Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is an odd duck and no mistake; seemingly a nice enough bloke he is outwardly unfettered by guile or cynicism; yet he is the quintessential “Nebbish”, to borrow from the Yiddish vernacular.
The latest in a long line of baffling publicity stunts has seen Andrews apologising to a throng of Chinatown honchos for the ancient, long forgotten landing tax imposed upon Chinese immigrants during the gold rushes of the 19th century.
There was an aura of weirdness and unreality surrounding this performance, as there is around so much of the premier’s work; who were these Asian dignitaries and what was their connection, if any to the prospectors and fossickers of yore?
Should we simply remit the ten bob poll tax to all persons of Chinese extraction on the off chance that one of their relatives chose to sail across to Port Phillip rather than stiff the customs of their dues and hoof it overland from Adelaide to the diggings?
Clarinda MP Hong Lim claims much of the credit for this venture, which surprises us not a bit, the astonishing revelation, though, is that the apology was two years in the planning.
This absurd pantomime is, however, consistent with a broader ALP strategy to insulate the party and its globalist-cosmopolitan agenda from scrutiny or criticism; the party seems intent on obscuring its machinations behind a screen of ethnics and women, its much publicised “diversity” agenda.
“Should we simply remit the ten bob poll tax to all persons of Chinese extraction on the off chance that one of their relatives chose to sail across to Port Phillip rather than stiff the customs of their dues and hoof it overland from Adelaide to the diggings?“
It is obvious to anyone not taken in by the mantra of equality for all that the so-called “progressives” of the current Victorian parliament seek to create a sort of perverse political etiquette wherein certain classes of people are immune from criticism and whose opinions are held to be sacrosanct.
Question a Victorian woman in a position of authority and you are a misogynist Troll; cock an eyebrow at the ravings of a non-White public servant and you’ve dragged us a few more steps back down the road to Auschwitz; dare to challenge a non-White, female companion of the chattering classes and you may as well have immolated a basket of puppies and danced upon their ashes.
This is no joke readers, Daniel Andrews may be all dimples and ill- fitting moleskins but behind the doors of Treasury Place lurk functionaries of a Machiavellian temper not seen since the courtiers of Heinrich Himmler and his Waffen SS.
Of course, we do not hit women, but nowadays we are not supposed to even question them; outright contradiction of Feminist dogma is basically seen by the progressives as actionable “hate speech” and any affront to a Muslim, Asian or Jewish politician is met with a rain of ruin upon the head of the transgressor.
To be serious though, this state of affairs should be seen as a problem for dissidents of all persuasions; if the opinions of certain classes of people are held to be unfalsifiable and their actions as elected officials or servants of the crown are put beyond scrutiny or censure, then democracy is impossible and the corruption just beneath the skin of the ALP behemoth is cloaked from the outside world, once and for all.
“This is no joke readers, Daniel Andrews may be all dimples and ill- fitting moleskins but behind the doors of Treasury Place lurk functionaries of a Machiavellian temper not seen since the courtiers of Heinrich Himmler and his Waffen SS.”
The perimeter wall of ethnicity and gender surrounding the ALP is not hiding anything good or worthy of support by White workers and marginalised people, it merely covers up the machinations of factional cronies, the shady deals with arch-capitalists and would-be suburban property barons and it facilitates the ongoing “culture bust” of globalism.
This is the same rationale as seen in the diversification of the Police service, female officers are less likely to be challenged or attacked by lawbreakers, most criminals will still baulk at hitting a woman even if she is intent on carting him off to the lockup.
Politicians and public servants whose word is law merely due to their race or gender, who cannot be confronted or challenged because they might burst into tears or make a human rights complaint are cogs in a machinery of a state which grinds on toward totalitarianism at an ever quickening pace.
Feminist politics here deserves a special level of opprobrium since, over the past 25 years it has been fused completely to the globalist capitalist state; in truth, we are no longer looking at a left-right distinction, rather a movement which has forgone revolution in favour of liberal reform.
To close this article and to put the stunning contradiction at the heart of our discussion into words all workers will understand we refer to Marxist social critic John Pilger, who, on the occasions when he is right, is really right:
“Today’s liberal feminism is a sinister 21st century variant of historical feminism. It is one key apparatus of many currently being utilised by the capitalist system rooted in patriarchy, misogyny and racism. This nefarious system employs trillions of dollars funnelled through the non-profit industrial complex (via foundations) to protect and expand these formidable power structures. Today’s liberal feminism is a racist fascism, bound by whiteness, privilege and class, that markets reformism and accommodationism under the clever guise of grassroots activism.”