Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Tuesday, 4 August 2020

Why is Jesus White?


This video from the archives might be worth revisiting given what has been is happening in the USA since May 25th.

Comments closed.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am sure your revered parish men's group has discussed this issue long and loud.
Does the group vote for white, black, or brown skin on Jesus?
I'm sure however the group sees its time better spent discussing the Word of God, not the colour of his Son.

Anonymous said...

Was this interview made while Cassius was a Christian or after he converted to Islam?

Anonymous said...

I note that on Catallaxy you are gloating over something.
Surely a Jesus of any colour would advise you not to do that.
But then again consistency has never been your forte.

Anonymous said...

"Honour thy Father and thy Mother".
Another one you skipped over when you twisted dad's entry to the RAAF to suit your own ends.

1735099 said...

Was this interview made while Cassius was a Christian or after he converted to Islam?
He converted in 1961, and the interview was 1971, so he was a practicing Muslim at the time. What difference does it make?

1735099 said...

Another one you skipped over when you twisted dad's entry to the RAAF to suit your own ends.
The issue you're obsessed with apparently is my father's motivation to fight for his country.
I reckon I'm in a better position to understand that than you are.

Anonymous said...

Why do you comment here?
Do you have something against Vietnam veterans?
You come across as being sick in the head.

Anonymous said...

"What difference does it make?"
It's quite obvious to most.
Christianity places Jesus at the right hand of God.
Islam subjugates Jesus to a prophet.
Ali's description of Jesus would be different depending on which religion he was following at the time.

Anonymous said...

1735099
Why do you let this person comment?
He contributes nothing.
Maree

1735099 said...

Maree
Anyone can comment.
The only rule I enforce is that commentators address me only by my avatar.
Nothing else is off-limits, unless it is defamatory.
That one and only rule is protecting this person (and others like him) from themselves.
Feel free to engage him.
This is a forum.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can comment etc etc...is a falsehood, 173.... as shown by your refusal to post my explanation about your numbers in relation the homosexual marriage vote. I have shown the numbers for what they are twice now and you refuse to publish. I am not the same anonymous that has recently taken up residence in your head. I have been here for quite some time. I come and go a bit and don't have as much time to spend with you as the newcomer.
While I am here I would like to say, sincerely,that I hope your lively wife is travelling well.

1735099 said...

Read my comment to Maree above.
If you have at least average reading comprehension, you will understand why some of your comments haven't been published.
Hint: it has something to do with my avatar.

Anonymous said...

"If you're a Blogger user, we encourage you to enable access to your Profile."
Blogger.

Anonymous said...

Still no feedback from your men's parish to answer your own question?
Must be hard to think independently.

Anonymous said...

More communist style censorship at work in this blog - closing comments when there is still much to say.

Anonymous said...

"The only rule I enforce is that commentators address me only by my avatar."
OK. Your blog, your rules.
Can we use "Numbers" for short? Seems logical.

Anonymous said...

1735099.

1 = enlisted in Queensland.
7 = National serviceman.

"The second digit was always the number seven or eight (for example 3793130) to distinguish National Servicemen from members of the CMF who were also allocated seven digit numbers from the same blocks"

Ah ha - there is the root cause of all bitterness on this blog. The CMF was an option for those who didn't want to go to Vietnam but 1735099 didn't join. Took his chances with the ballot and lost.

Anonymous said...

Irespective of your opinion of Jesus' skin colour, you've got to be impressed with this act of courage:
"On Sunday, Godspeak Calvary Chapel (California) and Pastor Rob McCoy held services, violating a temporary restraining order enforcing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-Calif.) ban on in-person gatherings. The church reportedly hit capacity and had to leave some parishioners outside.
A large group of church supporters arrived with signs reading, “Church: More Essential Than Marijuana Shops and Abortion Clinics,”

1735099 said...

Irespective (sic) of your opinion of Jesus' skin colour, you've got to be impressed with this act of courage.

This uniquely American phenomenon goes a long way towards explaining why the USA has the highest rate of Coronavirus infections and deaths worldwide.
Pastor McCoy is front runner for a Darwin award.

1735099 said...

Ah ha - there is the root cause of all bitterness on this blog. The CMF was an option for those who didn't want to go to Vietnam but 1735099 didn't join.

It's weird how memes posted on blogs become folklore, and how many actually fall for the myths.
The CMF was never an option for me. I was required to register for the first NS ballot in 1967, held on March 10th. At that time, CMF units were based exclusively in larger centres. My home address was Texas, (Queensland) and the nearest CMF unit at the time was in Toowoomba. Generally, graduating teachers were appointed somewhere near their place of origin. My only stipulation was that I didn't want to be posted to my father's school, which wouldn't have been fair to him (or me). My initial posting was Inglewood.
It wasn't until later in 1967 that an announcement was made by the Minister for Labour and National Service that units would be set up in more rural and remote centres. At the time I had to make a decision, CMF membership was out of the question. If you're really interested you can work your way through the parliamentary Hansard to find the announcement which was made in question time in a September sitting.

1735099 said...

Can we use "Numbers" for short? Seems logical.
It's not "short".
It's not "logical".
And it's not my avatar.
Use it, and your comment will not appear.
My blog - my rules...

Anonymous said...

The old anonymous speaking...
When did you change the rules about referring to you by name? I have over the years had comments published which included your name.

Anonymous said...

"My blog - my rules..."
How very authoritarian of you.
Colour me surprised.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the blogger's name has been used by me for some time now too.
Funny how he promotes it himself (on the front cover of his book) yet now bans its use here.

Anonymous said...

"The old anonymous speaking..."
My apologies for adopting the use of "Anonymous" - you had it first.
I'll differentiate by ending my posts with "John Grey" after that wonderful Liberal PM of Australia who first started the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam: Sir John Grey Gorton, war hero, volunteer, and anti-communist.
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"The CMF was never an option for me."
Pshaw.
With a little accomodation from the kind officers in charge, you could have done your commitment over several weekends at Toowoomba which just a short drive from both Texas and Inglewood.
If you had wanted to.

1735099 said...

Yawn...

1735099 said...

Take a look at another anti-Communist contemporary of Gorton's and what he said in response to Menzies' committment of troops to Vietnam on May 4th 1965 -
Against the background of these facts, we can judge the true significance of the Australian commitment. The Government will try, indeed it has already tried, to project a picture in which once the aggressive invaders from the North are halted, our men will be engaged in the exercise of picking off the Vietcong, themselves invaders from the North and stranded from their bases and isolated from their supplies. But it will not be like that at all. Our men will be fighting the largely indigenous Vietcong in their own home territory. They will be fighting in the midst of a largely indifferent, if not resentful, and frightened population. They will be fighting at the request of, and in support, and presumably, under the direction of an unstable, inefficient, partially corrupt military regime which lacks even the semblance of being, or becoming, democratically based. But, it will be said, even if this is true, that there are far larger considerations China must be stopped, the United States must not be humiliated in Asia. I agree wholeheartedly with both those propositions.
It's instructive to read the whole speech.
Calwell was proved correct in everything he said, especially when it came to his reference to the USA being humaliated, which was, in the end (1975), precisely what happened.
Read it here - https://australianpolitics.com/1965/05/04/calwell-response-to-vietnam-commitment.html

Anonymous said...

The only humiliation America suffered was the sight of Walter Cronkite mis representing the war as a stalemate.
In reality, the big push by the North Vietnamese and Viet Kong (the Tet Offensive) ended up a grievous military setback for the North (Oberdorfer 1971).
President Johnson lost the political battles at home, not the war in Vietnam.

Anonymous said...

"Yawn..."
A brilliant riposte!

Anonymous said...

BLM protestors don't discriminate on the grounds of disability or terminal illness.
"They went after the Ronald McDonald House in downtown Chicago, that takes in kids suffering from cancer and their families while they are getting treatment at a nearby hospital."
That's horrific.
John Grey.

1735099 said...

BLM protestors don't discriminate on the grounds of disability or terminal illness.
Yep - apparently they're targetting grannies and toddlers...
If you look hard enough in the Rightwing blogosphere, you'll find elves, hobgoblins and debil-debils.

1735099 said...

President Johnson lost the political battles at home, not the war in Vietnam.
Johnson is the only US President who came out of the debacle with any integrity.
He had the honesty not to contest the presidency using Vietnam as an election issue.
On the other hand, Nixon did - remember "peace with honour" and how that worked out?
If you read the Pentagon Papers you'll note that The Americans knew they couldn't prevail by the end of 1968, but hid that from the public and continued to send soldiers as cannon fodder for years. Consider how many of the 57000 American and 500 Australians could have been saved if they had followed strategic, rather than political considerations after 1968.

Anonymous said...

Old anonymous again...
I re-posted the information in relation to the numerical errors quoted into the homosexual marriage vote. No offensive language used including your name but I note that it has not been published. Obeying your rules as stated is obviously not your reason for authorising or not authorising comments. I am disappointed 1735099. Not surprised, merely disappointed.

1735099 said...

I re-posted the information in relation to the numerical errors quoted into the homosexual marriage vote.

Posting on a closed topic is not a good idea.

Anonymous said...

"Consider how many of the 57000 American and 500 Australians could have been saved..."
...if communism hadn't wanted to take control of South Vietnam by any means possible.
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"Johnson is the only US President who came out of the debacle with any integrity."
A pretty savage indictment of the hero of the left, JFK, who increased US military, economic and technical aid in order to help Diem confront the Viet Cong threat.
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"Posting on a closed topic is not a good idea."
Closing down comments is a key tactic of the censorship on this site. Happens regularly.
John Grey.

1735099 said...

...if communism hadn't wanted to take control of South Vietnam by any means possible.
What business was it of our government to object to another countries' political system?
And why did so many American and Australian soldiers die for nothing?

1735099 said...

A pretty savage indictment of the hero of the left, JFK,
So Kennedy is suddenly a "hero of the left"?
Now I've heard everything.

1735099 said...

John Grey has problems with reading comprehension.
Happens regularly.

Anonymous said...

"What business was it of our government to object to another countries' political system?"
As JFK said, the domino theory would see communism land right on our border.
Menzies said "The takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South-East Asia. It must be seen as a part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans."
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"John Grey has problems with reading comprehension."
Ah, the slick and reasoned rejoinder from a debating opponent. Not.
No facts, no reason, just blog-authorised abuse.
That's a great way to influence your other reader.
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"So Kennedy is suddenly a "hero of the left"?"
Not so sudden. Supported the Civil Rights Movement, established the Peace Corps, instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act, had ambitions to eradicate poverty, expanded unemployment benefits, introduced food stamps, increased the minimum wage...
In short, JFK was an adherent of Big Government, the leftist's ideal.
Oh, and he was a Democrat - you know, the American party of the Left.

Anonymous said...

PS "John Grey" was left off my previous post.

Anonymous said...

"And why did so many American and Australian soldiers die for nothing?"
Because of the communist influence in the media back home. Traitorous slime who undermined the real advances in the war zone in order to pursue a political dogma.
To quote Britannica:
"Some believe that the media played a large role in the U.S. defeat. They argue that the media’s tendency toward negative reporting helped to undermine support for the war in the United States while its uncensored coverage provided valuable information to the enemy in Vietnam."
John Grey

Anonymous said...

"What business was it of our government to object to another countries' political system?"
Now simply apply that childish question to the Nazi's political system pre WWII, and you see the paucity of the argument.
John Grey.

1735099 said...

Menzies said "The takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South-East Asia. It must be seen as a part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans."
And it happened (the reunification of Vietnam under an indigenous Communist regime), and the threat never materialised.
Menzies was wrong.

1735099 said...

Supported the Civil Rights Movement, established the Peace Corps, instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act, had ambitions to eradicate poverty, expanded unemployment benefits, introduced food stamps, increased the minimum wage...
Yes - a very successful President until he was assasinated by a deranged Leftist who didn't like his attitude to Communist Cuba.

1735099 said...

Now simply apply that childish question to the Nazi's political system pre WWII, and you see the paucity of the argument.

The NAZIs invaded Western Europe and Russia.
As I recall, the Vietnamese Communists never threatened anybody beyond their own borders, except Cambodia when they removed Pol Pot and his murderous regime from power.
Who's "childish"?

Anonymous said...

"As I recall, the Vietnamese Communists never threatened anybody beyond their own borders"
How soon they forget. Here's a reminder:
"The world’s largest communist powers, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, both lent material and support to North Vietnam. In doing so, they hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere, bog the United States down in a long, expensive conflict abroad and thus gain an advantage in the Cold War." (Alpha History site)
John Grey.

1735099 said...

The world’s largest communist powers, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, both lent material and support to North Vietnam. In doing so, they hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere, bog the United States down in a long, expensive conflict abroad and thus gain an advantage in the Cold War.
And like the Yanks, they would have been far better to mind their own business where Vietnam was concerned. Vietnam was happy to accept help from anyone, even the Chinese, whom they abhorred. It wasn't too long before that old emnity resurfaced in the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979.
Neither the Americans or the Chinese ever completely understood the depth of the Vietnamese drive for independence.
They humiliated the most powerful country on earth in their quest for self determination, and then gave the Chinese a bloody nose in 1979.

Anonymous said...

Enmity, teacher, enmity'. 800,000 Vietnamese refugees left the freed independent united country of Vietnam in boats. That would indicate the risk at sea was deemed to be less than that of remaining. 3,000,000 refugees from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam left South East Asia after the war you participated in. Obviously a lot of people in fear of losing their lives or being persecuted. It would appear from those numbers that the drive for independence was not uppermost in the minds of a large number of Vietnamese.

Anonymous said...

So you agree with me that communism was the driving force behind North Vietnamese incursions into South Vietnam.
There, that wan't hard was it.
John Grey.

Anonymous said...

"They humiliated the most powerful country on earth".
Nope.
They lost the war against the US-supported ARVN but the American press won the battle for indoctrination.

Anonymous said...

"assasinated by a deranged Leftist who didn't like his attitude to Communist Cuba."
That's quite a long way from the real facts.
The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, and the Warren Report could not ascribe any one motive or group of motives to Oswald's actions:

"It is apparent, however, that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. He does not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other people. He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. Long before the assassination he expressed his hatred for American society and acted in protest against it."

John Grey.

1735099 said...

"It is apparent, however, that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment.
His "environment" at the time was American capitalism.
It's not unreasonable to assume that he was a Leftist.
He did, after all, defect to the Soviet Union in October 1959.
It was at that time, a Communist state.

Blog Archive