Wednesday, May 16, 2018


Image result for images for TV brainwashing
It cheers you when you are depressed. It keeps you company when you are lonely. It distracts you when you are worried. Television does all this and more. But it is not your friend. At best, it is a false friend. At worse, it is controlling your mind and exploiting your fears and insecurities on behalf of those who are anything but your friends.

We are taught that the German National Socialists, specifically the "evil" genius Dr Joseph Goebbels, perfected the art of propaganda. On the contrary, it was highly efficient, but a long way from perfection. Compared to the way in which modern methods of propaganda have us thinking as other people wish, it was clumsy and clunky.

It was Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and "the father of public relations" according to an obituary, who took Goebbels' prototype and converted it into an art-form comparable in improvement to the jet over the propeller. Bernays though wasn't particularly interested in political propaganda. He was essentially a money grubber, seeing no gutter filthy enough to be deterred
from rolling in. It was Bernays, for example, who converted millions of otherwise sensible and healthy women into cigarette smokers. His "torch of freedom" lured a small band of female smokers out of their closets - it was unseemly for a woman to be seen smoking in public -  exploded their numbers and had them puffing proudly on the streets (an early version of "girls can do anything" striking a blow for "liberation").

Image result for images for TV brainwashing

Public relations, or to call a spade a spade, advertising and propagandising, received a monumental boost with the proliferation of television. Because economists understood that World War 11 alone had lifted Western countries out of the Great Depression - every other attempt including FDR's fabled "New Deal" being dismal failures - widespread fears existed that with the conclusion of the war, capitalist nations would slip straight back into economic depression. The most effective way to prevent this, it was thought, was the creation of the consumer society to keep the pump primed and the wheels turning. Vance Packard, author of the fifty year old, million seller, The Hidden Persuaders, tended to agree with this analysis, concluding that the post war wave of advertising was a kind of necessary economic evil. So with television the left hand and hire-purchase the right, a glittering treasure-trove society was born. Buy now, pay later and the devil take the hindmost. Right away, the Joanses were leading the pack and no one wanted to be ignominiously left behind.

Although television was then in an embryonic state, its potential of being the Big Bertha of advertising was widely and well recognised. To this end the crusade to put a television set in every American living room was started in earnest. Well south of the border, the potential of television was also recognised as a powerful instrument of thought-control. Selling products which people didn't need and couldn't afford was not the main concern though. The thinking here was mainly along political lines. The drawback though was that most South Americans couldn't afford television sets. No problem. Governments would simply subsidise the cost so that no citizen need be without a TV set, through which could be beamed crude, undisguised political propaganda.

With the social revolution of the sixties, everything changed, including television. Wholesome entertainment such as Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best was beginning to be considered hopelessly "square". And so began the televised race to the bottom to reflect the overthrow of values which had usefully informed societies for so long. Love scenes were replaced with sex scenes and the latter became de rigeur regardless of plot, setting or theme. Horror horrified. Violence became ever more realistic. (These days gun manufacturers are taking advantage of the time-honoured strategy of "product placement" to promote their wares to criminals and gangsters.)

The sixties revolution was of course a leftist revolution cementing in the keystone of the left/liberal hegemony that we suffer with today. The sixties radicals grew up and began their long march through the institutions - including television, in which, notwithstanding their obligatory atheism, they may have considered a god-given instrument with which to maintain the revolution. Coming years after the South Americans' joyous discovery of television as a political weapon, the now suited former hippies began bending television waves toward the political, but in infinitely more subtle ways than the Latin Americans.

Some time ago a valuable psychological experiment was conducted. Participants were invited into an experiment which they were told was to test their concentration. They were asked to view two teams - one blue, the other red - who were moving around and passing balls to other team-mates, and asked to keep count of the number of times the ball was passed within one of the teams.

Midway through the experiment, a man dressed in a gorilla suit appeared and began walking about among the ball-passers and then left. After the experiment, participants were asked how many times a ball had changed hands. Most got this correct. They were then asked if they'd seen anything unusual during the activity. "No," they invariably replied. None had seen the man in the gorilla suit - seen consciously, that is - who'd been in plain sight. It was proof of our inclination to see selectively.

Image result for images for TV brainwashing

This is how the best of televised propaganda works. Our attention is diverted to the central story and activity and away from the messages being inserted in the programme. This is a form of the subliminal advertising, or messaging, that caused such a hew and cry many years ago and was seen to be so underhanded as to be banned. Although the conscious mind has been bypassed, the message has still slipped straight through  to the keeper - the subconscious mind. A new belief has been planted or an old one deleted.

Let's take a squiz at a few recent examples:

The Handmaid's Tale  Something has gone awfully wrong in the lead up to the scenario around which this series revolves but we are never told exactly what. However, whatever it was has left the great majority of women barren in what used to be the USA (now the theocratic Republic of Gilead). We also know that this new republic has been given birth to by violent revolution - one that can only be maintained by the barrel of a gun. In a desperate bid to keep the governed from dying out, the government has decreed that the few remaining fertile women (the handmaidens) be rounded up and be mated with high value men, effectively forced into sex-slavery. The regime is every bit as brutal as it needs to be in such a desperate situation.

But what's going on between the lines as it were? Can the story be seen as allegory? A little applied inductive reasoning suggests it can. A few important details within the series: women, even the wives of the high value men who will become the mothers of the children produced by proxy, have few rights. It is beyond doubt a man's world, a world suddenly switched from Yin to Yang, from far left to far right. Homosexuals, "faggots" and "dykes" are objects of intense hatred and many of the bodies left hanging by the neck in public belong to those of the banned persuasion. Religion has been revived from near death and now forms a centre-piece of the new reality. It is in fact an extreme Christian fundamentalism. Female modesty has made a spectacular come-back and is de rigeur - no plump breasts bursting out of inadequate restraints or hemlines barely below the privates. Even female hair is discreetly hidden in public as indeed it once was in days dimly remembered.

Is perhaps the allegory veiled behind the facade a warning? Is it a warning of what the more unhinged of American liberal/leftist fear Trump's America will lead to? If so, the revolution that's resulted in Gilead is, more correctly, a counter revolution - a revolt against the liberal revolution that began in the sixties. Fabled feminism, for example, has been rolled back with a vengeance. A loud-mouthed, whining me-tooer would be distinctly out of place here and possibly in great danger. "Gay" liberation is also no more, and homosexuals are desperate for closets to climb back into.

God, which was thought to be dead or at least seriously ill, is also back with a vengeance. He appears to be more of a Jewish god than a benign bearded type - one to be feared rather than one shining love onto the world. However, religion in Gilead in used like so many others throughout history, that is, as a supremely effective form of social control. The Handmaid's Tale, seen this way, is a kind of bogeyman. This is what you'll get unless you are forever vigilant and ready to defend the liberal revolution - a caricature of the AltRight meeting the Taliban.

Homeland   This is an American rip-off of a series originally produced in Israel. That's not to say though that it is not entertaining television. The protagonist, Carrie Mathison, played almost hypnotically by Clair Danes, is a CIA agent suffering with a Bipolar condition. As long as her finely balanced medication keeps the condition modified, it aids her in being a perfect fit for her job - fearless and as focused as a laser.

In season six, recently wound up, the American government is balanced on a precipice with right wing yahoo militia types racing around in the backs of trucks armed with the finest firepower allowed by the second amendment. The President has just narrowly survived an assassination attempt. The President is female. Perhaps it was envisioned that Hillary would be comfortably ensconced in the White House by the time the series aired. It doesn't really matter to the persuaders that this didn't pan out. They are sure that a female president will eventually prevail, especially after the public being softened up and gotten used to the idea by seeing a fictional female president. This runs along the same lines as the American public constantly being exposed to fictional black presidents which paved the way for Obama.

Cloaks, daggers, intrigue, complexity and the frenetic Carrie pin-balls from one crisis to the next but finally all is resolved. It was those damned Russians all along. Yes, it was the dastardly Russkis who never for once believed that the cold war had finished - it was they behind the attempt to bring chaos (one is almost reminded of Maxwell Smart's KAOS) , confusion and instability to America. This of course feeds nicely into the anti-Russian, anti-Putin vitriol that has been spewing fire-hose-like for years from the American media and their Neocon handlers.

For emphasis, President Elizabeth Keane pontificates in the denouement, about those Russians "who've been fighting us since the fifties". Absolutely no fault of the Americans who, just itching to get into World War 11, ignored the murderous track record of the Soviets, claimed them as their wonderful and eternal allies and armed them to the teeth in a combined effort to shatter Germany, and then when it was all over, ignored General Patton's advice, for which he was taken out, and allowed their good ol' buddies to devour half of Europe and then arm the communists in China, thus causing the US to "lose it". No, it was the Russians who were as singularly guilty as the Germans supposedly were in starting both world wars. The Soviet Union of course eventually collapsed under the weight of Marxist absurdities presenting an opportunity for peace and good will for all mankind. But where are you going to find an enemy as good as the Russians? Better move NATO right up to their borders and keep them ringed with nuclear missiles.

Berlin Station  Coming in late here means being confused but nevertheless still gripped. The Berlin Station is a franchise of the CIA in Germany's capital. Season 2 which has just wrapped up in Australia is of most interest here. Cunning CIA agents have infiltrated a "far right group" with the moniker Perspektive fur Deutschland (PfD). This naturally is a thinly veiled stand-in for Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) which performed spectacularly well in the last national election, becoming "the first far right party to win seats in the Bundestag since 1945" when those dastardly "Nazis" held power. This naturally had liberal/leftists world-wide wetting themselves.

Image result for images for TV brainwashing

The association of the fictional with the real political party is a royal shit-smearing job and one can only wonder at how a major defamation case has been avoided. Unlike the real party, the fictional one is staffed with fanatics, its leader in particular bearing a close psychological similarity to an amalgamation of a high ranking National Socialist officials. Worse still, it is a terrorist group planning a false flag act of major destruction and murder for which Muslims will wear the blame. Remarkably, the leader (one has to imagine his black uniform) says things that any sane, non-mind-controlled, self-respecting German citizen should be saying, things such as, "we are tired of being under American occupation and control", "it's time to stop wallowing in shame and lift our heads high", "how long must we keep paying and paying for our past?" Interestingly though, he doesn't overtly deny the holocaust. That would indeed be a bridge to far. Why waken a sleeping dog that's better off dead?

But of course in a context, or rather, a bubble, of liberal sweetness, these mutterings are made to seem so shocking as to be a cause of mature women clutching at their pearl necklaces and younger women swooning and falling to the floor. It could though be classed as an exercise as hiding in plain sight - let's lance the boil and see how truly noxious it is.

Harrow  Now that homosexual marriage has put the seal of approval on homosexuality, deeming it to be perfectly normal, television is proving to be a great aid in preventing us losing sight of this normality - backsliding, if you will.

This series pulls its weight in this regard. Harrow, the eponymous lead character in this, our own ABC series, just finished, is a slicing and dicing forensic pathologist who hasn't bothered to join MENSA (its members would probably be too dull for him). All in all, it's a well produced and entertaining programme featuring, apart from one character who is more of a caricature, high-grade acting. Harrow's sidekick cum assistant is the inclusion of inclusiveness. It's in fact a double-whammy of inclusion. He is not only homosexual; he's also Asian - and as sweet as can be. No, not that kind of sweetness, not flaming, but perfectly nicely masculine; in fact, the picture of normality. It's as though a young man you had just met told you he was going out on a date, and you asked, as you would, "dinner or a movie?", you asked instead, "boy or girl?" (Whichever, it's all right - perfectly normal - with me.)

In one episode when a man catches his teenage in flagrante delicto with the son's new best male friend, he reacts as most men would react - with rage, hurt and disappointment, perhaps not with the rage the character expresses but surely with intense emotion. When Harrow hears of this reaction, be explodes with moral outrage: "he did that simply because of his son's sexual persuasion!" To Harrow, the man's behaviour is pegged perfectly level with rage at finding his son was left-handed rather than right handed.

Image result for images for TV brainwashing

This though is just the thin edge of the wedge. Steel yourself for ever more, increasingly gut churning portrayals of "alternate" love and love-making. How about a new classification being added to TVs rating system to warn us of what's coming; something easily decipherable like HS - homosexual sex? Don't even ask. Keep your head down. You do want to stay out of those re-education camps don't you?

As well as drip-feeding a steady diet of homosexual homage directly into the frontal lobe, TV does an excellent job of spruiking the desirability of race-mixing. The character of Offred, solemnly played by Elisabeth Moss in the aforementioned Handmaiden's Tale, for example, was drawn to the dark side before her world was turned upside down, resulting in a milk-coffee-coloured piccaninny.  British television, however, leads the field in race-mixing characters (as well as minority women bosses, particularly police chiefs). A brief sampling of British offerings could easily have one convinced that white people were legally prevented from having spouses or even short-time sexual partners of the same fair race.

All of the above, far and away the most pernicious and insidious aspects of television, has unfortunately only touched on the totality of its far ranging toxic effects. The reason it is an advertiser's and propagandist's paradise is that it alters the brain to make it more amenable to outside control. After a remarkably short time, for instance, a TV viewer's level of consciousness is lowered to one just above sleep with brain activity being less than in sleep. This is the so-called alpha level of brain-wave, one similar to that attained in meditation and the level preferred by hypnotists for best results. It is in fact a hypnotic state. Best of all, from the perspective of those who desire to share your brain, television is addictive. Try not watching TV for even a week. It is as addictive as chocolate in as much as the endorphin releasing effects are the same. But you can only eat so much chocolate and most humans have the sensibility to realise that even if you could, eating chocolate six, seven, or eight hours per day will not lead to optimum health. It's not so with TV. What's the harm? is the question most would ask. The old more jocular than serious saying that TV will rot your brain has been proven to be correct. For the entire litany of evil, check out, if you dare, the following:

And if you really, really must continue being transfixed by the glowing screen, at least try and remember that those on the other side of it do not really have your best interests at heart.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018


I could not have put this any better myself. Thanks to Pete Smith, Quadrant Online, May 9, 2018:

Confronted by gang mayhem, as happens regularly now in Melbourne, are police to wade in with stun guns and truncheons? More than an officer's career would be worth, once legal-aid activists weigh in with cries of 'Racism!' and the brass writes cheques to miscreants. This need never have come about.

Police were called to a rowdy party in North Melbourne at the end of April. Apparently up to fifty Sundanese youths were involved. The police got them to leave the premises but they created mayhem outside, including damaging police cars. The police took refuge in the townhouse rather than confront the youths. At least that is the way it was reported in The Age and in other news outlets. Also, according to a report in The Age, it was estimated that seven police officers originally attended the scene.

The precise facts of the case are not pertinent to my theme. What is pertinent is that the police were clearly well outnumbered. I heard some commentators imply criticism of the police, deflected onto those giving them riding instructions, for not confronting the thugs in the street. This is plain silly.
Police officers are human beings just like you and me. If possible they would like to end their shifts without incurring life-changing injuries. I once ran into the back of car in the centre of Adelaide. Three policemen where talking to a group of five or six disorderly Aboriginal men on a corner outside a pub. I called one of the policemen over to do the right thing and report the accident. He was young. He couldn’t have cared less about my prang and returned quickly to his colleagues. It was obvious. He was (very) visibly nervous at the prospect of tangling with five or six drunken Aboriginals when he was one of just three.

About week after the North Melbourne incident it was reported that some 150 youths of “African appearance” (presumably not disciples of Al Jolson) trashed a house in the Melbourne suburb of Footscray while the police stood by. Apparently, the police told the owner of the rented property that they could not enter unless she had proof that damage was being done. A strange business perhaps but would you like to face up to 150 youths, African or otherwise, behaving riotously unless backed by a SWAT team and tanks?

My point is that being seriously outnumbered, as was the case in North Melbourne and Footscray, is an impossible situation for the police unless there is confidence in an implied social contract between both sides. That social contract, which we have grown up with, is that the police will only act in accordance with their authority and, when they so act, that civilians – even when well outnumbering the police – will comply with lawful directions. Or at the very least will not turn on the police in a physically violent way.

I am prepared to guess that Sudanese youths running wild have not heard of this social contract. I am very sure the police suspect that they haven’t. What then exactly are the police to do? Perhaps they should venture forward with Tasers and truncheons at the ready. Good luck with that one. Of course, police have guns. But imagine what the media would make of them drawing them, never mind firing even warning shots? The police officers concerned would risk losing their careers and perhaps their freedom.

Our society, as its structured, cannot handle large gangs wreaking violence in public places. Gang members who injure and kill only each other is one thing. It is quite another if they run riot on the streets. We are not set up to handle it. Societies that are, Central American republics for example, look different to ours. You often see pictures on the TV of police weighing into rioters without a care for their welfare. We might tut-tut but exactly what do you do when large numbers of people are intent on violence?

There is no benign answer. In the case of the recent gang violence (and, let’s not forget, home invasions) in Melbourne, the answer would have been to have never let Sudanese refugees enter the country in the first place, or any refugees who pose the slightest risk to civilised values. Australian citizens come first, or they should. Unfortunately, successive governments have put their citizens at risk in order to satisfy do-gooder international conventions. That’s why Trump is so refreshing in simply trying to put Americans first. How novel is that nowadays! Australians injured by Sudanese violence should rightfully direct their ire at the political class who have conspired to put their safety in jeopardy.

As it is, there is little option but to go on increasing the militarisation of police forces. That’s what Islamic terrorism has already brought, together with intrusive searches, inconveniences and bollards. Sudanese gangs just up the ante. At question, I suppose for us ordinary Joes, is who next? Which people from which dysfunctional culture will be chosen next by politicians to supplement our population.

A passing thought. I doubt we would find white South African farmers trashing houses and running wild in the streets. Just a guess.

Peter Smith, a frequent Quadrant Online contributor, is the author of Bad Economics

Sunday, May 6, 2018


It could only happen in a country which has decided it is "multicultural". First it ties itself in knots and then more knots result from the effort of trying to disentangle the original knots.

Once it is decided that all cultures are of equal value and because western societies - the only societies believing this nonsense - have led the way, oblivious to the fact that no other societies are following, high into the rarefied atmosphere of pure, unadulterated tolerance, it becomes exceedingly difficult to draw a line at where some things simply can't be tolerated. Child brides and female genital mutilation are two examples that spring to mind. But how about this for a solution, which in some areas of the world has already been adopted? We still adamantly refuse to tolerate it, but simply turn a blind eye to it. This creeping acceptance is the insidiousness we should fear as we would cancer.

 The two examples cited are obviously components of the medieval system of Sharia - Islamic law covering all aspects of earthly existence: social, economic, cultural and political. It has two forms. The first is Koranic, meaning laws strictly contained within the Koran, and Islamic, which comprises all the other rules and regulations which have evolved analogous to English common law.

So, what exactly is Sharia, when all boiled down? Depends on who you consult. Our very own multicultural broadcaster, SBS, (Should Be Shit-canned) helpfully explains: "Sharia encompasses all aspects of a Muslim's life.  The overriding principle is justice. It's very broad and includes ordinary ways of life, for example (sic) how you behave towards other people. Religious duties like prayer and fasting and giving to charity - which is very important." So said the press release quoting Dr Jamila Hussain, research associate the the University of Technology, Sydney. She continues, "it also includes how you behave towards other people. And it includes things like commercial law, inheritance law and family law." Ah, one can almost taste the cool, pure water, that is, the H2O which waits at the end of "the path leading to a watering place", the literal translation of Sharia, and something of course highly valued in a desert.

This is all so sweetly innocuous! It almost out-Christians Christianity. And here is something to surprise most Australians: "... most Muslims live according to Sharia everyday (sic) of their lives." Well, who would have thought? So what's the problem here? Is it simply panic amongst ignorant kaffirs who wouldn't know which way their arses were pointed let alone in which direction Mecca lies.

Fortunately, Hussain clears this up: "Sharia is the moral, legal and religious code followed by all Muslims, but [here's the kicker] made notorious by extremist groups like Islamic State wanting to implement hardline aspects of Islamic law." So there you are; it's simply a matter of interpretation of the Koran, the Islamic Holy book similar to the Christian Bible in that it's a kind of Rorschach inkblot in which different minds see different things. But wait a minute. It doesn't work that way. The Koran is the literal word of God as dictated to Mohammed. God's direct communication is not up for interpretation. He says what he means and means what he says. And he is in fact very "hardline".

This is why Isis claims that it's members are the true Muslims and all those so-called Muslim pussies who can't see a hard line when it's staring them in the face are as kaffir as any fun-loving Western degenerate and happily slaughters those whom we non-Muslim ignoramuses see as fellow Muslims, when killing a genuinely fellow Muslim is a sin grave enough to road-block the path to Paradise.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Image result for images of Islamic punishments

Come to think of it, it's not just Islam's Murder Incorporated who follow the letter of the Koran and not just its vague spirit. At least six nation states share a similar reading: Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. For instance, death is promised to homosexuals in all six. What should be acutely painfully embarrassing to the mincing leprechaun and CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, is that the United Arab Emirates, with which the airline has a cosy relationship, is where girly-boys must really wish nature had not played such a lousy trick on them.

Only recently, nearer home, two men found guilty of homosexual hiding-the-sausage were publicly caned in the Indonesian province of Indonesia, a country seemingly perpetually occupied with staving off a secular regime falling to Islamisation, thereby becoming a theocracy just like full-bore, Middle Eastern Islamic states.

That must be the key, it would be easy to conclude, to the operation of Sharia - it can only thrive in an Islamic garden. Time for a rethink:

"A man who whipped a Muslim convert 40 times as punishment for drinking alcohol and taking drugs because of a [supposedly] 'contorted' belief in sharia has been jailed for at least 16 months, with a magistrate saying he had 'brought much shame upon the Islamic faith',he   Wassim Fayad, 45, was one of four men sentenced on Friday for the assault upon Christian Martinez in July, 2011". So reported the Sydney Morning Herald on June 14, 2013. The victim and idiot convert was apparently so shocked at this turn of events was not quite prepared to take his medicine lying down as it were. But could this small dose of Islamic retribution be merely the tip of a more widely operating de facto  sharia? And how much shame was really brought upon the Islamic community? Conversely, how much smug satisfaction was felt about true justice prevailing?

Image result for images of Islamic punishments

It's simply a numbers game. When numbers of outsiders are low and therefore vulnerable, they tend to keep their heads down and avoid making waves. Hence the apparent overwhelming majority of "moderate" Muslims in Australia - just trying to get along like their "fellow Australians". But as numbers grow,  moderation shrinks in inverse proportion. Witness London with its dwindling number of whites, its teeming numbers of Muslims and its very own Muslim mayor. The roaring demand for sharia would be in the range of decibels considered dangerous. And of course those hardy Brits, descendants of those who stoically endured the Blitz, have crumpled like stale lettuce leaves. Sharia "tribunals" now dot the the country. In the "no-go" areas, these so-called tribunals would naturally be full blown sharia courts. After all, in a country so gutless as to not interfere in the decades long sex-slavery of white girls by Mulsims, it's a given that the native British would in no way have the temerity to interfere in something as relatively innocuous as the exercise of sharia law.

But perhaps we shouldn't be singling out the Brits. All of Western Europe is after all pock-marked with no-go areas. In Malmo, the Swedish have virtually an entire no-go city. What goes on in these places? Does anybody really want to know?

Image result for images of Islamic punishments

For further illustration of how precariously Europe teeters at the edge of the precipice we owe thanks to On Target, May 4 ( for this timely reminder of the antics of the ISLAM Party growing furiously in strength in Belgium. "It would like to 'prevent vice by banning gaming establishments (casinos, gaming halls and betting agencies) and the lottery'. Along with authorizing the wearing the Muslim headscarf at school and an agreement about the Islamic religious holidays, the party wants all schools in Belgium to offer halal meat on their school menus." This along with "segregating men and women on public transport". Still, once you've lay on your back and spread your legs, you shouldn't be surprised when the vigorous thrusting begins.

Here in Australia, we have been softened up to the possibility of Sharia law parallel to our own by our perpetual attempting to come to grips with what to do about Aborigines. Deaths in custody. Numbers of Aborigines in jail wildly over-representative of total numbers. A plague of black domestic violence and child rape. Because of our egalitarian religion ruling out any other cause of these abnormalities, only one cause is left standing: white racism. We must atone. We must set things right. And the only way to do this is by shaking the centre pole of our legal system whose erection began with the signing of the Magna Carta and which is equality before the law.

We've played with fire by allowing a parallel legal system exclusively for Aborigines which effectively dispenses with equality before the law. This situation has not been helped by the egregious allowing of a separate flag to flutter alongside the one that is supposed to represent all Australians (how long that one will last is another matter).

Aborigines are grossly over-represented in the number incarcerated. According to those who shun reality as though it were wearing a Van Allen Radiation Belt, this phenomenon can't possibly be caused by Aborigines committing disproportionately more crimes. No! It is caused by - you guessed it - white racism (or simply racism, whites being the only race iniquitous enough to practice it). How is this so? Silly question. It is because, with every hominid being perfectly equal - decisions regarding Homo Erectus and some of the great apes still pending - Aborigines would be committing only a pro rata number of crimes identical to those of whites if not some other factor was operating.

Compounding this inequity is that Aborigines, it has been shown, do not like being locked up. Evidently surveys showing the number of whites who actually like being locked up have still not been concluded. The only solution to this morass of unfairness is lighter sentences for Aborigines committing the same crimes as whites. Non custodial sentences would be even better, because, it should be remembered, Aborigines have a distinct distaste for being locked up, not to mention it obviously infringing on their cultural practices. Try going walk-about when you are locked up.

The custodial issue is simply one of many in which legal applications differ. For example, Aboriginal children need to be in far more danger, lethal danger even, than white children before being removed from their environment. After the Stolen Children hoax, welfare services have been largely paralysed even when when three year olds are being raped to death. Domestic violence? Dished out as much as it was in tribal times when women were mere chattels? Let's not get involved in that. It's white men causing upset to their whining white wives who attract the Thor-like bolts of legal retribution.

"Pay-back", as any Aborigine worth his salt will tell you, is still alive and well. This is a legal system with long roots - at least 40,000 years long. This is where retribution is delivered in-house, as it were, by relatives of the aggrieved and/or other tribal members. Punishment for serious crimes such as rape and murder, for example, comprise five spear thrusts to each leg plus beating around the head with boomerangs and sticks. Before whites arrived in Terra Australis, the harshest punishment that could be inflicted was banishment which meant a lonely, lingering death. For obvious reasons, it is practised no longer. After pay-back has been effected, it's case closed. If white law has not yet determined who is the culprit, no real need appears to be felt on the part of those who have already dispensed justice to hand the perpetrator over. Importantly, no real effort has been made by white authorities to rein in the the pay-back system.

So why is this long digression germane to the argument being set forth here? It's because one doesn't need to be a legal eagle to know just how important precedents are in keeping the scales of justice balanced, and the additional legal slack allowed to Aborigines and no others is one hell of a precedent.

Are Muslims who are really so hot to establish sharia in Australia so dull that they haven't noticed this same precedent and be bridling at the hypocrisy they rightfully hear when being told that they can't also have their own legal system. How many Australian Muslims really want to see the practice of Sharia introduced into Australia? According to Jan Ali, a lecturer at Western Sydney University, "where there are Muslims, there is Sharia - no body without a head". So the answer to that last question would be ALL.

But the question remains, how much sharia is wanted in Australia? The Australian Muslim Women's Association tells us that only "fringe radicals" have called for Sharia in Australia and that no general call for it exists. But already, the obfuscation is glaringly obvious because, as noted above, it is already here, albeit only the most innocuous forms out in the open. But allowing the benefit of doubt, the AMWA might just be referring to the throat-slitting, hand-severing, head-stoning form that is still alive and well in so many parts of the world.

Image result for images of Islamic punishments

But remember, it is simply a numbers game. As experience has shown time and time again, as the numbers of Muslim invaders grow, so does the call for ever more authentic Sharia. Remember also; indeed do not ever forget, that the Koran encourages lying to non-believers if the interests of Muslims can in any way be advanced by it. It is called Al-taqiyya. Muslims and Jews have a lot in common in regard to the way the poor, dopey, long-suffering kaffir or goy can be treated.



Sunday, April 22, 2018


Image result for ingrid carlqvist
"Jews Commit White Genocide as a Hiding Mechanism"

Can the deadly threat to our race be put any plainer than that?

This was the banner of a recent post on the American website, National Vanguard, which does a truly amazing job disseminating important information to white nationalists world-wide.

The gripping lead is an introduction to a recently videoed interview with a dynamic Swedish journalist with bloodhound instincts, Ingrid Carlqvist on Red Ice TV.

 In recent weeks Carlqvist has gotten herself into strife with Swedish Chosenites and their useful idiots over a speech she gave promoting her soon to be released book, From Sweden to Absurdistan. Her current ordeal of pitchforks and fiery torches resulted from her committing the ultimate faux pas of connecting the multicultural catastrophe that has overcome Sweden with a Jewish propulsion system. This of course is something one simply does not do in polite society.

Ingrid's natural curiosity preceded the situation in which she finds herself. She simply wanted to find out how Sweden, a land of archetypically tall, blue eyed blondes being the epitome of racial, cultural and religious homogeneity, could, in a relatively short time, become a crime-plagued dystopia.

Her research led her back to October '64 and an editorial written for Dagen Nyheter, Sweden's largest morning newpaper, by one David Schwartz, a Jew who had spent time in German concentration camps during WW2 where he'd contracted tuberculosis.  After initially being treated in Germany after the war's end and then being treated in an Italian sanatorium until it closed in 1950, he'd gone to live in Sweden. Of course, even with the Holohoax discounted, the experience for Jews in Germany had been their worst nightmare. The chickens had come home to roost with a vengeance. It would no doubt have been traumatic. For a Jew, the perceived "tyranny of the majority" could have gotten no worse.

So, it should not surprise that the main thrust of Schwarz's editorial was that the majority, that is, the Swedes, must begin reducing that (potentially lethal) majority by offsetting itself with minorities (apart from the Jews who had been in but not of Sweden for centuries). He was of course calling for what would become known as multiculturalism. A fiendishly cunning move, one might concede. Instead of sticking out like the proverbial dog's testicles, Jews would be able to surround themselves with camouflage in the form of a variety of other ethnic minorities. An added bonus would be that the new minorities would be coming not from other parts of Europe - that would be naturally totally counterproductive - but from parts of the world axiomatically inferior to the west in which resided people so alien their integration would be an impossible mission. Because of this inability to integrate, the resentment of the newcomers would build into society-wrecking hatred. The the Jew could kick back and now say, "well if you think I'm bad for you, what about them!"  And of course it goes without saying that this is the exact same strategy that has been used in every country of the west that the Jew has decided to transform to one more to his liking.

Schwarz's suggestion didn't take immediately. Indeed, as Carlqvist observes, the very next year the Swedish prime minister was proudly lauding the untold benefits of Swedish homogeneity. However, a mere decade after Schwarz's acting as a signpost pointing in the direction Sweden must travel, the Swedish government was marching obediently in that very direction. How could this have happened? How could, in such a short period, such an important policy be turned 180 degrees? These were the questions that had obsessed Carlqvist.

It was while looking for answers to these perplexing mysteries that amid a pertinent discussion during a get-together with a friend, the friend happen to ask, "have you heard what Barbara Lerner Spectre has to say on the subject?"

"Who?" was Carlqvist's baffled reply. She, like most other Swedes, had never heard of Spectre who like many of her tribe preferred to operate in the shadows. She was soon to be enlightened. Spectre is an American Jewess who followed her rabbi husband to Sweden on his landing a job in a Stockholm synagogue in 2000. Being a modern woman, rather than be perceived as simply an appendage to her husband, she decided she also needed something to do. That something was the founding of Paideia, The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden in 2001. This important sounding organisaton was made possible, according to its website by "grants" from the Swedish Government.

Image result for image of Barbara Spectre

Carlqvist tells an intriguing tale about these so-called grants came to be. Jews have, amongst other unique traits, a remarkable ability to smell an opportunity - even when one doesn't exist. In late 1996, Jewish organisations - this is after taking Swiss banks to the cleaners - accused the Riksbank, the Swedish Central Bank, of sitting on a hoard of looted Nazi gold, an amount pulled out of the air in similar fashion to the magical 6 million, which added up to about 180 tonnes. This obviously being a serious accusation, the Swedish Government promised to launch an investigation immediately. In fact several investigations were rigorously conducted. The Jews were then given the bad news: no evidence of any trace of looted Nazi gold had been uncovered.

Showing a distinct lack of what might be considered natural disappointment, the need for a change of tack was instead recognised by the world's most persistent free-loaders. They laid their cards on the table. Either the bank coughed up something - it need not be the aforementioned 180 tonnes, this being after all simply an ambit claim - or the World Jewish Conference would get on the global public address system and let it be known that the entire Swedish nation had been found to be Anti-Semitic. 

The bank of course buckled. Cheque or cash? Who wanted to become a Jewish version of the Antichrist? A cool 40 million Krona, or 4 million US dollars were quickly doled out. Naturally a proviso was added that the bank was in no way actually obliged to be making this payment; no, it was more of good-will gratuity. This was an extremely polite spin put on what it actually was - money extorted via the tried and trusted method of blackmail.

This was the "grants' made available with which Paideia was made possible. The organisation would be dedicated to Jewish studies, as if any additional reminding was needed in "oh vey, how we've suffered". And, oh yes, it had another string to its bow, at least another string it was prepared to let on about; it would be "educating for active minority citizenship". What did this mean once the smokescreen of obfuscation was blown away?

The meaning was made clear in the notorious video produced as a type of "in house" production made for the delectation of Israeli television viewers but, unfortunately for the master race, escaped t into the wider world, giving the game away completely. Frantic efforts were made to have it disappear from the internet but there was no putting this genie back in the bottle.

It's worth checking out if only for the demonstration of breathtakingly arrogant Jewish chutzpa. But please try and remember, a strong-willed suspension of disbelief is called for.

The purring voice of Spectre would be ideally suited to a matronly type addressing a charity-raising tea party. Strange how one is reminded of the song "Devil with a blue dress on".  Spectre laments the fact that Europe is dreadfully lagging in becoming multicultural. No problem. The Jews are going to step up, take its hand and lead it to its destiny. Has to be done. It's the only way of "saving" it. (Similar immortal words: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it.") Spectre notes in a spectacular understatement that these efforts probably won't be fully appreciated by Europeans. Moreover, Jews will even be resented for their efforts. Isn't that just the way? Whatever we do, we can't win! But Jews are above any bad feelings. They'll suffer, just like they always have. But being a truly noble people, they are prepared to make this sacrifice.

With David Schwarz driving in the first wedge and the despicable Spectre conducting a kind of a mopping up operation years later after Sweden has become transformed almost beyond recognition and is standing on the brink of oblivion, it is really not all that difficult to figure out who the people were who were so busily undermining Sweden in the intervening period.

During the same era, similar white-anting was happening elsewhere in the west. The rest of Europe was being transformed in the same way as Sweden. The 1965 Hart-Cellular Act - Cellular, one of the two congressmen who introduced the bill with Edward Kennedy's support, being of Jewish descent - turned long standing US immigration policy on its head. In Australia it was being decided that the so-called White Australia Policy that had prevented Australia from becoming a third world shit-hole was something evil and to be ashamed of.

Also during this period, the US was fanning fears of all South East Asia going communist, easily explained in the "domino theory". According to the theory, one by one the dominoes would all fall to the red scourge. Little did we realise that while we were being entranced by this set of dominoes, another set was falling - to the Jews.

Sunday, April 15, 2018



Image result for ww2 australian propaganda posters

Fact or fiction? Myth or desperate measure? For more than 75 years the "Brisbane Line" has been argued about, ridiculed, pooh poohed, said to be an excellent idea, said to be a stupid idea, said to have never happened, or if actually contemplated, the result of craven panic. Where is the truth in this long bubbling brew of charge and counter charge?

The popular conception of the Brisbane Line (the term in the WW2 context first coined by General MacArthur) that would be remembered bitterly by Labor Party voters for years to come was a hypothetical marking on the map of Australia arcing from Brisbane to Adelaide. Other versions (which are now said by many to never have existed) wavered between a line from Brisbane to Perth (General MacArthur's brain-snap), a line described by the Darling River (also referred to by MacArthur) and a line around an area resembling a south eastern bulge beginning in Brisbane and concluding in Melbourne. Everything within the bulge would be defended to the last bullet, butcher's knife or pitchfork. Everything outside of the bulge would be rendered useless to an envisioned invading Japanese army. This strategy is as old as war itself and is commonly referred to as a "scorched earth" policy.

What would a devil's advocate have to say about a plan for a withdrawal to the south east and an abandonment of the rest of the continent in the event of a Japanese invasion? How sensible was it? Before any consideration begins, a context is cried out for. These were truly desperate times. In the brief period after the bombing of Pearl Harbor signalled the beginning of the Pacific war, the Japanese Army had rolled juggenaut-like over Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). The fall of the supposedly impregnable Singapore to a numerically inferior force had sent shock-waves radiating out to the rest of the world but nowhere as traumatically as to Britain and Australia. It seemed the invasion of Australia would quickly follow just as irresistibly. And why not? The country was virtually defenceless. Its army had left home - to fight alongside a British army in the Middle East. All that remained in Australia as a martial presence was a hastily rounded up, insufficiently trained and armed militia. Australia's only hope of salvation was American aid which was virtually begged for but initially met with silence. The US was committed to a "Europe first" policy, which is not to say it had completely put the Pacific War on hold but it was low priority. Moreover, the Pacific plan most appealing to the US government was a direct thrust across the great expanse of ocean as proposed by Admiral Nimitz. The possible fall of Australia was not a fundamental concern. (Although the dismal fate of seven million whites would be regrettable.)

Given all these factors, it would be difficult to not conclude that a circling of the wagons was the only realistic course of action. Although it appears not to have occurred to Australia's political leaders, its military leaders were not completely unaware of the strategic value of heading the Japanese off in New Guinea, but how was this to be done given the state of Australia's military nakedness. One of the few rays of hope was offered by Australia's prime minister, John Curtain finally tearing the 6th and 7th Divisions out of Churchill's clutches and they were heading home albeit perilously devoid of air-cover. Even as the ships bearing the troops were underway, Churchill tried to divert them to the Burmese fiasco where they would have been surely destroyed - either killed or taken as POW's, not much better.

It seemed, with the factor of thousands of miles of coastline impossible to defend added to the country's other woes, a Japanese invasion could not be prevented. In light of all these considerations, a complete withdrawal to the main population centres of the south east, was, if not a good option, the only option. Its main draw-back of course was that Japanese bombers operating from outside the redoubt could bomb the defenders into surrender. Tasmanians would also have been unhappy about being told they were the Australians with the least to worry about. The counter to this would be that, knowing the Japanese, the island would be taken and its residents held to hostage. Surrender, or these people are going the way of the Tasmanian Tiger.

Unknown throughout all of this was that the Japanese high command had decided against invading Australia, Australians or anyone else of course not being privy to their plans. With their lines of supply already stretched to breaking point, they knew they would be biting off more than they could chew. Although the Japanese didn't exactly despise the idea of terrorising Australians with a fear of invasion, the real strategy was to cut Australia off from America so it could not be used as a springboard for American attacks into the underbelly of Japanese power, which is exactly what happened after negative results of the battles of the Coral Sea and Milne Bay had foiled Japanese plans for erecting a barrier between Australia and the US. Contrary to popular belief, the Americans did not come to Australia to save it. America came purely out of self-interest - to launch a second front. If in the process the north or north west of the continent had been lost to the enemy, then so be it. That could be sorted out later. This should have been easily digested food for thought for a never ending parade of Australian politicians who have placed implicit faith in an American alliance.

Now that Australia could relax a little, it was back to politics-as-usual. Right throughout the perceived threat of invasion the idea of a national government comprising the best from both sides of politics had been a moot point because of the toxic animosity between the Labor Party and the United Australia Party. It was about to become even more toxic. Edward "Eddy" Ward was a Labor Party member of the House of Representatives and was known as a "bomb thrower".

He was about to throw a block-buster. Midway through 1943, he let it be known to a stunned and soon to be outraged public that he had discovered plans drawn up by the previous UAP-CP (United Australia Party- Country Party) government that would see the greater part of the country abandoned to Japanese invaders complemented by a scorched earth policy. Adding fuel to the fire, he went as far as to say that no plans had been made for the evacuation of this area. Inhabitants unable to make it to safety off their own bat would be left to their fate. Ward was alone in making these accusations but no effort was made by his prime minister or other members to restrain him. Menzies, the then leader of the Opposition of course vehemently denied these accusations. The episode culminated in Curtain calling for a royal commission during which no evidence to support Ward's claims were uncovered. But the damage was done. The Labor Party went on to win a record majority in the election held that year.

Paul Burns, author of The Brisbane Line Controversy: Political Opportunism Versus National Security, 1942 - 1945, is excoriating of all involved in this tawdry piece of history. He says it "is a tale of political deceit, manipulation, cowardice and betrayal by politicians on all sides for electoral gain, involving shameless exploitation of public fears of Japanese invasion. It culminated in the callous scapegoating of innocent army officers whose only crime was their desire to defend their country in the most effective way possible." He stops barely short of charging treason.

One is reminded of Adolph Hitler's take on party politics in Mein Kampf: "By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire, creative fire, which, however seems to have died out."

"The parliament passes some acts of decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe."

The catastrophe in the context of Australia in the forties was that for years both sides of politics had been criminally negligent in allowing the countries defences to atrophy to the point of defencelessness.  

Burns goes on to reveal the rank hypocrisy of Ward and his quietly complicit Labor Party cronies. In 1942, just after it had won power from the UAP-CP coalition the Labor Party had implemented an exact replica of the retreat-to-the-south-east strategy for which they would be denouncing their political opponents.

In a stroke of pure serendipity, historian Sue Rosen, when doing research on Murray River Red Gum forests on behalf of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service in January 2012 when she discovered a file that had little to do with Red Gums or indeed any other kind of tree. As she recounts, it instead:

" ... detailed the "Wartime Activities of the Forestry Commission by a subcommittee headed by NSW Forestry Commissioner, EHF Swain. Glancing through the first few pages, I read phrases such as 'Total War' and 'Battle Stations for All' and 'Defence in Depth'. As I read on, it dawned on me that I had found buried treasure. These somewhat tatty, yellowing papers detailed plans for implementing in New South Wales the "scorched earth" policy adopted in 1942 by the Curtain government amid fears of on imminent Japanese invasion." Perhaps in an effort to avoid startling the horses too much, the "Scorched Earth Code" would become somewhat of a euphemism: the "Denial of Resources to the Enemy Policy. The entire package was stored in readiness by the Curtain Labor Government. And quite a package it was. The reproduced documents would fill an entire book produced by Rosen entitled, "Scorched Earth: Australia's secret plan for total war under Japanese invasion in World War 11.

Although Paul Burns splits semantic hairs in avoiding a conclusion that a Brisbane Line in fact existed exactly as "Bomb Thrower" Ward presented it, one would need to be on reality-dissolving drugs in order to claim that the myth had been "busted".  All that had been busted was the reputations of Australian military leaders, primarily Home Forces Commander, Lieutenant-General, Ivan Mackay, a highly decorated officer from WW1, who had conducted a comprehensive study on behalf of the Menzies/Fadden government in regard to Australia's defences vis-a-vis the forces Japan could throw at them and had concluded that it would be impossible for Australia on its own to resist an invasion. Throughout the duration of the war, Mackay would never be given the responsibilities his natural talents and abilities should have ensured him receiving. A black cloud of "defeatism" dogged him.

If history had taken a turn for the worse and Australia had have been invaded, it would be fair to conclude the Japanese would have had to pay dearly for their stay here. Napoleon's dictum that men fight harder to keep their country than men trying to take it from them would have been the Australian's first advantage. Secondly, the populace was well armed - far better than it is today - and both men and women knew how to shoot. Thirdly, the enemy would have been a long way from home in a naturally inhospitable environment far different to any they were used to. Fourthly, apart from a few "aliens" the population was totally homogeneous. The people were all in it together. Whatever their fate, it would be shared. If death were to be that fate, little doubt exists that the Australian people would have died hard. An Asian Australia was their worst possible nightmare. Little could they have imagined that in less than half a century traitorous governments would be well on their way to transforming the country into what they most feared and hated.

It's difficult to resist speculating on how it would have panned out if Australia had been then "multicultural". All those dual nationalities. How long would it have taken for all those so situated to decide that the Australian side of the equation was the one they could do without? Moreover, how long would it have taken for passages to be booked to places which, after one had thought about it, were after all their true homes. Australia though had been a nice place to visit.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

THE MAN WHO PUT AUSTRALIA ON THE MAP AND THEN GAVE IT A NAME : The Adventures of Mathew Flinders. Part 2

Matthew Flinders (1774-1814), by unknown artist, c1800

After an epic display of seamanship and navigation in tackling the wild southern sea in the sloop Norfolk with Bass and a small crew to prove once and for all that Van Diemen's Land was in fact an Island, Flinders returned to England on the Reliance with a remarkable and daring proposition. He proposed solving the great remaining mystery of the Antipodes - whether Terra Australis was one land mass or several by circumnavigating it.

 By letter, he made the proposal - really the outline of a magnificent obsession - to no other than Sir Joseph Banks, to whom Flinders' growing reputation had already reached, and was evidently intrigued. Furthermore, Banks being a man of wealth, fame and remarkable influence, was just the man to facilitate the realization of Flinders' ambition. He was also aware of the strategic and scientific advantages such a voyage could provide.

 To give a better idea of Banks' influence, after he'd gained the go-ahead from the Admiralty for the expedition, he asked, "[i]s my proposal for the alteration in the undertaking for the Investigator approved?" the reply was "any proposal you make will be approved. The whole is left entirely to your decision."

The alteration he was asking for, unsurprising given Banks' obsessive interest in and encyclopedic knowledge of Botany, was to have included in the crew botanist, Robert Brown, gardener, Peter Good and the artist, Ferdinand Bauer to paint what couldn't be transported back to England. Apart from these three, once news of the planned mission spread, Flinders was inundated with requests from men wanting to join his crew, putting him in position to be able to hand-pick the best and the brightest. Captain and crew would all be young men for a young man's mission.

"Investigator" was the perfectly apt new name given to the ship chosen for the journey envisaged to take three years. It had started life in 1795 as a mercantile vessel named the Fram, and had been bought by the Navy in 1798 and renamed the Xenophon after a famous general of ancient Greece. As the Investigator, extensive refitting would be needed to tailor it more for exploring than fighting. By being directly given command of this vessel, Flinders became the youngest ever captain in the history of the British Navy, albeit, one not to have taken command of a ship only on the incapacitation or death of the former captain

It was during this period the "love interest" that formed the back-bone of Ernestine Hill's acclaimed historical novel, My Love Must Wait, moved centre-stage. She was Ann Chapell. The two had known each other since very young. Ann was blind in one eye from a smallpox lancing. She has been described as "loved by all who knew her". She was of considerable intellectual strength with a talent for painting wildflowers. Literature and poetry were passionate interests.

Not knowing exactly how the refitting of his ship would take, Mathew, feeling now a man of means and able to take on the responsibility of marriage knew he had to act fast. Without informing Banks or his naval superiors out of fear obstacles being placed in his planned marital path, he decided to present them with a fait accompli. With only relatives and a few close friends present, a hastily organised marriage was performed. With the precedent of the wives of ship's captains accompanying them on voyages already set, Flinders felt confident no prohibition would be placed on his taking Ann back to Terra Australis with him. Of course it wouldn't be a naval voyage in the accepted sense but he had planned for that. He explained to Ann that he was acquainted with several good women, the wives of officials back in Port Jackson, who would be only to happy to provide accommodation and support while he was away exploring. Ann was fully accepting of this proposal and was looking forward to the adventure.

But alas, the best laid plans .... When Banks discovered what must have seemed a plot, he was less than thrilled. Navy officialdom was similarly affected. The upshot was that it was let known to Flinders that no-one would try to stop Ann sailing off with him but there was no telling what consequences it produce in terms of his career (in which it was no secret he was royally ambitious). This was a cruel blow to the young lovers. However, after what must have been agonised decision making, Flinders, driven by single-minded ambition since boyhood to be a famous explorer, made up his mind. He would leave Ann behind. After all, he would write every opportunity that presented itself, and and the anticipated period of his absence would pass in no time. Little did they know that it would be nine years before their reunion.

The sweet sorrow of parting was prolonged by the Admiralty's dithering in giving Flinders the green light for departure long after the Investigator was ship-shape and ready to go. Three months were to pass with the couple feeling that any day could be among their last together.

At last on July 18, 1801, the loops of the ship's tethers to the capstans were lifted and it was sailed east from Spithead before turning south on what would be Flinders' third visit to Terra Australis. It's not difficult to imagine the euphoria of the crew engendered by cruising into the open sea after months of inactivity and frustration. However, for Flinders, the joy must have been tempered by the sight of the diminishing figure of his new wife waving her last goodbye from the dock.

The made good time and were soon being sling-shot around the Cape of Good Hope and into the fury of the "Roaring Forties".  But at least in heading east in the same direction as the wind their progress was supercharged. In the years to come, ships sailing in the opposite direction, even the great clippers before they were superseded by steamers would battle sometimes for weeks trying to round the Cape, often going backwards, often giving up all together, turning around and going the long way round via Cape Horn. (James Michener in his novel, Hawaii provides a compelling sense of what this would have been like.)

Even more difficult to imagine than the crew's elation at finally beginning the voyage is their joy at sighting land after weeks in pitching seas on a fragile, wooden ship. The land they were sighting on December 6, 1801 was the south west corner of Australia where a towering light-house now stands guard. It is also now, at least as far as Australian is concerned, where the Indian Ocean meets the Southern Ocean. Flinders named it Cape Leeuwin after the Dutch ship Leeuwin (Lioness) which had been known to sail along the nearby coast in 1622, and then all but fade from history. This then was the southernmost point of New Holland, so named by Abel Tasman.

New Holland, Terra Australis or New South Wales? The problem arises in a similar fashion to a group of blind men feeling parts of an elephant and wondering if they belonged to the same creature.
The term Terra Australis, or to give it its full mouthful, Terra Australis Incognita, preceded the other two terms even before it had been established that the land was any more than a legend. When the Dutch touched one side of the elephant, the name, New Holland, was a sure way of claiming a first contact (and possible possession if the original evaluation of it not worth possessing were to ever change).

 Between Tasman's visit in 1644 and Cook's discovery of the other side of the elephant in 1770, New Holland was the name for all between. However, for obvious reasons, this didn't suit the British in whose name the land was being claimed. It seems no time at all was taken in coming up with the name, New South Wales. However, perhaps chary of biting off more than they could chew, they were amenable to continue calling the side west of longitude 135 degrees of the mysterious land, New Holland. Presumably the location of the split was liable to re-calibration if the natural divide of a suspected strait running south-north was eventually discovered.

 From the cape, all along the underside of the hulking continent, they were in completely uncharted waters and this was where the real work of Flinders began - charting those waters, so treacherous that in the years to come they would be littered with the rotting bodies of hundreds of shipwrecks.

The progress was slow because Flinders was absolutely meticulous in his cartography. For example, whereas Cook, a master navigator himself who had greatly inspired Flinders, sailed constantly north from south of Botany Bay and was naturally only able to chart the coast by day, Flinders returned every day to the exact location at which his previous day's mapping was forced to cease by the setting sun. Where landings were possible in the ship's cutter he would land himself, climb to the highest point and measure angles by theodolite.

The daily entries in Flinders' log which would be transcribed into his A Voyage to Terra Australis show that the work of mapping the southern coast of Australia was proceeding as planned with almost the sense of a work-a-day world permeating it. However excitement must have been building on seeing the land falling away into the gulf that Flinders would name Spencer's Gulf after Lord Spencer (ancestor of the late Diana, Princess of Wales). Giving rise to the excitement was a burning question: did a straight divide New Holland from New South Wales, discharging water into the Gulf of Carpentaria from an opening roughly on the same longitude on the south side of the continent - something like Spencer's Gulf? This was a question that intrigued many, including Flinders, Banks, Governor of NSW, Phillip Gidley King and John Hunter who had preceded him. Rudimentary maps of the Gulf of Carpentaria produced by the Dutch showed it to be closed. It had been over one and a half centuries since Tasman visited the Gulf in 1644 and records of that voyage had disappeared. All things considered, the British didn't quite trust the mapping by the Dutch. It was still thought possible that they could have missed something as prominent as an opening to a strait.

But before the gulf could be entered, disaster struck on Sunday, February 21 1802. Off the island Flinders would name Thistle's Island, with the ship's fresh water supply alarmingly low, the ship's master, John Thistle, a midshipman and six crewman were sent to the island in a cutter to search for replenishment.

Just before dusk, the cutter was sighted returning to the ship. It was lost sight of "rather suddenly" (1) and a half hour later had still not arrived back at the ship. A Lieutenant Fowler was sent in a boat in search of the cutter but it was a futile exercise. He arrived back at the ship and reported that at the location of the cutter's last sighting, he met "so strong rippling of tide that he himself narrowly escaped being upset"(2). Strong suspicions were therefore raised that this same phenomenon may have caused the disappearance of the cutter.

In the new day the boat was sent again and this time returned as a funerial image  - towing the upturned and badly damaged cutter, so bad it appeared to have been dashed on rocks. Although with the likely fate of the missing men all but certain - none of them could swim well - a forlorn search was continued before the expedition got sadly back under way. Flinders would take it hard, his emotion not quite belied in the "stiff upper lip" style of his official accounting. In his journal he lamented the incident happening when it did, just before dark. Had there been more light left in which to search, he felt the outcome may have been different. He'd served with Thistle for around eight years. They were firm friends. The rest of those lost were well liked by him. The officers and crew would naturally have been shattered by so devastating a loss.

It seems that it was difficult for Flinders to eventually give the order to sail away from the area, but with drinking water now procured at such a terrible cost, he did. There was work to be done and a mission to complete. Names given to geographical points in the proximity of the disaster were chosen to memorialise the departed shipmates. The protrusion of land just to the west of the island named after his good friend, Flinders aptly named Cape Catastrophe.

Modern day tourists motoring along the bottom of Australia would probably be surprised to learn that just about every salient landmark was named by Flinders including Kangaroo Island, the long, piece of land crouching across  a strait from the mainland, that would become the somewhat anarchic home of sealers, whalers and escaped convicts even before Adelaide was settled. From the mainland, it seems to hover like a mirage along the horizon. Archaeologists have concluded that Aborigines abandoned the island over five thousand years ago. The reason why is a mystery. They wouldn't return - at least female representatives of the race - until as concubines of the rough white men of the island. A close point on the mainland to the island where a small town now squats was named Cape Jervis by Flinders. Sealink ferries now shuttle between Cape Jervis and the island.

Kangaroo Island features in the voyage of discovery because of the deliverance it provided to the men of the Investigator. This time it was not the lack of water that was the problem; it was the lack of food. The Kangaroos breeding to abundance in the relatively confined space of the island, even though the country's third largest - naturally enough suggesting a name for the location - transported the seamen from famine to feast. Several days were spent here, hunting, and after being deprived of fresh food for so long, gorging on Kangaroo steaks and boiling down half a hundred weight of heads and tails into soup that would last them days into the continuing journey. The lost shipmates perhaps hovered like ghosts at a banquet.

(1)  Flinders, A Voyage to Terra Australis, Volume 1
(2)  ibid

To be continued


It cheers you when you are depressed. It keeps you company when you are lonely. It distracts you when you are worried. Television does al...