The Pickering Post
Friday, 22nd March 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


And what do these terms even mean?

Harry Richardson

Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled',


Did I ever mention that words are important? Did I tell you to watch out when people start re-defining words? One of the greatest achievements of the Left in recent decades has been the redefining of the term “Right wing” to mean something that it patently isn’t.

I don’t know about you folks, but people look at me real funny when I admit to being on the far right of the political spectrum. They seem to expect me to start goose stepping around the room at the slightest provocation.

I just smile inside, because I know that these people have no idea what I mean by “right wing.” However, since we are unashamedly right wing here on the Pickering Post, I think I should take the time to explain it, in a way that I wish it had been explained to me.

By the way, in case you are wondering, I grew up considering myself left of centre until I finally figured this out.

The first thing you need to know is that the ideas of the Left and the Right are underpinned by two opposing ideologies: Capitalism and Socialism.

What most people fail to understand however, is that these ideologies are not economic systems. At their roots, they are moral systems.

The point which separates these two systems is the issue of property rights. The extreme Left believes that the Government has the sole right to everyone’s property; particularly “the means of production.”

The Right believes that each individual has the right to own property and that it is the job of the Government to protect property rights at all costs. Although this has immense economic consequences, at its heart, this is a moral distinction.

Left wing morality insists that allowing people to own property is unfair because the wealthy will just buy up everything and oppress the poor into servitude and poverty.

Right wing morality insists that taking property from people without consent constitutes theft and is therefore immoral. This idea has strong roots in Christianity which commands “thou shalt not steal.” This statement is bolstered by Jesus’ emphasis on telling the truth (it’s hard to steal without lying about it).

Let’s take an example by going right back to basics. Let us suppose that we live in a Right-wing nation and that I own a piece of land. It doesn’t matter how I came by this land; I just own it. I also have some money.

So, I am faced with a choice. I can spend the money on beer and loose women, or I can invest the money to produce something of value. In essence, I can be a consumer, or I can be a producer.

Gratuitous photo of (hopefully) loose women

In this hypothetical case I decide – against my better judgement – to eschew the beer and loose women and to spend the money on cabbage seeds and shovels instead. So, I dig the ground, clear the weeds and plant the seeds.

Then, for the next 6 months, I water the ground, fence it off to keep wild animals out, pull out weeds and spray for pests.

At the end of the 6 months, I get out in the hot sun and harvest a semi-trailer full of cabbages.

The question dividing Right and Left is, “who owns the cabbages?”

According to Far-Right wing morality, the cabbages are entirely mine since I put my own time and resources into growing/producing them.

Far Left wing morality says no, no, no. These cabbages should be distributed amongst the people by the Government. The ones who are most in need, should get the most cabbages.

Before we try to answer the question of who owns the cabbages however, it is helpful to look at what I am going to do with them. After all, there is only so much Sauerkraut a man can eat before he goes stark raving mad.

Naturally then, I will keep a few for myself and most likely exchange the rest for something else that I want.

Now according to respected economists, a trade involves two people, a buyer and a seller. I disagree. A trade such as this requires three people: a buyer, a seller and a man with a gun.

Why do you need a man with a gun you may ask? Well, because one of the men involved in the trade may have a knife and decide to take the other man’s property without paying for it. The man with the gun is there to see that the trade goes ahead with the property rights of each party being respected.

The sixty-four million (or in terms of Australia’s growing debt, the $64 billion) dollar question of course is: “what is in it for the man with the gun?” What does he get out of it?

In a society like ours, the role of the man with the gun is played by the Government. Whatever weapons you may have, the Government has bigger ones. They can belt you with a truncheon, they can taser you in the private parts or they can shoot you in the head. Heck, they can even stick a sidewinder missile up the tailpipe of your Toyota Corolla if they really want to.

The Government has a monopoly on violence which it guards jealously and that – mostly – is a good thing. The problem is, the Government stands over us, but who stands over the Government?

The answer to that question, for most of human history, has been - no-one. The normal state of affairs, was for the king/queen/dictator/tyrant to do pretty much whatever they wanted. If you had an army, the only people who could tell you what to do, were people with bigger armies.

This system is what we call feudalism. The peasants did as they were told if they knew what was good for them. The ruler (the man with the gun) reaped most of the benefits, unless he was bumped off or invaded.

Then, around a thousand or more years ago on a cold and wet island off the North coast of Europe, an idea began to develop that the leader should not have absolute power. Instead, he would be restrained somewhat by laws. These laws were developed by independent courts of law that arbitrated disputes and built on previous cases (precedents). This body of legal cases developed into English common law.

There was a serious setback in 1066 when those bastard Vikings in French clothing invaded.

However, the seeds of freedom continued to sprout and eventually, King John managed to make himself so unpopular that the Barons raised a large army and forced him to sign an agreement called “The Magna Carta” which limited his power. It also limited the power of the king’s bankers to squeeze their customers, a lesson Australia could follow today.

Although it was only a baby step in the right direction, it proved an inspiration, and slowly but surely, the idea of limiting the power of the rulers began to gain traction. The idea was popular with the people of course – but with the rulers, not so much.

Yet against all odds, the great unwashed managed to roll back the power of the elites, in England at least, and in the countries which they colonised/invaded.

The result was that for pretty much the first time in history, commoners had the rights to own their own property and the rulers would use their power, not to take that property away from them, but to protect their person – and their property rights.

These property rights meant that ordinary people were free to produce cabbages and exchange them for other goods and services, like beer and romantic favours.

This system is known as “Capitalism,” and powerful people don’t like it.

To be continued………..

Part 2 can be found HERE


New Post Up !!

It's not the role of government to take care of the people, it's the role of the people to take care of government.

Aren't we all just tax slaves to the globalist money printers? Is this not what they want Harry?, or is the big game the NWO?. Just straight out unadulterated power. They are complete psycho's and we are their minions? Has anything changed?

....and the results of that can be seen on that evacuated Sydney residence tower which surely will not be the only one. There must have been a hell of a lot of pocket pissing going on..

while in Perth we had the coldest January day in 19 years

......................IT's going to be a Fakenado on the tele tonight..............

Take the easy way out ,Blame Hitler and guns for all the problems on Earth

the masses wont accept future Socialism ,MARXISM just blame the EXTREME RIGHT ! NAZIS,Neo Nazis etc etc etc and white supremacists of course oh and RACISTS

I wonder if any men of 'African Australian appearance' ? are at the counter rally in St Kilda? I hope there is plenty of slip slop slapping going on.

Bruce - if you really think Larry was a bastard then perhaps you shouldn't have used his blog..

The Marxists' scheme of bringing in people who hate us and wish to take over our country, has backfired badly on them. These people are assaulting, killing, raping and robbing Aussies. This is 'getting our gander up' and we are, and will, retaliate.Also, it is turning us against the politicians advocating for open borders...the lefties have' shot themselves in the foot'!

no probs.

Very simple to understand...good one, Harry.

OT, How about a Royal Commission into Royal Commissions, examining how much "good" they do and at what cost and where the money goes?

Senator Fraser Anning

The African gangs are disgusting cowards who only prey on the weak. Bashing elderly women in places of worship, carjacking innocents and invading peoples homes.

More everyday Australians need to stand up and take a stand against these people.

Am I Having a Nightmare?

Mark Dice

Left-wing, right-wing: The case for realignment of political labels
"...........................It would make better sense to label all political systems based on overweening government power as “right-wing,” and label those who advocate more limited government power as “left-wing”— terms that originally referred to the seating of the Ancien Régime in France, in which those trying to preserve royal and autocratic power sat on the right, and those seeking more limited government sat on the left.
A similar reversal may be justified with regard to the labels “liberal” and “conservative.” Liberalism in England traditionally was associated with free trade and anti-mercantilism, while “conservatives” advocated greater government regulation and restrictions on the free market. As with so many of these meaningless labels, they since have been reversed, with so-called “liberals” advocating high tariffs and protectionism and “conservatives” advocating free trade and resistance to government regulation and intrusion.
Here too, the labels of “liberal” and “conservative” should be realigned to their original meaning — which means labeling Bernie and Hillary (and yes, Trump, who has adopted their policies of mercantilist-style protectionism) as “right-wingers,” and mainstream conservatives seeking lesser concentration of government power and intrusion as “left-wingers.”
With political epithets so thoroughly engrained in the political psyche, such a reversal of labels seems impossible. But there is, in fact, a dramatic precedent.
Ever since the French Revolution of 1848, when a red flag was used to represent the “blood of angry workers,” the color red has been used by left-wing parties around the world to symbolize their liberal and pro-labor ideology. In the United States, blue first became the color of Republicans during the Civil War, when it came to represent the predominantly anti-slavery Republican north. By the time of the 1888 presidential election, blue had become the standard color of the Union and “Lincoln's Party,” while red was assigned to left-leaning Democrats................................."

I've read that minorities object to whites' cultural appropriation - depicting or using - anything from dreadlocks to ponchos.

Yet the MSM and Hollywood filth have depicted white European heroes and famous characters as black: "golden-haired Achilles"; Joan of Arc; Sir Lancelot; Margaret, Queen of England; Guinevere and Friar Tuck; Julius Caesar. And many more.

But apparently this cultural appropriation only works one way. Brainwashed British students forced the cancellation of Verdi's Aida because white students were cast to play Ethiopians.

Clearly the phrase 'university student' is now an oxymoron.

Rosa - hope you're enjoying the match! Astounding how well both of them are playing.