One of the main themes of the WN, Reactionary, HBD, MRM, Paleocon, Alt-Right, traditionalist (what else is there that I’ve missed?) blogosphere are the questions “Where did it all go wrong? Why has this happened?” These questions are asked in relation to what amounts to dispossession. From family, nation, work, traditional White culture, Christianity all those things that our ancestors took for granted. The White man feels dispossessed and alienated from his nation, country, economy, religion effectively under siege by an elite that hates him and welcomed foreigners and foreign policies or ideologies that have no connection to traditional White Western national ways.
People blame the “elite”. Some blame Jews, or the Irish (Kennedy in the USA with the Immigration Act), communist infiltration and you could add to the list but all these are a subset to the amorphous “elite”. So who and what is the elite?
The elite are those people who control national outcomes or have a larger say than the average citizen in effecting their desires in national or state policy. The elite constitute what we historically call the estates which are: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), the commoners (Third Estate), and the press (Fourth Estate).
What we have is 1) Government – politicians, 2) the bureaucracy – public service (at policy formation level), 3) Mainstream Media – TV, Newspaper, Radio, Internet distributors of information, effectively journalists and opinion writers, 4) Corporate Managerial class – those at the upper echelons of large national or multinational corporations, 5) Large Business owners with dominant control of corporation direction – the main shareholders who have the greatest voting rights determining company policy and direction. Maybe I’ve left some classifications out but these are the groups that influence and determine national outcomes, vision, direction, policy. These are the elites.
One thing that is common to all the people that constitute these “estates” is their place of abode. All of them or at least the great majority live in large international cities, in suburbs that are effectively gated by the unaffordable price of entry to live there for the ordinary citizen. The 1980′s in Oz saw a centralisation of the bureaucracy and commercial offices under Paul Keating. Banks closed down in outer urban and rural areas as did public service offices. National government was consolidated in Canberra with the building of the new federal parliament house. I remember at the time the Japanese PM (I think it was) stating something like that it wasn’t a good thing for the people that their politicians lived and worked in an area so isolated from them geographically. And that is what has happened to all the estates or classes I mention above. I’d take a stab and say the same thing has happened throughout the anglosphere with rationalisation of government offices. Out of the bush and into the cities.
Politicians themselves no longer draw from occupations like butcher, small business owner, plumber, electrician, scientist etc. The vast bulk of politicians are lawyers, political scientists, unionists, journalists. I’d love to have a survey of where all the journalists live and can guarantee that they all live in suburbs in capital cities. Wealthy areas. Exclusive areas.
In short, the members of our estates hail from a class of people wholly cutoff from the bulk of national experience. They have no, or very little, connection with the bulk of their nation’s people and thus shared experience. With no shared living space, no common aspirations or fears, they create policies, write opinions, decide what will or won’t be reported, make decisions all from their isolated terrasphere, hived off from you and I. We are effectively the zombies that inhabit the wastelands, outcast from their terraformed fertile terracity.
Reading the news daily and seeing the streets and hospitals and Police crime reports, the sale of Australia, the border patrols escorting refugee ships in. Immigration debate as Global Warming Tax is about to strike, grocery price up and elite schools urging on Asians over Whites, castigating Whites for all colonial sins.
SHENHUA Watermark Coal’s $213 million purchase of 43 farming properties in NSW was approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board, Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten says.
As concern mounts over the majority-Chinese government owned firm’s plan to mine coal in the Liverpool Plains area of northern NSW, Mr Shorten said a national interest test had been applied to the purchases by the FIRB.
You gotta ask, what’s the point? In White nationalism.
This country lost its soul long ago and now all we are is a shareholder nation with shareholder rights.
So how much, given that’s what we are all involved in here, selling off the farm and national future, so how much, given all the stupid Defence White Papers facing the Chinese possible threat and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for Israel’s nationalism while our own racial nationalism is pathologised, would it take to sell the lot, holus bolus, to the Chinese?
Let’s do it. Let’s just sell the place now instead of letting all our elite managerial scum shame us out of existence. Let’s just sell Oz straight up. The highest bidder gets the lot. I’d go for 10 million a pop of 22 million which is 220 trillion by my count. And I want the cash up front, USD or better yet in gold.
Everyone I’ve spoken to so far has agreed, they’d go for 10 million. If the Chinese can’t afford it in one hit (we don’t trust a payment plan) then dissolve the Commonwealth, and sell it state by state. Let WA secede like they want to. Sell New South to the EU, China, the USA whoever. Saturday auction. Seriously, stop the bus, I want out. Just sell the fucker now cause let’s face it – it’s a done deal.
First thing I’d do is buy a house in Ireland and France, invest, educate and never think about Oz again.
Non-Oz readers may not be aware of the latest fiasco in the Oz national economy: the sudden ban on live beef export to Indonesia. This ban came about after an expose on the ABC’s investigative programme “4 Corners” that exposed the cruel practices many Indonesian abattoirs use when slaughtering cattle, as well as sheep and other livestock.
Apparently Sharia law prohibits stunning of the animal prior to having its throat cut since the animal must fully bleed out, thus Sharia requires the animal be fully conscious and pumping that blood out. It is so important that livestock be fully conscious as they have their throats slit and their blood disgorged that “At least 15 Australian abattoirs have government approval to slit sheep’s throats without stunning them for halal and kosher markets.” That practice requires special government approval since it has always been our way to stun the animal prior to slaughter (amongst other practices like shielding the animal from observing other animals being slaughtered etc). As reported:
The RSPCA and Animals Australia criticised the absence of mandatory stunning in the federal government’s proposal to Indonesia last week to restart the live cattle export trade.
The Australian Meat Industry Council chairman, Terry Nolan, said it was in the industry’s “best interests to have the most humane treatment of animals”.
“I personally don’t believe in unstunned slaughter. I kill animals for a living …I believe that they need to be processed in the most respectful way.”
The government-approved ritual slaughter of conscious sheep accounted for less than 1 per cent of slaughtering in Australia.
But today we also learn from Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick of “Kosher Australia” that it is in fact our practices that are ignorant and that opposition to animal cruelty is motivated “…in part by ignorance…”. If only part of our opposition is based in ignorance then what is the other part you ask? Why, it’s derived from “anti-semitism” of course, silly.
You thought that your principles were motivated out of a yearning for ideals you wish to replicate in practice. So it is very helpful of the good Rabbi to inform you that your principles are in fact part ignorant part anti-semitic, that is hatred of Jews collectively.
This should help you distinguish between ignorance and anti-semitism and that which is good and proper:
Ignorant methodology stemming from hateful thoughts directed towards Jews
Enlightened practices firmly based in higher principles that a Goyishe kopf is unable by nature to comprehend
Anton Chigurh demonstrates anti-Semitic practices. Pain here is not optimised thus the methodology is ignorant.
It has become quite clear that we Gentile dunderheads are not only ignorant and barbaric but we also have no idea what constitutes anti-semitism (I’m not even sure if I should capitalise the S or not, let alone whether a Semite is a Jew only or all members of the Semitic race), so we should thank the Rabbi for educating us.
John Galliano who is facing “…up to six months in prison and €22,500 ($30,500) in fines if convicted of ”public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity’” is certainly learning the hard way that getting completely smashed on drugs and booze is aok but doing so and then abusing people with racial slurs will land you in prison.
As Kosher Australia put it with regard the religious blessing of food:
Kosher Australia has begun initiatives with the Australian Halal Food Services Trust, a major Halal certifier in Australia. These initiatives aim to take advantage of synergies between the two markets.
we should know that there are equally “synergies” that operate in many other aspects, other markets, within the national dissolution of formerly White Western nations.
Back in May I wrote a post on why it is rational to believe in the official 911 conspiracy theory, that theory being that a small group of dedicated Jihadists plotted to bring down the World Trade Centre’s Twin Towers, amongst other symbolic sites of American prestige and power. Since that time we have found out that Osama bin Laden kept a book detailing his ideas on various ways to injure, destroy, maim, kill etc etc the infidel. And he watched a lot of porn. Apparently. But then don’t we all?
Anyway, the point of that post was that at the core of the 911 story is, in point of fact, a conspiracy. And the majority of Western people believe the conspiracy. And we all agree that there is nothing odd about believing in that conspiracy, nothing irrational about it, in fact we all so agreed that we then embarked on two wars still ongoing over a decade later. So with this one example I have demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing weird, strange, bizarre, unreasonable, crazy, insane, whatever you want to call it, in believing that people conspire to do harm or anything else for that matter, in their interest.
Yet today we have this term “conspiracy theorist” that conjures up mental images of a drooling, coprophagist, mental case who stalks the streets spouting insane theories built on … conspiracies!!! As I said then “What we have is not a disbelief in conspiracy theory or theories but rather a battle over whose conspiracy theory is correct and acceptable.” Those whose ideas sit outside the official narrative of any event are “conspiracy theorists” aka insane. Those who go along with the official conspiracy in toto are not insane but, patriots, sane, rational and reasonable. So sane and reasonable are these people that they will not brook any question, notion or suggestion that runs counter to their understanding of events, which they have in the majority accepted purely because that’s what they read in the MSM. And we all know that the MSM is free, fair, impartial and on a mission for truth, justice and the “honest ‘guv, it is wot I tells ya” way!
The M4 blogger Cameron says in comments:
A question for anyone who wants to take a stab:
Do you guys think that conspiracy theorists are more numerous amongst WN (or Alt Right) types than people with other political beliefs?
I find I have an almost pathological hatred for conspiracy theories. John Derbyshire has written that he believes that this response is aroused because of the belief that those who engage in these theories are a few marbles short. I’m not so sure myself. I tend to believe they anger me because I believe the person telling them to me is trying to sell me a steaming pile of shit and I get offended that they think I’m dumb enough to fall for it.
I’ve found that since the Osama hit I’ve encountered a lot more conspiracy theorists and their rubbish on various right wing paleo/wn blogs. I find it tremendously off-putting to think that perhaps they make up the majority of the alt-right movement. I simply don’t want to be associated with such people. I’m just hoping that there’s a silent rational majority out there while the howl at the moon types flood the comments sections. No chance of me going back to the mainstream party’s in Australia though because they are such fags.
Firepower’s bourbon/cigar/plasma solution seems to be the best answer.
Maybe people would like to have a go at answering Cam. RYU already has, as well as Firepower in comments. Maybe Cam would like to write a post fully fleshing out what it is exactly that he finds objectionable about “conspiracy theorists”, and could well start with defining the term given that he obviously accepts in toto the 911 conspiracy, yet doesn’t refer to himself as a conspiracy theorist.
Cameron’s objections, which are so serious that he doesn’t want to be “associated with such people”, a sentiment he has expressed on numerous occasions, boil down to “Any conspiracy I don’t accept means the other person must be insane and I will have nothing more to do with them.” Fair enough for Cam and fair enough for me. We at M4 aren’t in the habit of forcing people to accept our views at the end of a bayonet or the threat of being locked up in a mental institution for disagreeing with us. In actuality, we at M4 are dedicated to assessing the facts about various matters. For example, how would Cam describe the efforts of the Sydney Morning Herald deleting any reference to “of Middle Eastern appearance” when it’s “investigative journalists” copy and paste from the NSW Police Media Reports? Their method has been so consistent that I have easily documented it, as has Tim Blair who started this comparing of what is reported in the SMH with the NSW Police reports, that I can only describe such a thing as a conspiracy to pervert the facts about crime in NSW.
Brian Wilshire is a 2GB radio commenter who inhabits the weeknights and a source of all sort of strange ideas and theories, a man I loved to listen to on my long drives home. I remember he used to bang on about this thing called Project Echelon and later Project Carnivore where in the former he reckoned that all voice communications were being recorded by the US and in the latter all data communications. Could you believe that? Turns out he was right, twice. Wilshire in his midnight zone also used to reckon that water would be privatised. Nah, that’s ridiculous. Yet lo and behold we now have Desalination plants in Sydney and Melbourne, soon to be Brisbane and Perth. Build new dams you say? What for when we can privatise the fucking water you dickheads. Yet Wilshire is a conspiracy theorist.
There was that Orwell novel which ridiculously projected a future where we’d all be watched daily by Big Brother from monitoring cameras at a central government agency. So stupid and crackpot was this conspiracy theory that the British government can now compile a very funny video of a drunk man walking home from the non-existent CCTV system that dominates that free and noble bastion we call the United Kingdom.
We could go on and discuss things like Enron, Amcor and Visy and what the SMH describes as “Amcor part of Pratt conspiracy: lawyer “, why we could cite innumerable cases of people conspiring to produce all sorts of events from the historic like Sallust’s Conspiracy of Catiline to the more recent matter of, say, former Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld tried and convicted for “…perjury and perverting the course of justice.” Maybe people could post their own links to the vast array of conspiracies that are true and proven.
But instead I’ll leave on this anecdote. There’s a lady who lives not far from me and sometimes she sits in the gutter out front of her house with her little dog, sometimes she walks up and down the street with her little dog, she visits the neighbours and smiles and waves. She does all this with just her shirt on. I’m semi appreciative she at least has her shirt on since her obese naked frame and massive arse is not a sight for sore eyes in the morning. And when she starts screaming things like “You fucken cunts, fuck you bastards you fuckers, murderers! Fucking fuck fuck fuckety cunting fucking cunts motherfuckers…” (not a verbatim quote as besides the swearing it’s mostly indecipherable) etc etc as she rips her venetian blinds up and down or rails at her front fence, I’m glad she’s at least got her shirt on.
One day her little dog who is pretty much her only friend in the world got attacked by a Malamute. It was badly torn and she came to us sobbing for help. We did and got involved in her house which reeked of piss and shit, sorted through her bills and negotiated with the vet. For some reason that lady really likes me and I am one of the few she has never abused. Probably my gentle and sympathetic aura. Anyway, she told me and the mrs that people have been hunting her dog, and nominated one of the neighbours especially as a terrorist of sorts who wanted his dog to kill and eat her dog. Given the evidence I can’t say I blame her. She also complains that people watch her and torment her from outside her window. She all up feels under siege and that the world is out to get her. Ridiculous of course, no one is out to get her. Yet I’ve had to chase away the neighbourhood Yoof on several occasions who sometimes come at night, aimless, directionless, up to no good, as they run about her house screaming at her, hiding in her bushes, chucking things at her windows and other similar “fun” things I used to do to as a kid. No physical harm but it’s cruel nevertheless. I remember myself as a lad going to the retirement villages and one of our mates would knock on a front door, run, and when when the door was answered and opened, we’d fire ten ball shooter firecrackers through it from behind a mound in the park over the road.
Anyway, my lady friend is quite mad. Sometimes she looks and acts as close as you could get in real life to that demonically possessed little girl Regan from The Exorcist. But is she wrong in her conclusions? Is her conspiracy theory bat shit insane and indicative of her overall mental state? Matter of fact, some of the neighbourhood kids are out to taunt her and the big dogs do want to eat her equally deranged, feral, mangy, scruff of tufts and skin she calls her dog. She simply hasn’t got the full picture. She doesn’t have the capability to put the pieces together. She’s wrong, and she’s right.
I reckon a lot of the crazier conspiracy theories are just like that. Things are not what they seem, they just can’t work out why.
Sex, cash and gifts were just some of the perks enjoyed by a former Willoughby Council building inspector, the NSW corruption watchdog has found.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) today found that Edward Karkowski engaged in corrupt conduct by favouring various business owners in the Sydney suburb of Chatswood, who in return provided him with free meals, gifts, cash, massages and sexual services.
Mr Karkowski failed to report an illegal brothel, the Oriana Bath House, to the council as he was receiving free sexual services there, ICAC said in a statement today.
To answer Cam’s question: Do you guys think that conspiracy theorists are more numerous amongst WN (or Alt Right) types than people with other political beliefs? we can observe that conspiracies and attendant theories are not of essence irrational nor insane.
Whether WNs or Alt-Rights have a tendency greater than other groups towards conspiracy theory or theories I have no way of assessing. WN’s and Alt-Rights do have conspiracy theories but, so what? They are either demonstrable or not. First you’d have to name the so called conspiracy theory and then address it. You’d have to address the evidence and refute it or agree with it and then draw conclusions which we can all assess as to their validity.
Conspiracy theories certainly on the whole seem to be far more abundant these days than in recent decades and many go more to government conspiracy than the Elvis or UFO types. I’d hazard a stab as to the cause of this proliferation in that 1) our mediums of exchange are far more ubiquitous and immediate and world-wide reaching than they have been in the past. Also far more interactive with video and audio support.
2) Education standards have declined in the West creating a citizen far more impaired than previous generations in being able to make knowledgable conclusions. The ability to reason seems to me to have declined.
3) With mass immigration of differing cultures, religions, races, and social strata a homogenous standard of cultural, acceptance, is necessarily in decline. What a Muslim will be prepared to believe as opposed to a 6th generation White Australian are two very different things. Landing on the Moon would be one of the ones I have encountered.
4) Break down in social trust. More and more individuals, more and more groups, no longer trust the conventional mediums of exchange: the MSM. Trust in government has been eroded simply due to the fact that native citizens have been ripped from their heritage and concepts such as nationalism for example have been derided and nations ruined. Combined with mass immigration of “other” trust and acceptance is not a given. People want answers.
5) Governments themselves have been shown to be corrupt and conspiring to further their own interests. Do I need to give examples? If so, here’s one.
Here’s a “List of Proven Conspiracies – from Wikipedia” (since Olave doesn’t like my link to the source of high repute, Cracked article) by way of the Curmudgeon who no longer seems to be operating the site. Probably abducted as part of a psyops event.
A WOMAN on trial for the murder of her husband has made a dramatic accusation from the witness stand that her sister was solely responsible.
Helen Ryan and her mother, Coralie Coulter, could face lengthy prison terms if found guilty of hiring a hit-man to kill Jeffrey Ryan, who was shot and killed in October 2009.
Mrs Ryan’s sister, Ganene Coulter, has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder, admitting she helped to put her sister in touch with the killer.
Last update but one that is very appropriate for Cam. Is the NRL judiciary conspiring to out Thurston, the star QLD halfback, from the 3rd and deciding State of Origin NRL game? You can check the video here. Certainly looks at best reckless. Thurston raises his elbows imo to block the ref, something you wouldn’t expect if Thurston didn’t see the ref coming. You decide. But certainly a hell of a lot of Slanders (QLDers) are accusing NSW of a conspiracy in comments.
One of the good things about drinking is that you always get the chance to reflect upon life, the next morning. What are you doing, why are doing it, where are you going, and what the fuck did you do all that for?
And we always have the philosophy of Kingsley Amis to understand the situation:
“When that ineffable compound of depression, sadness (these two are not the same), anxiety, self-hatred, sense of failure and fear for the future begins to steal over you, start telling yourself that what you have is a hangover. . . . You have not suffered a minor brain lesion, you are not all that bad at your job, your family and friends are not leagued in a conspiracy of barely maintained silence about what a shit you are, you have not come at last to see life as it really is.”
And so it is, after a few days the sun in your mind slowly returns and new dawns arise with new horizons banishing the dark memories to yesterday’s news, as a new energy revivifies the soul and takes hold of hope, happy and resurgent – that only a massive session can slake.
Along with the Amis quote are a few others, sent to this blog for further thought:
KA: “–I’ve finally worked out why I don’t like Americans.
MA: I waited.
KA: Because everyone there is either a Jew or a hick
MA: What’s it like being mildly anti-Semitic?
KA: It’s all right.
MA: No. What’s it feel like being mildly anti-Semitic. Describe it.
KA: What’s it feel like? Well. Very mild, as you say. If I’m watching the end of some new arts programme I might notice the Jewish names in the credits and think, Ah, there’s another one. Or: Oh I see. There’s another one.
MA: And that’s all?
KA: More or less. You just notice them. You wouldn’t want anyone to do anything about it. You’d be horrified by that.”
(MA = Martin Amis, KA = Kingsley Amis, note MA twigged at Jew but not Hick.)
Liberalism, as we have it today, is the end product of the Enlightenment.
David Stove in his essay ‘D’Holbach’s dream: the central claim of the Enlightenment’ states that that central claim of the Enlightenment was that knowledge “…improves human life” and uses as a source to build his argument around, ‘D’Holbach’s claim in his “The System of Nature” that “The source of man’s misery is his ignorance of nature”. Stove goes on to note that at the time of the Enlightenment there was no evidence that increased knowledge would improve human life, that things were still, even given the vast improvement in knowledge to that time, much as they had been for all human history.
But all this new knowledge gave rise to not one useful application of any importance. Human misery was not notably increased by it; but neither was human happiness.
Labour was not lightened. How could it have been? The only forms of energy available in 1770 AD were those which had been available in 1770 BC: that is, (nearly enough), just wind, water, and muscle, with muscle doing most of the work. Though physiology and anatomy made great advances between 1570 and 1770, medicine made none. Productivity was not increased: when the Encyclopoedia published its detailed accounts of trades and manufactures as they stood circa 1750, the chemistry and physics which were to make possible modern industry and agriculture were unborn and unimagimed.”
So on what basis then could the proponents of the Enlightenment make their claim that increased knowledge would decrease human misery? The answer was with religion, specifically at that time, Christianity in all its various forms. And so the Enlightenment extended its project by way of its justification in attacking religion as the base cause of mankind’s unhappiness. But further, since this was the only tangible basis for their claims of human advancement, the negative impact of religion (Christianity) was exaggerated, “…even at the time.”
Without going into the rest of Stove’s argument countering the Enlightenment’s claim, that:
“The Enlightenment, then, both exaggerated the misery which arises from religion, and partly concealed, and partly did not know, the misery that arises from the absence of religion.”
We can note that what Stove says of the Enlightenment we can see today ever more so with regard liberalism. Unlike the Enlightened, the project has ceased to regard race and nationalism as a natural extension of the knowledge we have acquired and the scientific basis for any nation or country but rather, with the conclusion of the Second World War, race and nationalism themselves have been condemned as equally ruinous of happiness and only increasing human misery. Let alone that the history of the 20th C was demonstrably one of atheistic liberalism in all its forms.
So today we have HBD, IQ, race etc banished from “science” and replaced with utilitarianism. And it is apt at this point to note that the major proponent in the world today for Utilitarianism is the Jew Peter Singer.
Apt to note since, concomitant with the abolition of religion (actually Christianity) from the circles of the cognoscenti, we had and have the rise to power of that ethnocentric irreligious/religious people: the Jews. For what people have the greatest animus towards Christianity today than the Jews?
No wonder then that liberalism has become the bastard child of the Enlightenment. That the Jews have extended the initial justification for the Enlightenment into opposing anything White, Christian, nationalistic or racial is simply the outgrowth of the inherent justification that our forebears made.
It was not from the Jews that the Enlightenment came (further evidence, as if it was needed, against that absurd claim of the West as a “Judeo-Christian” heritage), but from the West: White Christians (Protestants mostly).
Out of this came liberalism: liberty and equal rights, and classical liberalism: limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. But, during the 20th C when the fruits of the Enlightenment became known, atheistic wars of destruction never before even thought of in scale, let alone brought to reality, we have the rise to dominance and power in the West of one rigid ethnicity and ideology: the Jews. Their rise built upon their own inverted Christ by whose death we were saved. For it is with “The Holocaust” that all our history now revolves, so much so that our history is no more BC/AD but BH/AH. By the Holocaust we are not saved but cast to eternal damnation and on this rock the Jews have built their church.
The ideology is, as Tan states it, Judeo-Liberalism: no longer on a quest for knowledge to lighten the loads of all men but a crushing of all knowledge that opposes the Jewish mandate of eternal Holocaustianity.
And on board this project is not the liberals of the Enlightenment but all those White liberals who stick by their own hatred of all things White, all things Christian.
For them they join with the Jews and decry us the most: the Rednecks, the Bogans, the Crackers, the Skinheads, the White Scum of all their enlightenment.
Mon Dieu, quelle horreur! Non, non //wags his finger//, not for moi. If there’s one thing about life, it’s the unmitigated horror of it that can only be remitted by a long and deep draft of it all and the vomiting out of all that horrible reality, so, for all that, it is as Edith Piaf sang: “No, I’m not sorry for anything.”
A French prostitute falls in love with an English Gentleman, compered by an American:
I had respect for you. It is now disappointment. I’ve been banned only from girlchild sites like mandy’s and sofia’s – now yours. Yet, I am valued with a long history at serious sites like roissy and spearhead.
I know which I’d rather be associated with. It is not with your clique. The brave ones who come out only after I leave. Cowardice negates respect.
You are a liar. That destroys respect: You never “put me on notice” as you claim, expressed no anger at my posts – or had the balls to challenge/debate or even mildly disagree with me.
You give weight to secret correspondence from a girl – sofia. And advice from piggy – who has reaped dismal readership even after 2 years of playing the blogame.
You need to examine your little friends closer. The most disappointment of all stems from the use of the crusty sockpuppet. Some confirmed my suspicion about the character: totally fucking gutless, man.
Imf? hardly. Your namesake would shit on you.
Love your new posters.
Ferdinand responds:
Tears of butthurt trolls,
yummy and sweet. Keep it up.
Your hate sustains me.
Still, you disappoint.
I hoped for more poems from
your genius mind.
Your wit exhausted
a year ago. Now you wave
your impotent dick,
repeating “man up!”
so others might have courage
that you yourself lack,
bringing everyone
down with wet dreams of Yellow
Peril and conquest.
“Valued”? In your dreams.
The only people who like
you are snorting glue.
“Gutless”? Big word from
a guy who did nothing but
piss on my carpet.
My kind advice? Shrink.
Don’t want you to end up like
George Sodini, pal.
It’s been great, but I’m
going. Have fun inside your
hall of delusions.
In 1981 Peter Garrett and his crew, Midnight Oil, wrote one of the greatest Oz albums of all time. Now Peter Garrett has his own website as the Labor member for the electorate of Kingsford Smith. That’s the place where the domestic aeroplanes fly over daily driving everyone insane with their jet noise, fueling in the interstate elite on Virgin or Qantas business class. The sort of thing that Garrett railed against in his hay day.
Now, I don’t wanna get stuck into Peter, I know Garrett cops flak daily for his past as a rock singer and now as a patsy for each debacle inflicted on “the working man” by his so called Labor government. That’s the Peter Costello soft cock option for political mileage which makes good, or made good, for the 6 O’Clock news. And what a quaint idea that was: six pm and we’d all sit down after dinner to be informed about the events of the day. Now it’s the 6 pm beached whale and celebrity round table. But I digress.
What made Costello laugh makes me shake my head. Not that I ever believed in Garrett as some sort of saviour but that I remember buying “10 to 1″ at Bathurst shops with hard earned cash from lawn mowing and sitting down in my grandparent’s house, 3 bedroom, 7 kids, master bedroom no ensuite and my mum and her sisters shared the beds when they were kids that we slept in now. Sitting down with a portable phono player with mono speaker and listening to that album for the first time. If I gave you the Youtube clip it wouldn’t do it justice. That album and finding my Grandad’s shotgun and my cousin’s collection of Penthouse magazines were waking moments in my life.
And later getting Place Without A Postcard on a record club deal I truly found a voice for exactly everything that I felt and the anger and rage that expressed it all with every sound. Basement Flat was my life. “What can I do? There must be some solution”. Over and over. The guitar winding out to ever more and more convolutions and getting higher and lower, with Garrett saying all the things he didn’t have. I didn’t have. All sung off key. Garrett says “pack up my things get away from here” and answers it with that forlorn refrain “What can I do? There must be some solution” then says “I get down on my knees and pray” as the bass ticks on and on. Then “on ya feet boy” as the guitar crescendos.
“Must be time for a new idea”. Tonight I sat for the second Winter weekend with my boy chucking our collected gum branches and boxes on our backyard fire. Today he cried when he let in the third goal and knew I would judge him harshly. And I can only think of my old man and all the desperation I had to please him as he brought home his Detective mates at 2 am for tackling practice on our front lawn as my younger sister made hot dogs for us all in the kitchen and my mum going beserk at some point. At some other point I realised my old man wasn’t a God and that he was just a bloke. Just like me.
But right now I am a God to my boy. And everything I do takes a toll.
I think about all the other dads out there especially those Mid-East Christian dads, as Auster relays, trying to protect their kids from being killed by insane Muslims, the very same Muslims that we grant asylum to, fully backed by my own Catholic Church. The very same Muslims that my country, my nation, my family goes to war for to democratise and announce that their religion is one of peace.
And I understand Garrett, sending his own kids to wealthy private schools, and not being anything like what he was when he was young.
I think the phenomenon of conspiracy theories derives from our skepticism of authority. Most conspiracy theories involve a subterranean (sometimes literally) cabal of conscious actors manipulating the masses. Yet man seems to want his autonomy above all else, evinced by teenage rebellion, individuals seeking their own power, and the limited government movements globally. By supporting conspiracy theories, these legitimately crazy individuals implicitly reject an imposed force on their lives. They get their freedom by rejecting every institution of power, including ones that could never even exist.
I would argue that people believe in, or “like” as OneSTDV puts it, conspiracy theories because conspiracies are a fact of life.
The official narrative for 9/11 is that a Sunni terrorist group named Al-Qaeda, headed by the heir of a billionaire Arab, one Osama bin Laden, conspired in Taliban held Afghanistan to bring down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre, The Pentagon and the Capitol Building or the White House by using airliners as weapons. At the core of the official story is a conspiracy. If one believes the official story, well documented that it is, then one is a conspiracy theorist by definition.
So, it is readily demonstrated that to accept a “conspiracy theory” is no great thing at all. In actuality it is a rational expectation. What is not accepted as rational however is to not accept the official conspiracy theory. What we have is not a disbelief in conspiracy theory or theories but rather a battle over whose conspiracy theory is correct and acceptable. Such questions can only be decided through the production of evidence supporting an argument in favour of a conspiracy theory.
Yet the term “conspiracy theorist” or “conspiracy theory” is not one of approbation in today’s lexicon but rather a pejorative term utilised to deride groups of people or individuals.Understood in this context, the problem with conspiracy theorists or theories is not that they believe in a conspiracy, for we all do if we accept the official 9/11 story and evidence, but rather that the conspiracy theorists hold views not consistent with those held by our authorities. In the ’60s such a thing was a badge of honour and of such moral righteousness that we still hold fast to hailing the Boomer revolutionaries for their anti-authoritarian stances and victories as the epitome of all that is sainted in this secular world. Anti-authoritarianism cannot be a fault per se if it is valued as the catalyst for “progressive” policies in our social history. Yet anti-authority conspiracy theories are ritually lambasted as being dreadfully close to that most evil of evils, anti-semitism. The reason for what was awesomely good in one circumstance but Satanic in another is that it all depends on whose authority you are anti. And that is the core of not why people like conspiracy theories but rather why there is now a term “conspiracy theorist” used to shame people into silence.
Why are there so many competing theories as to who conspired to bring about the events of 9/11? Given the official story as relayed above, Western government responses are contradictory and counter intuitive. Rather than accept the overwhelming evidence of Islamic animus towards Israel, the West in general and any non-Islamic nation, religion or people, the government of the USA declared that “Islam is a religion of peace”, invaded Iraq on the pretext that it supported Al-Qaeda and had “Weapons of Mass Destruction” resulting in Iran now running most of Iraq by proxy and the native Christians facing violent extinction. A decade after invading Afghanistan the American led forces still remain fighting what seems an eternal battle to not remove the Taliban per se but rather to “democratise” the place. And the USA has almost bankrupted itself with these twin ventures so much so that it now resorts to printing money in ever escalating amounts to keep its economy from imploding.
American citizens, including the majority White Christian natives daily submit to gross violations of their privacy in strip searches in order to simply board an aeroplane. Even here in Australia a visit to any airport will show old White ladies with walking sticks being subjected to bag searches and explosive residue scans. If you are a pretty young White woman who forgetfully carries an expensive manicure/pedicure kit into the scanners then it will be confiscated with no right of applying for it to be returned, something I witnessed first hand recently. Should I, your humble tech, accidentally carry a screwdriver in my laptop bag through the scanners then it too will suffer the same fate. Does this make sense to you? Weren’t the perpetrators of 9/11 and sundry other prosecuted terrorist activities in Australia and the USA alone committed by Sunni Jihadists? Yet not only do both these nations maintain what is a non-discriminatory immigration policy but discriminate against their own people in favour of not discriminating against the types of people who committed the 9/11 atrocities.
In March 2010 the Australian Federal Parliament passed, with bi-partisan support, “The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009″, “ensuring it [the death penalty] can’t be reinstated in any jurisdiction.” Setting aside the impossibility and absolute hubris involved to think that the future can be legislated against, the moral support for this Bill’s imperative was, in the words of ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries, to “close the door finally and I think irrevocably on this particular, rather dreary aspect of the Australian criminal justice system.” Yet, on the extra-judicial assassination of Osama bin Laden, Tony Abbott Leader of the Federal Opposition said:
US forces have struck a momentous blow for justice. The Coalition congratulates President Obama and the US forces involved. The death of Osama bin Laden shows there can be progress in the war on terror.
“I welcome the death of Osama Bin Laden. I welcome this news”
Whether you agree with both leaders or not, what is not contradictable is the very fact of their own contradictions when it comes to what is right and good for us, in our own legal system. Capital punishment enacted through the historic processes of our Western justice system is an evil to be legislated against yet the invasions of other nations resulting in massive death tolls, massive taxation and indebtedness culminating in gloated over murder is “welcome” nay, “a blow for justice.”
The one consistent line coming out of the 9/11 official narrative and national government reactions has been the erasure of our rights and freedoms.
And they want me to completely believe in their conspiracy theory?
Mate, I’d much prefer to take Buzz Aldrin at his word and accept that Apollo 11 was tailed by alien spacecraft.
The hardest thing, the irascible thing, the annoyingly agitating hating riling thing today is the same as it has always been – living in community.
No matter how much we love, no matter how much we espouse, no matter how much we walk against want or to make poverty history or to reconcile race with race and past with now to forge a new future we are always faced with each other.
The more we become equal the more our inequality becomes pronounced and disagreeable.
If religion has a Darwinian purpose then it is this: religion binds us in community.
In community is strength, as in union we rule. The team, the gang, the school, the club, the pub, the office, the squad, the platoon, the family we all seek unity but we struggle to maintain our undivided loyalty. In every moment there is jealousy, regret, haste, anger, squabbles, envy, lust, hope, passion, backsliding, love, amity, frustration, annoyance endless. The community is our bond and strength and the hardest thing to maintain.
Everything, and I mean that, everything that happens in our human endeavours is but a small part and play in an ongoing eternal struggle to unite in community, fearful of the solitude and inevitable death of the loner. No matter how much we may yearn for peace and quiet alone in contemplation, the greatest strength and adaptive power of humans is in the coming together of multitudes in community. We may rail against it but we all seek confirmation within our group for in the coming together of many is the individual’s only strength.
The modern idiocy is that we have a new religion that nullifies any of that, and says, all men are islands and in their solitude they shall find strength.
Christ yesterday and today,
the Beginning and the end,
Alpha and Omega,
all time belongs to him,
and all the ages,
to him be glory and power,
through every age for ever.
Amen
May the light of Christ, rising in glory, dispel the darkness of our hearts and minds.
To all at M4 Monologue, my co-bloggers and commenters and to all, Happy Easter.
