Moira Deeming – The Liberal Party has no choice

Posted on by
2

The media reported extensively that Moira Deeming accused Matthew Guy, a fellow Liberal Party member, of assaulting her during a social occasion. Some reports said that Deeming accused Guy of putting her in a headlock. Guy furiously denied the charges. Deeming did not in the least back down.

The Victorian Liberal Party tried to resolve the issue internally. Neither party shifted from their position. Deeming went to the police. After an investigation, crucially viewing the CCTV footage of the incident, the police said no offence had been committed. Guy was vindicated. Nevertheless, Deeming maintains her position and refuses to apologise.

Meanwhile, the disgusting Labor government led by Dan-Andrews-clone Jacinta Allan has beaten up the incident unmercifully, milking it for all its worth. They could scarcely believe that such a juicy incident had been gifted to them to exploit.

Although the CCTV footage (above) of the incident is fuzzy, it is clear what happened. Guy, Deeming and a third person sitting between them are chatting. There’s no sound, but it is abundantly clear that the venue is full of the noise of music, and people chatting and dancing.

At a certain point, Guy leans towards Deeming, who is speaking to him across the person sitting between them. Guy evidently can’t understand what Deeming is saying. He leans further forward, puts his right hand on her left shoulder and seems to draw her a little towards him to hear better. The contact is short. Deeming and Guy resume their original positions. Guy speaks into the ear of the third person, evidently again because of the noise in the hall.

The issue is straightforward, and reasonable people would have resolved it internally. It has not been resolved because of Deeming’s intransigence and overwrought reaction. Guy was a damn fool to put his hand on a woman in the circumstances, but he did no grave wrong. Because of her extremely damaging behaviour, likely to be repeated, the Liberal Party has no choice but to expel Deeming.

It is tragic because Deeming otherwise has demonstrated that she is a true Menzies Liberal in thought. But it is not enough. Party discipline, reliability and stability are crucial for political success.

Feminism and mental illness

Posted on by
Reply

Bad Choices, Anger, and Mental Illness

Disturbed women cannot create a sane movement

Janice Fiamengo, Jun 30, 2026

Three arrested as women and FINT protesters hold topless blockade at Lakenheath air base - Extinction Rebellion UK
Activists conduct a topless blockade at a UK air base to highlight the important connections between bare breasts, militarism, and “climate chaos.”

Marching in pussy hats, baring their breasts to save the earth, fighting with ICE agents, declaring themselves “nasty,” feminist women today are self-evidently the least contented and most rancorous women in America, preoccupied with victimhood, consumed by the politics of despair, and experiencing higher rates of depression (and corresponding anti-depressant use) than non-feminist women.

It is logical to conclude that feminism causes female unhappiness by encouraging ingratitude, paranoia, and reckless rage.

Feminists themselves have at times noted the excessive, often wretched, results of their gospel of discontent: the suicides, depression, violence, hysteria, and disordered lives of many of their luminaries.

Mary Wollstonecraft made two suicide attempts after her free-love liaison fell apart. Suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst counseled and engaged in murderous political violence. Virginia Woolf drowned herself after suffering from severe mental illness for much of her life. Simone De Beauvoir lost her teaching license for sexual misconduct with a female student. Valerie Solanas attempted to murder at least three men after writing a tract recommending the murder of men. Betty Friedan based her entire public career on demonstrable lies. Elizabeth Gould Davis shot herself after completing a book on female moral superiority. Andrea Dworkin was almost certainly a rape fabulist. Shulamith Firestone became schizophrenic. Germaine Greer advocated sex with pubescent boys. Mary Daly would not allow male students to take her senior women’s studies courses. Phyllis Chesler (of whom more later) defended a female serial killer. Mona Eltahawy boasted about beating a man in a nightclub. These and many other feminist leaders are not what most people would recommend as models for their daughters.

Read the rest HERE . . .

Multiculturalism is destroying the Australian nation

Posted on by
Reply

George Christensen outlines the perniciousness of ideological multiculturalism. This is an excellent presentation, and I recommend subscribing to his ‘Confidential Daily’.

*****

The Multicultural Con

Canberra sold Australians multiculturalism as neighbourly tolerance, but its own blueprint reveals a far bigger project to rebuild the nation around identity, language and bureaucracy.

George Christensen, June 29 20265

Australia has spent the past week arguing about one word: “monoculture”.

Pauline Hanson said Australia should be a “monoculture”, not a multicultural society, and suddenly half the country’s public figures had something to say. Anthony Albanese had a swing. Angus Taylor chimed in. Former Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove weighed in. The media did what the media does, which is just to simply say that what Pauline Hanson said is wrong and pretend the argument begins and ends there. It does not.

The real question is not whether people like the word “monoculture”. The real question is whether Australia is still allowed to believe in one people, in one nation, under one flag.

That used to be normal. It was not a scandal. It was not a dog whistle. It was the basic idea of a country. People came here from all over the world, but they came to Australia. Not to an international airport lounge with suburbs attached. Not to a patchwork of separate communities, each flying its own flag, speaking past each other, and lobbying the government as permanent identity blocs.

Read the rest HERE . . .

Mehreen Faruqi

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a sweet irony that the real Australian host of the channel ‘Oceania Unfiltered’ is a genuine brown bloke, while the obnoxious, unAustralian Mehreen Faruqi is the colour of a light tan. It’s about time Faruqi got the attention she deserves. This woman must not be elected ever again. I recommend subscribing to Oceania Unfiltered.

Satire – the left are now copping it

Posted on by
Reply

Although it’s a sour admission, biting satire used to be the weapon of the left. Now being so thoroughly indoctrinated, the left no longer has the intellectual breadth and wit for it. The ABC’s pathetic attempts at satire are a boring undergraduate rehash of the 1960s product. From the fortresses of their occupation of Western Society, they spout their meaningless slogans and doctrines.

No, keen, clever satire is now being produced by the accursed ‘far right’. (NB. Anyone right of the centre is now ‘far right’). Lisa Jane Spencer’s John-Clarke-like skits are as powerful as any satire now appearing. The current prize for satire, however, must go to those producing videos for Pauline Hanson. The latest is a beauty: ‘Dark Forces – Please Explain.’

Some Reflections on the 1960s

Posted on by
Reply

MOST AUSTRALIANS born after 1970 could not be blamed for acquiring the impression that the 1960s were one long party of sexual abandonment, drunkenness, the defiance of authority, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, British pop, anti-Vietnam protests, marijuana, hippies, flower-power and so on in that colourful style. One saying is that if you remember the 1960s, you were not there. A witty comment, but the small number abusing themselves to the state of memory loss are all long dead and in no position to make that boast. I can report first-hand, however, that this picture of widespread youthful abandonment is fanciful, designed to impress those who could not know better. In July 1960, I turned fourteen. I was in my second year of secondary school. My father carried his camera around with him, ever at the ready to shoot photos of his adored children. We thus have a pictorial record of those years when five of my parents’ six children were in their teens.

Until I left school at the end of 1963, my dear mother, with her keen sense of decorum, forced me to wear my school suit to formal occasions. I was particularly peeved that at seventeen, I had to wear my St Ignatius Riverview suit to my sister’s wedding in August 1963. On less formal occasions, my older brother and I wore a natty combination of navy blue blazer (which we called a reefer jacket), matching slacks, black shoes, and a white shirt with the indispensable thin black tie. Our hair was worn short, oiled and neatly parted, except for a brief period in 1960 when we tested my mother’s sense of respectability by hacking away at our hair until we sported a close-cropped hairdo like Murray Rose’s. Celebrated champion swimmer Murray Rose had again won gold at the Rome Olympics.

Continue reading →

Concocting history – the non-existence wars with the Aborigines

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Hill is at the forefront of those powerfully challenging the stories concocted by government-funded groups who are furiously rewriting Australian history. A curse on those institutions that ought to defend Australia but are collapsing like a house of cards. Australians need someone like Pauline Hanson to have the guts not only to defend the truth but to stop the colossal amounts of money going to the fat cats of the Aboriginal industry.

indig giles

The ‘Wars’ That Weren’t

Robert Hill, Quadrant, Jun 23 2026

Reports and Senate Estimates evidence suggest there is a “Frontier Wars” display being developed within the Australian War Memorial’s pre-1914 treatment, with  suggestions that the relevant pre-1914 gallery space may be around 400 square metres. The precise public plan remains difficult to identify, which is itself part of the problem.

There is no publicly available record that explains the evidentiary basis for the inclusion of such a gallery and its contravention of the AWM charter. No clear public criteria have been produced. No public account explains how the Memorial proposes to distinguish war from massacre, reprisal, murder, policing, punitive expedition, settler violence, food raiding, stock spearing or localised tribal conflict.

The War Memorial has attempted to justify the language of war on its own website. But in doing so it avoids the central problem. The Australian frontier was not a war merely because later writers called it one, or because violence occurred over a long period. On examination, the frontier does not meet the very tests the Memorial invokes: organised political violence, military purpose, identifiable belligerents, command structures, campaigns, warlike conduct against armed authority, or recognisable military outcomes.

The result is predictable. Something that was not Australian in any national military sense, and was not war in any ordinary military sense, is now to be memorialised without clear public criteria, without visible evidentiary justification, and almost certainly in a selective ideological form.

The Australian War Memorial is hosting a two-day conference on September 17/18 titled Imperialism and Resistance: Australia’s First Wars. It marks a profound institutional shift. The frontier is no longer being presented as a contested historical question. It is being framed as a settled conclusion. The conference appears designed to legitimise the illegitimate: to give institutional cover to a claim the Memorial has not publicly justified, and which sits uneasily with its statutory purpose of Australian military remembrance.

The title itself does the work: Australia’s First Wars.

Not frontier violence. Not colonial conflict. Not dispossession. Not massacre, reprisal, police action, local resistance or criminal violence.

“Wars.”

Read the rest HERE . . .

The Great Feminization – Helen Andrews

Posted on by
Reply

Helen Andrews might not have fully demonstrated her thesis that women are at the centre or the cause of civilisational collapse, but much of what she asserts about the general difference between female and male moral thinking and decision-making makes sense and is observable. The script of this video is below.

Do you want to put it into a single sentence? You could say that feminisation equals wokeness. Everything you could think of as wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon (a by-product) of demographic feminisation.

Continue reading →