BULLETIN EIGHT

Late Winter, 2016

Time for Thought and Thought for Time

News 490, The Australian August 20, 2016

Is it so that the PM is so occupied that it is hard to give sufficient attention to the removal of those parts of the 18C) phenomenal breach of justice, truth and reality which urgently require correction before more injustice is solemnly wrought ? As one Judge^*1 put it concerning this section of the Law, there are subjective and objective elements in view: the mix is not readily workable.

 Indeed, like mixed drinks, it tends to intoxicate. Without freedom of expression for debate, many in a nation may become servile or sentenced, and the lordly self-assurance of those who wish so to deploy the big guns of fine, loss of reputation and scorched earth approach to the psyche of some, for the gratification of others, becomes as disgusting as the destruction of ancient monuments in the Middle East by devastating assailants. If mere remonstration is taken as if demonstration, the only real proof is that of confusion or corruption.

But to be sure, there is much to consider in the marriage plebiscite case, also a current issue, for it is all part of a disruptive syndrome, in the arena of sexuality, gender, procreation and creation. Consider basics. Thus if nothing made everything in a fit of confusion, then why bother: we have only drunken-type talk. To be made or making, you need what is there, not what is not there. If at any time what is not there were true of all, nothing ever could be there, for otherwise you would need to have had something, always, with potential. 'Nothing' has neither potential nor anything else, none by definition. Whatever may be proposed, is not for it; for it is not even there to receive it!

With it, name any item, and you must affirm of it, that  it is not there. Such is the futility of talk of it.

If despite billions of copies per person,  of the code for making humans, including male and female provisions in the complete coverage of the requisites for racial continuation, that command construction in this way with this function at the elemental level, who is this who legislates or attempts it, to make it a natural thing to do otherwise! Whatever else it is, being contrary to the ceaseless directions of what IS natural, this cannot be natural. But it is when a preferred conformity by exponents of naturalistm to what has been provided and expressed in DNA commands, is even condemned or harassed as a standard, that hypocrisy threatens in double measure.

CONDEMNING WHAT CONDEMNS

First, such tend to condemn what they accuse of condemning, as though making themselves some kind of god or devotee of one. Secondly, they do so without consistency. Thus, they often appear shocked that some find certain adventures outside the human construction, but using it, to be wrong.  How dare they think so! They then call and seek liberty to sue as wrong those who for very good reason do not agree with them. Do not condemn me for I am too busy condemning you! becomes an essence of the ludicrous song. It seems that as some even sue, so these may in fact profit from such opinions. While the motive is not known, the results may be.
 

Thus, when against such condemnation, many proceed to do that very thing, is not this prejudice ludicrous ?  and if they then use of law to apply it, is this not moving towards a totalitarian blight! If in such a case, many use law to condemn condemnation; but then make what rejects their own approach condemned, indeed,  deem it horrid and declare it ought to be removed from society, how then is total hypocrisy avoided ? And that is before the religious aspect with its reasons, is even in view!

If indeed, in such a case, you use law to express disapprobation of non-conformists to your viewpoint, It is not just that a failure to follow the symbolised commands for our construction and continuation, and due formation, is assailed; but this, that in the very name of being fair, or even of 'nature', the 'correction' of those not in favour, becomes 'unfair', while it is duplicated against them. What of those now contrary to nature ? It is THEY, we learn,  who now ought to be corrected, and indeed the breach of prejudice (my way, not yours) involved in non-conformity to innovation, is deemed both in its view and approach, to become loathsome.

In such a case, is it not grossly insensitive to the world view of those who are not in this innovative, literally unnatural approach to  norms of procreation that are functional in themselves? While all bodies appear to have this and that genetic loss, .and so some have special needs, the race as such is not forced into innovation.

How then is it fair simply to condemn what is the other side by law ? by formal governmental formulation ? If it is unfair to condemn the viewpoint of departure from functional norms in sexual activity and procreation, how is it fair to condemn that of non-departure from them ? 

Can you not then condemn the condemners with the same condemnation with which they condemn the innovators, and makers of tracks to meet their desire ? Why not simply deal with the principles and issues and cease bullying and harassing, using law as a gun without reason!

SEXUAL EXCLUSIVISM FOR LOVE!

Again, why should you be told you must not stop love between same gender persons, when this is not the issue ? Sexuality has various aspects, but one is the production of children. While naturally this is a closely intimate matter with vast ramifications, and depths, the non-production of children and non-relevance of what enables it naturally,  is not the exclusion of love.

You can have sexual activity without love, but you may also have loving regard for someone without there being the slightest suggestion of sexual involvement. Seduction into sexual fixation should not be legislated. If fairness enters in, there can be no discrimination by confusion of close friendship with a sexual nature! Lacking the former does not axe the latter. Love to your heart's content, but there is no need to consider such things as begetting children as part of it. It is but one illustration.
 

EARLY INTERVENTIONISM

As for early interventionist exposure of children to pre-occupation with sexual variation not naturally present as a rule in their bodies, is this the proper way to introduce them to what they actually are ? Is intrusion with the ideas of variationists, whose domain is not in elucidating what we have, but interfering with natural growth, a good preparation for understanding of what is there and occupies the site for procreation ? . There may be a time for instruction of various kinds, but to invade early with concepts of fluidity before understanding of the actualities as formed, is more than previous. It is premature to the point of horror. In some ways, it resembles cutting a rose bud in half.

When demand at the level of early instruction becomes a forcible intrusion, required by law for schools, without need of parental consent, it is amazing that such a nation as this should consider standing for this second degree invasion: not only in method and curriculum, but in making children in this, all wards of the State, and butts of its tyranny. Moreover, surely apart from all else,  an election or referendum should frankly seek such powers.

ABDICATION ?

Further, it is properly useless to make the abdication of parents in these issues of the meaning of life, values and the religious basis to be the subject of a take-over. Religion at least in the Commonwealth affairs (Section 116 of the Constitution^*2), is in basis free, and these affairs storm into its areas of free expression in that domain. Should the Commonwealth then support what aborts these liberties of independence...

NOTE

*1

The Australian, August 20, 2016 has news in this area which includes the following.

One of the nation’s most experienced judges has joined the push to reform section 18C of the ­Racial Discrimination Act to strike a better balance with freedom of speech while maintaining an effective armoury against ­racial hatred.

Judge Ron Sackville warned that the legislation needed to move to an objective test in which liability under section 18C would be determined ..

*2

Section 116

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This is already breached in the exclusion of the examination of all scientifically supported views  in another area of religion, creation. There have been vast breaches in this area, and making scientific theories stand in front of all available evidence is crucial to scientific method. If one of the many theories is presented, it is not too hard to look at others. Performance is the criterion here, and as shown in The gods of naturalism have no go! this is what is lacking in the present, exclusivistic indoctrination in this field in many Schools, Colleges and Universities. Such unrealism leads to chains of confusion as shown.