OK... the Bikini 'march' has become the Bikini Atol.. dead.. submerged, gone.

BUT WAIT...theres MORE.

This means that the opportunity exists for someone else to take up the challenge and resurrect the idea.

WHY CANCELLED ? aah.. this is something we ALL should take careful note of.

NAIVE ORGANIZERS. who gave their real names to Police and sufficient information (Presumably names) which enabled dark forces to discover their home addresses.

SOCIAL TERRORISTS. on the Left, Green,Muslim and Union side of politics to threaten death, and to publish the addresses of the organizers. (which they did)

WHERE TO NOW ?
Well...I'm prepared to give this a bit of a go, but not in the same form as it was promoted. Perhaps as follows:

1/ A Bikini 'statement' type demonstration rather than a march.
2/ Location ? Federation Square.
3/ Police protection.
4/ An event to promote Australian culture and explain what this is.
5/ An Event where modesty is mentioned as being culturally relative.
6/ An event to give a perspective on the Shady Sheikh's view of women.

Anyone wishing to consider involvement or to criticize or to make death threats can reach me at

BIKINIMARCH07@YAHOO.COM.AU (all lower case of course)

Bugger!

The thought of BD in an itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini was getting me all wet.

Darn it David, was this the Demo you referred to and I responded about rubbing shoulders with the great unwashed?

How obtuse of me. Had I realised, I will turn up, dressed formally (in more than a thong), like, maybe raincoat and gumboots, just to scare the sheep.

Moth to a flame, once again.

Boaz, death threats?

>>WHY CANCELLED ? aah.. this is something we ALL should take careful note of... SOCIAL TERRORISTS. on the Left, Green,Muslim and Union side of politics to threaten death... (which they did)<<

Or is this simply your own invention? After all, their own web site merely asserts "[t]he level of hostility against us even included verbal abuse and threats to publish our personal details."

If this verbal abuse contained death threats, would they not have headlined this?

Given the number of words devoted to the topic on this forum alone, might it not also be a good idea to advise people ahead of time how you would use the event "...to promote Australian culture and explain what this is."

Mind you, actually defining what you mean by "Australian culture" would vastly diminish the numbers who would attend, wouldn't it? Much better to allow everyone their own interpretation before the event - after all, each of us instinctively "knows" what Aussie culture is, don't we? You can then spring it upon them when they get there that your agenda is to i) promote your narrow view of Christianity, ii) excoriate Islam, iii) preach your doctrine of "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer", iv) lather, rinse, repeat.

I rarely wish ill of anything or anyone, but for this I will make an exception. I hope that it is a massive flop, and you find yourself alone in the square. Otherwise, you will be surrounded by the utter dregs of Melbourne's emotional underachievers, and be encouraged to expand down the heady path of self-promotion as Australia's very own Führer.

After that, just a short wait until the 3a.m. knock on my door...

It's not muslims who are "the enemy", but various paternal organisations (government, family and christian groups). They can where whatever they want as far as i'm concerned. This is a free country isn't it?? ...I guess not

Pericles...thanx for that.. yes I think I got a bit caught up with a number of themes as you well know I tend to. what would I do without you. I couldn't sleep this morning and was up at 3.00am working on the new "march" web site, (it will now, if at all, be a simple small scale demo at Federation square)
I think death threats was a bit of an overstatement.. humble apologies. I guess in this case I was reading between the lines more than I should have.

Col, w and Wayne.. thanx for noticing and offering your words.
It would not be a flop... because AH HAH !... now I'm beginning to understand how the media works and how to capitalize on its existing momentum.... the world is very different now.. Wayne is quite experienced in this medium from his previous posts.
Consider this, the original march plan has already become world wide news.... and it didn't even happen.. doesn't this tell you something ?
We need to use our powers for good rather than evil.....to quote Maxwell Smart.

Pericles.. willll you puh-lease got off this 3.00am knock at the door.. you Grand-dads life must have had much more impact on your perception of events than I realized.

Aussie culture ? geee... how do you greet someone ? What do you wear in various contexts.. beach, office... what language do you speak, its all 'culture'.

Well, kind thanx for all the comments both positive and negative. We just need C.J. to top up the negatives :) but it won't be long.

Happy to oblige, Boazy :)

Boaz: "I think death threats was a bit of an overstatement.. humble apologies. I guess in this case I was reading between the lines more than I should have."

Yup. As you so often do in this forum. But of course you don't intentionally 'bear false witness', do you? Rather, when you're all worked up at 3am the truth doen't really matter that much, does it?

Boaz: "..the original march plan has already become world wide news...."

I haven't heard a word about it except in your threads in this forum. Please provide links to mainstream media reports about this non-event.

If you can't, it will confirm my opinion that you're little more than a joke.

Don't underestimate the impact of this forum. Many comments I've written here at this board have ended up in newspaper articles about me. A lot of ambulance chasers lurk around here hoping to pick up some juicy bit of sensationalist drama.

As for the truth, well, reporters don't give a fig about what's true or not so why should anybody else here?

Thanx C.J. for those further examples of uplifting comments :)

Michelle Malkin is not exactly 'MainStream' but.. she is a highly regarded blogger who is often featured on Fox. I call that world wide, but perhaps I should just call it "international" but maybe even that would be too much for you.. ? never mind.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/006496.htm

I regard bloggers as more important and influential than the mainstream, even though they might have a smaller audience.

Joke ? C.J. have a good old gut wrenching giggle.. I don't mind, I'm learning many valuable lessons in the process, and believe it or not, you are helping.. thanx.

The more I am a 'joke' the more creative ideas that pop into my obviously senile head... (my son agrees with you by the way so you're not alone)

How about this.... we will have a small team meet at the Islamic Information and Support Centre, and symbollically give 'bread' to the people comin in, and going out, it will be video'd and used as a contrast with the 'London Cartoon Protests'...

I used to laugh at the stupidity of the gay lobby 'Actup' once.... not now.

Remember C.J. getting attention is the first rule of communication.

Wayne... indeed mate. Well... as I said..I'm learning.. and I'm trying to build a little team who are as passionate as I am, so.. never know, might see me on Tele haha.. but one thing will be sure, any media stories will be boring, because if I'm asked about such things as 'Immigration' and "Would you reject Muslims from coming to Australia" I would just give the SAME SAME SAME answer each time they ask.. "Cultural Compatibility, Social Cohesian, Political stability" etc until they get sick of asking.

Michelle Malkin? Thanks for proving my point, Boazy. Why not cite Tim Blair and Stormfront.org as well?

World-wide attention among the most rabid of far right-wing bloggers... some achievement.

Thanks for yet another chuckle.

"How about this.... we will have a small team meet at the Islamic Information and Support Centre, and symbollically give 'bread' to the people comin in, and going out, it will be video'd and used as a contrast with the 'London Cartoon Protests'..."

But you will still be wearing the bikini, right?

Hang on to that ActUp thought. Can't expect to get national attention if you show up in trakky daks and hush puppies.

BD, "and I'm trying to build a little team who are as passionate as I am, so.. never know, might see me on Tele haha"

thanks for the laugh.

It occured to me that what you want to build is normally called a "cell" and sometimes leads to time spent in a different kind of cell. Mostly though recollections of some scenes from Life of Brian came to mind.

Will you be called "The peoples front of Melbourne" or "The Melbournian peoples front"? Will we have a scene where a couple of mossies correct your grammer as you try and paint "Muslims go home" on the outside of a mosque?

Will we have a scene where someone asks "Apart from mathematics, clocks, universities, hospitals, coffee, photography, windmills, ..., what have the arabs done for us?"

Oh and I really liked the scene where the team all hid from the romans, maybe you could have an Asio raid and all hide in really obvious places.

Please video your meetings and post them on Utube, they should provide hours of entertainment for the rest of us (or I guess we can stick to watching Life of Brian).

R0bert

Rob....its not about comparative scientific contribution by various cultures. Its about this.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Noe carefully the words.

1/ ALLAHS CURSE be on them.
2/ They are deluded.
3/ Away from truth.

Now.. imagine if I ran a seminar across Australia, had a web site and gave out pamphlets claiming these things about Muslims ? Or..stood outside a Mosque and made such claims.
Or.. sought to introduce legislation which supported those claims.

Your present status as a 'non' Christian probably makes you feel 'yawn.... so what' but if hisory teaches anything, it teaches that 'unbelievers' as you currently describe yourself would be in a worse situation than the Christian. This would especially be so if the likes of Omran and Benbrika ever managed to gain a political foothold.

Perhaps you blokes don't feel it, because you have not lived it, though C.J. did mention he worked in Muslim countries with some kind of aid work I think. Hardly the type of thing to attract the ire of radical Muslims..he also would not have been promoting the Christian faith described above by the Quran. So, maybe he just saw the 'grateful' side ? Had he been trying to plant churches, or bring new spiritual life to people in darkness, in the grip of destructive obligations to vengeful 'spirits' things might have been different for his experience. Muslims get cranky over Christians meddling even with animists in countries controlled by them.

I've got a number of interesting ideas unfolding, and yes, they will be on youtube. All in good time.

Always remember..its the 'radicals' who drive the agenda. Pointing to a large number of peaceful Muslims changes nothing. Have you looked at Hamas/Hezbollah lately ? Now we all know there are many many 'peaceloving' Palestinians ...right ?

UPDATE

BIKINI march will now be called 'ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE' demonstration...

After consultations with the original bikini march organizers and some concerns for their safety, out of respect for them, we will change the name as above.

Good idea, Boazy. I guess it'd be a bit awkward goose-stepping while wearing a bikini.

This is scary. This is nuts. It's like watching Psycho.

I've never thought much of your views BD, and I notice you never respond to my comments, but that doesn't stop me from being concerned for your welfare since you're presumably a fellow human being.

I'm in the process of knitting you a nice cardigan with long, wrap-around sleeves

>>BIKINI march will now be called 'ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE' demonstration... <<

Boaz, don't say I didn't warn you.

You have just stepped over the line from "mild eccentric with potentially dangerous views" to "unimaginative naif with rabble-rousing ambitions".

Fortunately you are not smart enough to be Australia's Oswald Mosley, but I am sure you will be there at his feet when he appears, waving provocative banners, preaching your own twisted version of "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer", and revelling in the revulsion directed at you by your fellow-citizens.

Have a great day.

Hi Chainsmoker... mate.. I do indeed respond to some of your posts.
I certainly don't deliberately ignore you.

Thanx for your concern for my welfare....as I indeed am of yours.
Would you do both of us a favor and look at THIS..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

Now...here is the first comment on the vid today by:
PEACEISLAMMUMOOD
'ITS about time the kuffars get their necks and heads chopped off, now is the time because they are fornicators and worldly people'

Do you notice the bloke with the big mouth..
-"We will bomb you, invade you, take your wives and children as war booty" What year was this said ? 2005. Gee.. now that sounds exactly like Sura 23:5-6 from the year 630 ish

Now.. if this is the mindset NOW of a significant number of Muslims (it doesn't matter a scrap if its only a percentage.. say 5%) 5% of 100,000 is.... how many ? thats 5000 people.

So, the welfare you should be most considering is yours and your families. As for me? I don't matter much in the long run.

Pericles. You are worse than a dog with a bone mate. No matter that its been cleaned of all protein you still want to gnaw away at it. Mosely Mosely Mosely.. my goodness, I think you WERE traumatized by your grand-dad. It appears to have given you tunnel vision about some issues for sure.

C.J. 'goose stepping'..again.. in the Pericles mould, not seeing leaves for the trees. I'm beginning to think you are more closed minded that I previously thought. Clearly you did NOT view the video showing the incredible similarity and even connection between Herr Hitler and his national socialists and the Jihadi's preparing for war today. I'll provide the link AGAIN (Chainy... see this one too mate)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V548WKjVjC4
That was made by MUSLIMS (sunnis) about Shia's.

Finally, I totally do appreciate that my posts must seem a bit surreal :) Reactions are exactly as anticipated. But the 'payload' is not what is being suggested by C.J. and Pericles. Chainy to understand the "ONE" idea look at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

BD, "Finally, I totally do appreciate that my posts must seem a bit surreal :)" - well I for one are hoping that you are just being provocative to stir up discussion rather than making a genuine attempt to form a small team of people who would respond to a banner with the proposed words.

I'm hoping that you are not silly enough to expose your family to the type of extremists who would be encouraged by your banner.

Keep in mind that some of them may have more dramatic means in mind of achieving "ONE RACE" than your plan to mingle the blood lines (leaving aside the debate about race and genetics). My guess is that part of your slogan is more likely to attract the "RACIAL PURITY" crowd than the mixed race marriage crowd.

Please tell me you are not silly enough to think that your banner will attract the racially tollerant.

R0bert

Rob.... read Hosea Chapter 1 verse 2.

You are having concerns for things which are yet to be tested.
Glad you are thinking about my family.
People of the views you are mentioning, will hold those views anyway.
If it brings some out of the woodwork, what is the likely result ? If they speak in praise of the message, we can hopefully correct their narrow minded view, if they don't accept correction based on the clear contradition between the banner and the people under it, and the explanation in the handout we will have, then they have not changed at all..and its status quo.

If people who think only in terms of racist isolationism are brought a bit nearer to tolerance and crossing racial and cultural barriers, then it would be worthwile.
Please bear in mind, I have already run the idea /concept past the special event police who are happy to ensure no trouble occurs.

It would be a 'guerilla' style event.. not a big crowd.. just passers by, the main goal is to video it, and that is where the usefulness will be.

CONCLUSON.
1/ Staunch Racists are unlikely to change their minds about others.
2/ Open minded people who are simply the victims of a ethno/cultural isolationism and the Multicultural party line,would be more likely to embrace a positive and inclusive message, as the police I spoke to already have.

cheers mate. "Unity Australia"

BD, I'm not thinking in terms of the event as such but rather your intention to form a team based to some extent I assume on the "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE, ONE FAITH" plan. (OK I added in the ONE FAITH bit but I think we all know that is part of your plan).

Do you take your team around to your place for tea and bickies? Will you vet them really well first to ensure that you are not bringing someone who could be a threat to your family into your home?

My impression is that very few people would read your ONE RACE bit as anything other than a call to racial purity. Even after years of posting here you are failing to convince others that you are not racist so how much chance to you have operating under a banner like that where people have not seen the context you put it in.

I suspect that I'm one of your few regular sparing partners on this site who is not convinced that you are a racist (and I'm not certain that you are not).

I don't think that public calls for ONE RACE are going to contribute anything to reducing racial intollerance, more likely the opposite.

R0bert

Well, Boaz, I am genuinely sorry that you perceive my continuing warnings as demonstrating tunnel vision. They were meant originally to be a wake-up call to you, in case you didn't realize where your path was taking you. But I am obviously now talking to someone with so little self-awareness that no amount of reasoning will get through to you.

Far from being "traumatized" by my grandfather's experience in the thirties, I consider his actions to be totally understandable in the context of his times. He did not have the example of Nazi Germany to guide him as he was led along a path of protest by a charismatic and credible intellectual. He, and the mob around him, were fed a diet of half-truths and outright lies in order to convince them that government was corrupt, foreigners were a constant threat, and the only way forward was through cleanliness of thought word and deed.

The message was carefully constructed to appeal to prejudice, fear and national pride. It was only after following the banner for a while that he realised he was being manipulated into a position where prejudice was transformed into hatred, fear massaged into a form of mob-supported bravery and national pride elided into the violence of "self defence" against the chosen enemies.

I think I will leave it there for a while, as far as my advice to you goes. I know it is too much to imagine that you will take a blind bit of notice, but please, before you go too far along the path of racial hatred, think very very carefully where it might take you.

Pericles... there were some valuable parts of your post, but also a confusing bit.

This part was good.

[The message was carefully constructed to appeal to prejudice, fear and national pride.]

Is it possible, that a message can be constructed to appeal to common sense (rather than prejudice), fear (This is legitimate), and national defense (rather than pride) ?

Your words would apply if the name behind the message was Goebells, but not Boaz.

Was Churchill appealing to 'prejudice fear and national pride' ? or was he more perceptive than Chamberlain who showed himself simply ignorant of reality ?

Now.. these 2 men symbolize the two types of response to potential threat against a people. You seem rather in denial about this or am I wrong ? Please explain because I simply don't get you on this. I prefer to see myself more towards Churchills end, and you appear to be a Chamberlain. Where am I going wrong ?

The part about 'Racial Hatred' was decidedly off the mark. Since when have I hated people because of their race,if so, 'which' race ? (respond please)

ROB.... 'one faith' ? mate.. that could not be further from the truth.
Surely by now you understand that I know faith cannot be legislated ?
You are a classic example of free choice.

You seem to be confusing the faith side of my life with the political.
It is possible to separate them you know. We have to recognize the limits of faith in the political realm. I almost feel like echoing our Lords words "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know me"...

I don't know how we could ever be 'ONE faith'.... but you know what we can be ? We can be a country where we are always free to choose which faith we follow.

I'm prepared to goto considerable lengths to push this point home, and allay fears of a 'Theocracy' approach, but I confess, it surprises me that you still keep coming back with this concern.

My political goals are basically:

-Reverse "MultiCulturalism and replace it with 'Integration/assimilation'
-Immigration to be selective based on the long term well being of Australia.
-Selective Tarrifs to punish Slavery.
-Awaken Australians to the threat of militant Islam.

My Spiritual goals are:

-Proclaim Christ, make disciples.

This goal can often be achieved as a flow on from activity on the Political. Simply disussing those goals leads into such things as our position before God, our need of Grace and forgiveness, and the potential for discipleship.

Would you deny me my democratic right to free expression and political activity simply because I name Christ as Saviour ?

I don't see much to cringe foetally in a corner about there.. do you?

If so... where ?

Bd, "I don't know how we could ever be 'ONE faith'.... but you know what we can be ? We can be a country where we are always free to choose which faith we follow. "

Quite simply your claims about wanting a country to be free to choose which faith we follow (or don't follow) are not born out by your stance on other issues.

A classic was that often raised issue about gay's living next door. A example of where you want to impose your view of your gods obsessions on those who don't share your faith.

Your freedom to participate in the democratic process and lobby for for the values you hold should never be restricted because you happen to follow a particular faith. At the same time it is legitimate for others of us to fight against the types of things you push for when they go against our own value systems/beliefs.

From what I've seen of your posts over the years I don't think that you get the line between exercising freedom to practice your faith yourself and attempting to impose it on others nearly as clearly as you claim to have it.

R0bert

Boaz, you are no Churchill.

>>Was Churchill appealing to 'prejudice fear and national pride' ? or was he more perceptive than Chamberlain<<

Churchill was essentially a man of honour. He later wrote:

"For the French Government to leave her faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences. [I]t must be recorded with regret that the British Government not only acquiesced but encouraged the French Government in a fatal course."

We know from Hansard that he held this view in 1938.

Contemporary press reports also make interesting reading.

"People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war ... If we must have a victor, let us choose Chamberlain. For the Prime Minister's conquests are mighty and enduring - millions of happy homes and hearts relieved of their burden. To him the laurels." [Daily Express 30th September 1938]

While on the other hand:

"No-one in this country who examines carefully the terms under which Hitler's troops begin their march into Czechoslovakia to-day can feel other than unhappy. Certainly the Czechs will hardly appreciate Mr. Chamberlain's phrase that it is 'peace with honour.'" [Manchester Guardian 1st October 1938]

What you need to understand is that many people in Britain felt an affinity with Germany's aims and objectives. From the same Manchester Guardian piece:

"Mr. Chamberlain ... drove from Heston to Buckingham Palace, where the crowd clamoured for him, and within five minutes of his arrival he was standing on the balcony of the Palace with the King and Queen and Mrs. Chamberlain. The cries were all for 'Neville'"

History tells us that their faith was misplaced. Their leadership had sold out to the prejudice, fear and racism that was Nazi Germany, and was thereby tarred with the same brush.

My point is that it didn't seem so horrendous in 1938. It was quite in tune with the natural prejudices, fears and innate racism that characterized the British people of the time.

Hindsight is useful. The passage of time allows us to put such matters into context and focus.

Well said Pericles. I've not claimed to be a Churchill, bit I do claim a degree of insight which is of a comparable nature. i.e. I see a real threat, whereas others clearly do not.

I still am totally mystified by your comment connecting me to 'racial' hatred ?

On the banner, just out of curiosity, (aside from any misgivings about the value or lack, of public demonstrations in general)if our banner read "ALL ONE IN CHRIST" and was clearly Christian, would that seem in any way better to you ? The people under it would still have the same clear multi racial composition as before.

Bearing in mind of course, that this is the ultimate message which is to be on the handout. "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" etc...for we are all one in Him"

Same goal, but less 'in your face' with the controversial reference to ONE this and that, which would be definitely misinterpreted by some. (show me any public event no matter what which impacts on all people the same way ?)

I will test drive the ONE NATION etc one by myself though, I'm interested in the reaction, and if it can be successfully guided into a meaningful dialog about faith and society with passers by.

I might even guage local opinion with a letter box drop and a public meeting in the community house, but that would be more a promotion of integration/assimilation event than Christian, though I can include it in passing for those interested.

I think you might have missed the point again Boaz.

It was Chamberlain who was pandering to the prejudice, fear and racism of 1938 England, just as you are with your mirror-image stance for ethnic cleansing - you wouldn't do it yourself, of course, but would be more than happy if you were able to incite others to perform the deed on your behalf.

Chamberlain was merely allowing the baser instincts of the populace - those who thought that Hitler might be a little too flashy, but his heart was in the right place - to encourage appeasement with one of the 20th Century's greatest villains. This is entirely consistent with your rabble-rousing activities.

Churchill, on the other hand, was a man whose innate sense of honour would not concede to a bully, however persuasive his argument and however attractive the idea of avoiding war might be.

Over the holiday, might I suggest that you do some research on the concept of honour versus popularism.

Have a great Christmas.