WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS ACCURSED DAY?

Thank Christ for that! It's over and we won't be seeing it again for another year. I'm speaking of Multicultural Day, otherwise known as Australia Day. (For non-Australians, this is ostensibly, and once actually was, the commemoration of the planting of the English flag on the shores of what would become Sydney on January 26, 1778 by Captain Arthur Phillip.) Amongst other things, it's a popular day for the naturalisation ceremonies for blow-ins from all over the world. One more round please of the diarrhoea inducing dirge,  "we are one, but we are many and from all the lands on Earth we come". Bullshit! Most of us were born here, as were our immediate ancestors.

 However, the number one pastime on this day is wailing, whining and bitching from the Australian "invasion" brigade. Our ancestors didn't bring civilization to a savage land. OH NO, not by a long shot. On the contrary, they brought brutality, disease and the shattering of a sublimely peaceful Shangri-la - almost a perfect example of a loving brotherhood of man.  If only we hadn't come. The dreaming and total lack of any kind of progress could have lasted for another 60,000 years, NOT.

Obviously, this will go on ad infinitum. It will be the same every Multicultural Day - forever. You can bend over till your spin snaps; or bend the other way, assuming the position until your arse bleeds, it will never be enough. You can pay out billions every year, which taxpayers in fact do. Every public meeting can be presaged by the welcome-to-county nonsense; it will do no good. Films can be made like the recent disgusting Sweet Country, showing whites as hate-filled, psychotic brutes and Aborigines as tortured angels; it will only make matters worse. Even the recent sickening spectacle of our Prime Minister, bare-footed, face-marked and with his trousers rolled up doing some kind of chicken dance with near naked but suspiciously white Aborigines won't cut any slack for us. (Can you imagine Trump doing this?) The reason nothing will change is that, once victimhood has been achieved, it is far too valuable to relinquish. It can be cashed in for any number of goodies. This goes for Aborigines, women, homosexuals, transvestites and anybody else "oppressed" by the evil white man.

The cheer squad for all this rubbish comprises our left/liberal,greens. Do these idiots really believe that if the British hadn't come here when they did, no one else would have decided to come and take peek at the great, fabled southland? Are they so lacking in intelligence that the words "historical inevitability" mean absolutely nothing to them? OK then, I'll break it down into the most simple of terms. If the British who, in terms of colonialists, were probably the best of a bad bunch, hadn't claimed Australia, one of the other European powers at a  similar level of technological advancement would have. It could have been the Dutch who were less than amicably seen out of Indonesia. Or it may have been the Spaniards. Ask any South or Central American how well that worked out for them.

No Asian power was capable of colonising Australia and neither was any particular part of Asia interested. The original inhabitants - neglecting for argument's sake the large body of evidence supporting the view they weren't, in fact, the first inhabitants but rather the destroyers of an earlier race - really caught a break there given that the level of racism in Asia back then was even more prevalent than it is today. And that's saying something. Here, for example, is how the Chinese term of endearment for blacks translates roughly into English: "black devils".

 How about the term, "use it or lose it"?  Because of the population remaining stagnant at around 300,000 for tens of thousands of years because of rampant infanticide, the continent was far from being used. Feel free to provide the second part of the equation yourself.

But how the boobs fall for it! On this chest-puffing day, they are encouraged to let off a little, harmless patriotism. (Far better that than they start getting any fancy ideas about real but proscribed nationalism. So it's "oi oi oi, Aussie Aussie Aussie". (Again for non-Australians, this is our version of the equally moronic "USA, USA".) So let's throw some more snags (sausages) on the barbie (barbecue) and sink some more piss (beer). It doesn't matter really how pissed they get, because even sober they don't have much of an idea. How could they possibly care, or even know for that matter, that while they are wallowing in beer and chemically laden sausages and teary, sentimental patriotism, their country is being stealthily pulled right out from under them? Who will be the eventual owners is really a toss-up and still difficult to predict. However, a strong favourite is China. Why, only today it was reported that the Chinese government is paying for advertisments to be run in our cinemas proclaiming the virtues of the Chinese version of totalitarianism; it's called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and is really just the latest installment of China's "soft power" over Australia which is already well underway with the tsunami of brainwashed Chinese students controlled by the Chinese embassy crashing on to our shores as a ready made fifth element.

On the other hand, and this is symptomatic of the worldwide growing cleft between China and globalism - it remaining still difficult to predict how the globalists will be able to corral China within their fold - it could be that Australia will become, or rather become more, simply a geographical area peopled by a multicultural zoo, the descendants of the people who created Australia just a despised rump, otherwise completely deracinated, suffering induced historical amnesia, and an the country itself an excellent locality to be plundered by rapacious global corporations - in the words of crucified Professor Geoffrey Blainey, "a piece of good luck to be shared with the rest of the world".

But hey, who wants to give himself a headache thinking about all that shit? No worries mate. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow ...

SYDNEY SET TO FALL

HONG KONG ...  NO SORRY, IT'S HURSTVILLE - A TYPICAL SYDNEY SUBURB

Here's something to cause liberal/leftists to get either hard or wet: the Daily Telegraph of January 19 gleefully reported that "[i]n just over 10 years more Sydneysiders will be speaking a foreign language at home than those speaking English". And here's a surprise: "... in the five years from the previous census to the latest one, the number-one language spoken (apart from English) changed to Mandarin from Arabic which is now number two". Well, it would be a surprise if you weren't aware that Australia is fated to become a Chinese colony, with more and more Chinese flooding in every day under a variety of schemes and visas obviously designed to confuse those not paying strict attention.

The overseas student visa, for example, is a red-hot number. Getting one of these and studying courses in which generous leeway is allowed for students whose English is a little sub-standard (or even non-existent) because of our education industry's addiction to overseas money, gains the student a pole position when deciding to apply for residency and, ultimately, citizenship. And that often translates into yet another member of the Chinese fifth column currently going gang-busters in this hopelessly naive country.

The prospect of English becoming a minority language in this city (which of course is a euphemism for Whites becoming a minority) so thrills the staff of the Telegraph that part of the editorial of the same date weighs in with this: "... few cities on Earth are more diverse than Sydney. At the same time fewer cities on Earth are as cohesive, safe, welcoming and socially secure [whatever that means] as Sydney". (Italics mine). Obviously, Telegraph people need to get out more, and perhaps initiate conversations with the victims of multiculturalism: the native Whites of Sydney. They would soon realise exactly how cohesive and welcoming Australians are these days.

Or perhaps the scribblers peering through their rose-coloured lenses should stop for a moment to muse on the need for a Human Rights Tribunal ever ready to pounce on those alleged to be mean to people of colour (it, of course, is a one-way street and the HRT would never rouse itself if a mere White was being vilified) or the beefing up of the Racial Discrimination Act with section 18C. Possibly, they may spare a minute to ponder the fact that the term, "racist" hurled about so freely now, whenever a multiculturalist is in danger of losing an argument to a nationalist, was unheard of fifty years ago. It was then only a term used by Communists from whom today's Cultural-Marxists learnt it. It was also back then that Australia was a truly cohesive society, so cohesive that no one ever thought of applying the term to Australia sociologically. Maybe, just maybe, this heavy-handedness is essential for keeping society in Sydney and the rest of Australia "cohesive". Oddly, when Australia was monocultural, that is, a nation in the true sense, a Racial Discrimination Act was not needed, nor a Human Rights Commission soaking up twenty-five million dollars of tax-payers money every year. Why was that?

Maybe, if Telegraph reporters actually got out and around to speak with members of the working class, to whom their rag is aimed, with its never-ending childish puns apparently thought of as being enjoyed by those they so vastly underestimate, they may find that things are not quite as rosy as they imagine in this great city. They may even come to appreciate the explosive nature of the resentment bubbling under a very a thin crust.

Exactly why would those being racially replaced, and, moreover,  waking up to the fact, still be "welcoming". Just how stupid does the Telegraph imagine Australians to be? How does it imagine, for instance, that Australians are so wallowing in the joys of multiculturalism as they watch night after night televised reports of pathologically greedy Chinese, organised in syndicates, stripping supermarket shelves of baby formulae in order to send it back to China at a two hundred percent mark-up. Possibly, it would be safe to surmise that they are not entirely happy at seeing food stolen from the mouths of babes. Interviews with Australian mothers desperately trying to locate formulae for their babies is heart-rending. But why should the enterprising Chinese care about the dopey round-eyes? That's not the reason they came here. They come here for the same reason their ancestors came here during the gold-rushes: the abundant opportunities for people as enterprising as them to make easy money - free of any silly, sentimental qualms.

It's also debatable that Australians are really thrilled about a continuing influx of people who hate us and our way of life and aren't all that concerned when the more unhinged of their brethren take it into their heads to mow us down on streets and footpaths. Yes, I'm referring to the adherents of that well-known religion of peace. A "welcoming" society? If you happen to be a White native of this country and decide to venture into one of the ghettos carved out of the country by these peace-lovers, check to see how welcomed you feel. Old residents of these once all-White areas found out to their sorrow and cost how, not only unwelcome they were, but also how offers-that-couldn't-be-refused were attracted by their reluctance to move. However, Australians are considered to be so sub-par of intellect that they are incapable of extrapolating from what is happening in Western Europe in order to preview their future unless current trends are reversed.

Even people not living in Australia would have some idea of how the majority of the population hugs the coasts of this huge continent. They would, therefore, have an inkling of how much our glorious beaches mean to us. A long-standing Australian tradition is of leaving one's possessions on the beach while taking a dip in the surf confident in the knowledge their possessions would still be there when they returned. It wasn't fail-safe, but close to it. That is now changing, courtesy of "youths of African appearance" who have become beach-combers, and not in the usually accepted sense. Reports have surfaced of these youths operating in gangs scouring the beaches for the low-hanging fruit of wallets and purses and other goodies that can be picked up while their owners are absent. Whenever other sun-bathers have tried to intervene, they have been brutally bashed.

Incidentally, it was our beach culture being abused that was the trigger for the so-called Cronulla riot. On that occasion, Australian youths became fed up with so-called Lebanese-Australians sexually harassing and insulting Australian girls and with the unthinkable crime of a life-saver (a revered volunteer lifeguard with a long tradition) being beaten up - a bit of a rip in our cohesiveness that day.

But back to the African-appearing youths: these have ridden in on one of our more recent waves of enrichment but have shown an amazing ability to make up for lost time. Just yesterday (January 22), in fact, it was reported in The Daily Telegraph that a "[p]olice have arrested 10 members of a youth gang they believe attacked and robbed at least five people around railway stations across Western Sydney".

"The gang, made up of youths of African appearance, calls itself the "BMF" (Black Mutha F ...[uckers]) and carried out the assaults over two weeks in the Blacktown area, [appropriately enough] according to police."

However, in the same article, Western Sydney University criminologist, Michael Kennedy, took issue with the word, "Gang" used in the article's headline. Splitting a semantic hair, he wanted to assure Sydneysiders that, "[t]here is not a gang problem in the Sydney Sudanese community at all".

This bullshit started in Melbourne where Africans somehow became ensconced before the problems they brought with them began manifesting in other areas which now include Queensland. Marauding packs of "youths of African appearance" have been terrorising our southern neighbours for some time now, to the point that many Melbourne citizens state that they are now too afraid to venture out at night and consequently restaurants began feeling the pinch. There have been several savage battles between Africans apparently split along tribal lines.

The incredibly politicised and politically correct Victorian police, marching to the tune of an extremely left-wing State government, have done little to stem the violence. The marauders continue marauding with virtual impunity. Instead of doing what is their reason for existence, Victorian police have been using up an obscene amount of energy trying to convince the people they are sworn to protect that there really isn't anything to worry about because Melbourne simply does not have a gang problem.

The next time someone is mugged or simply beaten up for the fun of it, it is apparently imagined that great solace will be provided to the victim in knowing he isn't suffering at the hands of a gang - just a collection of Blacks who've come together on an ad hoc basis to dispense an ad hoc arse-kicking.

Here, in fact, we have imported into our country - our Shangri-la of social cohesion - "the most successful example of multiculturalism ever" - "South African style violent home invasions, car-jackings and armed robberies", as described more honestly by Miranda Devine in her column in today's Telegraph (January 23)

Of course, the real test of our cohesiveness is yet to come. That will be when our atheistic Chinese communists face-off against our fanatically religious Muslims. Now they will be "interesting times" as the Chinese curse goes. Saying, may you live in interesting times, is a bit like pointing the bone at someone.

TIRED OF BEING PUSSYFIED? BOYCOTT GILLETTE AND SWITCH TO SCHICK

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


















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


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

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

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

BOYCOTT GILLETTE RAZORS Leave them to the lady-boys.

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

GENIUS SCIENTIST BROUGHT DOWN BY LILLIPUTIAN IDIOTS

JAMES WATSON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BORROWED FROM HENRY MAKOW - TOO GOOD TO PASS UP

THE WOLF SHEDS ITS SHEEP'S CLOTHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WORLD GOVERNMENT IN EMBRYO

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

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

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

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

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