Democracy is slavery. Worst form of government. Your Matrix Life. OBEY!

Black Diamond – November 26th, 2022

Aaron Russo says the simple truth

Question Everything & Come To Your Own Conclusions!

As always, thanks for watching!

If what I provide freely helps you and yours, please consider a donation to help my CHANNEL, any amount will help me keep posting. THANK YOU 🙂


Black Diamond website links:
This blog has been shot down by some vague reason.. Oh gosh ¿ Right? has been shot down Video’s Video’s Music

My main web links

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

D.C. Public Schools to Force Coronavirus Tests After Thanksgiving

Washington, DC, public schools will require that all students and staff test negative for the coronavirus before they are allowed to come back from Thanksgiving break.

“To support a safe return from Thanksgiving break, all students and staff are expected to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test,” the district website reads. “Families should test their students and upload test results…on Sunday, November 27.”

The district included a link with the testing information and a portal to upload results to prove testing negative.

Tests must be taken within 24 hours of the Monday, November 28, return to school.

The requirement to test comes as many on the left are calling for masking and social distancing again in spite of the evidence against the efficacy of those practices.

Breccan F. Thies is a reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @BreccanFThies.


Critical Theory or Critical Thinking?

These two terms sound very similar, don’t they? Nothing could be further from the truth. Today I would like to explore their differences, as well as the danger of one and the importance of the other.

Critical Theory

Critical theory (CT) can be traced back to the Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy known as the Frankfurt School in the 1920s. Since the 1970s, CT has become immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.

From the 1980s, it has gained an even bigger following on the back of ‘critical race theory’ (CRT), which has proven to be the central backbone of the CT movement. Recently, CRT came to the fore in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. He was a black man, killed in the US city of Minneapolis by Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, the tragedy igniting the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests around the globe.

CT focuses on the twin dynamics of ‘power’ and ‘submission’. It challenges the assumptions of power and seeks to liberate those in slavery. That sounds good, doesn’t it? However, in contrast to the traditional concept of a ‘theory’ that relies on evidence and data to prove or disprove, CT simply relies on ‘perspective’ and a ‘person’s lived experience’ alone. That’s where it gets dangerous.

A theory is, by definition, a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘theory’, until proven to be true. Then it can become a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘fact’. But CT and CRT are ‘right’ only because someone says so. There is no debate, questioning or discussion. What is more, so many in society are following it, not even aware that they are.

CT has its roots firmly in Marxism, a left-wing social and political movement that favours communism and socialism over capitalism. As such, it is at pains to stand up for the underdog, the minority, and those perceived to be discriminated against. That’s good, yes?

Yes, laudable goals, I agree. But with the goal to demolish capitalism and the abolition of the need to provide objective evidence, the outcomes of CT can be tragic for the individual and for civilisation as a whole. I will give a few examples of the effects of CT from the state of Victoria, Australia, under the leadership of Daniel Andrews. You may say I am being extreme. Well, this short piece does not have the space to explore the full chain from CT to the premier of Victoria, but it is quite clear that his regime is firmly rooted in far-left socialism, Marxism without the name:

  1. So as not to discriminate, Victoria became the first state in Australia to adopt same-sex adoption laws.
  2. Again, supportive of minorities, the establishment of the Pride Centre in St Kilda to encourage LGBTIQA+ activism.
  3. The introduction of Hate Speech laws.
  4. In 2008, Victoria was the first state in Australia to introduce abortion on demand right up to birth.
  5. The introduction of a criminal offence for offering alternatives to those seeking abortion.
  6. The “conversion therapy” laws prohibit parents from being able to object to a child wishing to change their gender.
  7. The abolition of Special Religious Education in schools and its replacement with ideological classes which have resulted in an explosion in the number of children with gender dysphoria.
  8. The banning of Christmas Carols in schools.
  9. The funding and promotion of the compulsory Safe Schools Program for children with its overt emphasis on anti-Christian views on morality.
  10. Employment laws are making it extremely difficult for Christian schools to employ teachers who can support their own ethos.
  11. The introduction of doctors into schools so children can consult a doctor without their parent’s knowledge or support.
  12. The politicisation of the police force, that no longer supports the keeping of law and order around Christian events.

These are just some of the legacies of the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria that I have collated from a piece by Martyn Iles, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

Critical Thinking

In a study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as the ability to think critically, involving three elements:

  1. an attitude of being disposed to consider, in a thoughtful way, the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences
  2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and
  3. some skill in applying those methods

Critical thinking expects a persistent effort to examine any belief or form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it. It also generally requires an ability to recognise problems, find workable solutions for those problems, gather and marshal pertinent information, recognise unstated assumptions and values, comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, interpret data, appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, recognise the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, and draw warranted conclusions and generalisations. (Glaser, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher’s College, Columbia University)

critical thinking

This figure is from a modern take on critical thinking by Jennifer Herrity (2022). It always starts with careful observation of the facts; it is never sidetracked by a subjective perspective or individual lived experiences alone. The second step returns to the first observation and seeks to collect a deeper understanding of the issue or circumstance.

The third stage is very exciting — it is an exercise in lateral thinking. Namely, an examination of the implications for others and apparently unrelated situations if we progress along this line of thinking. In essence, it is being careful and thoughtful about the impact of our thinking on those around us and society at large.

The fourth stage can be described as testing out our thinking with trusted others, a safeguard against self-deception. And finally, at stage five, the problem is solved, or the situation is understood.

Further, I would like to add an additional dimension to critical thinking, namely the ‘scientific method’ (I wrote about this in the Daily Declaration, 22 December 2021). It seems to me that the rationality, and objectivity of the scientific method of enquiry is a natural partner with critical thinking. At the heart of this method is the assumption that something is ‘not true’ until it can be ‘proven’ by the evidence.

It seems to me that as a society and as individuals, we have lost our appetite for the scientific method and for critical thinking and as a result, we have become prey to the onslaught of critical theory (CT).

I would argue that if we have lived our own lives unaware of the advance of CT into our own lives, our families, and our communities, it is because we have neglected or ignored critical thinking and the scientific method. For me, critical thinking is the clear first line of defence against CT and the march of modern Marxism into every aspect of our lives.

Cosying Up to the CCP

Let me conclude with the story of the Belt and Road Initiative. This is an investment strategy developed nearly ten years ago by the Chinese. This initiative seeks to form a network of Chinese infrastructure and investment that covers the globe an empire in all but name. It has often focused on the takeover of key ports such as Haifa in Israel and Piraeus in Greece, to say nothing of Darwin in the Northern Territory, Australia.

With great fanfare, the Victorian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese government on October 8, 2018, and later a ‘framework’ agreement on October 23, 2019, to develop one of the Belt and Road Initiatives for Victoria. This was done behind the then Prime Minister Morrison’s back; he swiftly wound it back. What does this say about Daniel Andrews’ agenda? Not just the concept of facilitating even greater Chinese investment/ownership in Australia, but his seeking to do this international trade deal without the federal government’s approval!

Let’s never give up on the importance of critical thinking and always be aware of the dangers inherent in critical theory (CT).


Photo by cottonbro.

Thank the Source

Faith-Based Schools in the NT Threaten to Close

The NT parliament is currently considering amending the Anti-Discrimination Act so as to end an existing provision that allows “religious educational institutions to discriminate against staff based on their sexuality”. This would mean people who do not share the beliefs or values of a faith-based school or institution could no longer be excluded from employment.

In response, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Darwin, Charles Gauci, has said that he will consider closing all eighteen Catholic colleges and schools in the Northern Territory. Christian schools have also thrown their support behind the decision, strongly suggesting they would follow a similar course of action.

According to The Australian, Bishop Gauci said denying parents the right to send children to schools with religious teachings was “reverse discrimination”. Bishop Gauci went on to say:

“Denying faith schools the right of ensuring that their belief systems are upheld by employing the right people is a violation of religious freedom.

Can you imagine a Catholic school employing a leader of a school who advocates atheism, or thinks that the beliefs of our church are silly?”

Christopher Brohier, the Australian Christian Lobby’s NT director, has also called on the NT government to reverse the amendment, saying,

Everyone understands the right of political parties to hire staff who are members of their parties, and for other values-based organisations to hire staff who adhere to their ethos.

And yet the NT government plans to deny faith-based schools this same right. Religious schools should not be forced to hire staff opposed to, or out of step, to their beliefs.

The Australian Association of Christian Schools has outlined the following key concerns:

The Bill will:

  • Remove the ability of Christian schools to hire only Christian staff by repealing the Religious Educational Institutions Employment Exemption (s37A)

This means a religious school would be unable to require all staff members to share the same religious belief and activity of the school unless it could be proven to be a ‘genuine occupational qualification’ (s35(1)(b)) which is a much higher bar and would ultimately need to be tested in the courts.

  • Prohibit conduct that could offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people (s20A(1)(a))

This introduces a very low bar for unlawful conduct, meaning a Christian teacher or pastor could be forced to defend a complaint for merely sharing the gospel or a Bible reading that offends someone.

  • Prevent Christian schools from being able to prioritise students on the basis of religious belief (s30(2))

This means that where a Christian school is reaching capacity, it will be unable to preference Christian families in enrolment decisions.

  • Introduces a representative complaint system where a party may file a complaint about ‘systematic discrimination’ resulting from the ‘behaviour, practice, policy or program’ of an organisation without having to name or identify any actual complainant (s62A(2)) or even obtain the consent to the complaint being lodged (s62A(3))

This means a school which holds a traditional Biblical view of male-female marriage could be accused of ‘systemic discrimination’ based on this belief, despite support from the school community.

The statement from the Association of Christian Schools goes on to state:

Implications for NT Christian Schools

There is clearly a direct conflict between the Federal Labor Government’s expressed intention and direction to the ALRC to allow religious schools to ‘build a community of faith by giving preference, in good faith to persons of the same religion’ and the NT Labor Government’s legislative agenda. Also, there are concerning implications for other states, such as QLD and WA, where there are new anti-discrimination laws being drafted, and these governments might look to the example of the NT and consider following a similar approach.

If the Bill passes unamended, it will leave the Northern Territory as the only Australian jurisdiction without explicit legal protection for religious schools in employment matters. They will be open to complaints of discrimination for their policies, employment and teaching practices and could be in the courts within the next six months defending themselves against vexatious complaints from activist representative bodies.

The Lie of Same-Sex Marriage

Marsha Gessen, a lesbian political activist, let the genie of deliberate public deception out of the bottle all the way back in 2012 when she told the Sydney Writer’s Festival:

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie.

We should have woken up to the alarm bell then but here we are, five years later, and the agenda of LGBTIQ activists is being well and truly realised.


Photo by Pixabay.

Thank the Source

She Absolutely PULVERIZED This Elite LEFTIST With ONE Question

HighImpactTV – November 18th, 2022

⭐Grab cool MERCH:​

If you support what I’m doing here & wanna help with more content:$HighImpactDonate
⭐ SubscribeStar:
⭐ Subscribe for a free eBook:

(don’t forget to watch for and CONFIRM the first email I send ya)
Email: [email protected]

☑️ Get an INSTANT $50 OFF Survival Food with this link:​

***Grab the 100% FREE MINUTEMAN APP system:
Watch the video here:

If you wanna support the channel:
📬 Snail Mail: P.O. Box 1454 Tahlequah, Ok 74465 📬

✅ Bitcoin: 1GY1jjs8LL3mDDnYtMYBwNHg7hUQ4xZept

  • Get $10 FREE Bitcoin:​
  • ✅ ETH:0xc58499e85C50F9b2f893B4EEF2D832f914Be6EeB
    ✅ Litecoin: LVMrAQLAhNT5wbMqpJbjcF1YurtHS99vTx

Find me on these Social Media Platforms

Odysee Channel:$/invite/@HighImpactFlix:ca

Members Only Content:

BitChute Channel:


May you and yours experience MUCH freedom in your time on this earth:
If you wanna support the channel:
📬 Snail Mail: P.O. Box 1454 Tahlequah, Ok 74465 📬
⭐ SubscribeStar:

✅ ETH:0xc58499e85C50F9b2f893B4EEF2D832f914Be6EeB
✅ Litecoin: LVMrAQLAhNT5wbMqpJbjcF1YurtHS99vTx

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Rising Support for Religious Freedom Sparks Calls for Albanese to Take Action

A recent survey commissioned by a coalition of Christian Schools in Australia found that support for religious freedom laws is rising. An overwhelming majority supported the rights of religious schools to employ staff who affirm their values.

Over the past few years, religious freedom has gotten quite a bad rap. It has been construed by many — particularly within the legacy media and the political class — as the right to be intolerant or a bigot.

Many have perceived calls for religious freedom as merely an attempt by religious institutions to consolidate or extend their political power in Australia.

But a recent poll reveals that attitudes are changing. Well, actually, despite the negative attitudes in the elite class, support for religious freedom has always been quite high. Nonetheless, a recent poll commissioned by the Christian Schools Alliance indicates that the level of support for religious liberty is on the rise.

According to The Australian, the survey found that three in four (75%) Australians support the right of religious schools to hire staff who support their “stated values and beliefs”.

An even higher percentage — 86 per cent — support the rights of parents to choose a school that reflects their beliefs. This figure is up from 81 per cent just months ago in May.

ValuED Voices highlighted the fact that almost 90 per cent of parents whose children are in a faith-based school support the right of those schools to be able to hire staff who affirm their values.

The findings have sparked calls by prominent faith-based school advocates for Anthony Albanese to act by legislating against discrimination on the basis of religion. Representatives from the Australian Association of Christian Schools and Christian Schools Association called on the government to pass legislation with “strong” and “fair protections” for faith-based schools.

Conducted between 24 and 26 October, the survey comes in light of the recent Andrew Thorburn saga, in which the former National Australia Bank leader was pressured from his position as the CEO of the Essendon Football Club due to his Christian affiliations.

It was conducted by Compass Polling on behalf of the Australian Christian Schools Alliance, and it included a sample of respondents from across the political spectrum — Labor, Coalition, Greens and others.


Thank the Source

It’s STILL Ok to Say NO

Five years ago today, the results of the ‘Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey’ were announced.

As one of the board directors of the ‘no campaign’, the Coalition for Marriage, I remember 15 November 2017 only too well.

The feeling that, no matter how many votes we had shifted through our efforts, no matter how hard concerned Aussies worked to spread the word, it was inevitable that Federal parliamentarians would proceed to legally redefine marriage.

I use that phrase, “legally redefine marriage”, quite deliberately. Marriage precedes states and governments. It’s the foundation of the family, itself the very building block of society. The idea that anyone can purport to change its meaning with the stroke of a pen is, frankly, ludicrous.

So why get worked up about what happened in 2017? We did we work so hard then — and why should we care now, particularly when so few same-sex couples have even availed themselves of the new law?

It’s simple: because ideas have consequences.

Flow-On Effects

Indeed, back in 2017, I wrote the forward to a booklet entitled Consequences. It warned that mucking around with marriage was not merely a feel-good measure designed to make us all ‘equal’. Legally redefining marriage, we warned, would dramatically alter our society.

We were routinely mocked and ridiculed, but I wonder what the average Aussie would think today if they genuinely thought through the events of the last few years.

Granted, most of the changes have been indirect in their effect — with the notable exception of the supercharging of anti-discrimination laws. People have already suffered because of them, and I believe that number will only grow in time.

Most consequences have been (anti)social in nature.

Take for example the renewed assault on faith-based schools and other institutions over their stance on marriage and gender.

Not only did the whole ‘religious discrimination law’ fiasco fall dismally wide of the mark before dying with a whimper, but we now find ourselves having to defend the very purpose and basis for faith schools.

So much for “but same-sex marriage won’t affect you!”

Likewise, the alarming growth of cancel culture has borne out our fears. We said it would get much worse — and it has.

Everyone knows the Israel Folau case, but his was only one of many. Ask Andrew Thorburn, who lasted a mere ONE DAY as CEO of the Essendon Football Club. And he wasn’t even pushed out for something he’d said, but merely for his church affiliation.

Anyone who mocks you with “See, the sky hasn’t fallen in!” is gaslighting you big time.


So, five years on, what lessons can we learn?

I’m sure a book could be written on this, but for the sake of brevity, here are some thoughts.

We must stop the constant arrival of the ‘minutes to midnight’ scenario.

Less than a decade ago, we were winning vote after vote in the Federal Parliament on preserving man-woman marriage. Then there was a massive PR effort by the Rainbow Lobby, ably helped by corporate Australia.

There was little response from those who treasured true marriage, and the seismic shift happened before the public were even asked their thoughts. In fact, they were so tired of hearing about the issue that I’m sure many voted ‘yes’ to be done with it.

So the lesson is: we have to constantly talk up and make the case for what we value. This extends well beyond the topic of marriage.

Speaking of which, do you remember hearing that ‘it’s ok to say no’?

That was our campaign slogan in 2017 (a slogan I had something to do with, actually).

I remind you of it now because, guess what? It’s STILL ok to say no!

Remember that the next time you encounter the Gender Agenda at your local library or in your (grand)children’s school — or when a company, product or club you support goes ‘woke’.

Be prepared to vote with your wallet or your feet.

Also, resolve to join a political party if you haven’t already done so. We can do so much through our own personal and collective advocacy, but we miss a major piece of the jigsaw puzzle if we abandon the political field to ‘progressives’ who will keep tearing down faster than we can build.

We may hear the media and others bleat about the fifth anniversary today, but don’t be perturbed.

Remember that there is nothing new under the sun — and we will always have treasures worth defending: family, faith and freedom.

I love this country. I love its way of life. I want to leave it in a better state for my children and yours.

“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him,
but because he loves what is behind him.” — G.K. Chesterton


Originally published by the Australian Family Coalition.
Photo: Australian Family Association

Thank the Source

On Survey, 1,168 Parents Report Their Kids Encountered Sexually Explicit Content In School

On Survey, 1,168 Parents Report Their Kids Encountered Sexually Explicit Content In School

After showing my friend Bob the latest video from the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, I told him I had no idea what I was going to do when my daughter entered school. He turned to me and asked an obvious question. “How do you know this is happening at all the schools? Couldn’t these be just some rogue teachers?”

I tapped my pregnant belly as I stood there, thinking he was right. I had no idea if these videos were simply the most outrageous of all the teachers, or if this was pointing to a widespread problem across all school districts. As my daughter is due in December, I thought it would be helpful to know what exactly was going on in public schools, if nothing else to give myself peace of mind as I entered this new chapter of my life.

I toyed with the idea of asking the local school district to provide me an outline of the lesson plans, but then I thought, why limit my discoveries to my own school district? More importantly, why hear from the schools when I instead could hear from the parents?

I have a bachelor’s of applied health science from Bowling Green State University, for which I took public health courses. One asked me to work in a group to design a survey related to a public health issue. So, I decided to use that knowledge to design an anonymous survey for this and use my Twitter account to encourage people to take it. I put down every topic that a parent could possibly object to, even ones I didn’t object to myself, and even ones that I found so abhorrent that I assumed they were never taught in schools.

Ultimately, 1,195 people took this survey, a pretty good sample size. Of that total, 1,168 reported their children had encountered sexually explicit materials in school. That’s 98 percent of respondents reporting their kids encountered sexually explicit materials at school.

Of course, survey participants were self-selecting, so that likely affected the results. Still, 1,168 is a lot of sexually explicit encounters in schools — and these are the encounters parents know about. It’s certain there are many more that parents don’t know about.

The survey I designed asked parents whether their children had encountered sexually explicit material in school, then if yes, the child’s age, who had exposed them, and what kind of material the child had encountered. To see the full results, including a state-by-state breakdown, go here.

Not Just the Blue States at All

Before getting the results, I had a lot of assumptions, many of which the results disproved. For example, I assumed Virginia would be a big hitter due to the Loudoun County incident. I assumed New York would be a big problem.

I thought Democrat-run states would have a higher incident rate than Republican-run states because on the Libs of TikTok feed it seemed as though the blue states had much higher rates of teachers bragging about their accomplishments. That turned out to be wrong, too. Incident rates were high in red states including Arkansas, Ohio, and Texas.

I also assumed that the age range of the kids would be somewhere between 14 to 16 years old, high school students. After all, I went to public school and took sex ed in seventh and eighth grade. The class basically consisted of “Don’t do it.” When I asked a racier question, my teacher’s response was “How do you know about that? Go ask your parents!”

But times have changed, and it turns out I was wrong about everything — the age groups, the topics, the states that covered those topics, and most importantly the prevalence of these incidents in my state. Not only my state but the school district I wanted to settle in, Brecksville/Broadview Heights, was the top offender in the state of Ohio, comprising a whopping 50 of the 70 Ohio respondents saying their children encountered sexual material in school.

As the survey results came in, at first I thought I was being punked. Some gender ideologues who don’t like it when people ask questions decided to flood my account. But as the data count climbed from 10, to 20, to 30, and as I began to recognize patterns in the results, I began to realize that this was real: There was something going on in Brecksville/Broadview schools.

The most concerning results? Well, for starters, the most prominent age of exposure to “Sexually Explicit Content” was 13 years old. Thirteen. The top “people” who exposed a child were listed by survey respondents as first teachers, followed by the school nurse, and third by another student.

Transgender Conversions Hidden from Parents

When asked what topics the parents were concerned about, things got even more disturbing.

The most concerning results? I would say the reports of “sex toys,” “abortion resources,” “Burlesque/strippers/go-go dancers” in schools and the one at which my heart stopped cold: “Putting together a ‘Gender plan’ for your child without your knowledge.” In the survey’s overall nationwide results, 14 percent of parents, or 165 of them, reported this had happened to their child at school.

A gender plan is when the school “socially transitions” a child into a transgender identity. This can involve giving the child a new name, new pronouns, a change of clothes at school, and, most concerning for safety reasons, allowing the child to use the bathroom and locker room of his or her choice. These results, of course, left me with more questions than answers. Specifically, is this a school-wide policy, or rogue school staff members that administrators have no idea about?

As for the nine parents in Brecksville/Broadview Heights City Schools in Ohio who responded that they had discovered a secret gender plan for their children at school — how many more kids have been socially transitioned but the parents have no idea? Are the children being socially transitioned, or are they coming out as gay and the schools are hiding it from the parents?

As far as sex toys, strippers, and abortion services are concerned, I would like to know about the context in which these topics are being introduced. Is it students asking the school staff these questions, or is it a key part of the sex-ed curriculum? Are the strippers coming to school to talk to the kids about sex work?

Sex Ed Belongs to Parents Only

For many people the context of this information is important, but for me, one thing is clear: I no longer trust the schools and will be closely monitoring my daughter’s work once she’s in school. I alone will be teaching my daughter sex ed. I cannot and do not trust any stranger, teacher or not, to teach this to my daughter.

Sex is such an important topic that can dictate many facets of our lives. Sex is intrinsically linked to our emotional and physical health, as well as our relationships with other people. Sex is far too important of a topic to be left to the teaching of strangers, no matter how well-meaning those strangers may be.

A parent might ask himself: What is the payoff of having the school teach sex ed? To avoid uncomfortable conversations? Because “everyone in the school is doing it”? Parenting is not a popularity contest, and the overall mental and emotional health of my daughter is far more important than anything else, or what anyone else thinks of me.

I want my daughter to accept, understand, and take care of her body. I want my daughter to develop healthy relationship boundaries with other people. I want her to have the confidence to say “No” when something doesn’t feel right with her, no matter what names (bigot, -phobe, old-fashioned, etc.) someone may call her, while also being respectful of others who choose to live differently than she does.

Sex ed is a real opportunity to grow in closeness and communion with my daughter. Why would I give that opportunity to a stranger?



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)