About Me

My photo
The Author Erik’s family emigrated from Britain to the island State of Tasmania then lived in the woods. The family home schooled, helping to pioneer the home education movement in Australia. The Blog …explores ways to create a sustainable and just community. Explores how that community can be best protected at all levels including social policy/economics/ military. The Book Erik’s autobiography is a humorous read about serious things. It concerns living in the bush, wilderness, home education, spirituality, and activism. Finding Home is available from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and all good e-book sellers.

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Is Slippery Slope a Logical Fallacy in Same Sex Marriage?





Owners of this Pizza Business Received Death Threats for Refusing to Service a Gay Wedding


The ABC recently wrote a post arguing that the entire NO campaign on same sex marriage is based on a series of logical fallacies, chief among them being the ‘slippery slope’. To better understand logical fallacies see my teachingmaterials on that topic.
 
A ‘slippery slope’ fallacy is the argument against change on the basis that the change will cause all sorts of disasters when there is no reason why that would necessarily occur. 

This can be a logical fallacy. It is also the case that history is littered with examples of slopes that were indeed slippery and disastrous consequences that did follow from bad decisions. 

To take an extreme example for the purposes of illustration consider the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s. The Nazis were a tiny fringe party much like the gay liberation movement was in the 1950’s. You would have been considered crazy if you had suggested that Rosenberg and his followers would start another world war. The very significant popular support they received was due to their success at tackling unemployment, restoring national dignity, and asserting German interests in international affairs. 

Very few people foresaw that within a few years Hitler would have declared war on both the British Empire and the Soviets and the United States, or that cattle cars would be carrying Jews to gas chambers, or that the USAF would be dropping millions of tonnes of explosives on everyone’s heads. It was the ‘slippery slopers’ such as Ps Bonhoeffer, the Edelweiss and the later and better known WhiteRose who warned about anti-semitism, militarism, the reduction of civil liberties, and the takeover of the church and civil institutions by official State ideology. The crazy thing is that anyone who really took the time could have discerned what was coming as Churchill did. Churchill was widely reviled for stating the obvious at the time.

We are now witnessing concerted attempts to impose GLBTI ideology (and its fellow travellers) as formal State ideology with an ipso facto reduction in civil liberties and the takeover of the church and civil institutions from universities, to the AMA, to the professions of psychiatry and social work; and the open persecution of anyone who dissents. We are seeing concerted attempts to indoctrinate children into queer gender theory, to deny parental rights to object, to dismantle traditional social mores, and to contain, isolate and eradicate societal groups and organisations that stand in the way

This is not idle speculation about what ‘could happen’. It is what is happening.

In that context to suggest that SSM is just an isolated and minor change to the law is ridiculous. It is part of a long term, calculated, incremental strategy. That is why the YES lobby are so vicious and so panicked whenever anyone talks about the slippery slope because they know the slippery slope is precisely where they want to herd society; but the sheep must be herded quickly before they realise. 

It’s the job of the NO team to warn them.




Wednesday, 6 September 2017

The Mad Hatters Party - Antifa vs KKK







With extreme groups from the far Left and Right sticking their nose into everything from statues in small town America to gay marriage, it is timely to hold their beliefs up to scrutiny. Do they have anything to say? How do they compare from Left to Right?

The Left believe that:
There is a brutal global class war in which one tenth of one per cent of the population are screwing everyone else.

That is objectively true.

Communism is the natural and inevitable end result of human evolution in which there will be no nations or races but a singe world scientific government controlling all of humanity in which we will all be equal

I sure hope not.

The State can and should take the place of God, the church, fatherhood, the family, democracy, independent education, freedom, conscience, self-direction, and private property, as the all powerful benevolent force.

Um…no

All the reactionary classes, being those who believe God, the church, fatherhood, the family, democracy, independent education, freedom, conscience, and self-direction, and private property, must be eliminated through propaganda, repression and mass extermination if necessary.

Yes, they killed 100 million people, largely through starvation and forced labour, and yet their ideological children are feted by the liberal media in the West. Hitler’s efforts were rather limited in comparison though largely because the Red Army got in his way.

To bring about the destruction of bourgeois society it is necessary to erase all physical, cultural, and moral boundaries, divide society into competing groups and bring it to a state of demoralisation.

Can’t see a lot of human flourishing here

Sexual liberation means sexual promiscuity and sexual deviance from an early age. It is the role of the State to promote this in order to transition society from a Christian base to a Marxist one.

That is a formula for slavery, misery, and the Safe Schools program

The nuclear family is an oppressive institution created by capitalism.

The nuclear family is biologically hard wired and essential to human flourishing

Heterosexuality is a social construct created by capitalism

Heterosexuality is normal for around 98 per cent of people but individuals can be harmed in their sexuality, particularly at formative stages of their life; and some people are gay.

In summary then, as a truth assessment I give the Left about 1/8. 




 Now to the White Supremacists. As far as I can make out they believe that:

There is such a thing as race and there is such a thing as the white race(s).

This is objectively true.

The white race(s) are credited with varying origins and are superior in various ways to other races as demonstrated by the superior development of Western Civilisation.

Hhmmm. Western civilisation by any reasonable measure is the most successful and advanced civilisation humanity has achieved. Not perfect but we did come up with the declaration of independence and put man on the moon and banned slavery. This occurred because of a number of developments in our culture; primarily the emergence of Protestant Christianity and Biblical world view. That had nothing to do with being white, rather it and a lot to do with missionary activity to the West from elsewhere, and the reformation. Nazi groups tend to be anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.

The Marxist left are teaching everyone including school children to hate their culture, demonise their history, disrespect their native countries, and place any and every belief system and culture above their own.

This is objectively true

‘Multiculturalism’ is now a code word for the destruction of Wester culture and the marginalisation of the white race. Specifically indigenously white nations are under systemic physical and ideological attack by uncontrolled immigration of other races and cultures.

This is objective true.

This is all part of a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy for world domination.

Not seen any evidence of that. However, the anti-Western/open borders/progressive (sic) movement is largely funded by a Hungarian Jew called George Soros with the support of the US State Department. It is an open secret that US foreign policy is controlled by Israel. Could be a coincidence..

Hitler wasn’t really such a bad guy.

Hitler was a very bad guy who was most definitely channelling the dark side. However, the triumphant Western powers and the banks need to take some responsibility for the failure of the Weimar Republic and the intolerable conditions Germany found itself in during the Great Depression and what happened to Germany during the Allied occupation was no picnic…but no, Hitler was very very bad.

The Holocaust didn’t happen and six million Jews were not murdered

There was a holocaust but it was primarily of Slavs of whom the Nazis killed roughly 27 million. Hillary Clinton and her Neocon buddies were eager to repeat that effort BTW but Vlad and the Donald stopped them. There was also a holocaust of European and Russian Jewry. The figure of six million is rather tidy and if it is a historical fact why are historians not allowed to research it?

In light of the above we should form secret societies, wear silly hats, abuse Asians, desecrate cemeteries and synagogues, assault vulnerable people, and generally behave like infantile wimps.

Clearly, some people are missing something in their lives.



In summary then, as a truth assessment I give the white supremacists about 4/8. 

So on a scale of ‘bat shit crazy’ the Left is thus four times as bonkers as the Right and every bit as dangerous. Apart from that, they have a lot in common. They are both controlling, totalitarian, absolutist, violent, mean, petty, they both lie, and they both target youth. The main difference is that, whereas the Right are largely relegated to dark corners of the internet, the Left control most of Hollywood, the liberal media, the US Democratic party, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, European immigration policy, most of the education system, and hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Threat = capacity + intent. It’s not the Nazis we need to worry about.



Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Marriage Equality Postal Ballot - the basics



So, we are going to have an optional postal ballot on gay marriage. The outcome of that ballot and any subsequent political process will leave a large portion of the electorate feeling angry and disappointed if not actually afraid and threatened.

With that in mind, we need to think clearly and vote decisively, then avoid triumphalism whichever way it goes.

To aid in that process I have written the following summary, based on my understanding, of the key arguments, concerns, and positives from both sides. I have deliberately avoided propaganda terms like ‘heteronormative’ or ‘family values’ since they are unhelpful. The terms ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘redefinition of marriage’ are used because they are most accurate and least propagandistic. This post does not really assess either side’s position but rather states it. Let’s start from the left and move to the right. 

But first let’s avail ourselves of some very basic facts.


1.       In the most recent ABS census 97 per cent of the population identified as heterosexual.

2.       The other three per cent comprise different and diverse communities.

3.       Within the homosexual community, long term and permanent relationships are rare and extreme promiscuity is normal, however long term and permanent relationship occur.

4.       The homosexual community is diverse and does not have one political view or agenda.

5.       The GLBTI lobby speaks for one part of that community, and is mostly made up of far left heterosexual activists.

6.       All existing Commonwealth (and most if not all State) laws discriminating against homosexual couples about things like superannuation, rights on separation etc have already been repealed/replaced.

7.       There is an international movement that seeks to redefine our understanding of humanity, of gender, and of family.

8.       For that reason any redefinition of marriage will be the start of the next phase of the campaign, not the end of the campaign.

9.       For many people sexuality is not fixed. The GLBTI literature notes this favourably when a person chooses a homosexual lifestyle but is apoplectic when a person chooses to ‘go straight’ and leave the homosexual lifestyle.

10.   Many people have made sincere and sustained efforts to change their sexuality and failed.

11.   Many people have made sincere and sustained efforts to change their sexuality and succeeded.

12.   No cause of homosexuality has been positively identified. None.

13.   No cure for homosexuality has been positively identified though many people have ceased being homosexual as a result of a diverse range of factors and therapies.

14.   A vote in favour of same sex marriage will have profound inter-generational implications for parenting, education, tolerance of diversity, religious freedom, and public health.

OK let’s start with the ‘Ayes’. The argument in favour of same sex marriage is that:


  •  Marriage at its heart is a lifetime commitment between two people
  • Permanent homosexual relationship exist and should be recognised
  • Failure to recognise them creates a second class of relationship and of citizenship since equal status is not accorded if these relationships are somehow not really “marriage”
  • It follows that anyone opposing same sex marriage is motivated by base prejudice and hate
  • Children are not necessary for marriage and not all marriages produce children
  • Gender has no relevance to raising children and is not really real
  • The existence of same sex marriage will make no difference at all to heterosexual marriages
  • Traditionally marriage was about property, patriarchy and male privilege
  • Same sex marriages in contrast are about love, freedom, rainbows, happy families and all things nice


Then there is the broader issue of ‘gay liberation’ which notes that homosexual people face all manner of harms and discrimination including long jail terms for sodomy in many countries. The blame for this is laid squarely at the feet of the church, conservatives, and capitalism. Same sex marriage is seen as a vital stepping stone to ‘gay liberation’ across the spectrum of civil and political rights. 

Then there is the far left anti patriarchy, anti whiteness, anti capitalism, anti Christian, anti Western, anti borders, pro promiscuity, pro-abortion, pro multiculturalism, internationalist movement which falls under the broad term ‘cultural Marxism’. For this movement same sex marriage is seen as a vital wedge in breaking down a raft of social norms which are seen as oppressive and harmful.

So really there are three arguments and broadly speaking three movements, with considerable overlap between them on the side of the ‘Ayes’. In case you missed it, they are ‘marriage equality’, ‘gay liberation’ and ‘cultural Marxism’.

Now to the ‘Noes’. There is no coherent single narrative on the ‘Noe’ side. However, at base there are three overlapping concerns. 

First, the ‘Noes’ hold that gender is a real thing and is very relevant to child rearing. This view holds that the best environment over-all for raising children is a permanent relationship between a mother and father together with whatever extended family may be available. A vote to make same sex marriage equivalent in law to heterosexual marriage is, ipso facto, a vote that children do not need a mother and father. In other words, it is a vote that motherhood has no intrinsic value and fatherhood has no intrinsic value. It follows that over time, these values will be instilled and taught through the education system leading to a crisis of identity and value, increased identity malaise, mental illness, and social breakdown. This will in turn lead to the gradual subversion and take-over of the traditional family by the State. This will over time transform society from a community of self-governing families to a community of governed workers. The better researched ‘Noes’ observe that this is precisely the agenda of the cultural Marxists.

Secondly, the ‘Noes’ are deeply concerned about opening flood gates. If marriage is re-defined then anything becomes possible and permissible they say, including polygamy, polyandry, and pretty much everything that was going on in fist century Rome which only changed because the Christian God was, um, rather intolerant. In that context, they will note that the civil authorities in Colombia recently ‘married’ three men and pronounced them a family.  Presumably, they will be allowed to adopt children. ‘Noes’ also refer to other flood gates in which seemingly liberating reforms led to harmful social outcomes such as promiscuity, pornography and abortion-to-term; and indeed to the gay rights agenda itself which has shifted from not putting gays in prison, to now bankrupting businesses that refuse to provide wedding services to homosexual couples. 

Which leads to the third concern – that many of the far left and the GLBTI lobby are actually out for revenge and are using every form of social, legal, political, and violent thuggery to quell any form of opposition to the remodelling of society away from a Judeo Christian basis to a Marxist basis. The bottom line for religious ‘Noes’ (and not all ‘Noes’ are religious) is that the Bible and Marxism are diametrically opposed. Since society cannot be based on both, ‘tolerance’ is just a fig leaf for a zero sum win or lose contest. In this context, homosexual couples are currently being used as vulnerable pawns on the culture war chess board. 

Since same sex marriage runs contrary to the Bible as understood by the ‘Noes’ and by the church throughout history, ‘marriage equality’ ipso facto means that traditional Christianity becomes illegal. In that context people I know are right now making deeply considered decisions about their personal red lines and what they are and are not prepared to go to jail for. There is a real fear that once the Marxist agenda becomes entrenched the State will brainwash the children, by kidnapping them if needs be. To quote ‘Safe Schools’ co-author Roz Ward “We can only meet the needs of everybody by taking collective ownership of everything.”

That is the real reason why the Christian right in America are keeping their guns. 

And lastly, there is another more visceral objection. While there are many permutations and possibilities in marriage, at base it is about providing a secure social environment for sexual reproduction. In that context, homosexual couplings can only ever be a poor imitation of what a fertile heterosexual couple do to make a baby. Traditionalists hold that ‘marriage equality’ is a fantasy because same sex relationships by their very nature cannot be equal, and no amount of legal activism, affirmative activism, or public posturing can alter that.

So there you have it. I have not provided links to a swath of reading because I don’t have time and frankly, this stuff isn’t hard to find. I just challenge you to get out of your social and intellectual bubbles and at least try to understand the other side. They are mostly not bad people. I have friends and relatives with passionate views on both sides.

For the record, I have been considering this for some time and I will be voting ‘no’.  My objections are not primarily religious nor do they arise from my reading of rightwing blogs. The tipping point for me was Roz Ward, GLBTI activist and ‘Safe Schools’ advocate who explained it quite well at the National Marxism Conference 2015 (and since). Click on the link, scroll to the bottom and click on the audio to hear Roz.

….and however you vote, you will still be my friend.