Simple crass or does Trump have the X factor?

Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it requires a level of self awareness to understand this. I have experienced so many twists and turns in my life it is inevitable little bits of knowledge happen to stick, rather like the strange sort of plastic they stick on the face of new bits of technology: you attempt to pull it off and it sticks to your fingers like a magnate, requiring a sharp rap to shake it off. Those are my life experiences.

Allow me to say a few things about Trump that somehow bridges the gap between the ill-educated deplorables and the over-educated detractors in the GOP camp. Yes, Trump is not well read; does not have the best academic record (for me, the little I learnt occurred well after I left school, so I’m qualified to speak) but his genius is being able to speak directly to those who voted him into office. How does he do this? He tells them they are worthwhile, that they are the backbone of America and that together they will make America great again. Simple but highly effective.

He may be a billionaire, but his lack of sophistication enables him to speak rustbelt language. He may live in a gaudy Trump Tower, but it’s the sort of architecture an out-of-work assembly line worker from Detroit would dream of, and one that a Turnbull would excoriate . . . endlessly.

So as we sit typing away in our quiet book-lined studies, as conservatives we feel deeply conflicted, because as Paul Collits points out, the man seems crass; but he has something; he has that X factor despite the colour of his hair and his locker-room talk. And we know that nobody but a Trump could have the balls to both drain the swamp and make America great again. Does this easily translate here into Australian? I think not, because society has moved on from the era of a Billy Hughes, where a working man’s man could sway public opinion. Cory Bernardi and Tony Abbott are nothing like Trump. Jim Molan is too much of a gentleman, and an ill-educated billionaire just wouldn’t make the cut (he wouldn’t be a billionaire in the first place).

For a generally half glass full sort of bloke, I feel I’ve enunciated the opposite.



Prior to the French Revolution there was an instrumentality called the ‘Lettre de Chachet’, albeit one more cloaked in myth than fact. But the theory was that one could get rid of an enemy by sending in a lettre de cachet to some legal authority from which there was no appeal: one simply had to write the appropriate name on a blank sheet of paper and the deed was done. This was dramatised in the novel Comte de Monte Christo, but was more fiction than fact. The real lettre de cachet carried the imprimatur of the King himself and followed a particular process, but I’m loath to spoil a good story.
The modern version has been facilitated by #MeToo, allowing an increasing number of women to rediscover instances of sexual abuse, which they can share with an increasingly frenzied and sympathetic females who are able to instantly ‘message’ each other by means of the free app. (Don’t you love the way we are now able to use nouns as verbs, adjectives as adverbs etc, but I’m allowing myself to be deflected by institutionalised bad grammar). The point is that social media, a carrier, can be compared to a rat, in that it wasn’t a plague per se, but it certainly carried the flees that infected humans, who became part of that particular bacterial cycle. In this case, Whatsapp is the rat, feminism is the collection of flees and the male of the species are in danger of being decimated.

To the forlorn Liberal supporter.

Whatever the interpretation, whether historical or Shakespeare’s, there was a legacy following the assassination of Julius, and in a respect Rome never recovered. Using the term James Allan uses . . . the defenestration of Abbott led to the demise of the Liberal Party, though too many do not as yet realise it. I know you are using ‘finest’ ironically, but Abbott’s position, regarding reconciliation, needed no adjective: it was a disaster pure and simple: idealistic, politically correct and rather hard to understand.
There are rule of the thumb questions everyone should ask, with regards to SSM, or gender dysphoria insanity, or the relentless attack on church, family, nationality, masculinity/femininity and all the values we once held dear, and that question is who the hell is driving it all? You don’t need me to give you a response, as you know the answer.
You can cling to the past, if you wish, but my own view is that the overthrow of Tony is the best thing that could ever have happened to him, and seems to have put him firmly back on the right side of politics, pun intended. If he were to return to any of the policies he wavered on, when leader of the Libs, he’d be toast, and I mean permanently. If someone like me, of little brain, knows this, don’t you think he knows too?
Now, your views and experiences are your own, and you can sift through all that stuff as you wish; but just ask yourself how the Liberal Party can even begin to turn itself around without a bloodbath? With your Turnbulls and Paynes and Pynes and Brandises there are too many vested interests, too many intrenched factions to dislodge by simply being polite. As close to the party as you are, surely you’d know this. And I truly think the bloodbath is coming. The left still feels rampant in its disdain for the conservatives in their midst, seem oblivious to the massive leak on its right flank, and worse still seem oblivious to subterranean rumblings coming form the aforesaid conservative factions. Do you remember the symbolism of the ostrich with its head in the sand, yet the bulk of its body in plain view to the predator, the most tempting part being its juicy arse sticking up in the air.
Those that continue to denigrate Tony Abbott often do so to deflect from the fact that his assassination created far more problems than the ones it sought to get rid of, not least of which was giving the middle finger to the conservative factions, who were once part of the life-blood of the so called broad church. The irony is that both Menzies and Howard lauded the broad church aspect, but it is the very ‘cornerstone’ that is proving to be the party’s undoing. The times have passed for broad churches in an increasingly divisive political climate.
You know my views, but I wonder if you are just a little too close to see how much damage has in fact been done to the party. No question mark there: I’m just wondering.

Fake News

Just a simple question: are public figures fair game? I mean, a prominent media personality, for instance who trades on a marketable personality, but more particularly, a recognisable political platform?

What I’m on about is a Sky News presenter who likes to portray himself as a Deplorable, yet repeatedly tells us, no, pointedly tells us that he supports SSM (a campaign generated by the Left) and yet finds some of their campaign tactics distasteful. I mean, really!

This is the same presenter who periodically enjoys calling himself a ‘bogan’, wears his support for V8s and Mount Panorama racing on his sleeve and yet seems unaware that he too can ooze political correctness when it suits him.

There were two very recent demonstrations of rank hypocrisy on the part of Paul Murray that caused an unexpected boil over on my part. I don’t often let fly with a string of expletives, even when Andrew Bolt lapses into a bit of confected outrage, with regard to his own expressions of political correctness. But when Murray repeated his oft-contrived mantra of ‘I’m on the Trump train’, and then immediately followed with a classic bit of Democrat inspired political assassination, I simply had to explode. I mean it’d be thoroughly unnatural for me to remain shtum. Couldn’t do it could I?

I’m going to give you two examples from the same unfortunate night, the first being the saga surrounding Michaelia Cash, the Turnbull employment minister. The big story ought to have been about the AWU slush fund used to help Bill Shorten win the seat of Maribyrnong (somewhere in the Republic of Victoria) and the AWU funds used to funnel members money into GetUp coffers.

Now forget the inconvenient fact that Australian Federal Police raided the AWU officers because there was a reasonable concern that some of their officials just might shred some of the crucial documents , which might have assisted the Registered Organisations Commission, with their enquiries into possible union corruption .

What has not been clearly pointed out by the MSM was that the Australian Federal Police were only involved at all because the AWU refused to release the relevant documents covering the period when the donations were made, back in 2006 . . . by Jove, I think it was when Bill Shorten was secretary of the same organisation.

Now, here’s the problem: I would have enjoyed a bucket load of confected outrage related to union-bashing . . . I would have found that riveting. But making it a story about the media having been tipped off before the police arrived defuses the main story, but more than this, it plays ever so neatly into the Labor Party’s agenda.

I can understand Fairfax engaging in such duplicity, the same with the ABC, but the Paul Murray and the Andrew Bolt shows? Give me a break.

The fact that Michaelia Cash denied any knowledge of the tip off, indeed refuted the Buzzfeed accusation that the leak had come from her office, ought to have been accepted as being a genuine error. In responding to the Buzzfeed accusations, she made further inquiries and found that one of her staffers had indeed leaked the information. Simple. End of story. This should in no way have reflected on her. Had she indeed known prior to making her initial statements to the senate, she would have been guilty of a far more serious charge of deliberately misleading parliament: a sackable offence, so I’m inclined to believe she is not in fact that stupid. So, something else is going on here.

If Paul Murray really wanted to ‘shoot the messenger’ he could have enquired as to why the staffer saw fit to tip off the media. Was he paid to do so by the AWU, or by Labor, or worst still by GetUp itself? Was he in fact a Labor plant, or had he, subsequent to his employment, by Michaelia been ‘turned’. Now there’s a conspiracy theory and a half, and that would have been far more interesting than ‘let’s get Michaelia’ regurgitation.

As for the ‘Trump train’ bit of hypocrisy: the Jeff Flake and Bob Corker resignation speeches ought not to be seen as reflecting badly on Trump, despite the content of their speeches. One has to go beyond the way these were reported on CNN, MSNBC and The Guardian, for instance, and why Paul Murray should have latched onto those versions rather than the pro Trump Breitbart interpretation, which points out that the Tennessee and Arizona a snowball’s chance in hell of being re-elected; this in itself due to work behind the scene by Steve Bannon (who seeks to rebalance both the House and the Senate with pro Trump agenda politicians, if only to get things done. Bannon was himself assisted by the rallying calls of the very influential evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty Universtity in Lynchburg, Virginia. Falwell had been calling for and evangelical ‘army’ to rise up against the ‘fake’ Republicans determined to sabotage the Trump agenda. Instead Murray tell us Trump is in deep trouble . . . ‘but don’t get me wrong, I’m still on the Trump train’.

The Flake, Corker speeches were predictable, going by their previous intransigence, and the fact that they reflected both Republican and Democrat establishment disdain for a president seen as ‘uncouth’, as being responsible for the ‘disrepair and destructiveness of our politics’ and the ‘indecency of our discourse’, when the overwhelming evidence points instead to the destructiveness and utter divisiveness coming from the forces opposed to Trump, like AntiFa and BLM.

Trump is not in the ‘deep trouble’, as Murray tells us, based on the speeches of a couple of neo conservatives , openly declaring themselves to be opposed to the president.

The fact that Trump stands up to Kim Jong Un in his own inimitable, tweety way, in no way indicates that the president is pushing us headlong towards WWIII, as suggested by the 83 year old Bob Corker. He would have been better served by pointing out how Obama and previous administration had laid the groundwork for disaster through its policies of craven appeasement. Trump has been the only president with the fortitude to stand up to a tyrant. But all this has somehow escaped our ‘Trump train’ man.

I became a subscriber to Fox because I vowed not to watch ABC ever again, because I had scant regard for the establishment stance of all our other free to air channels, because I see as the MSM as having been thoroughly infiltrated by the left wing ideology that permeates the various schools of media and communication, here in Australia. In a sense I can handle the bias of the MSM, because of its very transparency, but I saw Sky as genuine alternative media, almost as much as Breitbart and Blabberbuzz coming out of the US. It seems I was sorely mistaken.

Ode to Metro Males.

Being one of the scientifically illiterate and indeed one of the mathematically innumerate, I do know something about religion.

Claim and counter claim have long bewildered me and detailed arguments about melting glaciers, and profound rebuttals about falling temperatures, both have me reaching out for a triple strength coffee.

But when AGL, my erstwhile electricity supplier boasts about looking forward to blowing up coal fired power stations, then my hip pocket hurts like hell. When the actor, chosen to gloat the appropriate AGL ad. lines, looks remarkably like every other metro ‘male’ in St Kilda or Annandale or Balmain, then I’m empowered to smell a rat.

When the same inner city chinless worshipping wonders abjure Christianity, meditating instead on the matriarchal benevolence of Gaia, surrounded as she is by offerings of rose petals and pet rocks, I begin to move ever so quietly out of the room, down the hallway, on my way to the air conditioned pub on the corner.

In terms of climate, the world seems as ever was, and the Duke of Wellington itself seems a world away from transgen toilets and lisping he/shes and all the other things that have me reaching for a Crown lager.

With a film of froth on my upper lip, life is good.


We’ve read about Hollywood’s response to the election of Donald Trump, the ridicule, the cheap shots, and they’re relentless. They cater to a Clinton audience, yet they’re indirectly target the Deplorables who took away the promised fifty years of Democrat ascendency. With the launch of George Clooney’s new film Suburbicon, Hollywood has taken off the gloves, and ‘identity politics’ becomes weaponised.

George Clooney makes no apology for using the using the film to highlight what he sees as the rise of white nationalism. In fact he was so concerned about the Trump rhetoric in the lead up to the 2016 Presidential election, you know the promises about building ‘the wall’ and his emphasis on loyalty (a dirty word) and patriotism (even worse) that it got our Hollywood boy thinking about the past, the bad old days pre civil rights movements: “I started looking back at moments in our history, and I found this story in Levittown, Pennsylvania’.

I’m not sure how much our readers know about Pennsylvania, but this is ‘Bible Belt’ territory. Quakers and Methodists settled in Pennsylvania, and if you read Samuel Huntington’s Who Are We, he describes the definitive, conservative understanding of ‘The Creed’, of American identity, as he tells us that back in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries, ‘Americans defined their mission in the New World in biblical terms. They were the “chosen people” on an “errand in the wilderness” creating “ the new Israel” or the “New Jerusalem” in what was clearly the “promised land”’.

For much of America ‘The Creed’ is little changed, but for the globalists in their midst, for Hollywood and the other Hillary acolytes, talk of The Creed, loyalty and patriotism is deeply disturbing, because it translates as ‘white nationalism’.

No doubt you can see where argument is going, but when you disregard the fact that sixty per cent of the American population is still white, that 85% of the electoral land mass is red (in a peculiar American political inversion, Red equates to Republican and Blue to Democrat) and that the reason for the frustration amongst the ‘fly-over’ folks, is that they had been taken for granted, and worse, thrown on the scrap heap. And now, it appears George Clooney has deliberately set out to poke a stick at them.

It’s a credit to his astuteness that Trump understood the depth of middle America disenchantment with the establishment and the MSM was borderline explosive. The classicist and conservative, Dr Victor Hanson colourfully remarked: “Donald Trump was the scab that ripped off and looked at the wound underneath. He didn’t create the wound”, though clearly he intends to do something about healing it.

All Trump had to do was enunciate some of the issues using the language his supporters could respond to, hence his powerful one-liner ‘Make America great again’. In that one phrase, he acknowledged the fact that their jobs had been out-sourced to Asia: that the high incidence of Methamphetamine abuse had a collective cause; that being a middle aged white male, was considered a term of abuse by a majority of those supporting Hillary Clinton, particularly her Hollywood ‘Klingons’ , like Clooney.

Just a few days ago, Steve Bannon, in response to George W Bush’s comments insinuating, though he didn’t specifically name Trump, that the president elect was encouraging ‘nativism’ and ‘bigotry’, and claimed that he was putting international trade in jeopardy (think ‘globalisation’) Bannon lashed out at the 43rd President saying he had no idea whether ‘he is coming or going, just like it was when he was president’.

In using the pejorative expression ‘nativism’ Bush hoped to curry favour with the progressives, both Democrat and neo Republicans (RINOs) who had supported Obama’s agenda of high immigration, identity politics and farming out American jobs overseas . . . the exact same policies that ‘gifted’ the Donald the presidency.

Clearly Hollywood feels threatened by a return to genuine conservatism. When their poster boy, Barack became America’s 44th President and first African American to boot, there were a number of books that came out signalling the ‘next 50 years of democratic reign’ or ‘The new Democratic supremacy’, but it never happened, and so the glitterati felt compelled to throw their toys out of the cot.

Johnny Deppe spoke about ‘killing the president’; Kathy Griffin found it immensely funny to hold up a mock severed head with orange hair; and night after night a Trump look-alike was stabbed multiple times in a Broadway production of Julius Caesar.

And now, Suburbicon, which purports to draw comparisons with the 1950s mindset, by applying 21st Century values to a period of time quite unlike the one we are living in; yet one we must rake up, and endlessly apologise for.

Clooney may get you to weep for the African Americans William and Daisy Myers living next door to the ‘racist’ Lodge family. But remember there is considerable artistry giving rise to the buckets of vitriol you are expected to pour on the far from palatable white family. Clooney tells us it is based on history, but doesn’t explain whose history, or how easy it is to impose those 21st Century progressive values on an American mind-set that had its own origins, its own rational. It is a mind-set that deserves to be understood, but then stepped over, as we look to the future.

A heady haze of miasma.

Such is the state of Europe that they can have an ‘insider’ from the financial world, whom the MSM depict as an ‘outsider’. It seems the people bought it for a while, but Macron is already losing popularity, almost in record time, as his clothes spontaneously and publicly fall away. This show pony is not an insider, despite this being the way he marketed himself in the lead up to the French elections. Anyone who clings to the EU , in the way he does, in truth snatches the whole package. Those who support both the EU and globalism cannot be ‘outsiders’.

The way I see it, in this country, the MSM is too pervasive, too institutionalised. Our rusted on Labor supporters tend to rely on the Free to air TV channels rather than read the political articles in the Daily Telegraph, and they certainly don’t read The Australian (would never have heard of Quadrant) so they will take that much longer to ‘crack’. But some things are getting through despite this, hence the growth of One Nation and The Australian Conservatives (though the MSM show a remarkable resistance towards showing any interest in Cory’s developments, meaning he’ll continue to grow under the radar). The polls respond to his party as ‘other’, putting him in the same basket as the ALA and some 2016 party (that may no longer exist). Being overlooked may be a good thing, but the downside is doesn’t attract the free publicity One Nation and Donald Trump did, by the bucket-full.

As has been rightly expressed before, the Deep State and institutionalised religion don’t mix very well, but those unemployed ‘educated people’ with their ‘useless degrees’ are part of that 10% minority dominated by GetUp and the Greens. They are young, furiously idealistic, but ultimately part of the stagnation set. Some of your unsupported, distorted narrative comes from this lot. They manage to pluck it out of the air, rather than expend necessary energy on research, or wide reading.

Single word epithets represent screeds of confuse narrative, as they tear down ‘No’ supporter placards, calling a Maronite, Australian-born ‘activist’ a racist (despite being Lebanese) whilst simultaneously telling him to go back where he came from, despite being born here. Telling him to go back where he came from is coincidentally totally at odds with the ‘open borders’ narrative the stupid woman in normal circumstances adheres to. But ‘racist’ and ‘homophobe’ are the screechy single word slogans to replace a slightly more articulate ‘I don’t agree with you’, position (or more accurately ‘you don’t agree with me, and the things you say are extremely hurtful to me’).

Perhaps this is what a post modernist education produces: dull herds of young voters, fed on unrelated bits of information, to which an infinite number of interpretations have been applied , where every hazy argument carries the same weight as every other headless chook sort of pronouncement. Every ‘student’ receives a ‘pass’ for assignments that ought to be hanging from a hook in an outback dunny. There are no longer unequivocal fails any more. All this adds to the exponential decline in genuine debate.