Australian centre-right conservatives are celebrating a Vietnamese MP who draped herself in the Australian flag during her maiden speech to Parliament. The stunt echoes Pauline Hanson’s infamous 1997 “in danger of being swamped by Asians” keynote. However, the message here is the inverse. Hanson adorned […]Refugee Privilege
Labor loves hosting vapid summits. These thinly-disguised jamborees generally involve bulk boozing and eye-glazing gasbagging by the policy-challenged restaurant radical class. This mob will gladly toast anything following their 14th glass of chablis. Then, after effusively congratulating colleagues they typically backstab during the normal course […]Opinion
On Tuesday, August 8, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided former US President Donald Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago. They acted on a search and seizure warrant approved by the Federal Magistrate and Southern District of Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart. The operation received clearance […]Australian Nationalism
On Tuesday, August 8, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided former US President Donald Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago. They acted on a search and seizure warrant approved by the Federal Magistrate and Southern District of Florida Judge Bruce Reinhart. The operation received clearance […]Australian Nationalism
The Justice Department’s National Security Division obtained the warrant at the behest of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Attorney General, Merrick Garland, signed off for the department. The DOJ likely pressed the case. However, the FBI didn’t unseal the warrant until days after the search. Their delay only fuelled cynicism about their intentions. The media applauded the FBI’s actions, but the world was dumbstruck. An unprecedented act was committed; some commentators compared it to crossing the Rubicon. No matter how the Democrats or the media spin it, raiding a former president’s home was an overtly political action. It has never happened before in US history.
The FBI is elusive about what they expected to find: subsequently, they haven’t furbished a satisfactory account. Meanwhile, Trump is accused of concealing classified White House documents in violation of the Espionage Act. Rumours about “nuclear codes” being shared with the Russians spread. A prevailing view among critics of the Democrat regime in Washington is that the FBI conducted a fishing expedition. They hoped to find incriminating evidence against Donald Trump to prevent him from running for office again in 2024.
Among the 26 boxes seized were allegedly 11 sets of “classified” documents. They also took three of Trump’s passports and a phone. The FBI claimed one set of documents is at the highest classification level. Their allegations add to the hyperbole that surrounds the myth of Trump as a supervillain. However, nothing is as it seems.
Opponents of the Biden administration highlight the hypocrisy of the FBI’s actions. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hoarded over 30,000 emails on a private server in her home. Among those were top secret communiqués. Clinton returned many of the documents, but she deleted others. When pressured, she claimed the material she erased was “private.” She was never investigated.
Former President Barack Obama withheld an astonishing 33 million documents after leaving office. Among them was highly sensitive material. But the NARA never objected.
The liberal media and big tech suppressed the story about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and his Apple laptop. Left with computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac at his store in Wilmington, Delaware in 2018, but never retrieved, his hard drive contained thousands of pornographic images of Hunter cavorting with prostitutes. Biden Jr. appears in videos smoking crack and procuring drugs while arranging sex trafficking.
However, Isaac was most concerned about the emails he discovered. The messages exposed Hunter Biden’s dealings on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy firm. Likewise, they uncovered his suspicious dealings with a Chinese tycoon.
Isaac was disappointed with the FBI’s response when they “reluctantly” took receipt of the laptop. Ironically, Isaac fell under investigation while the FBI sat on the laptop scandal. The bewildered techy reached out to Rudolph Giuliani’s (Trump’s lawyer) office and made the laptop available. Giuliani then felt the heat. The media buried the story during the 2020 presidential election so as not to harm Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. Eventually, the story seeped through the media. Isaac was forced to flee Delaware due to ongoing death threats.
In August 2022, following the raid on Mar-a-Lago, Isaac spoke to Fox News, complaining, “A plethora of criminal activity came off that laptop and the FBI has had it since December 9, 2019. Meanwhile, the son of the president of the United States continues to wave from the balcony of the White House. He continues to fly on Air Force One. He’s beyond reproach.”
Podcaster and author Sam Harris summed up the attitude of the liberal media. He made a stunning admission in August 2022. The controversial “atheist philosopher” defended the New York Post’s decision to ignore the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 presidential election. “At that point, Biden could have had the corpses of children in his basement and I wouldn’t have cared,” he admitted. “Whatever the scope of Joe Biden’s corruption is it is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump is involved in.”
Hackers broke into Hunter Biden’s iCloud account in 2022. Personal data was posted to the 4chan website. The FBI gave a non-denial denial in response to the content, admitting only that they were “aware” of it. Among that hacked data were links with his father, whom Hunter referred to as “Pedophile Peter.” Hunter Biden also shared URLs to porn sites with the president. Despite this material and its criminality, “Sleepy Joe” and his crack-addict son are immune to justice. Moreover, the Democrats continue pushing the mythologic FBI-orchestrated “Capitol Hill insurrection” in a bid to indict Trump. As such, the timing of the raid betrays their true motives.
The Select Committee hearings on January 6, 2021, were for show. Their audacity is amazing given that Democrats not only turned a blind eye to but incited rioting by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Democrat identities paid the bail of insurrectionists arrested during the riots. International terror financier George Soros bankrolled both Antifa and BLM. He reputedly arranged for shipments of “bricks” to be left in designated riot zones.
With a track record like Soros, who solidly matches the profile of a James Bond villain, it beggars belief that he hasn’t been targeted in a precision drone strike. But then Soros is an auxiliary of the deep-fake system tearing not only America but the West apart.
The Biden administration has bungled everything it’s touched. The US evacuation from Afghanistan was a monumental disaster. American military prestige is in shambles. Joe Biden abandoned US citizens, and billions of dollars worth of US military hardware were left as a parting gift to the Taliban.
Their foreign policy is steering the world to the precipice of a third world war; a war they can’t afford. The US economy is depleted while inflation has risen to a 40-year high. Nevertheless, the Democrats continue pouring billions into America’s proxy war in Ukraine. Then there are the progressive policies cleaving American society.
From the east coast to the west coast, cities are ravaged by violent crime. Once indomitable, the USA now resembles a failed state. Homelessness abounds; addicts inject themselves in broad daylight, often close to schools. Businesses are brazenly looted, while random murders and muggings occur at shocking rates. Criminals are arrested only to be immediately released back on the streets to commit even worse crimes. The US-Mexican border is an open sore suppurating with illegal immigrants. They keep coming. At the same time, food shortages are on the way.
With the country gripped by a fuel crisis, Biden’s advice was for owners of petrol stations to “lower their prices.” Magnanimously, Biden promised to release five million barrels of oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It then emerged that he’d sold 950,000 barrels to Unipec, the trading arm of Sinopec, which is owned by the China Petrochemical Corporation. Sinopec ties to private equity firm BHR Partners, of which Hunter Biden is a co-founder.
The Democrats fully back the left’s culture wars. Insane social policies are growing exponentially: dogmas like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and transgender ideology. Indoctrinating children into queerdom via pornographic events involving drag queens is de rigueur for a youngster’s ideological and sexual programming.
Parents who protest this social conditioning (or even the school’s draconian COVID measures) to the school board are labelled “white supremacists” and investigated as potential domestic terrorists. Social media is rotten with unhinged liberals mocking conservatives. Queer teachers with transgender personas taunt them, boasting of secretly grooming their children. Indeed, this is what they’re doing. If you interfere with a child during the early stage of their development it may influence their sexual orientation.
Put another way, these adults are engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with children: paedophilia. Along with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, both issues have triggered violent street confrontations.
People are coming out as “non-binary” in unprecedented numbers as the cult of transgenderism tears through society. Those adopting full gender dysphoria undergo hazardous medical procedures with ongoing hormone injections as they transition into a cosmetic parody of the opposite sex. Children are being groomed for conversion by teachers who’d otherwise be deemed unfit to engage with minors.
Conversely, the cultural apparatus is at war with the biological realities determined by nature. But detractors, beware! Trans-community propaganda is global and policed by social media inquisitors and fanatical litigants. When this powerful vanguard becomes involved, careers are on the line. Heretics are punished by ex-communication. This is a “cancel culture.”
Consequently, feminists face a dilemma. Concomitant with the psychosocial consequences of legitimising the transgender lifestyle is the contradictions it poses. Not everyone who suffers from gender dysphoria is willing to undergo the risky transitioning process. They’re allowed to simply “identify” as the opposite sex. In doing so, sex as a biological determinant has undergone reworking.
Gender is confused with sex instead of being understood as a class of nouns and pronouns. The word’s grammatical function has ceased to be syntactical but biological. Sex is no longer determined by genetics but by the “pronouns” one chooses to assert their chosen identity. Often, these are nonsensical or made-up words. This poses a paradox since the abandonment of “gender roles” in the context of affirming non-binary people still relies on a linguistic goal. They don’t say “sex” is a social construct, but rather “gender” is. Yet, in their usage, gender serves a grammatical purpose anyway. A person’s sex is decided at birth by a person’s genetic information, not the pronouns they prefer others to describe them with. Imagine accommodating all these lunatics. It would make it impossible to write.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is obliging fantasy by altering language definitions to accommodate this aberration, and in doing so, is erasing women. Deference to a minority of confused youth and adult deviants is made all the way up from media frivolity, into academia, and into the corporate and government ecosystem. Gender choices appear on government documentation and job applications. They’ve been normalized all over the western world. Males should be allowed entry to female lavatories and dressing rooms. Grown men can sit among young girls in a spa and let the bubble jets caress their disputed organs. Male prisoners demand to serve their sentences with women, with the obvious consequences occurring.
Women’s sport has become the flashpoint of this selfish indulgence. In the swimming pool, on the track field, and in the boxing ring, biological males are celebrated for victories over females. The male doesn’t lose his advantage of strength when they transition. Female athletes are cruelly and unfairly impacted. Yet, it is the price of appeasing liberal idealism.
If a woman speaks out, chivalrous pleasantries are dispensed with. The queer community that adopts so many letters of the alphabet to incorporate its totality of identities is a vicious cult. Death threats, assaults, and psychological harassment are in store for anyone that dares to question the unreality of what they’re being forced to accept. Speaking up against this degraded religion will result in a person being cut professionally and socially. Furthermore, the cult justifies its violence by accusing the victim of “endangering the safety” of their community. But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since choosing fantasy over reality inures them to honest empathy.
Some may consider this as the befuddled feminist’s just desserts, as they too militantly assailed society with their self-centric point of view. Militant feminism assaulted the status quo at every turn, but now the new order rejects the very substance of their struggle: that being about real women. Perhaps they’re reaping what they’ve sown.
Even so, if the intent of all this is to affront Christian middle America, then they’ve succeeded. America’s twin gods are now Negroes and Sodomites.
Concurrently, the race divide is critical. History is under attack in a revolution begun by the elites. Historic statues are being toppled by woke mobs and exchanged with post-modern horrors “celebrating” blackness. Given this institutional anti-white bias, black violence is increasing with a sense of entitlement fed to them every day through the system.
Corporate America’s hiring practices are enthusiastically prejudicial. Hollywood is concentrating on “diversity”, to the detriment of ticket box sales. Streaming services like Netflix are losing big money from this adherence to wokedom. Warner Bros unceremoniously axed the 90 million-dollar “woke” Batgirl, featuring a black actress. The new CEO looked at all the money the company was hemorrhaging due to audience disinterest in woke themes and pulled the plug. It will never see the light of day, and we can expect fewer woke productions from WB.
Nonetheless, historic revisionism has goose-stepped into the entertainment industry and the arts. Blacks are displacing whites in roles with no historically black relevance. In that vein, Shakespeare’s Joan of Arc is now black and non-binary. That’s fine since Julius Caesar’s skin tone altered a while back. Then too, Margaret Anjou was black according to the BBC. Sir Lancelot was black. Friar Tuck was black. Robert de Beaumont was black. Carl Gustav Emil Manheim was black. Sir Bedivere was black. Zeus was black. Heimdall was black. Lady Guinevere was black. Black activists will call out any white girl in a braided hairdo or corn rows for “cultural appropriation.” But their indignation is reserved about cultural appropriation by blacks. Imagine the furore if Tom Hanks played Malcolm X.
People of colour are mandatory in any period drama set in Europe. They’re ubiquitous. Overlook the importance of Africans to European history at your peril. According to the new culture, blacks were at the side of Henry VIII and in all the best royal courts. Blacks were crucial in America’s reaching the moon. Britain’s aristocracy had no problem accepting the wise and morally superior Africans during the Edwardian period and earlier. While straight white men lose their heads, the black man saves the day and wins the girl—the white girl.
The staple cop drama requires a black man is on hand to pay the chief, while the top female cop bosses the flaky white male around. She solves the case and no thanks to Mr Vanilla. Hollywood decided to cool off on white writers and directors to let people of colour decide their fortunes on the big and small screens. If you can find a film or series made for straight white men, good luck. It would be considered racist propaganda.
Academia is bolting its doors to white students while swinging opening its hallowed halls exclusively to people of colour. Universities are lowering standards to accommodate the expectations of coloured people.
“Person of Colour Theme House” is an off-campus co-op at the University of California, Berkeley. They hate racism so much that it forms the basis of their policy towards white people. In the interests of “avoiding violence,” they’ve banned white people from entering common areas of the house. Never mind how the statistics reveal that whites are “100%” more likely to suffer violence at the hands of blacks than the other way around.
Meanwhile, whites themselves police this apartheid. Everything that can be is construed as “white privilege.” Any advantage, regardless of how nebulous, is deemed to advantage the oppressiveness of white people. For instance, right-handedness is now a symptom of whiteness. Seminars on “right-hand privilege” will set you straight. If somebody is scrupulous about their job, it’s “white professionalism.” We cannot forget that “white silence equals violence” or that stories involving whites defending blacks are “white saviour complex.” The most amusing of all is that “maths” is now “racist” because blacks aren’t very good at it.
American government agencies, educational institutions, and Fortune 500 companies require diversity training as part of Labor Department regulations. Donald Trump signed an executive order overturning that, but the Labor Department suspended the order after being blocked by a federal judge. Under Biden, it is back with bells on. Trump previously denounced the policy as “divisive” and “un-American.”
Theoretically, white people can once again be discriminated against in the name of “inclusivity.” Taking that policy out of the realm of theory, a Minneapolis school struck a deal with the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers. The agreement states that where a teacher is laid off, a white teacher will be let go in favour of a black one. Former Minnesota gubernatorial candidate and Republican Kendall Qualls slammed the arrangement. Qualls, who is black, exclaimed, “It’s repugnant! If you think about the discrimination that we faced in this country back in the 50s and 60s, it was wrong then. It’s wrong now regardless of who is the victim. And we shouldn’t stand for it as a country. ”
Countless stories illustrate how America has reached the point of no return with race relations. From the trite to the ridiculous, they leap from the media flapping their arms to insult our intelligence. A furore erupted recently over an apparent snub of two black children at a Sesame Street theme park in Pennsylvania. Two little black girls stood at a parade of Sesame Street characters, eagerly waiting to high-five one of their favourites. But when the theme park employee dressed as Rosita the Grouch overlooked the children, the father cried racism.
The picture told the whole story; two little girls, their arms expectantly outreached but ignored. They went to high-five the beloved figure but were left hanging. Visibly upset, the media focused on the emotional impact on the children. No other explanation was possible but the fact that whoever was wearing the muppet suit was an avowed racist intent on crushing the spirits of the Picanninny pair. What could the father do? He had no choice but to immediately file a lawsuit against the theme park. There were immediate calls to boycott Sesame Park in solidarity with the girls and their father. How could it happen in this day and age?
From the outset, the presumption was that Rosita snubbed the children. Having walked past them waving after greeting the other kids how could whoever was inside the garish garb not have noticed them? Quite easily, the park was filled with children and a person can only acknowledge so many of the little people. Moreover, how easy is it for them to see through that costume?
None of those questions mattered: blacks were involved, and the verdict was racism. Subsequently, the park initiated damage control. The Rosita character was retired; it’s now a signifier of racism. All employees underwent immediate sensitivity training. And the actor in the Rosita costume was fired. However, they weren’t white, but Latino, a member of another supposedly “disadvantaged” group. The demand for racism far outstrips the supply. More to the point, all black people possess the inordinate power of victimhood. Don’t mess with them.
The fabric of American society is unweaving, and western liberal countries in Europe and beyond are being unravelled with the thread. All the White House can do is deflect, deny, and blame Trump in response to the avalanche of gaffs, criticism, and unanswered questions. If Trump is too much of a stretch, they hold Vladimir Putin responsible. When criticised for the recession, they blamed Putin. When that didn’t work, they redefined a recession. Finally, they argued there was no recession.
Nobody in the White House cares whether or not they’re perceived as credible, which is indicative of a wider disregard for perceptions. Executing their agenda is what matters most.
Biden’s prima facie unfitness to hold office is more outrageous than any of this. Right before the eyes of the world, he fumbles his words and drifts into non-sequiturs. At times, the president has reached out to shake the hand of a dignitary only to greet thin air. The man is fading away with dementia. When stepping out of a plane recently, he couldn’t figure out how to put on his jacket. His condition is so bad that he requires cue cards while talking to the cameras. Only he will read the instructions too. Often, Biden forgets whether he’s the Vice President or the POTUS. He admits that he’ll “get in trouble” if he says the wrong thing. Joe Biden is an embarrassment on a scale of farce usually reserved for satire.
But he has a dark side too. His sordid son notwithstanding, Ashley Biden, his daughter, is a former drug addict. But she is also a sex addict. In a diary of hers found and sold to Project Veritas, she blamed her father for “sexualising” her as a child. According to the diary, Ms. Biden alleges that she became “hypersexualized” after showering with her father as a young girl. She admitted the president’s behaviour was “probably inappropriate.”
Joe Biden is far from being the only joker in the Democratic card pack. Vice President Kamala Harris is a giggling dunderhead who talks gobbledygook. Her press conferences are like listening to a stoner struggling to make themselves understood. She isn’t quite sure where Ukraine is. Her answer to the border crisis was to address “the root causes.” The root cause is that nobody but Trump has tried stopping them.
Merrick Garland habitually abuses his power, and Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin is responsible for the ignominious exit from Afghanistan. Not only that, but he secretly advised the Chinese that he’d reveal America’s military plans if required. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, oversees America’s southern border but won’t be pinned down about the debacle there. Border Patrol guards are instructed to unlock the gate and allow the influx of immigrants through. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has a flair for wit: he’s busing them to Washington and New York. The city of New York is so overwhelmed that they’re spending millions on hotels for illegals. That’s a problem occurring in Europe too.
The Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, forced CRT into schools. When parents objected, he dismissed them as sore losers (meaning, they must’ve voted Republican).
Of all Biden’s screwballs, the one that sticks out like a human head in the freezer is Sam Brinton. A colossal pervert, Brinton is as queer as a three-dollar bill. Brinton is a shock to behold. Bald like Yul Brynner, on formal occasions he wears glitzy dresses, complimented by high heels. Occasionally, he sports a moustache to offset his diamond necklace. One imagines him reclining lithely on Dr Lecter’s couch before an evening with Jame Gumb, the serial killer in Silence of the Lambs. Binton is into “puppy play,” a sick fetish involving adults pretending they’re dogs. Most disconcerting is that it oversees spent fuel and nuclear waste in the Department of Energy.
The conga line of inept and ineffectual bozos snakes on. Barely a member of Biden’s government can be trusted to answer a phone, let alone manage the affairs of a superpower. It is as if their real aim is to bring America crashing down around the ears of Republicans. As a result, America is seriously ill and deeply divided along racial and ideological lines. Contrarily, Trump resuscitated the economy. Americans had jobs. By comparison, life under Trump must’ve seemed like a golden age. In those regards, he was an effective president. Both Russia and China respected Trump; they weren’t about to tangle with him. But despite breathing life back into the ailing USA and preserving the global balance of power through sheer personality alone, the “orange man” remains bad.
Overwhelmingly unpopular, the expectation is for a landslide against the Democrats in the midterms. After that, they’ll seize congress. America’s deep state prefers Florida Governor Ron Desantis for the Republican nomination. Take that for what you will. But Trump is “evil,” we are forever told. Just why has never been satisfactorily elucidated; it’s meant to be a tacit understanding. We are led to believe that he habitually “lied.”
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard remarked that Trump was “unfit for office.” He offered no character assessment of Joe Biden. Never forget that Howard sent Australian sons to war based on fake intelligence. He joined the neoconservative cabal that reacted post-9/11. Now he is defaming Trump as a “liar.” Yet, Howard’s rhetoric is sourced from the real fraudsters. Pretty much, he counts as one of them.
Trump was accused of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton and the FBI attempted to sabotage Donald Trump with allegations about him conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. This became known as “Russia-gate.” Despite being officially cleared, the lies cannot be erased because his critics want to believe them.
Referring back to Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings in Ukraine, Trump was impeached for daring to inquire into the activities of the vice president and his randy son. It was quite a thing that it all turned out to be true. The logical question is “why”, followed by “what the hell is going on?” To understand this, we must rewind to the events of September 11, 2001, and earlier. There we meet the neoconservatives.
“You didn’t bother with meaning or logic because that will always be hidden. Instead, you looked for patterns, strange coincidences, and links that may seem to have no meaning but are tell-tale signs on the surface of the hidden system of power underneath.”
Jim Garrison, District Attorney of Orleans, investigated the conspiracy to kill President John F. Kennedy.
The Twin Towers of New York’s Trade Centre were felled by Islamic extremists in 2001. America’s response was to cobble together “evidence” that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s former leader, possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Did he? No… Was he responsible for the two aeroplanes that brought down the towers? No… But the fear and loathing the attacks engendered against the Muslim world blinded Americans to the unjustness of America’s invasion of Iraq. Earlier, in 2001, the US and its “allies” occupied Afghanistan. They were there to smoke out Al Qaeda.
The trouble was, Al Qaeda was pure fiction; it did not exist. The terrorists they sought were few and far between. The Islamic fundamentalists training with Ayman al-Zawahiri were not well-liked by the Mujahadeen. The other radicals weren’t interested in a worldwide revolution, only in converting Muslim countries to sharia law. Having failed to win over the masses in Egypt and Algeria, the extremists nursed their wounded pride in the graveyard of empires. They were struggling to find a way to establish a global revolution; the people had forsaken them. Instead of destroying democracy in their own countries, they decided to go after the great Satan himself; they set their sights on America.
In 1998, they had success with two major suicide bombs. Detonated outside US embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, 200 people died in the simultaneous truck bomb explosions. Despite this victory, they remained a rag-tag band of ad-hoc militants. Stuck in Afghanistan, they wondered what to do next. Then they met Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed was on their wavelength; he was an Islamic absolutist. He conceived the plan for hijackers to fly two aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre. Bin Laden funded Sheik Mohammed’s operation, which helped al-Zawahiri’s cause. America’s response was to bomb the hell out of empty caves and then finish what they started in 1990 with Saddam Hussein.
America had done the same thing with Muammar Gaddafi in 1985 when bomb attacks rocked airports in Rome and Vienna. Five Americans died in those blasts. President Ronald Reagan was under pressure to “do something.” He blamed Gaddafi, despite Italy’s intelligence bureau clearing the Libyan leader of any involvement. The Italian secret service was aware of the planned attacks beforehand. Syria was behind the bombings. But the US couldn’t go after Syria. Moreover, they refused to believe Syria was involved. But Libya presented a soft target. Meanwhile, Gaddafi sought stature in the Arab world. To that end, he played along by not protesting his innocence. Gaddafi believed the falsely-earned reputation gave him credibility in the eyes of other Arab nations. Was the US aware that Gaddafi was innocent? The CIA was. But when the country is crying out for a response, any reply is reassuring, especially politically.
The bombing of a Berlin discotheque in 1986, in which two American servicemen died, sealed the deal. In April of that year, the US launched Operation El Dorado Canyon. Missiles rained down on Libya. One of those hit Gaddafi’s home. The rocket was ill-targeted. Gaddafi survived, but children were among the 40 people killed. Their mangled bodies were gruesomely laid out in footage for the world to see.
On the surface, the true believers in the unsanctioned “police action” in Iraq were American President George W. Bush and England’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Australia’s PM, John Howard, mainly offered moral support. Australia’s commitment was negligible.
Bush and Blair were beguiled by the defective intelligence their respective spy agencies supplied. Now it was irrefutable that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq war presented as much of a stalemate on the political front as on the streets of Baghdad. Iraq became a meat grinder. US and British servicemen were being flown home in flag-draped coffins, and all for nothing. The embattled leaders turned to the forgotten international villain, Muammar Gaddafi. By greasing his palm, the Libyan leader could revive their fortunes. Desperate to save face, in 2006, the US offered to lift all sanctions against Libya and remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. All he had to do was destroy his WMDs. The Libyan leader assented. But there was a catch: he had none. He could only dredge up a few outdated barrels of mustard gas.
What ensued was a part-charade, part-public relations exercise. Overnight, he went from villain to hero. Spin doctors descended on Libya to groom the West’s new ally and polish him for a western audience. He was interviewed by high-profile journalists and praise was heaped upon him by the press. In 2009, Gaddafi flew to America and was invited to speak before the United Nations world assembly. Gadaffi was ecstatic; his debut at the UN was a dream come true. In his two-hour address, the Libyan leader criticized “Western aggression.” But then he insisted the US investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Gadaffi was squeezing the moment for all he could.
While in New York, Donald Trump supplied him with a Bedouin tent fit for a king. Gaddafi camped on an estate he owned in Bedford, a town in Winchester County. Trump would refer to his hospitality years later claiming he’d fleeced the Libyan leader on the rent. However, after the revolutions of the Arab Spring spread to Egypt in 2011, toppling unpopular leaders, Gaddafi was next. His Western allies turned on him. He was targeted in a NATO air bombing before being captured and slain by the rebels.
The US will instigate revolutions to spread “democracy” and the crude American ideal. They’ll engage, either directly or through a proxy. To do so, they’ll conjure a moral justification. Likewise, they’ll invent a credible enemy to go after. This was true in Guatemala in 1954, and it was the essence of the cold war with the Soviet Union. It is currently so in Ukraine. The CIA was involved in the Arab Spring uprisings. The narrative remains unchanged: good against evil. Yet, when they see the opportunity to install a leader, they take it. America is “the good guys,” and whomever they depose is “evil.” The language is elementary, as is the concept. However, it’s not a universally agreed-upon philosophy.
Henry Kissinger was the architect of globalism; what mattered most to him was safeguarding the balance of power favouring western liberalism. In other parts of the world, human rights were abstract and relative to the balance of that global system. Kissinger believed in the “balance of power” and “realpolitik,” or the politics of reality. In pursuit of it, he inadvertently aided the rise of Islamic extremism through his unconcern for the bit players.
The antecedents of 911 were decades in the making, although they weren’t symbiotic. Religious conflict divides the Muslim world despite their shared faith, splitting Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad desired to unite Arabs against the West and the Zionist menace. But his mistake was pursuing a political solution to the Palestinian problem. He advocated the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. Thus, in 1975, he encountered the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Hafez al-Assad was brutal but an idealist, while Kissinger was ruthless and a cynic. Power was the only currency he valued. His concept of realpolitik clashed with al-Assad’s idealism. Kissinger applied a cold-war logic to the Middle East. He angled to disunite the Arabs so that their quarrelling would permanently distract and keep them from destabilising his balance of power. Employing a duplicitous strategy of “constructive ambiguity,” he brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt. Kissinger had no interest in the Palestinians, yet he strung al-Assad along.
When al-Assad realised that Kissinger had double-crossed him, he was apoplectic. Having failed in his ambition, his idealism abandoned him. Instead, he withdrew to his palace and sought revenge on the West for its treachery. Hafez al-Assad’s fury gave rise to this “terrorism” that culminated in the US invading Iraq. Yet, he also cultivated the Islamic terrorism that indirectly led Iran’s holy leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to reinterpret the Koran to excuse suicide bombing in the name of the holy war.
Hafez al-Assad utilised the suicide bomber by using Hezbollah. In October 1983, suicide bombers drove two bomb trucks into a US marine base in Beirut. The carnage claimed 241 American lives. Suicide bombers were a game-changer. America didn’t know how to answer them and in 1984 they abandoned Lebanon. The Syrian leader was elated. But this would be far from the last bombing involving Syria. Ultimately, Libya would pay the price of al-Assad’s desire for revenge.
As a side-note, a dialectic happened in Iraq: If Bashar al-Assad, Hafez’s son and successor, desired to resurrect his father’s dream of uniting the Arab world, his stratagem backfired. Bashar established a pipeline between his country’s border and Iraq. Foreign fighters poured into Iraq to join the insurgency. However, it wasn’t only Americans they were after. Sunnis began killing Shiites using terror tactics that the Shiites authored: suicide bombers.
Later, that inter-religious conflict spread into Syria along with the Arab Spring.
Bashar’s father had prophesied that the Americans would unleash Arab demons, and they’d done so.
The neoconservatives objected to Henry Kissinger’s theories. Everything he represented, they opposed, especially his ideas about maintaining the “balance” of power. This could mean negotiating with potential rivals and sharing power instead of wielding it exclusively. They despised the softness of liberalism and the decadence of individualism. To them, post-modernism was a nihilistic abomination.
Ironically, the neoconservatives are a reflection of Islamic extremists. Both are moral absolutists; the Islamicist has the Koran, while the neocon promotes Judeo-Christianity. Neither can tolerate liberalism. Either will use violence to impose their system.
The neocons were students of the German-born Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss. He looked to the classics for inspiration. From him, neoconservatives inherited their political ethos.
Strauss believed that western liberalism sowed the seeds of its demise. Individualism was anathema to the state. An individual can not augment society as they question every layer of it. Cynicism holds them aloof. Entitlement makes mercenaries of them. Self-desire endangers a society’s shared values and thus its existence.
Rather, he philosophised that politicians had to ensure the myth of nationhood. The individual must become absorbed into the national organism. Instead of decadence, they should aspire to virtue. A unifying story didn’t have to be true; it only had to engross the public’s imagination. For America, that myth was destiny. The moral absolutism of “good” versus “evil” underscores neoconservative ideology. The central role of America is as a planetary crusader for “truth, justice, and the American way.” It justifies their policy of interventionism. In their eyes, the United States represents everything morally sound. On the other hand, Russia, the global villain, denotes unadulterated evil.
The neoconservatives gradually became influential in American politics after Watergate. In fact, by 1979, Esquire described them as “the most powerful new political force in America.” Two men who never identified as neoconservatives but warranted the name were Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. The former became Secretary of Defence in the Ford administration, while the other was Deputy Chief of Staff. Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as White House Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld set about undermining the détente that Kissinger helped to broker with Russia.
George W.H. Bush served as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director under Gerald Ford. Paul Wolfowitz was an arch-neoconservative along with Richard Pipes. Wolfowitz was a pupil of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago and would briefly head the World Bank almost 30 years later. He and Rumsfeld convinced Bush that the CIA’s “Team A” underestimated threat the Russian threat in its assessment. They persuaded him to approve a committee of “outside experts” to reassess the threat and reach a conclusion more to their liking. Richard Pipes oversaw the “Team B” committee.
This committee flagrantly concocted Soviet threats. They revived the cold war and organised America around the new menace. Again, that was in keeping with Straussian philosophy. It didn’t have to be true; the right people just needed convincing that it was so. If one harks back to Mar-a-Lago and the misappropriation of the FBI, it’s easier to understand how politicians misuse these supposedly autonomous organisations. It’s nothing new.
Judeo-Christianity is a keystone of neoconservatism. The Semitic aspect of neoconservatism cannot be ignored. Leo Strauss was a Jew, as was Irving Kristol, who is considered the godfather of neoconservatism. Many members of the neoconservative extended family were or are Jews, including Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, and Paul Wolfowitz. Others were staunch supporters of Israel lobby groups: men like Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Faith.
This helps explain the value neoconservatism places on America’s relationship with Israel. It is instructive of their situating Israel as the focal point of Middle East policy. The enmity towards the wider Arab world is deeply-rooted in Judeo-Christianity and Zionism.
Maria Ryan, an associate professor at the University of Nottingham, chronicled the rise of neoconservatism in her book, Neoconservatives and the New American Century. She portrayed Wolfowitz as “the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the [Bush] administration.”
The Bush administration adopted what was informally known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. After a decade of formulating and involving other neoconservatives like Richard Perle, the Doctrine advocated a strategy of American imperialist global polarization. Any threat that emerged had to be preemptively eliminated. The strategy relied on deception, or, put another way, lying. The scourge of international terrorism needed to be hyped up to an exaggerated degree. Thus, the War on Terror became a clash of civilizations. However, it was also a war on the truth. It was a fake. Moreover, it could hardly be described as American at all. What was once America has been steadily eroding for over 50 years.
The neoconservative programme of inflating the Soviet threat flourished under Ronald Reagan. Richard Perle and Wolfowitz were instrumental in establishing the Strategic Defence Initiative, or “Star Wars” missile defence programme. With neocon influence, the CIA secretly funded the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They supplied the Mujahideen with as many weapons as they needed.
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam persuaded Osama bin Laden to join the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Part of bin Laden’s appeal was his wealth and willingness to fund Jihadist activities. Azzam and bin Laden co-founded Maktab al-Khidamat. Its purpose was to draw foreign fighters to the holy war against the Soviets. Ayman al-Zawahiri, perhaps with an eye for bin Laden’s funding, coaxed the Saudi millionaire away from Azzam. A factional dispute between the different Arab groups led to a split. Some of those war-blooded veterans joined Ayman al-Zawahiri. Osama bin Laden followed al-Zawahiri. Azzam was assassinated in 1989, although it’s not clear by whom.
Nevertheless, the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan in 1987. Both the Mujahideen and the US believed they’d single-handedly defeated the Soviets. Whereas the Soviet system collapsed from within. Despite their having fought a proxy war against the USSR via the Mujahideen, President Gorbachev warned the US through the KGB about the dangers of handing power to the Mujahideen. The US ignored him. America would soon realise it had created a “rod for its own back.” They had funded and armed an ad hoc militia that would go on to declare a holy war on them. Worse, they gave rise to a menace that initially posed a minimal danger.
The War on Terror set in motion the growth of Islamic fundamentalism as envisioned by al-Zawahiri. It spawned new terror organisations. After 20 years, American resolve was ground down. Another superpower was driven out of Afghanistan, from whence it all began.
As a footnote, it’s worth noting that in the face of defeat, the US will settle for revenge. On July 31, 2022, al-Zawahiri was assassinated in a precision drone strike by the US military. The terrorist’s killing came a year to the day after the shambolic withdrawal by the US from Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was eliminated on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan. The terror kingpin had been living in a fortified compound close to a Pakistani military complex and Pakistan’s capital. A special operations team executed the mission codenamed Operation Neptune Spear.
While the rest of the world reeled in shock from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, the neoconservatives likely experienced a rush of adrenaline. At last, here was an opportunity to put their theories into practice. The neocons had unfinished business with Saddam Hussein. The time had come to settle old scores. They geared up the US military for a war with no foreseeable end. By reviving the fortunes of an ordinary president, they would own him just as they’d manipulated Ronald Reagan. The neocons were living in historical times.
Not only would they track this threat all around the world, but at home, too. They didn’t need the permission of the UN or anyone else. Who could stop them? After all, terrorists were everywhere, hiding in plain sight. The War on Terror called for a surveillance state with access to everybody’s lives. Omnipotence was there for the taking. It was a historic opportunity to change the rules of the game. Who would stand in their way? Who’d dare to break ranks while the land of freedom was under attack?
Fear triumphed over truth, and security demanded everyone place their faith in the system. The media was on board, while the military-industrial complex was jubilant. And with that, the system was in the hands of the neoconservatives. The thing to do hereafter was to be afraid. But don’t just be afraid, get mad. Don’t just get mad, get in line. Trust in CNN for your daily dose of truth and fear; pray for the United States and the free world. But the world would never be free again. That central illusion of entitlement to freedom became a struggle for freedom. Relative freedoms that were hitherto taken for granted are now privileges earned. Loyalty is to the programme.
All the players were in place. Dick Cheney was vice-president and ardently committed to the Wolfowitz Doctrine (now the “Bush Doctrine”) of preemptive action. Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defence and immediately set about tying Iraq to Al Qaeda (a myth itself). The Twin Towers hadn’t stopped crumbling when Rumsfeld and his deputy, Wolfowitz, sat at the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council. Rumsfeld reportedly asked boldly, “Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al Qaeda?”
Wolfowitz chimed in, describing how Iraq was a “brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily.” The two set to work pushing their case, which meant undermining detractors like the Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
And that’s where we’ll leave the War on Terror. America’s mythical “values” disintegrated overnight. Rumsfeld signed off on the use of torture at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. More than a fair share of prisoners hauled off to Guantanamo Bay were not Al Qaeda but unfortunates fingered by unscrupulous militants chasing greenbacks for handing over terrorists. Yet, while those responsible for the epic disaster of Iraq are long gone without facing international justice, the Wolfowitz Doctrine is still being used. And the War on Terror continues to this day, but in many forms and with newfound narratives.
True, they ousted Saddam Hussein. In April 2003, the US media staged a spectacle around the toppling of his statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square to give it more gravitas than was present on the occasion. The crowd’s reaction was partly choreographed by the media and US marines. Careful filming made the mob seem bigger and more enthusiastic than it was. Hussein was captured by US special forces in December of that year. They found him hiding in a hole in the ground in the small agricultural town of Ad-Dawr.
Paraded unkempt before the world media and sporting a wino’s beard, he was taken into custody and charged by an Iraqi special tribunal with crimes against humanity alongside 11 other senior Ba’athist leaders. On December 30 2006 he was hanged. The execution date was significant as it was the first day of Eid ul-Adha, an Islamic holiday.
Lastly, a story from that terrible day 9/11 is worth sharing. It has since fallen into that discredited catalogue of “911 conspiracy theories.” Except that it happened to be true.
The Dancing Israelis were five Israeli citizens arrested on September 11, 2001, after being filmed celebrating the attacks as they happened. The quintet of elated Jews were spotted by a New Jersey woman named “Maria.” The young men were all in their 20s and kneeling on the roof of a white van stationed in her parking lot. Maria recalled, “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like, you know, happy. They didn’t look shocked at me. I thought it was strange.”
The Israelis were operatives of the Israeli spy agency Mossad: Sivian Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel, and Omar Marmari. All played a role in a Mossad operation using a business named Urban Moving Systems as a front.
Later, although also subject to revisionist denials, was the “missing Jews” theory. The fact-checking site Snopes dismisses it as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. According to legend, thousands of Jews were absent from New York City at the time of the attack on the Trade Centre. This assumed the proportion of a legend. The implication was that Israel knew about the attacks in advance. Again, the evidence points to this being true.
Following September 11, over 100 Israelis were detained under the Patriot Act. Mossad spy circles were discovered. A top investigator confirmed to Fox News’s Carl Cameron that Israeli spies had gathered intelligence on the preparations for the attacks. But they kept it to themselves. A list of suspects was submitted beforehand by the Israelis that contained the names of four of the hijackers. Except, the report claimed the attacks were planned “outside the USA.”
Mossad’s motto is, “By way of deception, thou shalt make war.” That sounds awfully like the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was founded by a cross-dressing homosexual named J. Edgar Hoover. He and his deputy, Clyde Tolson, were in a discreet relationship. They lived like a married couple. However, the Mafia knew all about his idiosyncrasies. Historians suggest Hoover denied the existence of the organised crime syndicate since they had compromising photographs of him and Tolson.
Hoover’s vision for the FBI’s G men was a fiercely patriotic yet professional outfit comprised of clean-cut collegiate types with smart suits and trench coats. Perhaps that’s how he liked his boys. Nevertheless, he set the trend for the FBI that continues today: that of abusing power. Except that Hoover was pathologically anti-communist. His current successors don’t seem too fussed about aiding and abetting anti-constitutional forces.
Hoover kept secret records on everybody. He held them against his opponents in politics, against the rich and powerful. They were filed as leverage just in case they were needed. Theoretically, this enabled him to safeguard the bureau’s independence. But they could also prevent political undesirables from assuming office. That all changed when he died. Richard Nixon was frantic to get a hold of his private files. Upon the news of his death, he sent White House agents to seize them. But the files were already destroyed by his loyal underlings.
In 1976, a law was passed limiting the tenure of an FBI director to ten years. Hoover had enjoyed lifetime control of the bureau. Possibly, the threat of his private files kept him on the job. Certainly, plenty of presidents wanted him gone. The incriminating pictures of Hoover and his lover Tolson have never materialised.
And with that, we return to the actions of the FBI and the Department of Justice at Mara-la-Go, America’s most iconic presidential address. Given its history and that of its founder, people shouldn’t be too surprised by the FBI’s partiality. They should disabuse themselves of the notion that it’s an organisation committed to integrity. Nor is it coincidental that the raid was timed for less than 100 days before the midterms.
The January 6 Committee, far from scaring away those close to him, has bolstered Republican support for Donald Trump. Their efforts have proven counterintuitive. Before Trump, Republicans were derided as “cuckservatives,” or impotent conservatives. Their weakness created a monster out of the Democrats. Capitulation over fundamental conservative issues drained them of any reason for being. The Democrats have enabled Trump. As a martyr, he’s steered the party into the position of America First. The neoconservatives and those hiding in the swamp of unelected Washington bureaucrats fear that the most.
Essentially, they’re terrified of the prospect of accountability and power being drained from the government. The neoconservatives fear the undoing of their best-laid policies. Ronald Reagan was inclined to an America First tendency. The neoconservatives thwarted that by coaxing him into their polar strategy of amping up the threat of the ailing Soviet Union. George Bush Snr. refused to go after Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War because he saw such action resulting in a protracted and futile conflict. Needless to say, he never served a second term.
A president is expected to honour America’s global ambitions and not fixate on domestic politics or isolationist policies that might hinder the spread of “American values” around the world. Such an attitude has serious ramifications not just for a president but for the armaments industry. It bites deep with those exploitative multinational corporate powers that move in and make a killing in the wake of “democratization.”
Donald Trump is not “of the system.” Entering politics as a rank outsider, he held no ties to the deep state or those corporate entities with vested interests in how power is apportioned. Principally, he wasn’t “owned.” Americans voted for him, not the party. They didn’t know any better. Trump’s supporters are all “deplorable” anyway. To hell with the wishes of the American people; meeting the desires of the masses is way down the list of the swamp’s priorities.
On the other hand, no single interest dominates the establishment: it constitutes a junta of competing influences seeking dominance through compromise and trading for concessions. This space accommodates an unhealthy alliance. Whatever you call it, the deep state, the swamp, or the establishment, they all refer to that hidden coalition of powers. It comprises bureaucrats, NGOs, career politicians, corporate leaders, big tech oligarchs, and media moguls, along with the country’s security apparatus. It involves a lot of Jews. Even Trump’s moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 failed to appease Zionists.
Speaking from a foreign policy perspective, Trump upset the establishment. He unravelled the US strategy in the Middle East. He withdrew America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an accord between Iran and several world powers. By its terms, Iran agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme and open the country to international inspections. In return, Iran received relief from sanctions costing them billions of dollars. Although critics say Trump’s decision means the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear threshold power, Biden hasn’t honoured his promise to return the US to the deal.
No less alarming to the deep state was Trump’s seeking to cool down tensions with the “rogue state” of North Korea. Trump offered security guarantees to the communist dictatorship on the proviso Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his “firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” But alas, it was never to be. Still, he deserves full marks for trying. The neoconservatives would never attempt to do so, since removing a global threat to democracy is not in their interests.
Trump wanted to withdraw the US from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which he described as “obsolete” and “unfair economically to the United States.” Given how the Biden regime is hedging NATO against Russia in its pursuit of enticing Ukraine into the western fold, such policies scared the bejesus out of them. However, the real bugbear was Trump’s attitude to Russia, which Hillary Clinton and the FBI fabricated a case around. Their black op incited Trump to sue Hillary Clinton and other Democrats for trying to rig the 2016 US election by insinuating he was tied to Russia.
Notwithstanding, critics accused Trump of being soft on Russia. He wasn’t. Still, his objectivity can be summed up in a comment he made regarding US relations with Russia, “Our relationship has never been worse than it is now… I believe that nothing would be easier than refusing to meet… to refuse to engage. But that would not accomplish anything.” He later added, “I hold both countries responsible. I think that the United States has been foolish. We’ve all been foolish. We should have frankly had this dialogue a long time ago. I think we’re all to blame. I think that the United States has now stepped forward with Russia.”
When on April 13, 2018, Trump ordered precision strikes against Syria, it was a token gesture. Nothing of significance was targeted and Putin was given an advanced warning so that no Russians were injured. Trump saw no future in involving the US in Syria. He remarked in a White House speech, “America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria. It’s a troubled place. We will try to make it better. But it’s a troubled place.”
Falling afoul of the civil rights combine, Trump signed several orders that offended multiracialists and minority proponents. He banned immigrants from Muslim backgrounds; overturned the Obama-era Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); vowed to fight gangs, drugs, and crime; rescinded special rights for transgender students; continued allowing private prisons; opposed the challenge to the Texas Voter ID law; condoned North Carolina’s anti-transgender HB 2 law; cut back refugee admissions; restricted travel to certain Muslim countries; ended the prioritisation of LGBTQ people in disability programmes and welfare research; supported the American Health Care Act; and vowed to build a wall at the southern border to keep illegals out.
The role of progressive social policies is inextricably entwined with liberal idealism, and any step backward is viewed as a pending return to the days of Jim Crow. The Zionists are most upset by this prospect, which belies the advent of apartheid gestating inside its gentile-focused programme of wokedom. Liberalism abhors history, as it’s an anathema to the vision of what’s next. For that reason, it has no qualms about erasing American history because, to liberalism, the very idea is oxymoronic.
The swamp is concentrating on two core areas to derail Trump and prevent him from re-emerging as a political force. Those are the Capitol Hill “insurrection” on January 6, 2021, and “Russia-gate.” Each was constructed from lies. The FBI was almost certainly involved in stage-managing what little violence occurred on Jan. 6.
The Jan. 6 committee is without objectivity but solely intent on crucifying the former president. It’s all a matter of which side you are on. Those on the left believe every allegation about Trump. On the right, they consider the facts, not as they’re presented but as they exist. These point to shady activities involving the FBI, from missing instigators identified at Capitol Hill on the day to admissions about police inviting the mob to enter the Capitol Building. Then there was the cockamamie “plot” to kidnap the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer.
The refrain from Trump’s accusers is that nobody is above the law, not even the president. This is despite Hunter Biden, FBI director James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and others from the deep-state system demonstrably enjoying the privilege of unaccountability. Besides the fact that all those rioters from Antifa and BLM are immune from prosecution because they serve the deep state agenda. Moreover, it obviates all the privileges a former president is entitled to. He retains the highest level of security clearance outside of the oval office. That’s aside from the fact Trump’s fourth amendment rights should’ve protected him from unreasonable search and seizure.
Alternately, this is in stark contrast to how the state handles Trump’s supporters. So far, 896 people have been charged with offences arising from January 6. Of those, 185 received sentences. One was a harmless old lady, who was thrown into the clink with no quarter given. The liberal media celebrates these human rights violations.
High-profile identities such as Steve Bannon are in the committee’s crosshairs. Bannon, a former Trump advisor, was found guilty of contempt of Congress for thumbing his nose at the show trial. In June, the FBI raided the home of former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, seizing all his electronic devices. They even subpoenaed the phone records of his wife and children. Clark attempted to investigate allegations of election fraud on Trump’s behalf.
In July, former Trump advisor Peter Navarro was arrested by the FBI on two misdemeanour contempt of Congress charges. Navarro refused to comply with the Special House committee, and he was dramatically arrested by an FBI SWAT team at Reagan National Airport. Navarro described the officers as “kind Nazis” following the treatment he received. The arrest was unwarranted and entirely without discretion. He was handcuffed, denied food, and refused a phone call.
The search and seizure of Mar-a-Lago did not involve a SWAT team. That would’ve been pushing it, even for the deep state. Yet, it was unorthodox, to say the least. Trump’s attorneys were not allowed to be present. Documents subject to attorney-client privilege were confiscated, along with three of the former president’s passports and a phone. The phone has since been returned. What’s irksome is that Trump’s lawyers have fully cooperated with the National Archives. They had negotiated over several months and visited Trump’s residence two months before the raid. Among the documents taken were items not even listed on the warrant.
The judge who signed the warrant, Bruce Reinhart, is an outspoken critic of Donald Trump. He loathes him. What’s more, he represented former associates of notorious financier and sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. He donated heavily to the Democrats and once recused himself from a civil case involving the former president due to his bias. Then he abjudicated over the release of the affidavit used to justify the raid on Mar-a-Lago, a raid he signed off on. It all appears to be a farce. When the DOJ finally released the affidavit after bowing to pressure from Trump’s lawyers, as well as freedom of information requests from the media, it was heavily redacted. The DOJ claimed the redactions were necessary to protect civilian witnesses and law enforcement agents. They feared including the information would “erode trust” in the government’s investigation. It’s too late for that, depending on which side of the political divide you stand on. This takes us to the conclusion: what does all of this auger?
When news broke about the raid on Mar-a-Lago, Trump supporters swarmed the road outside his residence. Several dozen wore MAGA caps and pro-Trump paraphernalia. They lined the roadway, waving Old Glory. Trucks toting Trump flags cruised up and down the road. It was a defiant show of support for the embattled former president.
Republicans rallied behind the president, blasting the FBI search. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy took to Twitter with a fiery statement, which read in part, “I’ve seen enough… The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization… When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.”
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio tweeted on an account for Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, “This is what happens in third world countries. Not the United States… If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you.”
Venting in a series of tweets, Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote that “launching such an investigation of a former President this close to an election is beyond problematic… We’re 100 days away from the midterm elections. President Trump is likely going to run again in 2024.”
In another, he tweeted, “No one is above the law. The law must be above politics.”
Senator Rick Scott of Florida chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Tweeting angrily, he called the Mar-a-Lago search “incredibly concerning,” adding, “We need answers NOW. The FBI must explain what they were doing today and why.”
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whom many tipped would win the Republican nomination, tweeted, “[The raid] is another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies… Banana Republic.”
Senator Marjorie Taylor Greene didn’t mince words. She tweeted simply, “DEFUND THE FBI!”
Andrew Cuomo is as far left of Trump as it gets. Following the raid, he tweeted that the DOJ “better have a smoking gun to back up this raid or it will look like political persecution.”
Now that he’s being halfway honest, Cuomo should lay it all bare. If his politics hadn’t blinded him before, he should’ve admitted that the deep state had persecuted Trump before he was even sworn in. Russia-gate was an attempt to block or delay Trump’s inauguration. He was subjected to investigation after investigation, including one into his taxes. The FBI was investigating Trump before his election, during his presidency, and right now. And if we remember the Semitic influence, it puts us in a bind. We can neither ignore nor overstate the role of the Zionists in demonising Trump. A Google search reveals a cache of stories attempting to pin the “anti-Semite” tag on the orange man.
In 2021, The New Yorker published an article titled “Is Donald Trump An Anti-Semite?” Appearing on December 2021 in The Times Of Israel was an item, “Jewish Groups Pan Trump Anti-Semitic Tropes After Remarks On Israel, Jewish Control.”
The Zionists took umbrage over comments by Trump in which he claimed, “American Jews don’t love Israel” and that Israel wielded “absolute power over Congress.” His comments were aired in a July 20, 2021 interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid on a podcast. The leftist mouthpiece, The Guardian, promptly reproduced them. One thing you can say about The Donald is he doesn’t hold back. Shut him down, the Goyim know!
They are merely two of a plethora of anti-Trump pieces intent on portraying Donald Trump as a white supremacist. However, it’s apocryphal since he is not anti-Semitic, despite the best wishes of many of his more extreme followers. And when we consider the undue authority of Zionism in American society, we must recall the neoconservatives. It is incorrect to conflate neoconservatism with the Republicans. Although neocons situate themselves among conservatives, they are something else. They use whatever group is necessary to advance their agenda.
In the 1990s, they attached themselves to America’s Christian fundamentalists, who helped elect George W. Bush. It wasn’t a bad place to hide given the deference shown by Judeo-Christians to Zionism. At this juncture, it is reasonable to posit the accusation that neoconservatism is analogous to Zionism. What we have before us, with the separation of America along the right and left sides of politics, is Zionism attempting to impose its undisputed order. The word “democracy” is used cynically and spoken with a forked tongue.
Therefore, despite their detestation of soft liberalism, it hasn’t stopped neocons from consorting with Democrats. Moreover, the neocons never went away. Neoconservatives succeeded in their goal of tying American ideological supremacy to foreign policy. Not even the sage of neoconservatism, Francis Fukuyama, fully comprehends the inherent nature of the movement he helped to grow.
Nonetheless, Fukuyama distanced himself from neoconservatism after the monstrousness of Iraq. He called for Donald Rumsfeld to be sacked. It would be lazy to suggest Fukuyama lost sight of the fact that ideology soon loses out to power. That it simply becomes the mask worn in the pursuit of power. He was hip to what was happening at that level.
In a New York Times essay in 2006, he wrote that neocons “believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as a farce when practised by the United States… Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.”
But Fukuyama went on to support Barak Obama for the presidency. He was more fooled since Obama continued the “Bush Doctrine,” which Fukuyama declared a failure. Under pressure from the neocons, Obama helped to organise the NATO-led putsch in Libya. He involved the US in Syria and imposed sanctions against Russia following its annexation of Crimea. The whole reason Russia committed to its course of action was the strident involvement of the US deep state in instigating the chain of events that led to the Maidan Revolution. Joe Biden’s foreign policy is just a continuation of the Bush Doctrine, nee, The Wolfowitz Doctrine. Consider also that the election of Donald Trump in 2016 prompted a mass exodus of neoconservatives from the Republican Party.
Donald Trump has an uncanny ability to slip on a banana peel and execute a perfect backflip to land firmly on his feet. He was a pariah after January 6, even among fellow Republicans, to whom he was an outsider anyway. Trump has now become a martyr for conservatism. Whatever transpires in the midterms—and it’s expected to be a huge takeover of Congress by the Republicans—will once again be down to him. It will be owed to the Democrats for betraying their true colours. This will be a battle of traditional Americans against the Zionist impostor; only none of them will think of it in those terms given the surreptitious nature of the aforementioned constellation of nefarious interests.
Trump’s return will be thanks to the World Economic Forum (WEF), and their “Great Reset”. The COVID-19 health state (which Trump ironically helped to instigate) will be responsible. Finally, the Zionists will have signalled their genocidal hand. Their “progressive social policies” and the role they play in exterminating any trace of white America will have Trump waving the victory salute.
The neoconservatives are being expunged from the Republican fold These Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) are being detected through a process of ideological signification. They are telegraphing their opposition to Trump. Not surprisingly, Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz Cheney went against the Republican party and voted to impeach Donald Trump. Seeking re-election as congresswoman for Wyoming, Cheney was easily defeated in the primaries by Trump-backed newcomer and GOP candidate Harriet Hageman.
Republicans under Trump are being reshaped as America First, an idea wholly repugnant to the neoconservatives. The raid on Mar-a-Lago has only made Trump more powerful. He has become the kingmaker for the Republicans, endorsing 200 candidates. His selections have so far had a 92% win rate.
Yet, if all that sounds encouraging to those on the right, beware. America is on the verge of a second civil war. If Trump is arrested over spurious charges, the right will explode. If Trump finally announces his intention to run in 2024 and secures the party’s nomination, there will be blood. If Trump wins in 2024, the rioting of previous years will seem like jolly festivities. The deep state will go ballistic; there’s no telling what it may do next. Without any of this occurring, those in the swamp are hell-bent on a planned detonation of American society. Their policies are deliberately driving America to collapse. This appears to be the logical conclusion to all the revolutions masterminded by the neocons. The final insurrection will be on American soil.
Tom Sunic is a Croatian American. He is a former professor of political science, a former diplomat, and the author of several books. One of those, Homo Americanus, is a seminal study of the American man, from his myths to his systems. Sunic is pessimistic about what is unfolding in the United States. He told us, “The American system is showing increased signs of dysfunctionality and the likelihood of a breakup. The raid on Trump’s house was to be expected; it was a follow-up on the System’s earlier smearing and legal charges, which Trump had to endure during his entire presidency and after.
“The likelihood of Trump’s second term won’t make much of a social difference. The System is subject to its own laws of systemic changes, either for good or bad, that no president can alter much.”
Nick Griffin is the former leader of the British National Party and an erstwhile member of the European Parliament. He offered us his view on what is going down.
“In a way, it’s a huge precedent,” he messaged us. “It is completely unheard of to launch a legal assault on a former president for doing what most former presidents have done (Obama took 30 million documents for his archives when he left the White House) and which an ongoing president is entitled to do.
“It is a stunning example of the selective prosecution and shamelessness of anarcho-tyranny. On the other hand, it’s so in keeping with the previous actions and the whole thrust of the illegitimate Biden regime that it’s no surprise and doesn’t change anything.”
However, Griffin discounts the possibility of Trump returning for a second term.
“The groundswell of popular sympathy for Trump does make it even more likely that he will run in 2024—unless the Democrats step on the tyranny gas even harder and abuse the law to prevent him from doing so—or perhaps more likely to ensure that the Republican establishment finds a way to prevent him from getting the nomination.
“Given the scale of the demographic change in the USA, coupled with institutionalised electoral fraud, there is no way that Trump should be able to win in anything like normal circumstances. There again, the economic and financial situation is now so dire that “normal” is very unlikely to return to America.”
If you think it’s about Trump, think again. Trump said so himself. “In reality,” he wrote, “they’re not after me, they’re after you.”
What the system fears the most is not Trump the man, but what he represents. It is what he signifies. They fear Americans. ■
An astounding incongruity now exists in Australia with how organisations such as the Business Council of Australia [BCA], in cahoots with the economic advisory firms KPMG and PwC, pressure the government to significantly increase the annual migration intake. Meanwhile, a critical shortage of rental accommodation […]Australian Nationalism
A fervent champion of mass migration is the president of the BCA, Jennifer Westacott. This woman has pushed the Big Australia agenda from as far back as 2012 (even during the mid-COVID pandemic). A collective of business concerns, headed by Westacott, immediately buttonholed the new government upon its election, hassling them to increase migration. Between 2017 and 2019, the permanent-migration figures were, supposedly, 160,000. The number of temporary migrants was, again, allegedly, 240,000. Industry leaders and their political counterparts are now demanding an added increase of 250,000 per annum.
However, as business groups bang the drums for higher migration, Australians are facing a dire housing shortage. How can the BCA and its affiliates insist on importing more migrants when there aren’t enough homes for Australians?
Those pushing the big-immigration agenda include KPMG’s Bernard Salt, Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group, Lucy Turnbull, the Premier of NSW, Domonic Perrottet, and Victoria’s Premier, Dan Andrews. They aren’t perturbed by this housing dilemma because they’re already imbued with wealth and property. And, in many cases, some politicians own between three and four luxury properties.
Alice Workman wrote an article in The Australian in July 2022 about 15 federal politicians who own more than three houses. Other commentaries followed in the same periodical. One by James Kirby and the other by Matt Bell. Both are worth noting.
Bell conveys a bizarre situation by quoting the chief economist of PropTrack, Cameron Kushner, saying, “It seems so strange that with no one coming into the country (between March 2020 and November 3, 2021) and population growth this low, we could see the rental market this tight… We are only at the start of the rental crisis, and with overseas and interstate migration returning with borders open, it seems likely that rental conditions will tighten further over the coming months… If the push by business leaders comes to fruition, stock levels, which are already tight, will further decrease and rents will grow rapidly—this is most likely to be the event in Sydney and Melbourne. ”
With particular regard to the Melbourne CBD, on either side of Hungry Jack’s on Spencer Street, Chinese real estate agents operate a total of five agencies. These loyal ex-pats advertise rentals exclusively to students from China. Anyone familiar with the broad expanse of Melbourne’s CBD and its adjacent suburbs knows that this area was radically transformed in the six years between 2014 and early 2020. The major change is due to an estimated 28,000 foreign students inundating those areas. This programme of introducing international students to the CBD has made the CBD unrecognisable. It now resembles a Chinese colony. Worse yet, they’re leaving Australians homeless.
James Kirby writes, “An Albanese government plan to lift migration will further fuel rent increases across the property market, industry analysts suggest.” This is despite, “…The residential market … already witnessing dramatic rent increases as the amount of space for rent. The so-called vacancy rate hovers around one per cent.”
Kirby quotes Tim Lawless, from the economic advisory firm, CoreLogic, who says, “Migrants traditionally head straight to the cities, and they move first to the rental market.”
Lawless is correct when he talks about Indian immigrants. However, over 42,000 Indians (excluding family members) migrated here between 2014 and 2019. They moved directly into 20 development estates in Sydney and Melbourne, having purchased them before leaving India, bypassing the rental market altogether. What’s more disconcerting is that these properties were financed by Indian banks. In 2019, Larry Schlesinger wrote in the Financial Review, “Indian Immigrants Keep Homeownership Dream Alive.”
Two days after the article appeared on March 5, the author rang Shlesinger to query him on how Indians were getting around the credit squeeze. He suggested that Indian immigrants were getting around APRA’s rules because Indian banks were providing them with capital. Schlesinger replied firmly, “I have no idea how this is happening.” The author wondered whether his ignorance was affected.
In July 2018, Robert Gottliebsen wrote an article in The Australian with a similar refrain to Schlesinger’s, “Chinese Buyers Find A Way Around Credit Squeeze.” He quoted another major beneficiary of mass immigration. Property tycoon Harry Triguboff said, “[Despite] Australian banks [having] shut the door [to loans], the Chinese have found a way around the problem and are reorganising their finances.”
Triguboff gloated, “This is terrific and is more like it is overseas because people are not required to say how they will refinance after three to five years.”
With that, Gottliebsen concluded, “The message from Triguboff is that Chinese customers have found a way around the regulator-imposed (APRA) credit squeeze in Australia with the help of Chinese banks.”
Now that the Chinese economy has declined over the past 12 to 18 months, those Chinese either in Australia or wanting to migrate here won’t be able to obtain loans from Chinese banks. However, major Indian banks are ready to sponsor Indian migrants with home loans (on average $750k) in Australia, providing they’re granted permanent residency and will earn over $85k per year in a growth industry.
The number of foreigners entering Australia on these visas is roughly 40% higher than the official figures indicate. Those figures only represent the visa holder. They don’t include the non-working spouse or their children, who enter later. Thus, the 160,000 figure (or whatever it might be) is closer to 220,000. Those with temporary visas are estimated to be around 240,000 per year. Again, these figures hide the reality. An international student spends, on average, four years in Australia before they either leave or become permanent residents.
In other words, five years down the track, those international students who arrive on temp-visas will have accumulated to over 1.2 million. Apart from international students, hundreds of thousands of migrants enter Australia on temporary visas. By the close of 2019 alone, their numbers had accrued to 2.1 million. But with COVID, the number dropped to approximately 1.85 million.
The impact of 900,000 non-Australians each year on those metropolises has reduced the native Anglo-Celtic-European population to a minority. That’s without mentioning the rental crisis caused by the influx, and the homelessness that it creates.
Bear this in mind as the property developers and the politicians in their pockets crow about the return of international students. ■
Anthony Albanese’s Labor government is shooting for a historical legacy achievement. Australians are soon to be asked to vote for an indigenous voice in parliament. The proposal is so vague and its terms of reference so ill-defined that there’s no telling what kind of monster […]Australian Nationalism
Before expanding on this topic, we ask the reader to consider whether or not you have a voice in this parliament. We ask that you ponder whether or not the Australian parliament is independent of the western liberal cabal to which we’re indentured. The parasitic elites will tell you that this is a democracy and your elected representatives are your voice in parliament. But when those who’ve been elected gather for drinks, they roll around laughing themselves silly at that illusion. Then they use their position to grab whatever they can for themselves, prepare for a cushy future after parliament and then milk the system for all it’s worth.
Recent revelations about the culture of the Australian national parliament have exposed a veritable brothel in our nation’s capital. The shindigs going on in there would make the Marquis De Sade blush. Those not having sex in their offices are getting rollicking drunk on the taxpayer’s dollar and making all manner of asses of themselves. Let’s never forget these things happened, and continue in the houses of power. Many of these people are shallow grifters and degenerates. They left all pretence at idealism at the parlour door aeons ago. That’s before they decided to hop aboard the gravy train and travel into the rhetorical sunset.
These confidence tricksters have, in their time, sold our natural resources off to Communist China. They have taken liberties with our liberty. Remember COVID-19? Remember the masks, the mass arrests, the police brutality? What voice did we have then? We now find out that those vaccines were hogwash and those “plague rats” who demurred the draconian measures to contain the glorified flu now look like national heroes. They lied then, but now this “parliament”, with its bogus “welcome to the nation” smoke ceremonies and other hollow gestures, wants to enshrine a sacred voice. The only sacred voice in parliament is the almighty shekel.
Where is the voice in parliament for those of us who want to end immigration and pursue our national destiny unfettered by the yoke of American western liberalism? There is no unified Australian community, as this proposal acknowledges. Moreover, no single Aboriginal voice exists because there is no unified Aboriginal community. Their tribes are plagued by violent feuds and disagreements. These are not problems generated by the Australian constitution, which is already an admittedly unsatisfying sheet of convoluted text as it stands.
The Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report to the Australian Government includes many references to the work done by “previous” Aboriginal advisory bodies. What finally emerges will be the culmination of those chattering bodies into two distinct groups: a local and regional voice. If these are to determine the wants and needs of Aborigines living in remote communities, then why not just go to those communities and find out what the problems are? Then again, we know what the problems are.
Aborigines share the same problems as we Anglo-Celtic-Europeans in the wider community: they are being shunted into an increasingly greater minority thanks to the ongoing immigration project. Very soon, they’ll be wondering about their pronouns and whether or not their right-handed people have more privilege than they do. This will distract them from the existential failure of this ill-conceived voice, which will, as with everything else, amount to a stupendous dialectic once the dust has settled. That might be that every other “minority” community demands its voice. Indians, Chinese, Africans, Arabs, and so on will all want a voice. Anything might happen when you open that constitutional Pandora’s box.
On the other hand, we don’t know what an Aboriginal voice in parliament is all about, or why it’s being promoted. So far, nobody knows. The Prime Minister made a general statement about “closing the gap”. This voice aims to “focus” on issues such as life expectancy, education, health, and the violence plaguing Aboriginal communities.
Surely, by the rules of parliament, as it stands, an Aboriginal voice equates to having MPs from those areas doing their job for their community and not coalescing with the interests of the party they represent. Right now, there are six people who “identify” as Aboriginal in the parliament; many might consider that over-representation given their numbers. Therefore, the ramifications of this vote auger the direst consequences if Australia votes “yes.” Because all they’ll be voting on is green-lighting a vague idea to discover what the actual idea is. Currently, there is no idea. The idea is to come up with an idea. Not exactly a solid foundation to start building upon.
Essentially, a yes vote will hand resources and influence to an as yet undefined group to do god knows what with. The moment you ensure regular resources, the securing of those resources inevitably becomes the ongoing function of that group or body. It is the penultimate extension of the welfare mentality. Worse still, it’s the culmination of every patronising exercise involving the Aboriginal question. It is an admission that, after all this time, nobody has a clue how to bring these people into the 21st century.
Who will make up this group? How will it elect members? When they’re elected, will they be pureblood Aborigines or just the usual 1/10th part Aboriginal from somewhere down the great great grandmother’s ancestral line? Shouldn’t we be doing more to preserve true Aborigines from being mixed up by these cosmopolitan genocidalists? But that’s another topic entirely. The makeup of this group, or whatever they end up being designated as is unlikely to support a conservative voice. So, who will be the duelling voices and what is the norm they’ll have to conform to? Will it be Lidia Thorpe, the anti-Australian nightmare wrecker in the Greens? Will it include “fake Abos”? Will it be their elders? Again, we only have questions, and as you can see, far too many of them.
What one hand does in benevolence, the other acts in ignorance. Then there are those hands that are told what to do. As such, as the price of belonging to the western liberal cabal, we are playing games with energy. We’re witnessing the implementation of the Great Reset across Europe. Germany, for instance, is now rationing power. All because of a fixation on the disputed phenomenon of climate change. If remote Aboriginal communities need electricity now, preventing them from accessing power isn’t going to placate that “voice” crying out for utilities. They’ll merely have a valid ticket aboard a sinking ship.
What kind of education are they about to get? Will they learn that women have penises? Are they to discover that men can also give birth to children? Are they to be taught how evil white civilisation is in order to perpetuate their dependence on the government? Where will the health professionals come from if the safety of nurses is not guaranteed in those lawless towns? If the gap is a matter of the Aborigines’ genes and not provisioning, what will it ever likely achieve?
Albanese delved even deeper into the rhetorical by telling The Australian, “I believe that a voice in parliament and lifting the status and respect of First Nations communities is a precondition for getting better practical outcomes and closing the gap in all areas.”
Respect? That’s just a bunch of sentences. Every government and corporate website, as well as every document released, includes an acknowledgement of Aborigines. The farce that is the “welcome to the country” ceremony, hastily cobbled together by the indigenous comedian Ernie Dingo (who married a white woman) back in the 1970s, is adopted as though it’s sacred and legitimate as a rite. How much respect can we be forced to show? That’s not respect anyway, it’s patronising Aborigines. And we’re talking about an absolute minority. According to government statistics, a mere 812,000 people “identified” as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in 2021. That was up 2.8% from 2016. Note that we parenthesised “identified” because the number of actual full-blooded Aborigines is far lower. They’re crowded out by the trendy shysters claiming Aboriginal heritage when they look as white as the ordinary Anglo. Therefore, this is an exercise in virtue signalling at its most shameless.
Consider this: there are 1.2 million Chinese living in Australia. There are 193,633 Middle Easterners entrenched in enclaves. The Indian population (doubtless higher than the stats show) is 673, 352. That’s catching up with the Aborigines, and it won’t be long before Indians in Australia surpass both the Chinese and the Aborigines. If Albanese allows New Zealanders carte blanche to migrate here with full rights as citizens, the numbers of Chinese, Indians and Middle Easterners coming through the back door will increase exponentially.
This embarrassing “acknowledgement” that Aborigines are incapable of coping with modern society is better left politely unsaid rather than trumpeted by an enormous “special needs” programme that opens up the rest of us to untold consequences. Are these Chinese and Indians likely to vote “yes” to a voice? What makes Africans care about the Aborigines? The Arabs are too busy fighting them for control of our prisons.
Whatever the “Seniors Offical Group” that evolves out of this messy process, should it go ahead, it will not be a unified voice. Aborigines are not a unified people, nor were they ever. Lidia Thorpe argues that “sovereignty was never ceded,” but sovereignty to what? An amorphous aggregation of disparate tribes fighting over land and resources? The structure of this group will be rigged. Again, will they be elected or appointed along political lines? But that’s another question. Just the privilege of victimhood.
The underlying dialogue won’t help but become “anti-racist.” The concession in the constitution will create porous borders and potentially hand control of resource-rich areas to Aboriginal syndicates, who, in theory, might choose to sell those to China. This has been the experience with such groups up until now—they’ve been rife with nepotism and corruption. Each different tribe will have its inherent interests, just as you find in Papua New Guinea. Those with the resources share them with their clan.
The twin danger of this referendum is that the majority of Australians blindly vote “yes” out of the typical western liberal sense of goodwill that is divorced from empirical reality. It can only exacerbate multiculturalism, which in turn will blow back on the Aboriginal people.
Likewise, we’re in danger of irreversibly splitting the constitution in two. One for Aborigines and one for “the rest.” Given that all it takes to be Australian is adherence to nebulous “values”, at present, there isn’t any need for special treatment for Aborigines. Yet, the constitution, once divided, opens up the prospect of this nation losing what little security of identity it has left. That means it puts us at the mercy of aggressive powers in the region.
There are Aborigines and there are Australians. The two are not mutually inclusive. Australia is the country that was built by the descendants of the convicts sent here after the land was claimed by Great Britain. The Aborigines had no say in it because they were a collection of conquered (not unified) tribes. It’s fallacious to claim “Australians” stole Australia, as Australians were born out of an enforced re-settlement of Brits, Irish, Scottish, etc. We bear no guilt for anything.
A “conscience” on the matter is pure Marxist revisionism. The sad truth is that in the great Darwinian quest for survival, Aborigines are losing the fight. They were too far for too long. They were so far behind advanced civilisations and so genetically unevolved that the intrusion into their land was a work of destiny, not an act of villainy. Would they have preferred the Chinese to have conquered this great continent? The entire concept of a “voice” is rooted in the self-destructive policies shaped by western liberalism that spouted after the Nuremberg trials of 1945–1946. Effectively, the “anti-fascist” mentality of the west is out of control. It is thanks to that aberration of Christianity and Semitic instruction that formerly white nations are committing suicide by immigration. This suicide affects Aborigines worse. The concept of a voice motivated by liberal idealism is insoluble. A “yes” vote will profoundly exacerbate the problems of migration, identity, and ownership. This will marginalise all Aborigines except the cosmopolitan liberals riding the gravy train. ■
In the catalogue of truly terrible ideas put forth by the corrupt and compromised Daniel Andrews regime in Victoria, the planned deregulation of prostitution stands out as the most egregious to date. When Andrews courted the collective of political misfits and the Greens who hold […]Dictator Dan
When Andrews courted the collective of political misfits and the Greens who hold the balance of power in the Victorian Legislative Council, to gain parliamentary approval for his COVID-19 pandemic health measures, we all suspected that there would be a quid-pro-quo.
As is customary for the Victorian ALP, the negotiations were shrouded in secrecy, but given the extreme positions held by the participating MLCs, a list of crazy demands was suspected to be on the table.
By late 2021 the nature of the trade-off was beginning to take shape, reports emerged indicating that the total de-regulation of prostitution in Victoria was on the cards, that the recommendations contained in the secret report of the committee investigating the issue, chaired by Reason party chair Fiona Patten, were to be implemented.
In February 2022 the Sex Work Discrimination Bill 2021 was signed into law which resulted in the scrapping of all prostitution offences beginning on March 1st of the same year and culminating in the de-regulation of the industry from December 2023.
On the face of it, this seems like a stupid idea, for reasons we will explore presently, but worse is to come, it seems that communities are likely to be stripped of any means to prevent sex-based businesses from proliferating in their suburbs; it has been revealed by proponents of the bill that the anti-discrimination act will be expanded to silence any objection to commercial prostitution by residents or city councils.
Prostitution under the previous regime of legally registered brothels, which were required to comply with certain standards under health and planning laws had been undermined in recent years by the explosion of illegal operators, the Asian model of a brutal sex trade barely obscured by allusions to “relaxation massage”, “hairdressers” or “health spas” has arrived with the massive influx of migrants from that region.
The suburbs are already chock full of dodgy knocking shops, full of scrawny women trafficked from Thailand and even poorer areas of the world, most likely trapped in some grim form of debt bondage or sold outright to the traffickers by their kin.
This is the present reality, the future can only be worse since the “progressive” new bill scraps all checks and balances, including health checks for brothel inmates and will allow these legalised copulation sweatshops to obtain liquor licences.
This sounds like a gangster’s paradise since it legitimises the whole menagerie of pimps, thugs, drug pushers and slavers who make up the submerged ecosystem of the sex trade.
Unregulated brothels are also a money launderer’s dream, uncounted billions in hot money are probably already passing through the massage parlours, which seem to spring up on suburban streets like mushrooms after the autumn rains.
These profoundly negative consequences are noted even before we get into the nasty aspects of the trade and its effect on the women who are lured in out of desperation or the lure of a quick buck. There are no provisions for government-run welfare and rehabilitation services nor a stated priority of helping prostitutes come off the game NGOs that deal with the negative fallout from the sex trade were ignored during the consultation process which informed the parliamentary report.
There will probably be a revamped licencing squad and a crackdown once the inevitable happens and there is some ghastly murder of a hooker, a fatal fire in a rickety brothel or a child prostitution scandal. As any parent knows, the police are worse than useless when it comes to monitoring licensed venues, every savvy 15-year-old knows of a dance club run by criminals where they won’t be asked for identification at the door and can score drugs with ease, the brothels will be even easier.
Where are we heading? Is sex going to become just another alternative currency, like Bitcoin? Will it be acceptable for a landlord to offer accommodation in return for sexual favours, or for an employer to demand that certain acts be performed as part of a worker’s wages?
The idea among progressives seems to be that deregulation somehow puts the power over sex as a medium of exchange in the hands of the prostitutes, which is a silly notion born out of bourgeois sensibilities and their image, drawn from fiction, of the common whore as some sort of elegant, witty courtesan who is in control of her fate.
This is rarely the case and is simply a way for middle-class twits to cope with their hypocrisy on the issue of commercial sex and, as ever, delude themselves that a vote for “progressives” really will lead to progress.
For people who have never rubbed shoulders with gangsters or seen a real oppressed worker, much less a slave, it must be hard to imagine that deregulation of prostitution could lead to anything but some antipodean version of Moulin Rouge. Let me assure those gentle folk that opportunities for class tourism and slumming it in houses of ill repute will be many as we lurch back into a night-time economy worthy of the last days of Rome.
Anybody who has viewed the Libs of TikTok is familiar with the endless parade of videos featuring mostly young and hep queer types bragging about indoctrinating children in their care into the perverse world of gender theory. They are nearly always liberal American millennials. Usually, […]Australian Nationalism Davos Agenda News
It is a curious phenomenon, since the police monitor online chats where children are at risk. They entrap paedophiles by posing as children and then arrest them at pre-planned meet-ups where the predator believes he or she is meeting with a minor. By the same token, the exploitation of children by the queer industry is happening with government consent and safeguards. And it’s far from friendly. More and more of these activist teachers are being exposed as “paedophiles.”
Opponents of this social reset deride this trend in education as “grooming.” They describe those teachers wallowing in the abuse of trust as “groomers.” Twitter is now banning anyone from using the word “groomer.” The excuse is that it “promotes violence against trans people.” However, it seems more like a tacit admission that the accusations are true. The liberal establishment is insistent that your children will be shaped by their ideas. When parents object even slightly to this unhealthy practice, they become enemies. The government and media have conflated such contrary parents with “White supremacy.” They’ve invalidated their objections by including them in the basket of “conspiracy theorists.”
The child is being claimed by the state since the state supports this. There is a direct correlation between the queer lobby and the state in directives on American pedagogy. By that, we mean they have prepared kits instructing teachers on how to proceed with grooming children. In a nutshell, it has become policy. No discussion has occurred between parents and the school. To even address the matter, parents are forced to confront the school boards with a limited ability to question them in any depth or length of time. They’re given a brief period to speak, and then somebody on the panel rings a bell, signalling their time is over. And these are just the parents permitted to have their say.
Those parents that have confronted the school boards are treated as if they’re radicals. They are “others.” The essential sentiment conveyed is that they’re being “tolerated,” but that their remarks and the concerns they express are irrelevant. Again, on TikTok, these “progressive” millennial teachers are acting as the agents for this state-queer enterprise, mocking these parents. They effectively laugh at them. The programme is basic communism. The ideology is the product of a warped dialectic. It sprouts from the various forms of liberalism.
We will take it for granted that the practice of sexualising children (and that’s what this is) is not just wrong but evil. We won’t expound on why, since readers of NAB will already understand. Only a matter of a few years ago, there’d have been no need to defend ourselves with any sort of argument. It is an understanding that occurs at an instinctual level.
Meanwhile, the queer lobby responds to criticisms of gender theory (a benign term) with predetermined rhetoric about how they’re “protecting” children. They’re shaping a more tolerant and inclusive world by “educating” them on queer theory. This is what they say. Tolerance is one of the cornerstones of liberalism.
As such, the indoctrination has spread beyond the walls of the classroom and into “gay-friendly” venues, such as bars and cafes. Drag shows are the latest weapon of sexual confusion to attack young children and weaken their natural orientation. These are marketed as “family-friendly” events in much the way the media describes Antifa and BLM riots as “mostly peaceful.”
As is the case with progressive liberalism, it seeks the state’s authority to enforce its goals, which it accords with the “good life.” As such, a minority agenda is enforced on the majority in the name of ensuring individual rights and freedoms.
The Libs of TikTok is active in revealing this subversive form of brainwashing. It is truly mindbending how parents of these children can believe there is anything inherently “good” in allowing sexual deviants to parade before minors in a facsimile of an actual strip show. Indeed, they happen to be actual strip shows. These events include young kids being encouraged to approach males dressed in G-strings, garters, and female underclothes and slipping actual money into the elastic of their lingerie. The adults applaud them. It is a ritual. The child is now “good” and ready for further deprogramming.
You’ll note that we say “gay-friendly” rather than dive into the myriad of identities and “communities” associated with gender theory. That’s because they’re the same and share a common purpose where children are concerned. They wish to “liberate” them from the “hetero-normative” values of the society they’re resetting.
Australians have been grateful that this freak show is being viewed from afar; that we don’t have “that sort of thing” here. But we do. It’s arrived. and was always going to.
Being an ally of America isn’t simply about geographical defence; it’s about ideological crusading. Liberal idealism sits in opposition to nationalism, and as such, nation states are being abolished and with them our values. Vladimir Putin is to be praised for repelling the advance of Western liberal idealism. The West’s obsession with Ukraine has long been interventionist regarding Russia. However, we digress.
The Daily Telegraph reported this week about a child care centre in Roseville, on Sydney’s north shore, contacting police over a concerned parent who confronted them over exposing five-year-olds to this liberal cult. Roseville is an affluent area; one wonders what the reaction would be out west, where it is much more multicultural and “multi-faith.”
We’re not in the habit of cutting and pasting directly from news sources. In this case, we reproduce the article in its entirety because we wish to discuss certain points. It is as follows:
A Sydney parent has said that police were called on him after he raised concerns that an after-school care centre his child was attending was teaching inappropriate lessons on gender and sexuality in the name of raising a more “inclusive” generation of students.
It comes after recent outrage over a Services Australia form that erased ‘mother’ and replaced it with ‘birthing parent’ on official forms.
The parent, whose child attends Roseville Kids Care, which provides before and after school care to students from Roseville Primary School, said that he took issue with children as young as five being exposed to material that included radical gender theory concepts such as being “non-binary” and “pansexual,” as well as children being given “pride” flags to colour in.
“I visited it and was shocked that there was a giant out-sized ‘pride’ flag. It was the biggest flag in the room, far bigger than the Australian flag,” the parent who wishes to remain anonymous to protect his child’s privacy said.
“When I went in there was an entire wall describing different sexualities, giving definitions of things like ‘pansexual’ and ‘lesbian’.”
“My child is five, I don’t understand what possible justification there is for exposing them to sexual identities like this.”
Photos from inside the facility show pride flags that appear to have been coloured in by students, as well as a wall covered in definitions of different sexualities and gender identities, including “gender fluid,” “asexual”, and “nonbinary.”
The parent also says that the centre lodged a complaint with local police as a result of his raising concerns about the program but that after receiving a phone call from a constable, he was told that he had no case to answer and there would be no offence recorded.
Sydney child psychologist Clare Rowe said that the concepts were far too adult for children to grasp.
“There is this thing where we think we are raising socially conscious global citizens by exposing children to these adult topics, but they simply do not have the mental faculties to process layered, complex information.”
“It’s also a parent’s right and responsibility to answer questions and educate their children about these things.”
Dr Bella D’Abrera, Director, Foundations of Western Civilisation Program at the Institute of Public Affairs, called the centre’s activities “outrageous”, adding, “Parents should be extremely concerned that they are entrusting their very young children to an aftercare centre which is indoctrinating them with radical gender theory.”
However, Pauline O’Kane, CEO of the Network of Community Activities, which represents school hour care facilities, defended the centre.
“It’s about raising children with inclusive attitudes,” she said, and claimed that five-to 12-year-olds often ask questions about subjects like transgenderisim.
“Do you shut the conversation off or do you educate and inform positively so they feel like they can ask questions,” she asked, adding that the Roseville centre had been assessed by relevant authorities.
“I don’t think we should curtail children’s inquisitiveness, and I am sure this centre positively did this,” she said.
The article misleads the reader into suggesting that the paper shares the parents’ concerns. Yet, the “objective” format of the piece belies its impartiality. The same paper permits journalists’ outright bias when upholding a narrative. Here, the journalist (figuratively) scratches their chin and steps back from the issue. We can see this by the inclusion of the “balancing quote” from Pauline O’Kane. Why? Because this is a media organ very much embedded in the liberal ideology responsible for gender theory; it cannot openly question it, although the editor is well aware that its readers largely object.
So, gender theory has arrived in Australia. We’re certain that this child centre is far from the only one promoting this perverted ideology. But the question that most are likely to ask is, why? Why is this being allowed? Why would they want to do it in the first place?
We’ve covered the liberal idealism component, but there’s another factor less obvious to the eye. The great reset is about rearranging wealth. It purports to be a more equitable system of wealth distribution, yet it’s anything but. In regards to “wealth,” it aims to limit the majority of us from achieving any. We can’t be trusted with wealth. Without the mobility that wealth provides, we’re more easily controlled.
The same cabal of oligarchs and corporations engaged in this epochal project are obsessed with climate religion. They are crusaders against climate change. The biggest threat to the climate is mankind itself. Nation states are an obstacle to the collective control that liberalism seeks in the name of the “good cause.” But the idea of liberalism and democracy being mutually inclusive is a fallacy. Their agenda cannot be threatened by undergoing the process of attaining consent. Thus, the western crusade is to bring every country into line and strip them of their unique identity. Their values are not in accord with internationalism. They threaten the environment. Humans in total threaten the environment.
What is the best way to contain damage to the environment other than by limiting man’s ability to reproduce? Therefore, the globalists are currently promoting an agenda that impacts the ability of the human race to procreate by striking at the very core of sexual reproduction. Whatever strand of the LGBTQI community you care to name, it is not interested in reproducing. We know this by how it became central to the pro-abortion lobby.
Likewise, the attack on our diets: the promotion of “bugs” like crickets to replace meat is symptomatic of climate paranoia and the elites. But this goes hand-in-hand with starving us. The food crisis sits perfectly with an agenda to limit human growth. If it didn’t, why do we have mysterious stories coming out of the US and elsewhere of food processing plants mysteriously being destroyed? Why are they not reported on? Why are Dutch farmers fighting back over government orders to limit their use of phosphates? Their dictate results in the farmers’ inability to farm. The farmers know it has nothing to do with phosphate fertilizers. Just ask anyone in Sri Lanka or Ghana. What’s happening in those countries foreshadows what we can expect in the greater economic world. ■