Monday, 10 April 2017

“I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul”

“I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul” were the words of Assistant Professor George Ciccariello-Maher. This assistant professor, already headline material due to a comment he made last Christmas saying “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide” was supposedly outraged at a show of patriotism onboard a plane.
Image result for ciccariello maher trying not to vomit tweet 
A uniformed soldier had been offered a 1st class seat onboard a plane. To the sounds of hoots and cheers, Ciccariello-Maher couldn’t help but think of the supposedly abhorrent travesty in Mosul. Now, I don’t know much about Mosul and the attack that left 200 dead on Wednesday 29th of March, but that is irrelevant and only a minor part of this man’s comments. He’s already got a record of useless comments on Twitter, let alone racist ones, so what is he doing on Twitter? Or more to the point, what is this comment doing? We live in a world where technological material, not as provoking and disgusting as this, is being removed from social media and other media platforms due to “insensitivity”. Is this another double standard on Twitter’s behalf? Are comments about Trump and his policies not allowed on social media platforms but these comments, about a serving soldier, are?

I’m not calling for a removal of his comments, I’m all for free speech, free opinions, no matter how stupid or useless, like this one, but 1; where do we draw the line on censorship in regards to sensitive issues and 2; what are the double standards and who is creating them?

Once Ciccariello-Maher’s comments made it viral, others jumped on the wagon, supporting his ideas.

One Tweet reads; “The military worship in this country is beyond pathetic; its obscuring”

Sure, I can understand this, but does this mean that these soldiers can’t be offered a seat? Additionally, people commented on independent.co.uk’s article on the matter saying that this supposed large military worship was minimal, just largely publicised, one member saying that he had never seen a military member in his 27 years of living in the US, only on TV and occasionally at the airport. While it is true that the treatment given to soldiers in the US is higher, is it really obscuring and more to the point, is it uncalled for? Do these soldiers deserve the respect? In my opinion, yes.

Another supporter of Ciccariello-Maher tweeted that she wondered why teachers and nurses weren’t given the same respect, or boarded the planes first like some soldiers do. The simple fact is, this comment is ignorant of the simple ideals behind the fundamental respect afforded by the soldiers. The fact that these soldiers are willing to go out and risk their lives for the people, even for people that feel sick when these soldiers are given large amounts of respect. The fact is, these soldiers don’t walk into a classroom and teach docile students, spreading politically dangerous messages to children, spreading political ideals and influencing children like many teachers, especially the leftist teachers union, tend to do. These soldiers walk into a battlefield and face an enemy who won’t think twice about killing them. Think Hunger Games but a reality. They go to work, as it were, knowing that they may not make it back. And many of those who do make it back are scarred by their experiences with an array of mental health diseases including PTSD (Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder). Most become homeless, unemployed and living life worse off than the teacher or nurse. Many commit suicide, veterans in a supposedly military obsessed country like the US. Sure, a teacher or nurse plays an essential role in society, much like the fireman, the policeman, the lawyer, the doctor etc. But where is the risk? The respect is given on principle of the risk soldiers are willing to take to help Americans.

Image result for ciccariello maher
Ciccariello-Maher's comments reflect the ignorant
context of the modern world.
Lastly, I would like to go back to the idea of respect afforded to teachers over soldiers. Teachers like Ciccariello-Maher.  Drexel University, Philadelphia actually employs this man to teach students. Does this give you an idea as to why teachers aren’t afforded the same respect as soldiers? Teachers are meant to be smart. Most are. The minority, like Ciccariello-Maher, are not. They are so dumb, they cannot even realise why soldiers are afforded respect, so dumb, they post comments like “All I want for Christmas is white genocide” and “I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul”. Yes, Ciccariello-Maher, who specialises in South-American politics, doesn’t have a clue. Why is he even in the education system, spreading poisonous ideals such as his? His odour is one of the main reasons I’m not going to Drexel University. If this is the direction of education, no wonder teachers don’t board planes first, no wonder the education rates in NSW, and nationally, are dropping at alarming rates, why English, Mathematics and Science marks are lowering. Because teachers don’t teach, they spread their toxic ideals and this is virulent for society.


So, George Ciccariello-Maher, an assistant professor (Thank goodness he isn’t a full professor) at Drexel University has unleased a barrage of toxic waste so toxic it suits his reputation. His comments, both aforementioned, are enough to earn him the sack, and his lethal ideals are being spread throughout the education system, which can be, and is proving to be nationally, pernicious for the education levels, just one pointer why this soldier was offered a 1st class seat and Ciccariello-Maher wasn’t.

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Victory in NSW should be simple

Gladys is at a clear advantage from the likes of Mike Baird for the simple reason that she can start afresh.

Image result for gladys berejiklian
Gladys Berejiklian has a simple path to victory
Mike Baird had the unsatisfactory and election losing policy of forced amalgamations. Whatever reasons were behind the movement, the execution was a failed exhibition and it’s not as if he could have gone back on his word without losing the support of many of his followers, especially those supporting the amalgamation move. However, with the departure of Mike Baird recently, and the installation of Gladys Berejiklian, the state elections, and any by-elections should be a relatively simple affair. Sure, after some of Mike Baird’s decisions, voters may not vote for the Liberal party, but not enough to rule the Liberal party out of the election. And it’s not as if people are going to vote for the Labour party!

So, to win the election, and to win by a considerable margin, Berejiklian has to do two simple things. Things she most likely won’t do. But things she must do to ensure a profitable election result.

First, she must repeal the forced amalgamations. The Liberal party has already seen tragic losses among ranks due to the failed policy. Liberal party members, and especially Premier, haven’t spoken to the people adequately about it. She needs to either repeal the policy (which has seen Nationals leader (someone completely free of the blame) Troy Grant lose his position) or speak to the people about why she won’t. She needs to talk to the people more about it.

Similarly, Gladys needs to change the way in which she addresses the people. Mike Baird was a rare public figure. He rarely went publicly and therefore, drew a significant distinction between himself and the public of whom he was to serve. Gladys needs to speak to the people more, needs to explain the party’s position on the policies and needs to most importantly, create a link between her, and party and the public. She can’t be someone higher than the public, she can’t be on a pedestal, she needs to be on the same level as the people she serves.

In all cases, it is highly unlikely that the NSW Labour party will make an ascension into power. However, Berejiklian has a major task ahead if she wants to make a profit in a seemingly dire situation.





Thursday, 2 February 2017

Banned for 90 days, get over it…

The angry left in America are putting up a fight with everything President Trump does. In 10 or so days, Trump has managed to secure safety to the American people, yet they still aren’t happy and their righteous and hypocritical attitude is fascinating. 

Image result for president trump ban
President Trump has enforced a 'travel ban' for around 10 countries
in war-torn areas.
First of all, the Americans, in the centre of it all, fail to recognise that the list used for this ’90 day ban’ was devised by Obama himself. I bet if they knew this, the campaigners or professional protestors would half.

Secondly, this is for 90 days, not forever. Why are there burning cars and smashed shop fronts over 90 days? To add to this, these protestors, most of whom probably hate Israel, haven’t realised that the Israeli people are blocked from some countries for life. Much longer than 3 months! Why are there not burning cars over this predicament? Because the professional left and more directly, the professional left media love to screen facts. Let the people know the facts that favour the democratic agenda, forget those that shed darkness on the movement.

To add to this, the people knew what was coming. Unlike other politicians, and probably Hillary, Trump sticks to his word and election promises- Monster! They shouldn’t be surprised. Wait, they should be. They aren’t used to Presidents sticking to his plans.

Image result for angela merkel travel ban
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has spoken out against
the Trump Administrations Travel Bans, saying that she will support
those affected by the Travel Bans
The common idea that this 90 plan is a ‘Muslim ban’ is totally false. This sudden idea is just more of the left’s ‘fake news’. If this ban were a Muslim ban, then large Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, would be incorporated in the ban. Were it a Muslim ban, Pakistan would be in the list. This fake news doesn’t stop here, however. The epidemic spreads to Australia. Sam Daystari has claimed that he could be affected by the bans. Is he calling himself a liar? If he is, I’ll go along with it. To become a Member of Parliament, you can only have an Australian Passport. If he has one from the Middle East, then he is illegible to stand for Parliament. He will not be affected by the bans as he has an Australian passport, but he is happy to continue the spread of fake news.

The 90 ban was exemplified when Angela Merkel spoke out against the ban. Of course, it should have been expected. The leading light in the European Union should be expected to forget the past. Has she really forgotten what caused the death of her people days before Christmas at the Christmas market killings? Hasn’t she learnt? Most important of all, doesn’t she care about the safety of her people? Does she want to let in more killers? Don’t get me wrong, refugees aren’t killers, but a small minority, a very small minority, are influenced by the parasite called ISIS and fight for their cause in the civilised world. These people can’t be allowed in, but Merkel keeps up the moronic frame of mind called her Chancellery.

Last of all, these democrats in America, and all over the world, are doing the total opposite of what they preach. They burn cars and smash shop-fronts. One limousine was burnt to its end during supposedly “peaceful” protests. This limousine was owned by a Muslim immigrant who runs a Chauffer business. He claimed that the damage could cost his company $70, 000. Aren’t the democrats claiming to be supporting immigrants, most of all, Muslims? Are they hypocrites, pyromaniacs or just morons?


Either way, America is not divided by Trump but by those who violently protest against him, with no real effect or winning result. It is time for these professional protestors and melodramatic left to put down their torches and weapons and to stop dividing America. In the end, Trump is trying to keep them safe. Maybe it just isn’t enough to keep these whinging American left happy and quiet.

Friday, 23 December 2016

Polly Dunning, congratulations, or not…

Polly Dunning was shocked at learning that she was pregnant with, wait for it, a boy! What a surprise. In a world where the gender of babies can’t be controlled (unbeknownst to leftists), Polly Dunning has had to submit to the power of the world and nature. What really strikes me is that she is actually counter-productive. During her article, she acts like having a son was actually a disgusting thing to have, like she having a son was a punishment.

There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.

Is that sexist? Is she discriminating based on sex? I thought the idea of feminism was to fight sexism against women. Maybe it's just women?

Polly Dunning with her son, Alfred.
Polly Dunning and son Alfred
On the idea of sexism, Dunning, the daughter of feminist Jane Caro, says that the world, and “even the best men (and women for that matter)” is ingrained with casual sexism. She pointed out how people say that boys are ‘easier’ to raise and adds “(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)”

How is that sexist? Taking the word from your friends, probably feminist, may I add, and pointing it out to the world. Aren’t e allowed to make statements about other genders, or about genders. Does Polly know that not all genders are the same? Then again, in her leftist cloud, all genders probably are the same. However, making a comparative statement about someone’s experiences is not sexist. Would Polly classify the statement that ‘girls are generally smarter than boys’ sexist? Differentiating the two genders (and yes, there are only two genders) is not sexist, it is factual, just like girls are smarter than boys (as current evidence suggests), maybe boys are easier to raise than girls.

I feel sorry for the boy. Will Polly keep this article to show how she felt after learning she would have a boy? And yes, I know she is not so happy about having his dear Alfred. As all parents do, she adores her child. But, the fact that she was feeling bitter after learning that she was going to have a boy, is plain selfish. Does she know how many people don’t have that opportunity? Who can’t have a child?

Also, doesn’t Polly know that women can break through the “glass ceiling”? In the 21st century, nothing stops women from doing anything. They can even become Presidents if the people like them. This huff about Hillary losing the election because she was a woman is absolute garbage. She lost because she was too confident on the polls, she leant on them too much, she didn’t relate to the American people and, in the end, the American people didn’t like her, end of story!
Women like Theresa May, Angela Merkel (foolish as she is), Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, etc can do whatever they want. It is the lazy women, the backseat drivers those who couldn’t possibly succeed (even if they had the so-called advantage of being male) that call out feminism the most. Those that say that women can’t get high positions. Those working from the preface that women can’t, and those not trying to.

The comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog hold many valued opinions.

Jane comments:
“I feel sorry for the boy already, him growing up knowing that he is inferior to his sisters because of his gender.
Wait, where have I heard that before, oh that’s right that is what feminists whinge about?”
She hits the point on the head. Dunning’s article is counter-productive. Dunning is actually going against what she is supposedly all about, gender equality (for the two genders). The son will now grow up knowing that his sisters, his girlfriends all his female associates, are superior than him because of gender.

Pat comments:
Feminism has become a dirty word - I can't write what I really think of Polly Dunning because it would raise multiple red flags. What is the Sydney Morning Herald doing by publishing this?”

Pat’s worries are completely justified. In this 18C world, you can’t say anything, especially to or about these leftists who use 18C as their shield and defendant.

David also touches on the counter-productive sexism issue saying:
“Imagine a father expressing a similar thought about having a daughter.
Oh, silly me that's different.”
This is furthered when Jan says:
“Holy moly - you can only imagine the outcry if the genders had been reversed in this article.”

Lastly and most importantly, James and Bernard touch on the point that is all important. How did Polly get pregnant?

Bernard:
“Surely this must be the Second Coming of Christ? After all, it seems to be a virgin birth.”

James:
“Baffles me how on earth she got pregnant, the thought of a male appendage anywhere near her delicate female nether regions would have thrown this poor little bed wetter in to convulsions.”

So, Polly Dunning, the poor mother who was lumbered with a son. She will live ever on as being, not the mother who fought sexism, but she who didn’t want a son, but got it anyway. Will Alfred be reading her disgusting writing anytime soon?

Alfred, good luck. I think you’ll be needing it soon.