Monday 16th of December 2019

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2019-12-14 05:56

Statements of religious belief

Protection received: statements of religious belief will not be found to breach other federal, state and territory discrimination laws.


  • A Christian may say that unrepentant sinners will go to hell, an example cited in the EM which mirrors the facts of Israel Folau’s case

  • A doctor may tell a transgender patient of their religious belief that God made men and women in his image and that gender is therefore binary (EM)

  • A single mother who, when dropping her child off at daycare, may be told by a worker that she is sinful for denying her child a father (Public Interest Advocacy Centre)

  • A woman may be told by a manager that women should submit to their husbands or that women should not be employed outside the home (PIAC)

  • A student with disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)

  • A person of a minority faith may be told by a retail assistant from another religion that they are a “heathen destined for eternal damnation” (PIAC).

Caveats – statements must be made in good faith; not be malicious or harass, vilify or incite hatred against a person or group; not advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence.


Read more:



For Gus — an anti-theist (non-theist, atheist, realist, anti-faith, existentialist, humanist, scientist) — there is no such thing as "in good faith"... ESPECIALLY "DISCRIMINATION IN GOOD FAITH". Gus is not malicious or harassing, nor vilifying nor inciting hatred against a person or group; not does he advocate for committing a serious criminal offence in "bad faith"... Gus reserves the right to argue against religious beliefs in good faith...

God would be an idiot to let this law pass... but He (god is a male) works in mysterious ways...


And we're idiots...

Read from top.





The Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales has accepted a complaint from a gay rights activist who has accused former rugby star Israel Folau of “homosexuality vilification”.

Campaigner Garry Burns wrote to the board’s president in early December complaining about Folau’s infamous April Instagram post in which he warned hell awaits homosexuals.

Burns also complained about the rugby player’s comments seen in a video sermon linking severe droughts and unprecedented bushfires to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in late 2017.


Read more:



It's obvious that religious dudes will go to hell for vilifying homosexuals and other people they don't like (in "good faith"). Atheists, like Gus, don't have the same privilege. Whatever they say, good or bad, they go to oblivion in the end. Tada.

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2019-12-13 16:37

Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has officially won the UK election, securing the required number of seats to govern with a majority.

Key points:

  • The exit poll has the Tories on track to win 368 seats, while Labour is forecast to lose dozens of MPs
  • Boris Johnson is expected to have a clear majority in the House of Commons as he attempts to ram his Brexit agenda through
  • The election was billed as a way out of the Brexit stalemate in the deeply divided nation


The Conservatives have exceeded the 326 seats in the House of Commons required to achieve majority government.

Exit polls projected the Tories were on track to win 368 seats, which would give Mr Johnson a clear majority with which to ram though his Brexit agenda.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party was forecast to pick up 191 seats — 71 fewer than they currently hold.

The Scottish National Party was predicted to win by a landslide in Scotland, taking 55 seats out of 59, while the Liberal Democrats were on track to return 13 MPs to Westminster.


Read more:



"Good luck"......... 

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2019-12-13 11:17

Emmanuel Macron spoke of NATO’s "brain death", others define it as "moribund". Are we therefore facing an Alliance, which, without any more thinking head, is disintegrating under the effect of internal fractures? Disputes at the London Summit seem to confirm this scenario. But we have to look at the substance, the real interests on which relations between the allies are based.

While Trump and Macron wax polemic in front of the cameras in London, in Niger, without too much publicity, the US Army of the US Command for Africa (AfriCom) transports with its cargo planes thousands of French soldiers and their weapons to various outposts in West and Central Africa for Operation Barkhane, in which Paris engages 4,500 soldiers, mainly Special Forces, with the support of the US Special Forces in combat actions as well. At the same time, the armed Reaper drones, supplied by the USA to France, operate from Air Base 101 in Niamey (Niger). From this same base, the Reapers of the AfriCom US Air Force, which are now redeployed to the new 201 base in Agadez in the north of the country, continue to operate with French forces.

The case is emblematic. The United States, France and other European powers, including multinational groups competing for markets and raw materials, are becoming more compact when their common interests are at stake. For example, those they have in the Sahel which is rich in raw materials: oil, gold, coltan, diamonds, uranium. But now their interests in this region, where poverty rates are among the highest, are being threatened by popular uprisings and by the Chinese economic presence. Hence Operation Barkhane, which, presented as an anti-terrorist operation, engages the allies in a long-term war with drones and special forces.

The strongest cement that holds NATO together is the common interests of the military-industrial complex on both sides of the Atlantic. This one has been strengthened by the London Summit. The Final Declaration [1] provides the main motivation for a subsequent increase in military spending: "Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security". The Allies commit not only to increase their military spending to at least 2% of GDP, but to spend at least 20% of it on arms. This objective has already been achieved by 16 of the 29 countries, including Italy. The United States is investing more than 200 billion dollars in 2019 for this purpose. The results are visible. On the same day as the NATO Summit opened, General Dynamics signed a $22.2 billion contract with the US Navy, extensible to 24, to supply 8 Virginia-class submarines for special operations and Tomahawk missile attack missions, including nuclear warhead missions (40 per submarine).

Accusing Russia (without any evidence) of deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles and thus burying the INF Treaty, the Summit decides "to further strengthen our ability to defend ourselves with a set of nuclear, conventional and anti-missile capabilities, which we will continue to adapt: as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance". This card includes the recognition of space as the fifth operational field, in other words a very expensive military space programme of the Alliance is announced. It is a blank cheque unanimously given by the Allies to the military-industrial complex.

For the first time, with the Summit Declaration, NATO speaks of the "challenge" arising from China’s growing influence and international politics, emphasizing "the need to confront it together as an Alliance"[1]. The message is clear: NATO is more than ever necessary for a West whose supremacy is now being questioned by China and Russia. Immediate result: the Japanese Government announced that it had purchased the uninhabited island of Mageshima, 30 km off its coast, for $146 million to make it a training site for US fighter-bombers against China.

Roger Lagassé

Il Manifesto (Italy)



Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2019-12-13 08:00

The BBC may have just unwittingly revealed – or even committed – a huge breach of electoral rules. Giving a report via her phone this afternoon, the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg seemed to suggest that some unknown party had improper access to postal ballots:

…the postal votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties, they’re not meant to look at them, but they do kind of get a hint. And, on both sides, people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking very grim for Labour…

Clearly, if true, this is a massive breach of electoral ethics. The electoral commission rules on postal ballots are very, very clear about how they’re handled prior to being counted [their emphasis]:

1.9 Ballot papers will be kept face down throughout a postal vote opening session. Anyone attending an opening session must not attempt to see how individual ballot papers have been marked. It follows therefore that keeping a tally of how ballot papers have been marked is not allowed. 

1.10 In addition, anyone attending a postal vote opening must not attempt to look at identifying marks or numbers on ballot papers, disclose how any particular ballot paper has been marked or pass on any such information gained from the session. Anyone found guilty of breaching these requirements can face an unlimited fine, or may be imprisoned for up to six months.

Nobody should have any idea what the results are! Especially not the Political parties themselves! 

And they DEFINITELY shouldn’t be using them as a basis for campaigning, which this report most certainly was.

Consider the implications – these votes have not been counted yet, and yet we know someone has had illegal access to them. That impacts the integrity of the vote. If ballots can be seen before they’re counted, they can potentially be changed, destroyed, stolen or ignored.

Now, there is the possibility that it’s not true – that the postal ballots don’t favour the Tories and/or nobody has looked at them. 

But that’s no better, as that would mean the BBC are reporting a lie to try and influence the vote.

True or false, the report exposes serious corruption. 

Essentially, one of three things has happened:

  1. Someone has had illegal access to the postal ballots before they’ve been counted and informed the BBC, who reported them – also illegally.
  2. Someone leaked fake postal vote results, and the BBC reported them without question (again, illegally, or at least unethically).
  3. The BBC’s political editor invented the whole story, and reported something she knew was a lie.

All three involve the BBC, and/or other unnamed parties, breaking the law in order to influence the election. This should be a massive scandal. One that could potentially call into question the integrity of the whole election.

Will there be a proper investigation?

The video clip is increasingly hard to find, we have downloaded it from twitter and are hosting it here. Please download it, watch it and circulate it. Before it gets memory-holed.



Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2019-12-12 20:43


From Rod Dreher


I mentioned on Twitter the other day a conversation I overheard in which an older woman was telling her friend that she doesn’t understand her adult daughter’s relationship to her chosen religion. The daughter and her husband converted to Catholicism. Her mom asked if she goes to confession. The daughter told her mom no, that nobody in their parish goes to confession. The mom (not a Catholic) said to her friend, “I told her that if you’re going to be part of a religion, then really be a part of it.”

I thought of that just now when reading Tara Isabella Burton’s wonderful essay about how she got off the fence and started to think and live as an actual Christian, not just an aesthetic pretender. Excerpts:

Throughout my childhood, I kept an altar that was a fusion of Roman saints’ icons and Wiccan candles I purchased on the internet. I was a little bit Catholic, a little bit Episcopalian, a little bit Jewish, a little bit pagan. Then, in my late 20s, I discovered I was a Christian.


She learned that saying yes to Christ meant that she had to say no to many other things. More:

But for me, the most demanding part of embracing Christianity was sacrificing the safety of in-betweenness. I could no longer be a little bit pagan. Halloween parties that ironically-but-not-really celebrated witchcraft, say, or other staples of my at-times aggressively secular New York life were no longer simply curious parts of my spiritual eclecticism. I had to pick a side.

For the first time, I had to ask myself questions not just about what it all meant in an abstract way but what each decision—from posting on Instagram to choosing an outfit to drinking too much to hosting a party to committing to monogamy to planning a wedding—meant for me, as a Christian, in the framework of my Christianity. If God was real, if Christ really did come back from the dead, then nothing else mattered except insofar as it reflected that one hideous, impossible truth.


Read it all. 

I had a similar realization — literally, a come-to-Jesus moment — in my twenties too. It was about sex. I finally quit lying to myself, and trying to convince myself that I could be fully Christian, except for that one area where I wanted to keep my options open. Not true. Either Jesus Christ is God, or he isn’t. If he is God, then that means he is the God of all my life, not just the parts I find easy to surrender to him. And despite what these liars (like the porn-supporting, lascivious Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber in the present day) say, Christianity has never blessed sex outside of marriage. It’s just a lie — a lie that a lot of young Christians (as I was then) are prone to believe, but a lie all the same.


In regard to this crap, there has been some massive misunderstandings and fanciful tale spinning. As more than 44,000 year old paintings in Indonesia are revealed to the world, one cannot be of a limited faith that goes back to Eve and Adam, 6000 years ago. It’s ridiculous. The human species is an evolutionary branch of an accidental chemical nature that reacted upon itself — in satisfactory and sufficient environmental factors, such as elementary supply, including water, and temperature levels.  

Even the mother of god "did not have sex" to give birth to little Jesus… Jesus as a god is an idea. One could speculate that the “angel” that told Mary she was pregnant, was a hoax, designed to hide that fact that Joseph was not the father of her child. Did Jesus have sex? Who knows… Some of the bible has been expunge on this subject. The fifth book of the new testament tells a different story to the other four: Jesus got married, had progeny — a progeny that became the stuff of legend, the Holy Grail, like the rest of the narrative was reformulated to manufacture “a believable story”...

Sex is what other animals do as well. Some mate for life, some don’t. It’s a natural urge to propagate species. For humans, the reproduction boundaries are not as defined, BECAUSE WE, HUMANS, ARE STILL EVOLVING and we have reached a stage of uncertainty (stylism) in the existential value of “being” in which we impose and accept sexual restrictions, according to our beliefs and social moires and cultures... 

So you can delude yourself as much as you like, the sexual performance and management has nothing to do with god, sinning and confession….

And now for the high jump with Shane Miller:

In his 19th-century study of crowd behavior, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay wrote: “We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.” Looking at the contemporary political scene, this analysis holds up well.

For following in Mackay’s footsteps is the acclaimed British writer Douglas Murray, with his masterful book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity. Arguing that society is suffering from a “mass derangement” due to the social justice and identity politics craze, Murray says the purpose is to “embed a new metaphysics into our societies: a new religion, if you will.” To do this requires a new set of heresies, or “tripwires,” as he calls them. These tripwires are constructed around four main issues that make up the social justice faith: gay rights, women’s rights, race issues, and trans rights. The political culture this has created has led to multiple people being publicly immolated for the crime of transgression. 

The most plausible diagnosis for this cultural decay is that it’s a consequence of the loss of grand narratives and meaning that were once provided by the West’s religious and intellectual heritage. Murray also describes the astonishing appeal of these ideologies as a post-recession phenomenon, with the impact of the 2008 economic downturn having left young people feeling precarious and looking for ways to make sense of it all. As a result, politics isn’t a necessary nuisance; it’s the source of one’s purpose and meaning in life. 

Read more:

QUESTION: why did we loose the grand narratives and meaning that were once provided by the West’s religious and intellectual heritage

Answer: because none of it was ever “democratic”. The West’s religious and intellectual heritage, like the Islamic heritage, was (and is) an imposition of will by old deranged men and young perverted males, coming from the top down: hypocritical kings, deluded popes and ruthless despots. The religious views on marriage did not come from Jesus himself, but from the Synods some 300 years later. End of story…

We are NOT suffering from mass derangement. We are in a progressive flux, as we reassess our purposes, on a social and individual levels, through democracy. And it can be painful... But this is not new. History is full of lying loonies who have pushed values away from the people in order to stay psychopathic master of the mad masses, while claiming godly rights… If this is the West’s religious and intellectual heritage, it’s great time to get rid of it — and replace it with measured scientific investigations.

Read from top.
by Gus Leonisky on Thu, 2019-12-12 20:26

NATO Wants to Become the Atlantic-Pacific Alliance


No one stops the Pentagon. While the military deployment project around China mentioned by Hillary Clinton in 2011 had officially been abandoned, NATO had just had it endorsed by the London Summit. The process has been launched and is expected to start with Australia’s accession in 2026.

The international press only remembered the bursts of voices that preceded it and the giggles that punctuated it at the NATO 70th Anniversary Summit in London. The important thing was obviously elsewhere [1].

When it was created, the function of the Atlantic Alliance was summarized by its Secretary General, Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, as "Keeping the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" [2]. As this objective had disappeared with the "homeland of communism", efforts were made to present the Russian Federation as its continuation. Then we accepted the idea of allowing Germany to have its own policy. Finally, consideration was given to extending the Alliance to the Pacific to "contain" China, which has just been confirmed.

The current insults give a bad image of the Alliance, but they correspond to the return of the secular Franco-German rivalry. France intends to become a very great power, both through its atomic bomb and through the European supranational state, while Germany cannot consider becoming a military power again without NATO’s nuclear protection [3].

This situation is expressed in Syria and the Sahel. On Syria, France curses over the Turkish attack on Kurdish PKK/YPG mercenaries, while Germany proposes to deploy its troops under NATO control. Neither of them managed to move forward, with the United States remaining the sole masters of the game. In the Sahel, France is beginning to find the burden of maintaining the status quo too heavy for it, while Germany would be ready to increase its share, but exclusively under US command. Here again, neither of the two states is able to move forward. Everyone has understood what is at stake behind the anti-terrorist rhetoric: the maintenance of the current governments that allow the exploitation of the region’s resources. However, here again, the United States is the sole master of the game and intends to be the first to benefit from this exploitation.

What is new is the possible opening of the Chinese front. It would involve transforming the Atlantic Alliance into an "Atlantic-Pacific Alliance". According to the Pentagon’s studies, Australia, India and Japan should therefore be brought on board in such a way as to surround China as we have done with Russia. This process, which should take a decade, has just begun with the London Summit.

Already, US PaCom, the United States Pacific Command, has been renamed by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis US IndoPaCom [4].

Then the new Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg quietly went to Sydney in early August to test Australian leaders who were honoured but frightened by the prospect of having to shelter nuclear missiles [5]. Contacts were made identically with India and Japan, but they were much less fruitful. In addition, the United States has reviewed its policy towards South Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam to bring their respective armies closer together. These states are used to working with Pentagon staff, but not at all with each other.

Beijing had understood by 2014 that the US willingness to leave the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was less an anti-Russian perspective than a threat to it. It is now clear that there will be a deployment of US nuclear missiles all around China and that NATO will follow.

For the Chinese, it is a step backwards, when at the end of the 19th century the United States developed its "Open Door Doctrine". The aim was to establish a pact between the colonial empires so that they could establish a form of free commercial competition between them and exploit underdeveloped regions instead of waging war against each other to appropriate territory. Given its industrial superiority, Washington was sure to win. To continue this aggression, it developed a soothing speech. It supported the "territorial integrity and sovereignty" of the countries where it wished to do business. It promoted the strengthening of local governments as only they could guarantee the application of unequal treaties. In this way, the peoples controlled themselves for its benefit. The false nature of the US policy statements was verified during the Japanese attacks on China: Washington supported all Japanese demands and left eastern China to be dismembered.

It was precisely this experience of fighting all the colonial empires united against it - including tsarist Russia - that pushed President Xi Jinping to get closer to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, because his country experienced the same aggression afterwards: both states know in their blood that they will have to face them one day or another. However, the Pentagon has bet that once the danger comes, Moscow will not support Beijing; a risk assessment prior to the Russian hypersonic missiles.

China does not see this war in the same terms as NATO: it intends to move the battlefield into the computer sphere and destroy the weapons of the Enlarged North Atlantic Alliance by cyber attacks before it uses them.

In October 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called in Foreign Policy for a "pivot to Asia": the United States had to leave Europe and the broader Middle East to deploy in the Far East [6]. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon explained this plan in March 2013 to the Asia Society [7]. It included a diplomatic and financial mechanism, the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. However, very quickly the Pentagon corrected the situation: it would not be a question of abandoning one part of the world for another, but of extending from one to the other. This was the notion of "rebalancing", the only one compatible with the pursuit of "war without end" in the wider Middle East. Failing to convince, the Pentagon abruptly ended the debate by stressing that it was impossible from a budgetary point of view to maintain three fronts at the same time [8]. Since then, the Pentagon has acquired many weapons that it has stored in the Pacific.

President Donald Trump tried to stop this mirage by removing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as soon as it joined the White House. But nothing doing. The Pentagon is inexorably continuing its march and has just imposed its vision after nine years of talk.

While from the French point of view, NATO is in a state of "brain death", the Pentagon has begun its transformation into a global organization. All Member States signed the London Declaration without reflection, which states: "We are aware that China’s growing influence and international policies present both opportunities and challenges, to which we must respond together as an Alliance" [9]. The process is underway.

Roger Lagassé


Read more:


Read from top.

Read also:

fake reality on steroid...