Australian government has gone tyrannical

Laus Deo

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Things don’t seem to be working out too well for the wallabies since they all turned there back on their Christian team mate Israel Folau a while ago hey?
Because it’s an elitist sport (at least in Australia), virtue signalling takes precedence over results/revenue. They virtue signalled on Folau, they virtue signalled by singing the anthem in some Aboriginal dialect, and they virtue signalled on being the first sport jabbed.

Their wealthy benefactors and global networks will fund the sport forever because of this even as the grandstands and trophy cabinet look emptier than 20 years ago.
 

tom

Sparrow
Because it’s an elitist sport (at least in Australia), virtue signalling takes precedence over results/revenue. They virtue signalled on Folau, they virtue signalled by singing the anthem in some Aboriginal dialect, and they virtue signalled on being the first sport jabbed.

Their wealthy benefactors and global networks will fund the sport forever because of this even as the grandstands and trophy cabinet look emptier than 20 years ago.
They put the abos in camps and force them to take the vax against their will.

But the rugby team sings the national anthem in an abo dialect. To show how tolerent, etc Australia is
 

BarrontheTigercat

Kingfisher
Other Christian
They put the abos in camps and force them to take the vax against their will.

But the rugby team sings the national anthem in an abo dialect. To show how tolerent, etc Australia is


Lets play a game of Spot the Actual Aboriginal and Spot the Actual Maori..

Cos for all the melanin on display here there is not one True Blue Maori nor one True Blue Aborigine in the crowd thus assembled.
Aborigine Wardance/Songs? Check.
Maori Wardance/ Songs? Check.
Actual Maoris or Aborigines? Er, No.. no, well.. nope.

What a Pantomime.

This is how White Christian sporting nations greet each other in 2021.
 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
With all due respect, but that fatalism (God will come and whatever is written must happen) is partially responsible for our woes. You are right, we must be wise as serpents and as gentle as doves, not helpless as puppies.

This is what happened in Russia:
While the Russians did not create the Bolshevik regime, all too many of them sat quietly on the sidelines while demons in human form murdered the priests, looted the churches, and mocked Him with impunity. Their punishment was to be themselves murdered by the millions in terror-famines, purges, and the Gulag.
 

Padouk

 
Banned
Non-Christian
With all due respect, but that fatalism (God will come and whatever is written must happen) is partially responsible for our woes. You are right, we must be wise as serpents and as gentle as doves, not helpless as puppies.

You're right - no one will help us but ourselves. Any violent uprising or revolutions will not resolve our dilemma. That's the lesson of history.

I might sound like a broken record but we have the answer: just follow the example of the Amish. Form tight communities sharing common values, reject technology and concentrate on the family. This is the only solution and it is exactly the reason why agents like Marx, Trotsky and Lenin were employed to distort this idea and turn it into a perversion of itself, called communism.

The question is can we reject technology now when we are so far gone with it? How can we revert back to more primitive societies where the rest of the world goes in a completely different direction. The Amish have the advantage of starting their communities in periods when we were not so advanced in technology.

For me the key is to learn to live without electricity. That's the main point and also very difficult. We are so used to computers now that we can not imagine going without them.

Can it be done today? I know many will say that we can have modern communities where we can use computers to our advantage but I doubt it very much because like bitcoin if you depend on the infrastructure maintained by the technological society you can not be free and independent.
 
Last edited:

HighTower

Robin
Orthodox
You're right - no one will help us but ourselves. Any violent uprising or revolutions will not resolve our dilemma. That's the lesson of history.

I might sound like a broken record but we have the answer: just follow the example of the Amish. Form tight communities sharing common values, reject technology and concentrate on the family. This is the only solution and it is exactly the reason why agents like Marx, Trotsky and Lenin were employed to distort this idea and turn it into a perversion of itself, called communism.

The question is can we reject technology now when we are so far gone with it? How can we revert back to more primitive societies where the rest of the world goes in a completely different direction. The Amish have the advantage of starting their communities in periods when we were not so advanced in technology.

For me the key is to learn to live without electricity. That's the main point and also very difficult. We are so used to computers now that we can not imagine going without them.

Can it be done today? I know many will say that we can have modern communities where we can use computers to our advantage but I doubt it very much because like bitcoin if you depend on the infrastructure maintained by the technological society you can not be free and independent.
Look into Gene Sharp "How to start a Revolution" that outlines nonviolent revolutionary techniques. The formula is proven to work just requires motivated participants.

 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
Look into Gene Sharp "How to start a Revolution" that outlines nonviolent revolutionary techniques. The formula is proven to work just requires motivated participants.



Four words: “Follow the rules exactly.”
That’s it? That’s it.
Any system? Any system.
There are reasons for this. These reasons are universal.
First, every institution assumes voluntary compliance in at least 95% of all cases. This may be a low-ball estimate. Most people comply, either out of fear or lack of concern or strong belief in the system and its goals.
Second, every institution has more rules than it can follow, let alone enforce. Some of these rules are self-contradictory. The more rules, the larger the number of contradictions. (There is probably a statistical pattern here — some variant of Parkinson’s law.)
Third, every institution is built on this assumption: partial compliance. Not everyone will comply with any given procedural rule. There are negative sanctions to enforce compliance on the few who resist. They serve as examples to force compliance. Conversely, very few people under the institution’s jurisdiction will attempt to force the institution to comply exactly with any procedural rule.
These three laws of institutions — and they really are laws — offer any resistance movement an opportunity to shut down any system.

JAMMING THE GULAG

When we think of institutional tyrannies, few come close to matching the system of concentration camps in the Soviet Union: the Gulag. They operated from 1918 until after the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. It took time to close them in 1992.

In his book, To Build a Castle, Vladimir Bukovsky provides one of the finest descriptions of institution-jamming ever recorded. He organized it.

What you are about to read is like nothing you have ever read. I have spent over 45 years studying bureaucracies in theory and practice. I have seen nothing to match it.

Bukovsky spent well over a decade in the Soviet gulag concentration camp system in the 1960's and 1970's. He was arrested and sentenced in spite of specific civil rights protections provided by the Soviet Constitution — a document which was never respected by the Soviet bureaucracy. But once in prison, he learned to make life miserable for the director of his camp.

He learned that written complaints had to be responded to officially within a month. This administrative rule governing the camps was for "Western consumption," but it was nevertheless a rule. Any camp administrator who failed to honor it risked the possibility of punishment, should a superior (or ambitious subordinate) decide to pressure him for any reason. In short, any failure to "do it by the book" could be used against him later on.

Bukovsky became an assembly-line producer of official protests. By the end of his career as a "zek," he had taught hundreds of other inmates to follow his lead. By following certain procedures that were specified by the complaint system, Bukovsky's protesting army began to disrupt the whole Soviet bureaucracy. His camp clogged the entire system with protests — hundreds of them per day. He estimates that eventually the number of formal complaints exceeded 75,000. To achieve such a phenomenal output, the protestors had to adopt the division of labor. Bukovsky describes the process: "At the height of our war, each of us wrote from ten to thirty complaints a day. Composing thirty complaints in one day is not easy, so we usually divided up the subjects among ourselves and each man wrote on his own subject before handing it around for copying by all the others. If there are five men in a cell and each man takes six subjects, each of them has the chance to write thirty complaints while composing only six himself."

The complaints were addressed to prominent individuals and organizations: the deputies of the Supreme Soviet, the regional directors, astronauts, actors, generals, admirals, the secretaries of the Central Committee, shepherds, sportsmen, and so forth. "In the Soviet Union, all well-known individuals are state functionaries."

Each complaint had to be responded to. The camp administrators grew frantic. They threatened punishments, and often imposed them, but it did no good; the ocean of protests grew. Bukovsky's description is incomparable.

The next thing that happens is that the prison office, inundated with complaints, is unable to dispatch them within the three-day deadline. For overrunning the deadline they are bound to be reprimanded and to lose any bonuses they might have won. When our war was at its hottest the prison governor summoned every last employee to help out at the office with this work-librarians, bookkeepers, censors, political instructors, security officers. It went even further. All the students at the next-door Ministry of the Interior training college were pressed into helping out as well.

All answers to and dispatches of complaints have to be registered in a special book, and strict attention has to be paid to observing the correct deadlines. Since complaints follow a complex route and have to be registered every step of the way, they spawn dossiers and records of their own. In the end they all land in one of two places: the local prosecutor's office or the local department of the Interior Ministry. These offices can't keep up with the flood either and also break their deadlines, for which they too are reprimanded and lose their bonuses. The bureaucratic machine is thus obliged to work at full stretch, and you transfer the paper avalanche from one office to another, sowing panic in the ranks of the enemy. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats, always at loggerheads with one another, and often enough your complaints become weapons in internecine wars between bureaucrat and bureaucrat, department and department. This goes on for months and months, until, at last, the most powerful factor of all in Soviet life enters the fray — statistics.

As the 75,000 complaints became part of the statistical record, the statistical record of the prison camp and the regional camps was spoiled. All bureaucrats suffered. There went the prizes, pennants, and other benefits. "The workers start seething with discontent, there is panic in the regional Party headquarters, and a senior commission of inquiry is dispatched to the prison."

The commission then discovered a mass of shortcomings with the work of the prison's administration, although the commission would seldom aid specific prisoners. The prisoners knew this in advance. But the flood of protests continued for two years.
The entire bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union found itself drawn into this war. There was virtually no government department or institution, no region or republic, from which we weren't getting answers. Eventually we had even drawn the criminal cons into our game, and the complaints disease began to spread throughout the prison - in which there were twelve hundred men altogether. I think that if the business had continued a little longer and involved everyone in the prison, the Soviet bureaucratic machine would have simply ground to a halt: all Soviet institutions would have had to stop work and busy themselves with writing replies to US.

Finally, in 1977, they capitulated to several specific demands of the prisoners to improve the conditions of the camps. The governor of the prison was removed and pensioned off. Their ability to inflict death-producing punishments did them little good, once the prisoners learned of the Achilles' heel of the bureaucracy: paperwork.. The leaders of the Soviet Union could bear it no longer: they deported Bukovsky.


Alinsky realized early that very few people will pay the price that Gandhi paid. So, he devised a system of resistance that lowered the risk, thereby lowering the cost. He understood the economists' law: "When the cost of producing anything falls, more will be supplied." More of what? Resistance.

His system involved at least one of two tactics: (1) violating a rule to which only a minimal negative sanction was attached, (2) follow the organization's procedural rules to the letter in a Bukovsky-like manner.
He tested his non-violent strategy and tactics in the 1960's in Chicago. He wrote a book on his system, Rules For Radicals (1972). He wrote this.

Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is still government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let us keep some perspective.
We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without a supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.
Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate.
"The revolution was effected before the war commenced; John Adams wrote. "The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people. . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." A revolution without a prior reformation would collapse or become a totalitarian tyranny.



 

gat

Robin
Protestant
An extremely valuable read. Thank you. I have also now purchased the book.

Does anyone have ideas on how to apply this to public schools? Where would you start?

I've begun asking for health records, teaching lessons, asking for comments on scientific studies - basically just giving them extra administrative work but nothing really painful like the above described.

My theory is that causing enough pain to the teachers and staff will cause them to get in touch with the board. I am also going through the board but they ignore most things.
 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
An extremely valuable read. Thank you. I have also now purchased the book.

Does anyone have ideas on how to apply this to public schools? Where would you start?

I've begun asking for health records, teaching lessons, asking for comments on scientific studies - basically just giving them extra administrative work but nothing really painful like the above described.

My theory is that causing enough pain to the teachers and staff will cause them to get in touch with the board. I am also going through the board but they ignore most things.

All I can give is this example:
A specter is haunting liberalism: the specter of Saul Alinsky.

We need a positive program of changing people's minds. We also need a negative program of successful resistance techniques that will get the State off our backs long enough for us to go about the work of positive reformation. Meanwhile, we can gum up the works.


That literally happened under Alinsky. Some Christian college was foolish enough to allow students to invite him to speak on campus. A group of disgruntled students met with him after his speech. "How can we change this place? We can't do anything. We can't smoke, dance, go to movies, or drink beer. About all we can do is chew gum." Alinsky told them, "Then gum is your answer."

He told them to get 200 or 300 students to buy two packs of gum each. Chew both packs simultaneously every day, and then spit out the wads on campus walks. As he said, 'Why, with five hundred wads of gum I could paralyze Chicago, stop all the traffic in the Loop." He told them to keep it up until the rules were loosened or abolished. The tactic worked. Two weeks later all the rules were lifted. One new rule was substituted: no gum on campus.

That college administration was weak. Its leaders really did not believe in their own standards. They could have immediately banned gum from the campus the second day, with immediate expulsion as the penalty for anyone caught chewing it. But this would have made them look ridiculous to people on the outside. Expelling kids for chewing gum, when other campuses are being bombed by student radicals? The outsiders would never have seen the hundreds of wads of dried gum on the walkways every morning. Bureaucrats never ever want to look ridiculous. They capitulated. They were, in short, fearful bureaucrats. So are most of the people who will give Christians trouble over the next two decades.

Here are Alinsky's 13 tactical rules:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize and polarize it.

I hope you can get together with others to brainstorm this.
 
Top