Chinese Hate Crime Terrorist wanted “Revenge on White People”

1
This is both a hate crime and terrorism. From news.com:
The Chinese national suspected of pouring hot coffee on a baby in a park wanted “revenge on white people” after he was denied another Australian visa, a friend in China has claimed.
There are several points to unpack in this opening paragraph. The Chinese man who poured a cup of hot coffee on a baby committed a violent act. This violent act was motivated by a racial grievance against White people, thus it was a hate crime. This violent act was also politically motivated due to his anger at being refuse a visa, this it was politically motivated violence, the very definition of terrorism. Obviously, if the roles were reversed this would be front page news and the culprit would already be locked away for life. Importantly, he didn’t commit terrorism against any random multicultural person, he committed terrorism against a White Australian. This demonstrates that for all the government’s proclamations that Australia is a multicultural country, foreigners rightly perceive Australia as being a White nation. The only people who are not allowed to acknowledge this is White Australians.
Baby Luka was with his mum in Hanlon Park on August 27 when a man, who the family had never met, poured hot coffee on the baby before fleeing – leaving him with life-changing injuries. The man’s identity was finally revealed by with Chinese media this week, with sources saying he is a 33-year-old national who had been in Australia on a mix of working holiday and student visas.
This news is just as explosive. It confirms that foreigners use working holiday and student visas as a back door to permanent residence and citizenship. This implicates universities as accomplices in Australia’s mass replacement immigration Ponzi scheme.
Police in Queensland only managed to identify him themselves after he’d already fled the country, with an international arrest warrant out for his arrest. But with her baby’s alleged attacker still on the run, Luka’s mother has now asked: “Where is he now?”
Queensland Police are equally complicit, given they refused to provide an accurate description of the Chinese man in order to avoid “creating bias”. This compounds the irony, given the man’s act of terror was racially motivated against White Australians. This reveals the nature of the Australian Regime. Our rulers hate us, they are replacing us, and they facilitate terror against us. White people across the West are waking up to this fact. Remigration is the headline policy of so-called “far right” parties across Europe, and Donald Trump is openly calling for mass deportations. In Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party continues to send mixed messages on its commitment to Anglos. It commendably advocates for zero net migration, yet its representatives tacitly support multiculturalism. For Australians to have a country again, mass deportations must be carried out. For this to occur White Australians must take power. If One Nation proves an insufficient vehicle with which to achieve this goal, another party will take its place. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

Martin Place Humiliation

It is natural and normal for a conquerer to build a monument or holy place on the ground of an important military victory, or over the holy sites of its subjugated foe. Islamic conquerers are no exception, with the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the cultural appropriation of the Hagia Sofia being deliberate desecrations of Christian holy sites. Thus the appearance of a black cube at Martin Place is intended as an act of ritual humiliation. From The Noticer:
Australians have reacted with anger and disbelief after a Muslim monument was quietly erected in the heart of Sydney near the scene of a 2014 Islamic terror attack. On Monday Anglo-Celtic advocacy group the British Australian Community shared a photo of the object, a replica of the Kaaba in Mecca, with the caption: “An Islamic black cube erected only 50 metres from the Lindt Café, and 200 metres from an Anzac Memorial in Martin Place, Sydney.” Two innocent Australians died in the Lindt Café siege after being taken hostage by an Iranian Muslim refugee, and the 10th anniversary of the attack is just weeks away.
….. But this is not the first time the replica Kaaba has been erected in Martin Place, with Muslim former Labor Party MP Shaoquett Moselmane celebrating the display earlier this year. He described it as “a unique and historic initiative. First of its kind anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere”. In April Muslims marked the end of Ramadan by taking over a large swathe of Martin Place to pray, sparking an angry response from ADH TV host Fred Pawle, who called it a form of “colonisation”. “If [the fallen soldiers] saw this they would wonder why they bothered fighting at all,” Pawle said.
This stamp of occupation demonstrates that muslims consider the Martin Place terrorist siege a military victory over White, Christian Australians. It also coincides with the establishment of a taxpayer funded official whose role is to criminalise any opposition to this stamp of occupation, plus a similar position for a representative of another Middle Eastern faction. Curiously, the so-called “Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia” has promised to criminalise public opposition to his purported enemy in a current foreign war.
“Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not mutually exclusive: where there is one, you most likely will find the other, lurking,” he said. “I don’t intend to use this role to advocate that one form of hatred is more important than another: both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are unacceptable.”
This is very telling. For almost a year the various factions of the Middle East have been bunker busting: Blowing off balls: And raining missiles on each other. So what? For an Australian, they may as well be on the same side, and the public statements of Clownworld’s high priests make this very clear. However the gaslighting continues unabated, as the establishment relentlessly attempts to convince Aussies to pick a side.
The fact remains that each is as anti-White and as anti-Christian as the other. Moreover, the Australian government continues the policy of mass replacement immigration of people that hate us at a net rate of over half a million a year. Joel Davis aptly summarises our situation:
“Jews have been publicly calling for deporting the Muslim anti-Israel protesters all year, yet their pressure groups that actually lobby the government have done NOTHING to push for it. This is because Jews don’t actually want them deported, they know they piss off right-wing White people and help them market Zionist sympathies to niave patriotic Whites. ”These calls by Zionist Jews for deportations is nothing more than a PR exercise. We have seen this script with no follow through play out already many times before over the past 12 months both here in Australia and across the Anglosphere. The only people in this country with a genuine political will to deport these browns are White Nationalists, and when we send them back we will be sending the Jews back with them.”
Put simply, the only friend White, Christian Australians have is each other, and Jesus Christ. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

How to Fix the Australian Housing Market

1
This short video outlines the current state of the Australian housing market. Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are now ranked in the top ten list of the least affordable housing markets in the world, with Sydney coming in at number 2, only beaten by Hong Kong. The video lists various causes for this state of affairs, among them mass immigration, an unwillingness to build high density housing in already established suburbs, a dysfunctional approval process for planning for new builds, and negative gearing. There are other factors at play, but what the video doesn’t discuss is a possible solution. Well, I have one. The Australian housing market is a speculation market. More people enter the market to make money on their purchase than they do to enjoy the luxury of having a roof over their heads. As such, the property market is now priced out of reach for most people seeking to purchase a home for the first time. One of the long held beliefs of the Australian way of life was that it was possible to own a home on just about any wage. That Australian dream has been destroyed. Who contributed the most to destroying it is up for debate. Due to the rampant speculation and mass immigration, (over 650,000 immigrants entered Australia in 2023, an increase to the total population of almost 3% in just one year), it is now almost as expensive to rent a house as it is to pay off a mortgage. As a result, families are now being forced to live in tents or their vehicles. No government solutions to this government created problem are on offer as there are now too many people with their fingers in the investment pie to risk making any major changes. So my proposed solution is simple: outlaw landlords. Make renting illegal. The only way to move into a home is to own a home. All of those investment properties would have to be sold to people who intended to live in the house itself. The market would correct itself in a very short time. How to achieve it? Singapore successfully pulled it off by massively increasing stamp duty on the purchase of a second home, (around 300%). To prevent flipping a home to make a quick profit the government passed a law that a new purchase cannot be resold for five years. But my preferred option is to just outlaw landlords. So much more satisfying. Coupled with a ban on immigration and incentives to send recent arrivals home with cash bribes, (say hi to Sweden), then young families would be able to easily enter the housing market at a reasonable cost. Of course, those who did manage to enter the market will see their properties plummet in value and will be underwater with the banks. Perhaps outlaw usury as well? Sounds like a win-win to me. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

P. Diddy and the Pedo Elite

0
Jupplandia (2300 words) The Weinstein of Rap, the Epstein of Music-just how many such cases have to emerge before we look at these things without being afraid of the label ‘conspiracy theorist’? The gangster rap mogul Sean Combs has had quite a fall. Diddy (previously P.Diddy, previously Puff Daddy) sat the top of the US music industry for decades, not just (or even primarily) for his own output as a rapper, but for his influence and power as a music producer, executive and owner of the Bad Boys record label. Combs has 3 Grammy awards (from 13 nominations) and is credited with the discovery and cultivation of artists including Biggie Smalls, Mary J.Blige and Usher. This was a man who didn’t just make hit records. He made other stars too. And in doing so he built a fortune estimated as between 800 million and 1 billion US dollars at the start of 2024. His personal friendships (and rivalries) cover almost the entire US music industry and much of the entertainment and political establishment too. Diddy was a frequent supporter and personal friend of Barack Obama who campaigned for Obama, supported multiple Democrat Party fundraisers, interviewed Obama in 2004 and was said to ‘hang out’ with Obama whilst he was President. He also campaigned for and befriended Kamala Harris. To be fair, and in a pattern that reflects that of other very successful sexual predators (Weinstein in the Hollywood film industry, Epstein as a mysteriously rich businessman, or Britain’s DJ and charity activist Jimmy Savile), Combs seems to have taken every opportunity he could to interact with powerful people across the political spectrum, something which the constant lobbying industry, desire for celebrity endorsement, and realities of campaign fund-raising all make remarkably easy for a famous individual with huge wealth. Combs was a star connected to other stars and a person hovering on the edge of billionaire status (in other words, about twice as wealthy as Epstein). One of the remarkable things about the purchasing of power and influence today is how cheaply many politicians can be brought (in the UK, the current new Prime Minister is in trouble over donors paying the personal clothes allowance of his wife-astonishingly, a very senior British politician was available so long as somebody picked up an annual clothing budget of about £7,500). Whilst the Obamas, Pelosi’s and Romneys of the world are soon multi-millionaires in their own right, the parties they lead, the campaigns they conduct, are voraciously hungry for donations. A Presidential campaign swallows up eye-watering sums, and PACS require hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s even before we talk about personal greed and corruption, how much of the funding goes into the politicians own pockets. The sheer cost of a major campaign creates a curious effect-these politicians need so much money to operate that they will sell themselves pretty cheaply. What this means is that a person who can bring them BOTH millions in fundraising AND positive publicity (especially the kind that can swing large sections of the votes of minorities or young people) has an instant inside-track to top politicians. Any of these people can become a ‘buddy’ within a few phone calls. Today, all that ‘friendship’ isn’t doing Sean Combs much good. His political allies have been silent, and his celebrity friends have been busily deleting their social media accounts (Usher, Megan Fox, Pink) in an apparent attempt to scrub the history of their links with Combs. Usher was one of P.Diddy’s discoveries, promoted by him when Usher was himself only 15 years old (in turn, Usher became a ‘mentor’ to a 15 year old Justin Bieber). Interestingly, Usher is the only Combs linked celebrity to comment so far on the scramble to delete accounts (claiming that his doing so was in response to his account being hacked and nothing to do with the Combs case). Meanwhile Diddy himself is currently incarcerated facing charges which include sex trafficking and blackmail. One of the things that made Combs famous in the past, a celebrity that celebrities wanted to know, were the lavish parties he hosted. These went on for something like 20 years and were a very popular part of the celebrity social scene (far larger in scale than, for example, the Playboy parties Hugh Hefner used to host). Current accusations now state that these parties essentially ended up as huge orgies orchestrated by Combs. FBI raids at his properties have recovered a sort of sleazy industrial scale of sex, recovering hundreds of dildos and whole vats of baby oil and lubricants. All this would be grim or exciting (depending on your tastes) but still within consensual realms, were it not for the fact that these parties are supposed to have included in most cases young girls (and boys) deceived or coerced into participation, some of whom were definitely underage. Crucially (and underlying the trafficking case) these dupes and sex abuse victims were transported to the parties for the sole purpose of being abused. The current understanding is that these participants would be groomed with promises of stardom and record contracts, told that they were ‘dating’ Combs, and then persuaded or bullied into orgies that Combs filmed and/or participated in himself. Sex tapes could then be used for blackmail against both the groomed youngsters and the celebrities who participated. Combs world then, and his power and influence, has rapidly fallen apart since the release of hotel CCTV footage of him violently assaulting and beating a former partner in a hotel corridor (Cassie Ventura who also launched a lawsuit accusing him of sex trafficking and for blowing up her then-boyfriend Kid Cudi’s car. The video of the assault on Ventura was aired by CNN on May 17th 2024). Commentators have noted a key difference in this case, too, compared with the Epstein, Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and Weinstein cases, which is that the charges under which Combs is being held are stronger and include the full definition of sex trafficking (something not quoted in the other indictments). It’s suggested that this stronger wording makes it likelier that Combs will offer up evidence about other participants to mitigate his sentence. All this though is primarily a sordid and predictable tale which hardly surprises anyone. That the world of gangsta rap should be pretty disgusting and exploitative is only a surprise to those who still pretend that US black culture is healthy and decent, rather than being the demographic base most distorted by welfarism, family collapse, crime, gangs, moral degeneracy, drugs, divorce, single parenthood and the devastating effects of Democrat patronage. It’s called ‘gangsta’ for a reason, and the reason is that violent criminals in the most blighted black communities started out as gang entrepreneurs. Half of the most famous of these people ended up killing each other. Half again started out as pimps and drug dealers. Their lyrics glorify street sewer capitalism, praising the shallowest materialism and the sexual politics of the hedonistic, animalistic gutter. The money from forcing girls into prostitution or dealing drugs was reinvested into record studios and music careers, with newly minted ‘executives’ and ‘artists’ whose primary lessons in business practices came from cutting cocaine or making Cindy or Rochelle fuck another six guys a night for a smaller share of the proceeds. Who the hell can be surprised that some of these people turn out to be rapists, or that turning a blind eye to rape became an executive trait in the music industry once these sort of people were bringing in the biggest profits? The hamburger theory of politics asserts that the ‘meat’ of society is in the middle, that the healthy part where profit is clean and work is honest and most of the good of society gets done is in the middle, with the very top and the very bottom of society being the ‘bun’-less substance, less goodness, less worth, less nutrition-sandwhiching the majority. If the burger shrinks and the bun grows, everyone starves (materially and morally). But should we use this analogy in a more directly moral sense? Should we finally be honest on the most disgusting crimes our society can witness-shall we be honest on the exploitation of women, on sexual abuse, on rape, on child rape-and say that these things are again most common at the extremes of society. They are most common in the crack houses of the poorest neighborhoods, and in the parties of the very wealthy. These are the settings in which they flourish, far more than in the middling and average households of the ordinary citizen. These crimes are more common in the Third World. They are more often committed by savages from backwards and failed nations (which is what makes mass immigration from these places such a social evil). But they are also most common in the plush film producer’s multi-million dollar private apartment, or the parties where every participant is too rich and powerful to feel bound by such a feeble thing as morality. The gutter billionaires of gangsta rap combine both these backgrounds, and it shows. Of course, mainstream society doesn’t want us to be honest about any of this. It doesn’t want us to be honest about the moral as well as the financial failure of the US black demographic. It doesn’t want us to be honest about the understanding of female and child rights common to Third World and Islamic immigrants. It doesn’t want us calling anyone savages anymore, and sees that as a far greater crime than the savages raping our children. It doesn’t want us to know that civilization is fragile and what strength it has is only built and preserved with firm borders and even firmer moral codes. We are supposed to ignore that open borders create opportunities for vast child sex trafficking, and ignore that those claiming compassion towards refugees and migrants are actually facilitating the most disgusting crimes imaginable. And at the same time we are supposed to ignore how many of our elites, billionaires, politicians, journalists and leaders are ALSO sexual savages and predators. We are supposed to think that it’s crazy to think there might be Satanic pedo gangs in charge of western nations. We are supposed to think its just coincidental that case after case after case of individual pedo behavior emerges from institutions like the BBC. We are supposed, every single time, to think that everyone who befriended a pervert did so accidentally and innocently? But the coincidences start getting more ridiculous and extreme than the ‘conspiracy theories’, don’t they? The death of Epstein is more suspicious than the leaps of intuition in an Epstein ‘conspiracy theory’. The fact that Obama was covering up his gay rough trade lifestyle gets suspicious. The fact that 65,000 US dollars seems a lot to spend on innocent pizzas for a single party gets suspicious. The fact that people keep dying around senior Democrats like the Clintons and Obama gets suspicious. The fact that year after year nothing is done about hundreds of thousands of missing chidren gets suspicious. The fact that all these agencies and resources can’t stop child sex trafficking gets suspicious. The fact that the whole Hollywood establishment praised a known child rapist for years (Polanski) gets suspicious. The fact that a Belgian pedophile sex killer had huge sums of money with no known origin in his account gets suspicious, and the fact that a Belgian judge was removed from that case after suggesting top level political involvement gets suspicious. The fact that people who later turn our to be pedophiles can spend years interacting closely with the richest business leaders (Bill Gates), most powerful media and entertainment figures (Oprah Winfrey) and serving Presidents (Obama) without any of their security teams or agencies spotting that this person is a pervert gets suspicious. Oprah has been close personal friends with at least five major sex abusers. Is that normal? Are we supposed to keep thinking that’s normal? Of course it isn’t proof of complicity or shared inclinations, but by God, its getting to be an awful lot of coincidence, isn’t it? That poor woman. Imagine accidentally befriending a pervert. Then accidentally befriending another one. Then another. Then another. When does the bad luck stop? Perhaps we should look again at things like Pizzagate. Perhaps we should ask again why a whole swathe of senior Democrat figures apparently enjoy collecting artworks that depict abused children. That’s normal too. right? But, no, Pizzagate was thoroughly debunked. It was crazy nonsense. Remember the excellent mainstream journalism that debunked it all from sources like ABC News. The ABC News that employed James Gordon Meek as a senior producer-a man convicted in 2023 of distributing and owning thousands of child pornography (lets be more honest-child rape) images. But no, no, all this stuff about pedo networks is absolutely insane, isn’t it? We should follow the advice of respectable media organisations like the BBC on this sort of thing. Remember when the BBC helpfully explained to us how to detect conspiracy theories, how to avoid disinformation, how to discern truth? That lecture was delivered by Huw Edwards, who has just been given a (itself disgustingly lenient) six month suspended sentence for the possession of images of child rape (of children as young as 7 years old). It’s not just the gangsta rappers, is it? All of this revolting filth, moral degeneracy and sickening crime is most common at the top and the bottom of society. The vast majority of people, still, thankfully, aren’t engaged in these sorts of crimes. But the more you let the powerful censor and hide information they don’t like, the more they do it. And the more you import savages from barbaric nations, the more they do it. The only unique thing about a billionaire gangsta rapper who does it is that his story combines the worst of the street with the worst of the elite. This article was first published at Jupplandia Substack and Richardson Post.

Bergoglio is the perfect Vatican II pope

0
In the Catholic world today, you either accept Vatican II or you reject Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II then you are a sedevacantist, you know, those crazy people. All other positions accept Vatican II in one way or another. Those faithfully attending a Traditional Latin Mass but who still accept Bergoglio or any of the other five claimers of the title of pope since 1958, they also accept Vatican II. Ann Barnhardt, I am looking at you. Barnhardt accepts Ratzinger as pope, which means that she must also accept Vatican II as Ratzinger was a pope under Vatican II. Stands to reason. Why then is Barnhardt upset at Bergoglio saying that all religions lead to the One True God? For Bergoglio is merely stating publicly what Vatican II itself declares as truth. Don’t believe me?
Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) Lumen Gentium Chapter 2. The people of God 16. “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.” 3. “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”
These passages from Vatican II essentially state that rejection of Christ is not a rejection of the One True God. It implies that the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church. Which is a heresy. And if you submit to it then you are a public heretic. But wait, there’s more.
Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration of religious freedom) 2. “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be force to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits.” 2. “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”
Yes, Vatican II explicitly states that man has a right to worship who or what he wants, and that man has a right to be wrong. Which is a contradiction. Which is not possible under the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But there it is. I mean, how many of you nominal Catholics who hold so strongly to Vatican II popes have actually read the documents of Vatican II? Bergoglio is just reading from the textbook of Vatican II. He isn’t saying anything new that hasn’t been taught or assumed for the last sixty or so years. This is what all of the Vatican II popes have lived under and promoted. Why do you think John Paul II met and celebrated leaders of false religions, as did Ratzinger. Paul VI regularly praised other religions.
Paul VI, Address, Sept. 18, 1969: “…Moslems… along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 2, 1969, p. 2.)
Why get your knickers in a knot about Bergoglio? This has been going on for decades. The Bible has this to say about Christ’s Church:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it  [Matthew 16:18]
Vatican II teaches and propagates heresy. Either it is not of the Catholic Church or Christ was wrong. If it is not of the Catholic Church then anti-popes have been reigning for sixty years and the buildings and public positions of the Catholic Church have been taken over by heretics. But the Catholic Church does still exist because a small group of priests and bishops refused and still refuse to toe the line to public heresy. Bergoglio is not an outlier. He is a prime product of Vatican II. He is Vatican II. If you accept Vatican II then you must accept Bergoglio and accept everything that he says as truth, because he is simply reiterating what Vatican II expressly states. So stop acting all shocked and surprised. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Dictator Dan is Toast

0
Strong evidence indicates that in 2013, a drunk Daniel Andrews crashed his car into a teenage cyclist, then relied on a corrupt Victoria Police force to cover up the crime. From Sky News:
An expert review into a near-fatal crash involving Daniel Andrews’ family SUV and a teenage cyclist has accused Victoria Police of engaging in an “overt cover-up” to avoid implicating the former premier. An expert review into the car crash involving Daniel Andrews’ family SUV and a teenage cyclist, commissioned by the cyclist’s family, has accused Victoria Police of engaging in an “overt cover-up” to avoid implicating the former premier. Teenage cyclist Ryan Meuleman was hospitalised in January 2013 following a collision with the Andrews family SUV in the beachside suburb of Blairgowrie. According to police records, the vehicle was being driven by the former premier’s wife, Catherine Andrews, with the couple both insisting the vehicle came to a “complete stop” before turning right and being “t-boned” by Mr Meuleman’s bike. But a new review by a former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner has determined the SUV had likely been “travelling at speed” and had cut the corner before striking the bike. The 36-page review by Dr Raymond Shuey, the state’s former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations, claims the Andrews’ version of events is “improbable and implausible”, and concludes the police investigation in the incident – which supports the Andrews’ version of events – was “deeply flawed”, “unfounded” and “contrary to the available evidence”. Pointing to the fact the traffic incident system report submitted by police had recorded the vehicle’s driver as “Catherine Louise Kesik” – Ms Andrews’ maiden name – Dr Shuey accuses Victoria Police of engaging in “an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash”, stating the “failure by supervisors and reviewers to identify this or seek explanation is inexcusable.”
They hoped nobody would know, and nobody would be able to find any police records.
The former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner also accuses the former Victorian premier of constructing a version of events that was “clearly intended to place fault on the cyclist”, pointing to Mr Andrews’ claims the cyclist “absolutely T-boned the car”. The review – based on an analysis of FOI documents, witness statements, and Dr Shuey’s own reconstruction of the incident – finds that contrary to the official version of events, the near-fatal crash was “definitely not a low-speed vehicle impact”. “It was definitely not a high-speed bike impact against a slow speed vehicle – otherwise the flip motion of the cyclist would have been in a different and opposite direction to his actual trajectory,” the review states.
A further Sky News television segment reveals more irregularities:
  • Police initially claimed they had breathalysed Mrs Andrews but later admitted they had not.
  • Police did not quarantine the scene.
  • The Andrews were allowed to drive off in their unroadworthy vehicle, despite it being a crucial piece of evidence.
  • A witness claimed they had seen Mrs Andrews in the passenger seat.
  • A police officer at Rye took over the investigation and called back a unit which was closer to the scene.
  • The investigation was closed at 6pm the same day.
This stinks. It deepens suspicion of systemic corruption at the highest levels in Victoria, given that Daniel Andrews has walked away from multiple corruption inquiries with barely a scratch. Moreover this fits a pattern of behaviour from the Andrews family, whereby they tell fantastic lies to cover for Dan’s foibles. Remember his explanation – slipped on wet steps – for how he completely disappeared from public view in the middle of the longest lockdown in the world?
Oh, no wait, here we go.
These were the steps which put him out of action, apparently. We don’t believe you Dan. Could it be that you really were bashed senseless by one of the Fox crew for making a pass at someone’s teenage daughter? It is rumours such as this that hint at the real power structure in Victoria, and which could ironically indicate that Dictator Dan’s time is up. Melbourne witnessed the greatest protests in Australia’s history immediately after the lockdowns ended.
Melbourne, Freedom protest in November 2021.
However, the lesson we learned was that protests do not dictate policy. Power brokers astroturf approved protest movements in order to convey the impression of popular support for unpopular policy changes. Case in point, witness the hilarious police response to BLM protests. However, when Victorian construction union members protested against vaccine mandates, Daniel Andrews and his Victoria Police lackeys panicked. This was because his power base was revolting, and he needed it. Victoria is to a large extent run by unions (along with several other factions…) These very same unions have been embroiled for months now in scandal, with the open secret of organised crime links finally receiving a fair airing in the national media. Meanwhile new Premier Jacinta Allan is looking down the barrel of electoral defeat as Victoria’s housing crisis worsens. In such circumstances, a visit to India and promising to bring even more smelly Indians to Victoria is not a good look.
Fury over Victorian Premier’s India trip: ‘Bringing in more people to take our housing’
When Roman Emperor Commodus faced the prospect of the revolting plebs breaking into his palace and tearing him to pieces in AD 190, he threw head of his Praetorian Guard out of the palace window to quell the raging mob:
The people… demanded with angry clamors the head of the public enemy. Cleander, who commanded the Praetorian Guards, ordered a body of cavalry to sally forth and disperse the seditious multitude. The multitude fled with precipitation towards the city; several were slain, and many more were trampled to death; but when the cavalry entered the streets their pursuit was checked by a shower of stones and darts from the roofs and windows of the houses. The footguards, who had long been jealous of the prerogatives and insolence of the Praetorian cavalry, embraced the party of the people. The tumult became a regular engagement and threatened a general massacre. The Praetorians at length gave way, oppressed with numbers; and the tide of popular fury returned with redoubled violence against the gates of the palace, where Commodus lay dissolved in luxury, and alone unconscious of the civil war… Commodus started from his dream of pleasure and commanded that the head of Cleander should be thrown out to the people. The desired spectacle instantly appeased the tumult… From Edward Gibbon, The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire.
It bought him a little more time…. The pressure is mounting on Dictator Dan’s allies. Nothing ever changes, especially in politics. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

The Public Sin of Elle Macpherson

1
Australian celebrity and ex-supermodel Elle Macpherson is in the news for the awful crimes of thinking for herself, disregarding the views of experts, and practicing body autonomy. Elle’s misstep with polite society was to reveal in passing in an interview that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer seven years ago, but after consulting with around 30 specialists she had decided to forego standard medical treatment and opted for an holistic approach, the result of which is that she is in remission. The mainstream media on the orders of the pharmaceutical industry has dutifully gone batshit crazy, with the various medical associations coming in at a close run second for losing their minds. The vitriol directed at Macpherson needs to be read to be believed, with this article in The Guardian being a particularly nasty example. The various media editors have been careful to make sure that all such articles attacking Macpherson have been written by women, since any mere man would naturally be an awful misogynist if he dared to criticise as such. So much for the loyalty of the sisterhood.

Her treatment decision has come under fire from cancer experts, including Dr David Robert Grimes, assistant professor of public health and primary care at Trinity College Dublin, who tweeted:

“Incredibly irresponsible from Elle Macpherson: Holistic therapy is NOT valid treatment for breast cancer. So entitled that a multimillionaire with access to best healthcare advises women to ignore medical advice.

“Ample evidence this bullshit kills people.”

There is also ample evidence that chemotherapy and other nasty treatments kill people too, but only after keeping the patient miserably alive for long enough to plunder all of their remaining financial resources. Officially approved death by medicine is condoned and good. Off the reservation quack treatments are bad and unacceptable, particularly if the patient in question has the audacity and bad taste to survive.

The Cancer Council says it does not recommend alternative therapies.

“Alternative therapies are often promoted as ‘cancer cures’, but they are unproven and have not been scientifically tested. They may cause harm or suffering to those who use them instead of conventional medical treatments,” it says on its website.

The harm and suffering caused by chemotherapy and radiation treatments are of course all well and good, seeing as when you eventually die from them at least your loved ones will know that they were scientifically tested and approved. Elle Macpherson’s interview would have slipped off the radar in a matter of hours; it’s not as if the world is hanging on every word published by the Australia Woman’s Weekly. But for some reason the media was instructed to go into overdrive, and their damage control became the very damage itself. But why is it socially and morally unacceptable for an individual to choose their own treatment for a disease that is attacking their own body? One of the lessons of the Covid scam was that the powers at be do not want individuals deciding for themselves about how to treat their own illnesses. Seeing as they are beholden to pesky charters of human rights and the like, for now they are unable to unilaterally legislate that only governments can decide the cures that you will take. As such, they are limited to propaganda, scare mongering and the demonisation of those who have the temerity to think for themselves. But I have no doubt that in the future if they have their way that citizens will be obligated to attend doctors’ clinics on a regular basis so as to be “correctly” diagnosed and receive the “approved” treatments paid for by the compulsory health care which they are forced to pay for, and all for their own good of course. Public figures like Elle Macpherson are a direct threat to this financial merry-go-round, and for that reason they must be immediately attacked and discredited so that all “good thinking” people will be immune to their siren calls of unapproved treatments. Macpherson’s biggest sin was to cure herself. The very last thing that the cancer industry wants is for a cure for cancer to actually be discovered by the general public. The day that happens the entire gravy train grinds to a halt, and it is by now a very large gravy train indeed. Cancer rates are on the rise, the general public keeps consuming artificial food, and our children are pockmarked with over 60 vaccines by the time they reach an age of double figures. All unconnected, of course. Look over there at that bad Elle Macpherson! Look at how old she looks! Look at what crazy people she associates with! Shun her, unclean! Unclean! Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

The real reason the Australian government is banning kids from social media

2
Remember that time a homosexual cross dressing child groomer was prevented from reading subversive literature to children in a public library due to the rightful outrage of locals, so the Victorian government intervened to let the homosexual cross dressing child groomer read subversive literature to children at state parliament? The very system which grooms your children claims it wants to ban children from social media for their own safety:
SYDNEY, Sept 10 (Reuters) – Australia plans to set a minimum age limit for children to use social media citing concerns about mental and physical health, sparking a backlash from digital rights advocates who warn the measure could drive dangerous online activity underground. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his centre-left government would run an age verification trial before introducing age minimum laws for social media this year. Albanese didn’t specify an age but said it would likely be between 14 and 16. “I want to see kids off their devices and onto the footy fields and the swimming pools and the tennis courts,” Albanese told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. “We want them to have real experiences with real people because we know that social media is causing social harm,” he added. The law would put Australia among the first countries in the world to impose an age restriction on social media. Previous attempts, including by the European Union, have failed following complaints about reducing the online rights of minors.
For several months, the Australian government has pretended to engage in consultation regarding plans to ban children from social media. As seen during Covid, their standard operating procedure is to normalise a policy before implementation. Removing children’s access to social media will reduce the access of groomers to children. This is a good thing and should be done by parents regardless. It will also reduce the access of ClownWorld “intelligence” agents to mentally retarded children whom they can groom and set up as so-called “domestic terrorists”. As argued previously on The XYZ, if governments wanted to prevent children’s access to porn they should ban porn, as it is bad for everybody. Similarly, social media has a net negative consequence society-wide but as the example at the beginning of this article demonstrates, the stated goal of the government belies its true intent. Strong pockets of the internet, including this website, are some of the only public spaces remaining in the West where state-sponsored child groomers will not try to convince children to mutilate their genitals. To our earthly masters, this is intolerable. Moreover it is considered outright “terrorism” to not only refute assertions that White people are guilty of the original sin of “racism”, but for White people to actively organise politically to resist our replacement via mass immigration. Unless children are homeschooled, our psychotic governments and the mass media have a monopoly over our children’s minds. The internet is one of the few places where children who question the narratives forced down their throats can access the truth and network with likeminded people. This is the reason why the Australian government is pretending to care about our children. This upcoming legislation should be viewed in the context of plans to establish a state issued digital ID and digital currency. In time the ban will extend to adults deemed “problematic”, then to basically everybody. It is yet another node of the digital control grid designed to control every aspect of our lives. The eventual restriction of the internet to all but a privileged few will indeed have the upside that children can spend more time kicking the footy and playing on the swings. Deprived of social media dopamine hits, White kids can also learn to box, lift weights and pray together, and make lots of White babies. ClownWorld should be careful what it wishes for. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

Good People who Live in Evil Societies

1
In this article I wish to expand my thoughts that I expressed in my previous piece, Only Societies that Treat Women as Property Survive. I have no doubt that the ideas in that article and the manner in which I expressed them ruffled a few feathers. So I think there needs to be a more thoughtful examination of just why the points that I put forward are so important and relevant to where we are today as societies and communities. In any society there are good people and bad people. Good people usually function from a position of good intent in their actions, and bad people tend to do the opposite. But people’s actions are always framed within the society in which they live. It is important to keep this in mind, as if a society itself is fallen and it has turned towards evil, then good people in general will be affected by that and their actions will tend to fall in line with the prevailing norms of said society. In an evil society, good people will habitually do bad things. That is the greatest tragedy of such a malformed society. I gave the example in the previous article of fathers blindly sending their daughters away to college. The good people who are fathers think and presume that they are doing the right thing because that is what their society demands of them. They obey and in doing so they commit evil. Their daughters are invariably changed for the worse by the experience, and in many cases their lives will be ruinously affected. In the same society, bad people will do bad things anyway. Perhaps they abuse their daughters, or directly neglect them. But invariably in such a society they are not held to account. Their badness blends in with the overwhelming noise of corruption within which they hide and thrive. In a well ordered society, good people will adhere to the just and right laws and traditions on which the society is based. In the case of treating their women as property, they will do so not out of a desire for power but from an act of love. Patriarchy, true patriarchy, is love. They protect and by doing so they act out their love. They do not just teach their daughters to value and protect their virginity, they also instruct their sons on how to treat women and to not go around deflowering virgins. If a son does grow up to be a cad and does attempt to go around deflowering virgins, then the laws of the society will cause punishment to be inflicted upon him. He will not nearly hide his bad behavior so easily, and the consequences will be severe. Our society today talks a big game of valuing women, but in reality, in its actions, it does not value women at all. Women are free in the sense that they are free to squander their lives chasing after the goodies that society has told them will make their lives better and worthwhile. Anyone objecting to this state of affairs will be attacked. A good example of this is the tradwife movement. Objections to the idea of societies treating women as property tend to focus on what bad individuals will do in such a situation. Instead, the focus should be on how such societies work in general, and how such environments can allow women and men and their children to flourish. No honest appraisal of the state of affairs of the family in Western societies today could ever suggest that men and women and children are flourishing. The best examples of such societies throughout history have been Catholic. Something worth considering. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Victoria’s lockdown debt only the tip of the iceberg

0
Rebekah Barnett The most locked down state in the world is spending $26 million a day – $9.4 billion a year – on interest alone to service lockdown-driven debt A leading credit rating agency has blamed the Andrews Government’s prolonged lockdowns for Victoria’s ballooning debt, as the state stares down the prospect of a credit rating downgrade within the next year. Victoria’s capital, Melbourne, had the longest lockdowns in the world – six lockdowns with a cumulative total of 262 days throughout 2020 and 2021, during which time many businesses were shuttered while workers lived off benefits. Anthony Walker, director in the sovereign ratings team at S&P Global Ratings, said that only five or six years ago, “Victoria had the best financial outcomes” in Australia, but that the Andrews Government’s lockdowns had created fiscal conditions that Walker described matter-of-factly as “not positive.” “Definitely the prolonged lockdowns and the number of lockdowns during Covid were the key that drove this,” Walker told Tom Elliot on 3AW radio. “What we’re seeing now is that most other states around the world have recovered from Covid financially. Australian states, not just Victoria, are lagging. “Our understanding was that the government didn’t really care about the financial, economic costs. “They just wanted to get the health outcomes correct. Well, that came at a massive fiscal shock, and they’re still trying to recover from that.” Walker said that “very difficult decisions need to be made” about government spending going forward, as a looming credit rating downgrade would direct more state funds towards paying off higher interest fees on debt, potentially sending social welfare programs or infrastructure projects to the chopping block. Walker’s comments come as Victoria is currently paying $26 million dollars a day – $9.4 billion per year – on interest repayments towards the state’s $156.2 billion debt, projected to rise to $187.8 billion by 2027-28, for a population of approximately seven million. Victoria’s net debt is projected to be 24.4% of gross state product (GSP, which calculates the value of goods and services produced by the state) by June 2025. Walker said that budget blow outs and funding shortfalls on several large infrastructure projects could create further downward pressure on Victoria’s credit rating. The Airport Rail Link is projected to blow out by $2 billion due to delays, and the Metro Tunnel project has been beset by problems contributing to around $3 billion in added costs. A third project, the Suburban Rail Loop, is facing a $20 billion funding gap. Victoria’s credit rating was already dropped by two levels – from AAA to AA – in 2020, a move that Walker said had never been done before for a state government.
Graph: ABC.
Economist: ‘Worst peace-time policy failure’ Professor Gigi Foster, an economist at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) said it was clear since as early as March 2020 that Victoria’s lockdowns would carry enormous economic costs. “I am sorry to say that I stand by my predictions that Covid lockdowns will go down eventually as the worst peace-time policy failure in Australia’s history,” Foster told me. “There is no world in which forcing an economy to pause indefinitely carries no cost, because economic activity is the engine that powers the maintenance and gradual rise of human living standards.” Foster cautioned a Victorian Government committee in August 2020 that continued lockdowns would cause greater loss of life years and wellbeing than they would save, but “sadly, my warnings went unheeded.” Instead, Foster was singled out for abuse for highlighting the potential harms of Victoria’s extreme lockdown policies. “I was pilloried by others in my profession, called many derogatory names by dozens of people over email, on social media, and in studio audiences, and told many times that my professional opinion about lockdown policies was of no value (or was even “dangerous to public health”) because I was not a health practitioner or epidemiologist,” she said. Foster’s analysis of the societal, economic and health merits of Victoria’s Covid lockdowns found that the costs were 68 times greater than any benefits afforded. Foster has also co-authored a book-length cost-benefit analysis of Victoria’s lockdowns with ex-Victorian Treasury economist Sanjeev Sabhlok, and a peer-reviewed paper with economist Paul Frijters in which the authors conclude that Australia’s lockdowns were “a disproportionate and largely ineffective policy response” to Covid, which went against decades of scientific consensus.
Professor Gigi Foster. Picture: Stuart McEvoy.
Epidemiologist: ‘Harm the economy, harm human health’ Stanford University epidemiologist Professor Jay Bhattacharya also faced blowback for his warnings about the harms of lockdowns, being targeted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins for a “quick and devastating published take down” of his views, and being censored by social media platforms under pressure from the Biden Administration.1 Bhattacharya told me that criticisms of lockdowns were wrongly seen in terms of a trade-off between saving lives and protecting the economy. “In fact, there was no trade-off as the lockdowns did not ultimately protect human life, and they devastated the economies of the countries that most assiduously implemented them,” he said. “A second related fallacy is the idea that economic harm does not translate to harm to human health. The opposite is true. “Poorer populations lead shorter, less healthy lives. Accounting for economic harm should be a vital part of public health thinking, even during a pandemic, if human life is to be preserved.” In October 2020, Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration with epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff (Harvard) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), calling for ‘focused protection’ of the most vulnerable instead of wholesale lockdowns. This approach is now widely agreed to be the least damaging and the most effective. But Bhattacharya said that Australian media, with the exception of Spectator and Outsiders on Sky News, were “quite hostile” to this idea during the peak days of the pandemic in 2020-2022. “The point of view adopted by much of the Australian press seemed to be that zero Covid was a permanent achievable goal, with no regard for the ultimate futility of the strategy and the harms to health and welfare imposed on the Australian population by the policy.” Victorian Government: ‘Economic growth is what matters’ A spokesperson for the Victorian Government said, “At the height of the pandemic we used our balance sheet to protect families and businesses, savings jobs and saving lives, and since September 2020 we have led the nation in jobs growth. “Our fiscal strategy is strengthening the economy and providing opportunities for Victorians, with more jobs created in Victoria than any other state since we came to government. “Deloitte Access Economics data forecasts that Victoria will lead the nation in economic growth over the next five years.” The spokesperson added that the Victorian Budget 2024/25 is “the first time net debt to GSP has dropped since 2017.” Foster is sceptical. “If you actively damage the economy, lowering the baseline of activity and jobs, then it’s a lot easier to create growth in both from that lower baseline and then crow about it,” she said. Former Premier Dan Andrews, who was responsible for Victoria’s Covid lockdowns, has not publicly commented on Walker’s statements blaming his policies for the state’s dire debt situation. However, when previously challenged on his draconian Covid policies, Andrews has tended towards defending his record, highlighting that he was re-elected in 2022 after the worst of the lockdowns, and refusing to “apologise for saving lives.” Nearly three quarters of Victorians supported the Andrews Government’s extreme measures in the first year of the pandemic, polling shows. This year, Andrews was awarded Australia’s top honour, in part for “eminent service to public health.” Looking ahead Foster said she is concerned that Victoria’s debt woes are “only the tip of the iceberg.” “Far more negative effects on Australia’s health, wealth, and happiness will be seen in the coming years stemming directly from our colossal mismanagement of the Covid era.” But it’s not all bad news – there are things that can be done to improve the situation, said Foster. “The government should significantly reduce its own numbers and its own pay checks, reduce red tape in industries across the board, refocus on its core mission of providing high-quality, easily accessible basic services and public goods to all Victorians, [and] open all state affairs to public scrutiny.” The government should also set up a process to “manage the acknowledgement of betrayal, hearing of pain, apologies, trials, and other components the people of the state will need to heal” from pandemic mismanagement, she said. With the Covid pandemic in the rearview mirror, much of the focus is now on lessons learned. Asked what we can learn from Victoria’s pandemic management, and lockdowns in particular, Bhattacharya is frank. “Victoria is an example of how not to handle a pandemic. Authoritarian government is bad public health policy.” This article was first published at Dystopian Down Under and Richardson Post.

How to Destroy Their Democracies

1
Jim of Jim’s Blog has posted a definition of the left and right in regards to politics. What interests me is not his definition of the left, but rather that of the right.

rightism

has no beliefs. Rightism should be the party of order, or at least the party of existing order, but it is the party of applecart owners and people with an emotional attachment to Chesterton’s fence. Its existence is provoked by the party of the left.  As a result, conservatives conserve yesterday’s leftism.  The party of the left is a priesthood.  The party of the right is not a priesthood, nor does it have a priesthood in its pocket.  It does not actually have any beliefs to believe in, so it tends to wind up in the pocket of the priesthood of the left …
I can find no disagreement in his description either of the left or the right. But allow me to expand upon his reasoning with some of my own. Democratic politics exists as a support foundation for the beliefs and priesthood of the left. The right side of politics only exists as a result of opposition to the policies and priesthood of the left. As far as the policies of the right existing in any form, it can be determined as a wish to be left alone and for nothing to change. Unfortunately for the right, stasis is not a valid method of capturing the imagination and aspirations of a population. The left can exist without the right and is always happy to do so until it ends up consuming itself. The right cannot exist of its own accord as it has no priesthood. Man cannot live on bread alone. The great trick of democracy was to give the populations of the nations of the world an illusion of choice. In reality there is no choice, but only a never ending move leftwards with periods of inertia or slowing down as the right temporarily seizes power and attempts to undo some of the recent damage done by the left. Once the left resumes power it immediately rips off the bandaids applied by the right and continues its move ever leftwards. When the right regains temporary power once again it repeats its action of plastering over the latest damage done by the left, while assuming the policies of the left of a decade or so earlier which it had previously attempted to fix. This has been going on in active form since the French revolution. The three power groups of the world are the State, the Bankers, and the Church. The Church’s power was openly attacked with the French revolution and was rendered powerless with the passing of Vatican II. Since then it has been a power struggle between the State and the Bankers. The Bankers are teetering on the edge of consuming themselves as their financial pyramid scheme reaches its natural end point. As dissidents our only option to defeat the left is to revive the Church and the power of the priesthood. Our priests of God against their priests of equality/climate change/socialism/feminism etc. It is often said that we won’t be able to vote our way out of this, but it is often misunderstood what that implies. Yes, it is a question of power, but not one of only brute physical force. Every nation where that has been attempted reverted back to leftism with the death of the strongman, see the 20th century history of Chile or Spain. Nations under God with a true Catholic priesthood and no mention of freedom of religion, freedom of speech or separation of Church and state is the only way out of this trap. Such a government would have to be a Catholic monarchy. The left spent over two hundred years destroying those monarchies and replacing them with their democracies. We might need a similar amount of time. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

QANDA Panellists Waffle in Defence of Multiculturalism

0
Last Monday, on their ABC’s QandA, a very brave Australian woman was somehow allowed to question the official religion of the Australian Regime: Multiculturalism. From news.com:
A question on ABC’s Q+A about the benefits of “multiculturalism” in Australia has sparked outrage, with some asking how producers allowed it to air. Audience member Jenny Carrol told the panel and the live national audience on Monday night she doesn’t believe multiculturalism is a “great thing”, claiming the culture of the “original British/Irish majority has been demonised constantly for the last three decades”. “Case in point – frequent vandalism of memorials to Captain Cook. How does democracy fit into this atmosphere of beat up the white guy?” she asked, later adding Captain Cook was “just doing a job”.
Egyptian panellist Azza Mahmoud Fawzi Hosseini Ali el Serougi, who uses the pseudonym “Anne Aly” to pretend that she is Australian, smirked condescendingly, accompanied by laughter from audience members. This is one typical response from Australia’s establishment to the insistence by Anglos that we have a right to exist. The other typical response is theft and assault, arson, false arrest and false imprisonment. Belying her initial arrogance, all Azza could do was waffle in response:
“Take a look around you. We are multicultural. It’s who we are,” Dr Aly said on the program.
No. Azza does not get to use the word “we” when referring to Australians, because she is not an Australian and has no right to tell us who we are. Multiculturalism was forced upon us without consultation nor with our consent.
Dr Aly, who moved to Australia from Egypt when she was two-years-old, told the audience multiculturalism has brought the country “immense benefits”. “I’m not talking about being able to have some soy sauce on your sausage roll or being able to wear a sari or any of those things,” she said. “I’m talking about democracy is more resilient and is better when there are diverse ideas, diverse thinking, diversity of faith, diversity of cultural backgrounds. Democracy is better for it.”
This is self evidently wrong. Diversity by definition means division. Diversity divides us, and a house divided cannot stand. The response from Roxanne Gay was equally vacuous:
New York Times best-selling US author Roxane Gay said Australia’s history is “not that complicated”…. “What is the thing that makes you feel oppressed by acknowledging that there are other cultures in the world and that we should create space for all of those voices to be heard?”
This would have to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Of course we know there are other cultures (ie races) in the world. There is plenty of space for them. In their own countries. White people are the only people denied a country of our own. There is no logical or moral justification for multiculturalism. It is a policy designed to prevent Anglos from organising politically to advocate for our own interests, while allowing anti-white activists such as Azza and Miss Gay to advance their own competing ethnic interests. However, it was the meaningless waffle of former Liberal Party Attorney General George Brandis which was the most telling. The man who utterly failed to quash 18c attempted to play both sides of the fence.
Australian National University Professor George Brandis KC, who was Australia’s 36th Attorney-General and worked as Australia’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom between 2018 and 2022, said it “isn’t an either or question”, claiming Australia can “accept Australia is a multicultural society” without “disrespecting British heritage”. “We want to be the best multicultural society that we can be. On the other hand, that doesn’t — at least to my mind — involve disrespecting the British heritage, which was a very important framing set of values for modern Australia,” he said.
This is utterly nonsensical. Australia was founded as a homeland for White Australians. Multiculturalism is diametrically opposed to this foundation because it claims that anybody from anywhere can be an “Australian”, and that the Anglos have no exclusive claim to the title of Australian. It is very much an either or question.
“When we think of our legal system, our parliamentary institutions, our system of government, our commercial practices.” He added the vandalism of Captain Cook statues angers him as much as the audience member, Jenny. “So many of the fundamental features of Australian society we owe to our British heritage. And rather than be ashamed of that, we should be proud of that,” he said. “It infuriates me when people vandalise statues of Captain Cook, and it angers me as much as I’m sure it angers you.” He also called Australia “one of the world’s most successful multicultural societies” as the country has now reached a point where “we’re proud of our very, very ancient Indigenous heritage” and the “more modern British institutions that go back to 1788”.
This fence sitting lacks basic logical consistency and reveals the utter lack of morals both of Brandis and the Liberal Party he used to represent. The Liberal and Labor parties have a tacit agreement to keep mass replacement immigration and multiculturalism off the political agenda. The two major parties pretend to fight each other but ultimately they are on the same side. This is why, if ever we are to overthrow the religion of multiculturalism and reverse the policy of mass replacement immigration, the Liberal Party must be destroyed so a genuinely national party which represents the Australian people can rise from its ashes. In order to bring this about there are three main approaches. The British Australian Community advocates utilising the system of multiculturalism against itself to promote the ethnic interests of Anglos.
Alternatively, Australian nationalists flatly reject the multicultural religion and stridently insist that foreign invaders must leave. Most importantly, we must as individuals and collectively as a nation repent of our sin, follow Jesus Christ and restore the patriarchy. Fight on all fronts, I say. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

Only Societies that Treat Women as Property Survive

1
Over at Sigma Frame there is a discussion on whether the onus should be on women to control themselves and police each other as regards to matters of fornication. This was prompted by a twitter exchange between a man and a woman where the man ended his response with the following bolded line:
“So what’s the solution? For an individual, it starts with foregoing fornication and seeking potential mates who are doing the same. And practically speaking, that means deliberately seeking marriage at younger ages before fornication ruins them. On a societal level, it means penalizing fornication again to restrain it — first socially (i.e. bring back slut-shaming) and eventually legally. And men, it should be clear by now that women aren’t going to suddenly start restraining themselves, so it has to start with us.
The guys at Sigma Frame took exception to the part in bold.
It’s called moral agency — WILLPOWER BABY!  Women (and men) who lay the blame on men for female promiscuity are denying female agency.  They’re saying that women are mere children, helpless victims of their own hypergamy, incapable of making their own choices.  Remember, immaturity is latent evil.  So laying into this tack is a roundabout way of saying that women are evil and they cannot be helped.  This is disrespectful and unloving to women … … Women are conformists, but they conform to the female herd consensus and The Narrative™ more than authorities (e.g. father, husband, pastor, God’s law, etc.). There needs to be a critical mass of queen bees who start policing their respective cliques and peer clutches to do what is right. So again, the onus is on women.
I’m going to have to strongly disagree with this. If the onus is on women then you are experiencing societal collapse. No nation or kingdom in the history of mankind has survived women having sexual moral agency. Women’s sexual instincts are to go after men who are cads. The more sexual partners that a man has had then the more that he is attractive to women. This type of scenario implies a severe lack of impulse control and an attachment to short term thinking. For the individual cad, this is not a problem. For the woman this is a problem. For a society, this is the worst thing possible save the barbarians at the gates, and even the barbarians are survivable in comparison to this threat. Women cannot, do not, and have never in the history of mankind policed themselves in this matter. To be impolite, you are fucking deluded if you think that women would ever show leadership and police themselves in this regard. The onus is and always has been on men to keep their women under control and to protect them from their own bad instincts. Frankly, our western societies are so far gone in this regard that I doubt they will survive the awful mistake of female emancipation. If they are to be saved then it will have to happen with the coming generations. Which means fathers protecting their daughters with the active and understanding support of their wives. They must be on the same page on this. It means raising your daughter with complete awareness of the realities of the sexual marketplace. And very simply that means that the more sexual partners that a woman has had then the less attractive she will be to men. This is the exact opposite of what women find attractive in cads. Daughters need to be raised and taught that they must protect their virginity at all costs . And then fathers need to actively protect and support their daughters. This means that on no account would you send your teenage daughter away to college, as but one example. You raise her correctly and then you actively help her to find a prospective husband within your community. You don’t leave it up to chance. You don’t allow her to go out into the big bad world and “find herself”; you may as well throw her to the wolves. You treat your daughters as property that must be protected and you make damn well sure that her future husband will be up to the job of protecting her. This is how societies behave that expect to survive. Your modernist ears might rebel against this message, but it’s not my fault that you’ve been drenched with modernist communist propaganda your entire lives. There is and never has been anything known as a “critical mass of queen bees”. On the other hand, there is and always have been societies that are patriarchal. Just why do you think modernists made that word to be both anathema and an ad hominem attack? You want the red pill on women? This is the ultimate red pill on women. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Green Foods Fail Olympics

0
The first occupants of the Olympic Village in Paris quickly taught the caterers that athletes did not favour their “climate-friendly” diet of things like avocados on toast plus almond-milk coffee. The athletes demanded more meat and eggs. Paris Olympics CEO, Etienne Thobois, told reporters they suddenly needed more animal protein, causing them to order “700 kilos of eggs and a ton of meat, to meet the demands of the athletes.” The Olympic caterers should have read a bit of French history – Vikings brought cattle to Normandy in the 10th century and valued them for both meat and milk. The Paris organisers could also have also looked at some French cave paintings, such as the one in Lascaux, which depicts aurochs, the ancestor of domestic cattle, being attacked by ancient hunters.
Hunting for Meat in the Stone Age. Image by Klaus Hausmann from Pixabay.
The Normans took their love of beef to Britain. In 1611 King James knighted his loin roast so it could be a worthy item on a King’s table – since then it has been known as “sirloin”. That old enemy of Napoleon, the Duke of Wellington, knew that his army could not survive without beef. Britain is famous for great beef breeds such as Herefords, Angus, Scotch, Welsh and Orkney beef. So the Duke’s red coat armies often had their own cattle herd bringing up the rear. Fresh beef was supplemented by salt pork, flour (often fortified with weevils) and a tot of rum before battle. Beef was also the favoured food of the new world. Spanish and Portuguese colonists took horses and cattle to the Americas and from these developed the wild longhorn cattle of Mexico and Texas. Many covered wagons of the American west were pulled by mules or oxen – and if they ran short of food, they ate some of them. Native Americans soon learned to steal or catch horses and used them to hunt their favoured food – buffalo. Their mounted cavalry quickly conquered the prairies; and when they wore out their horses, they ate them. As the buffalo were hunted to extinction by white and red hunters they all turned to longhorns and then to softer easier-handling British breeds like Hereford. Soon American demand for beef prompted Texas cowboys to fight Indians, and drought and wild-fires to send big mobs of beef cattle towards big meat centres such as Chicago. This Eastern demand for beef then supported the growth of transcontinental railways. In Australia, great cattlemen like Sidney Kidman (“The Cattle King”) learned to move cattle along the Channel Country from north to south on a string of Kidman properties, the cattle growing as they travelled. And on every road entering Australia’s beef capital, Rockhampton, there is a statue – not a green-skinned avocado, but a red-blooded bull. The staple food of the Anzac warriors was canned “bully beef”, billy tea and hard biscuits. Bacon, eggs, a tot of Bundaberg rum and some Anzac biscuits were the luxuries. Green propagandists such as the Paris caterers are doing tremendous harm to our health and our food supply by attacking animal foods, and promoting grains, vegetables, seeds and fake foods for humans. As far back as we have recorded history, humans have been hunter-gatherers. They hunted, cooked, ate and sometimes farmed cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, ducks, turkeys, swans, antelope, buffalo, caribou, mammoths, deer, bears, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, seals, herrings, prawns, oysters, crabs, clams, cod, whales, sharks, salmon, kangaroos, possums, rabbits, hares, rats, mice, dogs, cougars, eels, snakes and even other humans. (Aboriginal cannibals on the Palmer River gold field in early Australia preferred to eat sweet Chinamen who ate lots of rice rather than oversalty Britishers who ate lots of salt beef.) When the hunters were successful, ancient tribes rejoiced and feasted mightily before the meats spoiled. But when the hunters failed and starvation threatened, they relied on the gatherers for ripening fruits, honey, tubers, wild onions, nuts and laboriously harvested grains. They learned that some plant foods, especially grass seeds, were toxic unless treated in special ways by grinding, roasting, fermenting and cooking. Meats were the favoured food but some tribes also consumed raw milk, butter, cheese and blood from their animals. Some ate fish and water fowl. Fruits were seasonal foods and tubers, onions and grains were survival foods. Party foods like sugar, alcohol and apple pie were more recent inventions. Human teeth reflect the foods they are designed to use – canine eye-teeth for gripping and ripping meat off bones, incisors for cutting bite-sized bits, and molars for chewing and grinding. And humans have the forward-focussed eyes of predators, not the all-round eyesight of their wary herbivore prey. Men have always battled over hunting, fishing and farming territory, but now greens are trying to lock all humans out with national parks, world heritage declarations, and bans and quotas on farming, fishing and hunting. They subsidise the sterilisation of farms and grasslands with wind and solar “farms”, access roads and spider webs of power lines. They also promote the conversion of grasslands and farmland to bush and encourage offshore bird choppers whose sonic noise upsets neighbours and seems to addle the navigating abilities of some sea creatures. Now greens are attacking our carnivore diet and promoting a granivore-vegetarian diet for humans. Politicians should be free to choose their own diet but they should not force meat lovers to pretend they are granivores – they have no crops for sprouting grains nor gizzards for grinding them. Humans are also not plant-eating ruminants with extra stomachs and who spend ages regurgitating and re-chewing the cuds of slowly digesting vegetables. The world’s teeming cities are becoming increasingly reliant on grains, sugars, oil seeds, fruits and vegetables grown by intense farming and heavily dependent on irrigation, herbicides and chemical fertilisers. Grain-dependent feedlots produce much of our beef, pork, mutton, salmon, prawns, chickens and eggs, and factories produce our baked, frozen and canned foods. Now greens are promoting denatured fake “meat” and “milks” containing no meat or milk. Whilst intense farming has fostered a dramatic increase in human population, the human food chain is swamped with grains, greens and seed oils with their unhealthy lectins, glutens, oxalates, phytic acid, harmful oils, artificial sweeteners and chemical additives and sprays. This process parallels a dramatic deterioration in human health. Like green energy, green food for humans is proving a disastrous choice. Pretending humans are herbivores and granivores has accompanied an epidemic of ill health. Obesity, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, leaky gut, fatty liver, dental cavities, heart failure, cancers, brain fog, knee replacement, stomach stitching, birth defects and gender confusion seem to be hall-marks of our age. The surgery waiting lists keep expanding. But instead of trying to fix our dietary problems, we have created a massive new “health” industry. While human diets race off in the wrong direction, health research seeks magic bullets and focuses on profitable vaccines, patentable medicines, expensive surgery and genetic wizardry. Grazing animals once lived mainly on grasses and herbs (with a little ripening grass seeds just before the hard times of winter). Too many animals are now confined in food factories, with little exercise and encouraged to gorge on farmed grains. Free range animals like pigs, chickens, cattle and sheep now stand in pens and feedlots eating grain-rich feeds. The bun, chips, salad and sauces have swamped the meat in the “beef” burger and there is often more batter and potato than seafood in “fish and chips”. Breakfast cereals have replaced bacon and eggs, and fake “meats” and fake “milks” are lauded as healthy choices. We can see the obese results of this green food revolution waddling down the aisles of supermarkets and ordering green smoothies and muffins in the food courts. Green energy will prove a disaster for our economy, and green foods will be a deadly choice for human health. The Australian Bureau of Statistics now reports that 67% of all Australian adults and 25% of children are overweight or obese. Future footpaths will be crowded with mobility scooters and hospitals and care homes will be overwhelmed by unhealthy aging vegans. Real Food for Thought: Hector Holthouse, 1967, “River of Gold – The Story of the Palmer River Gold Rush” Angus and Robertson. Judy Cho, MTP, 2020, “Carnivore Cure” – Nutrition with Judy. Sally K Norton, MPH, 2022, “Toxic Superfoods – How oxalate overload is making you sick”, Rodale, New York. Steven R Gundry, MD, 2017, “The Plant Paradox – the Hidden Dangers in “Healthy Foods” that cause disease and weight gain”, Harper Collins. Paul Saladino, MD, 2020, “The Carnivore Code – Unlocking the Secrets to Optimal health by Returning to our Ancestral Diet” Fundamental Press LLC, NewYork. Lierre Keith, 2009, “The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability”. Lierre is an ex-vegan who believes veganism has damaged her health and that of others. Her book is a moving account of how that diet destroyed her body and how she came to realize that vegetarianism was not the answer to the problems of human health or environmental destruction. Originally published at Richardson Post.

When Russia Begins, the World Will Hold its Breath

A quick update on my blogroll links. Gone are Larry Johnson and Andrei Martyanov. The former because once a CIA spook then always a CIA spook. The latter because while he does occasionally have interesting insights, for the most part his over the top rah-rah all things Russia have just got boring and inconsequential. Added to the list is Gilbert Doctorow, who has I think has some of the best balanced and informed commentary on world affairs specialising in Russia and the Middle East. His piece today on the ongoing saga in Kursk is a great example of this.
Klintsevich’s commentary lays the foundation for a dramatic Russian escalation of the proxy war into a hot war threatening to become WWIII. Why?  Because the so-called Zelensky gambit in Kursk is fully enabled by the United States and its NATO allies, using skills, satellite and airborne reconnaissance, command and control resources in real time that are superior to anything the Russians possess. It also has Western including U.S. boots on the ground. And in conditions like this, the disadvantaged side faces a strong temptation to go for the great equalizer, nuclear arms, to defend itself and to assure its victory.
In other words, with the assault by Ukraine into the state of Kursk, the nations of NATO and the combined West have invaded Russia. As far as I know, nobody is talking about this. WWIII is right around the corner.
Klintsevich has further intimated that the two U.S. aircraft carriers and their escorts now in the Eastern Mediterranean may be there not to contain Iran but for an all-out attack on Russia using their jets to deliver nuclear strikes. I add to his analysis that this may explain the knock-out of Russia’s early warning radar stations in the south of the country by Ukrainian drones acting on orders from Washington. So far, the Russian response to these gathering storm clouds has been two days in succession of massive missile and drone attacks on critical infrastructure in Ukraine. But let us not have any illusions: if the Russians sense that the United States is about to pounce on them, to use the assets in Ukraine and beyond not just against Russian planes, which have been moved back beyond the 900 km range of the JASSM and Storm Shadows, but on critical civilian infrastructure to disable the war effort, then a preventive Russian attack on NATO, on the continental United States. not to mince words, is entirely conceivable.
If the world had a lick of sense it would be holding its breath right about now. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Why we need a proper inquiry into Australia’s Covid response

0
Protest in Melbourne against mandatory vaccinations and draconian rules.
Cliff Reece The Albanese government’s current so-called “independent” inquiry into the Commonwealth government’s COVID-19 response has been widely criticised as being inadequate. Its terms of reference explicitly exclude it from examining “any actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments,” which means lockdowns, state border closures, contact tracing failures and successes, school closures, vaccine mandates, and policing techniques will all be exempt from scrutiny. This means that actions taken by former Labor State Premiers – including Victoria’s Daniel Andrews – will not be included in the review. Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay said it was not the “best option” to examine the issue. “The powers of a Royal Commission to request documents, summons witnesses, take evidence under oath and hold public hearings are essential to ensure that the pandemic response can be reviewed in a comprehensive way,” she said. The Australian Industry Group and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry were also critical, as were the Australian Institute for Progress, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, among others. Senator Ralph Babet, who urged the Senate to establish a proper all-encompassing Commission of Inquiry into the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has criticised Liberal and Labor senators who voted against his motion. The motion lost 26 votes to 10, with the Liberal Party split over the issue. If passed, the inquiry would have had the same powers and independence as a royal commission. “The Senate has overwhelmingly voted to protect COVID-era secrets, to protect incompetence, and protect those who inflicted human rights abuses on their fellow citizens,” Babet said. “Australians deserve to know the truth about what went on behind closed doors during the pandemic. Civil liberties were trashed, businesses were destroyed, children’s education was ruined, sports were banned, people died alone, lives were lost and families were broken up. “Is it too much for Australians to ask for governments and the bureaucrats advising them to be held to account for the advice and actions they took during the pandemic? “To simply move on, as if nothing ever happened, is an outrage greater than the multiple outrages perpetrated during the pandemic itself,” he added. Babet accused Australia’s “political class” of denying the public a complete account of what happened. Senators who supported his motion were, Matt Canavan and Ross Cadell (Nationals), Gerard Rennick, Andrew McLachlan, Richard Colbeck and Matt O’Sullivan (Liberals), Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts (One Nation) and David Pocock (Independent). The Greens and most other Liberals abstained, and all Labor senators voted against the Bill.
Police arrest an anti-lockdown protester in Sydney.
Back In 2022, a Labor-led Senate Committee said they supported a Royal Commission or similar body to look into Australia’s COVID response. The issue was debated again in late 2023, when the Senate voted to hold an inquiry to examine what would be an appropriate terms of reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission. This was then referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee which recommended that the federal government establish a “Royal Commission to examine the Australian response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential impacts on the Australian community.” At that time, there was only a dissenting report from the two Labor members. Despite that, a totally different and weaker ‘COVID-19 Response Inquiry’ was announced by Prime Minister Albanese. It would be headed by retired public servant and policymaker, Robyn Kruk. When Albanese first announced this limited inquiry, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton called it a “protection racket” for Labor premiers because its scope did not include state responses. Senator Matt Canavan also castigated the Albanese government. “Before the election the Prime Minister promised a Covid-19 inquiry through a measure like a royal commission but instead gave us an inadequate and perfunctory inquiry,” Canavan said. Senator Canavan believes Australians deserve to have a full Commission of Inquiry – as was promised – to ensure that we can prepare for and better manage any future pandemics without trampling on the rights of Australians. A full Commission of Inquiry would have the same powers as a Royal Commission and would be able to examine the responses from not just the federal government but also from the States and Territories. “Governments around the country impinged on Australians rights and we need a full investigation of these responses to ensure that in the future we can respond to pandemics without making the same mistakes we made with Covid while protecting Australians rights and jobs”, said Senator Canavan. “There are still Australians that remain locked out of jobs because of coronavirus measures. A proper inquiry into the pandemic is well overdue,” he said. A Commission of Inquiry would include, inter alia, a review of the following:
  • lockdowns;
  • school closures;
  • social distancing;
  • remote working arrangements;
  • mask mandates;
  • interstate border closures;
  • international border closures;
  • quarantine arrangements;
  • vaccination, including procurement, vaccine mandates imposed by both government and non-government organisations; and
  • the capacity of the health, education, aged care and housing and domestic violence systems to respond to the crisis.
Sheep.
A Commission of Inquiry would have the independence needed, including the power to compel answers from often unwilling governments, to give the public confidence that its final report and any recommendations will be credible and unbiased. Albanese’s very limited inquiry led by Robyn Kruk is due to report on 30 September. There is an overwhelming case for the establishment of an extensive Covid-19 Commission of Inquiry immediately following the Albanese government’s release of Kruk’s limited report. As usual, the ‘nice’ Anthony Albanese is showing his true nature – just as he did with the race-based Voice and multiple immigration disasters – and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. He is clearly attempting to protect his former Labor state premier mates, especially Daniel Andrews. Albanese and his far-left comrades in the Labor-Greens-Teal government think we are so stupid that we will meekly accept Kruk’s ‘Claytons’ report and leave it at that. The people of Australia deserve an opportunity to learn from the experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic and the response to it, so we don’t have to go through it all again. We should demand a full Commission of inquiry. Thanks to Rex Widerstrom at The Epoch Times for some of the information included in this article – and Johannes Leak for his great cartoon depicting Daniel Andrews. Originally published at Richardson Post.

Individual versus Community

0
This post from Simplicius examines the greener pastures of less developed countries in comparison to the stifling regulations and social pressures of a modern Western country such as the United States.
Reflecting more deeply, one can’t help but wonder precisely why American cities feel so different. The American way of life revolves around perpetual advancement: the undying pursuit of the fabled ‘American Dream’, amounting essentially to the banality of material wealth. In what are commonly deemed ‘third world’ countries, the lack of widespread ‘opportunity’ for profitable careers tunes life to a different cadence. People are apt to simply ‘settle’ into basic, lower tier jobs as a way of life and be satisfied for it; the lack of alternative brings quiet contentment.
I have lived in third world countries and Western nations. But I do not believe that this is the divide that should be examined. It can be easy to romanticise a country such as Mexico when your own life in the USA is ground down by the weight of atomisation in the System. But having spent time in countries such as Uganda, I am not sure that I would wish that on anyone if the option to experience such enrichment is through being born there as a local Ugandan. A Westerner can live in such an environment and benefit from the advantages while always having a convenient way out the door. The divide that interests me more is that between societies that champion the person as an individual as opposed to someone being an active part of a wider community. Nations such as the USA and Australia have pushed the idea of the individual being superficially the most important thing at the expense of family, community and national identity. In a city such as Perth in Australia, over 3 million people live in a large area with plenty of space for all, but the experience is one of being largely alone. In such a city it is rare that you know your neighbors, let alone regularly drop over for a pre-dinner drink. Such interactions must be carefully planned in advance, inserted into an electronic diary, and then often cancelled at the last minute as little Susie is having a bad day today. But there are Western countries where this is not the norm, where the idea of the individual as being the most important thing is not pushed nearly as hard. Italy is a good example of this, and perhaps accounts for its popularity among foreign visitors. The Italian emphasis is on family and community, and this is reflected in their propensity for regular and spontaneous interactions with those of their immediate area. Indeed, it is a major reason why I have always gravitated towards this country. True, Italian business is also stifled with bureaucratic intrusions, but they are often inefficient or easily circumvented. Anglos typically adhere to such regulations, and will more often than not inform on those not toeing the line. Italians make a national sport of doing their utmost to complain about and avoid at all costs any government interference in their lives. Having a menial job is not looked down upon in Italy as it is in other Western countries. The scourge of materialism does not dominate as much here. However, it must be said that some jobs such as a parking inspector would be a source of familial embarrassment if a son or daughter should accept such shameful employment. Italians earn less but make it go further, and by doing so they appreciate more the good things that are on offer. Their elderly are rarely banished to the black holes of retirement or nursing homes. It must be said that there is a crisis in the small number of babies being born to the newer generations, and they are firmly down the road of the secular disease. It is not all a perfect picture paradise. Another interesting aspect of Italian life is that there is no such thing as a red or blue political state. People do not identify so strongly here with their political affiliations. Liberals are mixed in with conservatives, and you will find all groups drinking contentedly together in the local bar. There is much less of a desire for social ambition; it is enough that you are pleasant company and buy a few rounds on your birthday. I have also noticed that countries which favor the group as opposed to the individual are most often very pleasant places to walk, with Italy being an excellent example. On the other hand, countries that favor the individual are very often hostile to the act of getting around on one’s two feet. During my time in a small town in Louisiana I quickly discovered that it was not only undesirable but impossible to walk the streets. There were few sidewalks, and the roads were wide and devoid of shade. Even though it was not a large town, the fact that everyone drives meant that the roads were always busy; crossing the street in front of my hotel to reach the bar on the other side of the road was fraught with risk at any time of the day or night. In societies focused on the individual, people are reduced to economic units, and the faster and more efficiently that these economic units can be moved from place to place to spend their money and consume then the more that profits will rise. Dawdling along shaded and narrow streets while stopping to talk to people you know is anathema to this idea of economic management. The only people that walked the streets in Louisiana were the homeless and any unfortunate visitors who still hadn’t worked out the true nature of things. Today was market day, and I ambled into the center of town on foot to indulge in some potato fries from a little stall, one of my few vices of note. I stopped to chat to a few people that I know, and inspected the wares of a few stalls that I had not seen before. The piazza and streets of the small town were crowded with the last vestiges of summer tourists. A vendor I knew hailed me from behind his long tables of merchandise, and we crossed the street to one of the bars and raised a glass of prosecco together. Then I ambled back the way I came to go again about my day, with a good hour in the market behind me. An hour well spent in a community, but an hour wasted and never to be regained if I was to be viewed as a purely economic unit of individualism. Originally published at Pushing Rubber Downhill. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Dave Pellowe vows to fight Human Rights Commission over Welcome To Country

UPDATE: To read Dave Pellowe’s direct response to the false allegations against him, you can read his post at the Richardson Post here.
The Lying Press would have us believe “our democracy” is under threat from Christian fundamentalists or something. Meanwhile, far left extremist activists infiltrate peaceful Christian conferences in order to sabotage any action by Christians to organise politically:
A conservative preacher says he has been hauled before the Queensland Human Rights Commission after refusing to perform the Welcome to Country at a conference. Dave Pellowe, an outspoken right-wing commentator and Christian minister, said the complaint was made by an attendee of one of his “Church and State” conferences in Queensland earlier this year after he told the man he chose to leave out the Indigenous ceremony because “you can’t mix Christianity, a true religion, with something that is made up”. Instead of the Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country, which are ubiquitous before events as a sign of respect to Indigenous Australians, Mr Pellowe read out a Bible verse, Psalm 24, which begins: “The Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it, He founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.”
Well said. Australia belongs to God. It is ruled by our earthly sovereign, King Charles III and, should we have the strength to maintain our ownership, to the Australian people, the Anglo, Saxon and Celtic descendants of the British settlers of Australia.
Mr Pellowe claimed the man who raised the complaint had attended the May event, one of a series held across Queensland electorates in partnership with the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), only to later complain that “I have racially vilified and humiliated him on the grounds of his race and religion”. The complaint does not specifically relate to the Welcome to Country or the Bible verse, according to Mr Pellowe, but rather his answer about the decision. “I don’t know if he’s some other religion or why he came to a Christian event to hear from a Christian teacher of Christian doctrine,” he told online news network ADH TV. “The ubiquitousness of these Welcome to Country rituals being imposed upon Australians of all beliefs or non-belief at sporting events, when you land on a plane, when you walk into a government building, when you visit a website, when you start a Zoom meeting.
You cannot open a can of Vegemite in this country without burning some gumleaves.
“These are religious rituals which Christians in particular should have no part of. And under a democratic, allegedly secular and pluralistic society, it should also be something that the taxpayer doesn’t fund and the government doesn’t impose. It’s the duty of Christians to preach the truth and gospel and to not mix Christianity with false religion, such as the Aboriginal traditional religion, which is bearing all the hallmarks of paganism … inherently false beliefs.” “On the principle of it, I will not apologise for preaching the gospel,” he said.
Yes, the so-called “Welcome to Country” is a demonic ritual, and its ubiquity is designed to implant the false belief that Australia belongs to aboriginals instead of the White man.
Speaking to 2GB host Ben Fordham on Friday, Mr Pellowe said the goal of the tour was to teach Christians the “historical and scriptural background and permission that Christians have to participate in democracy and exercise their voice just like any other constituency in the nation”. “It’s a Christian teaching meeting by Christians, for Christians, of Christian doctrine,” he said. According to Mr Pellowe, at the end of the evening during the Q&A, a friend of the complainant asked why he was not afraid of offending anyone by not doing a Welcome to Country. “So I gave a full and analytical assessment of the differences between Aboriginal traditional religion and Christianity, and concluded that they’re incompatible and that no authentic, loving Christian should mix the two,” he said. “And that, the complainant alleges, is racial vilification and humiliation.” Mr Pellowe said now a complaint had been filed, he was compelled to respond to the QHRC. “This is where the problem is … with a grievance industry that has no bar for accepting grievances,” he said. “As long as it fits in the category … if the complaint is an allegation of vilification or discrimination or something like that, they don’t need to establish any merit or validity or credibility to it, they’ll just accept it, the bar is that low. Then the target of that complaint is compulsorily required to attend conciliation.” He said the “big deal” wasn’t the Bible verse “as much as my answer and analysis of the differences between the religions”. “That obviously was the trigger for them to ask a question and to I guess fish for the offence that they were looking for,” he said.
Correct, the extremist activist was fishing for offence. The takeaway is that there must be no dialogue whatsoever between Christians and far left extremist activists. They are our enemies, it is not our job to change their hearts, it is our job to oppose them. There is no such thing as an innocent question as to why you are not conducting a demonic aboriginal ceremony. The question itself is a trap designed as a pretext to invoke 18C. Due to its demonic and subversive nature, the so-called “Welcome to Country” offends, insults, humiliates and intimidates Anglos and anybody who conducts it or insists upon it should be hauled before a HRC. However, as the plethora of Human Rights Commissions across Australia are utilised almost exclusively against White, Christian and heterosexual (ie normal) Australians, their very existence offends, insults, humiliates and intimidates Anglos. By their logic for existing in the first place, these bodies should face their own court and be liquidated in the process. Demonic aboriginal practices have become an official religion in Australia, and the discrimination against White Christians via the hilariously named “Human Rights Commissions” has made our suppression the law of the land. Both are acts of war against us, as failure to comply with their edicts will eventually result in armed enforcement. Mr Pellowe should be applauded for refusing to back down:
“And I won’t apologise for preaching the gospel and for saying that false religion has no place beside or integrated with Christianity.” Mr Pellowe has claimed he is prepared to go to jail to defend his rights, but he conceded to Fordham “I don’t think it’ll come to that”.
We are in the pre-kinetic phase of revolution. Christians and ordinary Australians will pool resources against far left extremists in order to fight this “legal” battle. The extremists will receive plentiful donations, in addition to grifting taxpayer funds from the very people they are fighting against. This lawfare against Christians and Nationalists is designed to drain time, energy and resources. Thus while it is important to oppose ClownWorld on every front, we must maintain our perspective of long term goals and solutions. The fact that they set the trap in the first place reveals their terror at the prospect of an aggressive, politicised White Christian constituency. As always, the lesson is to keep praying, lifting and organising. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

Dutton is almost right about Gaza Refugees

It’s the same old trick. Look tough Islamic terror, as long as hundreds of thousands keep pouring into Australia from every other point on the map:
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has called for a complete ban on Palestinian refugees from entering Australia, claiming it is putting our national security at risk. He made the controversial comments while being interviewed this morning, adding that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was not conducting checks or searches on those arriving in the country. “I don’t think people should be coming in from that warzone at all at the moment,” he said in an interview with Sky News. “It’s not prudent to do so and I think it puts our national security at risk.” Australia has granted more than 2600 visas to Palestinians, and rejected a further 4600, since Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, according to Senate Estimates from May. Of those, only about 1300 have arrived and remain in Australia. Dutton raised his concerns during question time in Parliament today, asking Prime Minister Anthony Albanese whether supporting a listed terrorist organisation like Hamas passed the character test in a visa application. To that, Albanese said: “If the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t have confidence in that system, he should say so.” “It’s exactly the same system that was in place when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Immigration who presided over these issues.” Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said each visa application, regardless of which country the applicant is from, was run through an ASIO vetting process that’s updated every 24 hours. “There will be no compromise on national security, none,” he said in Parliament.
It’s all so tiresome. It doesn’t matter if the people coming here are of a foreign religion and believe they are destined to rule the world and do a little suicide bombing along the way. It doesn’t matter if the people coming here are more or less law abiding, but work hard and network within their own ethnic community and lobby governments on behalf of their own ethnic community to gain an economic and political advantage over native Anglos.
From Domain….. you thought I was going somewhere else, didn’t you…..
It doesn’t matter whether the people coming here engage in systematic rape of our children or just happen to be in the right place at the right time so the media can pretend that we really do need all those nice “immigrants”.
From their ABC.
And it doesn’t matter if the people coming here are aspiring law students, rappers or knife stabbers. The point is, Australians are being systematically replaced via mass immigration, and this pattern is replicated across the White West. During the term of the Albanese government alone, over a million “migrants” have come here. Our government is doing this deliberately, and it reinforces its mass replacement immigration policy by discriminating against native Anglos through state mandated multiculturalism. If you publicly oppose this genocide, the state’s thugs will assault you and commit armed robbery against you in broad daylight. Your bank accounts will be closed against your will, you will lose your job, you will be arrested and falsely imprisoned. You will be treated like a terrorist. On that note, let’s make another thing 100% clear. “Immigrants” are not being mass imported to ensure that the left can stay in power permanently because “immigrants” generally vote left. They are a foreign standing army which will be used by the government to repress organised political opposition to mass replacement immigration by native Anglos. Anarcho-Tyranny is too kind a name for this system. It must be opposed, and we will win. Keeping praying, lifting and organising. You can find The XYZ on X and Gab.

Breaking the cringe ceiling

0
I look back fondly on my own breakdancing days. I’d spin and pop to the encouragement of the crowd. I’d hear the roar as I went up on my head, at least in my head. I had such fun. I was seven, and the stage was the kitchen floor at our house in Parkes. My mother was the audience, and also happened to be cooking dinner. Now I’ve grown up, and if I was ever to put myself out there to breakdance in public, I would make darn sure that I’d trained my backside off to not make an idiot of myself. I’d practice locking and popping like the gangsterist ghetto basketballer out there to avoid public humiliation. Not so our Olympians. As you might be aware by now, Australia sent an overweight, overconfident, uncoordinated Millennial female to represent the nation in Paris. It was bad. Really bad.
She’s become a global laughingstock. Even the New York Times is laying the boot in. My first reaction when our family watched this monstrosity of incompetence was to rush to her defence. At least she was having a go, right? We like underdogs in Australia. She’s gutsy, etc. But that type of defence only works for someone who doesn’t also take themselves too seriously. When Steven Bradbury won accidental gold by not being in an accident, we could all celebrate his success because it was clear he also knew that he’d won gold by sheer luck.
This is a loveable Aussie underdog.

Rachael ‘Raygun’ Gunn is not a loveable Aussie underdog. She’s the exact opposite. The 36-year-old thinks she’s amazing, and she’s been able to live in that delusion until yesterday when the whole world saw the reality at the same time.

Of course, the media had been boosting her, and her lack of self-insight in interviews is absolutely breathtaking.

The more I learn about Raygun, the angrier I get. That’s because our society is being taken over by Rayguns. This type of overconfident female has so thoroughly colonised our public and private sector bureaucracies that we are now ruled by a caste of Karens whose overconfidence is exceeded only by their incompetence.

They are always the victim in their own minds, too. Raygun has a scholarship to the NSW Institute of Sport, and they pushed out a press release about her three months ago focusing on how she’s been a victim of discrimination, body-shaming and intimidation and how she used to cry in the toilet because the boys were so mean to her.

I think most people don’t know what breaking is,” she said patiently. “They haven’t seen a breaking battle in the last 20 years, so they don’t know what the level is . . . how complex it’s become, and how athletic it is. They’re thinking it’s just someone who does The Worm and they win that battle, or they do a head spin, and the battle is over. There’s a lot more to it than that. It doesn’t bother me personally . . . I’ve always taken a different path in things; doing my PhD, I’m an arts academic as well, so I think most people think I’m a bit of a weirdo!

I reckon you’re right, Raygun.

Raygun is a lecturer at Macquarie University. Someone in that position earns about $100,000 full-time equivalent annually. According to her university biography, Raygun “is an interdisciplinary and practice-based researcher interested in the cultural politics of breaking.”

The cultural politics of breaking. When I think back to my own breakdancing days on the kitchen floor, I wonder what people back then would have called ‘the cultural politics of breaking’.

I reckon they’d call that ‘bullshit’.

Raygun gets a hundred thousand dollars a year to bullshit and, through her teaching position, spread that bullshit into the minds of thousands of young adults over the course of a career.

Raygun has a PhD in breaking, of course. It was awarded in 2017 for her thesis ‘Deterritorializing Gender in Sydney’s Breakdancing Scene: A B-girl’s Experience of B-boying’. Here’s the abstract:

This thesis critically interrogates how masculinist practices of breakdancing offers a site for the transgression of gendered norms. Drawing on my own experiences as a female within the male-dominated breakdancing scene in Sydney, first as a spectator, then as an active crewmember, this thesis questions why so few female participants engage in this creative space, and how breakdancing might be a space to displace and deterritorialize gender. I use analytic autoethnography and interviews with scene members in collaboration with theoretical frameworks offered by Deleuze and Guattari, Butler, Bourdieu, and other feminist and post-structuralist philosophers, to critically examine how the capacities of bodies are constituted and shaped in Sydney’s breakdancing scene, and to also locate the potentiality for moments of transgression. In other words, I conceptualize the breaking body as not a ‘body’ constituted through regulations and assumptions, but as an assemblage open to new rhizomatic connections. Breaking is a space that embraces difference, whereby the rituals of the dance not only augment its capacity to deterritorialize the body, but also facilitate new possibilities for performativities beyond the confines of dominant modes of thought and normative gender construction. Consequently, this thesis attempts to contribute to what I perceive as a significant gap in scholarship on hip-hop, breakdancing, and autoethnographic explorations of Deleuze-Guattarian theory.

More bullshit. Don’t try and understand what Raygun wrote. It’s just a wall of word salad.

I know that because I also have a PhD. Mine was more connected to reality, though. Professor Margaret Sheil censored my thesis, however, so it can’t be found in databases, and I can never work in academia. Thanks to Antifa and the US-based Southern Poverty Law Centre, I can probably never work again anywhere.

While Raygun makes a fortune and goes to the Olympics on nothing but bullshit, there are many wrongthinkers like me who have been cancelled from ever getting a job again due to us saying true things that powerful people don’t like. Or for not getting the jab. Or for making a joke that the Karens in HR didn’t like.

If only we’d learned to bullshit like Raygun. She’s certainly prolific. Her contributions to knowledge include such published bangers as: ‘The ethics of living a double life: rethinking ownership, authenticity, and identity in hip hop culture’ (bullshit); ‘Where the #bgirls at? Politics of (in)visibility in breaking culture’ (bullshit); ‘“Don’t Worry, it’s Just a Girl!”: negotiating and challenging gendered assumptions in Sydney’s breakdancing scene’ (feminist bullshit); and ‘Dancing away distinction: queering hip hop culture through all style battles’ (obligatory gay bullshit).

If you want to know who is behind the subversion and destruction of Western societies, academia is a place to look. Powerful people have worked hard for decades to promote a neo-Marxist identity cult in our universities, shoving merit, rigour and scholastic achievement to the side in favour of ideologically conformist nonsense.

Karens like Raygun have flourished in this politicised, standards-free environment. For as long as she stayed on campus, Raygun could pretend that she was a serious academic and even an accomplished breakdancer.

Raygun got ahead of herself, though. She began to get high on her own supply, and so she no doubt politicked and networked to get herself selected for the Australian Olympic team. She thought the applause she heard in her head would be replicated around the world.

What a mistake. You can be an incompetent fraud as long as you stay out of public view. Raygun didn’t do that.

The Olympic stage is one of the most public places in the world, and Raygun revealed herself to the world.

She revealed Australia in the current year, too.

Originally published at Education Reformation.