How Political Correctness Killed 1,200 People

Hi, my name’s Hobbes, and I’m a recovering social justice warrior.

Yes yes, I admit it. I used to be a big leftie. When I was growing up, John Howard and George Bush were monsters. Conservatives were racist pricks, and evil corporations were destroying the world’s environment. I could show you pictures of me at a slutwalk as a teenager.

They say a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. My disillusionment with the world, however, perhaps began with the growing disaster that was Australia’s refugee policy post-2007.

The Inmates Take Over The Asylum

Inmates-Running-the-Asylum1

Under the conservative Howard government (1996-2007) asylum seekers arriving by boat were compulsorily locked up in offshore camps on islands such as Nauru in what was known as the “Pacific Solution.”

For years the Labor Party kept hammering the Liberals on the issue – “Oh, won’t somebody please think of the children!” By the time the RuddGillard government came to power in 2007, public opinion was firmly against the policy.

To me, it seemed simple. What inhumanity could compel us to indefinitely lock up thousands of innocent people whose only crime was fleeing persecution to seek a better life? One could see it as the ultimate test of compassion against prejudice, of emotional thinking against cool reason.

Looking back, I can only express embarrassment at how stupid we were, and how obvious the resulting disaster was.

Opening up our borders had two main effects. Firstly, the number of boat people – which had all but stopped for the last six years of the Howard government, skyrocketed to record levels. Fifty thousand entered the country in the next six years.

Boat Arrivals Annotated

Secondly, and most tragically, deaths at sea resumed, and quickly grew worse than ever.

This had happened earlier on in the Howard government, when leftist politicians and journalists had screamed daily about the inhumanity of policing our borders. Now that it was happening under a Labor government however, they were suspiciously silent.

In Australia, as in America, the left likes to think they have a monopoly over the media, but Australia’s most widely read columnist is actually Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt. As early as 2010, he was giving blunt descriptions of the tragedy –

WHERE are they now, those hypocrites who once noisily wept over John Howard’s “cruelty” to boat people?

In January last year, at least nine people drowned off the Indonesian island of Rote as they tried to sail to Ashmore Reef. Indonesian police said the dead included a nine-year-old boy.

In April that year, another nine died, this time in the South China Sea. The lone survivor was 14-year-old Aqeel Qirkeel, who’d tried to save his mother by tying her to him with his shirt.

Also that month, five Afghans died when they blew up their boat at Ashmore Reef to stop our navy from turning them back.

In May, 19 more died when an Indonesian boat taking them to Australia sank off Halang Island.

On October 2, a ship carrying 100 asylum seekers left an Indonesian port, bound for Australia, and has not been seen since.

Last November, 12 Sri Lankans drowned off Cocos Island when their boat sank.

Last month, another five died off the Cocos Islands when their boat broke down, also en route to Australia.

Six months later, in what was perhaps the most visible incident, another boat smashed up against the rocks on Christmas Island.

Boat Disaster

Thirty bodies were recovered from the water, twenty others were missing. A year later, another boat capsized off East Java, more than 200 drowned.

By 2012, almost one boat was sinking or going missing a month, with more than 400 believed dead. In the last six months of the Labor government, plus the immediate aftermath, seven more boats sunk.

On this goes, page after page – men, women and children, drowned at sea on rickety, barely seaworthy boats. Of course, Rudd and Gillard weren’t personally responsible for each sinking, but they were warned, repeatedly, of what would happen. They chose politics over human life, in a manner far more soulless than the conservative politicians they love to laud their moral credentials over.

For years, we tried to rationalize these deaths. There were more conflicts overseas, civil wars in Sri Lanka and Syria – maybe that was driving the rise? Maybe it was just the fault of evil people smugglers, who Labor so demonized? How could we return to the Pacific Solution, against which we had staked all moral capital?

The House Comes Crashing Down

It took five years, but the electorate eventually woke up to this slow motion catastrophe, booting the Labor government out of office in 2013. Yet the grand total, over six years of “compassion” was at least 1,200 people, drowned or smashed up against one reef or another. In the last six years of the Howard government, this figure was zero. It was entirely preventable.

The new Abbott government, under the wanky-sounding but effective “Operation Sovereign Borders” re-implented the strategies of the Howard government. Three hundred boats carrying over 20,000 people had arrived in 2013. In 2014, the same figure was just one boat. Deaths at sea again went to zero, with total deaths in custody at five.

Not only did 1,200 die from the ending of the Pacific Solution, but 50,000 other people – those trapped in more dire need in refugee camps overseas, and perhaps more willing to integrate, were skipped over.

Australia maintains a set refugee intake, regardless of the source. Instead of hand-picking refugees overseas, assessing those who needed help the most and would assimilate into our society best, then safely flying them here for resettlement, we lured tens of thousands to jump the queue and pay people smugglers to transport them here on rickety boats.

The cost of processing them all also blew out into the billions of dollars. It was a double, triple, quadruple-whammy of stupidity, driven entirely by “feelings” rather than reason. For years I refused to believe it, but with a growing horror of realization, the true nature of the Labor Party now sits there, staring us in the face.

These people don’t give a shit about refugees.

They don’t give a shit about helping people, or making the world a better place.

They are interested in their own power, and that alone. They are perfectly happy to use the hysterical, hamster-brained left in Australia to further their own agenda. They are fully aware that what they are doing is disastrous, but they just don’t care.

But the worst part of this entire fiasco?

Return Of The Hamster?

To their credit, since the last election Labor has quietly backpeddled on asylum seekers, admitting that they screwed up royally and will probably keep the current policies when they return to government.

But amazingly, there are still people calling for an end to offshore detention. At 10-15% of the vote, the Greens are Australia’s third largest party. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young – Australia’s answer to Wendy Davis, recently called the Abbott government “morally bankrupt” and its life-saving policies a “politically motivated cruelty campaign.”

Yes—because preventing the deaths of hundreds more people at sea rather than giving in to your hurt feelings is moral bankruptcy.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The hamster is strong in this one

We all know political tides shift, that parties are elected in cycles. Give it another five or ten years, they’ll be another Labor government in power, perhaps once more piggybacking on the Greens.

We can only hope by then the current generation of totally soulless politicians has moved on, and that they don’t get another opportunity to open up our borders and play with human life in the name of “compassion.”

Never again, Australia.

Read More: Girls With Short Hair Are Damaged

145 thoughts on “How Political Correctness Killed 1,200 People”

  1. A lot of potential in this article went unexplored, Thomas. Details are only as valuable as the broader picture. The point you make, instead of being utilised as a needle here, can be used as a dagger. Not to say this isn’t a good article, but in the future, be more ferocious in your anger against this sick leftist establishment.

  2. These people don’t give a shit about refugees.
    Two words: Moral Vanity.
    The Left, in Western countries, is out to prove how “good” that they are. As Robert Bartley put it, western liberals “…think of themselves as the best people: the most intelligent and informed, the most public spirited, the most morally pure.”
    This is their identity, and when it is threatened–by, say, logic, which, as we know is a “Coercive Tool of the Oppressive Patriarchy”– or worse, when self-doubt creeps in–their response is, of course RAGE! Because, let’s face it, emotionally, they are children. Thus the lives of refugees are not important; it’s how the western liberal feels, and more importantly, how they feel about themselves.
    With refugee policy, the Left wants to pick the biggest losers possible (particularly if they are black and brown) and throw the gates open. Choosing people based on their ability to assimilate and contribute is, of course, RACIST!! b/c those folks, say Europeans fleeing the coming Eurabia, are inconveniently white, and that stunts the ability of the western liberal to bathe in his own well, moral vanity.
    There are of course those that use the mask of Moral Vanity cynically, simply to advance and perpetuate their own positions.
    Mistral

    1. Good comment. I never thought of that. When I was young lad and a lot more liberal I was also pretty fucking full of myself. As I have aged and realized this world is crazy nuts and I don’t understand it and nobody could possibly comprehend it all, I have become much more conservative in life.

      1. Well, according to Churchill’s famous dictum, to be young and conservative is to have no heart; to be old and liberal is to have no brain. Congratulations on your recovery. 😉

        1. I never forgot that quote since the first time I heard it. Its strength is that it gives the true liberal credit in pursuing an ideal, while honouring the hard earned wisdom and groundedness of a conservative.
          To disagree with it outright is to look like an idiot because its starting point is respect.
          Some trivia – The quote is not actually from Churchill. It is misquoted to Churchill and the phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1887-1874). The original quote is…
          “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

    2. We need to call out liberals on their benevolent racism since they’ve deemed traditional masculine behavior like holding doors or pulling out chairs for women as benevolent sexism.

    3. The problem is that there will be no Nicolae Ceaușescu
      or Benito Mussolini pay-back moment….all these leftard criminals will not be held to account after they finish their destruction.
      Judges in Family Courts driving men to commit suicide or University panels using kangaroo courts to destroy the lives of male students
      or Politicians hell-bent on the promotion of Cultural Marxism open our borders to tens of millions of thirdworlders…..none of them will be held to account.
      The Police and politicians that turned a blind eye when 1400 young white girls were being raped in Rotherham will not be held to account.
      (…Most of them are now working at different parts of Britain earning big salaries with generous taxpayer funded pensions.)
      Until we start hanging these Cultural Marxists from the nearest lamp posts nothing will change.

      1. What Rotherham–which is positively sickening–shows Americans is this: we can NEVER let them take our guns. Never, ever, ever. Because had this happened here, and the police not acted, the fathers would have.

        1. They can’t, and won’t, though they’ll snark on to their idiot base like they will. They know that if they try, it’s over. They’re done. The country, is gone.

        2. Yep. And we all know it. Us, them, everybody except their idiot base. But they’re just morons and none of us take them seriously as an intellectual force.

        3. As I am fond of reminding my liberal friends, there’s tens of millions of us…and we have the guns.

        4. It won’t happen at once Obama is going about it in a round about way. Banning certain ammo types an gun types.

        5. We should stop using the word “liberal”. The way this word is used today is a corruption along the lines of what Orwell described. It creates confusion, which is the intended effect. These people are not liberals, they are socialists.

        6. Yep some other Leftie will try probably Hilary the government elwants people disarmed for when the inevitable collapse happens.

    4. Yes, exactly, Ideology IS ego identity to these people, which is why they are incapable of reasoned discussion. When you make a point against their ideas, to them you make a jab at their very soul. They go full bore defensive mode, which results in the things we see on the internet and real life – ad hominem, diversion from the issue, spinning or outright fleeing the argument entirely. Anything…ANYTHING…to stop the perceived attack on their own SELF. It is a twisted self preservation instinct.
      To a party member, Ideology Is Self. Too bad Orwell didn’t think to include that in 1984, as it fits their dogmatic view so well.

      1. Ghosty boy, have you read Anonymous Conservative’s book on this very topic. If you haven’t you must and you will begin to understand how to make these people melt down.

    5. The political football issues are just that, bread and circus FOOTBALL for dummies. The libtard debaters on the floor in Australia sound like a bunch of college campus ‘elected’ student government clowns arguing over the color of the drapes in the cafeteria. The issues are ‘fed’ to them and they make bureaucratic ‘bologna’ and sausage of the forums acting out like children playing house and earning their points to become the next crop of unwitting political puppets in the land. They act like they were born yesterday. The bigger agenda of the powerful financiers isn’t spoken in any ‘people’s’ soapbox of representatives or controlled government ‘free speech hogpen’ of elected heads. I’m surprised the national level circus isn’t seen more clearly by the people for what it is. Controlled and co opted.

    6. Left ? Right ? Same crap !
      Tony still giving money to the so called “Refugees Advocates” & Asylum Seekers Legal Aid ” ?
      It’s your money Ralph !

    7. Lets have some perspective on the discussion. I cannot speak for all of Europe (besides Germany and Switzerland, which I understand have very strict immigration laws), but in the UK there is virtually no immigration (aside for people coming here to work or study, and these people come from China, the USA and India, and they usually go home when they are done). The idea that Arabs are pouring across the border is pure fiction.
      Further, we should be careful with the notion of “closed-borders”. Not only does this mean no one can enter the country, it also means no one can leave. That is what you would expect from a totalitarian state, not a free and liberal country.
      If you leave it to the government to decide who can and cannot enter a country, then you have given away your natural right to uninhibited travel. And no politician, Left or Right gives a shit about you or anyone else. All they want is your money and for you to shut the fuck up.

      1. Slow down. There’s a difference b/w ‘closed borders’ and letting in every piece of detritus that washes up on our shores and giving them free food and shelter provided that they don’t speak English and have no talent. Bonus points awarded if they follow a religion that is hostile to free speech, secular democracy, equality under the law and common sense.

        1. Am I moving too fast for you old man?😀
          To me the difference is one of degree. The government simply should not have this power. It should rest with property owners.
          Anyway I know you’re not talking about the USA. Legally, it’s virtually impossible migrate there and it’s tough enough just for a Muslim to holiday there let alone go as a refugee.
          In any case, in the West, the people who are hostile to free speech etc are in the government.

  3. Modern leftism is designed to destroy traditional culture.
    It is not intended as a functional form of government.
    If you always keep this in mind the activities of its proponents make sense.
    In this case, a leftist doesn’t care if thousands of people from the third world die as long as the voting power of the natives in Western countries is reduced.
    Look at modern leftism as a cancerous growth metastasized from the Western tradition of self-criticism turned into self-hate. Like all cancers it has to be cut out, poisoned with chemo, hit with radiation or it kills the host at some point.

  4. In issues like these, gentlemen, imagine a man and a woman arguing. While the man will make a rational argument, the woman will go on like, “Are you mad? These people need help! open up the borders! No nothing will go wrong. I say open up the borders!”
    This is exactly what is going on now. With staggering amounts female representation in liberal parties, and these parties, relying on the vote of women, they will doubtlessly adopt policies which appease the overwhelming hysterical female voters.

  5. The present government in Australia is under attack by the global Left for two reasons:
    First, its plainspoken “stop the boats” election platform allowed it to sweep Labour from power. This revealed the overwhelming popularity of maintaining sovereignty over borders — something the Left all around the world denies because it must pretend its multiculturalism and open-borders policies are supported by most people in all civilized nations.
    Second, the Australian government has taken the toughest border-control stance of any Western nation, and has succeeded both politically and practically. For the Left this is a very bad example, and it must be demonized and nipped in the bud.
    Give the global Marxists credit, they know a problem for their tribe when they see one. Some years ago, Denmark put in place the toughest restrictions against illegal migrants. The “conservative” party in power didn’t want to do this (think Cameron’s squishy Tories in the UK), but it had to yield to pressure from coalition partner the Danish Peoples Party, a group of actual conservatives who demanded effective action to reduce exploitation of Denmark’s generous welfare system. Because of its strong policies, Denmark was under constant political attack from the EU and the UN. When the Danes later returned a Leftist government to power, the incoming government found itself politically unable to reverse the tough policies because these had become far too popular with ordinary Danes.
    So it’s not surprising to find Australia’s Labour Party walking back their open-borders/amnesty rhetoric. Neither is it unexpected to continually read articles from many international sources condemning Australia’s “heartless” and “ruthless” actions to protect its sovereignty. The very idea of national identity is at odds with the Left’s one-world agenda for global control, in the same way that gender identity must be crushed in order to herd society into a fluid commune where the Left can control it without opposition. Protecting the integrity of one’s nation is closely allied with the challenge of maintaining one’s masculinity. The Left hates national identity and it hates men for very parallel reasons. It knows real men stand up for their country and for themselves.

    1. The idea of open borders always amuses me. When will limousine liberals start opening the iron gates to their country club communities in order to allow the welfare riff-raff they depend on for votes to enlighten them with “multiculturalism?”

    2. Almost all you say is true but I wouldn’t say that the left is 100% against national identity, it’s only against it if a white person identifies them self as a person with national identity . If a Muslim with an Arabic background says he’s Australian their heart swells with pride, if me as a white Australian identifies myself as an Australian I’m an automatic racist. Being patriotic is the same as being racist if a white person is the person being patriotic according to the left.

    1. Sort of. Reason can help people to understand things, but they do not give rise to values. Reason can be used to justify whatever people desire.
      The problem is immaturity. Leftist are often infantile, exhibiting a need for comfort (especially emotionally). They are contemptuous of authority that does not indulge childish desires and their sense of identity, and they love any authority who does. Because they have a diminished sense of agency, they seek to affect things vicariously, through an authority such as the government. They often can’t stomach getting their own hands dirty. They rage against the world for not conforming to their expectations, and they are afraid of death.
      The world used to do a pretty good job of kicking people’s asses. To survive people had to seriously grow the fuck up in ways they don’t today. If we’re going to have a safe and modern world, we should at least have some kind of Agoge* (sans gay shit) to toughen people up.
      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge

      1. While I disagree with nothing that you said… In the western world we’re cutting down gym class… The days of spartan masculinity are very much dead my friend.

      2. While I disagree with nothing that you said… In the western world we’re cutting down gym class… The days of demanded spartan masculinity are very much dead my friend. Hell, to further my statement I can’t even find straight cut goddamn jeans any more…. They’re all “skinny fit” or some such ridiculous name. Seems that it’s widely accepted now for self respecting men to wear pants tighter than their sisters lol. Anyway, men like us and most of the men on this site now put themselves through their own self imposed Agoge through training and self improvement. While the motivation may be different in this century the rewards are equally beneficial if not more satisfying having come to the conclusion on ones own. I agree.

        1. Try Kohl’s, if you have one. They carry lots of normal cut jeans.
          My son, 18, had high school gym class that featured archery just two years ago. It may not be as bad as we think.

        2. Thanks, will definitely check it out. My brothers 15 and his gym class here in Montreal Canada as of this year merged both genders into one class as to “not promote inequality” maybe some parts of the world are pulling themselves out of the abyss quicker than others lol

        3. Ah, well, we live in nowhereville Ohio, so that might explain the difference.
          It’s so unequal here that we still have skinny, pretty, long haired, skirt wearing cheerleaders in the high school who swoon over the masculine jock football players. And a decent percentage of the young men hunt. If you can imagine. We can only dream of not promoting inequality like y’all. heh

        4. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I just turned 26 and before I turn 28 I’m moving out to the country haha

  6. More people need to wake up to the fact that third world immigration is a weapon of war. It is a hostile act by the left, tantamount to invasion.
    The fact that immigrants aren’t carrying rifles shouldn’t obscure the facts that the intentions of the left and the consequences of their policies are the same as if it was a military invasion.

    1. A fertile womb is as potent of a conquering weapon as tanks, guns and bullets are. Once they can out vote you consistently, it is all over.

      1. There is going to be secession. This cannot end well otherwise, for anybody involved, not even the “ruling elites”.

      2. Absolutely. Getting married and having three or more children is more powerful than voting once every four years.
        The thing we need women to do is precisely what they have given up on doing: bear the next generation.
        For years the left have told them that they should go to university, get in debt, work a mundane job and they can do it all without a man. One of many attacks on the traditional nuclear family by the left.
        The end result is a nation of tired women working jobs they hate, hurtling towards the menopause with barren wombs.
        Nothing else we do will matter if we do not promote the traditional nuclear family and the return of women to their natural role of mother. No matter how hard we fight we cannot compete with a sub-replacement level fertility rate and a shrinking native population.

        1. Feminism and the female-imperative dominance of modern cultures remove the vast majority of women from the zones of their created and evolved strengths — motherhood, nurturance of family, helpmeets of men, lifelong wives to husbands — and entices them into environments where they are weakest, act against their own natures, and eventually become miserable.
          Cheers.

        2. many minorities are not marrying there just randomly reproducing further tearing society down and its growing in the majority pop too

    2. Here’s an example of it in Australia: I am applying for my citizenship here as a migrant worker. I can’t get it because i score 55 points and need 60. however, a non native speaker of English who can speak english “to a superior level” gets 20 points. His English will NEVER be as good as mine as a native speaker, but i get zero points because english is my first language and it isn’t “fair” to give me points for it.

  7. What this really demonstrates is the idiocy of democracy.
    Today, a drug-addicted garbage man has the same electoral say as to whether we should fund a space mission as an aerospace engineer. An illiterate welfare mom has the same say about health policy as a physician. A bible thumping inbred has the same say about military policy as a general. Etc… This is a recipe for stupidity of the worst kind.
    People should only be allowed to vote for things that affect them personally – war that is being manned by a draft, for example. People also should not be allowed to vote at all unless they have skin in the game so that they cannot write themselves blank checks on someone else’s account. If you don’t pay in to the system, you can shut the fuck up about how it operates. Finally, politicians should be term limited, and the age of the career politician brought to an end.
    Sadly, none of this will happen because those in power benefit too much from keeping the system broken. Only after societal collapse will any of this be possible. Remember these problems so that we can fix them once we start rebuilding.

    1. We used to have that system (except term limits) you know. We called it a Constitutional Republic.
      Thank you progressive social public education for erasing that from our minds. Oh benevolent masters.

      1. Yeah, I’ve always found it amusing that people don’t know that the states elected the senators until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment.
        I firmly believe that it should be repealed and the states brought back to the table, which was part of the federal system envisioned by the framers. I once told this to a friend who said something to the effect of, “why, that’s so undemocratic to deprive people of a vote?” I pointed out that the people can already vote for the president and their congressman. I fail to see why they should have two additional votes – one for each senator – or how they are tangibly harmed by having these votes taken away from them.
        Ok . . . I’ll concede that I see how they are tangibly harmed if they want to continue life sucking on the government tit…

        1. The abololition of state election of Senators was a real blow to liberty in the nation. The entire point of that was to enable state voices, as you say, in a sane way that was not a popularity contest so as to avoid the passions of the masses. It circumnavigated mob rule. It’s no surprise that it was abolished in the same time period that saw the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax and giving women the right to vote. All of this conveniently right after most Classical Liberal men had been wiped out or were about to be wiped out in WW1.
          Coincidence, I’m certain.

        2. Got to say I’m flabbergasted by those revelations. Wasn’t the whole point of the Constitution as framed to have a weak central government which *could* be pushed around by the States, since the States were what the Republic was made up of?

        3. “Got to say I’m flabbergasted by those revelations. Wasn’t the whole point of the Constitution as framed to have a weak central government which *could* be pushed around by the States, since the States were what the Republic was made up of?”
          Notice the change from “for” to “of” and the switch to all capitals.
          “Constitution for the United States of America” (Preamble of the Constitution)
          “CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” (Act of 1871. An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.)
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
          (15) “United States” means—
          (A) a Federal corporation;
          (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
          (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
          Anyway these guys turned out to be right.
          http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/those-who-didnt-sign-the-constitution/
          Patrick Henry
          (May 29, 1736 – June 6, 1799)
          Known for: “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” Speech
          Reason for not signing: feared it endangered the rights of States and individual freedoms.
          John Lansing
          (January 30, 1754 – vanished December 12, 1829)
          (left in protest)
          Known for: disappearing suddenly at the age of 72.
          Reason for not signing: Opposed the notion of a strong national government.
          Robert Yates
          (1738-1801)
          Known for: writing under the alias of “Brutus” in a series of essays against The Federalist Papers.
          Reason for not signing: Stood with Lansing in opposing the notion of a strong national government.
          Luther Martin
          (February 9, 1748 – July 8, 1826)
          Known for: role in the formulation of the New Jersey Plan.
          Reason for not signing: refused to sign the Constitution because he felt it violated states’ rights.

      1. It’s too bad that movie was so awful. Heinlein’s novel deserved a much better treatment than Barbie And Ken In Space.

        1. The book is fantastic. Heinlein in general is a great read, as long as you take him in the context of when he lived. Even if you don’t, he makes some fantastic points.

        2. But — but — Carmen and Dizzy, bro.
          Okay, we didn’t get to see Carmen’s boobs, but still. Bro.

        3. woman who played Dizzy is one of my all time faves, what a smile…dont tell me her real name, I honestly dont want to know

        4. True. Blogger/Vlogger/director Rob Ager analyzed the film, amongst dozens of others, and said essentially the same thing. I have been following his film/pop culture analyses for about 5 years now. Great stuff; either through his website or Youtube channel. Not meaning to plug shamelessly, but worth a look; collativelearning.com.

        5. I don’t know about that, actually. The movie strikes me as being against the usual suspects for *military* incompetence — the upper brass doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing — but it does openly echo Heinlein’s theme that force has resolved more conflicts than anything else in human history, from Rasczak’s history speech through to the massacre of peaceful Mormon (i.e. religionist) colonists, through to the fact that while the humans are violent, the bugs are just as if not moreso, from dismembering people through to sucking a guy’s brains out through his head. Rasczak is played as a good guy/mentor, and he’s brutal but kind in his own way: shoots his own soldiers to put them out of an agonising death and asks precisely the same thing of his own men. And Barney Stinson, ah, Colonel Carl lays it out pretty coldly in the last act of the film: “We’re in this for the species, boys and girls. It’s simple numbers – they have more. And every day I have to make decisions that send hundreds of people to their deaths.”
          You’d have a fair point if one argued the subtext is that the war has been entirely manufactured by the military and that the movie functions well if you think of it as a dropped-back-through-time propaganda movie ala “Triumph of the Will” (indeed Verhoeven confesses the opening scenes are done shot-for-shot from Riefenstahl’s movie, and when he was confronted by Michael Ironside on the subject — Ironside found the film distasteful, apparently, more evidence of his genius as an actor — Verhoeven declared openly it was a parody.)
          But still: Verhoeven. It’s not like the guy doesn’t endorse violent themes in his films. And when confronted with the fact some fans call the movie “All Quiet On The Final Frontier”, he agreed that wasn’t very far from the result. That film and book is a polemic against war at large, not specifically against military service as such, and I think it’s to “Troopers” credit that it does not try that hard to argue against the central proposition that, like it or not, authority is largely based on force. Reading at least “Farnham’s Freehold” (I’ve yet to get a copy of ‘Troopers’) Heinlein would probably have appreciated that aspect of the film.
          One last point, from Wikipedia on the film’s final form:
          “Test audience reactions led to several minor changes before the film was released. Originally, it was clear that Carmen was torn between Rico and Zander. Test audiences, regardless of gender, strongly felt that a woman could not love two men at once so scenes which portrayed this were
          cut. These audiences also felt it was immoral for Carmen to choose a career ahead of being loyal to Rico to the extent that many commented that, in so doing, Carmen should have been the one to die, instead of Dizzy. While admitting it may have been a bad commercial decision not to change the film to accommodate this, the directors did cut a scene from after Zander’s death where Carmen and Rico kiss, which the audience believed made the previous betrayal even more immoral.”
          This revelation made me chuckle: if anything, part of the film’s visceral impact is that Carmen is an unapologetic career woman perfectly willing to dump Johnny to further her career. She comes across as ice cold and arguably not worth of Johnny risking his life and career to save her. And even so: he doesn’t get the girl at the end! This itself is a big germ of Red Pill truth hiding in the movie, and I think a big reason a lot of people get pissed off to some extent about it, never mind the limbs flying or the propaganda angle.

    2. Plus a media that brainwashes people rather report objective facts which your average moron believes too.

      1. If you pay attention, the media gets very butthurt whenever someone reports real objective fact that derails the narrative. When that happens, cue the ad hominems about “Faux News” or “Communist News Network” depending on whose sacred cow was just gored.

  8. I’ve got something I am very keen on sharing with all of you. I’m sure most of you know by now that political correctness is due to feelings, emotions and not wanting to offend someone. I’ve found an interesting test to see if a person if more likely to use emotions or reasoning in making judgments / their daily lives.
    – Sensitivity Test –
    For some time now, I’ve noticed some people reacting negatively in the comment section of a nature video that shows an animal killing another animal in the wild for food and survival of the species. For most of us, we see this as a way of life. Nature has always been this way.
    Unfortunately, some people have been too content in the bubble of comfortable society that they get shocked when they see a predator killing it’s prey. Thus, they condemn the predator to hell or something similar to that. If I were to make an assumption, I would say that how an individual reacts to a nature video of a wild animal killing another wild animal could give us a guess to whether they are the type of person that can accept the brutality and harshness of reality.
    A person’s reaction to these food chain documentaries can tell you how coddled an individual is. Whether they can accept the unforgiving, unbiased nature of truth may be made obvious before your very eyes. You’ll know whether a person is blue pill or whether that person has the potential of being a red pill or is already one. Watch a few videos of an animal killing another animal in the wild. Then, read the comments. “Poor rabbit!” “I hope that bird gets eaten by another animal!” “I hope lions go to hell!” Those are just a few of the comments that I have read.
    WATCH this video of people reacting to a video of a bird swooping a rabbit.

    Notice how most of the guys just laugh it off. One guy I want you to observe is Harley, the large, bearded Caucasian man. Listen to what he has to say about the video after watching it. If he isn’t red pill yet, he has the potential to be one, in my opinion.
    Notice most of the women’s and effeminate men’s reaction. Clearly they are trying so hard to deny it.
    I think this reaction video could show the emotion vs reasoning (truth acceptance) spectrum in people.
    I suggest some of you to try it out with people in your daily lives. Casually bring it up in conversation or when socially interacting with them. Most people will not suspect anything behind this seemingly innocent, friendly activity (watching videos).
    FINAL NOTE, this is just something a came up with not too long ago so I am not a hundred percent certain that it is flawless so don’t start posting it everywhere as proof of many people’s problem with their emotions overwhelming reasoning in making rational conclusions.

    1. My test:
      Me: “I’m going deer hunting this fall. Bow or shotgun I haven’t decided yet.”
      How they react basically tells you the same thing, for the same reasons.

      1. My approach, which you may have seen me deploy in these very pages, is to start talking about having to go out and shoot some more bunnies to protect the vegetarian’s food supply.

        1. I have a sister that is a vegitarian and an avid gardener. She hates bunnies with a deep and abiding hatred. She would love ot have you come over and kill every rabbit you can find.

        2. There are a lot of reasons to be a vegetarian, not all of them require brain damage. Vegans, on the other hand . . .
          Your sister has her head screwed on straight enough to know where her own interests lie. The war against the bunnies must be waged relentlessly, or the little bastards will destroy us all.

      1. But Mutual Of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom aired right after The Wonderful World Of Disney when I was growing up. It was rife with critter killin’, and usually Marlin Perkin’s assistant Jim would get in the mix too.

    2. I can’t see the video at work, but I know what you are talking about.
      I have a hobby where live feeding is sometimes required. I see stupid comments all the time about the act of feeding one animal to another.

      1. Millenials are kind of like human robots that live and die by the amount of interaction they get through their smartphones.IF they do form an opinion on anything, its usually very liberal.

    3. I’ve seen a lot of people come to the farm and squirm. My mother in law would not eat our chicken’s eggs. They were not white, and they came out of the chicken’s butt. Keep in mind she eats eggs all the time at home. My sister thought I was some kind of psycho because I explained to her the process of raising and slaughtering hogs. Keep in mind she eats pork.

  9. At least Australia was smart enough to stop that policy before all these illegals bred and became a political force that was large enough to outvote you.
    Unlike what is currently happening in the USA now.

    1. or almost everywhere in western countries. Look at Brussels. Why do you think political parties put as much minority groups as possible on their list of candidates? There is even a ‘political’ party called Islam (no kidding) and they have 2 seats in one of Brussel’s communities. Minority groups (and to be honest, almost everyone in our ‘progressive’ society) vote emotionally and coloured. And for lefties, this is a painful truth they never want to admit.

  10. An image search reveals that Ms. Hanson-Young is built like a blindside flanker and seems in desperate need of a good bang, but I have my doubts that the entire island nation has a single man intrepid enough to deliver it.

  11. I can sympathize with the author 100%, I used to be a leftie who hated Howard, Bush etc an thought it was inhumane to detain boat people till I stopped listening to the media an actually looked at facts myself. I’m far more conservative in my views now on almost everything. Emotion needs to be taken out when forming political views an only the facts looked at.

    1. It is impossible to be logical and rational and objective and still be a leftist. This used to be convenient Right wing snark, but it’s turned out to be very, very true. If you are interested in facts, and want to solve a problem, you come to view the emotion filled leftist “solutions” with contempt if you take time to examine them.

      1. Yep I was in highschool when I was a big leftist then gradually grew out if of it when I realized nearly all the lefts philosophies made no sense an were just emotion driven arguments. It’s true you can’t be a logical rational thinker an be a leftist.

      2. GOJ, there was a fascinating scientific article i read online linking liberal responses to emotional causality. Essentially, when you disagree with a liberal their brain for whatever reason goes into the fight or flight response one normally experiences in situations of immediate mortal peril. In that respect, the correlation between the liberal political response and the female biological response is uncanny.
        I can’t find the article but i did find a similar one which describes this to marginal effect.
        “Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of
        liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons,
        compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates”
        http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_SNS_and_politics.pdf

        1. I actually mentioned this below to Mistral.
          Identity is Ideology. Attack the ideology, you attack their soul, their sense of self, and they lash back in a twisted version of the self defense mechanism.
          Interesting that others have made that connection and studied it. Thanks for the link should make for some interesting reading.

        2. Sorry, meant I mentioned it on the other thread, the one about the divorce chick getting alimony 30 years after the fact.

        3. Hmmm if you ever find the link to the other study you mentioned I’d be interested in reading it.
          That a simple disagreement would activate their CNS for danger like that is interesting.
          It sounds almost like a phobia.
          I wonder if it is an ideological/psychoanalytic kinda thing as GOJ seems to have put it or perhaps they perceive it rather to be a direct threat to their very safety.
          Liberals tend to vote for higher taxes (essentially other people’s money) which leads me to wonder if having “agreement” with others feels necessary to them for survival.

        4. Sure my pleasure.
          On a related note, It’s my belief that studies that focus their efforts on trying to find brain differences within liberals and conservatives are looking at the ends and not the means.
          In other worse, these studies are at risk of stating (intentionally or otherwise) that brain development affects political belief, when my theory is that the opposite is true.
          Allow me to elaborate.
          Just as a child goes through biological and psychological development, i believe that the brain develops to accommodate neurosynaptic pathways that correspond with our superimposed (through external or internal influences) memory related beliefs, including political ones.
          To put it another way and using the child model again, children tend to think emotionally as a default, because emotions are the most primitive of biological responses tethered to environmental stimuli. This is why animals react in the instinctual fashions they do, because they lack the ability to logically distinguish a situation beyond fight (anger) or flight (fear)
          Not to say that children do not possess the ability for logic, but because they are at the initial stages of psychological development, their minds are more influenced by emotions than logic so their personality is therefore influenced by feelings rather than facts, because their psychological maturity level has not developed enough to physiologically exploit neurosynaptic pathways related to memory, logic and reason.
          As a child (normally) develops however, this would certainly no longer be the case. As physiological maturity is reached, psychological maturity is gained (through accumulated knowledge and the interpretation, and application of it divided by trial and error) and that child transitions from a boy to a Man physically and psychologically (if the latter process is developed enough) as emotional pavlovian responses are more effectively discarded in favor of logical modus operandi. I believe the x factor allowing this biological and mental phenomena to take place is: testosterone.
          The hormone testosterone plays a heavy role in both the physiological and psychological development of a male child. When the proper testosterone to estrogen ratio is biogenetically established in a male during gestation, it forms the basis for heterosexual male behavior (or sexuality) as a biological default, and heterosexual male thinking (or orientation) as a deliberate consequential effect. While male children with low and high IQ’s have relatively low levels of testosterone, as they become adults and naturally increase their production of it physically they tend to get even smarter psychologically. It is therefore no surprise that most of the world’s geniuses and self made captains of wealth are therefore Men, and quite possibly in no small part due to the influence of testosterone on both body and mind. Just enough of T is enough to make a gestating male behave heterosexually and think heterosexually as a child, and later on as an adult a corresponding increase in T is enough to increase intelligence, and possibly exponentially.
          This brings me back to my initial point. If Men are more logical than Women, and if females act on emotions as a default, and if liberal males act like females when it comes to disagreement, and if a presence or absence or lack or surplus of T is the common denominator in all, could this therefore explain the importance of selective belief(s) of a male child (to say nothing of the necessity of proper instruction to that child) which will affect how likely that male child is in preferring logic over emotion at puberty and beyond, which is enhanced or compounded based on the normal or abnormal presence of T?
          Could it stand to reason that these liberal boys and adults suffer from an underdeveloped testes/adrenal gland which sabotaged their ability to exercise reason over emotion?
          This is why i believe what you believe influences brain development…if you think emotionally as a male child it can be excusable because of a lack of maturity, but if you believe in feelings over facts, and ends over means (as is the case with liberalism) even as a male adult, you are exercising parts of the brain that deal with emotions far more often than those which deal with reason, and your neurosynaptic pathways will adjust accordingly. You may even discourage the production of T as a consequence, which would increase the likelihood of the fight or flight response as your identity beliefs come under attack. You will for all intents and purposes, behave psychologically, as a female.
          I don’t know if my theories are correct, but i do know this:
          The joke of kids being liberal and adults being conservative has a basis in some truth, biologically speaking.
          This researcher’s work is based on the theory that T does far more than just make us physically stronger.
          This is why i believe true masculinity encompasses strength AND intelligence.
          http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/testosterone-hormone-linked-to-higher-iq/24379.html

        5. People shop for labels to identify with. They shop for beliefs like a pair of fucking cheap shoes. Used for a month, and tossed. Consumerist mentality has crept into almost every facet of life.

        6. Forney broke down a book called “how to spot a narcissist” on his site a few months ago- interesting stuff. Narcissists tend to be liberals…no reasoning with them

    2. Here in Belize, we get a lot of news about what is happening around the Commonwealth and I recall Kevin Rudd was forced our of the Leadership. When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, she allowed the US to expand its military presence on Australia and the Pacific.

  12. I can just see young Somsak, leaving SE Asia on a raft in search of a better life.
    He gets to Australia, gets married and has two children. Five years later, he is paying child support and alimony to his fat, feminist wife.
    He then decides to return to his homeland, in search of a better life.

  13. Good article, but your focusing on the dead is somewhat flawed and also emotional.
    Let’s imagine a theoretical world where the sea would have posed no danger. In that world, most of your argument wouldn’t work.
    I know you mentioned the real point, namely contribution to the country. Nonetheless, in this case, most of your argument works simply through the lucky coincidence of a dangerous sea.
    If you fight the liberals on their own turf (moral superiority and emotions), you have already lost frame.

    1. The way to beat the left is by using their emotions against them. The way they beat US is because they use ONLY emotions, and nobody in the great unwashed mob gives a shit about logic or facts. Obama got elected twice, for fuckssake, despite being the most useless piece of rat spittle to ever occupy an office of power, in history. All based on emotion.
      Turn the tables on them, and put the deaths of “innocents” on them squarely and let them eat their own trying to worm out of it.

      1. Fair enough, we have to fight the warfare of feelings.
        The problem is, though, that feelings can only get us votes of those who are uncertain. Using emotions against those who are convinced of bullshit will only enrage them and make them more convinced of bullshit.
        In the long run we can’t win with emotions – it’s just not our turf and we have to compromise, which only makes us look more pathetic to those who actually would vote rationally.
        Read a comment like this somewhere: “I despise Republicans more than the Liberals. Liberals are successful with bullshit, but nobody expects them to be better. Republicans, on the other hand, back down from every statement they make and give in to political correctness, because they are cowards.”
        I would prefer to focus on the rational arguments here, to build myself up. But, of course, it’s not my site and not my decision.
        Don’t know if there is a way to turn things around. Understanding comes only through suffering and people are starting to be really well protected from that.

  14. To appeal to “humaneness” is to appeal to compassion, which in turn is to admit the argument has no actual merit.
    The underlying problem in Western society is a failure to recognize compassion as merely an emotion. You don’t make decisions based on anger, hatred, or jealousy, why compassion? If compassion is rational it is only by coincidence – the emotional element had nothing to do with it.

  15. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” trite but true. Libs use compassion as a weapon. “good intentions” and “feelings” are nothing but naked self interest

  16. No one should care about those people. They are by definition criminals. They are more accurately described as invaders. They don’t care about ur culture and want to wipe it out. They out breed the host environment. Boats should be sunk not turned back.

  17. My favourite phrase is slowly making a comeback: “fuck off, we’re full.” People don’t understand that Australia’s size geographically says nothing about our size economically; we can’t afford to house, feed and give work to every single refugee that comes here illegally, and I can tell you from personal experience it’s made everything harder.
    Sorry folks but in terms of illegal immigrants we really have reached our limit. Turn around and go home. We’re full.

      1. I think that if someone is “seeking asylum” we need to know what they’re seeking asylum from. I just don’t want any more immigrants in my country til we can afford it.

    1. Billed as fiction but I’m sure that a rather light touch on what must be a frighting reality of politics. I’m sure it is far worse than portrayed. I think the average American would be horrified at the real mechanisms of politicians. We don’t hear half the shit that goes on.

  18. John Howard the gun grabber a conservative? You’re kidding right?
    As for you:
    They don’t give a shit about helping people, or making the world a better place.
    They are interested in their own power, and that alone. They are perfectly happy to use the hysterical, hamster-brained left in Australia to further their own agenda. They are fully aware that what they are doing is disastrous, but they just don’t care.
    WELCOME TO THE SHIT SHOW THAT IS THE LIBERAL REALITY

  19. If you haven’t already, you should read The Camp of the Saints. Raspail saw all this coming in 1972, right down to the anti- White/western “morally superior” SJWs. I’m surprised that Amazon still sells it.

  20. An excellent article. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that many, if not most, men here were formerly leftists, I know I was. Something that I believe all of us must internalize is that the left isn’t the competition, it’s the enemy. If they had (or have) their way, we’d be in re-education camps or worse. I fear for the future of sites like ROK, CH and AmRen.

  21. These boats should be sank by submarines. 99% of the people in them are illiterate rapists and criminals.

  22. My problem with these refugee scumbags is how these days you cannot do the necessary to protect your nation. Knowing full well these boats are filled with rapists and criminals, that they will do extreme harm to the country yet we have to accept them, because the contrary would be “against human rights”. So basically human rights is so important that a nation can’t defend themselves and will self-destruct instead of protecting itself.

  23. If we wanna talk about political correctness, let’s start naming examples before the term even existed.
    Gwenhwyfar wanna say hi.

  24. Their one and only goal is to make White Australians a minority in the country their ancestors founded and built, that is really the bottom line here. It is not a secret that non-whites in all White Western nations vote overwhelmingly for leftist/liberal/cultural marxist parties and politicians, hence why those parties and politicians are so very keen to flood our formerly White and homogenous nations with masses of non-white third world immigrants who will breed us to a small minority in our own countries in the coming decades.
    And of course on top of that, White cultural marxists (‘liberals’) believe that by reducing Whites to minorities and eventually breeding us White men out of existence that they will automatically end ‘racism’, because of course its purely White men in their eyes who are the ones responsible for keeping it alive.
    Why do you think they promote racial mixing between White women and black men/non-white men in films and TV so much? Its because they want YOU (White men) gone. Mass immigration and race-mixing are the weapons they use to destroy the White race.

  25. Yes, these people who claim to care about others but will not sacrifice a moment of their time to actually help them. They are liars caught in their own false image of themselves, and react violently (usually with cries of racism) when someone sees through their mask.
    Ask a leftist today when is the last time they actually helped those people they claim to care about.
    Chances are their body language will betray their lying, or they will proudly say they went to a rally, as if that feeds the hungry. Or they will call you a (insert group here)ist.

  26. Ive seen both sides of immigration in America living in the east coast where illegal help wasnt necessary to moving and living on the west coast in L.A where the people act like life wouldnt be possible without ILLEGALS.
    Unfortunately there are two types of people that want to embrace ILLEGALS. The conservative business owners that enjoy higher profits of using illegals to hire or drive down wages to force others to work for lower wages.The other type is the p.c liberal that has done quite well for themselves. Usually the wealthy liberals that employ illegals to wipe their ass like gardening, pool man, nannies/ cooks basically anything that involves moving a muscle and possibly breaking a sweat. The wives are busy at work and can’t be bothered to cook or be home to be a mother to their children. These people like to feel really good about themselves because they helped”the less fortunate”. It also serves the purpose of showing they’re not racist yet can show their friends they they can afford to hire “the help”. Both types are doing a great job at enforcing latent racism and class stratification all the while helping our government in wiping out the middle class.

  27. This is just a sliver of the immigration catastrophe currently engulfing the U.S. Imagine these boat people by the millions, completely upending your country’s demographics and labor markets while adding another gallon of gasoline to already fuming racial animosity across the country. Then imagine it’s now politically incorrect to call these people “illegal” or “unwelcome” – they’re now “undocumented” or “”Dreamers””. Imagine these people mostly consumed more than they contributed and added $billions$ to welfare roles Then imagine your majority race completely brainwashed by media to accept all of this as OK due to a non-stop guilt trip by the powers that be and big media.
    Imagine that in less than 75 years, the entire racial balance of your country did a 180 and nobody spoke out, nobody did a thing. Welcome to America fools.

  28. Ooohhh… What are those evil lefties going to do next? I’ve got something that will blow your minds : not all “lefties” are pro-immigration. I know, unbelievable isn’t it? People can actually have dynamic political ideologies.

    1. And yet when those people get into power, their supposedly dynamic political ideologies become entirely static and predictable. As Labor and the Greens keep showing us.

  29. The left, feminists, SJWs, all those clowns can be understood in this simple way, they want their policies to be judged on their intentions not their results. I’d love to see a sunset clause on government policies where they have to live up to their promises or be removed.

  30. The people who complain about the way liberal handle the refugee who ‘illegally’ try to come to our country are nothing but a bunch of shadow wingers. They don’t mind sharing their politically correct opinions on how the government should let these people into our beautiful land, but they actually do nothing to support their ideologies. Do these people even consider the men who have come her as refugees, and then got let off for charges of rape because they didn’t understand it wasn’t part of our culture ! And what about the recent attack in sydney where two innocent people died, the gunman was a refugee and a labour member wrote him a letter of recommendation to get citizenship here

  31. Australia has gone off a cliff since John Howard was voted out in 2007. All common sense has gone out the window. What do you expect when we had the most incompetent PM in Australian history (Rudd), followed by a diehard feminist communist (Gillard), who was on a mission not to just trash our economy, but to completely change our culture. Basically, anybody who was remotely successful or remotely masculine was demonised. Australia is now one of the most feminist, PC countries on earth. Hardly a surprise when you consider that the feminist organisation EMILY’S LIST ensures quotas for extreme left feminist politicians in our system. They are all bitter, man-hating extremists, who are well-schooled in GroupThink. It is so ridiculous that our current PM is ridiculed for being ‘the most right wing PM in our history’ despite presiding over the highest spending government in our history (the nitwits who got voted out are blocking all required savings measures, even ones THEY proposed when in government – long story, but completely ridiculous). In my opinion we are on the way to becoming like Sweden…

    1. Don’t hold up John Howard as a saviour. I despise Labor as much as any right-thinking person does, but Howard made most of his career from giving people free money, supplying billions in middle class welfare off the back of mining receipts that could not last forever rather than try – as Hawke and Keating did, to their credit – to make badly-needed structural changes to fix a problem, electing bandaids over painful but needed surgery.
      Like every other Australian government since Whitlam he ignored how exactly the country was going to pay for an ever-increasing welfare bill and kept buying votes with benefits.
      Abbott’s government is reaping the consequences of that generational largesse: nobody wants those benefits to be reduced by one dollar and will happily toss any government that tries, and nobody wants to pay one dollar more in tax to keep those benefits flowing, and will happily toss any government that tries. Labor is a shitload worse I grant you, but Australia has been a welfare state since Whitlam started Medicare in 1975 if not earlier and since Fraser betrayed this country and did not repeal Medicare.

  32. On the left dogma trumps all. It doesn’t matter if their policies kill and cripple, a rigid orthodoxy must be enforced. Some of the ways they do it might make Stalin blush.

  33. Honestly the Greens are the worst. The Rudd/Gillard government did try to process asylum seekers off shore towards the end after the Malaysia Solution failed. Also the Malaysia Solution wasn’t a bad idea, the Greens and ‘Human Rights Lawyers’ opposed it based on the principals highlighted in the article and the Coalition opposed it because they opposed anything the government said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *