New Age Neo Nazi 'true' lilly spams another thread......

[MoMo]

New Age Neo Nazi 'true' lilly spams another thread......

........................................................................

[daddlepoms]

& then there was Rocky 5

[MoMo]

.........................................................................

[McKallisti Of The Sods]

Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established !

Thou becamest a pillar of patience and didst emulate the Forefathers,
O righteous one: Job in his sufferings, Joseph in temptations, and
the life of the bodiless while in the body
“IF YOU ARE AFRAID, LEAVE”
“IF YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN, WITHDRAW”
“IF YOU CANNOT COPE, RENOUNCE”
“YOU MUST DIE IN VICES, TO BE BORN IN VIRTUES!”
“IF MERE CURIOSITY HAS BROUGHT YOU HERE, LEAVE!”
“KNOW THYSELF!”
“DUST YOU ARE AND, AGAIN, DUST YOU SHALL BECOME!”
“TO DIE, YOU WERE BORN!”
“TO BETTER EMPLOY YOUR LIFE, THINK OF DEATH!”
“IF AVARICE GUIDES YOU, GO AWAY!”
"IF YOU PAY HOMAGE TO HUMAN DISTINCTIONS, LEAVE, FOR HERE WE KNOW THEM NOT!”
“IF YOU FEAR TO BE REPRIMENDED OVER YOUR DEFECTS, DO NOT PROCEED!”
“IF YOU LIE, YOU SHALL BE EXPOSED!”
“IF YOU ARE AFRAID, WITHDRAW!”

[daddlepoms]

she don't eat meat but she sure like the bone

[sharky]

New Age Neo Nazi true lilly is a promoter of 'Replacement Theology'......that her deformed and incorrect understanding of scripture nullifies the Jews and their covenant with God and she replaces them.........

http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naF.htm

Knowing that Christians are susceptible to such reasoning, today's NAers have become adept at using "Christian" arguments against the Jews. Christians coming from an environment that never mentioned Alice Bailey will recognize the eerie similarity of Bailey's quote above to the widespread Christian doctrine known as "Replacement Theology", the belief that the Jewish dispensation ended with Christ and that the failure of Jews to accept him cost them their place as G-d's chosen people. But the Christian linkage is maintained on the NA side for its PR value only; it rallies support among Christians for their own goals, while they work for the end of both the Jews and the Christians, as did Hitler. [A case can be made that the very existence of this as a "Christian" theology may be due to NA infiltration into Christian leadership. Only someone who is indifferent to the survival of Christianity could support such a belief, because if Replacement happened to the Jews, there is no guarantee that it won't happen next time to the Christians! Precisely the argument that NA uses.]

[true lilly]

More laws to discriminate against freedom


Andrew Bolt – Monday, February 06, 12 (07:06 am)




Yet more evidence that many “discrimination” laws are becoming a racket, exploiting the fact that the process is the punishment:





<blockquote>BUSINESS is demanding Labor dump a proposal to model
new anti-discrimination laws on a key pillar of the Fair Work Act that
has already burdened employers with a surge in speculative claims designed to force costly payouts.


The government is developing a single anti-discrimination law to meet an
election promise to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation and “gender identity”, as well as to consolidate a mishmash
of laws on race, sex, disability and age discrimination.


In submissions obtained by The Australian, business groups warn of the
potential for a major extension of what is deemed to be discrimination,
and that this could move ahead of generally accepted community
standards…


The Australian Industry Group warns that the Fair Work Act has “made it
far too easy for employees to pursue speculative claims aimed at
achieving a monetary settlement during conciliation”.



The Business Council of Australia warns that the laws are “being used to
undermine internal grievance and performance management processes, and
are having a deleterious effect on the communication between supervisors
and employees”.


</blockquote>

(Subscription required.)









51 comments |
Permalink

Brown now denies what he once said: that Gillard broke her word


Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, February 07, 12 (05:48 am)




Was Bob Brown deceiving us then about the deceiving Julia Gillard, or his he deceiving us now?



On January 11, Greens leader Brown accused the Prime Minister of
breaking her “absolute commitment” to a forestry deal he had earlier
described as ”shameful”:



<blockquote>

BOB BROWN: Those areas have not been protected. The logging has
continued. In fact when I spoke to the Prime Minister about this in
December, despite her absolute commitment to an immediate end to all logging to these high conservation value forests many
months earlier, over 10 square kilometres of these forests had been
flattened by Forestry Tasmania, largely for the giant marauding
Malaysian company Ta Ann.


STEPHEN DZIEDZIC: Logging is happening in less than 1 per cent, though,
of the 430,000 hectares that are protected in order to fulfil existing
contracts. Are you refusing to compromise here?


BOB BROWN: No I’m wanting the Prime Minister to keep her word.
... And the commitment was, under section 27 of the agreement the Prime
Minister and Premier Giddings signed, that if there was a need to
fulfil contracts to find wood in these areas, then the Commonwealth
would compensate.



The Prime Minister and the Premier signed off on it but then they stood
limply aside while Forestry Tasmania, in the service of this Malaysian
corporation Ta Ann, has simply continued to destroy these magnificent
parts of Australia’s World Her- what should be World Heritage.
</blockquote>


On January 13, he repeated his allegation that Gillard had broken her word:


<blockquote>Many Australians will feel very aggrieved - not just that there is a breach of honour involved here by the Premier and the Prime Minister - but at the destruction of these great, wild forests.
</blockquote>

On January 16 he made clear he was talking about a promise made by Gillard, and broken by her:


<blockquote>On Friday, Forestry Tasmania, the extremist loggers
outfit which has trashed the Gillard commitment, stated that these
coupes (logging areas) represent less than half of one per cent of the
total area identified for interim protection… Today, the prime minister is using the same statistic to justify her own renege on the promise.
</blockquote>

But forget all that.



Now Bob Brown wants to rescue the drowning Gillard by accusing people who criticise her of being “sexist”. And last night he denied Gillard had broken her word on the forestry deal:


<blockquote>BOB BROWN: Somebody had to form government in this
minority situation. She had the gumption to do it and the wherewithal to
do it and she stuck by her work with the Greens in delivering. And as
Tony Windsor said ...


EMMA ALBERICI: Not entirely though. Not on logging in Tasmania.


BOB BROWN: That wasn’t in that agreement with me. That’s an agreement she made with the Tasmanian Premier and ...


EMMA ALBERICI: Which she has betrayed?



BOB BROWN: No, which has been betrayed by Forestry Tasmania,
which is a Rambo organisation out of control where the Premier of
Tasmania Lara Giddings needs to bring them back into control.
</blockquote>

Brown now absolving Gillard after earlier damning her suggests to me
that his attacks on her credibility over logging were insincere, and
little more than a ploy to manufacture some dispute between the Greens
and Labor, to the political advantage of both.



But now that Brown may lose his meal ticket in the pliant PM, he tries
to erase from our memory his own charge that she breaks her promise.





Is Bob Brown sexist by defending Gillard like this?


Andrew Bolt – Monday, February 06, 12 (12:20 pm)




Greens leader Bob Brown
makes one of the silliest interventions yet in Labor’s leadership
battle in a desperate bid to preserve his meal ticket:


<blockquote>GREENS leader Bob Brown says criticism of Julia Gillard is sexist and unfair …
“Quite a bit of the criticism is sexist and unfair and unrelenting and
the Prime Minister needs a bit of a break from that,” he told
journalists in Canberra.
</blockquote>

What, “quite a bit” of the criticism is sexist and unfair? To criticise
her extraordinary deceits and bropken promises, for instance, is now
sexist? To criticise her for her lethal bungling of boat people
policy, the crippling of live cattle exports, the fire--starting of mini
race riots, the mass rorting of the school hall program, her attacks on
the free press and free speech and so much more is proof of the
critics’ “sexism”? By the way, did Brown ever call for John Howard to be
given “a bit of a break” from the far more furious criticism he was
given by the media? Why not? Is Brown perhaps sexist?



Brown continues:


<blockquote>“I just think the degree of relentless criticism on
this Prime Minister coming from male commentators, it’s probably all
subconscious, but is sexist and quite ridiculous at times.”
</blockquote>

I’m puzzled. When some of those male commentators praised Gillard, were they sexist then? Or are we only sexist now that we’re criticising her for the deceit and incompetence since? And when female commentators criticise Gillard in exactly the same terms as we men, why doesn’t Brown call them sexist, too? Or is Brown perhaps sexist?



On he goes:



<blockquote>He said voters believed Ms Gillard had
handled herself well in difficult circumstances. “People are incredibly
impressed with her ability to deal with what is chucked at her, and so
am I,” he said.
</blockquote>


“Incredibly impressed”? In fact, the latest Newspoll has satisfaction
with Gillard falling from 36 per cent before Christmas to 33 per cent,
with dissatisfaction with her steady on 55 per cent. Is Brown perhaps a
fantasist as well as sexist?




This bit will stun you:





<blockquote>Senator Brown criticised independent MP Andrew
Wilkie, saying the House of Representatives crossbencher had been
“naïve” to make the passage of poker machine reforms a condition of his
support for Labor, which he had now rescinded.


“We didn’t ask for commitments, for example, to ensure that a parliament
pass an issue in a period of minority government,” he said.



“I think that was going a step too far. How can you ask a minority government to ensure that a parliament passes anything?”
</blockquote>

What, like a carbon dioxide tax? Here’s Brown signing the infamous
leadership deal with Gillard that ensured her the Greens support, and
had her disastrously breaking her election promise not to impose the tax
that only the Greens demanded:




.



Brown is a sexist, a fantasist and the most brazen hypocrite. If he expects voters to buy this stuff, he’s also a fool.




He also has an undeclared vested interest in the Labor battle - a Greens
patsy as Prime Minister would suit him best. Michelle Grattan explains:


<blockquote>Rudd PM would be urged by some colleagues to more sharply differentiate the government from the Greens. The Liberal claim that Bob Brown is the real PM is biting in the electorate, according to Labor MPs.



Having a stoush with the Greens would not be particularly dangerous for Rudd.
</blockquote>


The more Brown argues for Gillard, the clearer he advertises that Gillard is a Greens stooge.



UPDATE



Reader AC:


<blockquote>On second read, maybe he’s saying Rudd is a sexist.
</blockquote>







79 comments |
Permalink

Albrecht: Who is an Aborigine?


Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, February 07, 12 (12:21 am)




Paul Albrecht AM in his new book asks an interesting question on which I make no comment:



<blockquote>
When I began my ministry in central Australia in the late 1950s, only
people of full Aboriginal descent were categorised as Aborigines. At the
same time, they were declared to be wards of the state so that special
assistance could be provided…


On the other hand, people whose ancestry included a person or persons of
Aboriginal ancestry and another race, for example, Caucasian, Chinese,
Afghan, were not classed as Aborigines, and therefore not wards of the
state. They were Australian citizens who could vote, own property, drink
in a pub, buy alcohol, etc. At that time, many of these people of mixed
Aboriginal/Caucasian or Chinese or Afghan descent took umbrage if they
were referred to as Aborigines.



Later, when a change of government policy provided benefits to
Aborigines not available to other Australians, but without the
restrictions which previously had applied to Aboriginal people, many of
these same people chose to identify as Aborigines…



The powers of the Commonwealth to make laws on behalf of Aborigines, and
provide special funds for Aborigines in areas of health, housing,
education, economic development, etc., meant there was also the need for
an Australia-wide definition of who was an Aborigine. In the event, the
Commonwealth adopted the following definition, based on race:


<blockquote>

An Aborigine is a person descended from the original inhabitants of this
land, who chooses to identify as an Aborigine, and who is accepted as
such by his/her group…</blockquote>
The current definition makes it clear who is an Aborigine, for legal
purposes, and therefore eligible for the special assistance provided by
governments for Aborigines only… However, the definition says nothing
about Aboriginal culture, or the cultural differences between the more
traditional Aborigines and those who have lost much, if not all, of
their culture… (This) has helped to father a number of negative
consequences. For example:


<blockquote>It has helped create monochromatic policies and programmes. While some
of these have been appropriate and helpful to Aborigines who have lost
their culture, they have been unhelpful to, in fact they have often been
harmful to, the more traditional Aborigines…




It has helped to gloss over the fact that there are fundamental cultural
differences between Aborigines whose attitudes, lifestyles, and values
have been fundamentally shaped by their traditional culture, and those
who have lost their traditional language and culture, and whose
attitudes, lifestyles and values have been shaped, either by their
experience of living among other Australians as Australians, or by their
experience of living on the fringes of Australian society, and not
being accepted by Australians.


It has helped gloss over the fact that while both the more traditional
and some non-traditional Aborigines have needs, these needs differ
greatly…




It has helped to silence the voice of the more traditional Aborigines.
In traditional Aboriginal societies, only designated leaders could speak
on behalf of their group, and these leaders always represented only
themselves… Yet the government chose to ignore this cultural fact ... .
Rather, a small group of Aborigines, who by and large had no knowledge
of traditional Aboriginal culture and didn’t speak an Aboriginal
language, but who had learnt to manipulate the system established by
Parliament, succeeded in influencing policy and effectively setting the
whole agenda for Australian and Aboriginal relations.
</blockquote>

I believe it can be shown both empirically and statistically, that the
Aborigines who have benefited most from current Government programmes
are the Aborigines who have lost their traditional culture, and whose
values and lifestyle approximate those of other Australians.


</blockquote>



(Apologies, but we cannot accept readers’ comments. But please read on at the link.)


They want Australia without the Australians?


Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, February 07, 12 (12:05 am)




They are mad, of
course. Leave it to our multiculturalists - or, more accurately,
cultural separatists - and we will soon share nothing but an address:
<blockquote>WORK on a $900 million Korean suburb on Hobart’s Eastern Shore will start within a year after winning final planning approval yesterday.


Billed as an “integrated lifestyle, education, and residential
development”, ParanVille will be one of the biggest residential
subdivisions developed in the state and promises to give the struggling
building industry a massive boost.


It is expected to attract residents from Korea, China and Japan who are
keen to escape harsh northern winters and the threat of nuclear
accidents, its backers said yesterday.



The 158-hectare rural site between Howrah and Rokeby approved by the
Tasmanian Planning Commission will become home to more than 2000 new
residents and several hundred language students and will generate up to
1000 jobs during the 10-year construction period.



</blockquote>

(Thanks to reader Daniel.)

[Sponsored content]