The left is busy radically transforming our courts, institutions and national demographics. The issues being debated today were totally beyond the pale only a decade ago. We are now set for a population of 40 million by 2050, despite our reproductive rate being below replacement levels. Thats a population "target" agreed to by both Labor and the LNP. It means that by 2050 the majority of people in Australia will not be descended from those here now. Yet, as our country morphs into yet another Third World society, there is a certain type of pudgy individual who stands between us and any sort of counter-revolutionary push.

The "Sensible" People.

Perhaps its wrong to say they stand in our way. It's more that they sit in their swivel chairs and slowly shake their head incredulously, blocking our path and telling us that we're being unreasonable, before changing the topic — perhaps bragging about their prime seats at the rugby or dropping a couple colloquialisms. Men of the people.

To boil this cowardly buffoon down to a single face, consider Amanda Vanstone. (To my shock she isn't a lesbian, I guess that would be too "out there" for her)

This sexless, obese, miser epitomises the issue to a T. Serving under the Howard government as the immigration minister she was easily painted as an Agatha Trunchbull by the media. She was an inhuman, calculating, closeted racist who exploited suffering innocents for the Liberal Party… I wish.

Amanda Vanstone now sits her leviathan arse in the ABC studios, running CounterPoint into obsequiousness. CounterPoint is the only somewhat conservative show on ABC Radio National (hence its name), and has been handed to a Social Liberal, no complaints can be made about the ABC failing to represent the community view because they have the built-in excuse that she served in the """""conservative""""" LNP, content of the program be damned.

Her entire schtick is just how sensible she is supposed to be. An old Canberra dog who shook the important hands and ate at the right lunches, letting us in on the tactics and mentality behind it all. Indeed she does, but not as intended, because what is exposed is the total lack of imagination, will, belief and rhetorical skill endemic to the LNP.

"Criminal convictions for a spank? I don't mean belting kids but just a tap on the bum. Don't you guys all think this has gone a bit too far?"

Take for example her response to the first London vehicle attack and the infamous photo of the muslim woman callously walking past the devastation, phone in hand. Vanstone dedicated a great portion of her show to trying to dispel this rhetorical goldmine. Trudging up every possible just-so and what-if story she could imagine, bringing up other people who were captured in photos not responding, repeating the explanation offered by the muslim-coloniser, and above all chiding the listeners for daring to seize the moment and try to build a narrative for the Right wing.

Just think about it. Muslim terrorists murder British civilians and the "conservative" segment doesn't address it at all except to complain that the Right is making mileage out of it to try and stop more immigration.

Where was Amanda when the Syrian toddler was drowned on the beach? Was she denouncing politicians using the image to further globalism? Was she asking for the facts of the matter? Was she arguing for the policies her own government pursued in response to images just like this? No. Perhaps Amanda is trying to rehabilitate her image, repent for her sins of paying lip service to sovereignty. Or, more likely, she is simply plonking herself stupidly down in the middle of the Overton Window and making the arguments everyone else is too interesting to make.

In the run up to Trump's election Vanstone was straight up shilling for a Clinton win. With cynical suggestions that it would be in the Australian national interest, arguing for the TPP, wishing upon a star for "stability" (a "sensible" person cliché) and any other globalist excuse you could conjure for the Clinton presidency — which was blatantly running on an insane platform of war in the Middle East, hostility to Russia, and was ideologically committed to an anti-White conspiracy theory.

Well, she predicted a Trump loss and was wrong. Very sensible.

This embarrassment is the culprit behind bringing in the Sudanese to Australia. A race of people with low IQs, high time preference, and low impulse control. With easily foreseeable and gruesome results. Australian blood is on her hands as are the massive social problems resulting from her pathetic, quisling, nature. And yet she has the gall to sit in the ABC studios and continue to spout off about how things should be, collecting even more taxpayer dollars as she offers asinine lamentations about the growing debt/deficit.

These visionless fools aren't just a waste of space, they occupy spaces that brighter and braver men should be able to assume. They attack and countersignal effective rhetoric and political momentum, always glumly wanting more facts or a dialogue with the Left who abandoned that course 50 years ago.

These "sensible" people have nothing but their tone, and a monopoly of access to one another to back up their posturing. A closed circle of pinheads who have lost touch with reality. No predictive abilities, no aspirations for the future and a moral framework that deviates from the radical left by only 5 years lag.

Amanda reaches her target audience of 56 year old Accountants driving to the chemist to fill their viagra prescription every Wednesday

They must be shamed and their blunders must be brought to the fore. The Left will never hold Vanstone accountable for her mistakes, they were unforced errors that assure eventual Leftist victory. Vanstone delivered thousands of Sudanese people to marginal seats, forming a brand new demographic that is ready and willing to vote Labor in perpetuity. What a genius political operator! What a cold hard realist!

"There was a process to follow. They met the criteria. NAXALT. Our hands were tied. The political capital had to be spent elsewhere" on and on their excuses go as they cuck out. Easier to apologise than to ask permission. So go the election without mentioning ethnically cleansing White Australians for the Sudanese and then just spend a decade rationalising it on good ABC pay afterwards.

These Sensible-fetishist small-souled bugpeople must be mocked but this time from the Right because it works. It's how the Left shamed them into defeat in the first place after all.

Defeat is all these types have accomplished, a slow defeat of retreat after retreat. Their posturing as pragmatists doesn't stand up to scrutiny — sensible people have predictive power, accomplish goals and carve their own path without paying too much attention to the fashion or the regime flavour of the time.

How to detect that you're in the presence of a Sensible-savant:

  1. They're obsessed with criticisms that "go for all sides" or apply "right across the political landscape"

They presume to speak for "mums and dads" out there — who apparently only care about power bills

  1. They're scientifically illiterate or refuse to make any inferences, instead inviting "prominent" (status quo) academics on their shows to obfuscate the issue (academics of course filter out right-wingers)

  2. "Free trade"

  3. They always want to compromise a little bit more than whatever the right is currently offering — usually to "get on with the job"

  4. Foreign policy is incredibly complicated and cannot be understood

  5. They yearn for the politeness of a high trust White society but have NO suggestions as to how to get it other than calling people "whingers" on their bully pulpit

They think the Greens are insane and Labor are reasonable in comparison. They can't figure out this dynamic, and instead attack any right wing microparties for fear of it splitting the LNP base

They fucking love Aborigines

  1. Uber-cucked civic nationalism where they spam colloquialisms like "fair dinkum" and "fair go" when discussing a Sri Lankan burger-flipper facing deportation

Appeals to authority (usually used to deny whatever obvious point is being made against them)

Common sense talk that results in overly complicated policy solutions. Vanstone example: "What you're saying then is that ISIS isnt just a bunch of crazies sending out the same message over and over, its actually more sophisticated than that, and so our solution will have to be more sophisticated" - wrong, the solution is to end non-White immigration.