Why should anyone be surprised that some in the far-left faction of the parliamentary Liberal parties, the LINOs, demonstrate their dislike of those who are even mildly conservative? Intolerance of even slightly different views is a badge of Marxism, a creed which is marching through too many institutions in the Anglo-American world.
That they would carelessly leave texts about this is unlikely; this is no doubt done for a reason.
The existence of a disguised Marxist wing in a parliamentary Liberal party is readily demonstrated by the most minimal consideration of what can happen under Coalition governments in, among many other examples, education. Too often education is being replaced with Marxist indoctrination even to the extent of lowering standards in core subjects. True, there are Liberals who put up a good fight against this. Think of Alan Tudge. But he is an exception.
For those not part of the far-left, the typical attitude is to let sleeping dogs lie. Waiting recently to be interviewed on 2GB while he was talking with Mark Latham, my fellow columnist Kel Richards recounted the reaction when he proposed to a former NSW Liberal minister of education that some leftist outrage be corrected. The minister’s media adviser responded: ‘Kel, Kel, you just don’t understand. We run the minister’s office. The Marxists run the department. The last thing we want is to have a public stand-up fight with them.’
And why incidentally do you think the Liberal party was almost wiped out in the recent WA elections? Did you hear their leader on global warming? Labor parties are always doomed to have a Marxist wing, but now there’s even one emerging among the Nationals. While Liberal Marxists are, in terms of the total membership, quite small, as with all Marxists their agenda is to take power by hook or by crook.
On that, don’t fall for the myth that Lenin took power in a revolution – it was just a well-organised coup with no wide support.
To get power, LINOs are closely integrated with the cabal of powerbrokers who actually run the party. And of course, unlike during Menzies’ time, rank-and-file Liberals are no more than useful foot soldiers.
The emergence of this faction recalls a time when the Berejiklian government came close to losing its majority on the floor of Parliament. This was after the 2019 election when the Parliament was suddenly confronted with the urgent need for abortion law reform, portrayed as a soi-disant conscience question.
This was deemed so urgent that it was not even mentioned in the immediately past election campaign. And with abortion already freely available in the state, was the problem that the rate at which the unborn were being killed was too low?
We should recall that there was a time, not so many years ago, when few in the Coalition would have endorsed abortion. Nor would many Labor MPs, then strongly influenced by Catholic teaching. For Marxists once, abortion was only a Stalinist population-planning tool; today it has become a core feminist belief. For Liberals in Menzies day, it offended a fundamental principle on which democracy and the rule of law is based, enunciated succinctly by the American founders. This is that mankind is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In any event, the obviously supportive role of the Premier in 2019 for the abortion bill (disguised as a reproductive reform bill) so outraged two real Liberal MPs, Tanya Davies and Kevin Conolly, that they told Ms. Berejiklian they would no longer sit in the party room if crucial amendments to the bill were not passed. In particular they were opposed to the first introduction of the lawful infanticide of living babies, those ones who escape the abortion and are actually born. When a bill authorising this was approved by the New York Senate, it attracted a standing ovation.
The true Liberals would not have that in NSW and they prevailed. If an abortion actually results in a baby being born, the abortionist doctor is required to care for that baby.
You would have thought that that was obvious and should never have been resisted.
Another matter of concern was the killing of far more girls than boys, sex-selective abortion, one of the aspects of multiculturalism not talked about in elite circles. Although sex-selective abortion is widely practised in a number of cultures resulting in the world-wide loss of millions of girl babies, the reply was that there is ‘no credible evidence of sex-selection abortions in NSW.’
One concession to the defenders of life was an agreement to hold an official inquiry. This has now found that some people have actually revealed that the sole reason for the abortion was that the baby was a girl. So girls are being killed because they are girls, and probably many more than revealed.
This should invite the outrage of feminists. But bowing to various Marxist dogmas, including the equality of civilisations, many feminists find a solution in either embarrassed silence or even in an aggressive support of abortion based on sex-selection.
In the meantime, always conscientious in such matters, the Reverend Fred Nile has introduced an Abortion Law Reform (Sex-Selection Prohibition) Amendment Bill which seeks to eliminate the practice of aborting unborn children on the grounds of their sex. Further, the Bill penalises medical practitioners who conduct a sex-selective abortion.
If the Bill is passed the problem will be that such abortions will continue but not be revealed, at least initially.
As the Reverend Fred Nile points out, the first step is to declare the legal principle.
This also raises wider issues. Why is it considered right to kill the innocent? And why do so many sit back and allow the Marxists to infiltrate everything?
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10