Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Nic Cage Still Haunted By Robert Neville's Grim Faced Charisma.

[Multiple click on all images for a full size yet pointless view and reload blog name to return.]

During the filming of 'Blowing', the 2009 movie starring Nic Cage about a train full of doomed film extras and actors who can't do American accents properly, Robert Neville's "grim faced charisma" left Nic Cage standing in the background.

And Cage has been "haunted" by it ever since: "From that moment on, the films I've starred in have too often either been over-blown, ludicrous, even twee or frankly, they've kinda sucked. Man, my personal assistant Consuela warned me about this when she said that "I beg of you Mr Cage, beware of The Neville! Give that one a scene, any scene and E' Padre, all eyes will go to him as if to the heavens! I tell you as The Holy Ghost is my witness!, El Neville is either a saint or the Devil! Give him a talking role and Santa Maria of the Blessed Virgin, he'll take the film from you! On the blood of our Lord Jesus, this I swear!". But did I listen? Nope, I mean this guy was just a featured extra. Yep, extraterrestrial mebbe..."

In the now infamous scene shown below, Cage tries to warn of "El Neville" as he points frantically at Robert and shouts out that "It's him!" but to no avail, all while Neville, [hunched second from left] plays James Dean as the ultimate movie extra, thus setting in play Nic signing on for not only 'Drive Angry' and 'G-Force', but 'The Bad Lieutenant', 'Season Of The Witch' and another 'Ghost Rider'.  "See! Isn't that evidence enough of a powerful and vengeful force at work?" pleads Nic. "It's all the work of El Neville! Consuela! I'm soooooooo sooooorryyyy!"

The following pivotal scene from 'Blowing' features Robert Neville authentically playing the part of a man desperate to escape from this truly terrifying yet common 'extra's in acting career train wreck' sequence. Neville on the right of course, naturally stands out in his sharp tailor-made suit with hand-fitted white silk shirt, a soft auburn colored Burmese silk tie and hand-crafted Toni Ponti shoes.

 [Vid may take 20 seconds to load.]

Cage looking pensive said, "They say you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Man, if only I'd maybe helped Robert get an audition for a supporting role, or a bit part or a job helping with the catering, mebbe. At least Neville could do an authentic American accent! Yeah, maybe it's not too late to lift this curse! I'm gonna get my agent to track El Neville down! Consuela! Get me my soft auburn colored Burmese silk tie and hand-crafted Toni Ponti shoes!" 

Monday, 8 July 2013

What Is Betrayal, Treason and Stealth Jihad, Daddy?

186  Beslan children murdered and 168 adults including teachers and parents etc, means as per usual that Islam Murder Inc. came by and stayed. Last time I checked, the Muslim jihadists that murdered these children to spread Islam by following the Koran and the example of Mohammad precisely, are "extremists", and not any Australian patriots posting statements of fact. Hey, and not even the one's allegedly posting the most unpleasant words [as yet seemingly unreported] make it to this level in the slightest, now do they.

"A REAL ISLAM POLICY FOR A REAL AMERICA by [the late great] Lawrence Auster.
Preserving Western Civilization Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
[Excerpt:] February 8, 2009 To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.
The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence..."

Andrew Bolt is a very successful, decent and often honest guy who regularly reports on important news that the tedious, incompetent, conformist and phony Australian media never do without lying. And quite frankly, Bolt should have cleaned up many an award that Australia has to offer for outstanding columnist/blogger cum tv presenter etc. Instead Andrew is perversely singled out by those to whom he owes nothing, as somehow the entire opposite. Go figure.

Bolt is a prodigious, essential and often outstanding blogger - thanks to his own apparent serious work ethic - and in no small way to the many great comments provided by millions of readers. Regulars who regularly possess more wit, humor and insight than well Andrew, who sadly, has a great Dutch sense of humour and matching taste in music.

Unfortunately Bolt comes over way too often as a dilettante: kinda narrow, parochial, unread and repetitive. You can wait for years for Bolt to reference a book he is reading on the very subjects he discusses. But then, most Australian media, politicians, celebrity pals and people in general, DO NOT READ.

Thus Andrew Bolt, perma-dag,  is an excitingly average radio guest and at best an adequate TV presenter, regularly pairing with the same dull, pointless and regularly mediocre, unimaginative pool of guests. Andy never really mentions or quotes most of the outstanding bloggers he regularly links to or heaven forbid, ever brings in a single one of his truly brilliant commenters. No, that would be interesting and entertaining, two things Andy doesn't really seem to excel at. But then he's a successful media dude and I ain't. Go figure. It's a heartless ol' world.

Yep, Bolt IS regularly the ONE lone brave media man to ask truly key questions never considered by the usual spineless conformist said media dimwits - that can't admit the fact that he's often entirely correct and they are entirely wrong.

Yet au contraire, when not eager for credit from imaginary friends and a worthless left - and regularly willing to throw fans and other conservatives and patriots under the bus for it - it's often the horde of 'Elephant in the Room' questions, that Andrew has the unique opportunity to ask - and so disappointingly doesn't or would never ask that get my attention. And frankly, it's the easy rides Bolt inexplicably gives to so many key creeps and phonies - plus the curious things gotten so utterly wrong that well, stick so. Due to an apparent lack of serious reading and research - or interest in various key subjects -  it's this characteristic of Andrew's that makes me laugh. But then, he does have an unnerving habit of slipping in and out of his previous Labour lefty past.

[How [left] Liberals Think by Evan Sayet.]

Now, there's nothing allegedly extreme about Andrew beyond [usually] being extremely polite and naturally shy, with his charming love of light classical boredom and championing of Bavarian underwater clog orchestras.  That's for the mediocre, nihilist mob-mentality of Marxist boobs, left ecofascist twits and pitiful fake conservative bores - all predictably drivelling a surprisingly similar tyranny of cliches n' lonely 'love me please!' logical fallacy - and quite naturally stupid .

Once a former Labour speech writer, Andrew regularly calls himself a conservative - and he is in many ways, unless we define our terms - then he is actually not a conservative and thus inconsistent and in much of the areas that count. Alternatively courageous to easily frightened, [ain't we all] Andrew rather perversely thinks that Labour Muslim M.P and Rudd appointee Ed Husic, who specifically chose the er, Koran to swear himself in [why exactly?] somehow oddly represents "the best of us”. What exactly he can't factually define.

So er, there’s somehow nothing unusual or problematic about any of this 'How to Jihad to Dhimmis' book thing then. So what does that make the rest of us non-dhimmi and non-Sharia compliant folks? Chopped liver? Chopped one way or another...

The “best of us” to Bolt - because Ed who calls himself the undefined term of “moderate” didn’t get er, “offended” at people rightly creeped out by Husic's deliberate use of the hideous murder and warfare manual that is the Koran. Mighty big of you there, Ed. You know, Ed ‘didn’t get offended’ as in Ed calling us infidels “extremists” and aligning us neatly with mass murdering nihilist Muslim Brotherhood et al jihadists who are also "extremists" like er, comment posters on a Facebook page. Legitimate criticism of an official and nihilist freaks who make beheading videos, what's the diff? Nice.

As usual let’s celebrate a diversity of one opinion only and we always know which one.

The key question is this:
As it does in Islamic states, either swearing on The Koran [and at Government House no less!] means something serious, profound and legally and culturally binding as say, swearing on The Bible or it does not. And with this deliberate Koranic and by default Sharia endorsing choice being widely accepted by those in legal power and much of the media as perfectly legitimate, this act has either already realized a singular potential  for current and future fundamental Islamic influence on the governance of Australian law, democracy and society, or it has not. So which is it? 
Is Husic either incompetent regards the true nature of Islam and the Koran, or was he misrepresenting or lying under oath regards Islam, Sharia law or Australian law and the Constitution?  Is The Koran, which is not separate from Mohammad, Islam, Sharia Law, the Muslim Ummah and permanent stealth jihad warfare but ONE thing indivisible, to be taken seriously or not? If it means nothing, when did such a seeming official and central oath of upholding Australian law mean nothing legally or culturally? If it means something, then it must mean everything and that would include wait for it, legally and culturally and would therefore specifically mean the security of our Commonwealth, wouldn't it, Guv'na?

Alternatively, Koranic law is taken rather seriously by its proponents so er, how does that work? It doesn't and CANNOT.

So in taking the old oath on the zany and murderous Koran, which means in effect swearing allegiance to Islam and Islam only, why is this not seen as er, problematic by at last count precisely no-one in power, but instead is bizarrely and fraudulently spoken of by the same phony unread, incurious twits n' dhimmi's as some kinda wonderful heart-warming positive? Where and freaking how, bub? [Gee, couldn't be votes such as the nine marginal Muslim voting Labour Sydney seats and similar Liberal ones? Never! Jeepers, could it be the deep multiculti hole dug by virtually all Western governments over the last decades? Plain old cold sweat fear? No, I say!] 

But I Tygris. This nonsensical, turgid and evil book that Christopher Hitchens called "filth", speaks explicitly of and gives instructions on and sanctions wholeheartedly lying and deception in the service of spreading Islam by any and all means. In fact over 60 percent of The Koran is on how to wage war and murder non-Muslim infidels, Jews and so on. No, it is. Sadly, the rest of it is no more hilarious and fun-filled. No, it ain't. Well? I'd really like to know...

Hey, if it's so hip and wonderful and open-minded an' all to swear on The Krazy Koran, let's become an Islamic state then. Ah, because it isn't so swingin', is it?

These are real adult and disturbing questions that Andrew Bolt on his Bolt Report and most everyone else in positions over and beyond the rest of us, [or as the Koran calls us Infidels, Christians, Jews and kaffirs: "apes and pigs" etc] are utterly uninterested in. Frankly, when I saw Bolt's blog post and TV segment on Husic, I was waiting for the serious angle he was natcherly gonna come to and hey, didn't. Instead it was a rather obsequious n' eager handshake for good ol' broad minded Ed Husic: Icon of Tolerance. For a moment I thought I was imagining such dissonant rubbish but I was not. Au contraire, it was all in Andrew's imagination. So Bolt is just fine and dandy with the true nature and purpose of The Koran then? Got it. Why? Is it the catering?

Regards comments of “abuse” on Husic’s Facebook page, the two in The Australian are statements of fact, as were the others they used.  Under the ironic title of “Labour M.P Ed Husic turns the other cheek on Koran abuse” [a Christian ideal like The Golden Rule and not an Islamic one in the slightest with its originally desert Arab culture of violence, revenge, kidnapping, torture, banditry, slavery and assassination], and I QUOTE said Australian citizens:

You have created history of the worst order, to swear in on a Koran!! This is Australia with Australian Laws,” said one poster calling herself Dinki Di Sheila…“Swore to serve Australia using the same book terrorists do to serve Al-Qaeda ....Disgusting,” said another.’ Source The Australian, July 02.

[So er, which parts are not true then?]

The author, Ben Packham, ad hominem slandered these commenters as “internet trolls”. Well, he can. Read as just non-people with non-views and no power. How does one “abuse” the most abusive book predating and simpatico with Mein Kampf and The Protocols of Zion?

Mr Husic is now Labour Parliamentary Secretary. How is it not abuse in the extreme for an Australian M.P to swear on The Koran, a repellent tome that calls for the deception, enslavement and murder of all non-Muslims and specifically Jews and Christians and in a perpetual globaljihad war for a world Caliphate? Is Husic going to speak the uncomfortable truth about his “faith”? Well, as The Australian reported, Ed said: ‘“But I also think that you will have from time to time people at the extremes - there are people definitely that are extreme within my faith and people that are extreme outside it - and they will always try to seek ways in which to divide people,” he told Sky News.’ Ah, the moral equivalence card. So no then. 

Ah, so why are jihadists extreme seeing how they’re following The Koran and Mohammad’s example? Gee, does Ed mean anyone who objects to their own incremental Islamisation and thus slavery and annihilation like most anyone with sense? Hardly inclusive, Ed. Now name over 20,000 deadly terrorist attacks since 911 by other “extremists” of any another faith other than Islam. I can wait.

Is Bolt naïve, unread and wilfully ignorant or just a wilful fool or even gee, lying? Or as is his wont, is he desperate to find something positive that simply isn’t there? This may be due to the fact that in common with most Australian media, Andrew Bolt virtually never references a single book he may have read on the very subjects he speaks about. Now why would that be? DO they read?

And this may be why Bolt has rarely if ever to my knowledge, given a guest platform to his many outstanding readers, fellow bloggers and listeners [curiously including MarkSteyn who very publicly supported Andrew and has visited Australia several times as recently as last year] and Bolt will it seems, quite glibly and broadly throw random fans under the bus as he as memory serves me, he did on several occasions on the radio, all apparently to prove to the unworthy how much of a middle of the road guy he really is, which he is.

What are you afraid of, Dr Zaius? I can think of plenty meself, due to the fact that the current state of affairs in the relatively still free West including here in Australia, is frankly terrifying  and on many fronts. So er, contradicting The Bolt Report’s catch phrase of “no fear, no favour”, clearly there is perhaps a little of both.  And who can blame him?

Tony ‘two face’ Abbott,  an otherwise decent man who apparently lacks either the courage, interest, reading, understanding and thus insight to ever boldly state and believe in actual proven empirical conservative principles, said “I respect his [Husic’s] choice” and that “the Australian people” should too. Why exactly, Tone old chum? When did we become a Sharia compliant state? Tony also driveled that he thinks the great Geert Wilders is “wrong about Islam”. Balls Tony, Geert is entirely correct about the true nature and history of Islam, or are you just a liar who will sell us out to a mortal enemy who takes its goals far more seriously than you apparently do? Ah, but that would be The Tone's attitude to foreign affairs in general, per se...

We’re doomed. All is lost. They will all let us down just at different speeds. Thus out of 440 QSociety invites to 440 provisionally individual politicians to attend Geert Wilders speech, a grand and brave total of just four attended. THIS singular act of venal, yet laughably spineless political group conformity, tells us everything we need to know about those who aspire to er, 'lead' us and to God knows where. Hey, though on the bright side, it’s a nightmare of state enforced suicidal acceptance and no one in real power is on your side or mine. No, really.

Actually there IS a serious problem or two with the Koran, Mohammad and 1400 years of desert tribal and nihilist totalitarian Islam and jihad lovin' uber-aggressive expansion, ya know. So here to celebrate diversity is a delightful empirical real-world psychological and terrible events insight excerpt, regards the Islamic Jihad Beslan school massacre. Ah, Beslan, oh Beslan. There is not a day when I do not consider BESLAN and what BESLAN means. BESLAN was not and is not an anomaly. Perhaps you should ponder what BESLAN means too, hmmmm?

Sexual Terror: The Untold Stories of Beslan Jihad

"...It was then that they began raping the girls. They wanted sex as they killed, and this is sexual homicide. A sex killer gets excited when he thinks about forcing himself inside an unwilling victim, but the rape itself does not produce the ultimate excitement. It is the rape followed by the killing that is arousing. This is what happened at Beslan.
One by one, females were targeted. The sex killers looked for the perfect victims, and after zeroing in, they grabbed and disrobed the little girls in the middle of the gym. There were muffled cries as the girls were humiliated in front of everyone. They were stripped, raped, and sodomized by several men. Not content to simply rape, the terrorists used their guns and other objects to penetrate the screaming victims while the other hostages were forced to watch. And the terrorists laughed. They laughed as they violated the children and made them bleed. What few people know is that some of the girls died as a result of being raped with objects. The internal damage was so severe that without immediate medical attention, the girls bled to death. Those who managed to survive required extensive reconstructive surgery and painful recoveries. 
But raping the girls was not enough for the deviants who had entered the school. The terrorists beat the other children. In fact, beatings took place regularly, and as they pummeled the little ones, the terrorists smiled and laughed. It was said that they would strike a child and then watch the child cringe. When the youngsters recoiled, their captors laughed. This says the offenders enjoyed inflicting the suffering. They wanted their victims to suffer. Such behavior is sadistic. Bringing others pain brings the sadist pleasure. And the terrorists tortured the victims in many ways..."

READ it all.