IT'S JUST NOT CRICKET, BUT WHAT IS THESE DAYS?

BALL TAMPERING MASTERMIND, DAVID WARNER AND ONE OF HIS TOYS

Out of the way! Run for shelter! The sky is falling! Our cricketing gods are plummeting so far they've become Lucifers. The cricketing world is being shaken to its core.Cheating? No, not our boys. It can't be! But it is. One must dig deep through cricketing annals to find a precedent of equal iniquity. Speeding back through time, we skirt the infamous Trevor Chappel underarm incident because, after all, it was within the letter of the law, if not the spirit. No, it's likely we have to go all the way back to 1624 when the first death during a cricket match was recorded. This occurred because a win-at-all-cost batsman - who no doubt would fit seamlessly into the modern game - tried to hit the ball a second time to avoid being caught out. Unfortunately, his second swing missed the ball and instead whacked fielder, Jasper Vinall, on the head, killing him. Whether or not a replacement fielder could be found so the match could continue is not known. Apart from the dispatch of the fielder, a crafty debater could argue that this incident was also within the rules but that was only because no-one had thought to pass a rule against such an unlikely eventuality of a batsman attempting a second bight of the cherry. In fact, only the most rudimentary rules did exist. It was only some time later that the one-hit rule was introduced but of course this would have been scant compensation to the hapless Vinall.

Be that as it may, does the recent uproar about the dreaded "ball-tampering" truly warrant being the hurricane it's become or, when put into its proper context, does it look like more of a storm in a bowler's pocket? What's the context? Well put it this way: how concerned would a white South African farmer, door-barricaded, firearms within easy reach, perhaps his wife planning suicide to avoid a worse fate, about a cricket game, no matter what kind of dirty tricks were being employed. An educated guess would be that his mind would be otherwise focused given the recently revealed government plan to appropriate his land without compensation and Julius Malema, head of the powerful Economic Freedom Fighters party wanting to "cut the throat of whiteness".

So what are we doing playing against South Africa anyway? To show our displeasure with the supposed evil of Apartheid, we boycotted SA via trade and sport. We boycotted, at least partially, the 1980 Moscow Olympics - we marched under the Olympic flag instead of our own, evidently hoping no-one would notice we were there - for a lot less than an ongoing ethnic cleansing. In fact the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that we were mildly protesting in 1980, was something we aided the Americans to replicate some years later.

Because of the hegemony of the Left, it's impossible for our elite to see anything at all wrong in today's SA. The narrative on their auto-reader is that with the coming of Saint Mandela and the fairy-tale ending of Apartheid in '94, justice finally prevailed and everything has been just hunky dory ever since. OK, a few Boer farmers may have had their hair mussed but how could it be realistically expected that not a little pay-back would be dished out. Because Apartheid was so evil, white South Africans have been maneuvered into the position in which ethnic Germans found themselves after the Second World War. Notwithstanding that up to three million Germans, predominantly women and children were destroyed in pogroms, massacres and massive and brutal population transfers. Outside of Germany though, not a tear was shed for them. They deserved it didn't they? Hadn't they brought it on themselves? Fucking Nazis!

Compounding the problem is the fact that white racial consciousness has been almost completely extinguished. Immediately after the flash of Australian Government interest in the plight of White SA farmers which disappeared faster than a free baked dinner in a backpackers' hostel, a letter writer with an Anglo Saxon name protested in a Sydney daily against SA farmers being given preferential treatment in our refugee programme. Why should they be allowed to jump the queue? he wanted to know. Short answer: because they are white, you idiot. Besides, a precedent had already been set when Balling Bob Hawke allowed thousands of Chinese students to remain in Australia after the Tianenmen  Square massacre - even though few had anything to fear from the Chinese government. It may also be remembered that a special deal was also worked out for no less than twelve thousand Syrian refugees who were perceived to be faced with greater danger than your average refugee. More danger than you average refugee faces could also be readily perceived in savage Blacks baying for your blood, egged on by a government shown not to be above using terror to drive you out of your country.

This pathetic lack of race consciousness among whites is a relatively new development. It hasn't always been so. Immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, for example, when the US could think of little more than striking back as fast and as deadly as possible, it was determined that the swiftest way of doing this was by the implementation of the plan formulated by General Nimitz. It meant one concerted thrust due west. It also meant, and it is on record, that the Americans felt bad about it perhaps leaving seven million whites in Australia to the mercy of the Japanese. The racial connection meant something. The plan only changed when General MacArthur won his argument for a second prong attack directed north from Australia. Who knows? The precarious position of the seven million may have helped swing the argument.

But back to the present: So where is the intelligentsia in all this regarding the real outrage taking place in South Africa? Where is the modern day version of those university kids, weighed down by loaded-up barrels of social consciousness and outraged to the point of insanity by Apartheid, and who were doing their damnedest to disrupt Wallaby V Springbok rugby games in the '70s, including throwing marbles under the hooves of police horses. Figures on how many broken legs resulted - the equine death sentence - are not available.

As is well known, student activism fired up by social issues is not even a pale shadow of its former self, having contracted into the small space of what directly affects students themselves, but even so, even if they were aware of what was happening to whites in SA, which few would be, it's unlikely they would be unduly concerned. They have been soaked their whole lives in white guilt and been trained by an ideologically driven education system to feel only concern or compassion for the coloured victims of what is relentlessly represented as rapacious imperialism, which as Lenin put it, is the highest (therefore most evil) stage of capitalism, and of course they also have every last vestige of racial pride crushed out of them.

It's not outside the realms of possibility that, right now, while our fallen cricketers are said to be "emotional wrecks", white SA farmers are becoming physical wrecks at the hands of machete wielding "subhumans", as an independent Australian senator recently, Fraser Anning bravely put it at a recent Brisbane rally comprising hundreds who had turned out in support of SA farmers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5545965/Senator-Fraser-Anning-says-white-South-African-farmers-genocide-subhuman-black-thugs.html
 "This is the start of genocide," he warned. If you live outside of Brisbane, however, it's unlikely you've heard about this.

 

DESTRUCTION OF THE WHITE RACE NOT A NEW IDEA

"In history, nothing happens by      accident. If it happened, you can bet someone planned it." 
- Frank Delano Roosevelt

You might have been a world class prick Frank, but you sure got that right.

Ever heard of the Kalergi plan? Chances are, you haven't but if you have, congratulations, you're way ahead of the curve.  His plan? Well perhaps  you're old enough to remember a sugary "pop" song once oozing out of radios containing the refrain, and turn out coffee-coloured  people by the score. Therein was encapsulated the plan.

But to expand, Count Richard von Couldenhove Kalergi's plan outlined in his book, Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism) predated both the ravings of Rabi Emmanuel Rabinovich (above) and the  bright idea of a European Union by about thirty years. However, Kalergi's vision of a European Union cut straight to the chase, totally eschewing any pussy footing around. In a nutshell:



Kalergi's father was an Austrian diplomat (Kalergi, the younger would follow in his father's occupational footsteps), Heinrich von Coulden-Kalergi, and his mother was Mitsu Aoyama, a Japanese aristocrat. This, "never the twain shall meet", meeting in one individual and resulting in the inevitable divided self may have gone some way to explaining his burning hatred of the White race.

In 1922 Kalergi founded his Pan European Movement which aimed at everything the European Union would become and more. Impressed by his ideas was none other than Baron Louis de Rothschild who, evidently a little tight-fisted himself, put Kalergi in touch with fellow tribesman Max Warburg who was a soft touch for money directed at anything that might be good for Jews.

"How much do you need?"
"Just enough to get the Pan European Movement up and running."
"Cheque or cash?"

Making absolutely sure the project would never lack financial fuelling, a certain Mister Baruch add a generous sling. So it can be easily seen that Kalergi's ideas did not lack appeal to the chosen ones. Why?

Although Kalergi was not a Jew himself, he seems to have worshipped the very ground they spat on. Moreover, he fully shared their own view of themselves as being the master race which simply had to show patience in awaiting the coming of the Messiah who would organise everything the Jews had coming to them - in short, the world. The uppity goy (the cattle) would be relegated to their true position in the natural order, that is, serfs or slaves, to serve to serve the natural aristocracy, the Jews. Kalergi had been quick to point out that natural justice precluded the Jews and only the Jews from the horrors of the race-mixing blender. Someone had to be spared from this Frankensteinian dystopia in order to run the show. What was not to like here?

I'm indebted to Mike King, producer of the Tomato Bubble site, for winnowing out this essential quote from the 1925 book, Kalergi, now with plenty of shekels in his pocket, was able to produce:

"Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It's not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews." And it could be added, because of its destruction  by revolutionary Jews. In their rush to become the new aristocracy, it's unlikely any consideration was given to the freeing of the serfs or the proletariat. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Only worse

As Kalergi saw it, the future would belong to the New European man and a new aristocracy. Tragically, that future has all but arrived. The fait accompli, at the frantic pace being forced, can be only a few years off. It's fair to say that the trap hasn't completely snapped shut just yet but that's not through lack of trying and the ramping up of the process such as we have seen in the last few years suggests an endgame and a going-for-broke

Kalergi is thankfully dead and supping with the devil but his spirit lives indomitably on. His twisted ideas endure, never having even paused for breath. His overall strategy has taken only marginal tactical detours. For example, whereas he envisaged a United States of Europe being led by a United States of America, itself as well as other parts of the outlying White world not escaping mongrelisation, the EU and the US, as ideologically twinned as they are, are still separate centres of gravity. Admittedly though, the Kalergi vision came perilously close immediately straight after World War Two and the Marshal Plan with its attached strings ensuring Western Europe becoming something resembling a US colony. The growing economic might of the EU was perhaps responsible for staving off this fate.

If Kalergi still lived, it's unlikely he'd be unduly troubled by this wrinkle in the programme as we are still on course toward his ultimate destination which was a Jewish World Government.

Speaking of a world government, Kalergi's madness can be seen still percolating merrily away in the second great lunge at it, the UN, the first being an embarrassing flop because of the budding super power, the US, having the good sense to treat it like the plague that it was and stay well away. It was only later that the home of brave had its collective brain lobotomized.

In its New Report on Replacement Migration (yes, it actually calls it that) of March 17, 2000, UN number-crunchers estimate in the millions how many immigrants will be needed in the developed world to offset declining birth rates, essentially abolishing that same developed world.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html

Well that's all well and good you might say, but how did these declining birthrates come about? In a work, Feminism. Here we are not talking about bourgeois feminism, the so called first wave the Pankhursts were instrumental in launching to address legitimate grievances but the other kind, where it really curdled in wave 2, whose way was cleared by, you guessed it, Jews/Communism (the two halves being inextricably tangled)

"If women's liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women's liberation."
- Russian revolutionary, Inessa Armand

Quick illustration: while the Third Reich government adamantly refused to expose women to the horrors of combat, hordes of Soviet women fought and died in vicious fighting and were just as amused at the rape of millions of German women as those doing the raping. Now that's liberation!

Marx and his cronies viewed the situation of women as a double oppression, first by the bourgeoisie, the second by men who shackled them into the degraded role as reproducers, indeed, trapped in "privatised reproduction". This had to be rectified, with bonus points being awarded for the resulting destruction of the family, a pillar of capitalist society. Once freed women would dance gaily through the free bordello known as free love, another central tenet of an ideology that would see all power arrogated by the state. As an ironic aside, top Communist dog, Joe Stalin, wasn't really on board with this strand of Marxist thought, preferring to retain the more conservative designation of free-loving women: "sluts".

Soviet style women's liberation is seen by some, mainly Cultural Marxists, as the thread linking first wave feminism with the second. And it was mainly Jews who kept this ball rolling, given an initial kick along by Betty Frieden's 1963 book, The Feminist Mystique. Another huge star was Gloria Steinem, undercover Playboy Bunny, who profited by her experience with a tell-all article in Show Magazine, entitled, "A Bunny's Tale". (Get it?) It was a tale of degradation, exploitation of women and horrible men. Why, none of those poor Bunnies would be seen dead inside the Hefner's mansion.

Then came Naomi Wolf, trading on her beauty with The Beauty Myth. Her later offering was Vagina: a New Biography. Who knew it had an old one?

Of course after the unrelenting brainwashing onslaught of the '60s, what sane woman would want to be some man's bitch, to slave for him over a hot stove, go through the agony of childbirth to deliver his children - simply more factory fodder for the filthy, robbing, capitalist state. No way. More important things than bearing children needed doing, such as masquerading men, forging a career, barging into politics, shrieking about "gender inequality" well after the inequality was being worn on the other foot, and of course, being "empowered".

It's not difficult at all to see the long-term, patiently adhered to strategy here. You create a problem - feminism, leading to declining birthrates, and then propose the solution - mass, third world immigration. Really, if it wasn't so sickening, one would feel inclined to tip his hat. Genius really. Kalergi would no doubt be extremely proud of all who passed on the baton after him to realise exactly what he wanted.

But, really, is declining first world birth rates and the concomitant aging population the double catastrophe it's being presented as, or is it more of a con and myth along the lines of the global warming hoax, something else that individual nations on their own have no hope of rectifying? (Calling World Government.) And if global overpopulation is really the planet-killer it's said to be, couldn't a silver lining wrapped around declining birthrates perhaps be found somewhere in some distant cloud?

Let's think about this for just one moment. With technology roaring ahead at an ever acceleration rate and providing automation, for ever more complicated processes, what will the torrent of largely uneducated and unassimilable immigrants become other than useless mouths to feed. How does that increase the tax base to support a growing aged demographic? Moreover, with immigrants having no connection to their new homes, why should they care about what happens to elderly whites?

The leading fly in the ointment here is Japan, of the West politically and econonically, but in no other way. It too has an aging "crisis", but interestingly it isn't interested in relying on mass immigration as a solution, firstly being aware, just as any fool would be, that immigrants are not Peter Pans; they age just like natives, and secondly, if it came to trading the death of a nation for national suicide, it would, well known for its sense of honour, stick with the former.

Death to Japan, however, is not likely to arrive in any form. For example, it is not home to over half the world's robots for nothing. With more and more robots doing the work and sustaining the nation's wealth, all that needs to be done is finding a way of more evenly distributing that wealth, as well as learning to live with increased leisure time - and that might be the biggest hurdle of all for the Japanese. Whatever, they are far from being faced with a "Sophie's choice" - terrible either way.

Perhaps we in the West could be also little more clear-sighted if not still hypnotised by the eyes of an evil dead man.









 

THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE FRAME-UP RE-VISITED

MARTIN BRYANT, PATSY

"Mankind can only bear so much reality." These immortal words of TS Elliot related to internal reality, the reality of who we are at our innermost core. They are though also well suited to external reality - the nature of the world in which we live, ideas of crime, law, order, justice, government, the state. In order to remain sane, we join a consensus, a collective consciousness, if you will, that corrals all these disparate but interconnected abstract nouns in a protected space where they will settle, static and comforting.

Sometimes though, volcanic upheavals shock us into realising that what we thought was rock solid could be blown away like so much smoke, upheavals such as war, economic collapse and natural disasters. It is during events like these that our sanity can be sorely tested.

Rarer still are ideas so shocking, so threatening to our conception of the world, that our minds instinctively snap shut against them. They belong to a reality that mankind cannot bear. Whether we keep our minds locked or test our ability to bear the unbearable is of course a personal choice. Coming to this fork in the road, do we scamper along with the timid crowd, or do we take the road less travelled? Both roads offer advantages. The first will offer protection against our worldview falling apart as once solid buildings do in an earthquake. The second may harden us, arm us and equip us with the power that only knowledge can provide, free of illusion.

Now step up with me to the parting of the ways. An almost peculiarly American phenomenon has seen for many years successive governments, or rogue elements thereof, slaughtering, or allowing to be slaughtered, their own citizens for political gain. The best known examples are Pearl Harbor, the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11. The British got into this act early by orchestrating the sinking of the Lusitania in an attempt to lure the US into  World War 1.

At approximately 13.30 on April 28, 1996, Australia's distance from the rest of the world's turmoil proved to offer no protection from an evil so so satanic as to defy comprehension when that same tried and trusted method was visited upon its sunny shores. At that time at the Port Arthur Historic Site (PAHS) in Tasmania, a man, after a snack and drinking a can of Schweppes Solo in the Broad Arrow Cafe, stood up from his table, withdrew a  semi-automatic rifle from a sports bag and with military precision began blasting away at customers and staff.

The shooter displayed the skill only a few people in the world would possess - the skill and the rare psychological callousness to be able to continue shooting while witnessing close-up the horror he was creating. He fired from the hip while swivelling to avoid being tackled and disarmed. With almost super-human coolness, he counted while he shot so he would know when to clip in a new magazine while still having a round in the chamber.  Within just several minutes he is said to have fired 29 rounds, although inexplicably not adding up to the twenty dead, 19 of whom were head-shot, and twelve wounded. This was an inversion of the killed to wounded ratio usually seen in combat and terrorist events - another demonstration of the shooter's uncanny ability. Satisfied that his work was done here, the man left the cafe hunting more victims. Another 15 lives would end that day. Another 11 would be wounded - the same inverted killed to wounded ratio.

The man we are asked to believe was responsible for this atrocity was one Martin Bryant. A resident of Newtown, Hobart, Bryant could only score 66 on the intelligence quotient scale, so low that in an adulthood more resembling a childhood, he would require a guardian. He had had no military training. He could fire a gun but would struggle to knock a tin can off a fence at close range. His child-like nature contained an abhorrence at the harming of any living thing. Bryant fired a gun left-handed. The shooter in the cafe and beyond fired right-handed. Since escaping from a burning building in which, as patsies usually are, he was supposed to have died, and then being strapped down on his back on which he bore first degree burns, Bryant has been the victim of torture, albeit more subtle than initially. He is said to resemble a caged and sick, dumb animal.

Extensive and intricate planning went into the military style operation that day at Port Arthur, something else Bryant would have been utterly incapable of. Would, for example, a mentally handicapped man have the cunning, ability and foresight to arrange for the only two policemen in the area - Constable Paul Hyland stationed at Nubeena and Constable Garry Whittle stationed at neighbouring Dunalley - to be sent on a wild goose chase which took them to Saltwater River, at least 25 minutes travelling time from Port Arthur just before the shooting started. They were sent to investigate an alleged stash of heroin which turned out to be laundry powder. Notified of the carnage happening at Port Arthur they sped back but only to block off escape routes from the crime scene.

At the actual location where unimaginable carnage had just occurred, one lone policeman was the sole representative of law and order and possible protection while the gunman was still at large and feared to be returning to the cafe where PAHS staff were bravely and desperately trying to save the wounded.

Wendy Scurr, a remarkable woman, was the Information Officer at Port Arthur. She selflessly and unhesitatingly took charge of caring for the injured, triage style, inside the cafe. She would later give a graphic account of what she experienced, part of which was, "I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw two Asian people still sitting in their chairs at the table with their meals in front of them. One was still holding his knife and the other had the index finger through the handle of the coffee cup she had been drinking from. Both had been shot through the head. .... I trod on something. It seemed to crack under my feet. It was the skull of a young woman. She had the top blown off her head and to my horror her brain was lying in a bowl of chips."

Wendy was one of two people who had seen the gunman and stated categorically it was not Martin Bryant. The other was a Vietnam Vet, John Godfrey, who had seen the gunman twice outside the cafe.
Of the forty odd people who had survived the shooting inside the cafe, only a few identified the gunman as being Bryant but this was only after a photo of Bryant had been shown world-wide. For obvious reasons a law exists prohibiting such a thing occurring but in this instance absolutely no effort was made to enforce it. It would be no great stretch to conclude that the police were colluding with the media.

Moreover, regarding the police, more than an incredible six hours were to pass between the first shots fired and the arrival in force of heavily armed police. Even the Keystone Cops could have responded faster than this. Who was holding them back and why?

As seen, witness identification was, to say the least, problematical. But perhaps it was superfluous given the supposed weight of evidence that was used to damn Bryant. So let's go through it. That didn't take long because there is none. How about the aforementioned articles left behind in the cafe by the gunman: the can of Solo, a plastic Schweppes cup he drank from, a video camera, the sports bag in which the rifles said to be used were carried and still containing various articles including a blood-stained knife, as well as the food tray he used and was seen by one witness to drop to the floor as soon as the shooting started. Surely that would contain fingerprints and DNA evidence that would seal the case for Bryant being the mass murderer.

 One problem: these articles were never examined. Only one reason could be for that and it would be that fingerprints and DNA would be shown to belong to someone other than Bryant. The blood on the knife was said to belong to David Martin allegedly stabbed to death by Bryant. Noeline and David Martin, acquaintances of Bryant, and owners of The Seascape cottage guesthouse, were alleged to have been Bryant's first victims before continuing to the PAHS driven by an insatiable blood-lust. Noeline was shot to death. The knife is another piece that refuses to fit into the puzzle. This is because later back at the Seascape guest house and then under siege, Bryant, said to be identifying himself as "Jamie" while on a phone-call to a police negotiator tells him about having his "favourite" knife with him. If it was his favourite knife, wouldn't this have given him extra pleasure in using it to murder David Martin? Incidentally, in another instance of doubling-up, immediately after the shooting inside the cafe, a witness was to report seeing the gunman putting a sports bag into the boot of a car. Had the first sports bag left inside the cafe reproduced itself?

If anything could be more astonishing and difficult for a human brain to process than the massacre, it was the unbelievably amateurish and cocked up framing of Bryant that still managed to go unnoticed by the Australian public. It's difficult to know where to start. However ...
The weaponry: Two assault rifles were said to be used on the Tasman Peninsula that terrible day, a Colt AR 15 Semi-automatic and a Belgian FN - FAL Semi-automatic SLR although at least one of the wounded needed shotgun pellets extracted from his flesh. Bryant is not known to have owned either of these guns. The Colt that he bought in 1993 through an advertisement in The Mercury was an AR 10. This rifle was brought into a gun-shop owned by one Terry Hill in late March '96 for repair. PROBLEM: It was still in the shop on the day of the shooting.

According to a News.com.au article of March 3, 2016, Bryant is recorded as saying he didn't blame Terry Hill for selling him an AR 15. This, when all factors are accounted for, sounds very much like Bryant saying what he'd been coached to say after being broken by more than six months of solitary confinement, all during which he could not be persuaded to plead guilty. The loudest alarm bell here is Terry Hill refusing to admit he had sold Bryant any gun and with records to prove it.

When pressure was brought to bear on Hill in the form of an intimidating letter from attorney, John Avery (hold that name) on behalf of Tasmania Police in which a form of protection would be offered to Hill if he did what he was told. (protection racket?)  On the other hand, if Hill refused to play along, dire consequences were predicted. Hill, being evidently an honourable man stuck to his guns, so to speak. He was forced out of business soon after.

The two assault rifles were found damaged outside the Seascape  Cottage after police had evidently set it on fire and before Bryant emerged in a ball of flame, and after Bryant was supposed to have held off police all night with the rifle-fire of a trained sniper. What was he firing bullets with, his much loved knife? It doesn't get much more curioser than curious when eventually the damaged AR was found to have been surrendered to police in a prior buy-back and then resold by the police to a third party. 

The siege: This lasted from the afternoon of the 28th till the morning of the 29th. Bryant, or "Jamie"  demonstrated impressive battle skills throughout. Not only could he be on the telephone calmly speaking to a police negotiator at the same time as shots were being fired from within the building he could cleverly emulate a sub-atomic particle doing its famous quantum leap and being in two places at the same time. While, for example, he could be on the ground floor speaking on the phone and sometimes cooking up snacks, he could at the same time be on the roof of Seascape taking pot-shots at helicopters evacuating the wounded to hospitals in Hobart.

Also, how's this for someone with no combat experience or military training - extracts from the transcript of telephone conversation between "Jamie" and the police negotiator:
Jamie: ... What I've actually found out man is that one of you boys is right outside North East. I'd say with an infra-red scope ... just ask him to move on.
McCarthy: (police negotiator)  Alright, we'll do that. Now.
Jamie: Good, good, good, good. Um now the name of this scope is a laser scope. Laser devices now it's the same sort of red dot I've noticed ...

In another part of the transcript, when negotiations are going on about a helicopter to transport the gunman and his hostages away from the scene,MacCarthy says something like, now I know you don't want to give us your real name but how about just giving us you passport number (presumably so subsequent air-flight out of the country can be arranged) Jamie helpfully does just that. Really, how many people can remember their passport number? The actual passport, almost a precursor of the passport belonging to one of the 9/11 hijackers that fluttered to earth in pristine condition, is lying conveniently nearby in the yellow Volvo just waiting to be found. The car is left unattended all night with a window open resulting in all fingerprints inside and out being destroyed by the night's condensation. Who else beside Bryant was in it will never be known.

A man dressed in black was said to be seen darting between buildings of the Seascape complex. Had Martin changed out of the light coloured clothing he been seen in earlier in the day? Apparently though, not much clothing at all was left on Bryant as he escaped the blazing Seascape yelling, "Don't shoot. Don't shoot. I'm the hostage." If this was a ploy, it was a good one for a man with the mind of an eleven year old.

The trial that never happened. As already seen, Martin was kept in solitary for more than six months, longer than sanity can usually survive. After having two defence attorneys appointed to him - they didn't last, possibly because the opprobrium attracted by defending the most hated man in the country meant the heat in the kitchen was too much to bear - a third attorney was appointed him. You should still have this name tucked away in your head, it was none other than John Avery, the attorney who'd been working for the police trying to pressure Terry Hill into admitting he sold a Colt AR 15 to Bryant. He apparently switched sides so adroitly that the words, conflict of interest, never drifted through anyone's mind. Avery is a filthy, avaricious, lying thief who was convicted in '09 for misappropriation and 129 counts of stealing. His highly amusing and creative defence was that he'd become addicted to high value works of art. He was sentenced to six years but was out in just over three.

You wouldn't want this joker by your side even to contest a parking infringement. You'd end up in gaol. He actually took credit for the unrelenting way in which he convinced Bryant to plead guilty, therefore, in his mind, sparing the grief-stricken from further pain. That could possibly be seen as not taking instructions from a client until finally getting instructions you liked. He bragged about the creative way in which he turned Bryant around. Keith Allan Noble claims in Mass Murder that what ultimately got Bryant across the line was the promise of a TV set in his lonely cell, something like, you'll be spending the rest of your life in a cell anyway and if you don't plead guilty you'll be doing it without a TV set.

Nothing was too low in regard to working on Bryant to avoid a trial that would have been disastrous for the real perpetrators. Even his mother, Carleen, was drafted into service. To what she afterwards claimed to be her everlasting shame, she allowed herself to be coerced into telling Martin that if he didn't plead guilty he would never see her or his sister ever again. And this after elsewhere saying, "he wouldn't have had the brains to do it". Slimy Avery bragged that getting into his client's head wasn't easy but he managed it anyway. One of his tactics, he was proud to say, was having him drawing pictures of how the killings were carried out. The poor bastard probably thought he was drawing pictures of the real gunman committing the killings.

Most outrageous of all in terms of preventing a trial was the illegal confiscation of Bryant's wealth which was substantial as a result of a sympathetic friend leaving her estate to him. It was claimed that the reason for this was to put the money toward compensating the survivors of the tragedy as well as families of those killed. However, Keith Noble claims in Mass Murder that no-one saw a cent of this money. The real reason for the confiscation of Bryant's money appears to be so that he would be prevented from obtaining a decent defence. Finding someone to represent him appointed via paltry government legal aid was problematical as few lawyers relished the idea of becoming the country's second most hated person. Indeed, this seems to be the reason his first two court appointed lawyers didn't stick around long, at least one of them known to be the recipient of hate mail.

However, if Bryant hadn't had his money stolen from him by the State, he would have been able to pay the kind of fee that a top legal team would tend to see as adequate compensation for whatever opprobrium the job attracted,

No coronial inquest ever took place, notwithstanding that by law it was absolutely essential. This was largely the result of prime minister of the time, John Howard's recommendation that this would be simply salt in the wounds of all who had lost love ones to the killer, and besides, everybody already knew who the killer was so any inquest or trial would be not only painful but superfluous. In this, Howard skated dangerously close to trashing the much revered Westminster system, a central tenet of which is a fire-wall erected between the executive and the judiciary. Or did know more than he would ever let on? Something so terrible that no risk could be taken with the escape of its knowledge through the rattling of legal cages.

Moreover, the potential pain to survivors may have been a worthwhile trade-off for getting to the truth instead of being ploughed under with bullshit and knowing that, instead of getting off scott-free, the actual killers were being hunted and their facilitators were getting their just deserts (if only their being lined up against a wall was possible). Australia would never have been the same again but so what if the happiness of the fool was replaced by a healthy fear and loathing of what our State is capable of.

So what are we to make of all this? Firstly, that the continuing torment in confinement of an innocent man is by far the worst travesty of justice in Australia's history. Secondly, that we the people should be highly wary of a State that is capable of murdering us, or at least allowing us to be murdered and then covering it up, should the stakes be high enough. That there was a cover up, there is no doubt. But what were the stakes? At the outset, we saw that what happened at Port Arthur was not the first event of its kind. A political end is always the motive. And the motive here was to largely disarm the Australian population. Why? So it is incapable of fighting back. Against what? Anyone who has read A Government of Wolves, by John Whitehead can be in no doubt that the US is spiralling into totalitarian police state. The surveillance, police state is coming about largely because of exponentially developing technology mated with the murkier side of human nature. Why is the US becoming a police state? Because it can.

But it could never happen here in laid back Australia. Could it? Perhaps we might be too distracted by football and reality TV to notice. Generally, we are usually just a few years behind America. In fact simply watching America is like peering at Australia's future in crystal ball. Whitehead notes the unmistakable militarisation of American police caused by the infusion of military tactics and a torrent of hand-me-downs of military equipment. SWAT raids, for example, that were once rare are now as unexceptional as  postal deliveries. The next time a televised report of a drug bust in Sydney or Melbourne appears, take note of the way the police are dressed. A bit like a SWAT team?

In exactly the same way that Port Arthur was orchestrated by forces of the New World Order both here and abroad, suspicion is warranted in regard to the ramping up of the number of mass shootings now taking place in the US. An ongoing attack is being ruthlessly waged against the second amendment. But that amendment was inserted for the best of all possible reasons. Without it, no hope at all exists in the coming war against the monstrous technological machine of NWO totalitarianism. "Out of my cold dead hands," indeed. The answer to the perennial question asked by Plato amongst others of "who will guard the guardians?" is, the "guarded".

Martin Bryant has spent 22 years in Risdon Prison. Unless he's helped he will die there. If he is helped, a chance exists that he will be exonerated and allowed to spend the rest of his life as a free man. At 51, he is still a relatively young man. If he stays in gaol, at 51 he may be a very old man.

Sources: Mass Murder, Keith Allan Noble
               The Port Arthur Massacre: was Martin Bryant framed?
               www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/79

IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME! THE MSM NOTICES LIFE FOR WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS NOT SO ROSY

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:













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.

THE MAN WHO PUT AUSTRALIA ON THE MAP AND THEN GAVE IT ITS NAME: The adventures of Mathew Flinders Part 1

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

FORMER PM SHOWS HOW TO CAKE-WALK AN ELECTION WIN - WHY IS HIS PARTY COLD-SHOULDERING HIM?

GEORGE STREET, SYDNEY IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE?

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?



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.

A MOST REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE

AFRICA ALLOWED TO GO ON BEING AFRICAN - DANGEROUS WHITE NATIONS  MUST  SUICIDE

"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