OK Pilgrim.

It's easy for the Left infected to criticize John Wayne, a large portion of the current zeitgeist such as it is, is primarily promoted and moulded by the fashionably fatuous Left, and is too often the default perception. Especially for those who would struggle impotently to look even slightly as fine a man and human being as The Duke was, or even any good at all. And with all the authentic appeal and power of a stack of sodden activist pamphlets. Women too can find it hard to achieve such very real and supple grace as John Wayne had. Wayne was naturally repelled by crudity. Thus he was not of the Left Liberal set.

I live in the inner city where there's a lot of great looking, hip, fun and groovy gals. The effect though, can sometimes be spoiled when they speak, move or stand still. I should be so lucky. As for the fecundity to be able to raise seven children...

While I was living in Taiwan, I had some kids tell me once, that I looked like Ronald Reagan! That was when I was 29 and he was in his 70's! It must have been the Tony Curtis rockabilly hair. Yes, that was it, the hair...

As for the local guys? While I do prefer the inner city, there is the impression that confident, clear minded, fluid and mature men with a sure sense of identity in a William Holden sort of way, are sometimes a little thin on the ground, but what do I know?

Wayne had a wonderful, unique mix of strength, natural masculinity and the female element of lightness. A sprung flexibility, not unlike the great Bruce Lee. Maybe that’s why Directors said Wayne walked around like a big cat. That's presence.

A balance of light and shade are what makes us human beings and Wayne had this. It's part of why so many were drawn toward and loved him. Wayne was a beautiful individual and naturally got your instant attention. Like everyone, he had his flaws, but he was so interesting. Damn right he was somebody, and many still feel him in their heart and soul, while others who are supposed to be great by opinion, make no lasting impact worth a damn. I wish he could still be around. There are many who are merely mistaken in their limited, biased perceptions and opinions of him.

Wayne had a great sense of humour, was funny himself and loved to laugh at himself. Not a big Left thing really is it, not taking yourself so seriously, while still true to real values?

For all of the often phony talk of tolerance and diversity, this can mean a narrowing to ones own peculiar views and non-ideas regards how a human being is supposed to be. Yep, diversity and choice but not that one, or that one, or that one. A natural, complete and real human being will be any damn way they please. And the nuanced and masculine seem to not be the promoted flavour of late.

The essence of Wayne was that he embodied the free individual. A responsible adult who genuinely cared for the actual people that he met and knew, showing it in daily actions. He never talked about people as mere political abstractions.

The accepted bigotry of today is reserved almost exclusively for strong individuals that happen to be white. Add American and ta dah! Add Christian or Jew and ya fine in venal creepy town and you get some nice rebel credentials too. It's freedom to express at last the right kind of bigot that you really are, and in the company of millions of other ‘right on’ and fake ‘progressive’ creeps whose only uniquely original thought is entirely narcissistic.

The Left bigots away ad nauseum on these approved targets, and how disgusting Capitalist Democracies are because they are not working when they empirically are, and usually to their great benefit, and what’s Capitalism ever done for us anyway etc?

You can do this it seems at a lot of urban dinner parties without much fear of criticism or censure. Just keep to whites, Jews or black and Asian Conservatives etc.

"Er, gee Roger, I think you may be a little hyperbolic there with your line about Australia being a Fascist Racist State, the Jews controlling the biosphere and the full Burkha being a great step forward for women. Maybe it's the seafood cocktail you had?"

This is the core of the overblown vitriol commonly aimed at John Wayne. They actually do hate America and the free authentic individual. John Wayne was an actor who never hurt anyone and was very kind and generous to many, especially ordinary people. The most popular, recognisable, admired and biggest box office star of all time, John Wayne's movies have earned over $700,000,000 in old money and that's when $700,000,000 was worth something.

The Duke was a man whose films were mostly very successful entertainment. They usually told on a personal and human scale, epic themes. Humane and about choices, it was cinema that mostly concerned itself with doing the right thing at the testing point of courage, however difficult or imperfect that may be. The recurrent line was seeing clearly that there are such things as good and evil, and being able to be discriminating and rational in dealing with them.

In the end, Wayne was about being on the side of human decency, standing up for the ordinary person, the absolute fundamental of freedom. Wayne's films and personal views were, oh how gauche! Patriotic.

Well, today it’s mostly fashionable and kudos gaining to not like either really. The common man only as a handy and opportunistic cipher often presented in the negative and a deluded buffoon, and patriotism not at all. Not until our country is perfect apparently.

Or in the unlikely event that the common people of a free Democracy, would ever willingly submit to their own Left proscribed 'perfecting' through the insanity of some idiot brand of Left Socialist revolution. These days, you hear freaks who long for such Utopian fantasy bildge at eny bus stop, folks.

Left leaning twerp at an inner city Prahran dinner party: "This Fascist regime! of Howard's is stopping dissent and diversity of opinion of 'the people'!"

Colonel Neville: "Er, gee, I'm a working class 'people' and I disagree with your statements as they are empirically unsubstantiated Leftist rubbish and nonsense. What do you say to my dissent and diversity of opinion, wee wee pants? Um, if it's so bad here, why aren't you so frightened that you're catching the next plane to Fidel's Cuban Wonderland? They have every Leftist's dream policy in place and all are fully acted upon".

Fatuous Twerpo: "You are a Fascist!"

Colonel Neville: "Er, but I own a restaurant and I have no divisions of Blackshirts".

Glib twerpo: "Right wing Imperialist!"

Colonel Neville: "Er, sorry about that. I didn't realise my fist was closed."

Regards Wayne’s anti-Communist actions in 1950's Hollywood, he was completely correct. Any decent person should naturally be anti-Left, anti-Communist, just as you should be anti-Islamist, anti-Nazi, anti-Che the child killer or anti-rapist. You don't have to hate the local breed of fluffy, deluded, dangerous individuals and untrue believers that curiously may be otherwise decent people, though often are not. And Wayne didn't hate them. He had no interest in punishing those who admitted that they were wrong to support Communism. The Duke said that, "It takes a lot of courage to admit you are wrong".

Sadly, the scandal of the 20th Century is that few on the Left ever admit to being wrong about anything, in fact they believe it even more the worse their bizarre fantasies get, in some kind of dysfunctional recurring cycle. Thus the endless and current Return of the Son of the 1960's.

The same useful idiots in Che t-shirts and now printed Chavez underpants, manage to forever maintain their comfortable, complete and stupid denial. This in spite of the Himalaya of damning evidence against such utterly inhuman and mad failures as Communism and the filth of Islamism. Give the 'Workers Paradise' another try if you have another spare 100 million workers to murder.

I could vomit on their shoes. The ideology of Communism, its practice and its seriously avid practitioners and enthusists should only be despised and we should see Communism, Leftist junk and now Islamism for exactly what they are and always have been. Repackaged murder.

Whatever way you cut it, Hollywood Communists, Leftists and others were and are a polite, respectable front made of hobbyists and enthusiasts for an ideology based on murder, lies, spite, conformity, jealousy and madness.

As Mark Steyn called it; it's a kind of 'Gentlemens Agreement' that to get too worked up about Communism, Radicalism or Totalitarian Dictatorships is so uncouth, especially as they almost never do except in the supportively and positive posing of the apologist, fan and useful idiot. Of course there's a bad side too.

These regimes have murdered over 100 million people and are still doing this right now.

The 1950's House Un-American Committee's suspicions via Senator Eugene Mcarthy were empirically correct. The Government was infiltrated by determined and serious Soviet Agents. Hollywood was full of Pinko's and sympathiser's! They were and are of various hues of commitment from the totally silly and negligible to the seriously criminal and dangerously treasonous. Hollywood then, just like today, had many "enablers of evil" such as various Left and limousine Liberals, Communist and Socialist radicals, sympathisers and apologist's. Today in Hollywood, there are platoons of movie folk pals and fans of mass murdering Dictators like Che and Castro.

Trying to figure out how twisted much of Hollywood, celebrity culture and the MSM actually is, is one Hell of a job.

Mark Steyns rather searing article on Hollywood and Elia Kazan; 'The Crucible of Hollywood's Guilt', shows how the real and great artist Kazan had real and actual experience of the hideous and true nature of Communism. Kazan couldn't stomach or find the same appeal as Leftists do in their long affair with Totalitarianism. Certainly few who have lived under Communism will never dig it say as easily and glibly as many Tinseltown folks do from the comfort of large Bel Air estates and even bigger bank accounts.

Stars like Robert Redford, the 'right' kind of Hollywood hero who lovingly made a film about how groovy and swell was Che, the child murdering Communist bastard. Redford will never get any criticism like Wayne has, even though Bob seems happy to present Che the mass murderer as neato, as Wayne never would or could. Bobby, like a lot of Hollywood, is very much at ease in Castro world.

This is why John Wayne is so popular and loved by people who have actually lived through or are trying to survive in Communist nightmares, Islamic basket cases and other hideous Dictatorships. Just ask the Poles who barely made it through Nazism and Communism, the two major disasters for millions of human beings in the 20th Century.

The Poles love Wayne and America, which are synonymous to them and millions free and yearning to be free around the world. Millions emigrate to the US and the West and with all it's flaws, few leave, especially permanently. For the Left, the name of John Wayne is used as a glib reflexive negative shorthand. The Left often take the imperfect human timbers of Democracy entirely for granted.


It’s not compulsory to agree with everything Wayne said, thought or did. It doesn’t make John Wayne a big zero because he doesn’t fit into a randomly acquired set of the latest ideological opinions, especially when he’s empirically not a bad person at all, unless one is entirely perspective free and on the edge of madness. He is so absurdly vilified simply because he wasn’t of the Left but a true Democratic Republican. Only the disturbed and bankrupt can be the kind of Liberal that many Liberals have degenerated into.

When such folks achieve more than the Duke let me know.

Wayne is polarising to people with polarised views. Shallow and nuance free, easy and intolerant is the way to go for the undisciplined and amorphous of mind. John Wayne was after all, a movie star, a private human being and a citizen. If you’re hip at all, he was very cool and not just the image. He was also very human and created entirely his own style, image and persona. Try achieving that in these days of the perfectly mediocre and forgettable formula grooming. Anybody around as long as Wayne was is bound to have their shortcomings a little more obviously displayed than say, the deservedly anonymous.

All those films and his great 'Look', the 'Voice' and those very quotable lines. Waynes dynamic character, the hope, adventures, violence and tenderness. What more do you want? He had seven children, was married to one woman, was loved and admired by millions and the many who met him. He said what he meant and meant what he said.

To the masses oppressed by Totalitarianism around the world, John Wayne's image and reality were and still are, a potent and very powerful idea. It's the dream of freedom, individuality and honesty and the yearned for possibility of a decent life for the powerless.

Travel the world long enough and there will be a time when you wish you could find a John Wayne character running a flatboat somewhere on your particular river. John Wayne had a converted WWII minesweeper that he used for fishing and entertaining among other things. Very, very cool. Was it a more optimistic time? Well, Wayne's span on earth was so sweeping and anyway, hope and the good are still always there and while it's not always easy, don't let the distractions of easy junk divert you from being an authentic, free and decent human being and...beautiful.

All the best on The Dukes 101th Anniversary.

"There's right and there's wrong. You got a do one or the other. You do the one and you're living. You do the other and you may be walking around, but you're dead as a beaver hat." John Wayne.





The following are some excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s personal tribute to the Duke.

'I never once saw Duke display hatred toward those who scorned him. Oh, he could use some pretty salty language, but he would not tolerate pettiness and hate. He often said, "I have tried to live my life so that my family would love me and my friends respect me. The others can do whatever the Hell they please."

We called him Duke, and he was every bit the giant off screen he was on. Everything about him, his stature, his style, his convictions, conveyed enduring strength, and no one who observed his struggle in those final days could doubt that this strength was real. Yet there was more. To my wife Nancy, "Duke Wayne was the most gentle, tender person I ever knew."

To him, a handshake was a binding contract. When he was in the hospital for the last time and sold his yacht, The Wild Goose, for an amount far below its market value, he learned the engines needed minor repairs. He ordered those engines overhauled at a cost to him of $40,000 because he had told the new owner the boat was in good shape.

Duke's generosity and loyalty stood out in a city rarely known for either. When a friend needed work, that person went on his payroll. When a friend needed help, Duke's wallet was open. He also was loyal to his fans. One writer tells of the night he and Duke were in Dallas for the premiere of [the movie] Chisum. Returning late to his hotel, Duke found a message from a woman who said her little girl lay critically ill in a local hospital. The woman wrote, "It would mean so much to her if you could pay her just a brief visit."

At 3 o'clock in the morning he took off for the hospital where he visited the astonished child and every other patient on the hospital floor who happened to be awake. I saw his loyalty in action many times.

When Duke discovered this, he went before the public and showed us that a man can fight this dread disease. He went on to raise millions of dollars for private cancer research. Typically, he snorted: "We've got too much at stake to give government a monopoly in the fight against cancer”.

Duke tried to enlist but was rejected because of an old football injury to his shoulder, his age (34), and his status as a married father of four. He flew to Washington to plead that he be allowed to join the Navy but was turned down. So he poured himself into the war effort by making inspirational war films-among them 'The Fighting Seabees', 'Back to Bataan' and 'They Were Expendable.' To those back home and others around the world he became a symbol of the determined American fighting man.

He gave the whole world the image of what an American should be'.


"Actually, John Wayne was a very good friend of Jimmy Stewart, and was there when Jimmy needed him most. I am most reminded of a story that I believe Stewart himself told during a 'Tonight Show' interview in the late seventies:

Stewart's stepson Ronald, a Marine, was killed in June 1969 in Vietnam. Stewart was devastated, and as anyone who knows that time period, very aware of the stigma which the nation had attached to those who served in that war.

Shortly after his stepson's death, Stewart and John Wayne stepped out of a building close to the Berkley campus only to find themselves on the outskirts of a massive anti-war demonstration. In the middle of this unwashed, unruly throng a Viet Cong flag proudly waved.

Stewart saw it, and so did John Wayne; then, according to Jimmy Stewart, Wayne did a remarkable thing. He turned to Stewart and told him he'd "...be right back". Wayne then disappeared into the gyrating mass.

Stewart related that even though he couldn't see Wayne, he could tell exactly where Wayne was in the crowd from the silence that evidently followed his path, and it lead straight to the Viet Cong flag.

A big hand reached up, pulled down the flag, then disappeared yet again, this time leaving silence spreading behind it, and when John Wayne appeared, he was carrying the balled-up Viet Cong flag in his hands..."

From a comment left by Dandelion.




Dear sports, here's a great column on Pinko Hollywood, the 1950's and Elia Kazan etc, by Mark Steyn. Unfortunately no link was avialable anywhere I could find.

"THE CRUCIBLE OF HOLLYWOOD'S GUILT.

Steyn on Stage and Screen.

Wednesday, 16 May 2007.

Bernard Gordon died over the weekend. He was one of those Hollywood Communists of the Forties blacklisted in the Fifties, and it defined him till the end. A solid Hollywood screenwriter, Gordon adapted The Day Of The Triffids and was a reliable hand at war movies, among them The Battle Of The Bulge and, of all things, Hellcats Of The Navy, with Ronald Reagan's only film role with Nancy. Gordon's screenplay and the stars' performance aren't always in sync: even as Ron's explaining why he's so tortured with guilt he can never marry her, he and Nancy look like a placidly contented small-town couple heading for a night out at the local Rotary Club.

In later years, the screenwriter led the protests against the very belated Oscar awarded to Elia Kazan in 1999. As Gordon wrote of Kazan in The Los Angeles Times, “He helped to support an oppressive regime that did incalculable damage to America and abroad.”

Interesting choice of word: "regime". And what about the regime you supported? With Gordon's passing, the blacklist recedes further into history, except for the curious fascination it exercises for the current crop of Hollywood poseurs. Here's what I had to say about the period for The Atlantic Monthly on the occasion of Elia Kazan's passing in 2003:

You usually hear the tune on Oscar night, but not often the lyric, which is more to the point:

Hooray For Hollywood
Where you’re terrific if you’re even good.

When someone’s really terrific, it’s a different story. In a town where everyone from Johnny Depp to Janeane Garofalo is an “artist”, Hollywood doesn’t always know how to deal with the real thing. In 1996, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, mulling over their Career Achievement Award, decided to reject Elia Kazan and honour instead Roger Corman, the director of Swamp Women, Attack Of The Crab Monsters and Teenage Caveman. Swamp Women and Attack Of The Crab Monsters are good, and Teenage Caveman is not only good, it’s also an eloquent plea for world disarmament, at least according to its youthful star Robert Vaughan. But On The Waterfront is terrific. This should not be a difficult call.

But apparently it is. Kazan can make a claim to be the father of modern American acting, the man who brought Stanislavskian techniques to Broadway and then to the silver screen. Insofar as the young lions of our present-tense culture aspire to emulate any of the old guys, it’s not David Niven or even Jimmy Cagney who resonate, but Marlon Brando, James Dean, Rod Steiger – on all of whom Kazan was the greatest single influence. He was a great theatre director, and later a fine novelist, and, when he walked on stage in 1999 to receive a belated Lifetime Achievement Oscar, he might reasonably have expected the orchestra to be vamping Leonard Bernstein’s theme to On The Waterfront for a good ten minutes while Hollywood roared its appreciation. Instead, outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, elderly hack screenwriters led protests and, inside, the likes of Sean Penn sat on their hands.

For both Hollywood’s ancient D-list Communists and its A-list anti-anti-Communists, there’s only one thing about Kazan that matters: he “named names”.

It’s no fun being a socially conscious movie star if nobody’s conscious of you. You want to be noticed. Not too noticed, not Salman Rushdie price-on-your-head noticed. But just a little bit of attention. And the only time any one in power paid any attention to the political views of Hollywood people was half a century ago. In an ideal world – or if you were making a movie on the subject – the fellows who were politically “persecuted” would be a little more talented, or at least prominent, and maybe it would be better if they weren’t subscribers to an ideology so thoroughly failed and so comprehensively rejected by anyone who’s had the misfortune to live under it.

But those are mere nitpicky details next to the towering feeling of validation the latterday Hollywood activist derives from his McCarthy fetish. For the Richard Dreyfus generation, what Kazan did is an affront to their deep conviction of their own heroism.

Nor is the fact that Hollywood’s belief in its own heroism derives from a moment of colossal Hollywood cowardice any obstacle. The blacklist “victims” weren’t blacklisted by the government but by the studios – Warner Brothers, Paramount, Disney – the same folks who run Hollywood today. In 1999, when Penn and Dreyfus were up in arms over Kazan’s Oscar, old Lew Wasserman was still going to his office at Universal every day. Fifty years ago, had he chosen to, Wasserman and his talent agency could have broken the blacklist as decisively as he broke the studio system.

But Wasserman and the suits were absolved and their sins sub-contracted to one elderly retired director: as former blacklisted screenwriter Norma Barzman told CNN, “Elia Kazan’s lifetime achievement is great films and destroyed lives, and even a third thing, which is a lasting climate of fear over Hollywood and maybe over the country.” Kazan became the crucible (if he’ll forgive the expression) of the industry’s institutional guilt over the McCarthy era.

To this day, Mrs Barzman thinks Kazan ratted because he had a half-million dollar deal lined up for On The Waterfront: Thus, Hollywood’s Communists were true to their principles; its anti-Communists were in it for the money. This would be mere condescension if On The Waterfront were an Esther Williams aqua-musical, but it’s rendered laughable by the fact that the film is instead the most cogent response to the likes of the Barzmans, beginning with the exquisite joke of its choice of analogy for Communist penetration in Hollywood: a waterfront union corrupted by racketeers. After all, until the director’s detractors began insisting that personal loyalty trumps all other considerations, the notion that “ratting” was the ultimate sin was confined mostly to the mob.

Kazan had spent his first nine years on the move – born to Greek parents in Istanbul, who moved on to Berlin and eventually New York. He understood the force of the big impersonal currents of history because his own family had been swept along in their wake. From 2003, it’s difficult to appreciate the swiftness of the Red march in the post-war years: the Soviets very nearly grabbed Greece and Italy; their stooges seized Poland in 1945, Bulgaria in ’46, Hungary and Romania in ’47, Czechoslavakia in ’48, China in ’49; they were the main influence on the nationalist movements of Africa and Asia; they neutered much of what was left. You would have to be awfully convinced of American exceptionalism to think the Republic was uniquely immune.

But the arts have little time for anti-Communists, especially premature anti-Communists, especially as premature as Kazan: he quit the party in 1936, after he’d refused to help it turn the Group Theatre into an actors’ collective. Until then he was a conventional lefty, the stellar lefty of the Group's Waiting For Lefty, the one who ends the play by roaring the one-word injunction to the audience, “Strike!” But, if we were to frame Kazan’s testimony to HUAC in terms of personal loyalty, what about his responsibility to, say, Vsevolod Meyerhold?

When Kazan joined the Group straight out of Yale, the company looked to the Russians for inspiration, not just to Stanislavski but also to his wayward disciple Meyerhold. The latter was a great mentor to the young American and other Group members. This was a period, remember, when the Group frequently visited Russia – Lefty, for example, was staged in Moscow. Meyerhold loved the older stylized forms – commedia del’arte, pantomime – and refused to confine himself to Socialist Realism. So Stalin had him arrested and executed.

Think about that: murdered over a difference of opinion about a directing style. As “persecution” goes, that’s a little more thorough than forcing some screenwriter to work on a schlock network variety show under a false name.

Amid the herd-like moral poseurs, Kazan was always temperamentally an outsider, and his work benefited after he became one in a more formal sense. But, both before and after, his best productions concern themselves with a common question: the point at which you’re obliged to break with your own – your union, your class, your group, or, in Kazan’s case, your Group. The 1947 Oscar-winner Gentleman’s Agreement strikes most contemporary observers as very tame, square Kazan.

But, in a curious way, that’s the point. When you start watching and you realize it’s an issue movie “about” anti-semitism, you expect it to get ugly, to show us Jew-bashing in the schoolyard, and vile language about kikes. But it stays up the genteel end with dinner party embarrassments, restricted resort hotels, an understanding about the sort of person one sells one’s property to. Dorothy McGuire and her Connecticut friends aren’t bad people, but in their world, as much as on Johnny Friendly’s waterfront, people conform: they turn a blind eye to the Jew-disparaging joke, they discreetly avoid confronting the truth about the hotel’s admission policies, and, as Gregory Peck comes to understand, they’re the respectable face of what at the sharp end means pogroms and genocide.

That’s what all those Hollywood and Broadway Communists did. They were the polite front of an ideology that led to mass murder, and they expected Kazan to honour their gentleman’s agreement. In those polite house parties Gregory Peck goes to, it’s rather boorish and tedious to become too exercised about anti-semitism.

And likewise, at gatherings in the arts, it’s boorish and tedious to become too exercised about Communism – no matter how many faraway, foreign, unglamorous people it kills. Elia Kazan was on the right side of history. His enemies line up with the apologists for thugs and tyrants. Whose reputation would you bet on in the long run?

The Atlantic Monthly, December 2003".

Move along. Nothing to see, know, learn, research or face realistically with serious and sustained actions here.

From Sunday August 26 2007. Apologies for lack of posting. I'm in the middle of an acting course and a renovation. I'm also buildng a time machine and learning to play the ukele. No, not really. I'm not learning the ukele.



I have often mentioned to my Japanese wife that many people are specialists, but these same specialists can sometimes seem almost oddly unaware and incurious of a lot that’s outside of their particular field. And some are not even that good at their alleged specialty. Maybe due to a narrow specialisation! Who knows? Of course being a middle aged guy, I have repeated this point a little too often, thus specialising in boring my wife.

My wife has noted without any notes, how the Samurai had to be good at a wide range of disparate and curiously complimentary skills, such as flower arranging and sword fighting skills.

“Hey Nobu! Look at my roses and while ya at it, take out the guy on the left!”

It made the dears rather highly attuned and uniquely hardened, but like bamboo; flexible to a rather harsh reality. Therefore all the more able to function spontaneously and to adapting to the demands of a relentlessly real, asymmetrical warfare and the art of not just survival, but of crushing victory. Life or death, as Dr Johnson noted are very mind focusing choices. Or should be.

Of course it ain't so common to do this kind of thing today. But then, ritual suicide has lost much of its allure, both as a party trick or as a fun filled and light hearted afternoon.

This is partly why I'm not often in awe of some of the folks ya supposed to be impressed with, because even though they have the title and papers, they may not be so er, good per se. Don’t get me wrong, I admire greatly the many people who are far better than I can ever be. In fact, I’m positively bursting with admiration! Though the ill suited and incompetent are as convincing as a dentist with bad teeth. Or a blogger that few read. Er hum, ah, um.

Dear sports, daily global Islamic terrorism is an empirical reality and immediate unless one is a Left infected boob. Then nothing is real but fantasy.

The humanly flawed scale of the free, Democratic and Capitalist West, with human rights won with blood, is in serious and mortal peril. No, really. Now would I kid you? We're in the middle of an extended, undeclared and bizarrely denied World War IV. WWIII being the Cold War, with today neither a Winston Churchill or General Patton in sight.

Much of our authorities, security services, media, academics, entertainment industry goofballs and so on, are deluded, confused, mediocre, suicidally PC, addled by Left/Liberal platitudes and ideology, research free, cowards, liars, treasonous, just not good enough, incompetent, badly dressed and overweight. Think Mike Moore, a man who has not starved, despite the alleged inferiority of the free and affluent US lifestyle, to that of the crushing Gulag poverty of Cuba.

That brings me to the Victorian Police Commissioner Christine, I am not a PC kook, Nixon.

Yes, where do I begin? Er, with the dull, dull, dull and infinitely predictable short sheeted broadsheet of the Age newspaper for Saturday August 25 2007, at the bottom of page one. It’s all the way to the bottom of our own security and cultural suicide, folks.

The headline written by the headless about the muddle headed is seemingly aimed at sticking our necks out so that we are eventually beheaded was, and I kid you not, "Ditch War On Terror’: Nixon”.

Sure, if the other side dumps the Global Caliphate via mass murder, infiltration and the "We can’t wait till we get nukes!" attitude. And then suicides en masse in the desert. Their desert. See, just don't mention the war and it goes away!

We should clearly identify this conflict and our global enemy, by calling it what it is, a war against aggressive Islam. Is there another kind? Nope.

That would still leave out the various Communist dung heaps and various other dysfunctional combinations of non Democratic freaks etc. Quite the conundrum. Not really. They're all pals today.

What does our cheerful Chief say? It’s a riot of non-confidence building for the future and beyond, baby. Basically we should not really use unpleasant words and phrases like "war on terror" or "terrorist". So I guess rag headed freak fucker is out of line then?

Or we can she implies, refer to Muslims in ways that simply ignore and deny the quite taken for granted and just under the surface threat of being ever ready to be offended and the violence. Yes, always with the violence. Nixon is nicely in line with British PM Gordon Brown's own stupid lines of insane PC drivel.

Regards the phrase war on terror “It has very much the ring of the war on drugs and I think that it was not necessarily a good term to use”, sayeth the Chief of Chunks. Yeah right, dump the war on terror, [terror being a tactic] like aerial bombing, and call it by the true title of a War Against Islam, like the war against Nazism and Communism. It's the same beast, except amazingly, even worse being essentially apocalyptic.

Hey yeah, Nixxy baby, calling it World War II was so alienating to the Nazis, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, right? So we’re apparently under explosive armed global attack by drug dealers and there’s no difference between the corruption of selling narcotics for money and power etc, and using that to finace blowing up school girls for example, or committing really any act for a global religious messianic goal. Got it. Nuance.

“Pssst! Wanna buy a homicide/suicide belt? Top drawer Saudi Gold. It’ll take ya freakin' head off!”

Term, shmerm. If you can’t even recognise Islamic warfare enough to even name it, you need to take a short course in observation and the analysis, which is the basic skill set of an even average Detective. Or step aside for someone less squeamish about facing a rapidly escalating fact. Not the best time to play to the cheaper PC seats. Maybe a Police Chief should be a cool, tough professional with a spine, but what do I know?

I think Mark Steyn said that denying Islamic terror and its goals is akin to saying after Pearl Harbourin 1941, that we are not at war with Bushido, Emperor worship, Shintoism and militarism, or even with the Japanese and fundamental elements of their culture, but are in fact fighting surprise aerial attacks. And we'll do it all via police work! Riiight. Good luck.

Here's a gut turner. “It is not about a war on that issue” said Misty Christie meaning by “that issue”, ta da! Terrorism!

"Ooh! Don’t let that yukky issue touch me!"

It gets better. “It is about policing in many ways, it is about working with local communities and so I think it exaggerates the issue”.

Stop exagerating 9/11! It wasn't that bad! I guess that would be the local community that has no real organised leadership, the one that has made 750 no go zones in a deeply Islam infected France.

Or perhaps it’s the ones that seem to have not staged a single protest against a single one of the over 11,000 known extremely violent murderous Islamist terror attacks since 9/11? Certainly none as public and enervated as the many public Muslim screaming demands for death by beheading and Sharia law etc, all held regularly and without serious censure in Londonistan etc.

Maybe it’s the one that in virtually every survey of Muslims in the West shows a significant percentage equating to conservatively around 91 million Muslims worldwide supporting the aims of Jihadists and Al Qaeda? Could be, Jim.

Where exactly is this moderate Muslim community? The true Muslim community is somewhere where many in the West are not. It's in a place where Muslims believe totally in their own culture and faith, and are far more determined to implement it's complete destiny in any way whatsoever, and more than we are determined to maintain ours.

When any Musli makes any criticism of Islam, they are always attacked, threatened or murdered by fellow Muslims and ignored or criticised by the Western intelligencia and MSM, if reported at all.

There are millions of Muslim people simply living their lives, but Islam will always be problematic. Many Muslims yearn to escape the failure and dysfunction of their own cultures and country. I've had Muslim friends and neighbours. Muslims are said to not be an amorphous group per se, but curiously can often have common and repeated characteristics of outlook. And they do describe themselves as the Ummah, or literally the Muslim mass. And outside of it, everything is seen as inferior.

A common Muslim characteristic is the eagerness for believing in the most absurd and innately contradictory conspiracy theories, especially regards the Jews, the USA and the West ad nauseum. The victim mentality is extremely popular and virtually indespensible. There is the laughably tragic inability to focus on any of the oppression and abject failure of their own rulers, institutions and religion.

Talking to Muslims is usually all dandy unless you mention Jews, women's rights, gays, any sexuality, Capitalist Democracy, human rights, secularism, freedom of speech, art, music or any artistic expression to freedom in general etc, etc. For many Westerners, they cannot grasp what this assault on all our hard won freedoms and decency actually means.

Ironically, the biggest oppressors and murderers of Muslims are fellow Muslims.

If the apologists and serial deniers for Islam really cared about the real and actual oppression of Muslims, they would take Islam very seriously. But in their moral vanity, empty posturing and meaningless fashionable platitudes of anti-Americanism and self loathing, they can never do anything constructive, responsible or courageous at all.

All over the world, mosques are run by extremists backed with billions of Saudi petro dollars to spread Wahabist Islamism. Saudis only have petro dollars mostly as like most Islamic countries they produce next to nothing.

“Exaggerates the issue”.

Yes, that would be the "issue" of the Bali bombing, 9/11, Madrid, London, thousands of kidnappings and murders like that of of Iraqi or Thai or Afghani or Israeli or English schoolgirls etc, and of twenty seven children getting candy from GI’s in Iraq etc.

The same "issue" in Afghanistan with the murder of teachers and Doctors, the Morocco bombings, African mayhem etc, etc. Or the thousands of beheadings, the murder of Christian school girls, the murder of over 150,000 in Northern Thailand, the Iranian promise to “wipe Israel of the map”, and the hanging by Iran of over 4,000 for being gay, many of them minors, the riots by French Muslim “youth” or the thousands of thwarted plans etc “issue”?

Nix to that Nixon, said in part to the question on Iraq as a motivator for groups in Australia that we have “a range of people who get offended”. Offended eh?

Yep, well that’s a good enough excuse and surely enough “motivation”. Of course it’s nothing to do with Islam’s inherently violent character and empirical history right up to today that splits the world into two parts, the one of Islam and the one where Islam wages a continuous war of aggression to subdue completely, absolutely everyone and everything.

No, it couldn’t be, Mister!

Mohammed was a mass murdering Warlord and paedophile who hallucinated the crude, insane and unreadable Koran in a cave, all while a kept toy boy. Then "Hey Mo!" conquered and subjugated by the sword, a large swathe of the then known world. His rotten legacy was a freakish doctrine of perpetual war via a hideous marauding bandit army that later came within a few hundred kilometres of Paris. Islam then spent the next centuries as a 7th century parasite and right up to today.

Wissy Chrissy mostly said it's important to maintain good relationships with Muslim groups. Er, that pre-supposes that we don’t do that already as a natural part of an open, modern and Liberal culture by among many other things, immigration and a peculiar reverse assimilation to the incoming er, culture. And we have to do this why? Or the latent threats of violence will surface easily enough and a significant percentage will attack us, right? That's the truth. Anything but admit that Left Liberal multicultism is largely a bankrupt lie. How come no other group but Muslims have this dysfunctional caveat and problem?

Inspector Nixx said any response had to be measured. Er, no. A response is by definition too late, and so we should logically be pre-emptive and effective as in World War II. Any actions have to maintain ones own culture, secularism, faith and freedom and be overwhelming. Decisive and absolute victory is preferable to slow defeat and dhimmitude, I believe.

For many of the boobs in charge and those with a privileged media voice, our civilisation and survival seems to be entirely open to negotiation with our mortal enemies. Odd,innit?

Hardly a surprise though, when Nixon’s suffocating non-ideas and policies regards local police work, are stuffed with warm, fuzzy and debilitating PC junk. And as I write this, the Police are about to take industrial action under the banner "Put the Pinch back on Crime!" Well, I'll be, and after all of Nixon's great work for the last several years. Some folks are so ungrateful!

Anyway, dig this from one of the key people who are supposed to possess the clarity of intellect and thinking skills to uphold our security in the current festivities. Drivelled the Nixer, “When you look at the number of people who have been killed by terrorist incidents within Western countries, yes, it is an appalling tragedy and loss of life, but we are losing a lot more people in a lot of other ways”.

Great Logical Fallacy drool, eh? Yeah, a real “tragedy”.

A bummer. Just like Hamlet I suppose. Er, no. Oh, that’s ok then. Let’s give it a pass. Er, at the minimum it takes only a handful of Islamist superdorks to achieve a fairly apocalyptic result. If Nix doesn't realise, then she's the very wrong person for the job.

The only reason Jihad heads have not used nukes is that they ain't got them yet. Victorian Police Chief Christine Nixon is in short, a seemingly wilful incompetent, and PC addled putz. Isn’t this kinda dangerous for us?

One more round of official stupidity for ya folks, then you can sleep safe and secure in the knowledge that er, forget about that. Take a dozen pills instead.

In the The Australian newspaper for Sat 16/17 September 2006, a letter to the Editor quoted a Dr Colin Wastell of Macquarie University’s Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. Yes, but can he tie his own shoes? Perhaps not.

He said that terrorists are “responding to injustices and are not religious fanatics!” I guess if I find an injustice today, is it then OK if I blow up Mrs Wilson at Number 7?

Regards whether Islamist terrorist freaks are genuine religious terrorist freaks... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a damn duck, sporty.

He continued ad nauseum that indeed suicide bombers “are people of deep concern, of deep thought about the injustice that they see being done to the people they identify with”. Deep, huh? Freaking unbelievable.

Yep, in this moral relativism, Bin Laden is just like Martin Luther King and Albert Schweitzer! What’s truly horrible is that this man advises Police and Government agencies on this very subject. And yet there’s more!

A Dr Riaz Hassan who also teaches to the same clientele about, ’Suicide Missions: Strategic Logic, Planning, Recruitment and Impact’, agrees. Does he advise against terrorists or train them? Who knows! It's so zany and madcap!

Dr Hassan shares the view with Dr Wasted that there is “no connection between religious fundamentalism and terror!" Great news.

It’s great that they can join each other’s views together so seemlessly, though I imagine that one day the theorising may suddenly come apart rather explosively.

Well, that’s settled. No problem then. Thank God for that. How can I possibly be relaxed and comfortable with these saps and dangerous fools being in positions of power and influence?

Sadly, on the front cover of the same edition, the Federal Police Commissioner Bill Keelty ran an embarrassingly and eerily similar line. Apparently it’s not Muslims we should be concerned about much at all, but other ethnic groups. I don’t know if it’s their decency or their stupid ideological filter that’s worse or more dangerous.

Yeah, I can’t sleep at night thinking about the Sons of Hawaii Final Aloha Martyrs or The Welsh Choir of Death, the Osaka Salary Men of Revenge Happiness and The Taiwanese Non-Denominational Dumpling Throwers.

One thing old sports, why do they say suicide bomber as if the people concerned are blowing themselves up in their basement? If they called in Danno and Steve from Hawaii Five O to the average suicide bomb scene, Danno would say, "Yep, it looks like a Homicide-Suicide, Chief".

The aim is to kill and maim others, not just to destroy yourself I believe. To call it merely a suicide gives a little bit of a profoundly false cache to this delusional act like a burning monk. Notice how Buddhist monks set fire only to themselves in a clear street and not in a café, school or hospital?

Let’s start a global thing shall we, to call Islamist terror exactly what it is, not brave acts for justice for disillusioned Saudi billionaires, or acts with any justifiable provocation whatsoever, or possessing of a worthy gripe, an excuse or a cause, but world wide oppression and murder. Mass murder is both Islams means and end.

The demands of Islamists are explicit. They have none beyond our complete submission and death. There are also tactical and strategic diversions via phony multiple excuses and deception known as Taqiyya. Lies for a naive and open West.

Unless of course we consider surrender, conversion to Islam, eternal dhimmitude and our own mass executions as starting points for er, "talks".

With random spiritual entity, currently fashionable new age amorphous nullity, adopted statement or whatever on our side.

Two Westerners in the year 2020, attempting to avoid causing offence to Muslims.



During World War ll on the eve of D-Day, the Allied led invasion plan for the liberation of Europe and for the primary destruction of Hitler’s forces, Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a six hour national radio broadcast to the troops, the people of America and the world.

It was a prayer that was couched inseparably in many references to and with a central unwavering belief in ‘God Almighty’, Christianity and Nation. It spoke deeply and passionately for the success of the extremely perilous task at hand and for the well being and complete victory of the Allied armies against the Axis forces of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

The leader of the Free French Forces relayed to the American Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower that, “This is war and people die in war. We would accept twice the casualties if it means liberation”. The German Commander in Occupied France, Field Marshall Rommel said that the Allies had killed more French people than the Germans and that this was a high price to pay.

In 1944, no activists went to Paris, tying themselves to the Eiffel Tower, wearing T-shirts and banners proclaiming ‘Not in our name’. There were no mass protests after FDR’s historic broadcast that the Christian Right had now taken over the Democratic Party and were manipulating policy for their own evil means. There was no protest regarding the Allied race to secure oil fields in the Middle East and North Africa for the essential fuels and other myriad products needed to maintain the momentum of the war effort in the no alternative to complete victory.

There was no outcry when Dwight declared that the Allied invasion of France was part of “A great Crusade”. And that is because one cannot seperate Judeo Christianity from the Western Canon, our culture, our history and who we have been, who we are and who we will be. The greatest threat to Islamism and Communism/Socialism is Christianity.

You cannot defeat the super nihilistic void and vortex of Islam and so on, with the vacuum of "progressive" Liberal secularism or a variant. It must be allied, supported and with the basis of the true and great faith. And that's Christianity, folks, whatever way ya wanna deal it. Try a few PC magic tricks and shadow shows, see how they go. "I'll tell you this..."

They will neither appeal to our mortal enemy, nor defeat them.

Now much of the ‘Big One’ generation was without the time and much inclination, for the decadent luxury of endlessly self complicating reveries and abstractions. Their lives were about well, staying alive. Unlike today, the war time populace were acutely aware of whom the real threat was; what their enemy’s goals were and what would happen to the world and everything of hard won human value, if the extreme ideology of Nazism and the rest of the “Axis” forces of Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were successful. This is almost entirely the opposite of the situation today.

Now of course, many people before the war began, as well as during and after, were bizarrely not realistic at all about Fascism, nor supportive of their own governments, and by default both their own and our survival. Much of the UK Left were deeply deluded and bankrupted with appeasement and more. Their profoundly dishonest, suicidal ideological positions even included support for Nazism and Stalinism. Here's a great interview with Jonah Goldberg on his great book "[Left] Liberal Fascism'.

I suggest reading among other things, 'What's Left? How Liberals lost their way' by Nick Cohen. Good old Saint Nick shows how history is repeating itself with the topsy turvy and wilful madness of much of Left Liberalism today.

They have supported Saddam and other freaks by among other things; wanting to leave him and his rapist paedophile sons in place, because for the Left and Liberal, the West is never pure enough to be allowed to act. The Left among others, also aid Islamists by their own massive and continuous denial of the very harsh fact of Islamic terrorism. But then most of the same folks with their no sense of any judgement at all, have always, always cheered and supported or grooved on the image of Che the child killer Guevara, El Pig Castro and so on...

One of the great things about living in the secular West is you don’t have to have a religious faith if you don’t want to. The bad thing is that sometimes, you just don’t have much faith in anything, which is where all Leftist roads eventually lead, to the rejection of one thing after another until there is nothing left but the firing squad and the endless speeches that go with it.

Islamists know who they are, what they believe, what they are doing, what they will achieve, as well as how and why. They are profoundly more determined than the endlessly abstracting and frivolous among us who are simply, not serious at all.

At what point exactly would the Left and many others be willing to say that we are under threat and attack? At what point will we see the difference between imperfect actions and perfectly useless talk?

At what point will some folks research enough or at all, to see that Islamism has its own goals, history, unwavering beliefs and an ultimate goal that requires nothing from us but weakness, failure, division and a lack of clarity regards our own submission and deaths? This will happen no matter how ‘tolerant’ we are. Of course, it's not all fun and laughter.

There is a war with Islamism now whether we want one or not. Islamists have no authentic demands beyond the expedient and diversionary, and nothing to negotiate but our complete surrender in ‘Dhimmitude’ and mass execution. In short my dear sports, we are in mortal danger. We must sharpen our focus and away from the currently relentless fashion for the bog of distraction on issues, that when in contrast to the current & real facts of our own deaths, are peripheral and mere details.

I wonder at what point the majority of the Western sphere will get serious about its own survival. I wonder, wonder I do. Like Dr Johnsons thought of imminent hanging focusing the mind, our thoughts and actions should concentrate on our collective beheading courtesy of Global Islamism.

For the Left, the Liberal and the Radical, there is not only no war, no terrorism and nothing worth dying for, but there is entirely no enemy. That is for them, outside of Western governments.

To admit to anything serious at hand that is not the allegedly direct result of George Bush and the hyperbole drenched sins of the West, would require leaving the Left’s ‘Look at me, ain’t I the good guy and superior to you?’ attitude behind. It would mean being discriminating enough to be able to discriminate between good and evil, life and death, right and wrong, victory and defeat.

It would require the ability to tell the difference between a naturally imperfect human present and an absurd, inhuman and impossible future fantasy. Or having the clarity and realism to judge between; an enormously successful Democratic, open, progressive, flexible, civil and free West and a deeply failed, oppressive, closed, messianic, parasitic, theocratic, dictatorial, rigid, dysfunctional Middle East and its global franchises.

But for those that believe that it’s all relative and that life can be seen as an amorphous, malleable perspective simply by saying so, well, nothing but nothing will catch the attention of your incurious, relentless nihilism and moral vanity.

Evan Sayet, comedian, former Left, Liberal and Radical, now speaker and author of ‘How Modern Liberals think’, has spoken how the Left believes that “being indiscriminate is a moral imperative”. How they believe that “rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry. To eliminate discrimination the Left choose to be utterly indiscriminate".

Says Sayet, “Discrimination, the ability to choose the better option from evidence is the essence of rational thought”. In part that is why to the Left, there is no difference between Blair, Bush, Howard and Hitler, or to quote a common and predictable Leftist placard, “Bush = Hitler” ad nauseum. In fact in Leftism’s profound bankruptcy, Saddam is often better than Bush.

Beyond their current default positions, Left/Liberalism as it often is today, rejects the desire to be right about anything, as they see all success especially Western success, as failure.

Any judgement, no matter what the evidence and facts, are usually irrelevant and glibly dismissed with no curiosity or scepticism at all. Mostly only the identical conclusions are allowed, no matter how absurd the hyperbole. Paradoxically these views can fashionably change in an instant. Hence, the need in various psycho states to persecute and murder those who have ‘misunderstood’ the Revolution if only by default.

"Gee, sorry comrade. Nobody informed me who was today’s enemy and what was tomorrow’s slogan!"

Capitalist Democracies can only ever be seen by the Leftist as successful because somebody was apparently cheated. Nothing is ever good enough and they supply no answers beyond failed, unworkable and unproven fantasies. According to John Ray M.A & Ph. D at dissectleft, the Leftist has an obsession with radical change for its own sake, no matter how destructive, impractical or seemingly insane, just like Mao, Che and Pol Pot et al.

That’s how you get the many variations on the deeply juvenile and stupid “Smash Capitalism!” or smash whatever. Hardly much of a plan for anything in reality as even demolition companies plan ahead.

For such personalities, the deeper analysis and detail is simply not where the drama is. It’s much easier to have a violent demonstration or talk in platitudes and dated rhetoric about ‘the people’ for whom they have no real interest in beyond as a cipher for their meaningless political abstractions. Even going up into the hills with guns is easier than the slow, hard work of design, creativity, planning, consensus and testing that is absolutely required for real progress.

Julie Burchill has defined the anti-Iraq war protesters as “the silly led by the sinister". The silly often includes many otherwise good people. Burchill continues how the trouble with many good people, is that they cannot comprehend or conceive of how wicked and bad some people can be.

Regards Islamism, Saddam, Cuba, North Korea etc, etc, they often believe it’s either exaggerated, mostly fictional, entirely made up, or it's all merely the result of Western provocations. This way, they avoid any task that requires any real analysis of actual motive and responsibility. It's just all the West's fault!

Strangely, the same people can often unblinkingly accept the most absurd attributions regards their own leaders and culture.

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviets the "Evil Empire", he was exactly and empirically right. Just as George Bush was precisely correct in naming Saddams Iraq, North Korea and Iran, an "Axis of Evil". Anyone unable or unwilling to see this as a demonstratable series of facts, is incapable of any clear and rational thought whenever and wherever it counts. Thus they are not just useless, but useful idiot friends of our very real enemies.

Evan Sayet eloquently speaks of the Left eagerly tearing down what is right and good and elevating the wrong and evil. Bringing low the behaviour that leads to success and promoting that which leads to failure.

This is why the Left often uniformally sides with evil as in Saddam, Fidel and Che in Cuba, Islamists, Stalin and the Soviets, Red China in the 1960’s, North Vietnam, Communism and Socialism in general, African Nationalist Dictators, even Hitler in the 1930’s, as well as instigating violent demonstrations and riots etc. It’s why the Left mostly promotes drug use, promiscuity, ever bigger government control and many other dubious and perfectly insane non-ideas.

In his book ‘What’s Left?’, author and columnist Nick Cohen, speaks of the Left’s “wasteland of moral relativism” and how Richard Dawkins 'couldn't see beyond Bush to an Iraq that was being pulverised by Islamists.

In a letter to the press just after the war [began] he summed up the liberals' raging indifference when he [Dawkins]gloated, "Now Bush is begging the United Nations to help clean up the mess he created in Iraq, there is a temptation to tell him to get lost. It is a temptation to which I hope the United Nations will succumb. US armed forces are 'overstretched', and that is exactly how they should be."

In the moral vacuum of his posturing, Richard Dawkins displays not even the trace of any sympathy for the Iraqi people, especially one that is capable of overriding his arrogant and irrational hatred for the leader of a Western Democracy.

Cohen shows how the “nihilist mentality” from universities and anti-globalisation is now mainstream. “There was the same commitment-phobia: the leaders of the anti-war marches in Britain who saluted Saddam or mused about executing apostates were the exception. Most who marched behind them just grew impatient if you asked which Iraqis they were supporting and what type of Iraq they wanted to see. The idea that liberalism imposed the obligation to support others who shared liberal values was as beyond most liberals as it was beyond most of those who called themselves socialists".

Nick Cohen has shown clearly that Liberals are now, the appeasers of hate. An extract from his book ‘What’s Left? How the Liberals lost their way’.


"WWII was often played by ear, filled with failure, mistakes, heartbreak and over sixty million dead and cost billions of dollars. But like today, there was an enemy, there was a war and this was weighed against the alternative of utter defeat and what would have been the beginning of a deep and terrible darkness for the whole world. It was like Islamism now; the abyss.

Much of the less complicated and non post modern generation that lived, fought, loved, hated and died through the 1940’s, instinctively and clearly saw the realities of life and death before them and the stark, harsh choices they represented. We have no Churchill to call the enemy without and within exactly what they are and as clearly.

So many are so distracted by their peripheral delusions, that we are like a man entering a street fight with his house ajar and with those that would wish him ill in his home already. God help us all".

Climate does change. That’s why they call it climate and the weather.

The IPCC and Al Gores computer model of what Los Angeles will look like by 1987.


“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had”. Michael Crichton.


Al Gore cruises Hollywood for a blow up job for his profile which funny enough, was always pretty big. I don’t know about you, but anything that’s eagerly taken up by a boring, middle-aged and until post mockumentary, ignored politically, but now hugely reinflated and rich politician; an assortment of Hollywood actors, celebrities, affluent musicians, vandalising and spoiled private school kids and dreadlocked white boys from welfare funded drum circles, public purse seeking academics and scientists, is not my idea of a guarantee of factual quality control.

Er, why are so few people curious about Big Expandable Al's past political record? Re: the King of opportunism, flip flop, Gore's environmental non-credendentials and his general long history of venal political "tranvestitism"? Hey, that's the way the Left gets astride a new hobby horse. Their modus operandi at core is always 'spare me the details and cut straight to the ego drama!'

Meanwhile at a swingin' Bel Air pad it's ‘Yeah Big Al! Let’s just do it, baby! Let’s give it to the man! Oh, you and I are the man? Just let me finish that line of coke I left beside the pool!’

That may be why a guy from the International Panel on Climate Change can say on a Government public radio broadcaster that their predictions “are just true”, without being queried on the innate fakeness and low level of such a statement. I’m sorry, but last time I looked, predictions by definition were if nothing else, predictive. They may be possible, they may be a lot of things but they haven’t happened yet, so no.

Why are so many vast, affluent and naturally impervious ego’s so newly sensitive and caring about the Global Warming Rag anyway? What are we buying and what are they selling exactly?

The latest seized upon pet subject is as mere grist to the undisciplined minds of the soft Left, all to give some meaning and direction to a belief system whose only solid stand on anything at all, seems to be its opposition to things. Then when said wheel barrow or trick pony is found a little wanting, it’s discarded without comment or accountability.

Ok, so there wasn’t a new ice-age, (global cooling!) as predicted by perhaps 1982 and there was no population explosion in the developed world so that by the mid 1980’s LA was supposedly going to look like a scene from Soylent Green. Ok, so all the major resources and oil didn’t run out by 1985 and food production instead of collapsing, more than quadrupled across most of the world that used modern production methods.

But shoot, you still got to be a much lauded and earnest blow-hard bigmouth with endless media exposure time. You also sold a lot of books, made a lot of money, filmed an award winning documentary and got that nice government ‘research grant’. But anyway, hey! I digress. The end is really, really coming this time, no really, maybe within ten years or more with, ta-da! Global Warming! No, no! Really! Trust me! I’m an activist!

Conveniently, it’s often funded once again from the same kind of self-perpetuating and ever expanding government gravy train that is this time around, called ‘climate change’. What a dumb term that says so much about the non-thinking of this latest in a long, long line of mass hysterias. Climate does change, that’s why it’s called climate. And at about four billion in funding at last count.

Within a decade or two, no-one will be mentioning global warming and not because we’re not living in a Kevin Costner movie, but because it’s perhaps all crap and simply not true. Hey, in science class, didn’t ice take up much more room than water? Isn’t Co2 85% water? Hasn’t the world’s climate gone from ice age to primeval jungle many times? Aren't we insignificant? Isn't controlling the worlds natural instability beyond our abilities?

Global Warming is such an already allegedly established and overbearing orthodoxy of the Emperors new clothes, that people who know almost nothing about anything will brow beat you with their hand me down expertise. It’s like another version of the rusted opinion of the ignorant philistine on art, ‘I know nothin’ ‘bout science, but I know what I like and I really like what I don't know ‘bout climate change!’

The serious point is that the methods and attitudes that GW’s moral vanity priests used to arrive at their conclusions seem anti-individual and anti-objective thought. Consensus is nice and cosy sometimes, but doesn’t in itself necessarily mean a damn thing. I thought science was permanent scepticism via multiple testing?

Vast and complicated computer modelling of possible future changes in climate, may be found to have used less skill, accuracy and proportion than that required for plastic airplane modelling.