It is 5AM in the morning DD, but I just happen to be a morning person who thinks best at that hour.

Loudmouth's explanation of the part of my post which you objected to was right on the money. You seem to have misunderstood that part of my post and I don't understand why you are being nasty to Loudmouth for his polite explanation?

The terms "left" and "right", and "liberal" and "conservative", are simply categorisations. Like stereotypes, they do not need to be absolutely correct, only correct enough to form a concept so that people can think. But if you examine the beliefs of "liberals" and "conservatives" today, you are struck by an anomaly.

Today's "leftist liberal" is in fact actually a "leftist conservative", fighting to defend failed institutions like multiculturalism and political censorship, which are today the status quo ante. "Liberals" are in fact right wing people fighting for nationalism and free speech, and they are today's "oppressed." Western free thinkers like Gert Weelders, Lauren Southern, or Milo Yianopoulos are either being denied entry into Australia to speak, or are subject to oppressive conditions, or suffer from outright acts of violence at their public meetings.

My aim on this site, is to make young leftist "liberals" realise that they are in fact the new conservatives supporting the renewed suppression of truth and liberty, under another flag. They are in fact the very people that they think they are nobly fighting against.

Extremists who hate democracy and who envisage a government by the public service, of the public service, and for the public service, have done a wonderful job of brainwashing young people into thinking that their own reactionary conservatism is fashionable liberalism. The trick for me is to make young leftists think. Young "liberals" today are acting exactly like every evangelical, self righteous bunch of ideologues in history. They have been totally convinced that their ideology is so unquestionably perfect that it justifies any means to promote it

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« Why not just omit to sing the one offending word, or more assertively, insert your own adjective ? »
.

Like replacing "young" with "strong" ?

Yes, Graham, why not ? Perhaps we should all do it.

That should bring us all together, shouldn't it – better than your second choice : two separate anthems in two different languages, like the Irish and the Canadians, or multiple languages like the Stars and Stripes in the US ?

I guess we never thought of asking our Aboriginal compatriots if they had any suggestions to make before we adopted "Advance Australia Fair" as our National Anthem in 1984.

Better late than never, though, don't you think ?

Sounds like a good idea to me – now that we've had a friendly wake-up call from our old mates !

Let's not be too stodgy about it.

Don't just sit there playing cards. Let's pick up the ball and run with it !

.

Lego, we might in the future discuss those points on another thread.

Dan.