The Pickering Post
Wednesday, 20th June 2018

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.


WHAT MADE JULIA TICK... that’s not explained in her book

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



As Julia prepares to grace our screens and flog her “tell-nothing” book this evening, I’ve decided to revisit and update my assessment from over two years ago of our most enigmatic Prime Minister ever. Nothing much has changed and to be honest, she fascinates me to distraction. 

A bloke who is over 35 and still unattached is either a serial mummy's boy, is gay, a drug dealer/user or a social misfit... all 'no-go' areas for the nubile, hot-blooded woman. But surely there must be more to it than that! 

I mean Gillard was never prepared to sink her hard-core communist heart into playing happy families.

Now, I could be wrong but it appears single women dating married men is much more prevalent an occurrence than single men dating married women. Only an observation but deserving of further scrutiny.

According to a study conducted by the University of Louisville, many single women tend to engage in something the study referred to as "mate copying." In other words, women tend to believe that if another woman has already collared a man, there must be something this man possesses that is worth having.

Maybe it's because these women love a competitive challenge, a no-strings drama or simply the thrill of "theft". Whatever the case, many women have revealed that sex with married men is awesome. Why is that?

The study referred to Angela, 28, who enjoys a high-position in a big corporation and had an affair with a married man who worked in her office. Angela told the study, "The sex was an incredible thrill because we had to be careful all the time. I would end up holding on to a cabinet in the office supplies room while he penetrated me with quick thrusts during lunchtime, it would excite me like no other sex I've ever had."

She admits it was tons of fun, until the "relationship" started moving from lust to emotion. "I began behaving like a possessive child and that's when I knew it was time to let go."

"But", Angela continued, "I knew many single women who not only enjoyed lusty relationships with married men, they would take risks that I thought were simply immoral, like having sex in the married couple's bed."

Maybe the "no-strings" thing is attractive to women. Pure lust requires no need to meet boring parents or conduct bothersome courting procedures. Tearing at each others' underclothes in a frenzied sweat against a filing cabinet before returning to work sporting a crimson glow has fulfilled many a female fantasy.

But Julia Gillard's predilection for married men poses an interesting psychological quandary. Women with a strong competitive streak are also addicted to married men.

Such women may be willing to take married men as lovers if only to prove that they are superior to the wife when it comes to sexual and/or intellectual prowess. That shouldn't be too hard, as torrid lust and intellectual intercourse within marriage normally wanes with familiarity... after a year or so of different positions you had better decide if you actually like each other.

This single female phenomenon may have little to do with the desirability of the man but the fact that she has convinced him to cheat on his wife in order to be with her represents a huge power trip.

A woman who consistently lusts after other women's "unattainable" husbands is not looking for a commitment of love. The middle-aged single man is not attractive to the predatory female simply because he is still on the shelf, apparently unclaimed. 

The predatory single female generally prefers a man who is married, rich, powerful, successful or famous and with a flexible itinerary. Success with this man will fulfil a need to augment her worth. It is a cruel confirmation that she is preferred over the woman he has at home anxiously checking the clock.

Then there is the kinky pleasure of being in the presence of the married man's wife. The smug "if-only-you-knew" factor is a form of covert power over another oblivious female.

So, what common thread in her relationships indicates Julia Gillard's motivation? We are not supposed to ask that sort of thing you say! Why the hell not? If we had a single male Prime Minister who consistently had affairs with married women it would have surely justified media interest. If you don't think it's a fair question then you don't believe in sexual equality.

Gillard is so obviously a very sexual woman. Her overt flirting with Barack Obama is testimony to that. She displays that come-to-bed look with aplomb but can switch to an attacking Pit-Bull bitch in an instant. 

Her list of uni-sexual affairs is a long one, but the list of affairs with married men with children is also long, and worthy of note:

• Michael O'Connor, ruggedly good-looking and an unabashed communist. He was a founding partner in Gillard’s Socialist Forum with Jenny Macklin. He was also a militant powerbroker of the BLF/CFMEU and is now a CFMEU boss. Apparently happily married with children. Union power and exciting mob-style thuggery was an attraction for Gillard. (A relationship of over 6 years but had overlapped other relationships.)

• Peter Gordon, of Slater & Gordon. Married with children and Senior Partner. Gillard's rather brief stint with Gordon was a result of his Presidency of the Western Bulldogs AFL Club. Gordon and Gillard regularly spent time together at the Club and Gillard has supported the Bulldogs ever since, both emotionally and, as Prime Minister, with taxpayer funds. Gordon had no choice but to sack her from the law firm but has resolutely defended her since.

• Bruce Wilson. Happily married with two boys. He was a fraudulent crook and an AWU strongman with a wad of cash that would choke a horse. The exciting world of union corruption was an instant attraction for Gillard and she knowingly participated in rorts of over $1 million. Wilson’s marriage to a Swiss woman collapsed after he and Gillard’s fraudulent activities were discovered. (A relationship of over four years.)

• Trade Minister at the time, Craig Emerson. Happily married with three children, his rise to power through ANU academia and his assertive manner was also an attraction for Gillard. Emerson and his wife divorced after this relationship became public. Emerson's main claim to fame, apart from his demented eye rotation, was that he drank Gillard's contact lenses after she inadvertently left them in a glass of water in the bathroom.

• Tim Mathieson. Well, Tim breaks the mould. He was divorced with children and had another daughter on the side. Gillard began this relationship just prior to Rudd's election. Mathieson, a drink-driving yobbo, left a long trail of debt wherever he went, he was a loser, but it was clear that Gillard needed Mathieson for a different role.

Gillard's Prime Ministerial ambitions were being hatched with the help of Bill Shorten and Bill Ludwig, both powerbrokers in the AWU and with rap sheets that would have got them executive positions in the Cosa Nostra. 

Rudd was a universally hated Public Service prig but he was their only likely entree into government and anyway a change in leadership could be made later... and Rudd in his arrogant oblivion never saw that change coming. 

Gillard’s choice of Mathieson was appropriate. She had no sexual attraction to him but his dimwittedness ensured he could never be in competition with, or a threat to, her lofty ambitions. And for God's sake, we could never have had a single female Prime Minister living alone in The Lodge, could we? 

None of her previous partners, including her girlfriend Julie, could have successfully moved into The Lodge with her.

So, leaving the hapless Mathieson and lesbian relationships out of the thread, there is a commonality in Gillard's male affairs:

All men were older.
All were married.
All had children.
All wielded power.
All had dodgy union connections and lots of available cash (albeit mostly belonging to other people) and,
All were beguiled by Gillard's sexuality.

Yet strangely, all these affairs ended amicably. Even now, Gillard and her ex-men hold not a shred of bitterness for each other. Craig Emerson and even Bruce Wilson and Peter Gordon rush to defend her. What does this mean? It simply means they were not affairs of the heart. True emotional love mostly ends in prolonged hurt and acrimony. 

Not one of Gillard’s affairs did that.

Gillard was attracted to the intoxicating lustful excitement of power, union corruption, rivers of illicit money and an ego driven, covert competition with married men's wives and she has never felt the need to hide her sexual targeting of any man. 

Wilson's wife at the time simply learnt to live with his infidelity. Emerson's wife couldn't. O'Connor's wife was furious but got over it and “charity shag” Mathieson simply grabbed his rod and went fishing.

And why were these men attracted to Gillard in the first place? Well, I'm a little uncomfortable saying this, but she definitely exudes a type of bewitching sensuality.

A sensuality even Barack Obama found difficult to ignore. He exhibited an instant and overt attraction to her, much to Michelle’s Obama’s chagrin. 

It was obvious Julia and Barack were made for each other and it’s my suspicion they could have lived happily ever after, for at least a year or two. 

After all these two soul buddies had much in common... they both made an absolute mess of whatever they touched.



Comments

when the crudd won the election, I made a statement to a labor voting mate, that juliar would be the next prime minister, and that crudd would not last the first term, sounds like I am bragging in hind sight, but I did get it right. p.s what is a crudd? a person that sucks the farts from seagulls arses, hahahahhhahaaaaaaa

didnt they call her the turtle in the uni days?

you are too funny,larry!God,i hope she reads this brillant article!

Bewitching sensuality???????? Ha ha ha ha ha. More like " open thine legs and men will come running". Ha ha ha ha , what gullible fools men are. Even more gullible to a cunning , ambitious female. Some things are engraved in the character of the human species, and will never change. Hahahahaha.

Just one more point - if JG is so awesome, why did Slater & Gordon, who were privy to more of the story than most, bust their guts to get rid of her? Their own minutes at the time recorded point 6.4 Julia Gillard - the sooner she leaves the better. I'd say that pretty much applies to anything she touches (btw that is a rhetorical question. I'm not interested in your ideology that is so devoid of fact or truth or reason. If anything can penetrate, you might want to ponder the reason they were so desperate for her to leave that they documented that statement in their minutes http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_sooner_she_leaves_the_better/.

Gillards story more likely.....She Knifed Rudd after weeks/months of planning with others. This was likely due to her finding out that Rudd could stand her and was likely to put her on the back bench. Approx 7-10 days prior to the previous Election she was informed that after knifing Rudd she was going to loose to the Coalition. She likely went to the Greens& Independents prior to that Election for there support promising absolutely anything. The rubbish of "Condemning all Australians sports people as cheats by Jason Clare and Co, to the entire world" in February 2013 was just a ruse... To take the heat of Gillard whom was terminal at the time. her only achievement is to be the worst PM in history....

Gillard has the no morals at all. And is a confirmed Liar and stand over merchant.

That will be my last comment to you. if you can't follow fact or reason or truth, there is likely no hope for you and i have no intention of wasting my time any further. Talk fact and not propoganda and there may be a chance but I don't think you know enough about anything to do that

If you recall, it was around the time of the phone hacking scandal in the UK, so they backed down. Then the media tarts started slandering anyone who tried to follow the story eg mark latham et al against grace collier when she wrote gillard was being investigated by the police - confirmed by ben fordham as told to him by the police. As for this murdoch paranoia - grow up. it just fits your little fantasy with again no facts to back it up, other than paranoia and victimhood. While I don't agree with the PPL I don't agree with your blind assumption it is grossly unfair and inequitable. It's not - why do public servants have it and thats ok? (and why on earth would rupert murdoch have to approve or bless it?) you have blind allegiance and nothing else. its pathetic

4. No slanders were published. The next time she had a fit, if i recall correctly, was when MPS tried to air Bob Kernohan's interview - it had been legalled &approved & 2UE cowed to bully tactics, The next time was when she jumped on a misprint where Ean Higgens (or editor) said trust fund instead of slush fund. Please explain how that is defamatory. As for only having mitchell's word for the conversation, whose word do you have? None, so again CarrieD trumps your opinion with fact. Facts obviously never trouble true believers of the left persuasion because that would interfere with their (spelled with an i btw) preconceived bigotries. That you play the victim card is pathetic. and all you've got. They didn't stand their ground because she threatened them with a media enquiry like the UK

you obviously made your mind up before facts entered the equation so there is no point trying but in case anyone else is interested 1. smith resigned rather than sign a document that should never have been requested of him. The media allowed themselves to be cowed by a bullying PM 2. sure, he was sacked by 2UE, but again by a cowed media because he spoke the truth about mohammed. 3. milne was sacked not because of his untrue and unsubstantiated slanders about ms gillard - i bet you don't even know what it was he was accused of - his so called offence was the article "contained an allegation that Ms Gillard had incorporated funds used by Mr Wilson" and we now know, from her own words, that that is true. So he was right and she didn't like the story being told.

Her book is on special at Big W. Quilton is still cheaper to use, I'll wait for the bargian bin at the bookshop next week!

Channel 9 competes with ABC to baffle the working person with pro-Labor propaganda. Surely you would have figured this out by now?

Thank you for adding the only chapter in Gillard's book that the public wants to read.

Good article, great and easy reading. Do you think she didn't include it in this edition of the book due to lack of space? Perhaps it will be in the 2nd edition which will be printed due to popular demand. You know, for toilet paper or starting a wood fire? As I won't be buying the fairy tales I will have to depend on Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and you for the daily comedy extract. As for her exuding "type of bewitching sensuality" I suggest you listen to her speak and increase the gin or medication dose.

Big Barrack, would of rode that red rascal raw chaffed panting painful humiliated albeit ragged, she'd be barking like the blue cattle dog the Red Roof is fashioned after. Now red inside n out.
×

Mr Right. Oh you're an "Indian giver" as well? LOL. Look, I don't mind having a good discussion with anyone, but they have to back up their opinions with facts that support those opinions, not resort to abuse. If you want to talk about smug and self centred you may wish to examine your own chosen handle... Mr Right????

Interesting MR - quoting Winston Churchill to prove our point about you... 'a fanatic never changes their mind... do not care about facts or truth....etc etc". That's brilliant because you are spot on about yourself. Thanks. CarrieD and I can rest our case, obviously, though we could before as you have argued nothing even remotely related to facts to back up your one-eyed opinion. The only thing you brought to the plate was bias and abuse. and you still lost the discussion. CarrieD has every right to be smug. She had facts behind her!

He used those other two names? He seriously needs a beating on the basis alone of trashing the name of a genuine hero (OK, to me... I'd be in prison or dead if it wasn't for finding The Phantom in my teens....)

Just a thought - wonder if good old boy Bill Ludwig went there? It was an open secret in financial circles in 2007 that Rudd was to win the election but would be knocked over for a Union hack!