CHINAUSTRALIA

A man after my own heart! Thanks to James Reed, Australian League of Rights On Target, May 11, 2018 for this chilling scenario as predictable as a sunrise:

WHAT OUR CHINESE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE

 By James Reed

The Australian intellectual chattering class want to be part of Asia, and given Chinese migration, especially via the student university immigration superhighway, that means Australia will ultimately be Chinese. Forget English, the monarchy and all that: think China. So what will life be like for the whites who exist? Why, they will live as Chinese do! Since it is against the law to object in any way to the genocide of Anglo-Saxon traditions, let us shake the dust of death from our sandals and move on. What will life be like in the new Chinaustralia?

 “When Liu Hu recently tried to book a flight, he was told he was banned from flying because he was on the list of untrustworthy people. Liu is a journalist who was ordered by a court to apologize for a series of tweets he wrote and was then told his apology was insincere. “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” he said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.” And the list is now getting longer as every Chinese citizen is being assigned a social (DIS-ed)credit score — a fluctuating rating based on a range of behaviors. It’s believed that community service and buying Chinese-made products can raise your score. Fraud, tax evasion and smoking in non-smoking areas can drop it. China does this by setting up a network of cameras that have advanced facial recognition AIs. They see you when you are sleeping. They know when you’re awake. You’d better not shout or they’re gonna make you cry. Stalker Claus is coming to town. The fear, of course, it that the government may use this social (DIS-ed)credit scoring system to punish people that it deems not sufficiently loyal to the communist party.... And trying to clear your name or fight your score is nearly impossible, because there’s no due process.” http://www.amerika.org/politics/chinese-faceberg-torture/

 That is “social (DIS-ed)credit” Chinese style. And, there is no reason not to suppose that this is our future. After all, it is the present reality, so how is that going to change any time so? My friend, hard times are ahead of us, perhaps the hardest anyone has known. 

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT "WHITE FLIGHT" WOULD BE SUCH A TRIGGER?

"Non whites will form ghettos."  Arthur Calwell, Australia's first Minister for Immigration stating the obvious


Front page: "Stop White Flight". Bit late for that, thinks I. Ho Hum. Turn page. Look for disasters a bit more up to date.

It's the next day though that the fun begins. And here I was thinking I'd seen all that the brave new insane world had to offer. It's a veritable cyclone in a tea cup. NSW Labor Opposition leader, Luke Foley, who's uttered what most sensible people would consider a fairly innocuous phrase, is running for cover, tail between legs and hands clasped to ears as a torrent of brickbats and vitriolic abuse pursue him.

Poor bumbling Luke had become the walking, breathing confirmation of the opinion of American columnist, Sam Francis as quoted by Patrick Buchanan in State of Emergency: the third world invasion and conquest of America:
"In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today .... the Great Taboo is race. The Victorians virtually denied that sex existed. Today, race is said to be 'merely a social construct,' a product of the imagination, and of a none too healthy imagination at that, rather than a reality of nature. The Victorians severely punished people who talked about sex, made jokes about sex, or wrote too openly and frankly about sex. Today, journalists, disc jockeys, leading sports figures, public officials, distinguished academics, and major political leaders who violate the racial taboos of our age are fired from their newspapers, networks or radio stations, forced to resign their positions, condemned by their own colleagues, and subjected to 'investigations of their own 'backgrounds' and their 'links' to other individuals and groups that have also violated the race taboo."

"The comments were deeply divisive, dangerous and nasty [translates as, he's a racist]," shrieks the Premier, Gladys Berejiklian. I'm scratching my head. I'm in a fog, trying to catch up. Has my world really drifted so far from theirs thus catching me as flat footed as this? Racist? Has the meaning of this ridiculous word been stretched so far as to be entirely meaningless?  I'm analysing. Exactly what has been seen as racist in Foley's slip of honesty? Is it the use of the word "white"? That could be it. It could be signalling that a separate race actually exists in this post racial world in which race has been found not to exist. Or is it the word "flight". Yes, that could be more like it. It implicitly asks the question of what are whites in flight from. Oh my God! As females would say. The answer must be that they are in flight from people unlike themselves. Why would they possibly want to do that? And there you have it, the dreaded racism that Foley has cunningly tapped into.

A Telegraph journalist helpfully confirms my suspicion: "The term 'white flight' is a phrase that has been used to stir racial unrest throughout the US for the past 60 years.

"It was first used during the 1950s and 1960s when African Americans began moving into what had previously been soley white communities, leading many white families to leave." Damned racists! Couldn't stand to see their neighbourhoods converted into crime-ridden garbage dumps.

Worse is to come. Foley's observation is supported by nationalists (nationalist being another dirty word only marginally less damning than racist) such as Pauline Hanson, Cori Bernadi and Mark Latham - quarantined outsiders. With friends like these ...

Foley's tiny revolt against political correctness lasts less than twenty four hours. Attacked from the right and the left, he's a walking bag of remorse, apologising profusely and begging forgiveness. He is after all a politician. And his domain is a typical self-flagellating, suicidal liberal democracy. Statesmen need not apply.

It's not over yet though. Foley has opened a vein that can't quite be stitched back together. The Telegraph, curiously wanting to have a bet each way in this sudden eruption, publishes letters that normally wouldn't be allowed to get through to the keeper. A particular letter, entitled "Harassed, I fled my suburb",  by one V Petrie deserves to be reproduced in full:

     "The 'white flight' problem in Sydney requires thinking about more than infrastructure and community services.
     There are other reasons why an Aussie might feel the need to leave some Sydney districts.
     Having 'not very nice' graffiti painted on my fence was my first hint I was not in a good place. Being ignored and not being served in shops where I had previously been a regular customer, after the shops were visited by a religious identity, was the second hint.
     Not being able to use the local park with my toddler daughter after being circled on the swings by a group of youths and men, simply meant I needed to drive to a more suitable park.
     Being called a 'slut' and 'less than a dog' when teaching 12 year old boys in the local schools was a real awakener that my home town Sydney was changing.
     And being told that I couldn't make this public knowledge or I would not be employed brought home how powerless I was to prevent this continuing.
     The final straw was being spat on when walking in the main shopping street.
     However, it still took a few incidents before I caught on that it wasn't just accidental bad manners. It was intentional and was the new norm.
     Eventually I realised that I needed to flee the harassment - or was it persecution?
     Yes, in 1985 I became an Aussie refugee from Arncliffe."




Any wonder whites are in flight? Whites acting in accordance with their human nature? Our hallowed multiculturalism - the "the most successful in the world", doncha know - tends to recognise the human nature of non-whites in allowing to the full, even encouraging them to live amongst their own kind where they feel most comfortable. Given that they will never feel comfortably living among Australians and therefore will never assimilate, this seems only fair.

Shouldn't the same right be extended to Australians whose neighbourhoods have been transformed into cast-offs of foreign countries? Shouldn't they be also allowed to live among their own kind where they feel most comfortable? Definitely not. On the contrary, by wanting to move away from "enrichment" they are showing themselves to be irretrievably racist. Double standards? Of course, but we should be used to it by now.




The controversy was still simmering the next week when Telegraph columnist, Tim Blair, was wondering if any non whites had actually been offended by Foley's gaff. He answered his own question by way of his inimitably dry wit: "Only whites could be insulted by the suggestion they are insufficiently woke to rejoice in the delights of multiculturalism."

The ghettos of which Arthur Calwell warned more than seventy years ago are pieces of Australia lost forever. They are holes burnt in a map that can only get bigger thanks to the hyper immigration from the third world of which our elites are so enamoured.

What we are seeing here in embryo is the  phenomenon currently transforming American beyond recognition. Again from State of Emergency:

"La Reconquista is not to be accomplished by force of arms, as was the US annexation of the Southwest and California in 1848. It is to be carried out by non violent invasion and cultural transformation of the huge slice of America into a Mexamerican borderland where the dominant culture is Hispanic and Anglos will feel alienated and begin to emigrate, as, indeed they already have - back over the mountains their fathers and grandfathers crossed generations ago. Each year now, 250,000 native born Californians pack up and leave forever in what demographer William Frey calls the 'flight from diversity'. [Now that's white flight, even if put slightly more politely.] Meanwhile, since 2000, a million new illegal aliens, almost all Mexicans, have arrived to make Los Angeles home."

Forces at work impossible to resist will eventually complete La Reconquista of which Buchanan writes and the southwest of the US will be torn away to be once again part of Mexico. The forces, including the Mexican Government, greedy American capitalists and the lure of wealth to millions of impoverished peasants, are irresistable because no political will exists to prevent it, so racked with white guilt are the mentally ill US liberals.

Make no mistake, the same thing is happening here but in a far less spectacular fashion. Instead of a huge slab of the country being torn away, cancerous tumours have appeared, rotting us from the inside. They have names: Fairfield, Lakemba, Campsie, Hurstville, Randwick, Chatswood, Bankstown, the combat zones of the western suburbs of Melbourne et al.  The question won't go away. Why wouldn't there be white flight? But as the cancers spread, where will whites be fleeing to? Will they end up scuttling like cockroaches from one temporary shelter to the next until there is no shelter left and they are stomped on?

THE MAN WHO PUT AUSTRALIA ON THE MAP AND THEN GAVE IT A NAME Part 3

Leaving Kangaroo Island on March 24, 1802, Flinders back-tracked to Cape Spencer where mapping of the mainland had ceased four days previously. Perhaps disappointingly, as the gulf closed on both sides, Flinders had to conclude that if a strait existed severing two halves of the continent, it didn't begin here.

 Exiting the gulf, Flinders proceeded to map the coast between there and Cape Jervis across Investigator Strait from Kangaroo Island. A smaller gulf, named Saint Vincent Gulf, was quickly proved also to not be the beginning of the way to the Gulf of Carpentaria. The theory of the strait was now all but ready for shredding. The abundance of fresh food available on the island of kangaroos again beckoned, so to there is where the ship returned. Flinders also needed to check time-keeping errors possibly made on the original visit.

The men hunted, feasted and explored the island further before departing again just after sunrise on April, 6. About 14.00 of the same day a sight so unbelievable was made that it was construed as almost the complete opposite. What had been initially believed to be a huge white rock emerging from the sea was in reality the sails of a ship. Banks and the British Admiralty and naturally Flinders himself had been aware the French were planning an expedition that would be a counterpart of his own. It was the reason Banks felt some urgency, although apparently not shared by the admiralty, in getting the Investigator under way as soon as possible. But to sight another ship where no other ship had been before may have been akin to American moon-landers finding they had Russian neighbours

So, getting over the surprise of seeing a ship, it would have been no greater surprise to see a  French tri-colour brought up close by a telescope. As the distance narrowed between the two ships, the French vessel broke out a Union Jack - the French way of showing a flag of truce. The two nations were at war after all. Flinders hoisted a white flag in reply but maneuvered warily so as to retain the upper hand in case of any surprises being sprung. With no untoward intent shown by either ship, they came within hailing distance in a shallow bay thirty nautical miles north west of Kangaroo Island. As Rob Mundle puts it in his Flinders: the man who mapped Australia, "[n]ow the two sides were meeting bow to bow at a place which, until that moment, no one had known existed". Flinders would call this place Encounter Bay.

The French vessel was Le Geograph, captained by Nicolas Baudin. Satisfied with the recognition of the ship and knowing full well it was on a scientific expedition such as his own - indeed straight after he boarded it from one of Navigator's boats he would be shown the passport issued by the British Government which was a direct counterpart of his own issued by Napoleon's government - and with the aid of the naturalist, John Brown, who could speak French, the two captains got down to affably comparing notes.

Baudin told Flinders that on initially sighting his ship, he had mistaken it for the French escort ship, Le Naturaliste, for which it had been searching after separation by storm. Baudin had no way of knowing that, storm-damaged and with many of his crew sick with scurvy, the captain of Le Naturaliste had turned and made a run for Port Jackson where it was hoped succor would be found (where indeed it was provided even more generously than the terms of the British passport obliged).

If someone with more zeal and conscientiousness than Boudin had have been chosen to lead the French expedition, the worst fears of the British may have been realised and the history of Australia shot into a radically different direction, perhaps with two different nations sharing the continent with a possible war to determine the overall owner such as happened in Canada. But with Boudin, British Australia was safe. He had no naval background, his seagoing career, formerly being purely merchant marine. He did though have an interest in natural history and science, this being the clincher for the job. Given his future job performance, it's doubtful he even wanted the job. En route to the antipodes, he pulled into the French port of Mauritius where he spent an inexplicable forty days. Because of this delay, it was almost winter before he reached the coast of New Holland, and with the cold months not being an optimum seasonal choice for voyaging in the Southern Ocean, Baudin had elected to follow the coast north at a casual clip, leaving no fewer than 240 place names that still survive before finally reaching the port of Kupang in the Dutch East Indies. Here he wasted another three months. More charitably, it was claimed necessary stores being difficult to procure there caused the delay.

Then with weather more conducive to southern voyaging, the two French vessels backtracked along the west coast, rounded Cape Leeuwin and shot straight across to the south of Van Diemen's Land, rounded it, then proceeded west through Bass Strait to begin the true work of mapping the south of the continent. Because of the delays and separations from the slower Le Naturaliste, Baudin was now a full nine months behind schedule. By the time of what must have been a crushing disappointment in meeting Flinders coming in the opposite direction and having mapped all of the coast behind him, he was ten months out of Le Havre. It's not surprising that crewmen of Le Naturaliste were in such poor physical shape with most suffering varying degrees of scurvy.

The meeting in the bay, named Encounter by Flinders and engraving it in Australian history, lasted only 24 hours. Flinders advised his French counterpart that he would be able to procure fresh water and food on Kangaroo Island before the two ships parted. It was a slow motion parting, the day being so windless the two ships remained in sight of one another for hours even though sailing in opposite directions. Boudin's plan was to continue west (presumbly in a dispirited mood knowing now that he'd been beaten to the punch by Flinders in already charting all the coast he would to see) until the weather turned bad. He would then turn about and head for Port Jackson

Boudin would break off the voyage when the weather turned bad well before reaching Cape Leeuwin and sail back east all the way to Port Jackson. Flinders, in whose esteem Baudin already had a low rating, appears to have graded it even more lowly when he discovered that the Frenchman had sailed straight past Port Phillip Bay without noticing it. However, what would come as a surprise to Flinders was that Lieutenant John Murray had explored and named it ten weeks previously.

On the 8th May, 1802, the Investigator turned in between the rocky outcrops that would eventually be named Sydney Heads. Flinders would soon discover the missing Le Naturaliste had arrived at Port Jackson two weeks earlier, storm damaged and with many of its crew seriously ill.

Not wanting to waste a moment, Flinders quickly set about having his own ship's storm damage repaired, with crewman stitching sails outside of tents pitched on the water-front. Coopers ensured the water-tightness of barrels before their being reenished with drinking water. Among modifications made to the ship was the lowering of a palisade around the deck which would facilitate the sighting needed for hydrography.

Flinders was perhaps only dimly aware at the time that the Investigator could never be made entirely ship-shape. In modern parlance, it was a "lemon". This made sense considering Britain's ongoing war with France necessitated its needing every good quality ship that could be put out to sea. Ergo, the ship made available to Flinders did not fit into this category. It was in fact worse than not deserving of a top-of-the line rating. The timber it was built from was what was called "wainy and sappy". This was caused by timber being green and not properly dried before used in construction, with a propensity for being "soft". Flinders had been made aware of this problem at the time of his taking command of it but it seems not to have greatly concerned him given his elation at being provided any ship at all and furthermore in light of his experiences with the Reliance and the Norfolk, crafts which modern day sailors would probably refuse to board.

Flinders and his crew were still in port preparing their ship for the remainder of the continent's circumnavigation when on June 20th an initially unidentified ship appeared in the harbour. The vessel, looking like a bedraggled ghost ship, seemed almost to be drifting aimlessly, its sails torn or badly set, and evidence of human life barely visible. It was Le Geographe, storm battered and with 158 of its crew of 170 below decks desperately ill. Flinders was the first to act, quickly organising a boat to tow the sad spectacle to a dock. The French vessel would remain in port for the next three months undergoing repairs while the stricken men recuperated from mostly scurvy related illness. By contrast, when the Investigator had arrived in port, residents of the outpost had been impressed by the rude, good health of all on board. This was testament to Flinders' care of and concern for his crew.

As noted, the British and the French were at war. Although Baudin had a passport from the British Government, the same as Flinders had from the French, this was essentially a safeguard from being accosted by representatives of the opposing side. However, officials of Port Jackson showed gallantry in the excess of hospitality, help and respect provided to Baudin and his crew. The British respect for science and exploration also played into the respect members of the French expedition were shown.

To Be Continued 

REMOTE CONTROLLED BRAINS

It cheers you when you are depressed. It keeps you company when you are lonely. It distracts you when you are worried. Television does all this and more. But it is not your friend. At best, it is a false friend. At worse, it is controlling your mind and exploiting your fears and insecurities on behalf of those who are anything but your friends.

We are taught that the German National Socialists, specifically the "evil" genius Dr Joseph Goebbels, perfected the art of propaganda. On the contrary, it was highly efficient, but a long way from perfection. Compared to the way in which modern methods of propaganda have us thinking as other people wish, it was clumsy and clunky.

It was Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and "the father of public relations" according to an obituary, who took Goebbels' prototype and converted it into an art-form comparable in improvement to the jet over the propeller. Bernays though wasn't particularly interested in political propaganda. He was essentially a money grubber, seeing no gutter filthy enough to be deterred
from rolling in. It was Bernays, for example, who converted millions of otherwise sensible and healthy women into cigarette smokers. His "torch of freedom" lured a small band of female smokers out of their closets - it was unseemly for a woman to be seen smoking in public -  exploded their numbers and had them puffing proudly on the streets (an early version of "girls can do anything" striking a blow for "liberation").



Public relations, or to call a spade a spade, advertising and propagandising, received a monumental boost with the proliferation of television. Because economists understood that World War 11 alone had lifted Western countries out of the Great Depression - every other attempt including FDR's fabled "New Deal" being dismal failures - widespread fears existed that with the conclusion of the war, capitalist nations would slip straight back into economic depression. The most effective way to prevent this, it was thought, was the creation of the consumer society to keep the pump primed and the wheels turning. Vance Packard, author of the fifty year old, million seller, The Hidden Persuaders, tended to agree with this analysis, concluding that the post war wave of advertising was a kind of necessary economic evil. So with television the left hand and hire-purchase the right, a glittering treasure-trove society was born. Buy now, pay later and the devil take the hindmost. Right away, the Joanses were leading the pack and no one wanted to be ignominiously left behind.

Although television was then in an embryonic state, its potential of being the Big Bertha of advertising was widely and well recognised. To this end the crusade to put a television set in every American living room was started in earnest. Well south of the border, the potential of television was also recognised as a powerful instrument of thought-control. Selling products which people didn't need and couldn't afford was not the main concern though. The thinking here was mainly along political lines. The drawback though was that most South Americans couldn't afford television sets. No problem. Governments would simply subsidise the cost so that no citizen need be without a TV set, through which could be beamed crude, undisguised political propaganda.

With the social revolution of the sixties, everything changed, including television. Wholesome entertainment such as Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best was beginning to be considered hopelessly "square". And so began the televised race to the bottom to reflect the overthrow of values which had usefully informed societies for so long. Love scenes were replaced with sex scenes and the latter became de rigeur regardless of plot, setting or theme. Horror horrified. Violence became ever more realistic. (These days gun manufacturers are taking advantage of the time-honoured strategy of "product placement" to promote their wares to criminals and gangsters.)

The sixties revolution was of course a leftist revolution cementing in the keystone of the left/liberal hegemony that we suffer with today. The sixties radicals grew up and began their long march through the institutions - including television, in which, notwithstanding their obligatory atheism, they may have considered a god-given instrument with which to maintain the revolution. Coming years after the South Americans' joyous discovery of television as a political weapon, the now suited former hippies began bending television waves toward the political, but in infinitely more subtle ways than the Latin Americans.

Some time ago a valuable psychological experiment was conducted. Participants were invited into an experiment which they were told was to test their concentration. They were asked to view two teams - one blue, the other red - who were moving around and passing balls to other team-mates, and asked to keep count of the number of times the ball was passed within one of the teams.

Midway through the experiment, a man dressed in a gorilla suit appeared and began walking about among the ball-passers and then left. After the experiment, participants were asked how many times a ball had changed hands. Most got this correct. They were then asked if they'd seen anything unusual during the activity. "No," they invariably replied. None had seen the man in the gorilla suit - seen consciously, that is - who'd been in plain sight. It was proof of our inclination to see selectively.



This is how the best of televised propaganda works. Our attention is diverted to the central story and activity and away from the messages being inserted in the programme. This is a form of the subliminal advertising, or messaging, that caused such a hew and cry many years ago and was seen to be so underhanded as to be banned. Although the conscious mind has been bypassed, the message has still slipped straight through  to the keeper - the subconscious mind. A new belief has been planted or an old one deleted.

Let's take a squiz at a few recent examples:

The Handmaid's Tale  Something has gone awfully wrong in the lead up to the scenario around which this series revolves but we are never told exactly what. However, whatever it was has left the great majority of women barren in what used to be the USA (now the theocratic Republic of Gilead). We also know that this new republic has been given birth to by violent revolution - one that can only be maintained by the barrel of a gun. In a desperate bid to keep the governed from dying out, the government has decreed that the few remaining fertile women (the handmaidens) be rounded up and be mated with high value men, effectively forced into sex-slavery. The regime is every bit as brutal as it needs to be in such a desperate situation.

But what's going on between the lines as it were? Can the story be seen as allegory? A little applied inductive reasoning suggests it can. A few important details within the series: women, even the wives of the high value men who will become the mothers of the children produced by proxy, have few rights. It is beyond doubt a man's world, a world suddenly switched from Yin to Yang, from far left to far right. Homosexuals, "faggots" and "dykes" are objects of intense hatred and many of the bodies left hanging by the neck in public belong to those of the banned persuasion. Religion has been revived from near death and now forms a centre-piece of the new reality. It is in fact an extreme Christian fundamentalism. Female modesty has made a spectacular come-back and is de rigeur - no plump breasts bursting out of inadequate restraints or hemlines barely below the privates. Even female hair is discreetly hidden in public as indeed it once was in days dimly remembered.

Is perhaps the allegory veiled behind the facade a warning? Is it a warning of what the more unhinged of American liberal/leftist fear Trump's America will lead to? If so, the revolution that's resulted in Gilead is, more correctly, a counter revolution - a revolt against the liberal revolution that began in the sixties. Fabled feminism, for example, has been rolled back with a vengeance. A loud-mouthed, whining me-tooer would be distinctly out of place here and possibly in great danger. "Gay" liberation is also no more, and homosexuals are desperate for closets to climb back into.

God, which was thought to be dead or at least seriously ill, is also back with a vengeance. He appears to be more of a Jewish god than a benign bearded type - one to be feared rather than one shining love onto the world. However, religion in Gilead in used like so many others throughout history, that is, as a supremely effective form of social control. The Handmaid's Tale, seen this way, is a kind of bogeyman. This is what you'll get unless you are forever vigilant and ready to defend the liberal revolution - a caricature of the AltRight meeting the Taliban.

Homeland   This is an American rip-off of a series originally produced in Israel. That's not to say though that it is not entertaining television. The protagonist, Carrie Mathison, played almost hypnotically by Clair Danes, is a CIA agent suffering with a Bipolar condition. As long as her finely balanced medication keeps the condition modified, it aids her in being a perfect fit for her job - fearless and as focused as a laser.

In season six, recently wound up, the American government is balanced on a precipice with right wing yahoo militia types racing around in the backs of trucks armed with the finest firepower allowed by the second amendment. The President has just narrowly survived an assassination attempt. The President is female. Perhaps it was envisioned that Hillary would be comfortably ensconced in the White House by the time the series aired. It doesn't really matter to the persuaders that this didn't pan out. They are sure that a female president will eventually prevail, especially after the public being softened up and gotten used to the idea by seeing a fictional female president. This runs along the same lines as the American public constantly being exposed to fictional black presidents which paved the way for Obama.

Cloaks, daggers, intrigue, complexity and the frenetic Carrie pin-balls from one crisis to the next but finally all is resolved. It was those damned Russians all along. Yes, it was the dastardly Russkis who never for once believed that the cold war had finished - it was they behind the attempt to bring chaos (one is almost reminded of Maxwell Smart's KAOS) , confusion and instability to America. This of course feeds nicely into the anti-Russian, anti-Putin vitriol that has been spewing fire-hose-like for years from the American media and their Neocon handlers.

For emphasis, President Elizabeth Keane pontificates in the denouement, about those Russians "who've been fighting us since the fifties". Absolutely no fault of the Americans who, just itching to get into World War 11, ignored the murderous track record of the Soviets, claimed them as their wonderful and eternal allies and armed them to the teeth in a combined effort to shatter Germany, and then when it was all over, ignored General Patton's advice, for which he was taken out, and allowed their good ol' buddies to devour half of Europe and then arm the communists in China, thus causing the US to "lose it". No, it was the Russians who were as singularly guilty as the Germans supposedly were in starting both world wars. The Soviet Union of course eventually collapsed under the weight of Marxist absurdities presenting an opportunity for peace and good will for all mankind. But where are you going to find an enemy as good as the Russians? Better move NATO right up to their borders and keep them ringed with nuclear missiles.

Berlin Station  Coming in late here means being confused but nevertheless still gripped. The Berlin Station is a franchise of the CIA in Germany's capital. Season 2 which has just wrapped up in Australia is of most interest here. Cunning CIA agents have infiltrated a "far right group" with the moniker Perspektive fur Deutschland (PfD). This naturally is a thinly veiled stand-in for Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) which performed spectacularly well in the last national election, becoming "the first far right party to win seats in the Bundestag since 1945" when those dastardly "Nazis" held power. This naturally had liberal/leftists world-wide wetting themselves.



The association of the fictional with the real political party is a royal shit-smearing job and one can only wonder at how a major defamation case has been avoided. Unlike the real party, the fictional one is staffed with fanatics, its leader in particular bearing a close psychological similarity to an amalgamation of a high ranking National Socialist officials. Worse still, it is a terrorist group planning a false flag act of major destruction and murder for which Muslims will wear the blame. Remarkably, the leader (one has to imagine his black uniform) says things that any sane, non-mind-controlled, self-respecting German citizen should be saying, things such as, "we are tired of being under American occupation and control", "it's time to stop wallowing in shame and lift our heads high", "how long must we keep paying and paying for our past?" Interestingly though, he doesn't overtly deny the holocaust. That would indeed be a bridge to far. Why waken a sleeping dog that's better off dead?

But of course in a context, or rather, a bubble, of liberal sweetness, these mutterings are made to seem so shocking as to be a cause of mature women clutching at their pearl necklaces and younger women swooning and falling to the floor. It could though be classed as an exercise as hiding in plain sight - let's lance the boil and see how truly noxious it is.

Harrow  Now that homosexual marriage has put the seal of approval on homosexuality, deeming it to be perfectly normal, television is proving to be a great aid in preventing us losing sight of this normality - backsliding, if you will.

This series pulls its weight in this regard. Harrow, the eponymous lead character in this, our own ABC series, just finished, is a slicing and dicing forensic pathologist who hasn't bothered to join MENSA (its members would probably be too dull for him). All in all, it's a well produced and entertaining programme featuring, apart from one character who is more of a caricature, high-grade acting. Harrow's sidekick cum assistant is the inclusion of inclusiveness. It's in fact a double-whammy of inclusion. He is not only homosexual; he's also Asian - and as sweet as can be. No, not that kind of sweetness, not flaming, but perfectly nicely masculine; in fact, the picture of normality. It's as though a young man you had just met told you he was going out on a date, and you asked, as you would, "dinner or a movie?", you asked instead, "boy or girl?" (Whichever, it's all right - perfectly normal - with me.)

In one episode when a man catches his teenage in flagrante delicto with the son's new best male friend, he reacts as most men would react - with rage, hurt and disappointment, perhaps not with the rage the character expresses but surely with intense emotion. When Harrow hears of this reaction, be explodes with moral outrage: "he did that simply because of his son's sexual persuasion!" To Harrow, the man's behaviour is pegged perfectly level with rage at finding his son was left-handed rather than right handed.



This though is just the thin edge of the wedge. Steel yourself for ever more, increasingly gut churning portrayals of "alternate" love and love-making. How about a new classification being added to TVs rating system to warn us of what's coming; something easily decipherable like HS - homosexual sex? Don't even ask. Keep your head down. You do want to stay out of those re-education camps don't you?

As well as drip-feeding a steady diet of homosexual homage directly into the frontal lobe, TV does an excellent job of spruiking the desirability of race-mixing. The character of Offred, solemnly played by Elisabeth Moss in the aforementioned Handmaiden's Tale, for example, was drawn to the dark side before her world was turned upside down, resulting in a milk-coffee-coloured piccaninny.  British television, however, leads the field in race-mixing characters (as well as minority women bosses, particularly police chiefs). A brief sampling of British offerings could easily have one convinced that white people were legally prevented from having spouses or even short-time sexual partners of the same fair race.

All of the above, far and away the most pernicious and insidious aspects of television, has unfortunately only touched on the totality of its far ranging toxic effects. The reason it is an advertiser's and propagandist's paradise is that it alters the brain to make it more amenable to outside control. After a remarkably short time, for instance, a TV viewer's level of consciousness is lowered to one just above sleep with brain activity being less than in sleep. This is the so-called alpha level of brain-wave, one similar to that attained in meditation and the level preferred by hypnotists for best results. It is in fact a hypnotic state. Best of all, from the perspective of those who desire to share your brain, television is addictive. Try not watching TV for even a week. It is as addictive as chocolate in as much as the endorphin releasing effects are the same. But you can only eat so much chocolate and most humans have the sensibility to realise that even if you could, eating chocolate six, seven, or eight hours per day will not lead to optimum health. It's not so with TV. What's the harm? is the question most would ask. The old more jocular than serious saying that TV will rot your brain has been proven to be correct. For the entire litany of evil, check out, if you dare, the following:

https://www.eruptingmind.com/effects-of-tv-on-brain/

And if you really, really must continue being transfixed by the glowing screen, at least try and remember that those on the other side of it do not really have your best interests at heart.

GIVE US YOUR VIOLENT MASSES

I could not have put this any better myself. Thanks to Pete Smith, Quadrant Online, May 9, 2018:

Confronted by gang mayhem, as happens regularly now in Melbourne, are police to wade in with stun guns and truncheons? More than an officer's career would be worth, once legal-aid activists weigh in with cries of 'Racism!' and the brass writes cheques to miscreants. This need never have come about.

Police were called to a rowdy party in North Melbourne at the end of April. Apparently up to fifty Sundanese youths were involved. The police got them to leave the premises but they created mayhem outside, including damaging police cars. The police took refuge in the townhouse rather than confront the youths. At least that is the way it was reported in The Age and in other news outlets. Also, according to a report in The Age, it was estimated that seven police officers originally attended the scene.

The precise facts of the case are not pertinent to my theme. What is pertinent is that the police were clearly well outnumbered. I heard some commentators imply criticism of the police, deflected onto those giving them riding instructions, for not confronting the thugs in the street. This is plain silly.

Police officers are human beings just like you and me. If possible they would like to end their shifts without incurring life-changing injuries. I once ran into the back of car in the centre of Adelaide. Three policemen where talking to a group of five or six disorderly Aboriginal men on a corner outside a pub. I called one of the policemen over to do the right thing and report the accident. He was young. He couldn’t have cared less about my prang and returned quickly to his colleagues. It was obvious. He was (very) visibly nervous at the prospect of tangling with five or six drunken Aboriginals when he was one of just three.

About week after the North Melbourne incident it was reported that some 150 youths of “African appearance” (presumably not disciples of Al Jolson) trashed a house in the Melbourne suburb of Footscray while the police stood by. Apparently, the police told the owner of the rented property that they could not enter unless she had proof that damage was being done. A strange business perhaps but would you like to face up to 150 youths, African or otherwise, behaving riotously unless backed by a SWAT team and tanks?

My point is that being seriously outnumbered, as was the case in North Melbourne and Footscray, is an impossible situation for the police unless there is confidence in an implied social contract between both sides. That social contract, which we have grown up with, is that the police will only act in accordance with their authority and, when they so act, that civilians – even when well outnumbering the police – will comply with lawful directions. Or at the very least will not turn on the police in a physically violent way.

I am prepared to guess that Sudanese youths running wild have not heard of this social contract. I am very sure the police suspect that they haven’t. What then exactly are the police to do? Perhaps they should venture forward with Tasers and truncheons at the ready. Good luck with that one. Of course, police have guns. But imagine what the media would make of them drawing them, never mind firing even warning shots? The police officers concerned would risk losing their careers and perhaps their freedom.

Our society, as its structured, cannot handle large gangs wreaking violence in public places. Gang members who injure and kill only each other is one thing. It is quite another if they run riot on the streets. We are not set up to handle it. Societies that are, Central American republics for example, look different to ours. You often see pictures on the TV of police weighing into rioters without a care for their welfare. We might tut-tut but exactly what do you do when large numbers of people are intent on violence?

There is no benign answer. In the case of the recent gang violence (and, let’s not forget, home invasions) in Melbourne, the answer would have been to have never let Sudanese refugees enter the country in the first place, or any refugees who pose the slightest risk to civilised values. Australian citizens come first, or they should. Unfortunately, successive governments have put their citizens at risk in order to satisfy do-gooder international conventions. That’s why Trump is so refreshing in simply trying to put Americans first. How novel is that nowadays! Australians injured by Sudanese violence should rightfully direct their ire at the political class who have conspired to put their safety in jeopardy.

As it is, there is little option but to go on increasing the militarisation of police forces. That’s what Islamic terrorism has already brought, together with intrusive searches, inconveniences and bollards. Sudanese gangs just up the ante. At question, I suppose for us ordinary Joes, is who next? Which people from which dysfunctional culture will be chosen next by politicians to supplement our population.

A passing thought. I doubt we would find white South African farmers trashing houses and running wild in the streets. Just a guess.

Peter Smith, a frequent Quadrant Online contributor, is the author of Bad Economics

COMING TO A MOSQUE NEAR YOU: SHARIA, THE SCOURGE FROM THE DESERT

It could only happen in a country which has decided it is "multicultural". First it ties itself in knots and then more knots result from the effort of trying to disentangle the original knots.

Once it is decided that all cultures are of equal value and because western societies - the only societies believing this nonsense - have led the way, oblivious to the fact that no other societies are following, high into the rarefied atmosphere of pure, unadulterated tolerance, it becomes exceedingly difficult to draw a line at where some things simply can't be tolerated. Child brides and female genital mutilation are two examples that spring to mind. But how about this for a solution, which in some areas of the world has already been adopted? We still adamantly refuse to tolerate it, but simply turn a blind eye to it. This creeping acceptance is the insidiousness we should fear as we would cancer.

 The two examples cited are obviously components of the medieval system of Sharia - Islamic law covering all aspects of earthly existence: social, economic, cultural and political. It has two forms. The first is Koranic, meaning laws strictly contained within the Koran, and Islamic, which comprises all the other rules and regulations which have evolved analogous to English common law.

So, what exactly is Sharia, when all boiled down? Depends on who you consult. Our very own multicultural broadcaster, SBS, (Should Be Shit-canned) helpfully explains: "Sharia encompasses all aspects of a Muslim's life.  The overriding principle is justice. It's very broad and includes ordinary ways of life, for example (sic) how you behave towards other people. Religious duties like prayer and fasting and giving to charity - which is very important." So said the press release quoting Dr Jamila Hussain, research associate the the University of Technology, Sydney. She continues, "it also includes how you behave towards other people. And it includes things like commercial law, inheritance law and family law." Ah, one can almost taste the cool, pure water, that is, the H2O which waits at the end of "the path leading to a watering place", the literal translation of Sharia, and something of course highly valued in a desert.

This is all so sweetly innocuous! It almost out-Christians Christianity. And here is something to surprise most Australians: "... most Muslims live according to Sharia everyday (sic) of their lives." Well, who would have thought? So what's the problem here? Is it simply panic amongst ignorant kaffirs who wouldn't know which way their arses were pointed let alone in which direction Mecca lies.

Fortunately, Hussain clears this up: "Sharia is the moral, legal and religious code followed by all Muslims, but [here's the kicker] made notorious by extremist groups like Islamic State wanting to implement hardline aspects of Islamic law." So there you are; it's simply a matter of interpretation of the Koran, the Islamic Holy book similar to the Christian Bible in that it's a kind of Rorschach inkblot in which different minds see different things. But wait a minute. It doesn't work that way. The Koran is the literal word of God as dictated to Mohammed. God's direct communication is not up for interpretation. He says what he means and means what he says. And he is in fact very "hardline".

This is why Isis claims that it's members are the true Muslims and all those so-called Muslim pussies who can't see a hard line when it's staring them in the face are as kaffir as any fun-loving Western degenerate and happily slaughters those whom we non-Muslim ignoramuses see as fellow Muslims, when killing a genuinely fellow Muslim is a sin grave enough to road-block the path to Paradise.

                                                                                                                                                                                            

Come to think of it, it's not just Islam's Murder Incorporated who follow the letter of the Koran and not just its vague spirit. At least six nation states share a similar reading: Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. For instance, death is promised to homosexuals in all six. What should be acutely painfully embarrassing to the mincing leprechaun and CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, is that the United Arab Emirates, with which the airline has a cosy relationship, is where girly-boys must really wish nature had not played such a lousy trick on them.

Only recently, nearer home, two men found guilty of homosexual hiding-the-sausage were publicly caned in the Indonesian province of Indonesia, a country seemingly perpetually occupied with staving off a secular regime falling to Islamisation, thereby becoming a theocracy just like full-bore, Middle Eastern Islamic states.

That must be the key, it would be easy to conclude, to the operation of Sharia - it can only thrive in an Islamic garden. Time for a rethink:

"A man who whipped a Muslim convert 40 times as punishment for drinking alcohol and taking drugs because of a [supposedly] 'contorted' belief in sharia has been jailed for at least 16 months, with a magistrate saying he had 'brought much shame upon the Islamic faith',he   Wassim Fayad, 45, was one of four men sentenced on Friday for the assault upon Christian Martinez in July, 2011". So reported the Sydney Morning Herald on June 14, 2013. The victim and idiot convert was apparently so shocked at this turn of events was not quite prepared to take his medicine lying down as it were. But could this small dose of Islamic retribution be merely the tip of a more widely operating de facto  sharia? And how much shame was really brought upon the Islamic community? Conversely, how much smug satisfaction was felt about true justice prevailing?



It's simply a numbers game. When numbers of outsiders are low and therefore vulnerable, they tend to keep their heads down and avoid making waves. Hence the apparent overwhelming majority of "moderate" Muslims in Australia - just trying to get along like their "fellow Australians". But as numbers grow,  moderation shrinks in inverse proportion. Witness London with its dwindling number of whites, its teeming numbers of Muslims and its very own Muslim mayor. The roaring demand for sharia would be in the range of decibels considered dangerous. And of course those hardy Brits, descendants of those who stoically endured the Blitz, have crumpled like stale lettuce leaves. Sharia "tribunals" now dot the the country. In the "no-go" areas, these so-called tribunals would naturally be full blown sharia courts. After all, in a country so gutless as to not interfere in the decades long sex-slavery of white girls by Mulsims, it's a given that the native British would in no way have the temerity to interfere in something as relatively innocuous as the exercise of sharia law.

But perhaps we shouldn't be singling out the Brits. All of Western Europe is after all pock-marked with no-go areas. In Malmo, the Swedish have virtually an entire no-go city. What goes on in these places? Does anybody really want to know?



For further illustration of how precariously Europe teeters at the edge of the precipice we owe thanks to On Target, May 4 ( https://www.alor.org/) for this timely reminder of the antics of the ISLAM Party growing furiously in strength in Belgium. "It would like to 'prevent vice by banning gaming establishments (casinos, gaming halls and betting agencies) and the lottery'. Along with authorizing the wearing the Muslim headscarf at school and an agreement about the Islamic religious holidays, the party wants all schools in Belgium to offer halal meat on their school menus." This along with "segregating men and women on public transport". Still, once you've lay on your back and spread your legs, you shouldn't be surprised when the vigorous thrusting begins.

Here in Australia, we have been softened up to the possibility of Sharia law parallel to our own by our perpetual attempting to come to grips with what to do about Aborigines. Deaths in custody. Numbers of Aborigines in jail wildly over-representative of total numbers. A plague of black domestic violence and child rape. Because of our egalitarian religion ruling out any other cause of these abnormalities, only one cause is left standing: white racism. We must atone. We must set things right. And the only way to do this is by shaking the centre pole of our legal system whose erection began with the signing of the Magna Carta and which is equality before the law.

We've played with fire by allowing a parallel legal system exclusively for Aborigines which effectively dispenses with equality before the law. This situation has not been helped by the egregious allowing of a separate flag to flutter alongside the one that is supposed to represent all Australians (how long that one will last is another matter).

Aborigines are grossly over-represented in the number incarcerated. According to those who shun reality as though it were wearing a Van Allen Radiation Belt, this phenomenon can't possibly be caused by Aborigines committing disproportionately more crimes. No! It is caused by - you guessed it - white racism (or simply racism, whites being the only race iniquitous enough to practice it). How is this so? Silly question. It is because, with every hominid being perfectly equal - decisions regarding Homo Erectus and some of the great apes still pending - Aborigines would be committing only a pro rata number of crimes identical to those of whites if not some other factor was operating.

Compounding this inequity is that Aborigines, it has been shown, do not like being locked up. Evidently surveys showing the number of whites who actually like being locked up have still not been concluded. The only solution to this morass of unfairness is lighter sentences for Aborigines committing the same crimes as whites. Non custodial sentences would be even better, because, it should be remembered, Aborigines have a distinct distaste for being locked up, not to mention it obviously infringing on their cultural practices. Try going walk-about when you are locked up.

The custodial issue is simply one of many in which legal applications differ. For example, Aboriginal children need to be in far more danger, lethal danger even, than white children before being removed from their environment. After the Stolen Children hoax, welfare services have been largely paralysed even when when three year olds are being raped to death. Domestic violence? Dished out as much as it was in tribal times when women were mere chattels? Let's not get involved in that. It's white men causing upset to their whining white wives who attract the Thor-like bolts of legal retribution.

"Pay-back", as any Aborigine worth his salt will tell you, is still alive and well. This is a legal system with long roots - at least 40,000 years long. This is where retribution is delivered in-house, as it were, by relatives of the aggrieved and/or other tribal members. Punishment for serious crimes such as rape and murder, for example, comprise five spear thrusts to each leg plus beating around the head with boomerangs and sticks. Before whites arrived in Terra Australis, the harshest punishment that could be inflicted was banishment which meant a lonely, lingering death. For obvious reasons, it is practised no longer. After pay-back has been effected, it's case closed. If white law has not yet determined who is the culprit, no real need appears to be felt on the part of those who have already dispensed justice to hand the perpetrator over. Importantly, no real effort has been made by white authorities to rein in the the pay-back system.

So why is this long digression germane to the argument being set forth here? It's because one doesn't need to be a legal eagle to know just how important precedents are in keeping the scales of justice balanced, and the additional legal slack allowed to Aborigines and no others is one hell of a precedent.

Are Muslims who are really so hot to establish sharia in Australia so dull that they haven't noticed this same precedent and be bridling at the hypocrisy they rightfully hear when being told that they can't also have their own legal system. How many Australian Muslims really want to see the practice of Sharia introduced into Australia? According to Jan Ali, a lecturer at Western Sydney University, "where there are Muslims, there is Sharia - no body without a head". So the answer to that last question would be ALL.

But the question remains, how much sharia is wanted in Australia? The Australian Muslim Women's Association tells us that only "fringe radicals" have called for Sharia in Australia and that no general call for it exists. But already, the obfuscation is glaringly obvious because, as noted above, it is already here, albeit only the most innocuous forms out in the open. But allowing the benefit of doubt, the AMWA might just be referring to the throat-slitting, hand-severing, head-stoning form that is still alive and well in so many parts of the world.




But remember, it is simply a numbers game. As experience has shown time and time again, as the numbers of Muslim invaders grow, so does the call for ever more authentic Sharia. Remember also; indeed do not ever forget, that the Koran encourages lying to non-believers if the interests of Muslims can in any way be advanced by it. It is called Al-taqiyya. Muslims and Jews have a lot in common in regard to the way the poor, dopey, long-suffering kaffir or goy can be treated.

  


.