Pauline Hanson, no more.

Pauline Hanson has fizzled out, missed the boat.

When Pauline first came to prominence, back in 1996, I immediately became a fervent supporter and long remained so.  In recent times however, I have had to give up on her though not on for what she once so defiantly stood.

What she stood for back then was a White Australia.  She, and she alone in politics, spoke up about the Asian Invasion.  That is why we rallied to her and One Nation.  But now?  How long is it since she has spoken about this?  There was one easily missed sentence in her First Speech to the Senate in 2016.  That’s been it.

Well the Asian Invasion is far worse now, isn’t it?  Asians everywhere.  Sydney, and outer suburb of Shanghai. Immigration, dominated by Indians and Chinese, is more Asian now than then.  The 2016 census reported 1.2 million Chinese in Australia, a forty per cent increase in a mere five years.  A similar increase would give us 1.68 million at the next census.  Two million soon enough.

But Pauline will not say boo.  She has chickened out in face of the numbers.  (She is more interested in getting her photo taken with black children to show she is not racist.)

She still pays some attention to Islam - fine - but we are being invaded by Asians as well.  The Asians are good people, not alien like the muslims, but there are still too many of them.  And even the muslim invasion she does not attack as much as she should.  She treats it as just one more item on her list.

Never has Australia so desperately needed a leader and a party to fight for a White Australia - but Pauline is not that person and One Nation is not that party.  I had had high hopes for Mark Latham.  He spoke of whites and straights taking back their country - and then selected a muslim woman as a One Nation candidate in New South Wales!

I voted for One Nation, in the senate, in 2019.  That will be the last time.

Courtney Jayde Topic

Every day there are tragic deaths, sometimes due to evil but more often due to bad luck and the randomness of the world.  And then there are some deaths that should not happen, that are needless and avoidable.  One such death caught my attention back in 2015.

On 10 February of that year,  twenty-two year-old Courtney Jayde Topic was wrongly, unnecessarily and avoidably killed by a New South Wales police officer.

Courtney had some mental problems but she was not violent, aggressive or dangerous.  On the last day of her life she went to the Hungry Jack’s in West Hoxton, Sydney, and bought herself a dollar Coke.  For some reason she took a carving knife with her.  By time she walked outside, police had been called.  Significantly, the callers were concerned about harm to her, not others.  Courtney had not threatened anyone.

Forty-one seconds after the arrival of the police, Courtney was shot.  A taser had failed to fire, capsicum spray had done nothing but cause her pain, so she was shot by a young constable.  She had allegedly “lunged” forward with the knife - some ineffectual girlish lunge at worst.  More likely, blundering around, flailing, while blinded by the spray might be closer to the truth.

Courtney had not been threatening.  She was not a strong young man.  She was not some Amazon. She was not a commando.  Courtney was just a young girl needing the knife taken from her and taken home. 

The coroner opined that police needed in training in handing people with mental problems.  No.  What was needed on that day was for a policeman not to shoot, but to holster his gun, step forward, grab Courtney’s wrist and disarm her.  As Courtney was running back and forth, perhaps it would have required two policemen to do so, but two policemen were there, available.  (Three police were present, one a woman.)

That this should have been done, and was not, is the key point in this failure by the police and what makes the killing so needless.  Sickening.

Were the police in danger?  Mobile phone video shows Courtney being silly with the knife, but not aggressive.  The video shows her trying to run from capture, not attacking.  And if you are a police officer, surely some degree of risk goes with the territory.

The family tells of police being caring for Courtney as she died, and supportive of them.  Probably, the other police were shocked by the constable going off half-cocked, shooting.  But nonetheless the NSW Police closed ranks and the shooter was not disciplined, nor sacked, let alone prosecuted.  He got away with it.

That policeman took a young girl’s life.  If he had any decency, he would take his own.

 

References:

Courtney had a knife out in public but she didn’t deserve to die.  Good Weekend, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 June 2018

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/courtney-had-a-knife-out-in-public-but-she-didn-t-deserve-to-die-20180612-p4zkwy.html

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/national/raw-footage-of-courtney-topic-moments-before-she-was-fatally-shot-by-police/video/3c9acc8825c0b610f42a483e96b5cd1c

Muslims - Fightback

Our white countries are now full of muslims.

So what now?  Surrender or fight?  Or do we accept muslims in white countries as a done deal, too late to change?

There are so many muslims in Australia now that getting rid of them can seem a lost cause. But no, we must fight, we must not put fighting in the too hard box.  The consequences of failure are too dire, on a par with a German and Japanese victory in World War 2.  The muslims are as totalitarian and even more alien than the Japanese and Nazis. We would end up like blacks in Apartheid South Africa.

There can be no accommodation with muslims.  Unlike, say Buddhists, they takeover totally.

So, how do we fight?  Pauline Hanson said that we should not allow any more muslims into Australia. Pretty sensible.  That does not solve the problem of those here already but it is a start.  So what was Turnbull’s response? Australia has a non-discriminatory immigration policy, he haughtily declared. With leaders like that, no wonder we are in trouble.

Decades ago, when I associated with the Trotskyites, the most important thing they said was that countless people, millions, can oppose or want something but without leadership and organisation nothing happens. Dead right.

  

Parties and governments should be leading the fight, but are not.  Instead they side with the invaders, opposing those who want to fight the invaders.  Imagine in World War II, if Churchill had refused to fight the Battle of Britain and had the police arrest, and charge with hate crimes, those who wanted to fight.

Throughout history, there have always been individual traitors, but never before have whole governments, as those of the white countries are now, been on the enemy side.  (The Japanese and Chinese are not that stupid, are they?)

It would be nice to deal with this problem in a civilised way rather that a violent struggle, but governments block that.  It would be good if we were not so far down the track, but we are.

To whom can we turn?  To the Nazis?  Preferably not.  One of the leaders of Alternative for Germany, Bjorn Hocke, says to Germans, we are the last stop before you get to the Nazis.  No, not the Nazis.  Aside from the obvious reasons, they are not fit for purpose - they are still raving on about the Jews. Crazy.  Jews are on our side, part of Western civilisation. They should be recruited to the fight.

However, if we are to survive and take back our countries, we must turn to the hard men, men who will fight and kill.  

Chinese Invasion

THE SINICISATION OF AUSTRALIA.

Between 2011 and 2016 censuses, the Chinese population of Australia grew from 866,001 to 1,214, 438.  That is a lot in a population of only 24 million. The Chinese are not on a par with the muslims and Africans, of course, but it still matters very much.  As the aborigines can tell us, an invasion by any race or culture loses you your country.

I rather like the Chinese and am comfortable with them.  They are not alien like the muslims and Africans. Chinese do not breed like rabbits nor live off the taxpayer.  But numbers and groups matter. There is a world of difference between a small minority and a big minority - or a minority that becomes a majority.

The Chinese government sees overseas Chinese as an arm of the Chinese state and is already using them as such in Australia - bribing politicians (e.g. Sam Dastyari) and parties, protesting and lobbying, and Chinese front organisations. Might the Chinese government, in the not too distant future, demand that Australia take much bigger numbers of Chinese?

All this must leave Australian born Chinese conflicted but it is groups not individuals which matter.

What matters far more than the machinations of the Chinese government is that if some other race, religion or culture moves into a country, by invasion or migration, then it first changes the nature of the country. An Australia with an overwhelmingly white population is not the same country as one in which whites are just a minority.

Then, as the numbers grow, the country becomes the country of the invaders. We whites are well on the pathway to become white abos.

Our minds and focus are on the muslim threat but that does not mean that we can ignore the Chinese and Asian invasion. An Australia dominated by the Chinese would be light years better than one run by muslims but but it would still be a country we have lost. We must take back our country - from everyone.

Terminology Matters - muslim

Speaking of “radical Islam” is wrong as that term implies there is some other Islam somewhere which is just fine.  There is not.  As Turkish president Erdogan always says, there is just Islam.

Similarly with “Islamist terrorist”.  No, the correct term is “muslim”.  Those two Australian girls killed at London Bridge were killed by muslims.  Being muslim is what mattered.  It is what made them terrorists. Being terrorists is an outcome of being muslim.

Using the word “muslim” brings it home what the problem is, whom the problem people are. Words like “radical”, “Islamic”, “Islamist” and “radicalised” suggest people on the periphery.  “Muslim” places them at the centre.

A Little White Lie and Lacey Schwartz

I recently watched a PBS documentary entitled, A Little White Lie, about an African-American woman, Lacey Schwartz, who grew up thinking she was white even though any mirror could have told her otherwise. (Ironically, Schwartz is German for black.)

When Lacey was born to her white Jewish parents - she was dark. Brown. Instead of drawing the rather obvious conclusion, the fact that her father’s grandfather had been a swarthy Sicilian was seized upon as an explanation.

So Lacey grew up white. This was not a matter of passing for white nor pretending. It was a denial of the obvious physical facts. Her parents, Robert and Peggy Schwartz, and their kin, told Lacey she was white and behaved as though she was. The whole family was in denial - though surely some may have been more realistic and just played along.

Woodstock, where Lacey grew up was a white, liberal community. When she went to high school in a more mixed community perception and reality started to get out of sync. Lacey still saw herself as white, though the black students there could see she was black. When Lacey went to Georgetown University, the facade collapsed and Lacey finally realised she was black.

Her parents’ marriage fell apart before that. At long last, Lacey’s “father” had faced up to the fact of his wife’s adultery and his wife had to admit to that adultery. (Even the mother had grasped at the straw of Sicilian ancestry.)  How could the father have been so slow, so naive?

The Peggy Schwartz had been having an affair with a black man, one Rodney Parker. That started in 1968 prior to her marriage and lasted at the very least until Lacey’s birth, very probably later. Lacey was born in 1977. Did the affair ever end?

Did Peggy and Robert decide that she should go off the pill so they could have a child? If so, she could have put Parker on hold for awhile but did not. The documentary did not cover this so I can only guess as to the circumstances, but she would hardly have been the first woman to not care just which man got her pregnant.

Amazing though the denial was, the really interesting part is the two things the story says about the wife, Peggy - and about some other wives.

Firstly, Peggy’s attitude: what she had done was No Big Deal. Nothing. She did not seem to have any comprehension - none whatsoever - that a wife fucking another man, year in year out, was wrong. It was as though the piece of brain that might have told her so was missing. Peggy Schwartz just liked what she was doing. After all those years, the sex must have been routine so maybe she just enjoyed the deceit.

Peggy merely commented that if her daughter was not black, no one would have been the wiser. No problem. Her daughter asked her why, if she was so keen on Rodney Parker, she did not leave her husband for him. Peggy said that Robert was a much more fun and interesting person to live with - and he was paid much more money than Rodney. Robert was a meal ticket.

Secondly, the type of person Peggy presented as:  innocent, trustworthy. When the child was born, and growing up, it should have been obvious to her husband what had happened. Apparently his mind just could not conceive that his wife would be unfaithful. No, she was not that type of woman. Well, she was.

What a delusion - but a common one amongst men.

I have, over the years, noticed this in other cases. When some wife is revealed as an adulteress, everyone is shocked. No, not her, so sweet and innocent and good. Butter would not melt in her mouth.  Such deceit with such an innocent face.

It is expected that if the wife is an adulteress there must be some reason - a loveless, unhappy marriage or an unfaithful husband. Sometimes that is so, but not necessarily. Some just like fucking someone else. This Peggy Schwartz was one such and she made no claim otherwise.

The husband, Robert, was a weakling, a wuss. Why else did he go into such denial? And why else, after decades of betrayal, did he not put a bullet in the wife?

Marhaba

An Arabic-speaking German named Constantin Schreiber has set up an Arabic TV show entitled Marhaba (Hello). Its purpose is to teach refugees about Germany, German life and the German way of doing things. All very worthy.

However, he himself tells of going to a refugee camp in Germany and not being welcomed by all there. Muslims see his show as a conspiracy mechanism of forced assimilation. Clearly, they do not want to be assimilated. Surprise! Surprise!

Schreiber quoted a muslim preacher as saying, “First they talk to you in Arabic then they take away your veils.” And these are the people Schreiber wants to live in Germany.

source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 28-9 January 2017