Scrawled in pink chalk on a Sydney pathway in the wake of today’s vote on the Sodom Law were two words, “Love Wins.”

This is a propagandistic slogan if ever there was one. We should know since we’ve come up with enough of our own.

Once you’ve understood the slogan’s referential function, deduced its expressive function, surmised its conative function, fathomed its phatic function and flipped by its contextual function you’ll realise what the slogan would properly mean separated from the sentimentality of its addresser is that “institutionalized love wins”. Once you’ve dealt with that dialectic you should be free enough from the propaganda to deduce that this has nothing to do with ‘love’.

Love doesn’t require the formal acknowledgement of an institution to prosper and in fact, it is more likely to stifle and suppress that love.

Moreover, you must grapple with the logic of tearing down the pillars of an institution to institutionalise that which the former pillars existed to ensure did not endanger the institution that was in place to safeguard against what the new institution formally validates. Meaning, there was, beyond what the Cultural Marxists who voted Yes perceive, more to the institution of marriage than “love”. Indeed, it was a social contract beyond enshrining the rights of deviant minorities into law.

But before we use the word deviant we must now readdress the contextual relevance of that word since deviancy can only really be determined by the majority of society and policed by its agents of social control, such as the media, lawmakers, academics, politicians, Waleed Aly and so forth.

Even here we have a problem since the degenerate homos who have won this “right” to smash apart a sacred pact between a man and a woman are not of themselves in the majority but the reverse. It is their agents who are in the majority.

Consider this when putting shekels in the coffers of these corporations who have forced upon us the reign of everything abominable to a healthy society

For that matter, the vote only passed by a rabbit’s dick of 7% with some Labor electorates like ‘Calwell’ in Victoria, named after our Nationalist Aussie hero Arthur Calwell, doing us proud by voting No. Now it is down to the traitor political class to pass this bullshit law and applaud themselves for having totally fucked everything that this country once stood for. It is now in the hands of the banks, corporations, and the hedonistic consumers who keep their share portfolios fattening with profit. This same-sex marriage vote was, after all, pushed heavily by media and the corporations.

Anyway, having digressed for a moment, we have ascertained that the majority has granted the minority an unequal representation among the majority. If we tie that back to what social science once understood about deviancy we now have anyone from the former institution who is strident enough to hold firm to their beliefs cast on the outside of what society now upholds to be ‘normal’. The respectable is now the outsider and the deviant is the pillar of this brave new society.

Since we’re talking about institutions, it seems fair to acknowledge that garbage from the baby boomer generation who trampled this filth into our lives — who inculcated these Cultural Marxist codes into the heads of our youth via the institutions they took over — were the ones who loathed the very concept of the institution of marriage. Their lot burned their bras and jockstraps and went in for “free love” and threw things at Servicemen returning from the horrors of America’s doomed war in Vietnam.

This is an SJW two-fer deal, yet get the dyke White woman with the black dyke and they may adopt a White male baby and kill it

Yet, here are the fruits of their decades of campaigning — they have killed the social and religious premise of marriage. They have redefined it and in doing so have set in motion an entire wheel of social changes that will exclude, criminalise, and disadvantage all of those whose ideological and religious convictions now place them as an “other”.

The despised “cisgender” White male; the devout Christian; the fervent social conservative are all now outside of that societal approval and therefore beyond the gates of the institution which ironically once upon a time they were the most ardent advocates for.

Any parent who doesn’t wish their child to be taught the finer points of buggery by a genderless freak reared in the social laboratory of modern society will be demonised, ostracised, and — if they aren’t just patronisingly dismissed as absurdly quaint — used as an example of that which is abhorrent to this newfangled society based on repudiated gender and opposition to the fundamentals of nature. Any Christian who refuses to accommodate a reception or conduct a marriage between freakish gender-confused parties will be sued, vilified, hounded, doxed, and probably beaten up by roaming squadrons of Nazi Dykes, Faggots, and Transgender Chemical commandos.

It will be ironic to see how they must now shuffle their hierarchy of victimhood to accommodate the obvious dissension of devout Moslems, which are still currently a protected species in the Social Justice Warrior red book.

Now they need another cause; now they’ve run out of steam there is another minority group whose interests must usurp that of the majority until there is nothing left but until the day invading armies of Chinese soldiers paint the walls with their soft, squishy, fucked-up, chemically-altered brains.

Yes, folks, we are on the road to being a PC Police State, just like England.

EDIT: After we went to press with this item out came the images from the unscheduled orgy at Hyde Park where fairies, fags, dykes, princesses, lady boys, he-girls and every kind of pervert combo imagined in this age of decadence, got straight down to exposing themselves and cavorting in a manner that would, in saner countries, have them all shot.

A bizarre dyke with hairy legs, hairy armpits struts half-nude (blarrggggh) in a major Sydney park because that’s what the world will be like now that the Yes vote got through by a whisker.
Broad daylight and the green-light signals for the degenerate exhibitionists. That’s nothing, but, wait till you see the latest dog-collars, leashes and leatherwear for next year’s Back to School uniforms!






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.

Schlemiel! Schlimazel! ALP Incorporated!

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.

Feminists used to attack the system, now the ARE the system

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.

Footscray goddess.
The boundless plains of…Footscray

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.”

Pilger is lucky, the zeitgeist conformed to his predictions before senility set in




Worldwide anti-Trump rallies have exposed an immutable truth about what was once referred to as the fairer sex — they are in sorry moral and aesthetic disorder. Indeed, today’s woman, invariably politicised, has all the appeal of untreated sewage.

Not every woman deserves this criticism; there are fine nationalist women out there who do us all proud. However, this is not about them.

This is not even about the women who fall short of being nationalists. But it IS about those social feminists who are so wrapped up in a bubble of their own self-importance that they cannot compute the reality that they are in fact chauvinists.

Women complain about not being taken seriously

Let us get something straight — western women are not victims. There is no pay gap. Women are not paid less than men and their prospects are generally much brighter than men’s. They receive a superior deal in education, workplace politics always favour them, and even if they cannot gain work on their intellectual merits they can earn a packet working the dance pole for Arab taxi drivers at Pure Platinum. Family Law Court is a palace of female privilege where just about every ruling goes in the favour of the female as though it is a biological determination. You can hardly land a teaching gig if you’re a man because a cabal of women will hound you out of the profession with scurrilous imputations of paedophilia. Overall, society has placed women upon a pedestal from which, for some reason, they churlishly moon us while cultivating hairy armpits and taunting us with ‘pussy’ hats on.

This is not even about the women who fall short of being nationalists. But it IS about those social feminists who are so wrapped up in a bubble of their own self-importance that they cannot compute the reality that they are in fact chauvinists.

The only tough ride women get is the one that all must endure or else which they create for themselves. So what is their problem and why are the same communist Jewish hags baiting us with decades-old bullshit that was lies even back then?

Women who shamelessly go topless to promote their “right” to dress like “sluts” will then lock elbows in a daisy chain of dingbat womanhood chanting slogans against those men they accuse of treating them like sluts. But not if they live in Europe and Moslem men are objectifying and raping them. This is like a black hole of logic collapsed in on itself, which possibly describes the psychic condition of these women. When that happens, all you can hear are crickets chirping, as they instead find reasons to blame men of their own race for the behaviour of the parasites.

When women have something to say about being reduced to a sexual stereotype, they tend to speak as a sexual stereotype

Women who label themselves feminists are in fact at war with the very notion of what constitutes femininity.

There used to be a joke about how women’s bodily functions were a big secret and men often doubted they even had them. It went something like, “You know what they say about boys who hang around women’s lavatories? They tend to have their illusions shattered.”

But nowadays that rather elegant myth is being smashed apart by women themselves. Yes, scrabbling for oppressed credibility, created a Free the Poop movement last year where they happily discussed their bowel movements and revelled in infantile coprophilous attitudes.

Women who label themselves feminists are in fact at war with the very notion of what constitutes femininity.

The maternal instinct of women is being both gratuitously flaunted and simultaneously repudiated. Certain women make a deliberate issue out of breastfeeding by hauling their infant down to a public café, flopping out their mammary, and letting the sprog gnaw on their tit while patrons are trying to sip hot milk-based beverages. This will understandably cause revulsion for a cross-section of the community not so enamoured of the intimate biological functions of individual females of questionable hygiene. It is a crass display for bored mothers to affect some sort of controversy to lift them above what they treat as the mediocrity of child-rearing.

The female paedophile is on the rise. Check your tabloids daily, and inevitably there is another story about a (usually) female teacher who has taken advantage of some young male pupil to satisfy her predatory libido. You will read about mothers pimping out their own daughters to pay for drugs, or even joining is as they’re raped by hairy losers with Satan fetishes. How come so many women become pen-pals to notorious murderers and then want to marry them? You can’t count on women to cook anymore; you cannot count on them for fucking anything much except victim attitudes. The worst thing yet, they would betray their nation and race as quickly as pulling a tampon string. It is somehow an expression of liberation from non-existent oppression for women to declare they are “nasty” and make virtues out of traits that they condemn in men.

We could frankly go on and on and rattle out a list that will trigger many and inspire even more but we’ve made our point.

Offers Hillary voters head-jobs, turned a generation of girls into vacuous sluts, wears a “pussy” hat to signify her mouldy old vagina, but has an issue with Trump because he said something sexist about thirty years ago

Jewish-run Hollywood takes a big chunk of responsibility for moulding the slatternly role models that these women invariably assimilate. Nonetheless, we aren’t letting them off that easy. No way, the onus is upon them alone. If Hollywood told them to go out and snort bird shit would they do it?

The whole “princess” deal where girls, forever slaves to materialism and mammon, exploit their bodies in the name of ‘empowerment’ is a fine example of the inherent insincerity and deep falsehood at the heart of what we might as well call ‘the movement’. Hollywood and glamour media promote it, and “society” enables it.

Jewish-run Hollywood takes a big chunk of responsibility for moulding the slatternly role models that these women invariably assimilate. Nonetheless, we aren’t letting them off that easy. No way, the onus is upon them alone. If Hollywood told them to go out and snort bird shit would they do it?

But if that is true, what the hell is ‘society’ and is that a croc of balls? They blame society, yet they ARE society. They object to society, and yet they change society into an objectionable setting.

So what the fuck were all those anti-Trump demonstrations about anyway? There is a vague, base claim at the heart of it that Trump represents the ‘objectification’ of women. Yet, they objectify themselves in response to this bogus perception. They wear “pussy hats” and dress up as vaginas. Some flash themselves, they brandish placards with baffling sentiments and at the end of it you have to ask, what the fuck is it they want?
What are their demands? What is the problem?

The problem is those women themselves. The irony of it all was the protesters who turn out to be the real issue and not their supposed target.

They are the privileged sex with aggressive vaginas wanting to throw their weight around and these days just about any excuse will do.

Any man willing or sick enough to want to grab it would need to mine for it underneath that umpteen tonnage of blubber


More impoverished men equals the illusion of empowered women equals another capitalist gotcha!

By James Hillman

Employment minister Michaelia Cash, as quoted in the “Lügenpresse” this ANZAC weekend had the following to say in The Age (which sucks): “We keep on talking about, as government and a society, women needing to go into the non-traditional roles that have the higher-paid salaries,” she said.

“Why aren’t we also encouraging men to go into the non-traditional roles with the lower-paid salaries like nursing and teaching. You’ve got to have a two-way exchange there.” Workplaces also needed to become more flexible – but “not just for women”.

Never trust a Neo Liberal. We Nationalists will berate and denounce the pervasive Leftist Feminism present in the academic institutions and state bureaucracies, but there should be no quarter given to Conservatives and their “Other Feminism”.

I’ve often heard the Left Feminist program described simply as Female supremacism, which needs no explanation, but the Conservative or traditionalist version might best be described as having its basis in the ideal of innate Female superiority.

Traditionalists profess horror at the revolutionary ideals of the Left Feminist; their world-without-men save for stabled breeding bulls and their Lesbian autocracy, but is their idealised Madonna on her pedestal any less ludicrous in this current year?

Of course I have my tongue firmly in my cheek as I write these lines. Any student of the Neo Liberals, their globalism and pseudo free markets, will see through Senator Cash and her ruse. In these lines she betrays herself:

“New business models established by Uber, Airbnb and Airtasker had also changed the way Australians do business. Whether or not we like it – and sometimes these things can be a little bit scary – when you travel overseas and in particular to places like China, they are already embracing the future of work. And if we are to remain a globally competitive economy, it is not a choice for us. We have to ensure our systems and our regulation responds appropriately. To do this, we are going to need structural and cultural reform – and in particular in relation to our workplace relations system.”

Aha! Now let’s put some pressure on those points! Take for example the ‘Uber business model’. Fairfax also ran an article this weekend on the rapid transformation of the app-based ride-sharing service into nothing more than an unregulated facsimile of the “bad old days” of the Taxi industry. It appears that “entrepreneurs” are running fleets of as many as 30 vehicles and renting them out to Uber drivers at exorbitant rates, creating a new domain for a would-be rentier class to re-assert control over the means of production.

Have we spotted the set-up, comrades? The fact that China is the example for the “future of work” and these pseudo egalitarian business models are their benchmark ought to fire the hackles of any Nationalist worker. Surely the only conclusion we can draw from the assertion that “we have no choice’ but to emulate Asian business practices is that the objective of Ms Cash and her bosses is to reduce ALL Australian workers to the status of Coolie day labourers and piece workers (or peasants as the Bolsheviks would have understood the term). Where, may we ask does this “other Feminism” espoused by the Senator fit into the race to the bottom as far as wage growth and our standard of living are concerned?

It’s often been said that Feminism is capitalism’s little sister; that all the so called achievements of the women’s movements were engineered by the ruling castes and oligarchs to suit their own ends and bolster their bottom line. I for one hardly see that as a cynical view, politically incorrect for sure but not wide of the mark. Why would capitalists and their tame Neo Liberal politicians want to turn the gender ratios upside down and effectively redistribute higher paying jobs along those lines?

I suspect the answer comes back to crude questions of biology and the differences between male and female psychological make up: female employees are more loyal, less prone to question authority and unable to physically impose their collective will on those in power. Only men can fight and carry the threat of the use of force upon the bosses if they behave in a predatory or exploitative fashion, only men can hold a picket line and stand up to assaults by strike breakers or Police interventions.

The goal is always the ‘bottom line’ — the scam, so to speak, is to reduce or surreptitiously cap salaries and ensure a compliant and dependant workforce across the entire economy. Feminising the high-wage professions is probably the most effective way of bringing down such a regime: no strikes, no unions, and the best part is that taken as a group, men, once evicted from traditionally male occupations, have little interest in competing with women. It has been said that in post-Soviet Russia as many as 80% of doctors are women and that nowadays that profession has lost its prestige: wages have been stagnant over those decades and expenditure at rock bottom. If a relatively unsophisticated Nationalist worker such as myself can speculate upon the advantages of Feminising the professions then it can be taken for granted that those who presume to govern us and their capitalist puppeteers may also be thinking along those lines and pushing forward pretty spokeswomen such as Senator Cash to woo the voters with saccharine appeals to fairness and inclusiveness.

images (1)
The empowered “Aussie” female worker of tomorrow in China today