I was doing some research on the 1960s for my latest title (Book 6) in my Sixties Series when I came across references to Jean Shrimpton, an Icon of the 1960s. I shouldn’t have been surprised to find numerous videos about her on YouTube. Below is a video that shows there was more to her than the stunning model that entranced the world.
She was incomparable. The girls (in Sydney) I knew at the time were crazy about her. I remember the Melbourne Cup incident well. I was nineteen in 1965. The irony is that hems at the Melbourne Cup the following year were above the knee – even those of the matrons who were so insulted the year before. Incidentally, I don’t believe the Orlon dress was above the knee because the company provided too little material. It was planned and carried out to perfection. No one has surpassed Shrimpton’s natural, unaffected beauty and the aura she projected.
Machete violence is new in Australia. One hardly saw a machete anywhere up until certain migrant groups came to Australia. They were migrants who came from countries where a machete was a normal work tool but deputised as a weapon of war in such countries as Rwanda. Rwanda can pride itself on one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century.
Reporting of youth crimes hides the ethnicity of the perpetrator by making no mention of it or by blocking features that would reveal the ethnicity. It is significant for community protection to know whether some groups are more representative in certain crimes than others. It’s time to draw the veil of protection aside and be honest with the Australian community.
Dr Gad Saad says that Islam claims it will conquer the West in three ways:
Islam will conquer the West through the womb of its women. This is the demographic battle. Muslim women will produce many more children than the white Western race. Demography is destiny. It’s already happening.
Islam will conquer the West through immigration. It’s already happening.
Islam will conquer the West by using their miserable freedoms and liberties against them. It’s already far advanced.
It is a tragic and confirming irony that Charlie Kirk, who interviews Dr Saad here, was assassinated by a fanatical member of the left.
Just watch as the lefties occupying the major media instruments and organisations in Australia, rush to the defence of Muslims with the cry of Islamophobia! whenever there is the slightest criticism of the Muslim occupiers in Australia’s cities.
Many around the world, including me, have been for years warning about the Islamic invasion of the West. Prominent among them have been bestselling author Douglas Murray and Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has experienced the deadly religio-political ideology close up (see my previous comment). The refusal to confront the clear evidence for the bitter, relentless Islamic crusade amounts to abject betrayal – to treason.
What will it take to wake our governments up? For a start, Australians could vote for Pauline Hanson and One Nation, who have given an undertaking to take the fight up to the Muslims occupying their piece of Australian estate, and to the fanatical Marxists who give crucial support to the invaders.
Below is another spot-on video from ‘Oceania Unfiltered’. It makes all the right points about Muslims and the Islamic invasion of Australia. I highly recommend subscribing to Oceania Unfiltered.
Unless Deeming can guarantee to adhere to party discipline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
