other roads and still the light burns brightly. At Christmas we remember that ‘those who lived in darkness have seen a great light’. That light that burned 2000 years ago still burns. That God would choose not to impost totalitarian control but would rather incarnate as a human being, accepting human limitation, allowing human freedom, choosing forgiveness over revenge, choosing to die rather than deny the truth, rising again unkillable….with the promise of resurrection and life. 

 At Christmas time a weary world rejoices, and so it should. This too shall pass. The eternal Logos remains. I will finish with something from a feminist, environmentalist, and Christian mystic. After eight centuries her music is back on the charts. And it’s still good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6qFCYRQKVAnull