Thursday, March 15, 2018


Image result for south african farmers tortured

A taboo has been broken and a silence - a close runner-up to the silence of the grave - has been shattered by  respected journalist, Paul Toohey, writing in the Sunday Telegraph of March  11, "A white minority in South Africa is being murdered and tortured - as families in Australia wait helplessly".

Could it be true? Whatever happened to the happy ending predicted by starry eyed opponents of Apartheid back in  '94 just before packing up their picket signs and going home congratulating themselves on a job well done? Exactly what even the dimmest dimwit could have predicted would happen: a national suicide - the very thing Apartheid was created to prevent and exactly what present Israeli apartheid is designed to prevent.

What Toohey is now writing about are merely details. He lists some of the most recent atrocities: a white farmer, Berdus Henrico nursing three fresh bullet wounds but surviving the intended coup de grace, a bullet to the head, because of faulty firearms; holes drilled through the feet of elderly women; people cremated while still alive; the ever popular past-time of bashing and raping preferred white women, and the case of the couple, Rickkie Alsemgeest 67 and Piet Els 86.  Rickkie was stripped and digitally raped while Pietf was bashed with an iron bar. They were then both tortured by burning with a steam iron.

These cases are simply a few tickets plucked from a macabre garbage-bag full in a process ramping up for almost the last quarter century, given official sanction by none other than former South African president Jacob Zuma entertaining a crowd of ANC faithful with a rendition of a catchy little number, Kill the Boer. The more cynical may interpret this as a call for genocide. Evidently though, up until now,  Australian officials could never be accused of being this cynical because in their eyes nothing special could be attached to the suffering of South African Whites. Hey! Doncha know perfect equal opportunity reigns in the suffering of all in South Africa, be the Black, White, or in between.

Admittedly, this argument has some substance given that Joburg is the world capital of homicide, the South African incidence of rape is the highest in the world and where Black women have come to view being raped as rude interruption on the way back from the market, and "necklacing" (a victim being encircled in a tyre which is then set on fire) is a much loved spectator sport. However, the perpetrators of these black-on-black-crimes are not being urged on by the president himself, and neither are these atrocities seen as fair payback for what the masses have been taught was one massive atrocity - the system of Apartheid. Additionally, with the exception of necklacing which would be, although not pleasant, at least a relatively quick death, the same enthusiasm for prolonged torture in the murders of Whites does not seem to appear in the deaths of Blacks. As Toohey writes, "An urban crime might last ten minutes, but (on farms) people can be tortured for nine hours."

Apparently though this has remained irrelevant minutia for Australian governments when dishing out refugee status, in order to retain a dirty, little loophole. And that is that because the heinous treatment inflicted on all appears to be so evenly spread, how can special consideration be given to Whites alone? Why, before we know it we'll have the populations of the entire African continent claiming refugee status because of mutual ill treatment.

That argument though has just had the rug pulled out from under it with  the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa throwing his weight behind a motion passed by socialist Economic Freedom Fighters (and who'd want to get on the wrong side of an outfit with a moniker like that) that white owned land should be appropriated without compensation. The Horror! Not to mention the stupidity. This is exactly the same process that converted Rhodesia from a bread-basket to a basket-case. Farms run scientifically with the expertise acquired over generations were unceremoniously stolen from their rightful owners and chopped up and distributed to fools who were barely able to draw a subsistence from the fragments.

The day after Toohey's article appeared, Jewish but nevertheless lovely to look at Caroline Marcus, writing for the same paper, added to the subject that had been non grata for so long that, if not for the internet, readers would be as shocked as they would be if suddenly told the American moon-landings were all faked (can hardly wait for that day).  "In South Africa, apartheid has been replaced by a violent campaign of rape and murder directed at the country's white farmers, who cannot claim refugee status [not even while being tortured]" Her claim that being a white South African farmer is the world's most dangerous job isn't really pushing poetic licence all that much.

Most commentators on the situation agree that accurate figures are notoriously difficult to come by but Caroline quotes the Transvaal Agricultural Union, representing SA commercial farmers, murder rate of its members being 138 per 100,000. To put that into perspective, the total murder rate of SA is 31 per 100,000. No, nothing to see here folks. White farmers must just be incredibly unlucky and as bad luck can strike anywhere, absolutely no grounds whatsoever exist for special treatment. To give an idea of the trajectory as well as the tragedy of what's happening to Whites in SA, last year, according again to Caroline, a record of 404 farm attacks was set. This is four times the rate of a decade ago.

I've followed through on Caroline's suggestion to "Google 'South African farmers' to be confronted with the most stomach-churning images of white men and women tortured in their home with clothing irons, power drills and blow-torches". Here are the some of the results:

Image may contain: one or more people and indoorImage result for south african farmers tortured

Image result for south african farmers tortured

Image result for south african farmers tortured

Image result for south african farmers tortured

One slight quibble with Ms Marcus's sympathising: insight is given into just how well marinated she is in the belief that, by definition, racism means white racism, by her insistence on using the asinine term "reverse racism",  implying that racism demonstrated by any other than the white race is so aberrant as to need a special term. No my lovely, racism is racism.

And the hits just keep coming. The very next day, again in the Telegraph, the thinking man's pin-up girl, Miranda Devine, hits the politically correct nail squarely on the head with, "Yet white South African farmers don't qualify as refugees in Australia. They are the persecuted minority we have to ignore because of the colour of their skin". Brava Miranda. Adding to the problem of a skin colour as popular as a pig's head in a mosque is, as Devine also points out, is the ability of white South Africans to blend seamlessly into the Australian way of life. They love barbecues for Christ's sake! But where's the diversity? multiculturalists would no doubt cry out.  It's all well and good that they'd be mostly well-educated, skilled and wouldn't be lingering uselessly on the Centrelink tit for years on end, but where's the colour? Why these people would be as pale and stale and bland as ... well, the people whose country, at great expense and effort, is being pulled out from under them.

Nothing yet on TV about these developments, but some murmuring on radio. And then, almost miraculously as a walk on water, Peter Dutton, whose portfolio includes immigration, announces consideration is being given to a special refugee deal for "persecuted" White South Africans. However, it sounds suspiciously like a one-off like the 12,000 number that was conjured up for special case Syrians. But what happened to the loophole preventing refugee status? Apparently, it wasn't that important after all.

Naturally, the SA government isn't happy. In fact it is furious. How dare Dutton blacken its good name by insinuating not all SA citizens are cared for equally? Besides, white South Africans don't want to leave their homeland where they are so treasured. This calls for a truly dedicated suspense of disbelief. The Australian High Commissioner is carpeted.

 Fuck the SA government! Fuck this pathetic state that is failing faster than a Chinese spanner! The sooner it arrives back in the jungle, the better.

Who's the chicken and who is the egg? Did the Telegraph articles, in true power of the press style, galvanise Dutton into voicing this change of long-standing policy? Or did Dutton first "leak" his reconsideration to this right-of-centre newspaper as a kind of softening-up strategy? This writer's money is on the latter. It's highly unlikely a media outlet would go stomping into this kind of minefield without a green light. More importantly, why the radical change in policy? The SA government's decision to expropriate White-owned land without compensation would appear to be the catalyst. Rape, murder and torture are one thing (or three), but private property stolen, when the right to own property is a central tenet of the Capitalist system? That's evidently a bridge, or a farm, too far.

Television, by this time, felt it safe to begin airing this ray of hope for SA farmers who, deprived of their farms would have no option other than joining their fellows in squalid squatter camps. Predictably, in a sound-grab, Richard Di Natale, leader of the Greens and idiot looking for a village, claimed ridiculously that this was nothing other than "a return to the White Australia policy". Predictable because the Greens, "these fairies at the bottom of the garden" have a pathological hatred for anything to do with the survival of the White race and its civilisation.

Postscript: From the Daily Telegraph, Monday March 19: "But Ms Bishop [Australian Foreign Minister] yesterday told the ABC she wasn't aware of any planned changes. 'I believe the humanitarian program's credibility comes from the fact that it is non-discriminatory and that each application is assessed on its merits'". Could this be construed to mean that if Whites are accepted as refugees, the program ceases to be non-discriminatory? Can't have that. Let the torture, murder and rape continue.

Saturday, March 10, 2018


Matthew Flinders (1774-1814), by unknown artist, c1800
Due to an education system dedicated more to left-wing indoctrination than imparting worthwhile knowledge, Australian history, shunned in schools, is a gaping black hole to most Australians.

This is of course the way globalists and multiculturalists prefer it. As the prophet Orwell saw it, "[t]he most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and destroy their own understanding of their history". Moreover, pitifully, because of television, most Australians would know far more about American history than their own.

Therefore, it may come as a surprise to learn of the truly heroic exploits of the White men who claimed this land for their own. We are speaking here of true heroes, not the dime a dozen variety sprinkled across the pages of today's tabloids. Standing out from even the cream of the heroic crop is one Mathew Flinders.

What makes a man? Many would answer, brains and guts. Flinders was both brilliant and brave. And as he so gallantly demonstrated, he was a man of honour. Male honour, something women have always struggled to understand, recedes into something of an anachronism, so this puzzle to women
will wither accordingly.

Sadly, although statues of him stand in Australian cities, streets, a university, a mountain range in South Australia, a town on the southern coast of Victoria, and two islands (a third named by Finders after his young brother, Samuel) are named after him, few Australians know little of him other than that he circumnavigated Australia, having no conception of just how monumental an achievement this was even though many would imagine he did in a rowboat named Tom Thumb. A tiny minority may know that it was Flinders who coined the name, Australia, a contraction of the more awkward, Terra Australis. 

This South Land had been merely hypothetical as early as the fifth century only because it seemed reasonable that a decent sized land mass in the southern hemisphere had to exist to balance the massive Eurasian land in the north. No confirming evidence was produced until Dirk Hartog, the Dutch navigator landed on the west coast of the fabled Terra Australis, where Marco Polo  had fantasised an El Dorado with gold causing the very landscape to sparkle, in 1616. Another tantalising hint of a South Land was provided by Abel Tasman who discovered the south west coast of Tasmania (named by him Van Dieman's Land) before sailing around its southern tip and then being persuaded by a strong wind to discover New Zealand in 1642. So by then, glimpses of land had been snapped 2,500 miles, or 4,000 kilometres apart. Was it the same land mass, or two large islands or an archipelago?

Flinders was born into a middle-class family in Donington, Lincolnshire in the UK in 1774, his father being a surgeon, envisaged a similar career, or perhaps a legal career for his son. However, a comfortable, bourgeois life was never to be for Flinders who from an early age was imagining a vastly different career. Right from his boyish devouring of Robinson Crusoe, the sea beckoned. He would be later inspired and influenced by the exploits of one Captain James Cook. So a cushioned, bourgeois life was not to be for Flinders. Rather, he was listening to the siren call of the sea and a life of derring-do - albeit a short one.

Before he was fifteen, he had attained an impressive self-education in astronomy and navigation. An aptitude for mathematics had earlier shown itself. As an example of the major part luck played in Flinders' life, mostly bad, but this time good, the ambitious boy had a cousin, Henrietta Flinders, who was serving as a governess for the family of Thomas Pasley who happened to be the commander of HMS Scipio. She was easily persuaded to put in a good word for her eager cousin and a meeting was arranged between the boy and the man who, evidently impressed, facilitated his entry into the navy, serving initially on HMS Alert. It's easy to imagine the boy's frustration at being consigned to a ship that wasn't going actually going anywhere but at least he was learning the ropes. Following a quick apprenticeship, he joined Captain Pasley on the Scipio before both transferring to HMS Bellerophon, a cannon-bristling warship.

On Pasley's recommendation he was was next assigned as a midshipman to HMS Providence  under the command of the already famous Captain Bligh. They were headed to Tahiti to complete the mission Bligh was charged with before being so rudely interrupted by an incident on board  the Bounty, that is, to collect breadfruit plants to transfer to the West Indies. It was envisaged as food for slaves who were outrageously scoffing down  more expensive victuals. In what must have been one of the sweetest ironies of history, after all the trouble gone through to obtain the breadfruit, the slaves refused to eat it.

For the boy, now barely sixteen, it must have been an adventure of which most adventurous kids could only dream, notwithstanding he had, according to history's almost unanimous verdict, the world's worse boss. Oddly however, providing some evidence that historical blackening can sometimes be grossly unfair, the boy and the man apparently shared a mutual regard - the boy was prepared to learn and the man was prepared to teach. This was no small thing given that the lessons were being provided by man who had proved himself to be one of the world's greatest navigators.

A voyage from England to Tahiti, visiting Terra Australis, then to the West Indies and back to Britain entailed a three year circumnavigation of the planet. On the return to England in 1794, war had broken out with revolutionary France. Still only 19, Flinders was sent into action aboard the HM S Bellerphon which became involved in a panorama of a naval battle fought off the coast of France  that would become known long-windedly as the Battle of the Glorious First of June, obviating any schoolboy need for memorising its date. A still excited Mathew would later include narrations of the battle in letters to his sisters but delicately omitting scenes of men being shredded by wood-shrapnel, the most consistent agent of death and mutilation in duels between sailing ships, men's heads being removed by cannon balls, ships still blasting away defiantly even while sinking, and his own captain, the irrepressible Pasley, losing a leg and apparently berating his crew for making too much of a fuss about it. Evidently carried away by the drama of it all, the young sailor in his baptism by fire earned a rare castigation for crossing a line of demarcation and trying to operate a cannon on his own.

He'd had his taste of war and acquitted himself honourably, but as the man of science he would become, he would always be aghast at the seemingly irremovable closest approximation to hell on Earth.

The next year, Flinders, still as a midshipman, was sent to the infant colony at Port Jackson (Sydney, Australia) on HMS Reliance which also carried the man who would relieve Arthur Phillip as Govenor of NSW, John Hunter. It was on this voyage that Flinders met the man who would become his boon companion, George Bass, three years his senior, who was serving as a ship's surgeon.  

Flinders was becoming noticed.  It's not likely that Bligh had  kept his protege's navigational ability and attention to cartographical detail secret, thus doing no harm to his career. His growing reputation evidently preceded him to NSW.

Arriving there, the new Governor was keen to harness the young man's skills in shedding some light on more of the of coast and hinterland of NSW, the name basically given to all of the known land of eastern Terra Australis except Van Diemen's Land where Abel Tasman had beaten the British to the punch by naming it after Anthony Van Diemen, the Governor General of the Dutch East Indies.

The equally adventurous George Bass was keen to join his friend in the exploration of the coast south of Port Jackson, including Botany Bay. But they needed a third crew member to bail water. They found him, a youth named Martin, standing idly at the seaside looking out to sea. When asked if he'd like to join them in a boat ride, evidently omitting the inherent danger, the answer could easily be imagined as, "yeah, s'pose so". It would have been difficult to claim he was too busy.

So the trio set sail through what's now called Sydney Heads in what was essentially a rowboat with a sail named Tom Thumb, and turned south to explore Botany Bay and what they would name, the George's River, in modern times minus its possessive apostrophe. They also named Port Hacking after Henry Hacking, the colony's primary game hunter. Hacking had served as quartermaster on the Sirius when it was part of the first fleet.

After an interlude which saw Flinders briefly visiting Norfolk Island a more ambitious journey south was made to what is now Lake Illawarra, passing and noting a hint of what would become a massive coal-mining industry at Port Kembla, was made in Tom Thumb 2, of similar dimensions to the original. Again needing a water bailer, the two explorers found Martin standing in the same spot in which he was originally sighted. The two journeys involved rough weather, being overturned, miles of sheer cliff allowing no chance of a landing, and where landing was possible, being joined by curious but unpredictable and well-armed Blacks. Notwithstanding all these tribulations, Martin appeared to enjoy the second trip as much as the first.

With the colony desperately short of food, Flinders then rejoined the HMS Reliance for a voyage to the Cape of Good Hope to procure livestock.

The next ship Flinders, now a lieutenant, would join was the HMS Francis sailing to the Furneaux Islands, originally sighted by Tobias Furneaux in 1773 off the north east cape of Van Deimen's Land. The islands were to be further explored as Furneaux had never actually landed here. Flinders would also be doing valuable hydrographic work, the description and measurement of coast line as an aid in navigation.

The most intriguing question of the day was the status of Van Diemens Land. Was it an island or was it part of NSW? Flinders and Bass were commissioned to find out once and for all. To do this they were provided with the  35 ft sloop Norfolk, built on Norfolk Island as a link between the two colonies but unceremoniously commandeered by Governor Hunter  on its first appearance at Port Jackson. A crew of eight volunteers joined the two men whose names history would meld together. Well suited to the task, the Norfolk handled like a sports-car, but in a notoriously wild part of the oceanic world, would have been frighteningly vulnerable. It was small enough to be equipped with extra long oars, providing additional dexterity. Sailing west through the strait named after his partner in adventure, giving a nod to Bass's earlier probing, and turning south to follow a coast fortified by towering cliff walls, Flinders knew that the conundrum had been vanquished - Van Diemen's Land was a stand-alone land mass which was being circumnavigated for the first time.

This was a break-through of epic proportions. Now with the knowledge that a safely navigable strait existed between the two land masses, the journey between Britain and Port Jackson could be shortened by days.

To be continued

Wednesday, March 7, 2018


Related image
Although unfortunate that  Tony Abbot couldn't have presented the arguments he is now making as a back bencher on immigration reform when Prime Minister, one must be contented with better late than never.

Moreover, if the Liberal Party, instead of refusing to budge on the almost religious fundamental of big immigration, that is, the exponential growth of Australia's population due to the per capita highest immigration rate in the world, and embraced the perfectly good sense Abbot is making, it would without a doubt romp home in the next federal election and leave the monotoned and personality-free leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, wondering what had happened - what had happened to the cosy bipartisan agreement on immigration that was supposed to keep the plebs perennially locked out of the non-debate?

Abbot knows, even without every opinion poll run for at least the last forty years showing a substantial majority of the population is concerned about high immigration, even when it was nowhere as high as it is today, that it has never been convinced about the supposed joys of the multiculturalism shoved down their throats, and is frightened of jihadist Islam, that slashing immigration would win an election like it would be won for the Communists in the former Soviet Union (voting allowed for any candidate as long as he was a Communist).

Naturally though, the high priests living in cloud-cuckoo-land would slam such a change of tactic as pandering to the base instincts of the know-nothings, claimingthat it would be  populism, as if that was something as unsavoury as herpes in a crowded steam-room, and evidently divorcing the word from its close relative, popular, which of course every politician aspires to be.  

The fact that the Liberal Party has chosen not to tread this distasteful path even when it would provide them with what they want and need most, which of course is power, speaks volumes about the rightful owners of the Liberal Party which of course is Big Business (also, if the pesky unions and the bleeding-heart leftist/liberals would get out of the way, owning its co-joined political twin which masquerades as the working man's friend).

 BB sees infinite growth - unfortunately no-one has bothered to send the memo that this can't exist - of everything which will turn a greater profit. They show here a similarly cavalier attitude as the criminally negligent captain of the destroyer who is reputed to have cried, "damn the torpedoes. Full steam ahead!" The difference here is that while the captain was locked into the same fate as his crew, the captains of industry, finance and politics will continue to live like pharaohs while the rest of the country goes down with the ship.

 In a recent speech, Abbot trotted out at least three horsemen of the immigration apocalypse: "stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and clogged infrastructure”. It was timely, given Peter Dutton, whose portfolio includes immigration, earlier claiming that the migrant intake should be cut and intimating migrant numbers should not be at the point of causing existing inhabitants feeling overcrowded - deftly describing the current situation. Dutton though has since inexplicably, if ruling out the possibility of his being gotten to, "back-flipped" and described the current numbers as about the right measure, as if a highly sensitive piece of technology was being carefully calibrated.

The treasurer, Scott Morrison has also rained on Tony's parade. He correctly claims that rampaging immigration will increase Gross Domestic Product GDP. However, in the cold-as-a- grave business of economics, a collision between two oil tankers just off the eastern suburbs of Sydney would also increase GDP because of the boost to the economy the clean-up would cause. This however would mean little to the well- lubricated denizens of the affected suburbs, not to mention bathers emerging from the ocean looking frighteningly like creatures from the Black Lagoon.

Scott's claim, widely accepted by greedy capitalists worldwide, is predicated on population growth equalling, greater productivity. This economic model veers a little toward Voodoo economics, however, when subjected to closer scrutiny. For example, it presupposes that all the individual units of population growth are happily producing when obviously they are not. For starters, only humans old enough to work or no longer entitled to be sucking at a university teat, are factored into the equation. And of course the vast number of immigrants who get what they came for, that is, a work-free life courtesy of a modern welfare state, are hardly contributing to greater productivity. On the contrary they are economic liabilities but a blind eye appears to be turned to that.

The only sure way increased population contributes to increased productivity is by the the topping up of the unemployment pool, leading to supercharged competition for jobs which in turn suppresses real wages. So great productivity ensues from less cost. And what do you know? While inflation, like rust, never sleeps, real wages have been stagnating for years. This is the dirty little secret of those maddened by the obsession with infinite, rocketing population growth.

For those, like this writer, who are generally befuddled by economics, it may be gratifying to focus on an easy to understand aspect of this esoteric endeavour, and that is the difference between GDP and GDP per capita, or head of population. GDP, as already noted, is linked to productivity, but more exactly is the total value of everything produced within a country and is therefore taken as a measure of its wealth. Even here, it darkens to African witch doctor shade because GDP also includes, as well everything produced by a nation's citizens, that produced by its non-citizens, not precluding every multi-national country operating in Australia, paying either laughable tax or none at all and shipping profits elsewhere. Knowing, for example, that Australia's second largest mining company, Rio Tinto, is 83% is sobering given that its ballooning effect on GDP is something of a mirage, if not an hallucination.

But like those oil-dripping creatures from the Black Lagoon, what we, like the bums waiting for Godot, the suckers waiting for the "trickle-down" from the growing GDP giant, should be concerned with is GDP per capita.  This, amusingly, is used as a measure of the standard of living in a given country. It is arrived at simply by dividing total GDP by total population. Straight away, this is looking like a consolation prize offered to game-show contestants after fucking up on the one million dollar question when it's remembered that all the population is factored in - kids, the much maligned stay-at-home mothers, students, the unemployed and those who think being unemployed is never having it so good. 

And doesn't attempt to take into consideration such intangibles as the claustrophobia engendered by stuffing more and more people into major cities. The population of Sydney, for instance, with more than 40% of immigration making a beeline for it, grows at staggering 1,500 per week. Neither does it consider the years of dead-time racked up in ever longer daily commuting, traffic on its way to resembling that of Manila, parking spots seeming like lottery wins, rents unaffordable, the cost of housing an enormous bubble, its burst-proof coating contributed by the inflooding of mostly Chinese money, and clogged hospitals - in short, infrastructure groaning like an over-worked whore short on KY. Including all these factors shows our standard of living, in marked contrast to those in the big end of town making out like bandits, plunging as though over a cliff. According to a Sydney Morning Herald of February 27, "[t]hese quality-of-life- criteria suggest that Sydney's optimal size was exceeded years ago."

So what has Tony Abbot actually said that has the rest of his party looking like they've been blasted with Despicable Me's Freeze Ray?

Image result for image of despicable me with freeze ray

He has said that the level of immigration currently running at over 200,000 a year should be stripped back to 100,000. Given that even that is still 30,000 more than it was in the nineties, why the Bird's Eye snap frozen reaction? Ever seen a cow wandering a city street in India? Seen how it does what it likes, goes where it likes, browsing in shops, shitting on the floor? Well immigration in Australia is like that - untouchable, so untouchable that the Liberals would rather lose power than put a soft, uncalloused finger anywhere near it.

Abbot has added - needlessly - that immigration numbers must be brought down at least to where "infrastructure, housing stock [Sydney currently 100,000 dwellings short] and integration [overlooking integration being actively discouraged since the advent of multiculturalism] has better caught up." It's a needless addition because it is axiomatic.

To be fair to Abbot, while prime minister he simply did not have the freedom he now has as a back-bencher to be pushing this agenda. Such a shame. At the next election, because of its intransigence on this issue, the Liberals will be carved up. What votes the Labor Party doesn't take from them the minor conservative parties will, but will still be minor so, under our system, will remain impotent and the democracy in our so called liberal democracy will continue to remain as hopelessly out of reach as the carrot on the donkey. Surely, in a real democracy, the people would have a say in whether or not they want to be replaced.

Saturday, March 3, 2018


Image result for images of african tribes

"Treason doth never prosper? What's the Reason?
for if it prosper none dare call it treason."
John Haringon
Elizabethan writer

As a hypothesis, suppose for a moment that for a two-week period torrential rain fell only on the countries inhabited by the White race and not so much as a drop fell on any other country; indeed, people in those countries would be beginning to suspect the first stage of widespread drought while those with a religious bent in western countries would be casting their minds back to biblical times and far and wide proclaiming the END for those who had so arrogantly turned their backs on God in their feverish pursuit of all that was perverted and degenerate.

However, the majority who could not entertain the religious explanation could neither accept that the flooding of only western countries and no other was simply a strange coincidence. Something odd had to be going on, such as the tampering with weather patterns with which some linked the chem-trails criss-crossing the sky. It was suspected in this scenario that the people below being sprayed like bugs was being either accepted as merely collateral damage or a two-for-one deal whereby humans were also being modified. Be that as it may, to any reasonable person it would be impossible for this phenomenon to be simply a coincidence.

But take another phenomenon we are asked to accept as simply a coincidence, this one not just lasting a fortnight but for more than half a century – the fevered mass immigration from all over the non-white world into only white countries and the just as feverish multiculturalisation of white countries, and white countries only. Who could really  believe that this was simply a coincidence? Something far odder had to be going on here than in the rain/no-rain analogy.

It is easy to see that the “dumbing down” of western education systems is no figment of imagination or something existing only in the disturbed minds of paranoiacs as propagandists sneeringly claim. And that’s because it is just as easy to see the need for it. If the education mills weren’t churning out illiterates and indoctrinated young people incapable of analytical thinking and objective reasoning, that may lead to too many people being able to see that so much of the "logic" that is constantly fed to them is the emperor being just a naked, fat, fuck.

Take the wonders-of-diversity argument and the Orwellian unity-in-diversity nonsense that forms the main plank in convincing us to take the horrible tasting medicine. If it really is so wonderful, the best thing since man crawled out of the swamp (supposedly), why are we hogging it all to ourselves? Why aren’t we sharing it around with our less fortunate coloured brothers? This seems just a little below us, a little contradictory to say the least, very selfish and, perish the thought, even a tad racist – as if we were implying that that our fellow members of the One Race, just weren’t ready for the joys of multiculturalism or, even worse, that they simply did not exist on the same lofty moral plane that we Whites inhabit.

 None of this jells at all with our (imposed) self-conception as world champion altruists. We are so incredibly altruistic, we are prepared to destroy ourselves for the benefit of others. We alone of all the races, no matter how appalling their own histories, have constructed our own court, elected our own judges, found ourselves the guiltiest of any who’ve ever lived and are now busily carrying out the sentence on ourselves – execution. Now that’s altruism!  

We don’t even object when we observe other countries flagrantly failing to recognize the benefits and beauty of diversity. Why, some even act as though they do appreciate only too well the results of multiculturalism and strive to prevent it as a wisely governed country would an imminent epidemic, or if already afflicted, try to contain it with any means necessary. Some even, when already afflicted, set about eradicating it. One merely has to look to some African countries where the white race is being eradicated. So extreme is the Africans' dedication to the task that they don’t appear to mind returning to the jungle in which Whites originally found them. And not so much as a murmmer from do-gooder Whites in western countries who would become apoplectic at just hearing a man from China being called a Chinaman. Some may recognize a curious inconsistency here, if not logic being made to dance like a clown.

But to get back on track and recapitulate what we are being asked to unthinkingly accept as a simple coincidence: every Western country that was far and away predominantly White in the '50s decided just a few years later to begin the process of ceasing to be White. Britain, out of a sense of fairness that only the white race stupidly persists with, had already decided to allow people from their former coloured colonies to immigrate. This was the right thing do, Old Man! Hadn't they themselves occupied those countries whether the natives liked it or not before the very notion of colonialism had turned so toxic. This souring was caused largely by the Americans who because of their own historical experience had convinced themselves of their hatred of colonialism, conveniently overlooking their own nefarious behaviour in Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines.

The British granting of the right of immigration to their former subjects combined with the newly emerged welfare state which supported immigrants post arrival was the granting of the keys to the kingdom. However, compared to what would follow, the people taking advantage of the windfall were then only a trickle.

Similarly, France, not nearly so keen to relinquish its empire, but after being kicked out of Algeria was moved by its own uniquely White pathological altruism to let in large numbers of Algerians. But again, this was a proverbial drop in the bucket to what would come later.

Germany, totally destroyed by the war the whole world accused them of starting found that the rebuilding would fuel a booming economy and a concomitant labour shortage. The Gastarbeiten or guest worker scheme was introduced to alleviate the shortage. The guest workers came predominantly from Turkey and it was envisioned that once the labour shortage ceased, they would return home. The unanswered question here is was this pure naivety on the part of the German government or a misleading of the German people? Whichever, once the good life of the West had been experienced by the Turks, it was virtually impossible to dislodge them. Was there no German version of the old song, How ya gonna  keep'em down on the farm after ... ? They have now been in Germany for generations, have failed to integrate, and being Muslim, grandsons of the original supposed guests, intentionally or not, they've paved the way for the flooding of jihadist Islam into Germany.

In Australia, although the Whitlam government is generally credited by Leftists to have overturned the so-called White Australia policy, it was during the mid sixties that a Liberal (Conservative) government was quietly beginning to dismantle the policy, with of course no shortage of prodding from local Jews. It's worth noting that during this same time, calls for the dismantling of the Chinese China, or the Japanese Japan, or the Black Africa policies were slow in coming - so slow in fact, they will never arrive. Strangely enough, they like being the way they are.

But to get to the key-stone of the catastrophe that began to befall all Western nations during the sixties, one must look to the USA and a glimpse of its history. In the years between 1880 and 1924 over two million Jews from Eastern Europe immigrated to the US. This, along with other streams of non-traditional immigration inspired the passing of a US immigration act using quotas in accordance with the numbers of countrymen and their descendants already residing in the country to restrict immigration.

The Jews, not surprisingly, took this personally and, as they've boasted themselves, agitated tirelessly for the overturning of the act, and using their well-honed practice of appropriating social power-points such as media outlets and entertainment to amplify their relatively small voice finally succeeded in 1965 when Shabbat Goy, Edward Kennedy, sealed the deal for a new immigration act. Quotas abolished, gates flung open. Kennedy had learnt well from the great masters of the lie. He claimed, to paraphrase, this will in no way affect the racial make-up of the United States. These weasel words, uttered by the weasel who once left a girlfriend to drown in a sinking car he'd driven into a river, fine, if sardonic, epitaph for a once great country which led the world but lost its way. Naturally and inevitably the racial make-up was affected, catastrophically, and now deranged White American liberals look forward with glee to the time, estimated at around twenty years from now, when the race which founded and developed the nation for its own will no longer be in the majority.

This seismic event in America was the starting gun for the rest of the White world to increase non-white immigration from a trickle to a flood. People in the West were slowly becoming aware of a new term: multiculturalism, invented in Canada to describe what was essentially biculturalism but this was evidently seen as a waste of such a catchy but devastating word so it was co-opted by Western governments and force-fed to their bemused citizen victims. Concomitant with racial replacement was the ruthless stamping out of racial consciousness among Whites alone. Every other race's self-consciousness was fine, even encouraged. The key to this odd contradiction would appear to be that healthy White racial consciousness was perceived to be lethal to a national/religious cult which for millennium lived in dread of the retaliation sure to result from their lived-out out fantasy of being masters of the world

Another word exists to describe coincidences far too coincidental to be co-incidences. It is "synchronicity", popularised by the psychologist/mystic, Carl Jung. This term however presupposes a supernatural cause. The coincidence we are concerned with here though cannot be ascribed to other- worldly forces. It has been engineered by human hand and brain. Therefore, only one word remains to describe it: conspiracy - the most evil and all-encompassing in the history of man. The pattern, as outlined here, in which every White nation in the world, and no other, has fallen victim to what only a generation or so ago would have been seen as a pandemic of insanity is the smoking gun of that conspiracy 

Tuesday, February 27, 2018


Ads for PrEP from Toronto's Wellesley station. (Josh Dehaas)

As an example of the hubris, arrogance and the desire to push the envelope even further, of which we were promised would never happen after the stomach-churning legalisation in Australia of homosexual marriage, this really hits the spot. To coincide with the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras debauchery, promising to be " ... a blockbuster after last year's successful same-sex marriage vote", according to the Daily Telegraph, as well as it being the fortieth anniversary of the original event, a few bright sparks have come up with the idea of holding Mini Mardi Gras in the very down to earth NSW town of Hay, mid-way between Sydney and Adelaide.

Why on earth would this be happening? " ... to educate and celebrate diversity and promote inclusion in all its colourful glory," a Mrs (Note: not Ms) Mijok, one of a handful of organisers, told The Daily Advertiser. By "diversity", Mrs Mijok can only mean a diversity of sexual persuasion, although it's difficult to imagine more than two unless bestiality is thrown into the mix. Should bestiality enthusiasts be included in the inclusion being promoted? To educate? How much education is needed? A penis goes into a mouth or anus and a tongue flicks and licks a vulva, tongue-in-groove, as it's known in the trade. Simples.

Oh so "progressive" ABC television is tickled pink by the idea of a tentacle of the homosexual celebration feeling its way into darkly unenlightened rural Australia. Who would have thought that a town like Hay would be harbouring a large closet filled with nervous homosexuals yearning to be free? But perhaps it wasn't, given the extremely low number of homosexual natives of Hay flushed out by the ABC - a number of exactly one. Presumably, for the event to stand any chance of success, large numbers of homosexuals will have to be bussed in from Darlinghurst at great sacrifice to themselves; the poor dears will be missing the main event back at home.

The single star of the ABC report was a boy aged sixteen who preferred to be a girl. It's worth noting that, at that still tender age, experts agree that a significant chance exists for the confusion to dissipate and the sufferer settling into the sex nature assigned to him or her by nature. This chance though, one would think, is fraught with the danger of encouragement by the likes of the ABC which distilled translates to "you go girl!" when the girl is really a boy.

The boy in question seemed a sweet kid and one would have to be extremely hard-hearted to not wish him success in finding happiness. His boyish haircut might indicate though he is still having a bet each way. When the ABC reporter tried to draw out of him hair-raising tales of how much someone like him was tormented in such a hard-arse town (Hay is in sheep country well represented by shearers who are not known for being pansies), the response was a let-down. "Sometime," he said, "other kids just ignore me or cross to the other side of the street when they see me coming."  Admittedly, adolescence being often such an exquisitely painful time, experiences like this can be crushing but because he's not experiencing anything new in human nature, the only course of action is to lift himself above it rather than expecting others to change, no matter how much change is legislated.

The only other Hay people interviewed by the ABC were every bit as tickled pink as the broadcaster itself. "Exciting, a breath of fresh air, just what the town needs," were the gushing responses, reinforced by camera scans of rainbow flags and signs in shop-windows advertising the coming joyous event.

For "balance", viewers were then told in sombre terms that all was not as it seemed to be. There had in fact been some dark mutterings suggesting all of Hay's residents were not wildly enthusiastic about what was being planned for the town, singling out a segment of the population - the "tough" shearers, whose negative attitudes showed them to be "blinkered". Right there was another example of ripples spreading out from the legalisation of homosexual marriage. Now that homosexuality was completely bereft of any suggestion it was not officially sanctioned, if not sanctified, one simply did not have the right to not be fully accepting of homosexuality. Could this metastasize into a charge of "homophobia" if a heterosexual man rejected the advances of a homosexual? Apparently, in some parts of the world, it already has.


"We wanted to interview some of the shearers but they refused to come on camera, citing fear of retribution," the dulcet tones of the reporter informed us. What absolute bullshit! Shearers afraid of a few imported pansies and their supporters who'd probably never known a day's hard graft in their lives - or even the inside of a gym? Come on you red-ragging ABCers. What really went on here is obvious. The shearers were probably chomping at the bit to give their opinions on a homosexual parade being staged in their town and wouldn't have held back. Far too dangerous. The ABC would have been terrified of even the slightest hint of  toxic homophobia slipping through. Even the most savage editing would probably not have prevented it; the interviews would essentially have been edited out of existence.

The Saturday night following the Hay report, the ABC screened the "highly acclaimed" telemovie, Riot. This reviewer had not enough stomach-settling medication to be able to watch it, but judging by the promos, it was chock-full of sympathetic characters who with gladiator-like bravery planned and carried out the first protest march for "gay rights" dressed up as a mardi gras. The cops who were nowhere near as dumb as the protesters thought them to be didn't fall for it and reacted with enough force to have it labeled as police brutality.

Without even seeing it, it is an obvious attempt to equate the demonstration with the US civil rights marches in the previous decade and possibly an indication of the producers' mindfulness of the smashing (brainwashing) success of the American television production, Roots, designed to engender shame in the minds of the target audience.

No remorse is apparent in the commission of the deadly sin of historiography in attempting to superimpose contemporary values and attitude onto a bygone era. By way of explanation, seeing actual film of the demonstration and the police reaction at the time would probably not have unduly upset the vast majority of the population. We were then living in a healthier, less upside-down world where it would have appeared natural justice was being dispensed.

To replicate that event to today's audience after forty years of being softened up by unrelenting propaganda, and leftist onslaught is akin to seeing the 2018 mardi gras suddenly attacked by a contingent of baton-wielding coppers. Shock, almost of the electric kind, would be stunning onlookers like mullets. It goes without saying, this is a cheap and ham-fisted technique.

The attempted homosexual colonisation of a country area is an interesting, albeit predictable event, in line with the attempt to spread multiculturalism from major cities to rural towns. Whereas the latter has an excellent chance of success given the never ending importation of the third world and governments presenting decentralisation as the only solution to overpopulation causing our cities to be unlivable, the success of the former is prone to curtailment by the number of homosexuals available. Nature (and perhaps sometimes fashion) fortunately produces only a limited number of the so afflicted. So what is to be done if we're to have the rainbow flag flying gaily about the countryside as plentifully as the golden arches of McDonald's.

How about this? While people are glued to Married at First Sight and Get me out of here, I'm a Celebrity, on their televisions, an extra category could be quietly slipped into (no pun intended) our refugee programme.  It would be made available to homosexuals living in Muslim countries where their claim of a well founded fear of persecution, that is, being thrown off the roofs of buildings, would have to be taken seriously.

Understandably, the government may be a little nervous about this, not wanting to be seen throwing open the gates, or rather, another set of gates. This is where the ABC could help immensely. Similarly to how it has been deluging its loyal viewers with back-to-back homosexual themed programmes in the lead-up to the Mardi Gras weekend, it could begin by rounding up documentaries and movies showing the suffering of unappreciated Middle Eastern homosexuals with which to bombard us and play merry hell with out tear ducts.

 "Your ABC." A fair and totally balanced mirror of Australian society. That stomach settling medication? Where the hell is it? And where are the blood-pressure pills?

Saturday, February 24, 2018

DOING THE SLUT-WALK: The inevitable result of unconstrained female power


Oh for the good old days when the demarcation between whores and amateur sluts on one side and good girls on the other was so stark. You could tell at a glance those who could provide a good time and those who would be worth considering for a meaningful relationship with perhaps a reasonable chance of its culmination in a wife and a mother for your children. The sluts and whores dressed accordingly and decent girls would not be seen dead in similar clothing. The scrubbers used language that would not be out of place on a whaling ship while well brought up and self-respecting girls would be shocked and humiliated hearing such language, possibly even swooning. To top it off, "nice" girls now have exponentially more tramp stamps than any tramp of yore.

 It's astonishing to contemplate just how far we've "progressed". Now that women are "empowered", there's no telling the difference between the two classes of women - possibly because no difference exists except that promiscuous women were once sluts but today are "sexually liberated". One can only sympathise with the sluts of the past for the injustice fate has dealt them. Their only real misdemeanor was being born ahead of their time


 At first glance, so to speak, most men would not be averse to the nipple being freed, although it would be difficult for most men to swallow the zany feminine/feminist reasoning behind it: that if it is acceptable for men to parade bare-chested, the same freedom should be extended to the sisters. Perhaps though, after men who had gleefully rubbed their hands in expectation of firm, plump breasts breaking out all over, discovered that their ideal was overwhelmed by the sagging, sucked dry type, would be begging for the nipple to be rounded up again. The damage caused by the disillusionment would be lasting if not permanent.


How many women actually want the nipple freed? Hmmmm, probably a tiny minority. After all, whenever a woman is suddenly caught naked in the glare of an unfamiliar man's eyes, she instinctively tries to cover up her most precious assets: her genitals - and her breasts. Presumably, this instinct would require a lot of overriding before a woman felt completely at ease gadding about bare- breasted.

But punting the free-the-nipple brigade's argument right out of the football ground is embarrassingly easy. For starters, the female breast is not the exact equivalent of the male breast. Otherwise, women would enjoy fondling male breast as much as vice versa. Additionally, when men decide it's about time for a little auto-eroticism, their chest is never thought of as a good area for foreplay, whereas women do, suggesting female breasts are a highly erogenous zone. They do indeed seem to enjoy the right man fondling them just as much as the man doing the fondling.

However, for the fools who have never thought it through, and this must include all free-the-nipplers, here is where you arrive when the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, a place called ad absurdum. As soon as the female breast is declared non-sexual, which is what's aimed for when equating it to the male version, open season on the tempting protrusions is pretty much declared at the same time. Who ever heard of a man claiming sexual or indecent assault when touched, pressed or even grabbed - in the case of man-boobs - on the chest?  Being deprived of a feel of the mammary gland being a slappable offence,would be assuredly something the ladies wouldn't like. What's that you say? You most assuredly wouldn't? Well, I'm sorry Sweetpeas, but you can't have it both ways. That would be a double standard, something the shrieking about by feminists has left many a man hearing-impaired.  And naturally, double standards can only be supported by feminists not accepting the obvious differences between men and women apart from those woefully insignificant physical differences.

But to get back to reality, what is it about the female breast that so tempts and befuddles men?  Although men know enough to be aware that the claim by the free-the-nipple brigade that it is simply a better padded version of the male breast is utter nonsense, they are unable to say, when put on the spot, why they like to see and fondle ample and well-formed breasts. Women as well would be hard put to answer this age-old question but naturally they do know that they work for them, and are probably the most powerful weapons in their honey-pot arsenal. The millions spent on breast enhancement tends to eloquently argue this case.

Even a classic breast is around 60% fat. Given that it's difficult to imagine a man wanting to fondle fat on any other part of a woman's body, why is it that men are so hopelessly disarmed, stupefied and attracted like a pyromaniac to a box of matches by what are essentially bags of fat? Men are so bedazzled by the breast that if stumbling upon a woman breast feeding, the are embarrassed and somewhat surprised to be reminded of the primary reason for the existence of the female breast. Subconsciously, they've assumed it was primarily for their own delectation. Reason exists for believing it largely is - nature's sweetening of the procreation deal. If the purpose of women's breasts was solely to be fleshy milk bottles for their young, why do they not shrink and retract like the breasts of lady gorillas when not needed by a baby gorilla? This seems much more sensible than having to wear a brassier for the greater portion of a woman's life. Perhaps this is just Mother Nature conceding lady gorillas will never be dexterous enough to fashion a brassier.


Aly Raisman poses for the "In Her Own Words" 2018 Sports Illustrated shoot in the March Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue on sale now.

Aly Raisman (who care's how good an athlete she is?), pictured on Sports Illustrated, is waging a one woman campaign for yet another have-it-both-ways privilege for women. She yearns for a world in which women can appear as slutty they like and still be respected. There it is, inked on her body. For those who can't read around curves, it says "women do not have to be modest to be respected". Sorry Aly, but one doesn't have to be a professor of formal Logic to be able to see that that is a debatable statement. If a gorgeous, buxom woman were to waltz down the main street of a city on a Saturday night with her tits hanging out, would she be being entirely reasonable in taking offence at disrespectful comments - from both men and  women? A bridge too far perhaps?

However, a deeper question is overlaid here and that is the reason for women's need to be immodest. Aly's answer to that is that women have some kind of god-given right to show off their bodies. Why should women be ashamed of their bodies? Well if that is so, why, in warm climes at least, were clothes ever bothered with. A certain kind of bodily shame would appear to be part of human nature. (That bitch and the apple incident.) And as far as a god-given right to act the slut and not pay the piper, why, given that Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years, was it only discovered less than fifty years ago?

Here's the real reason: pussy power with the safety catch off. While women's perpetual harping on the need for "equality" drives many of us to fondly remember Jimmy Cagney's famous movie scene in which he jammed half a grapefruit into his nagging co-star's face, this power, the nuclear missile in the war between the sexes, is conveniently forgotten.

It's a power grievously misused. It goes without saying that sex is probably the trickiest problem humans and their tribes and societies have ever had to deal with. In the societal microcosm, the tribe, it was recognised as needing tight control because the emotions it could unleash could be destructive enough to destroy the tribe itself. With the advent of civilizaton, in the larger social organisations that grew out of tribes, the destructive power of sex if mishandled was seen to be no less potent, thus monogamous marriage was elevated to the sacred and the family was recognised as the building block of society therefore of equal value to both the individual and society.

Great wisdom was shown in this organisation which was as beneficial as it was fair in that allowed as far as possible everyone to win a prize so to speak. It would have been just as easy to opt for polygamy which may have contributed equal value to a society but would have exacerbated the misery of those who were already the losers of society - the men at the bottom of the heap who would be condemned to a life of loneliness and sexual frustration but perhaps picking up a few crumbs and left-overs here and there while the winners, rich and powerful men, scooped up a surfeit of women. And who knows that this eventually wouldn't lead to social upheaval such as may yet befall China whose one-child policy has led to sexual imbalance which has resulted in millions of men who will never be able to marry or have children. Firstly, of course, enough women do not exist to go round and these men are poor and so noncompetitive in the love-game. Poor plus sexually frustrated - that could be dangerous time-bomb.

Little does anybody consider that the so-called sexual revolution has caused a similar result. Instead of the generally accepted picture of everybody going at it like rabbits, the reality is vastly different.That women are hypergamous, that is, attracted to men of superior cast (or,in a pinch, simply equal, but rarely lower) is proven beyond a doubt by their willingness to share a man in polygamous societies as long as power, wealth and status trickle down to them. So in a monogamous society, although becoming increasingly meaningless as marriage has itself becomes so meaningless as to be now offered to homosexuals, very similar dynamics operate. But instead of harems,what we see are "liberated" women being screwed senseless  - just exercising their right to be sluts - by men who would otherwise have harems in polygamous societies. Men who lack wealth, power, good looks, confidence, or gregariousness or the poor sap at the end of the line lacking the lot, who might as well hand in his testicles - the so-called "beta males" - are in a very similar position to the lonely Chinese men, with one major difference: they may not be entirely enthusiastic about marriage considering the legal traps placed by feminists but they would like to at least dip their wicks once in a while.

But more than likely, they'll just have to wait, wait until the party girls's looks are beginning to fade, when her eggs are approaching their shelf-lives, when all the "good men" and "bad boys" appear to be taken and when they might consider settling down with an unexciting but devoted beta boy. When she does, perhaps after one or two failed marriages with highly desirable males, it's more than likely she has had exponentially more sexual experience than beta boy who will no doubt have some pretty hard acts to follow. How will he be measured? Slightly above failing grade if lucky and in a moment of bitterness she'll probably tell him so.

However, to retrace our steps a little, why do women, even if they do not consider themselves real sluts, need to act and dress like sluts. Well, as they say, if you've got it, flaunt it. And indeed it seems most women with something to flaunt have a streak of exhibitionism. It's possible that female porn-stars are merely pushing the exhibitionist envelope to tearing point. Apparently they are hugely gratified by the thought of legions of men being excited by their sexual athletics.

But is this inherent exhibitionism the only cause of acting the slut - the ubiquitous yoga pants, impossibly tight skirts, short shorts, enlarged breasts bursting to be free and what's the deal with beachwear providing only a shred of material to hide the anus? Are sun-tanned buns all that necessary? One suspects not. It's all about power. About the power to attract, be wanted and to taunt.

Feminism is a study in willful stupidity and the power of an ideology of absolute selfishness to cause blindness to reality.The foundation of feminism is of course, and has to be, that men and women are the same in every way but the physical, ergo, little or no difference exists between them in the way they have been wired sexually. This is how they try to get away with shrieking "double standards" in regard to promiscuous women being called sluts while promiscuous men are admired as stallions and studs. This blatantly ignores how nature has designed the sexes, how they had be designed for human life to be able to progress and not be stalled at a stage reminiscent of a Saturday night in a homosexual bathhouse.

For this reason, nature provided a marvelous balance by appointing women the gatekeepers of the sexual garden and men as the sowers perennially attempting to gain access, or if an evolutionary explanation is preferred, both a woman and a man needed to be sure of the parentage of offspring in order for a man to stick around to help ensure the survival of children. In harder times than ours, ours being about thirty seconds out of a whole day, the survival of offspring and therefore the survival of the human race was precarious. This dissimilarity could not have been effected without secondary differences occurring. For example, men make no bones about wanting sex. It's very much a physical need.

 Sex is different for a woman. While men want sex directly, women want to be wanted for sex. To women who haven't been indoctrinated by feminism, sex is more than simply physical. This is perhaps why they have been equipped with a much longer fuse than men. Being slower to arouse than men could be a protection from rushing into anything not offering  an optimum return. The men chosen by women to have sex with although probably not conscious of it are men considered to brimming with the best genes, and be potentially good fathers and providers.

Judging by the racket they make during the sex act, women are every bit as capable of enjoying sex as a man, if not more so, but this is only after all her prerequisites have been met. A romantic atmosphere helps. She must be in the mood, feel secure and safe and not have a headache.

Wise people through the ages took note of the reality of these differences, hence the sacred nature of marriage hedged about with taboos against premarital and extramarital sex which drew a sharp line between those who liked to be thought of as "decent" and all others. But of course, this silly old taboo, like most other taboos, their important social rationales lost sight of, have been flushed away, along with the sense to know that a double standard only exists when treating two identical properties differently. Women and men are not identical.  Most women under thirty unless disfigured, deformed, deranged or obese could, if it was so desired, have sex with a different man every night. And they sure as hell as wouldn't be paying for it. The converse of this would be a distinct challenge, even for the most successful "alphas".

To return to the most plausible reasons for looking like a slut: the power to attract, to be wanted, and the power to taunt, the latter may be the most unkind. To the large number of men not getting any sex at all, this is being hungry at a banquet but not allowed to eat. "I know what boys want. They want to ..." sang the taunting female voice. Possibly, previous generations thought of this subtle form of cruelty as another reason for insisting on modesty for women. Does it get any worse than cruel? Certainly Muslims seem to think so with their equating the male libido withs a petrol-soaked bush with wind blowing sparks toward it, necessitating Muslim women to have black curtains thrown over them. This demeaning view of men, but possibly accurate for Muslim men turned into what is most feared by their women being kept under wraps, could possibly, just possibly, indicate they are on to something. Inductive reasoning suggests that a type of male probably exists, a rogue psychopath to be sure, who may decide that the constant taunting is too much to take and decides to get even. His victim becomes every woman who has caused his misery.

An inquiring mind could not cultivate a more valuable habit than, when confronted by a complex issue, to ask, what's really going on here? Aldous Huxley, with his Brave New World, littered with the "pneumatic" babes that men compared notes about around the water-cooler was trying to tell us something important, something that should be intuitive. If a "soft" tyranny, the type that most in the West now live under, wanted a way to distract people from their being fitted with comfortable chains, how could they improve on degrading sex to a kind of sport - bread, circus and sex? With the advent of modern contraceptives and the ever stronger urge toward evermore individual freedom by the liberal/left - no need to worry about the outdated requirement of Classical Liberalism for freedom to be balanced by responsibility - as well as the mind-bending methods of propaganda honed to a perfect science, how easy would it be to sell sex as "Soma"?

And with women being the more suggestible of the sexes because of their far stronger herd instinct, the sight, for example, of a woman under thirty without the knees torn out of her jeans being almost as rare as a unicorn sighting, they would be the obvious primary target. You wanted sexual freedom? Knock yourself out. Enjoy! No need to worry about the price. That will come later.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018


Image result for images of year of the dog in Sydney

It's the Chinese year of the dog. Who gives a rat's? Presumably the Chinese. SBS (Should Be Shit-canned) Television tells us Chinese New Year has now been celebrated in Australia for over twenty years now. Given that the Chinese first arrived here lured by gold in the 1850s and 1860s, this can only mean that for over twenty years CNY celebrations have been fueled by public money - your money. Before this eventuality, when the event was dependent on Chinese money alone, it evidently was not all that important to them judging by its being so low key as to be almost invisible - perhaps a lion dance and a few fire-crackers exploding in Chinatown.

SBS also tells us, boasts actually, that the CNY in Australia is the most celebrated (probably meaning most costly) outside of China. This is extraordinary. It means we outdo  Chinese strongholds such as Singapore,  Malaysia (where the Chinese are officially discriminated against), Indonesia (where they are simply hated), Brunei (plenty of money here for fireworks) and Thailand which hosts the largest of any overseas Chinese communities. Thailand, however, being a rigidly monocultural country even though home to a host of ethnic minorities would not be impressed by any of them becoming overly enthusiastic in celebrating their differences. This is of course the polar opposite of the situation in Australia. "You're holding a celebration of your own unique culture? Fantastic! How much money do you need?" In 1991, Stephen J Rimmer, a senior economist working for the Federal Government, calculated the annual cost of multiculturalism to be at least $7.0 billion. The current figures are probably locked away in drawer somewhere marked TOP SECRET.

An old truism has it that you can tell who holds power by noting who can't be criticized. Similarly, it's easy to tell which competing ethnic group in Australia holds the most power by how much money it sucks from the tax-payer. By this measure, Aborigines, with the billions wasted on them year after year via exploitation of our pathological White guilt, and of course being special, are streets ahead in the game. The Chinese, although being a million strong thus out-numbering the special group at around three to one, are behind, but not be far. As just one example, ever seen the "Chinese Garden" at Darling Harbour? Which other ethnic group gets its own obscenely expensive garden in one of the most prime locations in the country?

Another highly impressive Chinese Garden exists in the NSW town of Young, once known as the gold-strike area of Lambing Flat. It was "established to recognise the contribution of the Chinese community to the settlement of Young in the 1860s and to the ongoing contributions of the Chinese community to Australia as a Nation." [italics mine] ( 

 The Chinese contribution to Young was no more than their flocking to the area maddened by gold fever, and the real reason for the garden is to permanently apologise to Chinese in Australia ("Australian Chinese" not being used because it is an oxymoron) for, according to the official narrative, the heinous way in which they were treated by White gold-miners, essentially in a series of six anti-Chinese riots in which many were injured. It is presented as an early example of vile Australian racism notwithstanding that racism hadn't yet been invented. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one to hear ...

Conveniently dropped down the memory hole is the real reason for the riots which was that the White miners were incensed at the Chinese practice of picking over areas where the spade-work had already been done, essentially stealing their labour. A major plus though came out of the riots; they led to a Chinese restriction act being passed by the NSW colonial government. A similar act had already been passed in Victoria, reeling under an invasion of gold-hungry Chinese although the initial efficacy of these acts were at best marginal as the Chinese simply sailed to South Australia from where they trekked overland to the gold fields. It was long term that the demonstrated antipathy and open conflict between Chinese and Whites proved their worth. Being in no doubt of the time-bomb being created, one of the first acts passed by Australian parliament prohibited all non-white immigration - the White Australia policy which however never existed in name.

For evidence for the amount of money being thrown at the the CNY, one only has to look at the justification being given for it, which is that it is an investment. It's argued that the money spent is more than repaid in tourist dollars. A similar argument is made for the amount of money incinerated every New Year's Eve in Sydney. Both are specious, The fireworks loving tourists would probably be here anyway or have timed their trip, especially from the icy north, to coincide with the over-the-top display. The CNY argument is even loopier, as loopy as hordes of Aussie tourists trooping off to the People's Republic to watch the Melbourne Cup on television. If anything, the Chinese visitors here have timed their trip to include the celebrations foolishly provided from the public purse in sunnier climes.

Another possible reason exists for our lavish spending on the beginning of the Year of Whatever, and that is too remain sweet with our big Asian customer and even bigger provider of most of the junk we consume. A little cosying up can never go astray. But it would not be straying outside the realms of possibility to nudge this argument one step further by asserting that our progressive ramping up of our love of the CNY is a form of tribute, given that our relationship with China is one of growing suzerainty. For those not familiar with the term, here is the definition given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "Sovereign or State having some control over another State that is internally autonomous". In the days of China being the Middle Kingdom, it was the suzerain of many states in its sphere of influence. As a way of preventing that influence becoming too interfering, the stood-over states would regularly make tribute in the form of treasure.

In our modern version, we don't have to transfer the treasure; we just throw it around here in a way that causes our suzerain to smile.


A taboo has been broken and a silence - a close runner-up to the silence of the grave - has been shattered by  respected journalist, Pau...