Why Muslims and Leftards cuddle in bed together.

The only thing wrong with both Islam and the Left is everything.




Hey, I like this young H.L Mencken cove. The Padre Padrone so to speak, of two of my favourite people: P.J O'Rourke and Mark Steyn. The naturally radical and control freak moral vanity left and the naturally nihilistic and apocalyptic Islam, are now in a mutual rubby dubby session of each other's ideological totalitarian willies. For perverts who base their entire pathology on criminal perversion and junk from Hell uber-lies and completely imposing it on everyone else, it's only natural!



Via frontpagemag, United in Hate: The Lefts romance with tyranny and terror. Jamie Glazov.

“In a recent blog, I described how a courageous modern “traditional liberal” politician, Geert Wilders, aptly warns of the dangers posed by the ancient, but living totalitarianism of Islam, an entirely unreformed, and unrepentant religio-political system.

Why does the Left—from the more vociferous, to the (outwardly) sober—openly embrace, or rationalize, or at very best ignore and fail to condemn—the totalitarian scourge of contemporary jihadism, and all its accompanying “sacralized” Islamic ugliness: genocidal hatred of non-Muslims, Muslim “apostate” freethinkers, and women?

Almost immediately after Bolshevism emerged as an important political ideology, with real power, Bertrand Russell understood its similarity to Islam. He made the following comparison between Islam and Bolshevism in his 1920, “Theory and Practice of Bolshevism”:

Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam.

Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike the early successors of Muhammad.

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.

Three decades later, sociologist Jules Monnerot’s “Sociology and Psychology of Communism” (first published in French in 1949) opened with a chapter describing Communism as, “The Twentieth-century Islam.” Monnerot noted that like its religious antecedent, Islam, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State.[emphasis in the original]” He concludes the comparison by observing this merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period.

It allowed the head of a State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority.

The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranean warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.

Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical center from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment...

[I]t is not the first empire in which the temporal and public power goes hand in hand with a shadowy power which works outside its imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States. The Islamic East affords several examples of a like duality and duplicity. The Egyptian Fatimids, and later the Persian Safavids, were the animators from the heart of their own States, of an active and organizing legend, an historical myth, calculated to make fanatics and obtain their total devotion, designed to create in neighboring States an underworld of ruthless gangsters.

The eponymous ancestor of the Safavids was a saint from whom they magically derived the religious authority in whose name they operated. They were Shi’is of Arabian origin, and the militant order they founded was dedicated to propaganda and ‘nucleation’ throughout the whole of Persia and Asia Minor.

It recruited ‘militants’ and ‘adherents’ and ‘sympathizers’. These were the Sufis. As rulers their sympathies were recognized by other sovereigns in the same way that Stalin, head of the State, is recognized by other heads of States, and rightly, as the leader of world communism.”

Jamie Glazov’s trenchant, timely analysis United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror, elucidates how the contemporary Left—self-professed torch-bearers of “humanitarianism”—is so afflicted with moral and intellectual idiocy that it promotes, via activism, or apologetics—the genocidal aspirations of totalitarian Islam.

Glazov reminds us of Eric Hoffer’s seminal observations from “The True Believer,” contrasting those persons who possess “...a sense of fulfillment [and] think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is...,” with “...the frustrated [who] favor radical change.” Unfortunately, as Hoffer noted, the true believer’s desire for “radical change” is characteristically founded upon the nihilistic craving to “...be rid of an unwanted self...,” creating destructive mass movements which “...satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.”

Hoffer’s paradigm is deftly expanded upon by Glazov to explain the contemporary phenomenon of Leftist support for jihadists and jihadism:

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.

…As history tragically recorded, this “holy cause” follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition—that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest—and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be shaped into a more perfect form.


"H.L Mencken vs the Red Menace.

In 1909, H.L. Mencken and Robert Rives La Monte exchanged a series of letters, which comprised a debate on socialism. The following year, they published the correspondence in a book called Men Vs. the Man: A Correspondence Between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist. Mencken explained that his own philosophy rested on "a firm belief in the beneficence and permanence of the evolutionary process."

As a confirmed social Darwinist, Mencken believed in progress, but not the man-made variety favored by La Monte. For Mencken, progress was "a sort of process of disillusion. Man gets ahead, in other words, by discarding the theory of today for the fact of tomorrow."

Mencken was not yet 30 in 1909, but he clung to social Darwinism for the rest of his life. He died in 1956; socialism lingered on until 1989, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. But these days, with laissez-faire capitalism once again under fire, latter-day La Montes are rooting for socialism to rise from its grave. So it seems timely to exhume Mencken's century-old critique. Below are several selections from Men Vs. the Man. (As Mencken liked to point out, life is unfair, so we are leaving out La Monte's side of the debate. The full text of the book can be read online.)
My Dear La Monte:

I am no apologist for the existing order of things. Like [Thomas] Huxley, I believe that the management of the universe is by no means perfect, but such as it is, we must accept it. If you point out that human progress, as I have defined it, involves the practical enslavement of two-thirds of the human race, my answer is that I can't help it. If you point out that a slave always runs the risk of being oppressed by a particularly cruel master, I answer that a master always runs the risk of having his brains knocked out by a particularly enterprising slave. If you point out that, by my scheme of progress, it is only the upper stratum that actually progresses, I answer that only the upper stratum is capable of progressing unaided.


The mob is inert and moves ahead only when it is dragged or driven. It clings to its delusions with a pertinacity that is appalling. A geological epoch is required to rid it of a single error, and it is so helpless and cowardly that every fresh boon it receives, every lift upon its slow journey upward, must come to it as a free gift from its betters--as a gift not only free, but also forced. Great men have fought and died for the truth for a thousand years, and yet the average low-caste white man of today, throughout Christendom, still believes that Friday is an unlucky day, still believes that ghosts walk the earth, and still holds to an immovable faith in signs, portents, resurrections, redemptions, miracles, prophecies, hells, gehennas and political panaceas.

The efficient man of higher caste makes it his rule to accept the world as he finds it and to work out his own salvation with a light heart. His joy is in effort, in work, in progress. A difficulty overcome, a riddle solved, an enemy vanquished, a fact proved, an error destroyed--in such things he finds the meaning of life and surcease from its sorrows. But the inefficient man, unable by his own hand and brain to cope with the conditions which beset and menace him, seeks refuge, soon or late, in the notion that the world is out of joint. Sometimes he concludes, finally, that the horrors of existence are irremediable, and then he is ripe for religion, with its promises of repayment in some gaseous paradise beyond the grave.

At other times he arrives at the idea that all would be well if there were some abysmal reconstruction of the scheme of things--some new deal of the cards, with four aces pushed his way. When this madness falls upon him he gropes about for a ready guide to the Utopia that arises nebulously in his brain. And thus it is that discontented, ignorant, helpless men subscribe to the poetical fancies of imaginative dreamers, and become single-taxers, Christian Scientists, Anarchists or Socialists.

The great objections to socialism, as a philosophy, are that it encourages and aggravates the feeling of martyrdom which burns in the breasts of all such incompetents, and that it inflames them, at the same time, with the idea that their discomfort is due, not to the operation of natural laws, which benefit the world by ridding it automatically and harshly of the unfit, but to the deliberate and devilish cruelty of their betters. Your true socialist is convinced, before everything else, that his personal existence is of vast and undoubted value to the world, and that the world, if it were not a swindling felon, would reward him handsomely for remaining alive.”


Via forbes com:

“Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) was a newspaper pundit, literary critic, magazine editor and agent provocateur. He first rose to prominence as a Progressive Era dissenter who ridiculed the very notion of uplift as laughably naive. What ailed America, he announced, was "the lack of a body of sophisticated and civilized public opinion, independent of plutocratic or government control and superior to the infantile philosophies of the mob--a body of opinion showing the eager curiosity, the educated skepticism and the hospitality to ideas of a true aristocracy."

But neither Hitchens nor any other current pundit can truly fill Mencken's shoes, because none espouse the Sage's gleeful brand of social Darwinism, which animated almost everything he wrote. These days, anyone admitting to such mean-spirited views is relegated to marginal publications. Was Mencken's extreme elitism a pose, something he exaggerated for effect? Not according to Terry Teachout, the drama critic for the Wall Street Journal and author of The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken.

"Mencken was every bit as heartless as he made out," Teachout said, via e-mail. "Not on an individual level--he was capable of great personal kindness--but everything that he wrote in Notes on Democracy should be taken seriously as an expression of how he thought the world worked. Another way to put it is that he believed that politics existed in order to block the otherwise inevitable operation of social Darwinism. For that reason, he didn't have any serious expectation that his ideas would ever be adopted in America: He knew that elitism has no appeal in a democracy."

"It's important to keep in mind, though, that Mencken was the furthest thing from a practical political thinker," Teachout added. "He was essentially a literary artist who played with ideas. This doesn't mean that he wasn't serious about those ideas, but it would never have occurred to him to think through how they might be made to work in the real world. That wasn't what he understood to be his job--he was a critic, period."

"I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men.

Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776 and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government and even to civilization itself--that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle. I do not know: I report only that when the suckers are running well the spectacle is infinitely exhilarating."


“It is a typical "Dilbert" strip. The boss announces, "Our CEO has voluntarily slashed his pay from $6 million per year to $4 million. In a written statement, he said he wants to 'share the pain.' Do you feel better now?" A downtrodden intern replies, "I make my underpants from sandwich bags."
But that's office life, is it not? Bosses make obscene sums of money, while downtrodden cubicle slaves toil almost without reward. It might seem insane, but economists have a surprise for us: The insanity reflects nothing more than cool economic logic. There is method in the madness.

The ugly truth is that your boss is probably overpaid--and it's for your benefit, not his. Why? It might be because he isn't being paid for the work he does but, rather, to inspire you. In other words, we work our socks off in underpaying jobs in the hope that one day we'll win the rat race and become overpaid fat cats ourselves. Economists call this "tournament theory."

After all, managers find it hard to spot an excellent performance. It is a rare job where workers can be fairly paid according to some objective criteria.”

Baz Lurhman Graciously Blames The Audience And Critics For His Bad Movie.

The unbearable lot of many an ACTUAL Koori woman and thus not suitable as a government-backed [tax-payer funded] tourism movie. Apparently slashed with a broken beer bottle by a male Koori, her dilemma somehow lacks the required white thus evil element to ever generate even the slightest interest among the urban left. Here's an idea for Baz and the Guv. Make a well written film instead of a political pamphlet that is entertaining and relates to people. Could work.




As per usual in Australia, the creamy elites of our largely taxpayer-funded mediocre arts like Bazza the clown, say that the real problem is not their arrogant seeming lack of talent, skill, intelligence, or having little or nothing to say whatsoever. It’s not because Baz apparently lacks a single coherent idea that prevents the artiste known as Baz and his oddly forgettable rubbish from being a massive and well deserved success. Nope, it’s the AUDIENCE. They are to blame. Oh yes, and the critics. Blah blah, woof woof.

Riiiight. Sure it is. So his beautifully shot, almost appealing in parts yet mostly embarrassing tripe reel is entirely the fault of the observer and having observed how crap it is, they have moved on. Oh, how unfair and ungrateful the stupid masses are! I may be anonymous but you ain't getting my $14, Baz old chum! Look, as I said to a pal of mine that Baz the boob still deserves credit for the massive effort required to make even a dodgy film. So in spite of however acceptable his peculiar and “right on!” bigotry, kudos for him. He's made more films than I have even if he only made one.

[And as "Renegade" says in the comments, he enjoyed it and "there's worse out there". He's right. I've enjoyed a lot of good and junk too. And there's usually something I can get out of a film, but rather less lately. Hell, movies are not as important as people think they are, just like this shabby blog. There's no such thing as an "important film". That's often pretension. They all end up dog eared and faded on some dusty video store back shelf, hopelessly dated and laughably stale. It's just that forty million dollar baby angle that erks me, and the typical Aussie in your face advertising agency boredom. And it's crap too. Give me a fraction of that ca$h to write a decent screenplay or let me escape to the future via a time machine. But I digress.

It's tragic that the re-creation of the bombing of Darwin should involve a heavy movie bomber like Nicole Kidman. Yep, Hugh Jackman is a talented, very successful and apparently nice guy, but in interviews he often throws in the same startlingly dull-witted, silly even ugly left views as most other celebrities. So I can’t help feeling that gee, the chance of someone saying anything critical in pre-production was pretty slim and clearly missed. And there's the problem.

“Hey, you’re gonna crash and burn if you talk down to people and hit them over the head with your PC Double Bay and Bel Air style tinsel town rebellion! I mean, who are you kidding with your relentlessly worthy fake causes and Cosmic Debris?” Fred the Gaffer.

Ah, but the Bazzare Lurkman ads even more unaware self-parody of the beyond belief and venal kind. Says bedtime for Bazza: "If you wanted to show a mirror to people that says, 'You've been drunk on money,' they're not going to want to see it. But if you reflected that mirror on another time they'd be willing to."

Excellent. I couldn't have made it up. So you don't want money then only a little bit to get by then. The government via the taxpayer gives FORTY MILLION DOLLARS toward his tedious, clichéd, overblown, seemingly from other movies out-take riddled, empty, pamphlet-like agitprop for the stolen generations fraud with a virtual by-line of come see the racists, and he says we’re pissed on cash! Yes, at the Ford assembly line, various café staff and within the cleaning industry, they is swimmin’ innit. My, my. Could this be why our er, artists so regularly fail to relate to or even begin to understand the mass of ordinary people? Could be.

Baz appears to be a classic smug Oz celebrity. Unchallenged, unreachable, unbearable and unable. It’s all part of very chummy stream of people who are virtually never thrown into stark contrast by the superior. Compare rather unfairly Baz to Clint, Baz to Hitchcock, Baz to David Lean, Baz to an ant. The ant costs you and I nothing but is far more productive.

“Los Angeles via the Hollywood Reporter. Baz Luhrmann's "Australia" may be doing some middling U.S. box office, earning about $39 million (26 million pounds) since it opened Thanksgiving weekend, but the director is unrepentant as the movie nears its first month of release stateside".

Yep, unrepentant. Many of our alleged creative class NEVER learn and thus the half-baked, underdeveloped, phony and irrelevant tax-payer funded “products” they proffer, have long ago disappeared from any conscious choice for entertainment by not just the unpretentious.

“In one of his first interviews since the movie opened, he spoke out against "Australia's" critics and those he feels call him the "black hole of cinema." He also said he will move quickly on his next project, an adaptation of "The Great Gatsby," which he described as a perfect parable for economic disaster".

He's right and he should know but doesn't. An unaware artist? How does that work? As per usual I imagine. See? Ain’t this a classic piece of elitist dissonance? Baz is in the middle of an “economic disaster” to the tune of a dud film returning barely one third of its 150 million dollars, and Baz is planning to lecture us on the money! It beggars belief. Baz is a major and wonderful hypocrite bastard. Er, Baz...old F.Scott could write and he had gosh, ideas and some nuance. Do you? Baz Lurhman is the King of immature pastiche that largely appears like elongated video clips. In fact Moulin Rouge was exactly that.

"A lot of reviewers like ' Australia .' And we're making people cry; I know because they write to us," he told the Hollywood Reporter during an interview at the Four Seasons Hotel. "But there are those that don't get it. A lot of the film scientists don't get it. And it's not just that that they don't get it, but they hate it and they hate me, and they think I'm the black hole of cinema. They say, 'He shouldn't have made it, and he should die.'"

Don't worry. You won't die. Not with a taxpayer lifeline. “Film scientists?” Whatever. Yes, if someone says you suck, they “don’t get it?” Riiiight. How convenient. Obviously they probably do get it. Your film sucks shit. Now I just may have tears of mild rage that I blew $14 on another wasted afternoon.

“Asked why he thought the reactions were so passionate, he replied: "I know what it's about."

The movie's detractors, he said, were used to movies that were neatly defined".

Maybe so. But no. As long as you ain’t paranoid then. Sheesh. Yes, "defined" as coherent entertainment and thus worth going to see. Maybe it’s about how in your face the whole media promo is and that the potential audience have paid a shit load of taxes to promote the in your faceness of it all? And that's before they even see a truly bad film called 'Australia' that insults Australians? Then we're blamed for not accepting, enjoying and celebrating the insult. Sadly for all these bountiful gifts, the public are not er, grateful to Baz the infant merely terrible. Thanks for nothing, you cheating bastards.

"This is not (simply) a romantic comedy for 40-year-old women or action movies for 17-year-old boys, and that's not OK with some people".

Ah, masterful marketing there, Baz. Insult as much of your audience as possible. Bravo.

"It's not OK for people to come eat at the same table of cinema. But you look at movies like 'Gone With the Wind' and Old Hollywood classics, and they don't fit in any box".

Eat schmeat. Er, yes they do fit into a box or two. The boxes marked 'entertaining' and 'successful' and they were often based on things that gee, had actually even happened, even a bit.

"Corny Hollywood movies from the '40s freak out (the film scientists)," he added'.

Yes, it’s all so beyond the unsophisticated plebs, innit? Hey I get it. At least Baz has some decent thoughts on history. But er, sadly a lot of those films were rubbish too. And gee, I can’t help thinking of how the Baz film posits an absurd moral vanity driven fantasy of a rich white woman with a half cast son, who is “stolen”[!] to present another monstrous evidence free fraud of the er, “stolen generations”. Golly, is it in the mentality of a 1940’s back lot B western, or a government documentary on the dangers of petting? Who knows, who cares. Obviously not a paying audience.

“Luhrmann struck a tone that was as unyielding as many of the creative choices in his movies, but was also occasionally conciliatory. "I'm not whining, because when you do what I do, you expect to be covered in mud. But there seems to be a lot of misinformation."

The ONLY relevant information you need about any film is what's up on the screen. No one sees a film and thinks "Gee, this totally sucks but the maker's intent and the off stage excuses are making up for it".

"Among those pieces of misinformation is box office, he said; Luhrmann noted that "Moulin Rouge" has been on a similar pace as his latest epic, and that sticking it out for the long haul was not an uncommon experience for him. "I'm used to the waves crashing around me. And what I do is stick to a craggy rock as they keep coming. And if you stick to it long enough someone else will stick to it, too, and then someone else and then someone else."

(Indeed, "Rouge" was at $36 million through three weeks of release and finished with $57 million, though some might say the reported $130 million production budget of "Australia" necessitated a higher return.)

Yes, some might say that, but then, the public has no real voice. Except when they don’t go to the cinema to see a movie cos it stinks. Ah, “Waves crashing”. You should have used that cliché in the film. Oh, maybe you did?

“The director confirmed that he officially acquired rights to "Gatsby," the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel set during the roaring 20s. Luhrmann sees the pre-Depression story as a wake-up call as the economy crashes and another gilded age, as he sees it, comes to an end.

"If you wanted to show a mirror to people that says, 'You've been drunk on money,' they're not going to want to see it. But if you reflected that mirror on another time they'd be willing to."

He added, "People will need an explanation of where we are and where we've been, and 'The Great Gatsby' can provide that explanation."

Balls. Wake up Bazza boy! You apparently have little understanding of material in general and thus the reach, talent, prejudices and limit’s of Fitzgerald’s writing escapes you. Reminds me of how Graham Green endlessly driveled on how if he had the choice, he’d rather live in Russia or Cuba than awful, oppressive America, and of course he never did live in Russia or Cuba. Instead the talented and venal Greene, preferred instead to suffer the constant capitalist checks from his publisher, all while tapping away in the US and elsewhere in the free and prosperous West. And thus those who fiddle about in the arts almost invariably have a laughable neo-socialist view of reality, which is no view of reality at all.

“Luhrmann appeared as particularly interested in worsening economic times and attitudes -- noting a kind of glib wealth that came with "the Wall Street trader who has a house in the Hampton's as big as an airport" -- and he went on to say that the people needed to take the message of hope from " Australia."

Yes, the message of hope would be? Hopelessness and cultural ennui? Oh I know. If we could just get rid of all those white racists! And golly, maybe lots of what has made us one of the longest running and functioning capitalist democracies in the world, after Britain and America. It's all such a largely worthless drag after all. We really should inject more faux noble savage New Ageism bunk into our culture, cos you know, it's such a spiritual wasteland, lacking face paint, feathers, collective tribal conformity and didgeridoo's an' all.

Baz appears to know little and is incurious about how either capitalism and democracy via the fee market actually works, even for him. And that this IS what makes the economy and provides our freedom and the ca$h to blow on his naff film via outrageous taxes. Baz made a product, the market spoke and said no, and Baz doesn't like it, even with the Socialist arts funding to only the right kind of PC Left views.

Nope, what Baz is hinting at is what? More government control via ever bigger government? So he can get bigger government support for bigger and even worse self-indulgent films? Yes, the government as sooooo good at providing goods, services and entertainment. Er, no. Thus our government funds a film that shows us as racist, backward bores and believes this is an excellent vehicle to promote Australia to international tourism?! Are they insane?

“He said that he wants to move quickly on the "Gatsby" project because of that timeliness."I'm going to move faster than I have before. I'd be surprised if it's another seven years," he said, referring to the period between "Rouge" and " Australia ."

Yes, must hurry to ruin a classic book via a Baz remake. Gee, the Australian people are clearly such a disappointment to old Baz.

“The project also might not be with Fox. The director said he's "talking to everyone, and they're all interested" -- and paused a full 10 seconds when asked if his experience with Fox was a satisfactory one, before offering a noncommittal answer". Reuters/Hollywood Reporter.”

Ooh, yes. They’re all interested. Hey, you mean seriously? Like Yahoo Serious?


Andrew Bolt on Baz and same. Andrew Bolt on the bullshit industry of the virtually entirely fabricated stolen generations. Andy Bolt on the film Australia. The great Peter Sutton on the entire history and deadly fiasco of decades of bad policy via the cultural failure of the Left and alleged Conservatives.


Here’s a shabby letter I wrote on the same to a good friend who saw the Australia movie in the US and really enjoyed the romance of it.

"Dear Jenn:

Oops! Hey, I hope I wasn't a lecture bore and annoying. I blame the space limits! Ya know all movies have one thing in common: they’re all entirely phony. They’re not documentaries, which are often just as phony, nor an empirical analysis of anything, beyond “does this work as entertainment and thus will people pay money?” Movies like all creative endeavors are well, imperfect arts. It’s amazing that any work out at all. Thus Baz the boob still deserves credit for the massive effort required to make even a dodgy film. So in spite of however acceptable his peculiar and “right on!” bigotry, kudos for him. He's made more films than I have.

“White people bad! Everyone else fabulous!”

Anyway, regards Arstrayathurmoovy with the suggested tag line as Andy Bolt said, of “Come and see the racists!” as a romance drama it does kinda follow a form that make sense to an audience, if you’re making a commercial movie as opposed to a failure. And commercial is my favourite kind of movie entertainment. It just means plenty of people will pay to see it. As for myself, I too love a nice romantic epic. You know a reviewer said if it was only that, then it'd be just good entertainment and not carry an absurd load and expectation for a movie!

The government endorsement totaling 40 million dollars is oddly disturbing and all very Socialist, is it not?

The Glorious Correct Truth Presents! Link is to thepeoplescube and their "Government Subsidized Auto Show!"

The problem among other's, is the earnest, laid on with a trowel and unsubtle PC faux angst regards the "Stolen Generations" bunko thang. If only Baz[!] had made a film with merely high production values, a good and believable story line and acting etc and not mmmm, a government backed PC propaganda piece a la Mills and Boon with a blatant subtext of “we white folks are largely rather shitty and the indigenous folks are er, noble etc”.

Still, every second allegedly commercial or serious, rebellious and or worthy film, song and book etc, has the awful thread of a bogus ideology and is topped with more PC icing than my pancreas can stand. The arts get more highly polished and irrelevant everyday. Due to the perverse government-funded structure of Oz film industry, in truth there are few to often zero Australian films worth a damn anymore and it's not getting better as it simply can't, unless a film is entirely private funded. The mediocre mostly seem to make them for either an imaginary audience, no audience in particular, their friends, tax arrangements and an “ungrateful” public as they see it.

The under developed and phony script, the "quirky pointless non-idea and a general lack of authentic entertainment are our lot, I'm afraid. The chances of seeing an Oz movie that means anything to most anyone are slim, Jim. In short, Oz film mostly sucks, kid. And that ain't the only thing. Reasons discussed here and here and here. Last link on the wacky idea of the Australian writer/director as a genius, as yet unproven, except as a funding vortex.

And on Australian TV via the madsophist. Same crud.

George Miller the director: "We're not proud of Australian films simply because there's nothing to be proud about. They're sludge".

I digress. Ah yes, Aborigines have been treated abysmally, though now it appears largely by each other. In fact, if so, it follows that one deals with those facts and the here and now and not an industry of agendas sans anything worth paying for. The solutions are not to be found where the average lefty will EVER look. Never have and never will. So what have all those caring people ever done beyond making themselves feel pretty good?

Thus thousand’s of Koori women are desperately grateful and relieved for the Howard government’s intervention. That's a fact. A policy that has dramatically cut down the monopoliszed corruption, violence, gang rape of children and murder etc, within Koori communities. I may be wrong, but treating people as human beings and as either responsible adults, unless they're vulnerable children, may just work. But what do I know?

Patronizing people, mouthing all the right platitude's and saying you care is worth precisely nothing. Perfect inaction and excellent posturing achieves nothing for any Koori. Only rather naturally imperfect actions count. What is odd is that the vast history of Aboriginals who have lived entirely regular lives as business people, soldiers, and musician’s, accountants and Doctors etc, is rarely if ever presented. Yep, the same with the Native Americans, who without a doubt also suffered and often massively. Though now it can appear that that is far too often largely self-inflicted too.

However many wonderful things there are about the crazy old ways, it's curiously taboo and rarely understood how cultures based on tribal conformity, unchanging subsistence, hunter gathering and an eternal warrior/warfare mentality, actually suck. A REAL lot. Superstition is still distracting drivel however fashionably re-animated. Nope, the tribal is almost invariably now made out to be some kind of Lost Eden, while Western culture is a big mistake. Oddly the same people stay in the Western world and not the lost one. Funny that. Must be the dentistry, medicine, plumbing and the lack of ritualistic mutilation etc.

Very few actual people want to live in the past, can or should. Around 1 to 3% of Aboriginal’s live “traditionally”, whatever that means. I find all that mystical noble savage stuff often an embarrassing and pointless con. Thus I spend little time myself dancing on a hilltop covered in fur and blue woad praying to the moon God to not kill my unborn infant. Traditional ain’t always so grand and can mean ignorance, oppression, mutilation and throwing Grandma to the wolves literally.

A tribal society at the basic level must kill any individual that threatens the group. So living in inner-city bohemia, it’s not really my scene, baby. But they have great dress ups and you can run around speaking in odd stilted “wise wronged seer” English.

“One day the white man will value our social statism and complete lack of dental hygiene, instead of his spiritual wasteland of raised standards of living and health, scientific advancement, the rule of law, refrigerated food and a luxury yacht, but then it will be too late!” He Who Won’t Mow the Lawn and Paint the House Eagle, [even though his wife yells at him.]

Here are two rather limited reviews, kid. Note how they both accept as fact, the balls of the “Stolen Generations”. Try writing any critiacal analysis of the bunko Stolen Gen's elephant in the room, and it usually won't get printed. The number of proven members of the SG’s as of now are precisely zero. All the very best and thank you for your fabbo support for my feeble efforts. If only I had a vast crew and forty milllion dollars, I think I could do soooo much better! Neville".

Opening a dress by the Prime Sinister Mr Kevin Rudd.

While working as a Mandarin speaking diplomat and popular towel boy in Shanghai, Kevin Rudd, shown here in an official photo taken at a welcoming dinner and denunciation, [which for no coincidence whatsoever looks identical to Mao] was a natural at blending into the local Cultural Revolution. "Power comes out of the barrel of laughs", is one of Kevin's famous quotes.


[Dear sports, here’s a modified request of the week from Friday 12 October 2007.]


Kevin's speech in full to The Old Goebellians co-written with his half-brother Malcolm:

"Let me begin by saying cliche's and without any fear of clarity that this is a moment, even the moment and indeed if anyone can, let me say this quite clearly and at this point in time. I believe that this opportunity, in both the long-term and very recent tradition of what we have here today, will make it possible for all Australians to see the policies we have managed to avoid, not only through my own lack of judgement but that of my colleagues.

Instead, we have bravely opted for controlling every aspect of your lives while taxing you heavily to pay for it.

I know we all endorse none of these values fully as a community, and of course I accept without hesitation, none of the calls for my own resignation and subsequent suicide.

I can say that with non-partisanship, I can stand for absolutely anything, while drawing a responsible line at the substantial or permanent. Unless I'm spouting my enemies list of dissenters in my beyond belief Hitlerian style.

And in this spirit of welcome and neither forgetting nor remembering anything in particular, I feel as do many, regards an essential inclusiveness without any idea of what we actually stand for whatsoever and therefore, into a bright and even better future. This is really what my policies and the Australian Labour Party stands for. The U.N.

I believe that as the Leader of the U.N, er, the Labour Party, I have presented a fresh and smiling face, while underneath is the consistency and reliability that only a seething control freak can deliver.

I believe everyone from the very large, the economy sized or indeed at the cell level, now realises that due to the shelving we have put in place over the recent period of upstrangling and subsequent rigorous focusing, which have at times been difficult even while awake, means that we can now all share in the bounty of those who have actually made some productive effort.

In the same vein and following on from the latter, it’s quite clear that the direction of the non partisan and non judgemental has proven completely ineffective and can only get better. This has resulted in a more exciting, vibrant and diverse orthodoxy that promises to efficiently deliver an outcome and our own security and cultural disintegration. This I believe shows that we are almost at the end of the tunnel and if we all work together for a common goal, we will indeed. This only stands to reason, as many of you here and now are aware through no experience of my own.

It is for this reaason that I have strictly forbidden words like flawed, appalling, control freak or serial liar.

So, let me again reinforce my very strong position on completely changing my beliefs if indeed that’s fully acceptable in the current ethos of co-operation. The total loss of unnecessary confidence is fully endorsed by me and my Shadowy Cabinet, which is a great leap, yet only one leap of many towards our own and indeed the entire countries experimental something and should be applauded.

In closing, I believe deeply that if this is anything, it’s indeed something. And that’s something that I have never spoken about. I believe in not only planning for the past but learning from the sometimes hard lessons of the future, and in this way we can avoid the present.

Thank you and good luck". PM Kevin Rudd.