Skip to content

Lord Naseby MP claims 7,000 not 40,000 killed at the end of Sri Lankan Civil War

November 19, 2017

Lord Naseby MP claims that only 7,000 were killed at the end of Sri Lankan Civil War.  Exploding the 40,000 killed Myth.

Lord Naseby of UK Parliament recently revealed how he accessed confidential reports compiled by the London’s Defence Attache in Sri Lanka during the war and gathered that the number of people who were killed during the last phase of war was 7,000.

“I’ve tracked the war carefully because I just couldn’t believe these official figures – they didn’t stack up to the information I was getting. So I then invoked our freedom of information inquiry. I asked for the dispatches sent by our Defence Attache to our foreign office during the last days of the war. The application was refused twice by our foreign office. I then applied directly to the information commissioner – which is my right – and got 26 pages of redacted dispatches. Missing were the last six weeks of them. So I appealed again. And lo and behold, another 12 arrived. I went through them very carefully,” he said.

Without being limited to classified documents, Lord Naseby had asked university experts who are “traditionally left-wing” about the casualties.

“They also said that 7,000 casualties was their estimate. There was other evidence too, like what US ambassador to Sri Lanka, Robert Blake, had named a tentative casualty figure: about 5000, a few days before the end of the war,” he said.

Ref: http://www.dailymirror.lk/140352/British-MP-says-SL-war-casualty-figure-not-

Editorial Comment:

7,000 seems to be the most reliable figure that I have seen since the end of the war.  40,000 killed lost all credibility years ago.

Advertisements

Is the Media Ignoring Atheism as a Motive in Devin Patrick Kelley?

November 12, 2017

Is the Media Ignoring Atheism as a Motive in Devin Patrick Kelley?

Survivor of Texas Massacre​ Recounts the Words She Heard While Playing Dead, 'Everybody Dies Motherf**ker'

There seems to be a wide gap between what we know about Devin Patrick Kelley and what is being reported about him in the Mainstream Media.

In every crime, there are three elements that come in to play before it is committed: Motive, Means, and Opportunity. The means and opportunity are obvious in the case where a man bursts into a church and starts gunning down its helpless worshipers.  What we are left with after the fact is the reason for such a carnage and destruction of human life.  Why would someone specifically target a church in a small town and systematically execute unarmed people?  Reports are coming in that Devin Patrick Kelley specifically targeting crying children who had no hope of defending themselves.  This kind of maliciousness goes beyond what most people can even contemplate but it does show the kind of mindset that can put aside all forms of morality, ethics, and empathy as it sets out to fulfill its ruthless ambitions.  What were those ambitions and why did they require the deaths to occur specifically in a small country church?

Since the event, that shocked the world, a picture of Devin Patrick Kelley life is coming together.  He was a troubled man who had an enormous tendency to violence.  His first marriage broke down through violence, he fractured his own son’s skull in an attack and as a result, was dishonorably discharged from military service.  There are even reports that he had escaped from a mental institution at some stage.

Yet we are still left with the question of why he chose to target a church and why he chose to deliberately execute everyone he could.  His actions go far beyond taking revenge upon a hated ex-mother-inlaw to collective hatred of target group of people.  Devin could have gone to the homes of the people he hated.  He could have stalked them individually to satisfy his individual revenge.  However, that was not enough, he wanted to take his wrath out on an entire congregation.

Image result for Devin Patrick Kelley facebook

People who knew Devin through his online social media accounts describe a man who was a fanatical atheist who had nothing but contempt for religious people.  He considered them to be stupid and contemptible.  He was linked to a number of atheist social media accounts and had no hesitation in preaching that he collectively hated Christians.

Nina Rose Nava, who also said she attended school with Kelley had this to say:

“[I]n complete shock! I legit just deleted him off my [Facebook] cause I couldn’t stand his post. He was always talking about how people who believe in God [were] stupid and trying to preach his atheism.”

At least one atheist group that Devin associated with now wants to distance itself from any their infamous subscriber.

“Reports say the Texas shooter ‘liked’ my Facebook page,” he posted on Twitter in the wake of the attack. “It should go without saying that his actions go against everything I stand for.”

Law officers have also been trying to steer the blame away from atheism:

“This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs,” Freeman Martin, a regional director with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Despite the domestic issues surrounding this case, no one has explained how a mass murder attack upon a church of people is not religiously motivated.  It beggars belief.

The entire picture of what was going through the mind of Devin may never be known however authorities and media commentators have been quick to steer away from any mention of his contempt of people who believed in god.

Lionel Media Blasts Twitter as Gutless for Abandoning RT media

October 30, 2017

Lionel Blasts Twitter as Gutless for Abandoning RT media

 

Editorial Comment:

Twitter only seems to crack under pressure of a select group.  What did RT Media do to sway the US election?

As Lionel points out, they committed the crime of making people think.

Sometimes when I watch US-based media pundits I get the impression that they believe that no other nation has free speech ingrained in their culture.  Blathering on about the ‘First Amendment’ is totally meaningless to other nations where ‘Free Speech’ has been embedded in common law for centuries.  Free speech, human rights and freedom of thought are universal concepts, not the exclusive property of one nation.

Why is the NBN a Failure?  A View from an IT Professional.

October 29, 2017

Why is the NBN a Failure?  A View from an IT Professional.

Image result for nbn

Background

First a bit of a declaration: For many years I was a network engineer building and deploying major networks.  Much of my career was spent in these main areas, diagnostics, security and the Internet.  So I am not coming at this issue from a novice’s point of view, but from decades of education, knowledge and experience in the real world.  What I have learn about the IT industry comes from the very early days of when the Internet was being invented to all the leaps of technology since then.

The NBN

The first I hear about the NBN was when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that he was going to upgrade every home in Australia to have an optic fibre connection.  The speeds that his government was predicting were astronomical when compared to the standard ADSL connection that had been deployed just a few years earlier.  The initiative was designed to lift Australia’s broadband Internet speed into the 21st century.  We were given the sales pitch that this would create a whole new digital data economy.  We were being told that the medical profession would one day be able to perform remote surgery on patients.  We were being told that it embarrassing that our Internet speeds were slower than South Korea.  We were being sold a utopian dream of how the government was going to give everyone the best high-speed Internet in the world that would pay for itself in no time.

Yes, that is how the whole concept went from an initial estimate of $4 billion to over $50 billion and more in just a short period of time.  How did it get to this point?  Not only did we get to this giant waste of taxpayers’ money, the trend of waste has continued even when the government changed.  Ten years on and there is no end in sight to completing the NBN project.  Messages and information that I have received from people inside the NBN project paint a messy picture at every stage of its rollout.  This includes undertrained staff, shortages of optic fibre specialists and private installers who engaging in dodgy practices that will inevitably lead to ongoing faults in the network.  However, none of these rumors are unique to NBN.  What is unique to the NBN is the scale of how the government set it up and pushes its agenda.

NBN was created as monopoly where every other telecommunication and Internet Service was moving to abolish monopolies. Instead of letting the open market decide what technologies were best suited for each customer, the government bet everything on an ‘optic fibre to the premises’ mantra.  No other technical solution was given serious consideration, meaning the NBN not only monopolized the market but the technology to be used in that market.

The second, and far more crucial, failure of the NBN is its business model is driven on ‘market push’ rather than ‘market pull’.  This may seem like a banal point to people who are outside the IT industry but is the fundamental driver to making a profit.  If people do not want something, they will not purchase it.  If they do, then they will go out of their way they get it.  This is how the entire first generation of the Internet was built – Market Pull.  The idea of the having access to the Internet started a massive industry that had customers lining up for simple dial-up services.  The entire Network was paying for itself before it was even built.  The second wave of Internet expansion came with the introduction of the ADSL backbone. Again, no one needed the government to force people to buy this service.  The customers chose ADSL because the product was the best available at the time and they consumed it greedily.  There was no major multi-billion dollar government program to pay for the ADSL network because it was not required.  The consumers were paying for what they wanted in a competitive market.

The fundamental problem with NBN was not in its choice of technology but in the fact that it was being driven by political masters for political reasons.  The NBN was a major infrastructure build driven by the policies created by people who wanted to win an election.  It was primarily designed to inspire votes, not free market consumers.  There is a difference.

The NBN also has a third burden that is forcing it to become unprofitable.  That is the obligation to provide the network to all Australians regardless of cost.  This is similar to ‘first phone obligation’ that Telstra had to somehow provide a phone service to every Australian.  This obligation meant that the installation of a phone service could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars to install in a remote area.  The service had to be installed by Telstra under its legal obligations despite the fact that it would never be able to recover to losses.  Some NBN services in remote areas have cost nearly half a million dollars to install.  The government does not care about the cost because it can point how rural voters are being looked after.  However, NBN co will have to absorb the costs and pass them onto the consumers as higher charges all around.

Finally, we have the absurd situation where this monopoly actually restricts innovation.  NBNco is complaining about what they see as rogue operators moving into their market space to provide alternative services at lower costs.  Imagine that, competition and cheaper prices are now the enemies.  The NBN is no longer about getting the best service to the consumer but ensuring a monopoly os protected.

The whole NBN project was doomed from the start because it was an idea dreamed up by politicians, not IT companies; nor was it something that market forces were driving.  The NBN was, at its heart, a pork barrel thrown out in an election year to buy s few extra votes.  Now that barrel of pork is starting to smell bad.

Leading ‘no’ campaign spokesman says homosexuality ‘a disordered form of behaviour’

October 27, 2017

Leading ‘no’ campaign spokesman says homosexuality ‘a disordered form of behaviour’

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/leading-no-campaign-spokesman-says-homosexuality-a-disordered-form-of-behaviour-20171026-gz8oxs.html

To quote Dr van Gend:

“If someone has same-sex attraction that is just a curious part of their make-up, it is not who they are. And what’s more, being same-sex attracted carries absolutely no moral blame, it is no one’s fault, it is just one of these puzzling phenomena,”

“Whereas by contrast sexual behaviour, for any of us, is a choice, and we are culpable for the sexual behaviour we might choose to do. And for Christian people it’s pretty darn simple – no sexual behaviour is on at all, and that’s for all of us, unless it is within the faithful unconditional commitment of man-woman marriage. End of story.”

Editorial Comment:

The Age newspaper seems to be in shock that anyone would dare make this point.

Morals mean little if they are approached from moral nihilistic or post-modernist viewpoint.  Tradition, history and objective reality may actually matter in a culture war like Same Sex Marriage.

Who are the Merchants of Death and Moral Cowards who Voted for the Euthanasia Laws in Victoria?

October 21, 2017

Who are the Merchants of Death and Moral Cowards who Voted for the Euthanasia Laws in Victoria?

Image result for daniel andrews euthanasia

Dan Andrews biding his time to pass Euthanasia Laws

As of yesterday, the Victoria State Parliament became the first state in Australia to pass laws that make euthanasia legal.  The laws still have to be confirmed by an upper house vote but at this stage, it appears to a mere formality.

The political underhandedness and trickery to get the laws through the parliament have been a culmination of sheer arrogance that is becoming the signature of the Dan Andrews Labor Government.  In every way, Dan Andrews is symbolic of Socialist ideology being implement regardless of what the people of Victoria want.  He pushes, finances and regulates into things like the sexually perverted  ‘Safe Schools’ program that forces young children to learn explicit gender fluid theory; he was a lead actor in creating the 2008 laws that force pro-life doctors to refer women to abortions against the conscience and now he is at the centre of creating the laws that legalize Euthanasia.

There is nothing new about activists pushing for euthanasia to be legalized in Australia.  Dr (Death) Philip Nitschke has spent years trying to introduce his suicide machines into Australia.  However every attempt to do so in the past has, with good reason, been either voted down or in the of the Northern Territory overruled by the federal government.  Most attempts to pass euthanasia laws were destined to fail due to a lack of support from the public and the ad-hoc way that they were formally introduced as grandstanding private member’s bills.  The reason for such caution is obvious.  When dealing with the matter of death and killing of patients, the laws passed in one state have national implications and a very high likely hood of a creating euthanasia tourist industry.

The way that Dan Andrews approached changing the law was far more organized and strategic.  He took the issue away from the public discourse and handed it over to a committee that worked out how to get the critical numbers of parliamentarians to pass the law.  Key to his strategy was a highly biased and flawed report released months ago that laid out the framework of how to manage the politicians.  If you think that I am kidding about the report then you need only read it.

The report was so biased in favor of legalizing euthanasia that all objections were sneeringly dismissed as ‘Diety Based’ and therefore illegitimate.  Any other rational objections were never tabled, investigated or even discussed in the report, as it smeared anti-euthanasia views as being nothing but superstitions.  The report also tried to regurgitate the same so-called safeguards that euthanasia activists have been trotting out for decades:  Multiple doctors signing off, patient consent, no coercion clauses, no financial incentive etc… There was no safeguard in the report that we had not seen before.  The only new information in the report was how to manage pressure and herd the objections of the politicians through the parliament.  This was a political strategy report, not an open inquiry into the impact of legalizing euthanasia.  The recommendation to legalize euthanasia was already predefined long before the evidence was cherry-picked as proof. The tone of the report focused on the cowardice and fear of politicians when it comes to highly controversial social issues.  Most of the report and the preparation for passing the laws was spent counting enough heads to get it through.

Where were the ‘brave’ politicians who were willing to stand up to Dan Andrews and the underhanded tactics used to ram euthanasia laws through the parliament?  Mostly missing inaction.  Some state politician did enter the public debate but their federal equivalents remained silent.  Despite the national ramifications of legalizing euthanasia in Australia, they remained silent.  The only person of public significance to come out publically object was ex-Prime Minister Paul Keating who label the laws as being utopian and dangerous.  He took aim at the claims of legal safeguards as being bogus in face of reality. In a statement to the press Keating said:

“This claim exposes the bald utopianism of the project – the advocates support a bill to authorize termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor,”

“No law and no process can achieve that objective. This is the point. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system.”

The debate in the Parliament was farce once the numbers to pass the laws were secured. Over 140 amendments and further safeguards were suggested in the debate but Dan Andrews would have none of it.  He knew that he had the numbers to pass the law as it stood and he was willing to let the debate run for over 24 hours until the vote was held.  Then arrogance and bloody-mindedness of the man knows no limits.  There was no change, no amendment, not even the slightest recognition that he could possibly be wrong.  Once Dan Andrews had the numbers and he was going ahead.

The final tally after the marathon session was in favor by just ten votes.  In a parliament that is dominated by left-wing parties, this reflects a current political reality. That political reality is so far left of center, so authoritarian in its approach, so contemptuous of mainstream views that Dan Andrew looks more like a commissar than a Premier for all Victorians.

The next phase of this process is to send the law to the upper house of parliament where it will be debated and put another vote.  If the law cannot be stopped there then Victoria will be the first state to legalize state sanction killing of the sick and fragile of spirit.

 

My Reason for Voting ‘NO’ in the Same-Sex Marriage Survey

October 20, 2017

 

My Reason for Voting ‘NO’ in the Same-Sex Marriage Survey

Rev O'Brien said services would continue on despite the vandalisation of the church.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/church-vandalised-after-vote-yes-painted-along-church-wall/news-story/ccdb7e01d135946955bf59229d04a300

I keep being reminded of Thomas More when I think about the Same-Sex Marriage debate.  The pressure he was placed under to conform with all the nobles and lords who supported the divorce and remarriage of King Henry the Eighth.  The principle, though lost in a postmodern world, was more important than the desires of the King.  Henry the Eighth had created the first legal divorce in the Christian world and in the process split the Church of England away from the Catholic Church.  For More, it was a principle that he could not in good conscience agree to or condone.  Eventually, he was beheaded for the crime of not supporting the King’s desires. In all, Henry the Eighth had six wives, some of whom he had executed before moving on to the next.

Today I see many people who are in exactly the same position as Thomas More.  They are caught between following their informed conscience or facing punishments at the hands of various laws and social structures.  This problem is particularly true when it comes to questioning the culture and practices of Homosexuality.  I know full well that I cannot say certain things in my workplace or I would be fired.  Even if it is innocent, logical and evidence-based, there are certain subjects that I may not disagree with.  There is not even an opportunity to offer a nuanced opinion on the subject because the laws over the last few decades have been slowly tightened until all dissent is verboten.

How did we get to this situation?  Slowly and deliberately.

Slowly and deliberately.

Historical Perspective

Go back just a few decades and the opinion about so-called Gay lifestyle was highly controversial and predominantly seen as morally questionable. Somehow over those decades, Same-Sex Marriage has become the cause celebre of elites and social justice activists.  The key change in this shift can be pinpointed to the Aids Epidemic that hit the gay populations across the world.  What could have easily become a reassessment of social value toward a more puritan world actual went in the opposite direction. Gay victims of Aids become martyrs to a cause. They became the heroes of fictional films like Philadelphia.  They became the new social victims that were now protected from all criticism by the mere utterance of Reductio ad Absurdist term ‘Homophobia’.

The next phase in moving social attitudes was a propaganda blitz that would make the old Soviet Union proud.  In Australia, a little-known protest rally known as the ‘The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras’ was heavily promoted ABC television news stories.  Eventually, it attracted corporate sponsorship and was televised on commercial television.  In the US, tired sitcom after tired sitcom used the inevitable ‘Lesbian Kiss’ to breathe ratings attention into their dying shows: Ellen DeGeneres being amongst the most famous to pull the stunt.  Other shows had proceeded and others followed but none were more celebrated in the media than Ellen. We can also look at shows like ‘Will and Grace’ which threw in a token campy gay friend to convince us that every woman needs a pal like him.  Let’s not forget the reality series ‘Queer Eye for a Straight Guy’ whose premise was Gay men are somehow predisposed to making men look more attractive to the opposite sex.  This is all nonsense in the name of portraying gayness as a symbiotic necessity to help straight males learn good fashion sense.  By the time Lady Gaga was belting out ‘Born This Way’ on the top her lungs there had been more than 20 years of unopposed propaganda throughout the media.  Questioning the ‘Gay Victimhood’ narrative is tantamount to questioning reality. And anyone who dares question the pro-Gay dogma is immediately labeled as ‘Homophobic’ and a ‘Bigot’.

The twin forces of media propaganda to promote homosexuality as normal and to punish detractors as being ‘homophobic’ is rarely questioned in the public.  To do so risks social isolation, a barrage of complaints, legal ramifications, loss of employment and worse.  Even if that criticism is based upon a rational and scientific basis the punishment is the same. No one is permitted to question this postmodernist dogma.

Ideology is not Science

In scientific terms, there are truths that cannot be safely be stated without being accused of ‘Homophobia’.  You can no longer say that sex evolved to ensure that the species reproduced.  That is now homophobic.  You cannot say that no one has ever found the so-called ‘Gay Gene’.  That conflict with the ‘Born This Way’ dogma.  You cannot even criticize the highly dubious study that tries to link ‘Gay Penguins’ to the human homosexual behavior.  To do so is to make a heretic of yourself before an army of emotionally triggered defenders of the cause.  Even to point out the absurdity of the fraudulent report of the ‘Gay Saints’ of the early Christian church only opens you up to personal ridicule and insults. Questioning this dogma is enough to be considered evil beyond all redemption, Social ostracism, Media scorn, legal punishment, unemployment, social media dogpiles and the seething hatred of the masses who wait to pounce on anyone who does not conform to the vox populi.

Post Vote Stasi

It has already begun.  The courts are being turned into modern-day show trials and inquisitions to punish the ideologically impure. Bishop Porteous was dragged through the anti-discrimination courts for publishing a pamphlet that defended traditional marriage.  Does, anyone, seriously think that this is going to stop after the ‘Same-Sex’ marriage vote is over?

There is a climate of revenge against anyone who does not give unquestioning support to the secular dogma that sexual activity cannot be controlled.  The Australian Labor Party is promising to start a new LGBTIQ watchdog if elected.  Religious institutions and its members are in legal jeopardy if they refuse to hire an openly gay activist for a position.  School funding and certification as a teaching institute will be withheld for schools that refuse to go along with government sanction positions.  It is putting people who have a long history of choosing freedom of conscience in a position where they will be forced to defy the law.  This the same position that Thomas More was in hundreds of years ago.

Why Descent when everyone else agrees?

Why would anyone defy the wisdom of the masses and hold a position that inevitably risks all the comforts you have worked for in life? For some, there is something more important than being comfortable, more import than being popular, more important than losing friends, more important than avoiding legal punishment and that is the truth.  To me, conformity to a crowd is cold comfort when you know that you are supporting a fraud.  Ultimately, the very punishments that you try to avoid will be enforced regardless of your pandering to a tyrant. It is also cold comfort when you consider that those who push for same-sex marriage have such contempt for those who disagree with their position.  I certainly fear that once taking victory the same activist will push for another freedom which I am unwilling to surrender.

Why the Vote Matters

‘Truth’ may not be a popular concept in this post-modernist era, but regardless, it remains.

I am not convinced that there is such a thing as the ‘Gay Gene’.  Therefore I cannot accept the notion that people are genetically unable to resist being ‘gay’. Nor am I convinced that ‘Born this Way’ is anything more than a political motto.  Therefore I cannot give it more credence to a political motto that I do not subscribe to.  Nor am I convinced that people cannot control sexual behavior because of a claimed predisposition or orientation.  We do not accept this in heterosexual relationships so why should we accept this in the alternatives.  This problem is compounded when gay label people as permanently ‘gay’ because they may have engaged in one incident.

I do understand that these are not simple issues, but reducing everything to mottos and special pleading has nothing to with the truth.  The question of ‘morality’ begs a further question about ‘whose morality’ we are going to adhere to.  The Same-Sex Marriage advocates demand that we accept their moral yardstick as the only legitimate one.  This I am not willing to do.  Furthermore, by legalizing Same-Sex Marriage, we shift from a society that tolerates behavior that it may not approve of, to a society that legally condones and institutionalizes it.  Watch out if you do not publically agree with this stance.

I personally have no control or interest over what people do in private.  Nor do I have any interest in carrying someone else’s conscience on my shoulders.  However there a world of difference between minding my own business and condoning what I cannot agree with.  Legalizing behavior not only shifts it from the private to public, it gives it the veneer of moral respectability and approval from the government.  Since when are governments the keepers of moral virtue?

%d bloggers like this: