Is the Rugby World cup a Spectacular event or has it become a farce for rich syndicates?

As the Rugby world cup 2019 progresses, there are some themes that are becoming increasingly evident

1. The complexion of the teams is growing darker.
2. The pacific island nations are performing below par.
3. The refereeing decisions have been inconsistent and had undue influence on outcomes

Let’s look at each of these in more detail

The complexion of teams is growing darker

This is an observation I made almost 10 years ago. But 5 world cups ago it was a near 100% white affair. Yea, there might have been the odd Maori in the All-Blacks and the token black in the Springboks. But that was about it – it was as white as snow white.
Over the last 20 years, with the All-Blacks increasingly becoming all black, with the Polynesian Islander body type proving to be ideal for the sport, other white nations have struggled to compete.
Each of the white rugby nations have had to adopt differing strategies to address this. France has tapped the Africans from their former colonies. England’s strategy has been more complex. They have tried to tap their African’s from the colonies with less success. So their strategy has been to buy them from either Africa or the pacific islands. South Africa has been forced to rely on their own majority population. The All-Blacks, who started this trend, have an ample supply of Maori's and other Polynesian islanders who are welcome to that country.
The Wallabies struggle to leverage the Polynesian communities resident there, mostly because of the racist and elitist attitudes of Rugby Australia – the governing body, who have, for ages, been reliant on the exclusive private schools to deliver a pool of rich pesky little white boys to play the sport. It worked for a while when the competition presented similar looking teams of pesky little white boys – but not anymore. So, the strategy has been to poach Polynesians from other codes of the game or buy them.
Japan simply buys them although it is evident that they are the best coached and a well drilled team displaying technical superiority and so, performing well above the individual talent in the team.
Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy have had limited options and probably lack the funds to splash on Polynesian stars and so, mostly remain white and uncompetitive – and I say that despite Ireland ridiculously being ranked 1.

The Pacific Island nations are performing below par

At first glance it may seem that this contradicts my statement about the Polynesian body type being the most suited for the sport. These players display flair, speed, power, manoeuvrability and perhaps the only attribute they may lack is height for certain roles in the sport.
Whilst in the previous world cups, these nations have shown improvement from one world cup to the next, this year they have, as a group, failed to impress. Tonga, Samoa and Fiji have all had no impact in this world cup.
This is ironic, because it is their own people who are strengthening the other nations who are beating them. It is the lack of funds and facilities that prevent them from providing the incentives to keep their best players.
Last night Japan beat Samoa with Samoans scoring for both sides. It was disheartening to watch the numbers peal off the Samoan jumpers – an appropriate reflection of the funding of the two teams.

The refereeing decisions have been inconsistent and had undue influence on outcomes

This third theme is somewhat unrelated to the general gist of this discussion, but I have included it here as I don’t plan to write a further entry simply for this topic.
In one the early games, the Wallaby winger illegally tackled a Fijian play maker. The offence resulted in a simply a penalty against the Wallabies but knocked out the Fijian player from the tournament. In contrast an English player slides to avoid a tackle by a Puma lock and there is contact above the shoulder. The decision made by the referee was to red card the Puma putting an end to the team’s prospects of getting into the quarter finals. This English player fakes an injury and simply gets up, dusts himself and plays the rest of the game and tournament. In effect the pedantic Nigel Owens, ensured England’s progress and destroys the prospects of one of the few nations (apart from Japan, as the Polynesian nations are under performing) that might have disrupted the usual established eight teams from getting into the final stages of the tournament.
High tackles are a serious offence, however, there are different levels and situations under which contact can happen above the shoulder. If one took this too seriously, there wouldn’t be a single player on the field at the end of each game – they’d be all red carded! The issue is that the penalty should be proportional to the impact of the illegality. For instance, the Wallaby player should have been banned for the rest of the tournament since that was the case for the Fijian star. The Puma should have been yellow carded and back on the field in 10 – considering the English player didn’t even end-up going for a concussion test. Make it even more interesting by letting the opposition decide which player needed to face the consequence – that would really make the coaches ensure they didn’t field thugs.
The more cynical of you would see a trend here. The minnows of the game are consistently treated unfairly in favour of the “controlling” nations. This is not unique to Rugby, it happened in cricket where the white nations did not want Sri Lanka in test cricket because of the possible loss of white control. We now have the sport completely controlled by a coloured nation.

So, what should we make of all of this?

Last night I watched Japan play Samoa, but it seemed like a multi-national syndicate play Somoa. I watched England play a 14 man Argentina and once again, it seemed like a multi-national syndicate play Argentina. The Wallabies walloped Uruguay and guess what, it seemed like a multi-national syndicate play Uruguay.
The question is, has it become farcical to have this tribal tournament with passionate jingoistic patriots supporting their tribe, when really the teams representing them have nothing much to do with them other than to get lots of money for their efforts.
The teenager sharing our dwellings suggested to me that it would not be fair to exclude people who migrated to countries from the sport. But the reality is that no Polynesian is welcomed in white-supremacist England other than to help England win the world cup and they are paid well for it.
This is the case in Australia as well. Polynesian’s are welcome to pick fruit or help us win world cups whether it be NRL or rugby union. Australia now has migrant from Africa who could be moulded into great rugby players, but the preference is to label them as “gangs” and “thugs” and mistreat them.
Since rugby converted to a professional sport, players have migrated to places where they can make their lives and their loved ones lives comfortable – who can blame them for that. But no codified rules can really address the fact that these teams no longer reflect the nations that they represent.
So, why worry about them representing nations anymore? Why not make them complete commercial syndicates? Are we in denial about the truth? Or will the more wealthy nations, who have historically controlled the sport, continue to prefer the advantage their wealth provides them to boost the jingoistic egos of their citizens. We cannot ignore that there is commercial value in jingoism. Perhaps things will change when China decides that it wanted to win the Rugby World cup!

Has racism on the Australian cricket field changed?

An unnoticed implication of the recent unusual weather patterns was that for many of us in the cricketing community there were unfortunate implications. My team, for instance, was knocked out of the running for the championship due to our games being washed out.

While reminiscing about this with the current skipper of the team the discussion drifted on to the progress of the young 'uns in the team and some of the rather unsavoury events of the season, as these conversation usual do. The topic of sledging on the field by one of the clubs young ‘uns came up with potential disciplinary action being required.

This got me thinking about how much the conduct on the cricket field has changed in Australia over the years and yet, in many ways it's still where we were 30 years ago.

Close to thirty years ago, when I first migrated to Australia one didn't really see many sub-continental (or any non-Anglo Saxon really) on the cricket field. It was quite unusual for a team to have even one Asian on the team sheet. In this "white" world of cricket, I was the skipper of an all sub-continental team. Not a great place to be in when the stereotypical view of most Aussies was that we were a bunch of cheats.

We were playing in a high grade and had black and white (official) umpires. For a bunch of individuals who had previous played all their cricket in the sub-continent this really was a culture shock. Back "home" one cheered and encouraged your own players and never even contemplated directing comments at the opposition - it just would not be tolerated all the way from school cricket upwards. But over here it was completely different - not only were we battling the usual Aussie "win at all cost" mentality (to which I would add "never ever lose to a coloured team"), we would be bombarded with sledging mostly of a racial nature. That was the accepted norm for us and we usually never degraded ourselves retaliating.

I particularly recall an incident where one of my opening bowlers, faced with some racial slander from the opposition, gave it back to the batsmen. The battle continued throughout the over. This young (17-18yrs) strapping (6'4" - 6'6") Pakistani lad was from the school of hard knocks (schooled in Granville) and probably faced every possible racial insult/act thinkable (by Anglo-Saxons and they have a great tradition) through-out his schooling and most likely stopped the insults through terrorising and bashing up the cowardly little "whities" to pulp whenever he had the opportunity!

As the skipper of the side, in my wisdom(!), I decided that I would not tolerate such behaviour from one of my team members. So, at the end of the over, I asked him to leave the field and take a break until he had calmed down. His brother was in the team, and decided he would walk off the field as well, and so we were two fielders short (both our opening bowlers) for a few overs.

The incident was reported to the Penrith (yes, good ole' Aussie red neck territory - the guys still in search of Marie Antoinette's cake!) cricket council and resulted in a hearing. As the skipper of the side, I had to submit an incident report and attend the session.

There was I, expecting to have a rational discussion with individuals of at least some level of intellect - after all this was the mob that ran cricket for the district! But what I was fronted with was a bunch of old crusty relics whose only achievements in life was probably to poop in their pants when facing an enemy that they outnumbered 5-1 and out gunned 2-1 (we love to glorify these poor souls, but that's a story for another day!). I was clearly naïve to expect a slightly higher level of intellect amongst a group of people who were supposedly administering what was the national sport.

The conversation was rather dismal. We had the umpire saying to the panel that the comments made from the batsmen were no worse than the average slang that was used at any school bus stop. I must say I was rather concerned about the paedophile instinct of this old man (a national pastime) and I wondered what school bus stops he hung around! The panel were hardly able to string a sentence together let alone formulate logic that would produce a fair outcome.

The result was that my team member was suspended a couple of games and the opposition - the "white" boys - got away with nothing. Racial slurs were really a school boy conversation and were not considered out of the normal!

It was probably the first time ever in Australia that a skipper took action by disciplining his own team during a match and upheld the "culture" of the sport over and above winning. This was a concept that was way beyond the comprehension of the pathetic mob that was the panel and was seen as an admission of guilt and worked against my team member.

Our team successfully reached the final. But then decided to cheat (somewhat justifying the Aussie stereotypical notion of sub-continentals) by including players, using false IDs, in the final. I refused to have anything to do with it and after some convincing agreed to play the game but forfeited the captaincy. We justifiably lost the final.

The conversation then moved on to whether I would be playing the next year. Like many of the old cronies in the club, I too would front up season after season. He suggested that I should skipper a team the next year. I politely declined.

At this club, I have skippered the side on several occasions (and whilst not counting, I've never lost a game as skipper!) as a stand-by but never as the official skipper for the season. Whilst the club has improved it's tolerance to non-white members, the West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Cricket Club still struggles to give them any form of authority. Whilst the player base must have anything between 25-50% sub-continentals most of whom are playing lower grades than they should, the management and captains are pretty much all white (I believe there is one coloured skipper and the background behind that was that a group of sub-continentals wanted to play together in a team). So, in effect what you have is the White Lords and their Indians!

In all of the teams I've played in the club, I had the greatest capability whether it was in the skills department, leadership and cricketing knowledge/experience and definitely in the intellectual capability. However, I was never considered to skipper a team because I had what the club considered unconceivable tastes in enjoying some culture. I would have to leave an hour or so early on around 3 or 4 days over a season to attend the ballet or opera! I was told by the club president that the team would not "respect" me. The reality has been quite different, skipper of otherwise, I have always been the most respectable player in the team simply because it didn't take much for the team to realise that on all fronts I was way ahead of the rest. And of course I have yet to come across a skipper that hasn't had to leave early or was away for some games. In fact that is precisely how I've captained some of the games.

Now whilst I play in the club simply for convenience, I don't really have any interest in the club anymore. What's worse is that it's probably one of the more diverse clubs in Australia.

The thing is that the intellect of the cricketing bureaucracy has not changed from the times of those nincompoops of the likes of the Chappells, Marshes (Rodney) and Lillees. If you look at the current administration we have a coach named Boof (short for boofhead - meaning dumb as!)which pretty much sums it up for him, a skipper and deputy who are just dumb and dumber.

The recent incidents in India, where the Australian cricket team were caught out systematically cheating is proof of their intellect. Clearly the leadership should note that they simply are not smart enough to cheat without getting caught out. And then we had the CEO of Cricket Australia attempting to back his skipper (who had already admitted to cheating) rather than doing the sensible thing of not commenting. Proving that he is no smarter!

So, all in all has there really been a change? Well as with society in general, while Australia is in denial about its racism, society is showing some resistance to being openly racist, although the current government seems to been wanting more of racism. The answer to the question is "Yes and No" the racism is simply more hidden. With time it will change but not because of a change in the Anglo Saxons but due to strength of Australia's migrant population.

Did India bow down to her ole’ master?

A series between India and Australia can never go bye without some controversy. But the current series, contrary to what most might think, suggests that nothing has really changed in the power structure over the century. The Anglo Saxon white nations still dominate the politics, the sub-continent still bows down to their old master and the umpiring continues to be biased (though less so) against the coloured nations. The events of the second test, disappointingly, was proof of this.

It is to be expected that the sub-standard parrot-like Australian journalist would be incapable of analysing and presenting the full facts and all we would get is a one-eyed view of the incidents. But what was alarming was how the Indian cricket board (BCCI) were completely submissive to their old master the ICC. Here was an incident where the Australian skipper cheated and admitted to it (previous Aussie skippers would never admit cheating) but the dithering BCCI were incapable of getting any form of action taken against him! The so called roaring BCCI, mouse like, simply got on all fours and worshipped their old master - old habits die hard!

The Australian cricketing community can say what they like, but this was systematic cheating of the nature that has not been seen in the game ever. It was systematic because the whole team were in it as was evident from the fact that Smith and "Petey" both knew what to do and it had occurred repetitively in the test and who knows how many times before. If the Indians had noted this and informed the umpires previously and were so prepared (as was evident in the video) for it when it reoccurred, one has to believe it had been a topic of discussion previously. The only one who was in a daze at the time was that doozy of an umpire Nigel Llong. The Indians were on to Smith in a Jiffy - the doozy was on to the Indians for reacting - the video is quite comical, you can see him in a daze!

Now when you look at it from the Australian cricket team's point of view, one can fully understand why they resort to this sort of cheating. For one, they need to and secondly because they just can. They need to because they have a bunch of dumb players lead by dumb and dumber and coached by Mr Dumbest and so incapable of making sensible decisions on the field. It is not surprising that a group in that situation would resort to cheating. And they can, because as has been proven over and over again and clearly this time too, they got away with it. As Virat implied, any other team, particularly from the sub-continent would have been severely chastised.

What was most cowardly about the whole episode was they decided to use poor young Peter Handscomb as a scapegoat. The skipper was now taking instructions from the second youngest member of the team! Crucifying Peter was simply cowardly!

In the last score or so years, all innovation in cricket (excepting the metal bat- Australia's proud contribution) has come from the sub-continent, whether it be in the techniques in the game or the formats of the game. And the Anglo Saxon dominated white power block has reacted in many stupid ways. Remember the Doosra and reverse swing.

One of the biggest controversies in cricket was when the Australian cricket bureaucracy decided they would take action against Murali - the best off-spinner ever. He was creating sufficient havoc around the world and they clearly didn't like it. So, they pre-planned action against him. Due to the rather dismal level of intellect of the participants it ended up in Emerson and Hair's hands to make the call.

What was dumb founding for the rest of us, was not so much that they called it, but that these two dumbos couldn't differentiate between Muralis off spin and leg spin. Whilst Murali was an off-spinner, Ranatunga (the Sri Lankan skipper) requested him to finish the over bowling leg spinners, where his action could not be questioned. But the ineptitude of these Aussie umpires was such that they couldn't differentiate it and simply called it a no-ball regardless (a fact that one will never read in white newspapers). All of this despite the fact that it had already been proven (medically and through scientific analysis) that Murali was bowling within the rules.

It left no doubt, in the more sensible of us, that this was all premeditated and these umpires were incompetent and pretty much racist - as was proven over and over again thereafter. This was a time when it was, within the white nations at least, assumed that all sub-continental umpires were cheats and they were clean - despite the fact that they had complete dumbos and even paedophiles amongst them. It took time for the sub-continent to get enough control of the authorities to get rid of them from the game. Technology has played a great part in highlighting and getting rid of the cheating white umpires. The outcome is that the sub-continent now dominates the game.

Murali had to face the brunt of the white dumbo buraucracy when he brought into the game another innovation - the doosra. It was quite amusing to listen to the many white commentators of the time suggesting that it was physically impossible. Unfortunately, of course, the Australian so called "experts" were the usual dumbos of the game Ian Chappell, who's the guy with the big nose again (Bill Lawry), Marsh - that dumb lot. The doosra is now a standard part of an off-spinner's artillery.

Another white debacle was the reverse swing controversy. Sub-continental bowler, ball swinging towards the "shiny" side - must be cheating - ball tampering - sound white dumbo logic. If my recollection is right, the Pakistani skipper was banned for a number of games simply because the white bureaucracy decided they were cheating. "It was scientifically proven that this could not happen" they would say. Of course, we all know now that it is possible and even the whities are learning how to do it themselves.

These are examples of the ICC white justice. Coloured players penalised for white dumbness and when there is obvious cheating in the case of dumb Smith, they decide that it's ok. As Gavaskar says, Kohli should do the same in the next test and see what the outcome is - a complete mockery of the rules of the game.

The disappointing message that comes through is that in all it's grand gestures and talk, the BCCI is a mere timid mouse when it comes to its Old master dishing out dumb decisions. White racist power still rules in the game of cricket.

PohMs and Circumstances

The question is, why do the PoHMs do this to themselves. In a matter of decades they have deteriorated from an empire dominating the world to the common prostitutes of anyone that might take them.

As the rest of the world were cautiously assessing the results of the stupidity of America, Theresa May lifts her skirt up and wiggles her touché at Donald "Duck" Trump (with the littlest hands and dick, of course). She then sells herself and her nation by offering the Duck a state visit and an opportunity to "do" her Queen as well.

It's not as if the Donald Duck's character was unknown to all and his first week of presidency has been completely unexpected. Most of us and the rest of Europe knew that he was simply a dumb, pussy grabbing grub. The PoHM's gung-ho behaviour was so indicative of what we saw prior to the Iraq war. To complete the axis of willing and incompetent, we had the ridiculous Turnbull call soon after (The GuSWhiSuCs at their prime)

What is ironic about all of this is that whilst the leader of the house of commons was able to save the house of the embarrassment of having Donald Duck address them the poor queen's simply gotta bend over and take it! So much for being the Queen of England! The things Lizzy does for her dumb subjects. Her carriage partners have more often than not been African despots and ruthless Arab monarchy, with the exception of Nelson Mandela.

So, I keep asking myself, Why do the dismal PoHMs do this to themselves?!

Which Blonde Bimbo would you rather Bonk?

Well this was one that I simply could not let pass by - the pussy fight of the blonde bimbos or “Two Bimbos and the Shrink”. It exposed the real Aussie work place and does put in context how artificial the whole women's liberation thing is in Anglo Saxon culture. This whole thing of an older blonde chic desperately attempting to compete against an up and coming younger blonde chic based purely on the bonkability factor (sex appeal) is very much a symptom of Western society and particularly Anglo Saxon based society.

Blonde Bimbo pussy fight

So, as much as we may want to go on about women's equality, as long as Western women assess their own self-worth simply on the basis of their bonkability rating, nothing really is going to change.

The real test is that if you gave images of the three chics and asked any Anglo Saxon, which one was the doctor, most if not all would pick it right.

I must say Shnooky looked particularly hot in her little "blue" number (can't say I've ever seen her before and I suspect the outfit barely covered her knickers!) - much more sexy than the old hen. It sorta equalised after she got the ugly “black” jacket on. Shnooky was never going to "remember" to wear a jacket. She wasn't going to down-grade her bonkability rating without a fight! She probably hoped the old hen would ignore it. The false expression on her face when ole hen brought it up is simply gold! A lesson for the Shnook - old chics aint gonna let you young chics get ahead too easy!!!

The media and the public went crazy over analysing the situation and attempting to rationalise it in the context of a sophisticated society. But, it really was a straight forward pussy fight - old hen, with declining bonkability rating, attempting to keep her job. Anglo Saxon culture is simple, carnal and predictable. Regardless of what one might say they both have their jobs because of their bonkability - that's how the Anglo Saxon world works. They certainly don't hold their positions due to their intellect! But then, which blonde chic does?!

The best part of the video was the shrink’s reactions which changed from amusement to disdain and complete disbelief (at the nature of the pussy fight) to an almost horrified look. Being quick thinking she offered to get a jacket on herself. But no, the ugly mother hen, needed the bonkable chic to look ugly! Of course the old hen could always have picked up a jacket herself, right?! WRONG!!

In reality, it is most probably that neither is blonde. They just have to be to work in the Anglo Saxon TV industry. Blondes have a higher bonkability rating in their culture. So, audiences are greater which means more money. Try finding a non-blonde chic on Aussie commercial TV!

The other amusing aspect was how they all switched on their happy faces in a matter of seconds and the program went through faultless. Complete superficial drivel.

Whilst Anglo Saxons make a habit of picking on faults of other cultures when it comes to treatment of women, maybe they should take a real good look at themselves! No culture sexualises their women in the way the Anglo Saxons do – and sadly it’s done by both the men and women!

So getting back to the original question of, which blonde bimbo would you rather bonk?! Frankly, I say “stuff the blondes” (pardon the pun), I bids’ the shrink!

Rage for Respect and Recognise

My dear wife, in all her wisdom, has, with vigour and determination, volunteered to work with the indigenous people of Australia in the "Recognise" movement. I don't think that she, for one moment, sat and thought through this very well and perhaps its best that she didn’t!

"Stuff Brexit and Same Sex Marriage, the "Recognise" movements challenge is far, far greater!"

This is about a group of people, who over 200 or so years, have been exterminated to a mere 3% minority of Australia. Their struggle for recognition is therefore a significantly greater challenge than Brexit or SSM and to add to things it is in an environment where the Anglo Saxons around the world have simply gone loopy (ala. Brexit, Trump, Abbot, Turnbull, Farage, Boris Johnson) and feel their domination and control of the world is under threat - Bring on the BRICS, we are sick of the GuSWhiSuCs.

What is disappointing about the situation is that none of the non-white communities in Australia realise that this movement is a struggle representing them as well - the constitution discriminates against all of them and they are blissfully ignorant or terrified to take action against it - lest they be sent home!! What's worse is that the constitution does allow the government to send them home!

There are a hand full who have read the Australian constitution (I need to confess that up front). In many ways, that’s a good thing, because it is such trash. The constitution has little impact what-so-ever in our day to day lives. The only time it does come into play is when a Neo-Con Right wing government (a la Abbott and Turnbull or Howard on behalf of Bush!) attempt to violate human rights against people who are non-white or non-Anglo Saxon . And we find, time and time again, that it is dismally ineffective at protecting human rights.

Australians just assume that, like the American constitution, theirs is one that was written by visionary, wise, forefathers of the nation and therefore it is good for the nation. The thing is that the Australian constitution was written in a completely different context from the American. Whilst Australians would love to be critical (usually they aren't intelligent enough to even contemplate it) of the American constitution, the reality is that it was written in a completely different context by people with quite different levels of intellect than the Australian.

The American constitution was written by visionaries who had just fought for liberties, freedom and independence from a brutal master. It was also during a philosophical clash about slavery - one that was successfully won by these same visionaries a few years later. This was a period of possibly the greatest change in social values in America. The drive was for blasting through shackles, opening up new opportunities, expanding the vision!

In contrast, the Australian experience was quite different. It was written by a collection of half-wit criminal ning-nongs masquerading as the social elite - judges etc.- with the intent of confirming, embedding and sustaining Anglo Saxon control across the whole continent. The drive was all about tightening the shackles on all but one, closing opportunities for all but one, narrowing the vision!

So, unlike the American constitution which has helped America prosper and remain an all-encompassing nation, the Australian constitution has only been an obstacle. And whilst Australian love to be self-adulating on matters such and racism and multiculturalism, it's more a case of the nation still being at a stage of immature denial than reality. While the rest of the world has accepted the extent of racism and are proactively acting to rectify it. We must never forget that it is this constitution that gave rise to the "White Australia" policy - one of only three (Israel and South Africa) nations that have ever had openly apartheid policy.

Many Australians (even white) would be alarmed by, not only the statements of the constitution, but also the views of the people who wrote it, if only they knew anything about it. But as I said before - they are blissfully ignorant.

Just a few excepts of the wonderful Australian constitution:

Chapter 5 - the states, section 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

"The commonwealth shall not make any law for

1. Establishing any religion; OR
2. For imposing any religious observance; OR
3. For prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

AND

No religious test shall be required as a qualification any

1. Office; OR
2. public trust

under the commonwealth"

Yours truly is no lawyer, but it appears to me that this should have been two statements. The first part is non-threatening to the Anglican Anglo Saxons (GuSWhiSuCs) and is visionary. Not so, the second part. It appears that a religious test is prevented for only two scenarios. In all other scenarios people can be discriminated based on their religion or the lack of it.

One can only think that the only religion that these ning-nongs were feeling threatened by at the time would have been Catholicism. But in the present context, it has really come in handy for the neo-cons to develop their highly religious based discriminatory laws.

One would have thought this section would have been turned upside down and rather than listing where discrimination was not possible, they said it was not possible at all and then listed some exceptions such as religious roles. But that would not have met the underlying intent of the constitution.

When it comes to racism, the whole bunch of ning-nongs were racists and not surprisingly this is reflected in the constitution.

Part 4 - Both houses of Parliament, section 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament

"The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have to powers to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to:

xxvi the people of any race for which it deemed necessary to make special laws "

This is an outrageous statement and would not exist in the constitution of any civilised society. A racist, white supremacist society maybe, but not in a civilised society. It is a clear give-away of what the constitution was intended to accomplish.

Now let's look at the views of the some of the forefathers who wrote this drivel and greatly admired by Australians.

Barton really had some colourful views on races. One would say they were second to none but Churchill. This was the villain who was Australia's first prime minister. Barton's justification for the "Races powers" clause, stated above, was paraphrased as

"It enables the parliament to deal with people of any alien race after they have entered the Commonwealth;

to localise them within defined areas, to restrict their migration, to confine them to certain occupations,

OR

to give them special protection and secure their return after a certain period to the country whence they came"

All very noble causes, it seems.

"We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilisation.”

The fool was a complete racist fraud borrowing ideas from others (Churchill and Roosevelt) and implementing to "White Australia" policy. This Dumbo plagiarised an entire statement on immigration from Roosevelt - pretty much word for word replacing America with Australia. The dumb Aussies were none the wiser!

In introducing the "White Australia" bill in parliament, this idiot said

"I do not think either that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality. There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior. The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman. There is deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can up these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement or by anything else will make some races equal to others"

It is ironic that this buffoon picked on the Chinese as it is this very race that has turned the Anglo Saxon (or Englishman's) world completely loopy!

The first Chief Justice, dick head (Sir) Sam Griffith's intelligent contribution was

"What I have had more particularly in my own mind was the immigration of coolies from British India, or any eastern people subject to civilised powers… I maintain that no state should be allowed, because the federal parliament did not choose to make a law on the subject, to allow the state to be flooded by such people as I have referred to."

So much for equal justice - not much has changed in a hundred years.

As with Churchill, these men were proud of their eloquence and a completely misguided mob. But due to their arrogance and bravado, they would grandly make these vulgar statements publicly and therefore there is plenty of evidence of their red-neck simplicity and ignorance.

But one has to give them credit where it is due, the laws accomplished what they intended to. An eerie statement by Alfred Deakin, the first Attorney General and second Prime Minister:

"Little more than a hundred years ago Australia was a Dark Continent in every sense of the term. There was not a white man within its borders. In another century the probability is that Australia will be a White Continent with not a black or even dark skin amongst its inhabitants. The aboriginal race has died out in the South and is dying fast in the North and West even where most gently treated. Other races are to be excluded by legislation if they are tinted to any degree."

. . . and so it is – a predominantly “white continent”.

You got to love the terms used such as "tinted"!!! Yours truly did not realise that I was of a tinted race! I suspect the word "dying" is used rather loosely - exterminated might have been more appropriate! How annoying the North and West were so bloody ineffective at ridding their states of this inferior tinted race. I suspect there would be many Australians who think that the indigenous people of Australia should be thankful to the Whites for not exterminating them completely!

The reality is that Recognise is bound to fail. For one, it is rather narrowly focussed on only two groups of people - aboriginals and Torres strait Islanders - who constitute just 3% of the population. Whilst special consideration must be made to recognise that Australia is older than White settlement, the flaws in the constitution are blatantly around racism and religion which impact all minority races and religion in Australia. It is much more likely to succeed if it was broadened to make this an issue for all minorities.

Secondly, the average red-neck white Aussie is simply wallowing in their own cesspit and is incapable of thinking beyond that. "Who gives a f--- about the constitution" would be their response. Most wouldn't know one existed let alone what it did for them.

So, sadly, as much as I would wish that the efforts of my wife and other intellectuals bring success to the movement - I feel the challenge maybe immense. Good luck to "Recognise" I will support the movement in any way I can.

Rio 2016 Olympics has been and gone

So, the excitement of the Rio Olympics has been and gone, and we revert back to our mundane lives again! No excuses for late nights or early morning, no exhilarating world records and brilliance, just old routines until the next one.

Like most Olympics, Rio did have it's problems, but by-and-large it ran smoothly. Although the weather gods didn't always cooperate.

There were, however, a couple of countries that continuously went out of their way to try and disrepute and spoil the game - the Yanks and the Aussies.

From the moment the Aussies landed there, they started their winging about the "uninhabitable" accommodation. Magically, within a matter of hours, a fairy waves her (or his, as the case may be!!) wand and it was transformed into great accommodation!!!

Within days they started their arrogant ways - this is the team that is one of the largest with the weakest returns! It's as if sending a large contingent (because you have money) makes you important and more important than the others. We started accusing other competitors as drug cheats. Now, most team managements would have had a team meeting and advised everyone to stop being idiots and antagonistic to others - this is a celebration not a war. But when it comes to sport, for the Aussies, it's always a war! And there are always our favourite enemies, the commies, the bow legged yellow skins and of course the Muslims. So the response of the administration was to come out brandishing their swords fully supporting this loutish behaviour on the basis of some weird theory of being "open"! So, in the Aussie perspective, being “open” gives you an open slather to insult opponents! But then - that's the Aussie way!

The loutish behaviour became unbearable when the idiot, Mack Horton, actually won a gold medal! Unfortunately for him, the rest of the world (apart from the Anglo-Celtic nations) will prefer to forget him and he will not really remain in the minds and definitely not in the hearts of people. Fortunately, the loutish behaviour at unbearable levels only lasts as long as the Aussies are performing well or before the competition actually commences. So in the case of the Olympics, in a matter of days, the poor performances usually curtail their behaviour for the rest of the games - phew!!!

Whilst we did win a battle or 2 we were demolished in the war. There were some interesting statistics which showed that the Aussies were winning a gold medal for every 17 members of the team while most of the other developed nations were for every 4-6! So, we merely had quantity, but not quality.

Whilst we were madly waging war against the bow legged yellow skins, the Yanks took on their arch rival - the Russians. So, long before the event even started, they, together with their clan, attempted to ban the Russians entirely. Fortunately their stranglehold of the OIC is fast diminishing and so a less unfair solution was negotiated. The Russians fared well, considering so many of their elite athletes were prevented from competing.

What's ironic, is that we keep harassing the Russian and Chinese teams about doping when there is no nation more into it than the Yanks themselves. We seem to use the term "State sponsored doping" as if doping was worse if it was sponsored by the state rather than multi-billion dollar companies and individuals. But that's a topic for another time! But what we shouldn't forget is that it was the US team that included the twice drug-cheat - pot calling the kettle white!

Then the two pariah nations combined their energies in to bringing disrepute to the Olympics. In some cases, it seems to have backfired. Not sure if the world thought badly of Rio or that buffoon Ryan "Brides maid" Lochte!

Let's leave the ugly side of the Olympics aside and celebrate the great achievements at the games.

“the games where African Americans blast through Barriers!”

This was the games where the African American's seem to have broken through the many barriers in areas other than track and field. The performances of Simone Biles in Gymnastics and Simone Manuel in the blue ribbon event at the pool, were incredible personal achievements but also, hopefully signs of greater liberation of African Americans in a nation that is becoming increasingly split along racial lines.

“Bolt shows the world how it should be done! – 3X3 the world screamed”

No drugs (we hope), no insults, no war – just pure human brilliance. This man is truly larger than life (in a literal and metaphorical sense) and unbeaten at the games. It was one for the record books and none more deserving.

The thing is that whilst the developed world may draw artificial lines differentiating legal vs.illegal performance enhancing activities, the truth is that from the moment they are conceived, they are advantaged by performance enhancing drugs, food, techniques – the whole lot. So when a Bolt arrives on the scene, with none of these benefits, it is truly remarkable.

“Fiji win their first ever Olympic gold medal!”

This was one of the magical moments of the Olympics. The joyful Fijian supporter displaying the colourful nature of their culture whilst willing their team to beat no other than their slave masters!

For me, the moment was spoiled by the team displaying the sign of the cross – a symbol of their enslavement. And this from one of the most colourful cultures. I could not help but think of the rich tapestry of colourful gods that have been destroyed to make way for the “almighty” but boring, corrupt, abusive Christian god.

Once again, in a Bolt like fashion, these humble talented group of athletes, defied all the hurdles thrown at them and thrashed the over-privileged nations at their own game -rugby. All the “legal” performance enhancing drugs and techniques could not defeat this amazing team.

And then the ultimate humiliation – they knelt as they received their medals! There masters somehow managed to crush them back a few centuries!

There were many other glorious moments which deserve a mention, but I will never complete this blog entry (It’s already been about 5 weeks since I started), if attempted to include them here.

So, for another 4 years, lets keep some of the memories and just a few, for the rest of our lives!