The PR Blog

A few years ago, pastor and progressive commentator John Pavlovitz asked his Twitter audience, “In your own words, how would you describe Libertarians?”

One of his followers, John Spaulding, gave an answer that quickly spread to the farthest corners of the internet.

“House cats,” he replied.

“They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.”

The metaphor seems to have struck a chord, judging by how much this comment was shared on social media. But is it a fair comparison? Are libertarians rightly regarded as house cats? Let’s take a look.

Australia’s Labor Party has reintroduced its misinformation and disinformation bill. I did a deep dive into the bill last May. Among its many flaws, the biggest is its very origins.

As Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in Parliament on September 12, “This bill seeks to strengthen the voluntary code by providing a regulatory backstop.” That code was co-written by First Draft, participants in the Aspen Institute’s coordinated effort to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If that story is new to you, the Twitter Files revealed that in August 2020 the Aspen Institute organised a “table-top” exercise with Twitter, Facebook, First Draft, and a host of media organisations including the New York Times and Washington Post, that ran through a day-by-day playbook of how they would respond to the release of a Hunter Biden laptop. The story didn’t break publicly until October, so how did the Aspen Institute know two months in advance? This story written by Guest post Andrew Lowenthal

I Love Books. I truly do. So when I learn that children today are attending libraries to be indoctrinated by transgender, transsexual or cross dressing “ entertainers “ I somehow feel that kids are victims of theft.

When I learn that books are being promoted in libraries that encourage sexual fantasy and deviancy in young children, I feel outraged. 

This precious and irreplaceable learning experience, this wonder of books and the magic of the written word, the joy of imagination – it is being stolen and stifled by those who want to sexualise, politicise and poison young minds to such an extent that they will never have the love of a library like so many of us older folk do. 

When I was a child, my parents took me to the library once a fortnight. It was one of the most exciting and wonderful days of my calendar and those visits began my lifelong love of the written word, the world of endless magic and the treasure trove that lay within its walls.

Today, children are taken to the library and sat down by their parents to be taught what to think, not how to think. Please! Let them explore their own imaginations!

I am a Christian Brothers College (CBC) old boy and attended a few of the colleges as a boarder. The brothers were dedicated, good and holy men, albeit harsh at times, but I received a good education, learned how to be tough and survive, and have no complaints. 

There was never any suggestion of sexual impropriety, and anyone caught indulging in, or even discussing such conduct, would have had their heads knocked off. When we had Saturday night pictures, a brother would stand by the projector and place his hand over the camera during any sexually suggestive or kissing scenes.

To have been sexually abused by a brother would have been unthinkable. Those were the Christian brothers.

Between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, more than a hundred thousand British children were sent overseas to countries like Canada, Australia, and other parts of the British Empire as part of what became known as the Home Children programme. This controversial migration scheme, which aimed to provide "better opportunities" for children in poverty, left a lasting imprint on the lives of those involved.

The Home Children programme began in the 1860s as a social experiment aimed at alleviating poverty in the crowded industrial cities of Britain. Many of these children, some as young as three, were either orphans or had been surrendered by impoverished families who could no longer care for them. The programme was supported by philanthropic organisations such as Dr. Thomas Barnardo's Homes and the Church of England Waifs and Strays Society, and was endorsed by the British government.

Other children were told that their parents had died when in fact that was not the case. As they were compulsorily shipped out of Britain, many of the children were deceived into believing their parents were dead, and that a more abundant life awaited them. Some were exploited as cheap agricultural labour, or denied proper shelter and education. It was common for Home Children to run away, sometimes finding a caring family or better working conditions.