The banning of David Icke was OTT and sinister

You may have heard that the hugely popular and controversial British conspiracy theorist David Icke had his visa cancelled just before he was ready to come to Australia on a multi-city speaking tour. The decision seemed very suss for many reasons including the fact that he's been here several times before without any problems at all.

But the reason given was that -- among other nasty things -- he's a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Well even if he is I think the better approach is to let him speak and then show what bollocks he's spouting with facts and evidence. 

That said, from what I can tell he's neither of those things. And I'm not the only one who believes this.

I'm no expert on the guy. I've only recently discovered him and have watched several videos in which he expounds his theories. I'm also half-way through one of his early books and it's actually really interesting. He's a thoughtful and sincere dude with a fascinating life journey who does a lot of research. 

I can understand why he's been given those labels, though. Like many conspiracy theorists he talks about the centuries long campaign for totalitarian control of the entire world by various powerful families, some of them banking elites. The most well known of these are of course the Rothschilds, who are Jewish. But he also includes other bloodlines across the globe. Many of these are not Jewish. 

Anyhoo, does demonizing one or even many powerful Jewish families mean you hate the entire ethno-religious group? Hardly.

That kind of false argument is what you often get from feminists, BTW. Point out how crazy and toxic their beliefs are these days and frightbats will point and shriek "misogynist!". What a load of bollocks. Feminists don't represent women generally any more than I represent feminists. Think I represent feminists?

Then there's the fact that claims about his so-called "Holocaust denial" go way back to 1995. So why did they let him into Australia several times after that? 

He also concedes that something catastrophic happened to Jews in World War Two. You can see him do it in this interview on Studio Ten. The panel pushed him to use the word Holocaust and he seemed reluctant to do so.

Okay, I can understand people being somewhat perturbed by that. But that's Holocaust prevarication, reinterpretation, or skepticism, maybe ... It's not flat out denial. And that doesn't sound quite as eeevil, does it?

So, the angle that he's some kinda David Irving character just doesn't hold up IMHO. And here's another illustration of that: Google searches will tend to give you a sense of what a public figure's focus is. Type in "David Irving" then add "h" and the drop down menu will supply "Holocaust". Do that with David Icke and you get "hologram".

Which of course makes perfect sense. One of his main theories is that we are all part of a multi-dimensional show engineered by some awesomely powerful and mysterious force. It's like when Princess Leia says "Help me Obi Wan Kenobi" in Star Wars, but on an infinitely grander scale.

It's much more accurate to call him a "hologram believer" than a "Holocaust denier", surely!

And that is a pretty out there concept, of course. He has plenty of them, not least of which is the idea that the bloodlines mentioned before are actually evil shape-shifting reptilian aliens! Now, I can't go with that stuff. But you gotta admit it's very intriguing, and entertaining. (In fact, when I first heard he was banned here I thought it was the Greens who'd demanded this on the grounds of exo-xenophobia -- hell, what if those aliens were seeking asylum on Earth? -- as well as herpetophobia.)

And his critics cite this theory as evidence that he's crazy. Which begs another question: If true, why do they find him such a threat? Nutbars are easy to debunk. Wouldn't you just jump at the chance?

This YouTube video shows a respected Beeb journo Andrew Neil and a couple of other high profile Limeys politely try to do just that. They actually find it much more of a challenge than they expected.

And crazies only appeal to other crazies, right? What genuine threat could a buncha loons ranting about lizard aliens possibly constitute to our democracy, or its citizens?

The incoherence of the OTT reaction stands out like canine testicles. They're saying he's dangerous and mean, but also a barking mad old Pom who believes we're run by fricken reptiles from outer space?

You can't have it both ways, woke-folk! Wouldn't the reasonable reaction be to put him in the harmless eccentric category and not worry about him. Hell, there are plenty of those ...

It's pretty clear that the Govt has decided to ban him to flex its muscles, so to speak. But really, it's just advertised its cowardice. There are genuinely anti-Semitic Muslims who are literal hate-preachers and activists who still get into the country. But if they target one of them they'd have the love media throwing tanties about Islamophobia, so they are generally careful not to.

And if they were genuine about combating the scourge of anti-Semitism they should look closely at the British Labour Party. It's well known that it is now chockas with fervent Jew-haters and many long time members are leaving as a result.

Surely there's a much stronger argument for banning Jeremy Corbyn et al. They have way more power to influence the masses than barmy ol' Dave!

And it's not like similar demands have not been made before. Remember the push to ban POTUS from entering the UK because he hurt so many Limey lefties' fee-fees? And there'll no doubt be massive tantrum-chucking from the usual suspects when he decides to lob in Canberra, prolly later this year.

Anyhoo, by outlawing David Icke's entry, and having their MSM muppets run the same bogus angle, whoever made the daft decision has made him waaay more famous here than he was before. And in the minds of many who are already aware of him his conspiracy theories just became a whole lot more credible.

Well done, bozos!

UPDATE: More thoughts here.

What kind of culture practises infanticide?

The late great Andrew Breitbart once famously said "politics is downstream from culture". I think that is a brilliant insight. It explains so much that seems totally inexplicable if you just look at things ideologically. And remember that culture is often deeply irrational and goes way back in time.

I think that the Democrats' long term support for abortion and now even infanticide is a very good illustration of this concept. 

My first thought when I heard about these sickening bills being proposed in Virginia and other states was that this was part of a long term strategy predicated on the expectation that Judge Kavanaugh was gonna push for Roe vs Wade to be revisited and abortion law to be completely reversed.

With this in mind, the Dems were pushing the envelop as far as possible so that anti-abortion legislators would have more to undo. They saw this as a war of attrition and they were determined to gain as much ground as possible in the time they had. 

I think that's part of it, but then I looked at the wider context. Remember that abortion is an absolutely massive money spinner in America. Planned Parenthood is constantly selling body parts from aborted fetuses on the black market. This sinister organization, founded by known racist eugenicist and Hillary idol Margaret Sanger, donates massive amounts of money to the Democrats.

This is one of the main reasons that crazy Nancy Pelosi, Chuckles Schumer and all the rest of them are so hell bent on stopping the wall being built. They want a porous border so that illegal aliens can enter the country easily en masse and ultimately vote for them. There's a lot of human trafficking that occurs and of course that entails young women (many who are only teenagers) getting pregnant and needing abortions in the USA.

So, the chaos results in a good outcome for them: more electoral support as well as increased funding from the ghoulish trade in human body parts.

It really makes you wonder how people could be this cynical. And getting back to Breitbart's maxim: What kind of culture could produce this? I think the best description is that it is one that sees people as things; mere objects to be exploited by the rich and powerful. It's a culture of commodification of humanity.

And as with so many aspects of culture, it seems to have religious roots. In this case it obviously didn't come from Christianity, since that faith affirms the dignity of the individual person, and many Christians are zealously pro-life. Babylonian Moloch-worship seems to be the ultimate historical force behind this culture.

It's totally bizarre but nonetheless true that many rich and powerful people in the West have been secret members of this and similar anti-Christian religions, cults and secret societies. This has gone on quietly in the shadows for centuries, and now more and more people are waking up to the fact that many of the so-called "great and the good" in Washington in particular got there through allegiance to one or more of these shadowy groups.

If people are skeptical about this they should look into subjects like Bohemian Grove. At this secluded location in California the nation's leaders regularly congregate and get up to some really weird rituals including mock (some say dinkum) sacrifices. Alex Jones snuck in there one time and managed to film one happening. Freaky as all get out.

Remember that way back when Moloch worshippers didn't have to hide they practised child sacrifice openly ... It's widely accepted that contemporary Christian celebrations such as Easter have pagan roots. So why would it be impossible that widespread beliefs and political positions such as being "pro-choice" are entirely ideological and have no cultural and ultimately religious components?

Sure, drawing such links may seem OTT if you just look at the traditional pro-choice position, which holds that killing a fetus is no biggie if done early on in the pregnancy. But these recent late-term bills advocate the killing of actual babies, even outside the womb!

What kind of a person thinks that is okay? Someone gripped by something deep, dark and sinister, that's who ... And they manage to tell themselves they support a humane position when it's clearly the opposite by flat-out avoiding the moral ramifications of their barbaric belief.

Watch this Tucker Carlson interview with a supporter of these bills. He simply asks what she feels about the idea of killing newborn babies (which is exactly what they entail). The way she responds is revealing. She hasn't just been indoctrinated with an ideology. It's deeper than that. It's like she's been brainwashed by some weird cult. That's because, in a way, she has ...

We had our own Nathan Phillips. His name was Lanz Priestley

From now on, my default attitude to all MSM "reporting" is this: "Take every news story with at least ten bloody big grains of salt. They are always lying, even when they're telling the truth."

And that's not contradictory, BTW. It means that everything they say is to perpetuate a (false) PC narrative. Sometimes, after a little spin, actual truth might serve that purpose. But these so-called journalists would just as soon replace it with fake news to keep their treasured narrative going.

The latest and most vivid illustration of this was the Covington Catholic fiasco. It was clearly a setup, most probably by the Democrats themselves. And the media were clearly in on it. With Judge Kavanaugh already confirmed and Ruth Bader Ginsburg quite probably dead, they've been packin' their dacks that Trump will confirm another Catholic to the Supreme Court. 

To try and associate this branch of Christianity with eeevil white privilege they've engineered a situation involving a grizzled ol' dude called Nathan Phillips and a coupla kids. Credulous lefties of course believed the whole confrontation developed organically, and the white boys were the villains.

But it's turned out that things were not even remotely that simple. If anything, Phillips was the aggressor. And not only did he lie about his military service, he has a criminal record as well.

As usual,  the MSM's attempts to deceive us have backfired on them bigly. And the whole clarsterfark reminded me of a smaller saga back in 2017 ...

Here in Sydney's Martin Place, a buncha homeless folk set up a camp. This "tent city" was presented zif it was all a genuine and spontaneous phenomenon; an inspiring coalition of downtrodden folk who were sick and tired of being ignored and weren't gonna take it anymore!

The leader of the group was an old bloke called Lanz Priestley. Like Phillips, he certainly looked the part.

But after he gave several respectful interviews about what this whole demo was trying to achieve, some journos did some real digging on his history. It turned out he wasn't quite the "rough diamond" he appeared to be.

This put a big dent in the collective's cred, and derailed the narrative that politicians like Clover Moore were milking for all it was worth. (Clover is like a younger but just as batshit version of Nancy Pelosi, BTW.) Eventually the whole thing just ran out of steam, the tents were packed up and everyone just buggered off.

Always the way, innit? Most of the mainstream media are just trying to deceive us all the time. Now, thanks in major part to social media, we're getting wise to their brazen lies. 

Another local example: Duncan Storrar.

This Q and A audience member from "Struggle Street" asked a tough question of a pollie on the panel. He immediately became a symbol of stoicism in the face of government heartlessness.

Certified bloviator Ben Eltham wrote: "The viral power of the Duncan Storrar story is wholly to do with the jarring authenticity of his experience."

Yeah, well, his appearance might have been authentic but that didn't mean his rise to fame (for want of a better word) was dinkum too. It was clearly engineered right from the start.

And again, that backfired.

Really, these so-called journalists (who are actually shameless left-wing activists) should just try seeking the truth for a change. The way they're going the whole industry will have absolutely no cred at all by the time the year's out.

Work isn't woke

Another funny poster caught my eye. I saw this one just yards away from the one I blogged about recently. There are so many of these all over the inner west. The actual messages they contain reveal the daft mindset of their creators. And they can seem doubly absurd given the context.

Obviously this one is from a far leftie or anarchist. But while it's not a highly creative work of art, it's still quite neatly designed. Whoever created it put some effort into it. So, even as he was saying "fuck work" he was, er, working. 

That's one of the great rewards of work, of course. It's not just an economic activity as commies would have you believe. It's about the satisfaction and meaning you get from a job well done.

That said, there is also the possibility that the person who created this poster had no emotional investment in its message. Maybe it was just a one off gig for him -- even if he received no money for it and just got, say, a coupla free beers down at the Townie on King Street. 

If that were the case doesn't that make the person who asked for it his boss? There was clearly a hierarchy of power there. However briefly it existed, surely it was counter to any good leftie's sincerely held beliefs about equality.

Then there are the raw materials used to make the poster. That white paper and black paint was produced in a factory somewhere. Wouldn't be able to make that point had there been no one working there.

Then there are the bricks of the wall, which were skillfully placed and cemented together by hard-working blokes many decades ago. And I'll bet those dudes, who are almost certainly all dead now, took great pride in building such a long lasting structure.

I could go on. But I think you get my drift. Work is all around. It's about much more than money. It's an indispensable part of life in so many ways. And these petulant, sneering muppets just reject the whole concept outright.

Imagine how childish and entitled you'd have to be to think they had something to offer.

Gawd.

Fascism versus "smashism"

As I've mentioned before I live in the inner west. It's left-heavy, and the woke residents certainly make it known. There are heaps of posters around the place telling you about the joys of communism, feminism, gay marriage and all the rest.

The people who create these exhortations are clearly not too bright. But I'm actually kinda fond of them because they are so funny. And each of them seems to encapsulate one or more aspect of the mind virus that is political correctness itself.

Take this poster near Petersham Station.

If you're a drooling idiot you might think that this is a completely reasonable proposition: "Hell, we all know how evil those fascists are. Why should we listen to anything they have to say? They want to enslave all the good folk so surely it's entirely reasonable to beat the crap out of them ... Violence is bad of course; we'd never inflict it upon peaceful people. But those fascists -- they're askin' for it, aren't they!"

But if you are even remotely capable of critical thought you'd be alarmed by that poster. First question that comes to mind is: Okay, but what do you define as "fascism"?

And when you look at the Left and what they arc up about it's pretty clear that they attach that label, along with Nazism, to almost anything that doesn't agree with their top-down centralized view of how society should be run.

They think that words are literally violence so they feel completely justified in using real violence to shut people up. Can you think of a more clear example of psychological projection, manifested politically?

And I love the image of the clenched fist hitting a swastika. Says so much.

I don't think I have ever seen any Nazi symbols ever displayed proudly by any Australian group. I'm sure they are out there, but their numbers are clearly vanishingly small.

But that clenched fist symbol? You see it all the time, usually associated with leftish causes. Take the "Sleeping Giants". These woke wankers aren't capable of arguing their case, and they find anyone with an opposing viewpoint deeply threatening.

Antifa members assemble in packs to intimidate venue owners and managers who host critical, non-PC ("fascist") speakers as a way to get them no-platformed. And in a more restrained but still sinister way Sleeping Giants exhort their dopey acolytes to use social media to harass advertisers of TV shows deemed guilty of wrongthink.

It's still "smashism", and ugly as all get out. And the fact that this kind of online bullying is encouraged and even carried out by so-called "academics" is truly alarming.

If these muppets had any sense of self-awareness they would realize they far more closely resemble the "fascists" they condemn than their opponents. But sadly the cancer of PC has rendered them incapable of independent thought. In most cases it's an incurable condition.

That said, it's good to know that there are a growing number of people aware of this tragic irony. And we can still laugh at the smashists' stupid antics in the meantime. So, there's still hope yet!

Haughty haters find Hurley hurty

Haven't really followed the lead up to the appointment of the new Governor General. So I don't know anything about this David Hurley dude ...

Still, given he's a member of the PC Left's most despised demographic, not at all surprised at the uproar it's caused on social media. Usual suspects are of course going spacko because he's not gay, female, trans, Muslim, furry, otherkin, or otherwise victimized -- though, given his military background I think those who identify as narcoleptic albino attack helicopters might not be entirely displeased.

Also predictable was the reaction from the mainstream media. Many activists masquerading as journalists were a tad shat off about Hurley's appointment, like dopey Ginny here:

As at least one eagle eyed tweep pointed out, the role of GG does entail being Commander in Chief of the Australian Armed Forces. So, blokes in uniform makes perfect sense -- if you're not a sneering child-brained muppet, that is.

Most of her fellow leftie luvvies were more diplomatic, employing the ol' bob each way, "yes but no" line. Take the tragic serial white-knighter PVO.

Pretty funny coming from Perfessor Pete. As well as refusing to take his own advice, check his own "white male privilege", and hand his gigs to someone more deserving, he's wedded to the whole idea of gender quotas and just can't escape the PC thought prison. (Also, I think PVO forgets we've already had a chick in the role recently -- Quentin Bryce, remember.) 

Then there's this from Doctor Baird -- for a doctor she is (hat-tip: Hendo).

I'm sure Julia is a fine woman, too. A shame though, that the opportunity was not taken by the ABC to appoint an Indigenous thinker to the role of host of The Drum. I reckon someone like, say, Anthony Dillon would be a vast improvement on the current one, don't you?

And what significant development in Oz politics would be replete without the sage counsel of the former Chief Finger-Wagger of Goodthink Central himself, Tim Soutphommasane.

Yeah, he's flogging his #BeyondThePale hobby horse, as per usual. Contrary to MLK's truly wise advice, he exhorts us to place characteristics like ethnic identity over inner qualities such as character and ability.

But then he seems to do a backflip in this retort later on when -- in a textbook example of psychological projection -- he implies that merit is actually a thing, and an important one at that. (Of course there's no way known that Tim himself got his gig at the HRC due to the "diversity lottery"! No, not at all. It was all down to merit in his case, obviously.)

Er, you can't have it both ways, Tim.

But then, that's what the PC Left are all about, right? Like the pampered sprogs they are (and remain their entire miserable lives) they always wanna "have their cake and eat it too". It's the rest of us who have to pay for their privilege.

I know it's only smock and troll but I like it!

One of the most impressive things about President Donald J Trump is that not only does he own his foes with such ease and frequency, he does it with such amazing panache. He is not only making America great again. He's making politics yugely entertaining for the first time!

It's this showmanship that was instrumental in him getting elected POTUS back in 2016 against such yuge odds. And it's what helps him maintain momentum as he drains The Swamp and humiliates the fake news MSM on a daily basis.

His Twitter trolling is prolly his most effective tool in this regard. His most outrageous tweets perform several functions at once: They trigger liberal crazies, give sane adults a chuckle, and constitute cryptic signals to supporters and enemies alike. Take this recent tweet in which he used the phrase "smocking gun".
 

Countless Trump-haters saw it as more evidence that he's a complete moron, natch. Verified twats across the globe piled on with their sneering social media updates, not realizing that he was actually using them to get his message across to the normies.

Take this update from this blue check loon. He actually notices that the hashtag #SmockingGun is trending but doesn't twig to the ramifications of this. It means that a helluva lot of people are looking at the tweet, and it's being reported in the MSM. So the point POTUS makes in it -- that he's not guilty of Russian collusion -- is reaching millions more people than it would have done otherwise.

Trump knows that his haters have fallen for the cartoon facade of the boastful oaf that he's carefully constructed over many years. They simply cannot pass up an opportunity to show all their credulous fans how much smarter they are than he is.

Comic Zach, who you'd hope would be much smarter, stops thinking the moment he sees evidence that seems to confirm his dim view of the man.

Braff and his fellow leftie slebs have fallen for Trump's trap. He's triggered their emotions so they don't use their intellects (not that those are exactly powerful when they are employed).

If you're a thinking person viewing Trump's tweet, however, you'd quickly realize the spelling "error" was intentional. Firstly, he's quoting from an article by simply cutting and pasting it. Highly unlikely a journo would make such a boo-boo, so he must have changed it on purpose.

And even if you thought he typed it word by word, and can't spell "smoking" then you'd prolly search for the word elsewhere in his feed to test that hypothesis. Then you'd see that yes he can spell it, because he used the term "smoking gun" correctly only a coupla days before, again in the context of claims of Russian collusion.

Which would then provoke you into wondering why he would do this. And that's the second function of his zen-level trolling. He's basically getting his supporters to focus on this "crumb" and engage in their own speculation about what's really going on, since the MSM narrative on his presidency is absolute bollocks and we all know that. 

I have a coupla theories on why he chose the word "smocking". Firstly, he's making fun of the Deep State-controlled MSM itself. He's saying that by pushing the bogus Russian collusion narrative, the Mockingbird Media has made a smockery of itself.

And I think he's implying that while they have only a (fake news) "smocking gun", he has the real "smoking gun" showing how it was actually the dirty Dems who colluded with the Russians on Uranium One.

The "error" might also be a reference to the anti-Macron "yellow vest" protests in France."Smock" is often used to describe a protective work garment, after all. (Sure, this could be too long a bow -- or too loose a vest -- but it's certainly possible.)

And remember that the Smockingturd Media is lying about the extent and cause of that massive unrest. They are saying that it's all about fuel taxes. But the motivation is much deeper than that.

As the above photos attest, the protests sweeping France and other European nations are against the globalist Cabal more generally. Also, many of the protestors are part of the "Q Movement", which the MSM is desperately trying to portray as a batshit "conspiracy theory".

Obviously it's anything but. Just as I'm postulating thoughts and theories about the tweets of POTUS (otherwise known as "Q+") so do countless "autists" on 8Chan and similar sites. It's a democratic process, a Socratic dialogue that encourages free thinking, not a top-down, prescribed narrative. And that's what terrifies the globalist elites. There's a great awakening occurring worldwide and they can't stop it no matter how hard they try. 

Which brings me to the last aspect of Trump's use of trolling: gaslighting and threatening of enemies.

This is something both sides do, of course. Take James Comey's sinister allusion to assassination in this tweet.

Notice how he's positioned directly under the statue of President Lincoln? Gee, I wonder what he was suggesting there. Can't possibly imagine ...

In a comparable way I think Trump coulda been sending a coded threat to his enemies by inserting a "c" into the word "smoking." And intriguingly, he did it twice.

There has been an exhaustive investigation into the Clinton Foundation, the findings of which were scheduled to be tabled on the 5th of December. That was delayed by the George HW Bush funeral, which was clearly not a coincidence.

Word is that this comprehensive Clintonoscopy has uncovered evidence of gargantuan corruption, and worse. Maybe some of it specifically relates to Chelsea Clinton herself and POTUS was hinting at this in his tweet?

Well, time will tell ... One thing's for sure. Trump's tweets will keep his squillions of supporters across the globe thoroughly entertained and speculating up a storm, just as his foes go crazy with the stress!

What a legend.