The art of hypocrisy

Sometimes, I get the feeling that the globalists are stalking my site. Electronic  scribbles “written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar” and amateur tripwires abound. The latest doodle I stumbled upon causing me to fall [insert winking face here] was Wikipedia‘s flag-waving definition appearing first on my site’s name search.

Google search “the art of Flag-waving” and this pops up as the top result.  Google search “flag-waving” and this does not pop up.

I wonder how the average working-class Aussie feels about being ridiculed in such a way when he or she searches for my site. I would image they would feel emotions of rage or irritation for being slyly mocked and manipulated without any effort to disguise!  We no longer seem to have the right to be nationalists, to be proud of our nation and of our flag.  And most certainly don’t have the right to criticise with honesty.   Perhaps Google needs to make similar attempts to control other nationalistic peoples through malevolent links to demonstrate that they are indeed impartial.

I am curious to see how the jews would feel if Google denigrates them for waving their flag.

Or perhaps the globalists soldiers?

The Chinese ought to be treated the same, too.

Let’s not forget the blacks in America.

When is Google going to link sly definitions to these hotties?

Any globalist Google staff game enough to ridicule this dude’s nationalism?

 

My dearest shallow pools of greed and misery, everything has the potential to be weaponised and mocked.  Even plastic toys can be deadly if thrust into people’s temples. The trick, though, is to do it in such a way as not to make a complete fool of yourself or to harvest.  See below.

University students waving their “trivial” symbol-stirring salute.

 

…I’m so lucky univarsety iz learnin me all about critikal thunking. I sincerely hope you appreciate my newly gained skillz.

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

Advertisements

An abstruse agenda

The revision timetable was the topic of the week in one of my university subjects. Through meticulous detail, the lecturer explained how and when students should schedule their classes, study, work, essays and even play. The importance of setting hour by hour schedules for the each unit’s components was stressed: 1-hour block x3 for the reading component, 1-hour block for each lecture, various hour blocks for essay subcomponents and a just in case 1-hour block xX study buffer schedule just in case one falls behind. As I sat still listening to the lecture with feelings of mechanisation and incredulousness slowly sucking me in, a passage from Red Dwarf popped into my head:

And now he sat there, under the pink glow of his student’s table lamp, preparing to sit for the astronavigation exam for the thirteenth time. He found the process of revising so gruellingly unpleasant, so galling, so noxious, that like most people faced with tasks they find hateful, he devised a more and more elaborate way of not doing it in a doing it kind of way. In fact, it was now possible for Rimmer to revise solidly for three months and not learn anything at all.

The first week of study he would always devote to the construct of a revision timetable. Every hour of every day was subdivided into different study periods, each labelled in his lovely, tiny copperplate hand then painted over in watercolours. A different colour for each subject, the colours gradually becoming bolder and more urgent shades as the exam time approached.
The only problem was this, because the timetables often took seven or eight weeks to complete, by the time Rimmer had finished them the exam was almost on him. He’d then have to cram three months astronavigation revision into a single week. Gripped by almost a deranging panic, he then decides to sacrifice the first two days of that final week to making another timetable, this time for someone who had to pack three months revision into five days.

So I laughed, loudly and wholeheartedly. It broke the trance.

At this point little background to my passion for planners is in order. like chicks of today, I love a good planner session. My colour coded felt-tip pens prompt an auto-smile every time I unzip my (planner-only) pencil case, where chocolate freckle treasures are lay hidden. Little queues of vivid colours clutched by tiny elastic loops inviting me to touch them. Faint whiffs of sweet vanillin from the sharpened pencils bring images of old books to the mind. Gleaming miniature brass icon stencils adding tinkles of glam and magic. Little smiling babushka doll post-it-notes always so happy to see me, whilst the undercover staple-pen and scissors-pen add a healthy dose of clever utility. A little treasure chest gleefully ready to be put to use in my Erin Condren planner aiding my lists, priorities, dates and lots of tick-ready boxes. Blissful joy.

Fun over function.

Although I allow myself to plan like a 10-year-old, I recognise it for what it is – as an indulgent, fun pursuit, the equivalent of a nail polish or spice collection. And I’m not alone in this, the planner community is the first to admit it to be a hobby. So, what gives with the uni.

I suspect right-wingers reading this blog-post would dismiss this lecture to be one more sign of an infantilised culture and the lowering of standards in education existing today. Although I don’t disagree with these assertions, I do find them to be superficial. In my past jobs, I have used every conceivable planner system to exist. Some electronic, some paper, combinations, many I have conceived and adapted and then some. Through my planner experience, I have come to understand that if not careful, planning kills creativity, amongst other issues.

Another issue with planners is that they teach dependency. Marketed as peace-of-mind yielders, the gimmick does not divulge that once a planner habit has been established it enslaves its user. The, so called, peace of mind is achieved by draining the mind of all the prompts and reminders which normally swim in our heads and keep us alert and intellectually active. Do not underestimate the importance of those prompts, they have lived in our heads to thousands of years. A brain which has been relieved of all its micro-task reminders begins to distrust its own judgment and memory. The doubt is then tunneled to more scheduling and lists until every inane and inconsequential part of life is cataloged. Fitness tasks, shopping lists, meal plans, work goals, study goals, supplements and water consumption, daily routines such as washing your face and shaving, top 3 priorities, top 7 to-dos, low priority top 10 lists begin to populate the planner. Avid planners’ lists and tasks become so numerous that many foster numerous planners to keep track of all their lists. In fact, “I cannot rest until it’s in my planner” is a common complaint with those who adopt the planner lifestyle. They also admit that the prospect of losing their planners would be terrifying, as a planner contains their “whole lives”.

An incomplete mind leads to dependency.

Due to the religious void that has been created in the West, the modern planner has also substituted confession, where failure to tick off your daily tasks or miss an appointment sit on your “today” page like missing beads from a rosary. Naturally, whenever sinning is present disappointment ensues so the planner becomes a self-policing tool which controls your lists and schedules via guilt.

Self-surveillance controlled by guilt tripping. Programming and rendering us to the possibility of higher levels of control.

If the dependency, self-surveillance and guilt tripping wasn’t quite enough, planners also has a tendency to limit spontaneity and creativity. Imposed time restrictions suppress innovation and productivity. Has anyone ever heard of a new formula being conceived during an exam? There are valid reasons as to why tertiary education tend to substitute exams and quizzes for essays and theses. Scheduled restrictions discourage in-depth reflections because it gives users a valid reason for superficial research and understanding. In fact, the lecture I was exposed to encouraged this very notion. Throughout history, the West’s greatest philosophers, mathematicians, scientists and writers ad-libbed their time, adapting as needed, they did not interrupt their flow or restricted their research into 1-hour blocks. The most interesting thinkers of today mostly reside on youtube and in blogs – for the first time in a century or more, these venues are allowing thinkers to dedicate their lives to reflection, time constraint-free. Corporations, governments and the academia, on the other hand, are laying the building blocks for a time oppressed world and the proof is in the pudding – they’ve created a world of mediocrity.

While surfing the net, I found an interesting little formula:
don’t know what field this formula was taken from, but it does encapsulate the essence of planners – a primitive Amazon AI, formulating and coding your life so that it can predict your next purchase before you through understanding your interests and then controlling the ads you are exposed to. Planners dehumanise us into predictable NPCs. Those who understand such a basic control tool can easily use it for the purpose of manipulation – simply add another schedule or taskbar to train us to do whatever the elites want us to do. Self-inflicted serfdom.

Wind him up, release and let him think he is achieving something meaningful.

The last issue of the planner lifestyle is the illusion of time well spent they create. Viewing all your tasks marked off and every appointment ticked off gives dopamine hits. It makes you feel as though achievement of something important, as though one has accomplished something meaningful. However, truth be known, the person has only completed everyday tasks that would otherwise still be have been completed if they had not been listed in a planner. It is called living and if you don’t partake you die or get fired.

However, planners make sure to avoid listing the truly significant moments of our lives. Perhaps a funny joke you share with your wife which made her giggle and allowed you to share a blissful moment or the soft kiss you snuck on your sleeping baby’s forehead on your way to bed or a new way to approach a work-related problem on your lunch break whilst biting into a tuna sandwich. The important stuff, human interactions and serendipitous thoughts. The younger generations who have been seduced into the planner lifestyle, are being fooled into thinking that their lists are a substitute for their atomised existence.

Planners, the new fulfilment mirage to compensate for modernity’s empty existence.

Since planner evolution has significantly sped up in the past decade, I cannot dismiss that it has been, at least in part, engineered. However, the propeller behind the evolution has been the cultural and religious voids which now exist in the West. The survival instinct is deeply ingrained in all living things, as such, we have a propensity to pass it on to the things we create. Our thoughts, aspirations and inventions can take on a life of their own. As their creator, we speak the same language, so they can read our desires and adapt their progression according to them. Governments, academia, corporations, technology, the educational system are all examples of how man-made systems have taken a life of their own, initially evolving to satiate our (manipulated) desires, but later evolve to out-compete humanity. We must never forget that creativity and the family unit is what separated and made the West so great and no agenda can ever replace all that we have achieved and all that we are.

Annabelle @The Art of Flag-waving

Trolling matters

 

If science indicates that free-play helps animals, children and adults destress and problem solve, why do corporatists and their platforms discourage it? Trolling is the ultimate definition of adult free-play: free-flowing, interactive, non-committal and above all else, fun! So I ask myself, why would governments, and their minions, bogeyman the term and dehumanise debate instigators to iNazi looking to gas millions of users.

Scientific adult free-play definition vs corporate and government definition.

There is little doubt the most amusing internet free-players are right-wing “trolls,” as they don’t hide their ideology just as they can’t hold back their quips. Creative one-liners ooze out of them like larva oozes out of a volcano. They elevate weighty debates. They stimulate powerful emotional responses. They make online interactions engaging, to the point that it becomes almost impossible not to respond, and the left’s case, to report. Either way, they hook you in and force a reaction.

Firestarter Proto-troll – non conformist, rebel, a mover and a shaker.

The political and cultural sparks set off by free-players initiate many more things. The interactions sharpen minds, finetune arguments and influence culture. Information carried by internet voices is challenging the status quo of most topics which affect our daily live. From multiculturalism to history, from fashion to finance, from music to house buying, from feminism to diet, from politicians to vested interests. As users expand their knowledge and skills, their whispers carry through, influencing others as they exercise the power of critical thinking. The flow of information, and the constant human filtering, is teaching people to recognise strawmen, distractions, propaganda, manipulation and cultural engineering. It is also emboldening them to transfer the ideas and arguments they developed online into their real lives. And our lives are becoming richer for it. So, again, I ask why would the corporatists and our governments want to make politics and culture less engaging? To answer, because they don’t want to transfer their power on to the people.

Trolling is the first organic building block to have risen from the internet digital soup. It constantly mutates and evolves, appearing and disappearing. Rendering an environment inhospitable to it only makes them more adaptive rendering it resistant.

For the first time in history, we, the people, hold the power to create a democracy that has never been seen before. The internet has already proven how power is transferred to its users, the election of Trump has proven it. Is now beginning to break down the stronghold of other institutions and organisations such as universities, which are forced to offer online degrees to remain competitive. Mainstream celebrities are being challenged with ecelebritites, who have larger followings. Newspapers, malls and mainstream music are slowly, but surely, dying and being internet alternatives are flourishing. We’re at the point that no amount of censorship or propaganda or weaponised terminology has the ability to stop this flow — we’re too far in and the tentacles of reason and power decentralisation are now too numerous. Hate-speech laws, censorship, de-platforming, demonization of free-speech is only working in making us more resilient. Hysterical reactions, genocidal messages, menses discharge masks, and the everyone-except-my-virtue- signaling are fascists, have become internet free-play laughter fodder. We have become critics, journalists, commentators, reporters, comedians and philosophers. We are replacing the fake media and all of the slop-suckers attached to them. It is only a matter of time that “the enemy of the people” shall be demoted to historical trash soon to be forgotten. Trolls, through intellectual play, have weaponised humanity.

The corporatist historical contribution to humanity.

Trolls are making politics great again, their wit and memes are the new Oscar Wilde play. The fire they ignite steadily grows to illuminate the importance of freedom of speech. We are moving into a new horizon based on reason and democracy and there’s no stopping it.

Internet trolling is the new Oscar Wilde play. Long live the troll!

It is time.

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

12 Socialist rules for identity politics play

According to Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens, everyone except for Labor, the Liberals and the Greens, are dividing the nation with identity politics tactics. But the truth is, they do use identity politics to gain votes, but have also fine tuned how to concealed their tactic by following the some basic rules.

1. Re-define reality.

Redefine democracy to mean socialism. It’s the only way people are able to accept such a wacky, envy-driven ideology and accept being tax-serfs for minorities.

 

2.  Infantilise minds.

Strip people’s independence, accountability and self-soothing environments which teach how to become adults and replace with undiscerning thinking, dependency, hand-outs and a nanny state.

 

3.  Promote the under-classes as the new super-classes.

Incentivise and recruit the vunerable and the limited with the promise of gold and supremacy.

 

4.  Dehumanise, demonise and discriminate the majority of Australians.

Privileged rapist.

 

5.  Sectionalise and create quarrelling identities.  Divide and conquer.

Equalise the inequality gap despite statistical analysis, limitations, what the minorities really want, where their talents lay, the resentment and hatred caused and displacing and scarring countless children.

 

6.  Use the struggle and noise created to further strip citizens of their rights.

Build platforms and armies of useful idiots who will allow for the insertion of more hate-speech, anti-discrimination, anti-free speech, anti-self-defense, anti-white laws and the implementation of minority quotas. Sneak in more anti-terrorist laws for good measure. (Never lose an opportunity to oppress)

 

7.  Shame people who refuse to join the Borg.

Anyone who attempts to point out the replacement of democracy with socialism occuring in Australia  is a big meanie or a troll.

 

8.  Camouflage the hypocrisy.

How can we possibly be divisive and play identity politics if we protect the underclasses, the victims and the minorities? We’re here to help because we care…

 

9.  Use minorties as human shields for self-protection.

We protect the underclasses and minorities. Even if it means that all whites must die.

 

10.  Deflect criticism.

Lalalalalala! Racist, racist, racist! Then ban, limit and censor to fix the problem.

 

11.  Create a bogeyman

People who do not agree with us are all Nazis!

 

12.  If all modes of control fail then attack and destroy.

Paper stone or scissors: fire, dox or assault.

 

Australian politicians have become extremely adept at using identity politics and then covering their tracks with these 12 shallow rules because dividing a culture pays excellent vote dividents. However, in doing so they are also exposing themselves to excellent chances for treason charges by a populist who may rise in the future.  I wouldn’t wanna be in their red, sparkly, tranny shoes should that happen…

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

A hard lesson in equality

 

Having a bit of free time, I thought it would be a good idea to stuff some extra wadding into my pillow of political knowledge to help me boost my little blog, so I enrolled in a couple of courses at Macquarie Uni.  What could be a better way to broaden one’s thinking and sharpen one’s debate skills, right? Right? Riiight??? Right…

Anyhoo …6pm of day 1 and I’ve already been insulted and reprimanded twice by my totalitarian tutor, who then proceeded to ban me from the class discussion forums, delete my second post and edit-out 3/4 of my original post. How many freshmen can boast such a feat I less than 24 hours and all whilst the other oblivious “Hi I’m Mohammad/Li/Hardik and I’m appreciative to be here!” students were too engrossed in the really the important part of the course – introductions.

So now you’re probably wondering what were these terrifying and traumatic posts which have scarred countless souls? Well, Here is the first:

 

Annabelle Post 1

Hi All

I am currently reading the Income & Wealth Inequality in Australia brief and I am taken aback by its biased perspective.

Firstly, I find it somewhat concerning that TIA’s (The Australian Institute) main donor is the Katers (leftist Zionist elites). Surely the Katers would apply some pressure onto TAI to propagandise their perspectives and goals and TAI would oblige to their requests as their survival relies on their donations?

Equally concerning is that the brief bases most of its arguments on an ex-senior vice president of the World Bank and a Georgist! (Georgism: private land ownership is abolished and all land becomes public.) At least with communism you get to keep a bit of land free of charge, but Georgism seems to be a hybrid of the worst of communism and the worst of corporatism. (Imagine if Australia were to be taken over by a foreign force with Georgism laws in place …I shudder!) I find myself unable to trust the opinion of such a person.

Thirdly, TAI has built its argument of the widening gap mostly on the concept that the main reason for the widening gap is that the ATO is not redistributing wealth. It even goes so far as to state the purpose of taxes is wealth distribution! (What about defence and infrastructure!?). TAI ignores to tackle many other reasons for the growing inequality in Australia, some of which being:

1. Widening inequality is an indication of a declining democracy (Chomsky). Since democracy can only exist in nations with average IQs of 90+, the constant influx of non-westerns into Australia is steadily pushing down the national IQ average. An argument can be made that the widening inequality gap is a symptom of multiculturalism.

2. The extremely high migration rates in Australia are increasing work competition. Employers can easily navigate lower salary jobs through such large human resource pools.

3. An economy structured on a two salary system, where women no longer have the choice to manage households are increasing job competition.

4. Exorbitant house prices in Australia is also contributing to the gab and some of the reason are:
     A. State governments are not releasing land. I think this is being encouraged            by a UN mandate (???)
     B. Houses are being snatched by non-Australians citizens (an estimate of                 15%+ of houses Australia wide, which would translate to a much higher %           in Sydney or Melbourne). Australian citizens are being out-competed.

5. Inadequate infrastructure to handle shifting the workforce further out of the city.

I may list more issues in the coming days. In the meantime I’d love to hear your opinions!
Annabelle

 

Tot-tut response 1

Dear Anna,

It is great to see that you have jumped straight into the reading for the week, and engaging in the forum, although you need to keep in mind that if you do this before the lecture, you may have the reading out of context. The first part of your post was thoughtful and to the point. However, your post went a little too far towards the end. It is quite opinionated and given that you don’t know anyone in the course, may give offence. I will be editing the section that I am concerned about.

Please bear in mind that students in the OUA stream in particular, but in the course in general may come from anywhere, and may be in any kind of situation. They may also come from anywhere, including outside Australia. They may be any age up from 13 years old. It would be best if you stick to the themes of the week and a considered reflection on argument of the reading, as your post began. The forums are learning spaces, not free speech spaces.
I hope you understand that I have an obligation to keep the space a welcoming space to all students. I am not discouraging dissenting views, by any means, and it was good to see another student challenge some of your views on the reading, but your post became a little too polemical for comfort – and polemics do not make for positive discussion.

Regards,
S

 

Annabelle Post 2

Heya

The only solution I see in this brief is taxes and more taxes and increase benefits. It also has a tendency to concentrate on millionaires over billionaires. Penalising the entrepreneurs is only going to assist the monster-corporations monopolies. The paper treads carefully over this point probably because TAI does not want to displease its primary (billionaire) donor.

There are a lot of cultural and economic ramifications in increasing benefits and taxes, yet not one is explored. For instance, what happens to the dignity of a nation where the State encourages benefits and rewards the non-earners over the earners? Independence is the building block of dignity. Independence also prevents tyrannical states from developing. I find this paper to be, at best, infantile and at worst deceitful.

To answer you, and please excuse my chops, but since I don’t agree with your connections I’ve broken down your questions to better lay out my ideas:
           

              Do you think we can correlate a declining democracy and income                             inequality with multiculturalism…
Yes. This is easily confirmed by simply looking at a world map and matching government systems to IQ averages.

              …when that has formed a fundamental part of Australia’s business,                         arts, sciences, events and lifestyle?”
Historically speaking, a monoculture has built both Australias (Aboriginal and Western) and Western foundations still dominate Australia. Western subcultures may differ in customs, diet and languages, but they unify in a single culture – the Western Christian culture. Hence, I do not consider Australia to have evolved through multiculturalism.

At present, Australia is beginning to go through a balkanisation of competing cultures, all wanting access to its resources. Elites are motivated by these conflicts as it advantages them. To paraphrase Margaret Mitchel, there is a lot more money to be made from the destruction of a nation than its construction.

               Australia has an obligation to accept, based upon international                                  obligations under human rights law and current domestic laws.
I abide by 3 obligations: 1. Myself (or God, if one believes) 2. My family & 3. My country. The obligation to the whole world belongs to the progressives, and I am not a progressive. The elites have everything to gain to demonise my ideology and globalise the world into one economy, as it would serve to expand their wealth and corporate monopolies.

2. Whilst I do see your perspective, I believe woman still have the choice to manage households. This choice appears only to be declining because of an increasing opportunity to participate which in turn contributes to decreasing gender income inequality.

For now families with $200K+ incomes or remote/some rural areas still have this choice, the majority of median income couples have to transfer their children’s ownership to the State and to day-care centres. I don’t think this paper even bothers to explore house prices and it most certainly does not look at the psychological effects of children being raised by institutions.

As for the gender pay gap, I don’t consider this brief is being honest. There are a lot of reasons as to why there are differences in the overall earnings between men and women and I’m not certain that they are negatives.

Annabelle

 

Tot-tut response 2

Anna,

You have already made your position clear. I am asking you to consider Netiquette before you post any further. It is not your opinions that are wanted, but a considered reflection of the course material. Since you have not had the opportunity to hear the lecture and apparently haven’t yet read the second reading, you are not doing this. I would appreciate it if you refrained from any further posts on the material in week 1 until you have heard the lecture and had time to think about why the reading has been set.

Regards,
S

This message was then followed by a forum closure. On day 3 the forum reappeared and my post 1 was slaughtered and reduced to this:

Annabelle Post 1 (edited by the Tot-tut)

Hi All
I am currently reading the Income & Wealth Inequality in Australia brief and I am taken aback by its biased perspective.

TAI has built its argument of the widening gap mostly on the concept that the main reason for the widening gap is that the ATO is not redistributing wealth. It [] state[s] the purpose of taxes is wealth distribution! (What about defence and infrastructure!?). TAI ignores to tackle many other reasons for the growing inequality in Australia.

Annabelle

Tot-tut removed Post 2

Annabelle’s transparent response 

Dear Tot-tut,

As you are using AusPol forum master privilege to intimidate, blackmail and bully me, I think a little transparency is well in order.  I write my response here, where the internet is my oyster and you are unable to censor me.

I had no idea that there were mandatory chronological rules for resources analysis.  So I should wait for both lectures, then read all the copious communist toilet worthy recommended reading list before I can utter a single word?  But wouldn’t that be enabling inequality to resources access as it would only leave me 3 days of interactive play?  Naïve little me thought that the point of a board is to challenge the resources and each other to deepen and clarify understanding and viewpoints. For the record, I made it abundantly clear that I was tackling the article, not the other shallow article, not the extra recommended reading, not the ever so subtle communist indoctrination lecture. As you say, context is important.

I don’t know anyone in the course, nor do I know you,  They, in turn, don’t know who I am and nor do you. And that’s fine, the forum is not a popularity pageant, it’s supposed to be an on-topic exchange in ideas and arguments. The internet is transforming everything. Universities going online is only the first step, the next shall be making people the likes of you redundant. It is the ultimate tool for democracy, a point missed by you, your ever so honest place-a-question-mark-at-the-end-of-my-leftist-persuasions-to-cover-myself boss, your institution and all of your other expired reading material.

For the record, I am most certainly am opinionated and controversial. Qualities, which I may add, are prerequisites for political careers. Please see, what’s the name of that other puritanical whore who called all men rapist? Her. Out of curiosity, do you also consider her anti-men woman supremacist stance opinionated and polemic? (Just wondering.)

Through this online open letter, I am confirming to you, as well as to the internet, that I am refusing to censor my on-topic critical thinking just so not to risk offending non-Western students and prepubescents. I am not responsible for other people’s feelings nor am I a baby sitter. If Western reason above passion value offends them, they are free to enrol in universities of their own culture. Australian universities should be tailored for Australians, as we are paying for them. Not that I believe for one instance that such people even care about my post – you are a coward who uses anonymous faces to protect your weak puritanical whore-like opinions and values.

Who are you really kidding, anyway? Fanatical Middle-eastern supremacists adore Adolf Hitler; racist Asians call us the “big-nosed trash of the Pacific;” Negroes are too busy on murder and rape rampages; commie academics twitter on a daily basis calls to genocide the West; and the majority of our prepubescents are Pepe loving neo-Nazis. Get with the programme.

I was completely on track and sticking to the theme of Inequality and was doing it by pointing our ho limited and out-of-date that communist policy brief is, which only serves to impart anti-human values. I provided a few points to demonstrate how shallow and subversive the report is, but I could have easily listed quite a few more. Despite your hysterical, fake-scandalised reaction used to substantiate your offensive and oppressive behaviour towards me.

Learning without free speech (the vehicle which carries critical thinking) is the equivalent of memorising and regurgitating the Quran. How about you go cover yourself in a synthetic tent rag, point your toosh up in an inviting manner and recite the Karl Marx, instead of imposing your communist derived values on to me.

I’ll end this little tete-a-tete with the best quote of the week “There is no attempt to compress anyone into a set of ideas or beliefs. This is very much an open study and you find your own way to conclusions that you frame and shape.” – Prof Geoffrey cast-a-stone-and-hide-the-hand Hawker 26 February 2019 lecture.

Times are changing, S, the internet is morphing into the ultimate frame for our ideas and beliefs. Get ready for a very tight gap.

Sincerely,
Annabelle

The death of the neo-liberal puritanical whore

The weak confuse puritanism with purity. And courage with surrender.

 

When I see an elderly woman soliciting feminism my immediate thought is that she is making a retirement fund investment.  Only a woman of retirement age could be so oblivious to the cultural swing occurring in the West – puritanical whore-ism is on the way out.

No comment for fear of offending irony.

I cannot think of a better way to capture this blossoming cultural shift than with Julie Bishop’s (second) staged resignation. A contaminated old heart waving a lily-white frock, whilst threatening to spill the dirt on her party should they not pass her seat on to another puritanical whore.  Powerless, unpopular amongst her peers and discarded by her owner into a final disposable farewell performance, she dictates and threatens tens of senators (our cuckold PM inclusive) with a “do as I say or else.’  And what is Julie Bishop capable of exactly? Will she ssspit regurgitated poison or write yet another strategically timed, make-believe political memoir packed with pedestrian spite? Yawn. Show me the nuclear missiles or get out, has-been Medusa.

Women of strength have always existed and they do not use infantile feminist tactics to gain power. They choose to weaponise their cryptographs and anchor their bloodhounds’ devotion.  Indeed, such a woman was Thatcher who weaponised the colour blue, turning it into an anti-comunista flag which decorated her structured suits-armor.  Queen Elizabeth I, another powerhouse, weaponised her chaste sexuality to circumvent masculine barriers and to weave herself, her nation and her religion together. She engineered her persona into an iconic symbol that embodied crown, people and culture – power’s holy trinity.

Thatcher turned the Tory blue into an anti-comunista war flag.Those lacking resources are not in a position to bluff – puritanism is a cloak for the corrupt and a noose for the strong.  Feminism is a control mechanism for the weak to prevent the strong from rising …but the illusion is shattering. Good riddance to weakness and power be to the rebirth of the West’s Glorianas!

A barren wasteland cannot dictate terms.

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

(Ghost) Busting the Parliament House

A long time ago, in the evil, evil Kerry Packer headquarters, there hid a nasty, little Slimer which took advantage of Mr. Packer’s uncivilized behaviour. Kerry Packer, one of Australia’s esteemed mafioso elites, having the patience of a pit-bull and the intuition of a dung beetle, would summon his staff by calling them and abruptly stating, “ Kerry Packer here, come to my office.” Then terminating his calls with the same finesse as his introduction. Of course, such refinement and empathy inspired immediate attention, and those who chose not to obey his laws a pink invitation slip would greet them following day.

The resourceful, little Slimer took advantage of Kerry’s unsophisticated ways and put it to use by creating his very own staff filtering system. It would call journalists and staff members impersonating the God-dung Himself. When the oblivious staff member promptly reported himself to the Dung-ball’s chamber, he would be greeted with foul language followed by a pink slip.
Word travelled quickly through the evil headquarters, but no one was brave enough to tell Mr Dung the truth. Staff chose to live in fear over facing the evil master in person. If the fake dung beetle called and the journalist chose to follow through the request, they risked being fired.  If it was the real dung beetle who called and the journalist did not proceed, they also risked being fired. Quite a conundrum. Soon enough, after several staff reshuffles, the Slimer achieved his goal and was never heard of again.

For some coincidental reason, the recent poltergeist activities occurring in the federal Parliament House prompted this old phantasmagorical memory to appear in my head, again.  And is it any wonder with all the paranormal activities occurring on a daily basis!?  Lights switch off and on at the most inopportune moment.  Alarm bells are sounded just when the rapefugee panic gripped the pollies.  Ghost hatters are hacking into pollies servers.  And an innocent staff member who was prancing around the corridors of the parliament very late at night, minding his own business, suddenly got possessed by an evil entity which turned him into a serial killer forcing him to strike an elderly senator and drawing blood!  Could there be naughty,  little Gremlins or Slimers living in the air ducts of the Parliament House or is this entity something more sinister? And what is its end-game?  If I worked there an unregistered nuclear accelerator sure would sound mighty appealing.  My advice: learn to meditate and purify your souls  as you never know is God appears before you and asks, ” Choose the form of your destructor.”

Could Sarah Hanson-Young have fed a cute little gremlin after midnight after her routine midnight rendezvous?

 

Was James Ashby slimed or possessed?

 

Why is a resourceful Gremlin hacking into the pollies’ servers?

 

Is an Annabelle doll being displayed in one of the glass cabinets?

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving