Where there’s smoke …

No, this is not about smoking.

aboriginal girl

Yesterday, there was a post on how atrocities are so easily carried out by people, either on orders from above or because of a prevailing mood, and the trick is to dehumanize a group of people first, then the rest follows.

That’s but one truth. There is another, that a demographic which sets itself at odds with the majority in any community, deliberately plays up differences, then cries foul, is protected and encouraged to do so by the PTB and the current orthodoxy, and which then causes the others to be punished for wrongs imagined or having a kernel of fact, no matter which, whilst that demographic enjoys all sorts of special privileges on the back of this construction, and the PTB invent all sorts of one word terms of abuse to fling at anyone disagreeing – that demographic is not going to be all that popular with the others.

And that holds true on any issue at any time through history.

Timna JacksThere is another truth too and that is when members of one of these ‘protected groups’ writes emotional sob pieces on one of the others, leaving out all the relevant details, in order to dishonestly and incompetently create a situation which is not how it really was at all.

As with Ms Timna Jacks at the Age. The [notated] opening lines:

Nakia reached breaking point in a class on Aboriginal history

The a priori is laid down.

… when another student mumbled “the Europeans should have killed them all”.

Stop and think about that. Was that ‘class’ voluntary or compulsory, part of the PC indoctrination which ignored what was written above in the khaki coloured paragraph. Also, it was a Catholic school, where Catholicism is the prime orthodoxy. Also, what of that teacher? Not a word about her [or maybe him]. Yet with what we know of leftist teachers today, it would not be a bad bet.

And therein lies a prejudice, not just of mine but of millions out there who can’t stand the way leftist professors and teachers have taken over education. And Ms Jacks? Look at the pic to determined the demographic.

Which brings up the immediate question – what is prejudice? Is it:

  1. Unreasoning hatred of a demographic other than your own or
  2. Quite reasoned, reactive annoyance at a demographic other than your own, sick to death of the things in the khaki paragraph above?

In her 12 years at the Melbourne Catholic school, the indigenous student thought she had heard it all.

Well she clearly had not heard Adam Goodes abuse a 13 year old white girl, a native equal to him, on a football field and while that 13 year old girl was out of order herself, she was 13, so she’d picked that up from somewhere and one of those places was from the Australian of the Year Awards, where he was parachuted into winning it, then turned around and told all Australians not to forget who owned that vast land.

There was a considerable amount of F off, Goodes in response and he was roundly booed at every football ground he then played at, such that he went all victimhood and quit the game. The fact that he was at the end of his career anyway was not mentioned by him, nor was it by the mock spear wielding aboriginals on the team at the crowd at subsequent games.

And what did the AFL do and the club coaches, ordered to by their presidents? They ‘implored’ people not to boo this precious snowflake, not to shout out about his dirty playing tactics, to leave him alone. And the media, after every game thence had a Goodes-a-meter abuse measurer, saying things like: ‘There was hardly any abuse at X ground today …’

Contrast that with the aboriginals in the Geelong Football Club. There, they’re not seen as aboriginals but as fellow players. The players themselves never refer to race. One of their greatest, ‘Polly’ Farmer, adorns the club walls in picture and caption. In the same way we conveniently count Andy Murray as ‘British’ instead of Scottish, as he made clear during the Scottish referendum, that club sees ‘Polly’ Farmer as Geelong. Full stop.

Ah, but the AFL does not, there’s mileage to be made in prejudice, the club hierarchy complies, as funding of the clubs is involved, and in order to virtue signal. So they have special ‘indigenous’ rounds where every player in the competition is forced to wear an aboriginal themed jumper. Most do it without comment, either because they are virtue signalling themselves but also because there are heavy punishments for those who don’t embrace the bollox.

What bollox?  The bollox of singling out certain demographic sections for special treatment – in other words, racism in its real form.

Someone decided, at the GFC, that he or she had to insert the word ‘indigenous’ into the blurb following Farmer’s name. He cannot be referred to as a ‘player’ now, he must be an ‘indigenous’ player for eternity, as if the millions of other Australians are not.

Now kindly go back to that pic at the top of this post. Notice what she’s wearing as a top? Now that may well be the doing of journos of little Ms Jacks and if so, then that immediately draws attention to the press. And if you go through the Age, there is similar all through it – that is, the Guardian type bollox, the risibly self-labelled Independent and … hang on a minute.

The ‘Independent’? What does the Age also call itself?

the age


Now let’s go back to today’s UK media and what is this at the Beeb?


Am I misogynist for running this screenshot? Is the Beeb sexist for running it?

When you look for a definition of parachutism, conveniently placed, as it is with every other key word, at the top of the first Google page, it’s surprisingly absent, particularly as it is a well known term – look at this first result:

parachutism 2

So, I think it’s pretty clear what is going on here, from Ms Jacks through to Google. And when those pushing these things dishonestly are called out and then fling the weasel epithets, just what does that say about their level of ethics?

But they’d be horrified this writer now is accusing them of dishonesty, after all, they’re the ‘good people’, so they’re told. We are the ‘bad people’, the racist, sexist, disablist fascists.

Or are we? Going back to those definitions in burgundy above, are we part of N1 or part of N2? Ms Jacks has not the slightest hesitation in saying which. Sane people are a bit more circumspect.