A lie told often enough becomes the truth is a famous quote and I am sure you know the source.If the quote is correct then your truth becomes a lie which no longer requires a good memory.
It has been attributed to Lenin, Goebbels, and Hitler.It could reasonably be attributed to Donal Trump, who distorts the truth daily -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
I love your work on the blog of doom. Hilarious and the fools at the leading libertarian and centre right blog continue to be unaware of how they reveal their problematic personalities. Some of them must have been badly abused as children to have grown into such sad and abusive people. One really wonders at the effort some of them go to to point out how bad other people are and be amazed at the effort they make to believe in their own superiority.
n 1869, before Lenin was even born, in The Crown of a Life it was written by Isa Blagden:. If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.Not sure how Trump got brought into this tete a tete.
Not sure how Trump got brought into this tete a tete. His relationship (or lack of) with the truth makes it inevitable. There are so many examples.
The only real inevitability is the likelihood of death, Bob. Nothing in your original post mentioned Trump. I have no idea of your debating difficulty with the person you tossed out the challenge to. I can tell however from your choice of inclusion of your perceptions of Trump that you have something of a dislike for the man. Thay blind spot detracts from your sometimes worthwhile postings.By the way.. I hope things with your wife"s health have improved. I feel for you both, knowing how absolutely soul destroying the situation becomes.
I don't dislike Trump - I don't know him. What I object to is his disregard for the truth, and the corrupt system that has elected him. He was supported by about 25% of American voters, but decisions his administration makes influence all of us, whether we are US citizens or not. I know this well, having been personally affected by American policy in 1970.My wife's treatment is complete, and she has come through it well. Last scan was "all clear", so we are very relieved. I appreciate your concern.
You have to get around the electoral system the yanks use. It isn't corrupt per se merely different to what you believe to be sensible. It is after all their system.There you go again with your service to your country. You had a choice Bob, and took the line of least resistance...or so you thought at the time.I am extremely happy with your wife's result. I am actually misting up.
It isn't corrupt Except it is.The electoral college borders are gerrymandered - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108706?seq=1You had a choice Bob, and took the line of least resistance...or so you thought at the time.Once my birth date was called I had no choice.I made the right decision and survived.Over 200 Nashos didn't.
On Page 37 Jellybeans in the jungle you wrote"What did worry us were warnings from people who had travelled on the Sydney before; that the sailors ("matelots" as we called them), world steal out gear, particularly our GP boots.I don't remember any reports of this happening and believe that it was a rumour spread to tighten up the care taken with kit, as interservice rivalry couldn't live with the embarrassment of expensive (and latest-issue) kit being mislaid. As far as I can remember, army and navy had practically nothing to do with each other and both services were happy with this."Yet you made the following post at the Catallaxy files."You must have been a sailor once. The last time I was subjected to such sanctimonious claptrap was from a matelot who’d been caught nicking our gear on the “Sydney”. He also indulged in paralysis by analysis in an attempt to distract from the matter at hand.At least he wasn’t obviously dismissive and paternalistic in his attitude to those of a different race – which was fortunate, as my section commander was West Indian."Which one is the lie?
You had a choice Bobby...nashos or not (conscientious objector) and then if you had fronted Ron stating your objection before your battalion went over there was a chance you might still have remained at home. No need to point out the casualty rate, doesn't strengthen your point.I am in no way denigrating your service, merely pointing out that your objections since then appear to be pointless, unless you wish to indicate your voting status.As far as the voting goes in yankee land, if the boot had been on the other foot you'd be lauding the outcome.
I am in no way denigrating your service, merely pointing out that your objections since then appear to be pointless, unless you wish to indicate your voting status.My point is about learning from history.The significant lesson regarding Vietnam is that it is the only war in our short history in which conscripts were sent to fight on foreign soil during peacetime without the full support of Australian voters.The grief and anger resulting from this are still being worked through, and it cost 500 Australian lives, 200 of them conscripts.Reminding people of this might, hopefully, go some way towards preventing it from happening again.
Which one is the lie?Both are true.
"Vietnam is that it is the only war in our short history in which conscripts were sent to fight on foreign soil during peacetime without the full support of Australian voters."Even you must acknowledge that there was significant support for conscripts being sent to Vietnam. The Federal elections of 1966 and 1969 showed that many voters supported the party which was using conscripts for duty in Vietnam.
Support for our involvement in Vietnam at the time was not the same thing as support for conscription, and because of the fact that the DLP held the balance of power, public support or otherwise was not necessary for the Coalition to hold power.From the ANZAC Portal - News that Australia would contribute a task force to the war in 1966, and that this expansion would mean front line service for national servicemen, sparked a rise in the number of anti-war groups. Some were opposed more to conscription than to the war itself. In 1967, when the deployment of an extra battalion to Vietnam was announced, public opposition to the war increased. An opinion poll revealed that 46 percent of the electorate disapproved of the decision, 17 percent were undecided. Only 37 percent were in favour, marking the first time that opponents of the commitment outnumbered supporters. In the period before this, opposition to the war, as the ALP had learnt to its cost in 1966, was not a vote winner. Despite the 1967 opinion poll results, it took until 1969 before it was electorally popular to oppose the war. In August that year an opinion poll found, for the first time, that a majority of Australians favoured a withdrawal from Vietnam.Twenty years after the North Vietnamese victory, in April 1995, an opinion poll marking the thirtieth anniversary of Prime Minister Menzies' commitment of a battalion to Vietnam and the twentieth anniversary of Saigon's fall found that 55% of Australians thought that it was wrong to have sent troops to Vietnam and 30 percent considered it the right thing to have done.(https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/vietnam-war-1962-1975/events/public-opinion)
Bob, Your post of 7 July avoids the issue.Two elections were held during the period of time that conscripts were being sent to Vietnam.The party sending them won the election each time. Therefore, the voting public supported the policy.A poll 20 years later is quite immaterial to the argument about contemporaneous voting behaviours.
I'm not Mater but I have read his evisceration of many of your claims on the Catallaxy blog.In relation to your claims about your father, Mater's listing of the actual facts made you turn to jelly. Falling back to "well it's a family narrative" after being proved wrong was as good an admission of deliberate lying as I've ever seen.
"I'm not Mater but I have read his evisceration of many of your claims on the Catallaxy blog."You mean the poster who makes a practice of Doxing the dead.He actually confirmed the fact that my father was a volunteer in WW2.Reminds me of Hazmatic.Remember him - the "expert" who claimed that the Enoggera Cinema never existed.He disappeared, never to be seen again.
"Reminds me of Hazmatic.Remember him?"No.
"He actually confirmed the fact that my father was a volunteer in WW2."Like many Australians, I'm proud to be a citizen of a country where good men like your dad volunteer in times of war.All Mater did was to provide specific detail about your dad's publicly-available records which contradicted your assertions.You should not have continued to make deliberate mistakes about your dad's voluntary service and call that fog of denial a "family narrative".If you and your family made an accidental error, apologise and move on.If you are lying to boost your own self-esteem by comparing dad to your Vietnam experience, you have been caught out.To sum up, you identified your dad to the Catallaxy readership, you made mistakes about his service record, and you won't admit your error.
What Mater's doxing of my dead father showed was that I was absolutely correct in posting that he was a volunteer in WW2. His stalking him using the AWM records simply confirmed that.His service was in stark contrast to my experience of being conscripted in peacetime to fight in an effort (subsequently unsuccessful) to defeat imperialism (sequentially French and American) in SE Asia.It also underscores the fact that Fascist imperialism in WW2 was a real, rather than an imagined threat, as Communism was in the 60s and 70s.This contrast goes a long way to explain why men volunteered, like my father, for the first conflict, but refused to do so in the second.
Bob, why don't you tell your readership that the point of contention is your description of your father's motives for volunteering.There is no debate that he volunteered nor any slurring of his contribution to Australia. Don't raise that straw man as an issue.You and your family got it wrong. The "family narrative" was at odds with the facts, and you keep avoiding that truth.Look, everyone makes mistakes and all this happened many years ago. No-one will think any less of you than they already do if you admit to a misunderstanding of some ancient family history.
Bob, why don't you tell your readership that the point of contention is your description of your father's motives for volunteering.My father's motives are not disputed."My description" is what he told his family.He volunteered because he believed the country was threatened.I was conscripted when it wasn't.Can you tell the difference?Go and have an argument with yourself.There's a slight possibility you might win that one.
Catallaxy is a sewer.Ex-Digger
"Catallaxy is a sewer."Well, ex-Digger, it must be populated by several decent people because they have written in support of Mr. 1735099 Senior.John Grey.
"Catallaxy is a sewer.Ex-Digger"That explains why the blogger calls Americans "Septics".Yet still tries to sell books to the very nation he disparages.Come on, man.John Grey.
"He volunteered because he believed the country was threatened."By whom?Be careful now. We don't want any mix-ups about dates to threaten the family narrative.John Grey.
Between 1965 and 1972 (when the last Australian troops were withdrawn from Vietnam) over 800,000 men were registered for National Service, 63,000 were conscripted by the ballot. From 1965 to 1972, 15,381 national servicemen served in the Vietnam War, with 200 killed and 1,279 wounded. (State Library of South Australia).It looks like the blogger went to Vietnam voluntarily; more than 43,000 other conscripts stayed in Australia so it's natural to assume he could have stayed on home soil too.
"The significant lesson regarding Vietnam is that it is the only war in our short history in which conscripts were sent to fight on foreign soil during peacetime without the full support of Australian voters."How selfish of the blogger.Many other more important lessons were learned, but his conscription and a few months in the front lines are "the significant lesson".Nothing about getting involved in Asian wars, nothing about fighting against an enemy who hides amongst the population, nothing about international diplomacy and soft power, and certainly nothing about how to combat communism.It's all about the blogger.John Grey.
Nothing about getting involved in Asian wars That lesson has been learned, and probably won't be forgotten, hopefully.nothing about fighting against an enemy who hides amongst the populationThe enemy was, for a large part, the population.The people my unit was fighting in Phuoc Tuy were often second generation guerillas whose fathers had fought the French. We were just another bunch of foreigners.nothing about international diplomacy and soft power, and certainly nothing about how to combat communismYou don't combat a political philosophy by military force.History has shown us that over and over again.
It looks like the blogger went to Vietnam voluntarily; more than 43,000 other conscripts stayed in Australia so it's natural to assume he could have stayed on home soil too.A number of twenty year olds volunteered for National Service because it meant they had to sign up for two years, not three. My research is attempting to discover how many of these men there were, and looking into their motives.I was not one of them.The other arm of my project is to discover what opportunities, if any, were given to National Servicemen to avoid service in Vietnam.The results will, in the fullness of time, be published.In the meantime, read Mark Dapin's two monographs. They provide a good lead-in to the topic.Don't make assumptions.Assumption makes an ass of you and me.
"[The quote] has been attributed to Lenin, Goebbels, and Hitler.It could reasonably be attributed to Donal Trump, who distorts the truth daily"Care to comment on these lies?1. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!”. 2. the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence.3. I came under sniper fire in Bosnia4. I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.I could go on but you get the drift. Obama and Clinton were egregious liars.John Grey.
I could go on but you get the drift. Obama and Clinton were egregious liars.Compared to Trump they were rank amateurs -Mark Barabak of the Los Angeles Times has described in 2017 that U.S. presidents "of all stripes" have previously misled the public, either accidentally or "very purposefully". Barabak provided examples of Ronald Reagan, who falsely stated that he had filmed Nazi death camps, and Barack Obama, who falsely stated that "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" under his Affordable Care Act. However, Barabak goes on to state that "White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations" are unparalleled.See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Thank you, blogger, for your authoritative research proving that Obama lied.Re President Regan - the truth is that he MAY have lied but there is compelling evidence that he MAY NOT have said "I was there" but rather said "I kept the film that was taken". That is, someone else was the camera man and Regan kept the footage.Baraback doesn't seen to discuss that nuance.John Grey.
What great strides President Trump made in the Middle East this week. The UAE/Israel peace deal is testament to Trump's international diplomacy.The UAE becomes the first Gulf Arab state to normalize relations with Israel and already there is speculation that others could soon follow, including the Saudis, Oman and Bahrain.A peace deal of seismic proportions.John Grey.
A very good summary of the tragedy that was WWII:“The Axis losers killed or starved to death about 80 percent of all those who died during the war. The Allied victors largely killed Axis soldiers; the defeated Axis, mostly civilians.” (Victor Davis Hansen)John Grey
"You don't combat a political philosophy by military force.History has shown us that over and over again."The blogger would have us roll over and have our tummy tickled by invading forces of differing political philosophies.John Marsden's Wirrawee kids had more courage.John Grey.
"An anonymous commenter on Catallaxy insists that I'm a liar, probably because my comments on that site don't conform to the orthodoxy."That's straight out untrue.You are NOT being challenged about your unorthodox views.You are being challenged to come clean with the truth about your father's application to join the armed forces. It is good to see that you have walked back some of your comments though.John Grey.
If you were able to overcome political philosophies by military force, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Communism and Capitalism would be gone. Military force has been used against each at numerous times this and last century.
"A number of twenty year olds volunteered for National Service because it meant they had to sign up for two years, not three. My research is attempting to discover how many of these men there were, and looking into their motives."Wikipedia and the AWM tell me that under the National Service Act of 1964 conscripts were obligated to give two years' continuous full-time service, followed by a further three years on the active reserve list.If that is right, your research falls into a hole because the volunteers for NS would serve exactly the same length of time as conscripts - 2 years. There is no mention of 3 years full time service on the AWM.Making your research even more pointless is the further reduction of time served by conscripts. The full-time service requirement was reduced to 18 months in October 1971.John Grey.
There were three ways of enlisting in the Army during the period when conscription was in place.1) Signing up as a regular soldier. Minimum period of engagement was three years.2) Volunteering for national service when you were obliged to register.3) Waiting for the outcome of the NS ballot. 20 year-olds had a one in 12 chance of being balloted in for the duration of the scheme.My research targets the second group, and surveys their motivations.So far, most report the following as prime reasons for volunteering -a) The reduced commitment - two years as against three.b) The fact that their jobs were protected. Under the provisions of the act employers had to keep their position open.c) Post-discharge benefits for Nashos which were more generous than for ARA personnel.The other reasons given tend to relate to escaping boredom, failed relationships and seeking adventure.I am also surveying the first group - Nashos who did not volunteer.It's early days, but I haven't yet found one who says he was given the option to avoid service in Vietnam.
A great shame that Vietnam Veterans day was not celebrated on this site by the blogger.Originally known as Long Tan Day, 18th August passed un-noticed here. John Grey.
Censorship is a large aspect of this blog.Just like the blogger's communist overlords.John Grey.
Looks like the blogger has changed his tune.To stir up the Catallaxy readership he wrote:"And you can be a conscript and a volunteer, at the same time.I served with a number of men, who when required to register for national service, enlisted without their birthdates being drawn. They were compelled, after all, upon pain of penalty and automatic enlistment, to register.I believe this form of compulsion is usually described as conscription."Yet on his own blog he places conscripts and volunteers into two separate groups.Inconsistent, yes. PhD worthy, no.John Grey.
The blogger's "second group" has not been given a number.i assume very low.After all, who in their right mind would volunteer for two years' service when they had an 11/12 chance of not being conscripted at all!Only those who wanted to join the army, go to Vietnam, and do it in 2 years instead of the regular army 3 years.John Grey.
White males were discriminated against in the Vietnam conscription process.No women were conscripted.Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were exempted.A 2020 conscription process would have to include women and indigenous Australians.John Grey.
The blogger could have been deferred from conscription if he got married.John Grey.
The blogger's "second group" has not been given a number.There were a handful in my rifle platoon.I'm less interested in how many than I am in why.It's clear so far from interviews with these men that fighting communism (the reason we were sent as conscripts) was very low on the list of priorities.A 2020 conscription process would have to include women and indigenous Australians.A 2020 conscription is about as likely as the sky suddenly turning green.
Post a Comment