Mangled Thoughts

The exercise of discrimination is a second pin of tolerance.A manager, an executive, an owner-manager of a business, if they are to run their business successfully must acquire through practice of hiring and firing competence in selecting individuals they judge will best serve the function of the firm, in a given internal function. Discrimination is exercised in the evaluation of art, which is why the brigade of socialist Yartz Council funded `artistes ‘ scream and howl against anyone who says their work is rubbish, and fight tooth and nail to keep and increase the gravy train of tax revenue flowing to them: they , realise art lovers will exercise sound discrimination by not purchasing their trash they purvey as art. Discrimination is exercised in grading exam papers, whom to befriend, who to avoid, which association to belong to, which opinion is better than other opinions. This is not capricious, it is fundamental to making one’s way in the world, it frees the individual to focus on what is essential in their interests, to avoid pitfalls, to ensuring they achieve the best that they can irrespective of what anyone does - fools, after all hand over their savings to conmen but the prudent always seek sound investors and managers to run their interests and avoid conmen - discrimination is, for better or worse a fundamental dimension of action. What makes for sound judgement cannot be pinned to anything explicit, cannot be specified, prescribed and defined, it can only be summed up as one dimension of competence and is acquired and is cumulative right from childhood, and is part and parcel of growing up and acquiring the traditions which makes civilised intercourse possible, it is bound up with the grounds of civilisation and thus civilised action. We don’t walk around with rule books to look up what one can and what one cannot do, each one is reliant upon what they have been raised to and on that basis they exercise judgment, it informs and guides them but does neither dictate nor determine their judgment.

Confidence in one’s exercise of discrimination is part and parcel of being competent, in making one’s way in the civilised world. The attempt to undermine the individual on that score and make them dependent on some pooh bah who will decide for them, renders them both dependent on the pooh bah and prone to things which can serve them ill. Consider something as simple as:

1. Parents and reward children, point out to them what is good and bad, whether how they are doing something is the right way or not, whether the child’s had writing is neat or ugly, and so on. In other words, everyone learns from childhood a myriad of things which can and cannot be tolerated. Good children do not tolerate those who can lead them astray, let alone make friends of them : Mum/Dad says, `Keep away from Bob or Jane, they are rotten to the core, mark my words my son/girl, by the time they are 20, they’ll be in prison.’ Children exercise discrimination even on the character of those their own age. Children quickly exercise increasingly subtle acts of discrimination.

2.Children, until psychology and so forth was made the pin of `education’ ,left school literate, could write well and distinguished between trash and works of merit. Many these days leave school barely literate, and of those who do, many lack that aesthetic judgement. Real university degrees require of candidates judgement, discrimination, pseudo-university degrees such as sociology and environmental science rest on the basis of discrimination has been undermined, it requires enough `undergraduates’ who believe piffle is sound learning, which leads into the next point.

The demand for `tolerance’ according to leftoids undermines ,as 1. is about, something essential if a child is to progress. There’s an element of survival and avoiding pitfalls. 2. is simply about how subtle is the act of discrimination by civilised men and women, no matter how modest their circumstances are. It is entirely lost on the leftoid intelligentsia the sheer number of those of modest circumstances who do appreciate art of real aesthetic merit, do not need som pooh bah speaking at them about art and, more-over dictating to them what is or is not good art. Those same men and women exercise just as subtle judgment when it comes to their main priorities.

Discrimination on civilised lines, is not incidental, nor a feeling, neither is it universal, nor can it be taught except of formal matter, it’s acquired by the grind of experience through application to interests. This is the main point to what has been set out in Part A and above as also, discrimination entails intolelerance, rejecting what can be unacceptable or inadequate - it’s o.k but really, that is better for this purpose. Intolerance, therefore,is good, it is a mistake to demand tolerance of all and intolerance of nothing because tolerance is inseparable from the act of judgment. One rejects something because it cannot be tolerated. A screw a minute fraction out in diameter of the tolerance range is rejected because it is for a crucial component in an aircraft and must be of an exacting diameter. Commerical airlines reject pilots who cannot fly craft to specification, as do, of course, airforces. The demand for universal tolerance,as the Bracks Junta demands is, therefore, worse than the vulgar rubbish of stalinists, intolerance is fundamental to all of human action. The distinction is, common law and economic freedom has broadened tolerance and intolerance extensively, and given it an impetus entirely different than that of the tribal savage, refined it , made it a civilised virtue. What is intolerable to the religious man, the primitive tribal savage has no bearing whatsoever in civilisation, has no force at all.

Economic freedom, rule of law, absolute property rights, leaves anyone to believe what they wish to believe, so long as they keep in view the distinction between meum and tuum. The civilised basis of tolerance does, but not that of leftoids as so brilliantly illuminated by the Bracks Junta. Some-one may adhere to the mores of the primitive tribesman, however redefined as whether through, say, socialism or Islam, that is their business. When they try to foist it upon others by overthrowing property rights and common law, that is another matter, that is violence, that is forcing upon others your beliefs, beliefs peculiar to you. It is not lawful -This is, in the civilised world, real intolerance, the intolerance of the tyrant. It is real intolerance to demand the subjugation of others to meet the demands of particular interests including `community groups’. That is forcing upon the civilised to tolerate what cannot be tolerated at all, and with that, even forcing them to tolerate things which otherwise free, decent men and women would not tolerate at all.

The leftoid demand for `tolerance’ entails intolerance, since what it involves is some obscure, capricious notion of what are hurdles to tolerance. The hypocrisy is all the more insidious for, they tolerate not only things which only they approve of, but, they personalise it too: those tolerated are those who obey their dicta, and, as the Blasphemy witch sniffer’s inquisition, deliberately seek to find some excuse to throw into prison anyone they can accuse of blasphemy. Bracks’ blasphemy law makes the hypocrisy of commies plain as it also makes plain, what will not be tolerated is anything said which is not sychophantically given to those protected by the `blasphemy law’.

They, the Junta are liars , as well as hypocrites. On the second account, they are intolerant of anything which contradicts their commie notions and plans for Victorians. They are liars, because while committed to making the exercise of discrimination by anyone but themselves a criminal offence, they none-the-less exercise discrimination and make that the `law’ for all Victorians. Worse, while under common law if some-one’s judgment is flawed the ramifications are confined to only their interests, the Junta’s flawed judgements hold for the actions of any Victorian, including anything which the man in the street could find legitimately to be vile and rotten to the core. Take parental authority and guidance as illustrated above, `don’t be friends with that rotten little Bob or Jane’, that already has been undermined in schools, and the rot was started where one would expect it to appear first - Govt. schools, and since the 60’s things have degenerated to now, many govt. schools are3 really nothing more than playgrounf for little violent trained crims - and notice, bound up is with that socialist decree - all children have a `right’ to (`free-’) schooling. Yes, parents in Victorians are irate their authority has been undermined and usurped by `Govt.’ That is precisley one of the many vile ramifications of Bracks’s Bill of Rights.

The `Bill of Rights’ perfects what is already contained in the Blasphemy `Law’. Victorians are to subject themsleves to things which they not only might not tolerate but which cannot be be tolerated at all. One of the provisions is to place some selected interests, `commoonity groups’ /whatever the species of hooman wombat is, above the rule of law altogether. Victorians face the prospect they will have to tolerate and accept some criminals as being as virtuous as their neighbour or business colleagues, and not merely so tolerate them but regard the actions of some criminals as entirely lawful.

The Bill of Rights completes the communist vision of the Bracks Stalinist Junta. It lays out in common law rights are completely overthrown. It renders, effectively, every Victorian the property of the politicians, bureaucrats and judges. It effectivley eliminates all property rights. The ramification of the Bill of Rights is nothing less than a full blown communist police state and yet,as one has documented, this has been prepared for by much of the `legislation’ of the Bracks’ Stalinist Junta right back to their first 12 months in `govt.’ A Stalinist Police state in which what is intolerable is not at all the same as what is intolerable to the civilised,decent, man in the street. Bracks’ notion of tolerance is that of the savage. This takes us to the major and false belief of the socialistos as summed up under the rot of `mutli-culturalism’, the assertion of `culture’ over tradition. This false notion is a major error which was fully developed by the formidable philosophers, historians and theologians of the second half of the 19th century of Germany. Since many are familiar with Hegel, it is simplest to say, that error is fundamental to his `philosophy’.

Bound up with the false conception of `culture’ is the also false: Rousseuanian rot of the noble savage man; organist conception of man, with or without dualism, though it requires dualism; a complete misunderstanding of tradition and the function of tradition, mystoguogy instead of history; ignorance of economics. All these are foundational to Hegel’s pseudo-philopsphy. The false notion of cutlure is written into Bracks’ Bill of Rights, and it is fundamental to the load of shite called multi-culturalism. This requires a Part III.

To foreshadow the conclusion, after Part III, the mussie problem is fundamentally a matter of civilisation over primitive savage tribalism. How on earth could mussies, out to overthrow western civilisation, be let in and in large numbers to pose such a danger to Europe is bound up with the very matter of the ground of civilisation and its overthrow and this is the problem in Australia: The monstrous position of being forced to bow down to muslims by Steve Bracks and his Junta, and tolerating Islamo-fascists in Oz, who go round terrorising Melbournians, as well as Sydneyites, is bound up with precisely successive `govts.’, each tier, over-throwing absolute property rights and common law, so starkly amplified by the Bracks Stalinist Junta. No-one, in the civilised world, has to `understand’ and `respect’ any particular `culture’. What can be expected is, all will be informed and guided by the same general civilised, impersonal traditions, irrespective of what `culture’ some-one may be and, indeed, where some aspects of that `culture’ conflict with the grounds of civilisation, those aspects will be abandoned. Shria law is one such thing, just as primitive tribal custom ( not ,as some assert, `law’) , they have no place in a country in which the rule of common law prevails: or, rather, should prevail if it were not for socialisto politicians, bureaucrats and judges busily overthrowing Common Law for what is incipiently totalitarian rule prepared for by diktat, as amplified by the Stalinist Junta of Brackistaniland.

{ Needless to say, the comments by Howard and Costello has, pleasingly, sent the leftoids into another of their frequent fits of foaming at the mouth nervous breakdowns, and , it is about time the rubbish of multi-culturalism was met head on by politicians of th emajor parties. Funnier still, the Federal ALP , a real surprise, `supports’ Howard. How Federal ALP looks to Steve Jo Stalin Bracks on this score is a most interesting giggle of a question. }

Intolerance, against socialistos, is good:

Blessed is the man who is intolerant, for he will boot out the Stalinist Junta and all their hangers-on goon squads and squillions of bureaucrats and taxpayer kept good for nothing sookie, whining, socialist twerps, and over-turn all their rotten works and restore the Rule of Common Law and absolute property rights, and restoreth the name of Victoria from its current name, Brackistaniland.