STEFAN MOLYNEUX and LAUREN SOUTHERN: a tour de force

It's strangely warm for a Saturday night only two thirds of the way through winter. The city seems kissed by a zephyr from a balmier clime

The line of cops strung in front of the International Conference Centre looks intimidating and not in the mood for any nonsense. A posse of cops on the backs of their sleek and disciplined mounts standing to attention in a formation nearby look equally capable of zero tolerance. A fleet of police cars, including some of the mobile prison cell type, amplify the police presence. All this apparently without the outrageous price tag of $68,000 (aka protection racket) attached to an identical event by the commissars south of the border. (That's Victoria, not Mexico. However, it's sometimes referred to as Mexico by people north of the border.) But not a demented red-ragger in sight. Oddly disappointing. Welcome to the Sydney stage of the Molyneux/Southern roadshow. Spectacular Darling Harbour by night is a fitting location.

Inside the opulent Conference Centre, entrance to which is only allowed after having one's printed out ticket photographed, the security is airport grade. In fact, after placing all ones metal possessions and wallet in plastic basket and being subjected to a metal-detector scan, it's oddly reminiscent of being about to board a plane. Possession of a Swiss Army Pocket knife has this particular attendee sent on the long march back to the cloak room where the cloakers scramble to find a sticker small enough to match it with the issued ticket. Perhaps just a tad over the top. But then again, we  live in interesting times.

The walk to the designated auditorium, about as big as the concert room in the Opera House, again engenders a faint feel of air-port deja vu, taking as long as it does.

Inside the auditorium, filling up fast, one immediately feels the cosiness of a "safe space". It feels almost like a gigantic family reunion, which in a way it is - we are about 99 per cent members of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race, which of course is the next step up from an extended family - one held together by "the crimson thread of kinship". It goes without saying, this is nowadays a rare situation, the odd exception perhaps being a first grade Rugby League game - one in which Canterbury/Bankstown (a heavily Islamised area) is not involved.

Right on the dot of eight o'clock, the MC welcomes all to the event and announces the imminent appearance of Stefan Molyneux, who, when he strides onto the stage, thunderous applause explodes. The reaction is one normally associated with a movie star or rock idol.

Pacing back and forth (as he'll do for the next hour, clocking up perhaps half a K, all the time faithfully and expertly followed by a camera throwing the much larger than life image of him onto the screen behind him) he cracks his first joke, of which there'll be many. He's a well balanced combination of entertainer and bearer of a deadly important message. "Did you have any trouble getting past the protester?" he asks. Mirth rocks the audience. If spirits were higher, the roof would be lifting.

But down to business. This is an Australian audience so Stefan naturally enough cuts from the general to the specific, that is, issues specifically Australian. A a trained philosopher, the sharpness of the Moyneux intellect and his ongoing life as a scholar is immediately on display as he demonstrates the research he's done on one of the most dangerous fault-lines in the life of the nation: bitter, never ending Aboriginal squawking and weeping over "injustices", exploiting to the hilt the Australian version of pathological white guilt and self-hatred. This mess needs serious analysis and deconstruction, something of which  Stefan immediately proves himself to be eminently capable.

He begins to address a question that would have occurred to any thinking Australian: Is Aboriginal failure including living in "third world conditions" sufficiently explained by laying one hundred percent of the blame on white racism? Could perhaps a more compelling answer be provided?

Stefan begins to provide it. His homework has obviously included researching Aboriginal mythology. Every race has had its mythology. It has been a necessity. Humans have always needed some way of understanding and explaining their world. The difference though between Aboriginal mythology and all others is that the latter have always been superseded by  enquiry that has always followed doubts that perhaps total and ultimate truth has not been attained. Molyneux cites perhaps the greatest thinker of all time - Socrates who in his humility conceded that he knew very little, perhaps nothing at all. Naturally to be able to plan a journey, one must be sure of the starting point. This was Socrate's starting point from which he could move closer to truth.

On the other hand, mythologies that have ossified into unbreakable dogma have as a starting point - a starting point from which no progress can be made -  a belief that all that needs to be known is already known so no further searching for truth is required. To digress, this phenomenon is similar to the received wisdom of classical China that held that perfection had been attained so any change would be a retroactive step. Consequently, China remained petrified while the rest of the world progressed.

 People who point to the low average IQ of Aborigines as explanation of their continued failure are missing point, at least in regard to how Molyneux sees it. He cites the famous bell curve of intelligence which he maintains is applicable to every race.  What then happened to the many Aborigines who must have landed on the business end of the curve over thousands of years? Dogma such as already alluded to must be protected at all cost. It allows no room for boat-rockers. Anything is more tolerable than threats to beliefs so ingrained and with so much invested in it. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man must be king. NO, in the land of the blind, the seeing man is killed because the reality he describes is blasphemy to the blind. And so, superior Aboriginal men, potential leaders, men of vision, men who thought outside of the dogmatic square would have been perceived as deadly threats and done away with.

Even though, because of the egalitarian religion, the spinners of our Zeitgeist cannot accept anything other than white racism to explain Aboriginal failure, the reason given by Molyneux's is far more plausible and would be far easier to accept, that is, if people were allowed to think their own thoughts.

Molyneux chuckles at the Rouseauean romantic nonsense of of "the noble savage", especially as it is applied to "first Australians". As anybody who has ever taken the trouble to look at the work of early Australian anthropologists is, Molyneux is acquainted with the reality so distant from the notion of the idyllic life of peace-loving people living in perfect harmony with nature in a southern Shangri La. On the contrary, life in Australia before the coming of the white man was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". How else to explain the pathetically small number inhabiting the continent - estimated at around 300,000 -  after forty thousand years (now stretched to sixty thousand and growing). Infanticide was rife, as Professor Geoffrey Blainey concedes in his otherwise glowing account of early Aboriginal life in his Triumph of the Nomads. Over this almost geological span of time, millions would have had their skulls smashed on rocks or their mouths filled with sand or simply left behind to the elements and wild animals before they'd so much as sampled life.

With their superior men unceremoniously, or possibly ceremoniously eliminated and with constant warfare and infanticide keeping their numbers steadily pegged in accordance with the food supply available to hunters and gatherers living a hand-to-mouth existence, it shouldn't surprise that Aborigines made zero progress in the millennium of wandering the continent otherwise boasted about. And should it surprise that whites created a cutting edge civilization on this ancient land in the slim fraction of time available to blacks. Should it surprise as well that when a technologically advanced civilization collided with a stone-age culture, conflict ensued? That conflict involved more whites being murdered by blacks than vice versa, but of course all we ever hear about are "massacres" of Aborigines.

True to Molyneux's wanting to acquaint himself with the local situation, that is, a variation on the theme of of the havoc wrought by multiculturalism's devastating effect on the west, he tells of exposing himself to an experience endured every day by millions of Australians. He relates how with his entourage he inflicts on himself a train journey from the city out through the suburbs and finds his group within a short time being the only whites in the carriage. Of course it's worse for white locals travelling alone and perhaps wondering if that last tunnel was a portal into a parallel, non-white universe. Do I need a passport? The audience seems to gush with relief and gratitude that, finally, here is someone who understands. Molyneux knows how to work a crowd.

The time has flown by and he brings his hour's talk to a close. Again the applause is tumultuous and becomes even more so when he introduces his co-speaker, the lovely Lauren Southern who waits for the applause to die down, then immediately launches into an unvarnished examination of the deplorable way in which she has been treated by the Australian media. "Nazi (of course), "extreme right wing", "gun nut", "hate speech enthusiast", "dangerous" are just some of the epithets attached to her in the short time since her arrival down under.

Even a publication that portrays itself as centre-right - and to be fair, it's probably slightly to the right of just about every other element of the Australian media, but of course all things are relative. A pale red fish swimming in a red ocean might think of itself as being vastly different to to all the other fish of a darker red hue - has dished out an egregious diatribe of outright lies about Southern. It's clear that she has been affected by at, brandishing one of the offensive copies as she does. The article has gone further than simply slanting the news - it's a barrage of bald faced lies about Lauren's walk with a film crew through Lakemba, a suburb lost to multiculturalism - specifically Muslim monoculturalism - during which she was confronted by a police sergeant strongly discouraging the continuation of the walk on the grounds that it will offend Muslim sensibilities and possibly lead to disharmony, even violence.

The cop's efforts are nothing other than a brazen attempt to curtail Lauren's civil right, as indeed anyone else's right to walk along a public street and, further, to endeavour to engage people in conversation. Lauren, without arrest or trial, has been declared guilty here. The cop has abandoned his duty to protect her should her mere presence incite precious Muslims to inflict violence on her. The implication here is that it would be their right to do so. Lauren is essentially a potential blamed victim. As one of our braver journalists has noted, this strange legal principle would not apply should a group of enraged Christians spill out of a church to assail Muslim protesters. The Christians would be duly arrested, carted off, tried for assault and more than likely handed out stiff sentences. Their behaviour would after all be branded "hate crime".

Outrageously, the Sydney Telegraph, the copy of which Lauren has with her, backs the cop, sympathises with Muslims "threatened" by this slim, blonde girl with her pesky questions and agrees that she is indeed the culprit. And these dopes are confounded by the lingering death of the print media.

OK, she's gotten that out of her system. Now it's time for her incisive take on multiculturalism. Given that it's a fait accompli, in all western nations, how best to proceed with what used to be the nation state, the operative word being nation? Up onto the big screen goes a quote from Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull giving his view on how a country should proceed after succumbing to the multicultural disease. Taking is cue from the US as have all Australian politicians since swapping the British tit for the American one, Malcolm, in not so many words, has declared Australia a propositional nation, that is one not, perish the thought, defined by race or ethnicity, but by adherence to "values" such as tolerance, democracy, freedom, and respect for all, especially women, Aborigines, homosexuals, transvestites, cripples and those not of one's own ethnic groups - essentially for all except white, heterosexual males. He has not, along with all others of his ilk, explained though how this will work while flooding the country with aliens who have no respect for all of the above excluding heterosexual men.

Lauren generously concedes Turnbull's view on how a multicultural Australia should operate as being a legitimate opinion. However, why is it the only one allowed and why must all bow down before this iron dogma? (It's because globalists world-wide pull the strings, but just for the moment let's pretend for argument's sake that we live in a democracy with the sovereignty befitting an independent nation state.) Many other opinions would be just as legitimate. For example, given that multiculturalism leads inexorably to Balkanisation, why not cut straight to the chase and carve the country up into snack-sized pieces populated and governed by the different ethnic groups who already live here - a tribe in each square?

Or more realistically, accepting that we are stuck with this collection of not-so-united nations, but heeding the abundant evidence that full-blown multiculturalism can never be anything other than catastrophic, could we not return to the immigration model that was the intermediate stage between assimilation and multiculturalism, that is, one that expected integration but did not begrudge immigrant's pretending they'd never left the old country as long as they did it on their own dime and weren't zealously encouraged to do it with the ladling out of billions of taxpayers' dollars?

Lauren's talk is dotted with well utilised allusions to Nietzsche, Socrates, nihilism and other indications of a rigorous education probably more autodidactic than formal.  A BA with a major in Political Science was never completed. This undoubtedly would have had much more to do with the excruciatingly difficult experience a girl with her ideas would have endured at the hands of the neo-Marxists who invariable infest every western university than her lacking the intellectual fire-power or will to achieve. Indeed, the suspicion arises that the maturity on show tonight is evidence of an earlier life as a child prodigy. Considering her knowledge, commitment, flowing articulation, and confidence, it's difficult  to process the fact that she is a mere twenty three years of age. A lot of experience has been squeezed into these tender years; she's spoken at the European Parliament, braved howling mobs of would-be red guards, and learnt how to handle hateful media personnel with ease, making fools of leftist talking heads around the world as she has already done here with our own brainwashed media arse-clowns. Has it been mentioned she is also very easy to look at? She's every conservative thinking man's pin-up girl.

Her segment of the event also seems to have been time-warped. The hour has rushed by. One almost expects an encore being called for. Instead, boisterous applause erupts - perhaps even a decibel or two more than met the end of Stefan's presentation.

It's now time for the third segment of the event, a question answer section. Both Stefan and Lauren return to centre stage to be seated for this. On the way, Lauren gives a girlish skip almost as a reminder that she is after all only twenty three. Most of the the questions aren't the most penetrating or well thought out and the MC has to remind questioners on several times to stick to a question instead of a statement as is so often the proclivity on these types of occasions but the two Canadians on stage field every question thoughtfully and considerately - even one from a Brazilian who appears to be in the wrong place and wants to know what, if Australia were to close its borders, would happen to Brazil, voicing the wide spread belief that immigration into Australia should be for the benefit of everybody but Australians. For an instant, both on stage appear to be nonplussed. In the pregnant pause, none actually call out, but  many must be thinking, NOT OUR PROBLEM.

Will at least one of the questioners ask the burning question: who ultimately is behind mass immigration and multiculturalism? But no one does. In fact the Jew question has been kept well clear of throughout the night. It's a bit like being in Germany and remembering to not mention the war. Don't mention the Jews. But at least one member of the audience, albeit one too lazy to join the conga line of questioners, wishes they had. This to him is perhaps the one serious blemish of the event.

The line of questioners is still snaking toward the MC who has maintained an iron grip on the microphone in the face of many instinctive attempts to commandeer it, but as a book-signing is also planned for the night, the question and answer session is brought to a close. The MC thanks both Stefan and Lauren on behalf of the audience who second the gesture with a long, standing ovation.

The audience seems reluctant to leave but eventually begins to make its way toward the exits. A fresh breeze of inspiration, optimism and new hope is almost palpable. In the expanses of space outside the auditorium many, who have perhaps never met before tonight, stand in groups happily discussing what they've just experienced. It's unlikely any would not agree that it was eighty bucks well spent.

Thanks for the visit. Please come again.