Thursday, January 17, 2019

TIRED OF BEING PUSSYFIED? BOYCOTT GILLETTE AND SWITCH TO SCHICK





These stupid bastards have just cut their own throats with their own razors. The new Gillette razor ad campaign, "The Best a Man Can Get", directed by an obviously talented Australian, Kim Gehrig, is gaining attention for all the wrong reasons. Although a clever production, lambasting the market it is directed at, is not so clever. At first glance, it closely resembles and could easily be mistaken for one of the rash of advertisements targeting the problem of domestic violence (men being the sole cause). One of the most egregious scenes in that campaign was a little girl being knocked on her little derriere by a boy evidently in training to be a future typical male arse-hole exuding the toxicity of his sex.

In the commercial, a procession of what feminists would see as your average toxic males pass before the camera: men in their stronghold of the outdoor barbecue completely off limits to women, intoning "boys will be boys", young boys wrestling like animals on the ground, and a killer of a scene - a boardroom meeting - in which a man puts his hand on a woman's shoulder and says, "I think what's she's trying to say is ....". The poor woman is suitably crestfallen.

Then the good guys are rolled in. These are the types the ubiquitous toxic male should be aspiring to - the best a man can get. And wouldn't you know it, they are mostly non-whites, stepping in to set white men straight. One breaks up the two kids wrestling on the ground. What next, a scene showing the two boys being taught by their new mentor how to participate in the non-competitive activity of Frisby throwing? But no; that would probably be laying it on a little too thick. Another do-gooding non-toxic male is restraining his toxic counterpart from ogling a woman on the street. And just as well too because the man with his eyes bugging out is probably totally out of control, with his libido leading the charge and is liable to attack the woman right there on the street. Then, in a heart-warming change of pace, a man (the better type) is shown coaxing his little girl to look into a mirror and repeat, "I am strong." It would be totally wrong if a boy were being encouraged to do the same thing. No matter if the boy is lacking in courage and self-confidence as many are. Trying to lift the boy's confidence would be tantamount to the crime of aiding and abetting male toxicity.

It seems Gillette is trying to hitch a ride on the coat-tails of the me-too movement spinning wildly out of control. This would make a lot of sense if it was trying to promote a product used by women - Lady Gillette razors, for example, but what is truly mystifying is that Gillette is trying to flog a product used by men.




 As conservative columnist, Miranda Devine, wryly observes in the Sydney Telegraph, "[i]t's like McDonalds running an ad telling its customers they're fat.

"Hey you, fatso, your insatiable sugar cravings and hopeless lack of self-control have created an obesity epidemic.

"We can't hide from it. Take a look in the mirror. It's been going on far too long. You're fat. You're disgusting. You make us puke." Miranda has absolutely nailed it. Why would they do that?

The only way this cannot be mystifying is that Gillette may be getting just a little ahead of itself in gauging how much men have been feminised in societies being so rapidly feminised. Does this company really imagine that, what is really just more boring virtue-signaling, is going to convince men to admit to themselves that, yes, they are really just pigs and now might be a good time to change.


















Check out the video for yourself if you can stomach it:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-16/gillette-toxic-masculinity-advertisement-courts-talk-of-boycotts/10718004


So who exactly is Kim Gehrig, the one responsible for this sweeping insult to men everywhere? It would be a very safe bet she is a typically bitter, man-loathing feminist. It eminently suits the agenda of this type of misanthrope to see men completely de-balled. Men would then of course be far easier to control and far less alluring to the heterosexual sisters. After all, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". When the sperm banks are sufficiently stocked, this insult will become a truism.

Here's another example of Gehrig's work if still in any doubt about her agenda:  https://vimeo.com/232500998

This is a Berlei bra commercial that harks back to the old bra-burning days. For those too young remember, feminists of the sixties launched a campaign of burning their bras to protest the oppression of the Patriarchy. The unfathomable stupidity of this was that men couldn't really give a shit whether women wore bras or not (not to mention the modern bra was invented by a woman, Mary Phelps Jacob, in 1913). It's similar to the contemporary free-the-nipple movement, which seems to have fizzled out. In this, most men would probably be saying "we wholeheartedly support this movement" (but limit it to the under twenty-fives, and please, no fatties). The fools behind this campaign shriek for "equality", that is the for the same freedom as men to be bare-chested. You couldn't really beat this in the apples and oranges comparison department. But OK, my pretties, we'll pretend to believe that there is no difference between the male and female chests, only don't whinge whenever a man decides to grab your chest or carry on about indecent assault if the female breast is really just the same as a male one padded with fat. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in other words.

BOYCOTT GILLETTE RAZORS Leave them to the lady-boys.

Post Script: Gillette will neither confirm nor deny reports the company is designing a new razor suitable for self-castration.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

GENIUS SCIENTIST BROUGHT DOWN BY LILLIPUTIAN IDIOTS

James Watson has been stripped of several honorary titles over ‘reprehensible’ comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.
JAMES WATSON



The tragedy of this sad incident is that it is simply emblematic of the cataclysmic collapse of Western civilisation. How can it possibly survive as a castle built on the shifting sand of Leftism? The Left, which of course has attained hegemony over the West, has a problem with reality. The reasoning of the Left is predicated upon the substitution of noble ideals and wishful fantasy for reality. What should be, or what could be, time and time again, is mistaken for what is.

James Watson, who in 1962 shared with his colleague, Francis Crick, the awarding of a Nobel Prize for a breakthrough, hailed as no less than the greatest scientific achievement of the twentieth century: the  discovery of the the double-helix of DNA, has been churlishly stripped of honourary titles including Chancellor of Emeritus by the Cold Springs Harbour Laboratory for which he worked for over  thirty years. This appalling lack of gratitude is thrown into sharp relief by this from the laboritory's own archives: "Under his direction, the renowned but financially endangered institution was revitalised. Watson steered the laboratory into the field of tumor virology, from which emerged our present understanding of oncogenes (cancer genes) and the molecular basis of cancer. From 1994 - 2003 he was president of CSHL, and Chancellor from 2003 - 2007."

Not included in this tribute is the reason for his chancellorship ending in 2007. He was unceremoniously sacked and the reason for this is the opinion he expressed in his book, Avoid Boring People, to wit, "[t]here is no firm reason to anticipate the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically". These "racist comments" could not be tolerated. Compounding his crime, he moreover expressed misgivings about the dismal future of sub-Saharan Africa because of the low quality of its racial stock. To the good people of CSHL though, this was the perversion of science fuelled by pure prejudice. In fact, they claimed, science was on their side. Where was the evidence to the contrary?

A mountain of scrupulous scholarship proving the truth of what Watson was saying would seem to serve more than adequately. But the Leftist would have it that that was simply subjective opinion which science has long since completely debunked. One has to wonder exactly who these debunking scientists are who can so playfully reinterpret evidence every which way and loose to suit the Leftist agenda. One can only surmise that they themselves are hopelessly brain-washed idiots because the hard evidence has been home and hosed for decades, not the least in a little something called the "bell-curve". The bell-curve shows the mean of IQ in any society it is applied to with the top of the bell the point of numbers in a population with average IQ, getting lower on the left-hand side with the extremely stupid and conversely on the right-hand side, the extremely smart. The Bell Curve was also the title of a book by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray who both also got into very hot water indeed for showing findings not acceptable to the Church of Equality.

These findings in the US, wherever people were tested, showed a significant gap IQ gap between Whites and Blacks. Further, they showed that there was no explaining the gap in anything other than in terms of IQ being hereditary. Nature was a clean winner over Nurture in this regard.

 Of course, the powers that were weren't having a bar of this. Not after the Frankfurt School, the purveyors of "critical theory" had spent  years of hard work manufacturing the Nurture myth, including Jewish "anthropologist", Franz Boas, sending his protege, the dopey Margaret Mead, to Samoa to gather evidence of how happy and free-loving we all would be if simply nurtured in the right way. Poor Margaret! The fun-loving Samoans were just messing with her. Behind their giving her what she obviously wanted were sexual mores every bit as "repressive" as what they were in the West. And why would that be? Simple. Because rampant sexual promiscuity could destroy a primitive tribe more surely than a tropical cyclone.

However, all one really needed to do to prove Watson's assertion was to take a glance at the current state of sub-Saharan Africa. One would soon arrive at the conclusion that sub-Saharan Africans had never been capable of creating civilization and never would be. They were much better at destroying civilizations that had been created for them by Whites who had then left, hounded out of Africa by the world's do-gooders reciting the evils of colonialism like church catechisms.


But back to Watson after such a lengthy digression: he is now back in the headlines. After his being sacked, he basically went to water and offered a grovelling apology. He couldn't possibly fathom what had got into him to be expressing such egregious opinions. Although not willing to reinstate him - his recanting would never accomplish that - his persecutors at CSHL, perhaps softening a little, allowed him to keep his honourary titles, including chancellor emeritus. In a final indignity, he has now been stripped of these honours. So, how did this come about twelve years after his effectively being made a non-person?

In a recent documentary in the American Masters series on the PBS network entitled Decoding Watson, Watson effectively revoked his recanting. This is exactly what was wanted by the makers of the documentary who admitted they were out to entrap him.  To paraphrase, by saying he wished that what he had originally said wasn't true, he knew in his heart mind and soul that it was, he was effectively sticking by the "racist comments" he'd made years earlier. At ninety years of age, the man was back on his hind legs, finding once again some steel in his soul. This was reminiscent of Martin Luther's "here I stand. I can do no other". Here was a man of honour after all, a man of a sadly diminishing tribe - men with the courage of their convictions. With a few million more like this, who knows? Perhaps the West may have a chance of surviving after all.

But the odds of this happening aren't high. Because of the Leftist stranglehold on the West, and the religious fervour that propels them, every bit as fanatical as any religious imperviousness to reason throughout history, nations of the West are being diluted every hour that we live and breath with masses of low IQ people. Fleeing like residents escaping a burning house from the societies they themselves have created (cultures being created by people and not the other way around) or, if you like, Donald Trum's "shit-holes", they stampede to the West, taking note of the mile-high, mile-wide neon sign saying EVERYBODY WELCOME. NONE TOO WORTHLESS TO BE ACCEPTED.
Yes, come and do to our nations exactly what you've done to yours.

It's been close to eighty years since ideas of improving the race have been acceptable in polite society. Those notions are derided as being so evil that only Nazis could entertain them. But it wasn't just National Socialists who promoted eugenics. Thinking men throughout the world who had studied history were in no doubt about the cause of the collapse of civilisations.  It was simple. It was directly connected to the deterioration of the people who made up those civilisations. The more that civilisations advanced, the easier the living became and thus the proliferation of those who wouldn't have survived in the initial building stages of civilisations. Eugenics was the only answer to this otherwise inexorable process. It's has been almost a century since men cogitated on what heights humans could be lifted to.

Tragically, we are now hell-bound in the opposite direction. Since the Jews won World War Two, the West has been frantically digging its own grave. If Liberalism is the ideology of Western Suicide, then Liberal Democracy, in which the rapidly multiplying ignorant and imbecilic who are led by the nose and herded in any direction desired by the means of diabolically cunning persuasion techniques, is the provider of as much Kool-Ade as needed. Here's a suitable epitaph for the West: They enjoyed
unprecedented levels of freedom, and so they died of selfishness.

\Over the graveyard of the West will roll the mighty engine of nationalism and leadership by the very best and brightest. Did someone just mention China?

Post Script: James Watson auctioned of his Nobel Prize in 2014




Wednesday, January 2, 2019

THE WOLF SHEDS ITS SHEEP'S CLOTHING


Satan is clever he mixes truth with lies and twist it together so it is hard to see the deceit.  2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Matthew 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits.  The written word warns us of deceiving Spirits and false Christ. True unity can only be found with Jesus the Messiah as the very foundation.

Blinded by hubris and delusions of grandeur, the UN has disastrously ignored its own policy of Fabianism (the same treacherous gradualism of many socialist parties who advocate the stealth of a cat moving toward a doomed bird) and has exposed its true colours for all to see.

The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) represents a giving up of over seventy years of pretence that the UN was not designed right from the start with World Government as its ultimate aim. The GCM is indeed so obviously destructive of national sovereignty that even our own  Lib/Lab governments which normally vie for the position of teacher's pet at the school of globalisation will not have a bar of it - for at least the time being - preferring to join with a small band of other "xenophobes" (as the Sydney Morning Herald would have it)  which includes the US,  Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic , Hungary, Slovakia and Israel (which will take immigrants from anywhere as long as they are Jewish),

Justin Castro, sorry, Trudeau, Canada's Prime Lunatic, who claims that his country has "no core identity" and that there is no longer a "mainstream" Canada, but in its place, the "world's first postnational country" of course thinks the compact is a wonderful idea. Similarly, the New Zealand government would like to know what could possibly go wrong with handing over its immigration policy to an international behemoth.

Of the European countries willing to adopt the agreement, a political faultline is cleaving through them. In Belgium, for example, a yellow vest contagion recently broke out, but here the primary cause of violent protests was Belgium's being amenable to the agreement. The UN's timing in trying to foist this compact on the western world (as usual, it will only be the West which will be the bunnies in this one way agreement) is curious given it is coming at the same time as nationalism, in spite of decades of being told it is dirty word, is erupting at a pace and level in many of the countries, victims of mass third world immigration, unprecedented since World War Two.

Is this extraordinary grab for global power at this particular time a recognition that time is no longer on the side of a world government patiently waiting in the wings? What we are now seeing could well be the end-game of the globalists, realising that it is now or never, that if nationalism is allowed to grow and develop much longer, the time may have passed for the rounding up of the sheep into the international corral.

But why this unrest and dissension currently quaking Europe? Do they know something we are not being told? After all, the UN is indefatigable in assuring all and sundry that the GCM is absolutely "non-binding" It is not a treaty. However "it is meant to be the legal framework on which participating countries commit themselves ..."

 https://yournz.org/2018/12/01/the-criticism-of-migration-will-be-a-criminal-offense/

How many angels are dancing on the head of this particular pin?

More intriguing, why, if the GCM is non-binding, why cannot the abstainers just humour the UN and go along with it? What's the harm? Could it be that it takes a liar to know a liar? Take the adamant refusal of the US to get roped into this. Why, if it has no effect on domestic legislation? Does the US government know something that the rest of us mugs are not being told? It could be it is reflecting on the weapons-grade bullshit that it has used on its own people. For example, when the 1965 Hart-(((Celler))) Act, superceding the 1924 immigration act stipulating immigration quotas based on ethnic percentages already resident, shabbos goy Ted Kennedy was wheeled out to promise Americans, hand on heart, that fears of the racial mix of the country being altered in any way by this act was totally unfounded. We all know how that turned out.

How about our own homegrown traitors? Those with memories long enough may remember the arrival of the first boat-people in Darwin, the unrest it caused, and our government turning ferociously on those unrested, smearing them with the toxic shit of insults such as "bigots" and  the tried and trusted argument-stopper of "racists", and scolding them for their red-kneck stupidity: how could they possibly imagine that a handful of Asian refugees was going to upset the racial status quo?
We know how that turned out as well. It was of course simply the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually widen the damage into full-blown Asianisation.

Perhaps this might be a small part of what is so upsetting the "far right" in Europe: (from the compact) " ... no state can address immigration alone ..." Why ever not? States such as Japan, China, Israel, and Thailand, to name a few, seem to be doing a bang-up job of addressing immigration alone.
One senses desperation here. This stinks of the same MO as the global warming scam. Remember, no state acting alone can save the planet. But whereas polar bears floating away on ice cubes persuasion contained at least a crumb of credibility - after all we all share the same atmosphere - the plea for immigration to become an internationally controlled affair is based on a premise of pure bullshit. Of course, every single country has the ability to conduct an immigration policy on a fair and humane basis without the meddling of the UN. Christ knows, we've been doing it for the best part of a century.

Curious also, in spite of UN assurance that the continuance of state sovereignty is just as uppermost in the minds of the compact's drafters as the rights of immigrants, the document is peppered with mentions of these rights but not a lot is said about how agreement to the GCM will not infringe on national immigration policies. Conversely, a hell of a lot is said about how individual states will have to learn to toe the line.

The whole of Tel Aviv could not produce more chutzpah than the drafters of this "compact" have blown out of their arses. Take this, for example: just one way in which nations grown tired with their own sovereignty will be expected to fall into line: They will need to "promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including by sensitising and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants."

WORLD GOVERNMENT IN EMBRYO

So, as well as appropriating the right of individual nations to conduct their own immigration policies, the UN will also abrogate whatever freedoms of expression and of the press remain in so-called liberal democracies where these freedoms were once assumed to be central pillars. (But fear not ABC and SBS; the rivers of tax-payers money will continue to flow to you sycophantic parasites if this putrid compact ever arrives here.)

Mere criticism of immigration is already on its way to becoming "hate speech" and a criminal offense. (See above link to the video. Note also how the EU dictatorship is shaping up as an arm of the UN. What next? Could it be what "conspiracy theorists" have been tipping for years - that NATO will become the enforcer of the UN?)

But at least, if this black flag of tyranny ever does get planted here, it shouldn't come as a complete shock because we've already tasted a small sample of how the media are ordered to support policy via government edict. Former Australian Prime Minister and leading traitor, Bob Hawke, once boasted about how he'd engineered an agreement with the Australian media whereby, as much as possible, the issue of immigration would be ignored by print and electronic media. In this way, those who hadn't yet woken up to the bipartisan policy scam ensuring that the Australian people would never be allowed a say in the matter of their own racial replacement could be pretty much guaranteed to stay that way.

And naturally, Australians were fated to be forever locked out of this particular political process because our self-appointed superiors knew exactly what would happen if they weren't, given that every survey ever conducted showed that around seventy percent of the population was against mass immigration and multiculturalism. Imagine that! They actually wanted to keep their country.

Please think on this the next time you find yourself thinking of how lucky you are to be living in a "democracy." The system we are in fact living with has been termed "Democratic Tyranny" and the GCM represents one giant leap for tyrants. Unless something truly spectacular happens we are hurtling toward a future accurately described by the great prophet, George Orwell, as "a boot stamping on a human face - forever".




Thursday, December 6, 2018

SBS: SPECIAL BULLSHITTING SERVICE aka SHOULD BE SHITCANNED

Diverse students standing together in a row : Stock Photo
BRAVE NEW WORLD BROUGHT TO YOU BY SBS

I recently tuned into SBS as I regularly do just to keep abreast of the type of egregious crap they are currently serving up just in time to catch one of the plethora of advertisements and promos that infest their broadcasting. It was a heart-string pulling piece of work that was pleading with viewers to dig deep to help out families that will be struggling this Christmas. A young girl had just broken her leg which meant that the families finances, already strained, would be completely busted, what with medical bills and time taken off work to care for her.

The unusual thing about this heart-breaker was that the entire family was white - so highly unusual for SBS which would normally be "bringing world" to us spiced with the usual array on non-whites, or alternatively, a white woman hanging off a dusky spouse (partner in Newspeak). 

I was a little slow on the uptake here, being under the hypnotic spell of television, but eventually the penny dropped. The reasoning behind this insidious effort was that because, if any donations were to be forthcoming, they would be coming from white people because a) it was being acknowledged much to the chagrin of the multiculturalists that whites are still in the majority in Australia, therefore most of the national wealth would be in the hands of whites and b) whites were the most foolishly altruistic people on the planet. They are in fact so goddamned altruistic that they think nothing of destroying themselves in order to make way for non-whites who lust after the treasures they themselves are unable to create.

However, to continue, these cunning bastards at SBS know enough about human nature to know that if the struggling family was shown to be, say, Chinese or Somali or Chinese-Somali, white people, the quietly smouldering majority that is, wouldn't give a rat's arse about the family. That would go for every other ethnic group in Australia who are rigidly interested only in what's in it for them.

But wouldn't the family being white put ethnics off donating. This is a moot point because they wouldn't be contributing anyway unless the family in the advertisement was shown to be of their ethnic group. This is the way multiculturalism really works behind all the bullshit. It's tribalism, the war of tribe against tribe.

Can one really believe that the people pulling the strings at SBS are smart enough understand these racial dynamics which is indeed evidenced by their cynical ploy of showing the struggling family as white, but are not smart enough to be able to comprehend the logical conclusion of multiculturalism which couldn't be described in any better way than in the words of a poet?

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood dimmed tide is loosed ... "   

There are only two possibilities: these people are so blinded by their own ideology/religion that their brains have turned to mush, or else they know exactly what they are doing and will not stop until total victory is theirs.



Monday, November 26, 2018

BURNING UNDER A RED CHINESE SUN

Image result for Sydney Opera House bathed in red
CHINESE NEW YEAR IN SYDNEY
"Sydney Opera House was draped in [PRC] red with Chinese 
Characteristics", as gleefully reported in the People's Daily and
quoted by Clive Hamilton
What was once Lunar New Year in deliriously multicultural Sydney was re-branded by the obsequious   Sydney County Council several years ago. It is now Chinese New Year. With the picture opposite of the Sydney Opera House as it appeared on NYE 2015 featuring in the People's Daily, Australian officials bursting with multicultural pride, were as happy as a pet poodle being stroked.

This couldn't illustrate more accurately Australia's truly abject kow-towing to its new master as China resumes it's ancient position as the Middle Kingdom - the centre of the world. The world of which China was the hub the first time around, comprised little more than itself and and immediate neighbours. This time around though, the suzerainty is greatly expanded and includes lands not even known to the Chinese of the classical period - Australia and New Zealand, for example. The red Opera House is nothing less than tribute being paid to the suzerain.

Along with the resurrection of the Middle Kingdom is the re-establishment of the famed Silk Road that connected China with South East Asia and Europe, albeit a Silk Road more concerned with geo-strategy and projection of power than trade. The "soft power" in this equation though is more silky than ever. Here is China as generous as Santa Clause handing out goodies to all who may be in need along the road, now given the catchy title of One Belt One Road (OBOR). Need new port facilities here? Need a new power-plant there? Need a loan? No problem. How much? Naturally, all of this "altruism" comes with strings attached. For example, China may need the use of that port themselves from time to time, or some of that power being produced could come in handy for Chinese  purposes, or can't pay back that loan? Relax. We'll be able to work something out. This Chinese debt trap has been aptly termed "debtbook diplomacy".

NEWS FLASH: The Australian Government has just twigged to this caper and is taking counter measures with its "tilt to the Pacific". Although we've already forked out billions to these failed states, we've decided to up the ante. Why, only in the last few days our illustrious leader has announced ponying up for the modernisation and enlargement of a naval base on Manus Island in conjunction with the Papuan and American governments. Our government is cagey though about how big a proportion of the funding will be coming out of Australian tax-payers' pockets. Given the Papuan share will probably be coming out of the aid we funnel to them, and the Americans' new-found resolve to have allies supporting more of the cost of shared defence, Australia's contribution is bound to be more than a mere bagatelle.

Of course China is said to be enraged at our paying more attention to what is going on in our own backyard and, moreover, slanting those goings on towards our own interests. How dare we! Just whose sphere of interest the south west Pacific is now is being proclaimed through a bullhorn. But come on. Why would the world's second largest economy be at all alarmed about pipsqueak Australia deciding to throw around some money of its own? If this is going to become an economic pissing contest, Australia would be well advised to stay out of it unless it's capable of taking more than a rubber dagger to an artillery duel - which it can't. Our politicians time and money we pay them would be far more usefully spent on paying some attention to the OBOR strategy playing out within our own borders.

Silent invasion : China's influence in Australia / Clive Hamilton with research by Alex Joske.
RED CHINESE FLAG ON TOP OF
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT
SAYS IT ALL




THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN FIRE SALE:
CHINESE BUYERS WELCOME

Exhibiting the reaction time of a man who looks down at his glistening bones and realises he has been eaten alive, the Australian government has recently knocked back the sale of pipelines to Hong Kong's CK Assets Holding Ltd delivering half of the country's gas as it wouldn't be in Australia's interest . This is "a decision that has the potential to further inflame diplomatic tensions with China". (Bloomberg) So no prizes for guessing who is pulling CK's strings. Now picture Australia's leaders on hands and knees backing away from the Emperor's throne.

Is this a comedy show? Let's do a quick check on what's already been flogged off to the avaricious Chinese, always of course being rigorously careful to avoid any threat to the national interest. Top of the list would have to be the ninety nine year lease on Darwin Harbour to a Chinese company and don't be fooled by the plethora of such companies having can-do, capitalistic names - they are invariably shopfronts for the Chinese government, meaning of course the CCP. In terms of strategic value - as much to Australia as to China - this would be difficult to beat. It could be equaled though if anything eventuates from Chinese sniffing around Townsville also in our north.

The Americans have been for some time concerned about and have determined to do something about the Chinese buying land and property in proximity to their military installations. But dopey Australia? She'll be right mate, even if Townsville is home to one of our largest military bases.

The Tasmanian dairy industry was offloaded to the Chinese some time ago as well as tracts of arable land on the mainland.  Snapping up valuable assets like these which will be of crucial importance to China as it finds it increasingly difficult to feed its population is all part of what is called the Hundred Year Marathon. How's that for forward thinking particularly in comparison to our own idiots finding it almost impossible to think past the three years between elections?

A quick check of what else has been handed over in return for filthy lucre turns up such gems as the entire Port of Newcastle sold outright to a conglomerate backed by, you guessed it, the CCP. Almost unbelievably, even the Port of Melbourne has been sold to another conglomerate, this one with only twenty percent of shares owned by the Chinese. Whew, that was a close one.

Good thing we stopped the greedy bastards getting their hands on our gas pipelines because it turns out they already own the meat and potatoes of our energy industry. Energy Australia, for example, is wholly owned by another puppet company of Beijing. Any Chinese hacker worth his MSG could already shut down our entire energy grid.

Also integral to the Hundred Year Marathon is the formation of Beijing's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank cunningly designed to supplant the World Bank and fund OBOR projects. It's extremely unlikely these assets will be left unprotected. They'll have to be guarded. And who better to do the guarding than the People's Liberation Army. Now get this - included in the outrageous Darwin deal is an agreement to allow the lessees to employ a unit of maritime militia. On page 130 of Silent Invasion, we're informed that "900 potential OBOR projects in Australia have already been identified". Will some kind of militia or even units of the PLA be appointed the task of protecting them? Will they be given orders orders to fire on our officials or army if ever we grow a pair and decide to try and take these assets back?

According to Aloysius Fozdycke (could that possibly be a bodgy name?)  in the ... "financial year ... 2016 - 2017 ... the Chinese increased their land holdings in Australia by at least ten times - 1,000%". See Australia Has Been Gifted to China  on henrymakow.com or click on Makow's archives 

owned.jpg




THE FIFTH COLUMN

An estimated one million Chinese now live in Australia. But where do their hearts reside?

Straight after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989 in which tanks were flattening pro-democracy student protesters, Cry Baby Bob Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister at the time, after wiping away his tears declared that all 20,000 Chinese students studying in Australia would be given asylum if they wanted it. This was a big call, especially in light of Hawke's assumption that every one of these students shared the political opinions of those recently used as pot-hole fillers. They weren't. In fact, a rough estimate given by Clive Hamiliton, extrapolating from overseas figures - Canada and the US - less than 10% would have dissidents. A great many of them were here studying Mickey Mouse English Language courses and not the rigorous type of university courses that would attract ideologues. Once the coffers of these shonky language colleges have been added to, administrators don't particularly care if the student goes AWOL.

Laughably, many of these formerly apolitical students were scurrying to join pro-democracy Chinese groups to establish their bone fides and obtain a moral certainty they would be allowed to stay in Australia. Family chain migration would add at least another 100,000, again according to Hamilton. Alan James goes even further in New Britannia - the Rise and Decline of Anglo Australia, in saying the potential of the chain reaction could have been as high as 300,000. But why quibble? If we are fated to become an actual Chinese colony by as early as 2040 as our friend Aloysius Fozdyke believes, this is a moot point.

Tiananmen was a turning point for China as well as Australia. Even in materialistic, atheistic China where no great value is placed on an individual life, it was realised you can't continue to run tanks over those who don't agree with you. There had to be a better way; there was; it's called nationalism.
Just as Uncle Joe Stalin realised he didn't stand much of a chance of opposing Barbarosa by sending out his hordes  to fight for Marxism-Leninism and that it would be much smarter to have them fighting for Mother Russia in what usefully came to be called The Great Patriotic War, the Chinese leadership decided to take a leaf out of his book of winning ways.

The Century of Humiliation became the hub around which the education of the young would revolve. This was essentially a mass, non stop brainwashing exercise designed to stoke resentment at how China had been egregiously treated by avaricious colonialists of all stripes (especially the Japanese, but Europeans not all that far to the rear) when it was on its knees and unable to defend itself against this obscene exploitation. This tactic brilliantly redirected widespread anger outward instead of inward.

It reaped the additional reward of a diaspora of youth smouldering with resentment radiating out into the lands of those who so cruelly treated the motherland through this dark period of Chinese history. It's difficult to see how Australia could be indicted in this offence but not so difficult to see how Australians could be painted as descendants of the English exploiters, albeit with the even more noxious convict strain.

The now highly resentful Chinese youth residing in Australia, although probably with no really zealous subscription to the Chinese Communist Party line, but fully stoked with Chinese nationalism are largely controlled from Beijing, specifically by "the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the CCP Central Committe and is 'based upon the Marxist-Leninist mass line tactics, techniques and strategies'. The UFWD targets social organisations, Chinese-language media, student associations, professional associations and business elites." (my italics) (Hamilton P29)

 In Australia, the Chinese Embassy acts as the conduit between Beijing and these various association, particularly of the student variety of which there is a plethora, and is always ready to help with funds and direction.

If in any doubt of this, all one has to do is think back to 2008 when the Olympic torch (for the Chinese games) was passing through Australia and protesters for Tibetan freedom considered it opportune to demonstrate. They were quickly drowned out by a well organised horde of aggressive Chinese counter demonstrators, shouting, screaming and waving their national flags.

This is just the tip of what should have Australian leaders quivering with anxiety but of course it doesn't. What is truly alarming is the number of Chinese invited into our universities, research institutes, scientific establishments and even defence departments who like the students never stop being Chinese and are as ever inscrutable. Just how much smouldering is happening behind that friendly smile in regard to the great humiliation.

If you want to know what is really happening to Australia do yourself a favour and get hold of a copy of Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia by Clive Hamilton. If you have any lazy money lying around get also New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo Australia by Alan James. If you haven't already got a fire going in the belly, this will ignite one.

Thursday, November 8, 2018

THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE MIND


Vector leaflet created using clenched fists raised up, megaphones equipment and engineering cog wheel element. Dictatorship and manipulation theme, totalitarianism as the evil power. Stock Vector - 87433028
It's been around for a while, probably throughout recorded history: Propaganda - the gift that keeps on giving. Rulers have always needed ways of keeping the ruled from wandering off the reservation.  When some other ruler was giving trouble, or the ruler wanted to cause that ruler trouble, it was hard going without having the subjects on side. Nasty things needed to be said. After all, it would take clever manipulation to convince a man to leave his humdrum but relatively comfortable groove and march off into cannon fire and bayonet charge for something that lacked any real advantage to himself.

Propaganda worked equally well in revolutions. Who for example with any solid historical knowledge would believe that Marie Antoinette ever actually said something as crass as "let them eat cake" when informed of the lethal shortage of bread. Trained from birth to take her place in royalty, she would no doubt have learnt something about noblesse oblige - nobility obliges, or put another way, with great power and privilege goes responsibility - a duty to care about one's people. For those living in a poisonously cynical age of "liberal democracy" in which our "leaders" deserve all the cynicism that can be mustered, it's difficult to believe that royalty once took this responsibility seriously. But if wanting to ginger up the rabble even more than they'd already been gingered, did a possibly more effective tool exist with which to do it? It was a gem, a benchmark, a Shakespeare to every budding writer. Possibly, who knows? if that embodiment of callousness had never been attributed to her, Marie may have even kept her head. 

After Gutenberg invented the first true printing press in the fifteenth century and, like all new technology, it started becoming cheaper and thus more available, just about anyone with a cause could amplify his voice exponentially. So began the era of the pamphleteer, able to produce usually succinct, hard-hitting literature cheaply. Extremists of both the left and the right with pamphlets as their dueling weapons could fight it out to their hearts content. Obviously, exponents of graffiti had been doing this since the advent of written language - the Pharaoh's a dickhead! But naturally this could in no way match the sophistication and reach of the pamphleteer.    

Printing presses of course also opened the way to mass produced newspapers taking advantage of the freedom of the press, albeit, as is often said, the freedom  of those who owned the presses. This was probably the point at which the power to mould public opinion began to resemble the awesome mind-bending potential with which we are familiar today. It was also a greatly enhance vehicle of the political cartoon, the message of which could be instantly understood by even the most plodding of readers. They were highly effective and still are.  Witness the hounding to an early grave of our own late, great Bill Leak who, even after his death, suffered the indignity of having those under whose skin he'd gotten dancing on that very same grave.

During World War 1, the British showed themselves to be true masters of the art of propaganda posters and cartoons. It was of such high quality and so effective - the British public fully believing German soldiers were storming through Belgium bayoneting babies for sport - that a certain Doctor Joseph Goebbels, so impressed by the efficacy of this propaganda, determined to employ a new and improved version in Round 2, or as it was called, World War 2. He was greatly aided in this by the radio being by now an item to be found in most households.

Lindsay2
Of course the other side wasn't standing still in this propaganda arms race. It was in fact warming to the task with tall tales of the industrial disposal of  European Jewry with elaborate touches such as the lampshades made out of Jewish skin, soap made out of Jewish fat (perhaps slim pickings from those said to be so emaciated) and blood bubbling up from mass graves like the oil of the Beverley Hillbillies.

There was though a stark difference between the British propaganda of the war to end war and the Allied propaganda of the war to follow: the Brits, after the guns had stopped smoking, and being the good sports that they were, came clean and admitted that all the beastly things they'd said about the "Hun" had been complete bullshit. All's fair in love and war, eh chaps. However, no such retraction was made after Germany was left a smouldering, smashed ruin in 1945 and millions of its citizens allowed to perish in the ensuing "peace".

The reasons for this aren't all that difficult to understand. Between fifty and sixty million (although vastly overshadowed by the supposed six million - the former being merely goyim) had perished in an easily avoided war, one that would have remained a border dispute, a localised war, or at worst the probable clash between National Socialism and Stalinism, with the latter being a ten to one on loser. That being the case, history would have taken a different course: Eastern Europe would not have disappeared into the Soviet maw and Korea, Vietnam, and Red China with the concomitant loss of millions of lives would not have happened. No, far better to forever sing the praises of "the good war" and the defeat of the blackest evil ever to appear outside of Satan's kingdom. Naturally enough, Adolph Hitler, as the demented Anti-Christ determined to take over the world and rule it as his personal fiefdom had to be kept alive for all eternity. The History Channel does a bang-up job of this. Even if, for argument's sake allowing that the six million were actually hurried off this mortal coil, he was nowhere near in the same league as  Stalin (60,000,000) or Mao (45,000,000 in just the four years of the Great Leap Forward). If the truth be known, even Pol Pot (1,800,000 or around a quarter of the Cambodian population) would make Adolph look like a rank amateur. But of course these mass murderers weren't killing the Chosen, and in the case of the Soviet Union, it was the Chosen doing most of the killing.

Affiche over de Vrede van Versailles
THE FAMOUS STAB IN THE BACK

The "Holocaust" (patented with a capital H) was though the gilt edge guarantee of the so-called good war, even if every other justification for Britain and France declaring war on Germany fell apart like so much rotten timber, not to mention the idiotic guarantee given to Poland which could not be backed up and in the final wash-up Poland suffering the even worse fate of being gobbled up by the Soviets. But that was quietly forgotten about.

Zionists managed to contain their glee over the suffering of their fellow Jews - and let's not forget who was co-operating with Hitler in getting Jews from Germany to palestine - but would be hard-pressed to deny that it was a gift from God ("the one god", their exclusive god, meaning of course that non-Jews are therefore godless, soulless and mere "cattle").

What better demonstration was needed of plague-like anti-Semitism than the attempt to do away with the entire Jewish "race"? And of course Zionists need anti-Semitism like alcoholics need alcohol. How else to keep the Jewish sheep corralled than the permanently instilled fear of totally unfounded and irrational hatred of them by the Goyim? Why before you knew it, the dear, innocent souls would be wandering off to intermarry with the other that they'd found to be not so bad after all. The Jewish people hadn't survived for more than three thousand years against all odds just to see that happen. NO SIREE!

As a bonus that couldn't be matched by a million combined quiz shows, the Zionists won Israel. No Holocaust - no Israel. But it didn't stop there. There were fabulous compensations to wrenched  out of Germany as well as Swiss banks to be shaken down. And there was so much guilt, wonderful, beautiful guilt, a basement full of guilt as big as Scrooge McDuck's basement full of gold - and gold it was. There was more than enough to go around. Why not share it around to those not directly responsible for the roughing up Jews had experienced during the war? First up, there were all those Germans who claimed to not know what was happening (as well as the Red Cross who were regularly visiting the "death camps"). Ha! They knew all right, those "willing executioners" of Hitler.

And so the ripples of guilt spread. What about those countries, even though they were destroying the persecutors of the Jews, refused to accept Jewish refugees? It was about time they accepted their share of the guilt. On further thought, the Jewish experience during the war was simply the tip of the iceberg. It could not have existed without the support of the nine tenths hidden underwater, that is, the perennially existing, forever lurking anti-Semitism endemic to the West (Western Christiandom).

This could be fairly pinpointed as the beginning of the phenomenon that has come to be known as "white guilt". It was this point that the West began to veer off in a direction radically different from its course throughout the millennia. Good would become bad, healthy would become sick, abnormal would become normal, self-preservation and love of one's own would become "hate". In short, everything which had been believed in throughout the west was stood on its head. How could this have happened in little over half a century?

A certain astute Marxist political thinker named Antonio Gramski, being infinitely more realistic than other Reds of his time, accepted that the industrialised west, where the workers had never had it so good, was not going to crumble before anything as unsophisticated as a Bolshevik style revolution. No, several orders of magnitude more of sneakiness was required. He visualised a Marxist takeover being slipped in through the backdoor, and aimed at the power-points of western society - what came to be called the march through the institutions. A certain group of Jewish Marxists that would come to wear the tag of "the Frankfurt School", running away from the National Socialists to set up shop in New York decided this was an excellent strategy and began implementing it. And the cunning bastards actually pulled it off, showing once again what a tightly organised, supremely ethnocentric group, which thinks only of its own tribe, can achieve in the midst of an unsuspecting, atomised society. They went straight for the jugular - the universities. The rest would be easy.

This was necessary but not sufficient. Much more was needed to turn the west into the cesspools we see today. In Goebbels's day, master of propaganda that he was, he was limited by the relatively primitive tools he had at his disposal - basically radio and newspapers and film, still though in its infancy. Today, a plethora of media is available with which to control people's minds, with television being king of the castle and cinema being also highly effective in its subtlety, devilishly clever when used as it is - most people believing they are simply being entertained. Now here's the 65,000 dollar question: who owns most of this media? No, forget the sixty five grand. There's no prize at all. The question is far too easy.

A polite term for propaganda is "public relations" and the so-called father of public relations was Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. The man was an artist and studied human nature so ardently he learnt just about everything to know about what makes them tick, and what buttons to press to have them obeying like robots to his every suggestion. You can imagine the fabulous wealth he amassed from advertising. But of course the exact same methods used to sell products can be employed to sell ideas, political and social.

Part of what he learnt about human psychology was that, because people are social animals, the  "herd instinct" that exists in other pack animals exists just as strongly in humans. One of the strongest human instincts is the need to belong, exile being one of our worst primal fears. So we go along to get along. If the herd changes direction, we don't want to be left hanging. We're also imitative but we have little desire to imitate losers and nobodies. We much prefer to imitate people with status. Ever wondered why film stars are paid small fortunes to say they use a certain shampoo or beauty aid. To the rational mind, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it's not the rational mind being targeted; it's the not so rational unconscious.

Now what if high status individuals such as university professors, politicians, churchmen and others of inescapably high profile were promoting and repeating with hypnotic beat certain ideas, even if those ideas clashed markedly with the ideas previously held? (It goes without saying that these ring-leaders first had to be trained.) Who wants to be the Lone Ranger? Who wants to be exiled?

A never ending debate is who had the most accurate vision of the dystopian future we are entering, Aldous Huxley or George Orwell? It's a toughy. I'm sitting on the fence but my legs are hanging on Huxley's side. Orwell had the surveillance side of the story down pat. One only has to look at London with its from home to work, from work to home being followed every step of the way by CCTV. Many other world cities are not far behind.

China is currently experimenting with facial recognition technology which can tell which citizens have been good and which citizens bad. "Social Credit" has been given a new meaning by the CCP. Each citizen is given the same number of points to begin with as if in some kind of game. For every good action (perhaps praising the Party) points are added, for every bad action (littering, for example) points are deducted. Lose too many points and one becomes a kind of non-citizen effectively immobilised in home detention. Western governments affect to be scandalised by this development but behind the pretence they are no doubt watching closely, thinking, what a good idea.

Image result for image of george orwell
GEORGE ORWELL


It is Huxley's appreciation of the advantages of subtlety over brute force that gets him over the line first. The denizens of the Brave New World are, for example, encouraged to cavort endlessly in Bacchanalian sexual couplings - the distraction par excellence. Sound familiar. It may be the most appealing of distractions, but it's just one of the myriad keeping us blinded to who's pulling the strings. In fact, so distracted are we, we don't even know there are strings. The foolish brave new worlders believe they are living in the best of all possible worlds - because that's what they have been cleverly taught to believe. Are we really any different? It's as if, before Huxley even began writing his book, he'd come across Goethe's famous quote:
"None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Image result for image of aldous huxley
ALDOUS HUXLEY

The mind-benders of today, being the miracle workers they are, are almost worthy of admiration. After all, look at what they've achieved: they've convinced the majority of the whites of the west that it's a good thing to give away their countries without a shot being fired - unprecedented in world history. Whites under their spell now believe that the poison of multiculturalism is "enriching" and not fragmenting their homelands. Mass immigration of the third world into the first world, thus converting it into the third world is viewed with contentment. Miscegenation, seen when the west was still healthy as a crime against nature, is robustly encouraged and millions of white idiots are dutifully doing their part. White genocide, a crime so enormous it defies comprehension, is not even believed to be being committed. Homosexuality is healthy and normal - let's share the love. It is selfish heterosexuals who are now suspect. And how about three cheers for the deadly scourge of Feminism sinking the white birth rate to below replacement levels.

Cui Bono? Who benefits from this catastrophe upon catastrophe? Or, to ask the perennial question, is it good for the Jews? Is it good that the people so loathed and feared by the Chosenites are being destroyed? You can bet your arse it is. Don't believe me? Then simply take a squiz at the Babylonian Talmud. Not enough time? Then the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion might have to suffice. Oh, I forgot - it's a forgery. Strange though how everything predicted in it came to be realised.