Monday, November 11, 2013

Australians Teaching Americans What to Seek

h/t Crusader Rabbit.

Somehow the Aussies were able to overpower the propaganda stream of the ABC, their govt funded SSM, and threw out the Leftist PM Gillard. Now they have elected a non-collectivist parliament and Prime Minister quite contrary to what we have here in America.

It proves what can be done if common people learn to band together -- no matter their other differences -- for the sake of their very lives.

Now, dear God protect the new movement and its leaders from both lethal enemies and the allure of, and traps set by, those who ply evil ways.


  1. Well, that was a penal colony once. I don't know if we have enough enemies of the crown left to fix things here. Christie will most likely be the from runner for the reps and I would pick him over Hillary but I doubt he will be much better.

  2. Paul, the original colony of New South Wales was founded not as a penal colony, but as a strategic asset to counter the French after Britain lost the American Colonies.

    Yes, prisoners were used as a cheap source of labor, but the colony was also established through the influx of free settlers who were greatly encouraged by the British government.

    The only colonies that were specifically established as Penal colonies were in Tasmania at Port Arthur, and at Norfolk Island.

    Not all of us have convict blood.

  3. I had to visit this site to see the Prime Minister utter his spiel because I flat out refuse to watch the commie ABC, in fact I don't watch TV at all!

    Tony Abbott is a good man, he is a God fearing man and has humility by the truck load! He spends two weeks of his annual leave in Aboriginal communities assisting with what ever he is able to do in a physical sense, such as providing his labor.

    He is also a volunteer Lifeguard at his local North Sydney beach and was driving fire trucks and helping to put out the recent bush fires we had in his role as a volunteer fire fighter.

    This man is the only politician who has my respect while the Collectivists just foam at the mouth with hatred for him. If ever a person in recent times has the ability to bring out the best and the worst of humanity, it is this man.

    1. In keeping with Reagan's political spectrum, I am finally abandoning the terms Left and Right, and am identifying myself as an Up. Abbott serves as a living example of a man who has precisely the nature of the enemy of the Downs. At least so far.

      I worry about using the term collective as entirely negative because us Ups need to act collectively at some point lest we stay too fractured. Can't let the Progs, the Downs, screw up our language so much that we fail to weed out the devil that is in the term collective as we know it today so that we can still use it for ourselves.

  4. 'I worry about using the term collective as entirely negative because us Ups need to act collectively at some point lest we stay too fractured'

    But don't you see that individuality is also our strength?

    It is because we recognize that we are all individuals, and as individuals we realize the importance of thinking for ourselves that allows us to assemble around a rallying point when the time is most needed.

    "The British are coming!" - was a rallying point to those individuals who knew upon hearing those words it was time to take up arms, and to join with their fellow Colonials in fighting the tyrant.

    I use the term 'Collectivists' partly to pigeon hole my enemy and partly to alert those readers who happen by and who may know a little factual history concerning Communism, that Collectivists are about group thinking which is little better than what a gang of criminals or a pack of Wolves do to exist. Individuals are not welcome in a collective.

    I agree that Left and Right has now become too vague due to the Left projecting its own failings onto the Right. Ups and Downs are fine too, but Collectivists to me at least, has that ring of authenticity that something about that title doesn't seem quite right.

    1. As a large part of my life was spent seeking ways to operate individualistically within large organizations and still achieve success, I fully agree that individualism is the way to live best. That's the up side.

      The down side: What I never succeeded at was preventing society from decaying around me.

      IOW, I succeeded privately but mostly (not all thank God) failed publicly.

      I failed to have enough of a collective mindset to seek out like-minded individuals who also saw a need (or could be convinced to see a need) to rally around any point. I tried too often to fight the Downs on my own and got whipped. I could write a book on what to do based on what I did not do because the Downs revealed their weaknesses in their moments of victory (and it was too late for me.)

      What you are pointing to is what will become necessary after the SHTF; what I suggested was that too much individuality was and is indulgent and has contributed to allowing the Downs to make collectivism their own via group-think. They did that through indoctrination and propaganda, both of which I have fought mostly alone and, obviously, too ineffectively. I did not yet understand their Long March as you and I have come to see now (too late).

      Among the worst things we permitted the Downs to do was corrupt our language so that we individuals are repelled from engaging in activity that the Downs have claimed as a label. E.g.s: Liberal (pertaining to freedom); Progress (real and not regress in disguise); Collective (common needs best achieved through LIMITED govt).

      I think they let us have conservative in great part because some conservatives are merely those who have a nut to protect. They will turn on their principled brothers at the drop of a hat if that nut is threatened, or even when we just rock their boat.

      There is much more that just Left and Right being a creation of the Downs of the French Revolution and solidified as a phony divide by Marx and Engels and company.

      Something about your final phrase sounds imprecise "Collectivists to me at least, has that ring of authenticity that something about that title doesn't seem quite right." Were you trying to say that collectivism has a ring of authoritarianism about it?

      Only because they own the SSM. Von Mises put it this way. "The collectivist doctrine fails to recognize that social cooperation is for man [all individuals] a means for the attainment of all his ends." Notice how he calls it only "a means." It is not the end itself as with the collectivists.

      What do I mean? Authoritarians tolerate no other authority (hence, IMO, our contemporary Statists' war on God).

      Von Mises spelled it out a number of times. Here is one where he tells us they establish a new notion of truth:
      Truth is what those in power declare to be true. The dissenting minority is undemocratic because it refuses to accept as true the opinion of the majority. All means to "liquidate" such rebellious scoundrels are "democratic" and therefore morally good.

      Let me reword to correspond to what we are witnessing. We are seeing the attempted reestablishment, this time globally, of rule by those who are in position to demand what is the common good. They will tolerate no contradiction. Counter opinions would be liquidated should they succeed in disarming us, but civil war suits them too. If they can't control it, they would destroy what is good. Dogs in the manger are less corrosive because they do damage without intent. These are megalomaniacs possessed by The Most Dangerous Envy of All.

  5. Maybe I should have used the descriptive 'individual' in a more meaningful way, to wit;

    Humans are foremost individuals, but individuals who crave (generally) the company of others to socially cohabitate. As a process of joining a society the individual will become - and this is dependant on each individuals personal traits - de-individualized to some extent while others will completely give up their individualism for security from the state - much like we now see within the welfare state.

    At some point in any society the makeup of the those fully reliant on the state for their everyday living will outweigh those who have managed to retain their individuality to some extent. The individual at this point will then become the enemy of the state which will use 'individualism' and under many guises, as propaganda to point out their own failings/goals to those who rely on what the state now dictates.

    The individual then has two options - remain and be subject to what the state then does to them or head for the hills! Many individuals/Conservatives/survivalists in the States are now heading out of the Collectivist states, cities and towns to seek a society where they can cohabit with like minded folk. But how long will it take for the new society they form up with to become like the one they have escaped?

    It seems to be our lot in life that we fall into a Collectivist mind set because we allow those we should not permit to govern us.

    A strong individual will resist the Collective mindset or groupthink, and our current PM is a good example of that, and it appears that groupthink has been largely responsible for the mess that the West now finds itself in and that strong individuals who can resist that mindset have not been forthcoming to resist the slow decline of that which we are now witness to.

    Yes, the Common Good is a false God that promises much, but delivers less of what is expected, and usually to our own detriment.

    You have lived a similar life to mine in that I was nearly always repelled by those who fitted in with the groupthink.

    Your picking on 'authenticity' as compared to 'authoritarianism' is correct. I don't know how I got that word in there?


View My Stats