|
FACTUAL…? Or FOOLISH?
The Ultimate Australian Voter's Guide
APES DEMONSTRATE BASIC FACTS ABOUT HUMANITY’S HABITS
|
 |
Two
of the four apes that beat him have no idea why they
were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they
are participating in the beating of the newest ape.
After replacing the fourth and fifth original apes,
all the apes which have been sprayed with cold water
have been replaced. Nevertheless, no ape ever again
approaches the stairs. Why not?
“Because that’s the way it’s always been done around
here.” |
This same principle can be applied to the way many
Australians vote in elections: a so-called “conservative”
approach pushes many of us to vote according to an outdated
“tradition” of “loyalty” to a political party, rather than
making up our minds based upon the actual beliefs and goals of
individual candidates.
This outdated ‘tradition’ prevents us from thinking for
ourselves, and investigating the merits of individual
candidates, regardless of party, for the betterment of the
Common Good and our children’s future.
Look at our coat-of arms: it depicts our soul and choice.
The Australian coat of arms bears a kangaroo and an emu.
Cartoonists have depicted the kangaroo putting up his fists and
fighting, especially to defend its young. The emu is a big bird
that has a familiar cousin: the ostrich. Cartoonists have
depicted the ostrich burying its head under the sand –
ostensibly, since this not actually true - in order not to see
the approaching danger.
Aussie kangaroos don’t mind appearing to be
divisive. They ruffle feathers, if necessary, and make waves, if
they have to. They believe that their future and that of their
children must be defended.
But ostriches prefer to look away
and avoid the
unpleasantness of having to take a stand. Often they suffer the
loss of their young. Yet they think that’s the safest way to be.
They glorify mediocrity, cowardice and insensitivity.
When elections approach, the choice is ours.
How are we
going to vote?
by
Raymond de Souza
Like a real Aussie Kangaroo who puts up a fight to defend its
young, who investigates the characters and views of individual
candidates on non-negotiable issues… or like an ostrich-like emu
that buries its head under the sand and votes according to the
party line, the politically correct way, the looks and nice
things said by the candidate?
We must participate in
the political process at the ballot box.
Let us consider the questions below as we make up our minds.
1st Question:
Are there non-negotiable issues to be
considered in any election?
The Ostrich Answer: There are no basic human rights that must be respected, or,
as some call them, “non-negotiable” issues. Every sensible
person realises that morals have nothing to do with politics,
and politics have nothing to do with morals. It’s in the nature
of politics for everything to be up for grabs. In short, every man has his price.
THE ROO'S ANSWER:
There are non-negotiable moral issues that must be defended
at all costs. We are a nation of free men and women, not of
slaves. Our families cannot live at the whims of politicians.
The increase in immorality and crime of all sorts, in our
society, proves ad nauseam that libertarian policies have not
worked. Our legislation must respect basic human rights, founded
on human nature, which are equal for every person.
2nd Question: How to vote:
(a) According to the party line; or
(b) According to the merits of individual candidates?
The Ostrich Answer: Always base your vote on your political party affiliation,
your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition.
Never cross the floor, even if the bloke from the other party
defends your views better than your own party candidate. Keep on
believing that your party is totally reliable, responsible and
trustworthy. Who has ever heard of a politician making promises
in election time just to fail to deliver later? Absurd! It has
never happened (at least not on our side of the house, anyway).
No, they are decent chaps when they obey the party. People
have towed the party line before, so they should go on doing it.
This is sound political tradition; to do as others have done
before you, regardless of the changes in historical, social or
economic circumstances. And she’ll be right.
Besides, can you imagine how your dear old Dad would turn in
his grave if he found out that you voted for someone from the
other side?
THE ROO'S ANSWER:
Political parties are human, fallible institutions, not
divine, infallible ones. There is good and bad in every party.
Some have more of each, some have less. History abounds in
examples of parties that have betrayed their members by passing
legislation that was not written in the manifesto, and without
any consultation with the people. They just waited till they
grabbed power to impose their hidden agendas. We must vote for a
candidate whose individual beliefs, principles and views defend
the Common Good, regardless of political affiliation. We must
protect our children, not the politicians’ jobs.
3rd Question:
Should we trust the party hierarchy blindly, or should we
investigate each candidate’s views before voting?
The Ostrich Answer: Do not try to be a smart Alec and investigate each candidate
as an individual, to see if he or she indeed deserves your vote.
You risk finding out all sorts of things about your candidate,
and that may be embarrassing for the party hierarchy. No: Tow
the party line, and you’ll be doing just fine. Never, ever, cast
your vote for somebody from across the floor of Parliament.
You don’t have to think for yourself; your party will do it
for you. On Election Day (usually a Saturday), just switch on
the telly to watch the latest rugby match, have a few beers and
in between games make a quick trip to the booth and vote as the
party machine tells you. Then enjoy the rest of your six-pack
and cheer your team.
Never write directly to candidates to ask how they stand on
each of the so-called ‘non-negotiable’ issues. It is not nice.
It’s risky, even. You never know what you might find out. It’s
better to be ignorant of their views and let them get on with
the job they want to be elected to do, the way they think best.
THE
ROO'S ANSWER: Become informed about the stand of the candidates who want
your vote. More often than not, the party machine is
self-serving. Be courageous in defending your children’s future:
if need be, vote for someone from across the floor, or for an
Independent. Do not sell yourself for the sake of political
correctness.
4th Question:
What should I do if I do not belong to a Party or am in
doubt?
The Ostrich Answer: If you really must make a choice, at most, cast your vote
based on “candidate’s appearance, personality, or how she/he
looks or speaks on television, even if she/he supports things
you don’t agree with.
Better still, base your vote on his/her previous career as a
rock singer, movie actor or sports hero. Everybody knows that to
sing in a rock band, act in a movie or win a gold medal in the
Olympics, is the best way to prepare anyone for public office
and run the country on your behalf.
Another option is to choose among candidates based on the
"What's in it for me?" approach. We are the centre; our religion
is to worship the trinity of the me, myself and I. If the
candidate offers nothing great for us, we must try another.
THE ROO'S ANSWER:
Find out each candidate’s principles, never going for the
looks, the attraction, the clever things he says, etc. Elections
are serious business. Above all, candidates who says that they
believe in God, but will not allow their beliefs to interfere in
their political life, then that’s definitely not the right
people, because they consents to betray their own principles. We
should never cast our votes for those who call themselves
‘Christian’ but at the same time support libertarian policies,
like prostitution, homosexual marriage, cannabis, pornography,
abortion, euthanasia, etc. These people have contradictory – and
therefore dangerous – policies. If they can act against their
own beliefs and betray their consciences, surely it will be much
easier for them to betray our confidence.
Let us make our decisions based on which candidates seem most
likely to promote the common good, the country’s future, and
society at large, even if we will not benefit directly or
immediately from the program they propose.
THE
OSTRICH AND KANGAROO STANCES REGARDING THE FIVE
“NON-NEGOTIABLE” ISSUES
1st Issue
-
Abortion
The Ostrich's Stance: All forms of abortion should be legal and taxpayer-funded.
People should be allowed to have their fun and, in the end,
eliminate unwanted results. The child is part of the mother’s
body. It belongs to the mother, and she can have him killed at
any stage, like removing a wart or a diseased appendix. The
celebrated President Clinton was very supportive of the ultimate
abortion right: that one in which the 9-month old child in the
womb is born feet first and, before the head is seen, a powerful
stiletto-like tube is inserted into the back of the head and
sucks the brains out. It’s called partial birth abortion. By the
way, the warmonger George Bush abolished it, but the American
Supreme Court will bring it back, I’m sure.
In the meantime, make certain that we protect trees, dolphins
and endangered spiders.
THE ROO'S STANCE:
The right to life is the first human right. It is not a State
concession. Therefore, every abortion is the intentional and
direct killing of an innocent human being, and is therefore a
form of homicide.
The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit
the taking of his life. Legal abortion is legal murder.
Pro-Abortion politicians deny the most basic human right: the
right to live. When the right to live is denied to some, all
other rights are illusory and irrelevant.
Abortion must be made illegal once and for all, otherwise the
cruelty of partial-birth abortion and like horrors will, sooner
or later, be forced upon us by “libertarian” politicians. This
is not far-fetched, because our great business partner, China,
forces abortion on her people, and has done so for many years. –
but our politicians conveniently say nothing about it, of
course.
Humans must take precedence over plants and animals.
2nd Issue -
Euthanasia
The Ostrich's Stance: In “mercy killing”, the ill or elderly are killed out of a
sense of compassion. It’s obvious that they need to be taken out
of their misery. No one should have to suffer so much. Old folks
who have outlived the usefulness of their lives should be
allowed to go. Why should families – or the taxpayer for that
matter - waste money on palliative care? We’d rather save that
money to finance more abortion clinics. The elderly and the
handicapped will surely realise that it is time to make room for
a new generation to enjoy their lives. There is not much to go
around anyway. We must be practical.
THE
ROO'S STANCE: Euthanasia is a form of homicide, and no one has a right to
take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take
the life of any innocent person (murder). Doctors who betray
their Hippocratic Oaths and assist others in committing suicide
must be prosecuted as accessories to murder. If they kill the
patient, they must be charged with murder like any other type of
homicide. True compassion cannot include doing something
intrinsically evil to another person.
3rd Issue - Foetal Stem Cell Research
The Ostrich's Stance: I saw someone on TV saying that it is much easier,
and in line with current political correctness, to breed human
embryos for the purpose of research, experimentation and organ
creation. If scientists can do it, it must be OK. Embryos are
being used to save lives and prevent suffering from diseases
like Parkinson’s & Alzheimer’s. and b) The embryos that have
already been created are destined for destruction anyway, so we
might as well make good use of them. Embryos cannot sue you for
killing them, anyway.
THE
ROO'S STANCE: Human embryos are human beings, and respect for their human
dignity excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation
of the human being, embryo or otherwise. Recent scientific
advances show that any medical cure that might arise from
experimentation on foetal stem cells can be developed by using
adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained
without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. There is
no longer a sound medical argument in favour of using foetal
stem cells. [The medical arguments are reasonably sound, but not
ethical.]
Besides, the practice of Foetal Stem Cell Research helps
desensitise us regarding the value of the human life.
4th Issue -
Human Cloning
The Ostrich's Stance: The ends justify the means. Again, if scientists can do it,
it must be OK. Let us clone people; why not? There are no morals
in science; only experiments, successes and failures. As the
celebrated Vladimir Lenin said, ‘You cannot make an omelette
without breaking the eggs.’
THE ROO'S STANCE:
Any attempt to obtain a human being without any connection
with sexuality is wrong. The methods of 'twin fission,' cloning,
or parthenogenesis are contrary to the moral law, because they
are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and
of the conjugal union.
Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because
the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, and each
‘clone’ is a human being.
5th Issue -
Homosexual Marriage
The Ostrich's Stance: Live and let live, says I! If homosexuals want to marry,
adopt children, live as a family next door to you, educate your
children, run your local government, direct the police force,
etc., why should anyone object? It’s really none of anyone
else’s business. Let there be a free-for-all society, let us be
tolerant, respect their right to as they see fit.
THE ROO'S STANCE:
The multi-secular experience of human nature affirms that a
true marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal
recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true
marriage, which is the foundation of the family.
Decades ago, homosexuality was frowned upon and despised.
Today it is acceptable. Today, paedophilia, or the sexual
orientation of homosexuals who prefer younger partners, is still
frowned upon, despised and illegal. Make homosexual marriage
legal, and the way will be paved for many more abhorrent forms
of behaviour. Why should we stop with same-sex marriage? Once
one accepted, why should anyone refuse to accept other
lifestyles?
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual
unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly,
the honest lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition
clearly and publicly, and to vote against it. When law-makers
vote in favour of a law that is so harmful to the common good,
their action is gravely immoral.
Besides, legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does
homosexual persons a disfavour by encouraging them to persist in
what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
THE ROLE OF CONSCIENCE
The Ostrich's Stance: To have a ‘conscience’ is sheer bourgeois moralism. There are
no rights and wrongs in politics. What was bad yesterday can be
good today, and bad again tomorrow. It all depends on Party
policy. Everything is relative. Therefore, there is no need to
form your conscience. Just vote according to political
correctness, do not bother to form your conscience with the
facts. Besides, as the celebrated Vladimir Lenin said once, “If
the facts disagree with our Party policies, it’s just tough luck
for the facts!”
THE ROO'S STANCE:
Your conscience works like an alarm. It warns you when you
are about to do something wrong. But for your conscience to
work, as it should, it must be properly informed - that is, you
must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Then
will your conscience be a trusted guide.
Unfortunately, today not many Australians have formed their
consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is
that their consciences do not "sound off" the alarm at
appropriate times, especially on Election Day. We must find out
the hard facts: your children’s future depends on it!
WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE
The Ostrich's Stance: I said it before, and I will say it again: If ever your
‘conscience’ appears to bother you because you see that all
candidates are pretty much the same, the only difference is the
party. Remember: Always trust your party machine – they will not
fail you. Do not think for yourself – it is a dangerous
business.
THE ROO'S STANCE:
When there is no acceptable candidate (which is a disgrace
for any nation) one may adopt the “lesser evil” approach. Thus,
in a given election, if each and every candidate takes a stand
against any of the “non-negotiable issues”, then one should vote
for the candidate who seems to be the least likely to do society
damage by advancing some immoral legislation. Alternatively, if
all of them are of the same ilk, do not betray your conscience.
Vote for nobody at all as a sign of protest, by just leaving a
blank vote paper.
HOW TO VOTE
The Ostrich's Stance: The basic concept to bear in mind is that in politics there
is no true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, in
politics.
Nothing is always right or wrong; you can vote for anyone you
like. Surely the people who stand for Parliament and Senate are
perfectly capable and well trained enough to run the country, to
decide for us about our future, and our children’s as well.
THE ROO'S STANCE:
The basic concept to bear in mind is that thinking,
conscientious voters use their democratic rights to elect
persons to Parliament and Senate based upon their stated views
regarding the five non-negotiable issues listed above. When it
comes to protecting basic human rights, the party can be quite
irrelevant.
The people who stand for Parliament and Senate may be capable
and trained to run the country. They may be able to decide for
us about our future and our children’s, but only inasmuch as
they seriously put principles before personal advantages, and
human rights before political slavery. Otherwise, they are a
danger to society.
All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good people
to do nothing.
|
