The Pickering Post
Saturday, 17th November 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.


...if Bill Shorten has his way

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.


Global warming and marriage equality? Take your pick. Both are massive scams the proponents want resolved by the end of this year, both are presented as something they are not and both have bewitched the entire political spectrum with some very effective, albeit dishonest, PR.

Okay, I apologise for the angry “marriage equality” cartoon, but I’m devastated that the Left is able to scam the Right so easily... and I have no respect for marriage. It’s a flawed institution, it is entrenched in outdated religious dogma and its solemn pledges have no legal basis.

Marriage is based on a momentary infatuation with an unrealistic expectation.

Males have evolved to necessarily take more than one woman because only the men were killed in battle and empty uteri were not an option when rebuilding a nation. Men die younger anyway and historical harem remnants are still alive today among warring tribes of Islam like ISIS that realises the importance of war brides. And those willing young brides are rushing to perform their duty.

Men now outnumber women by one per cent world-wide with China and India the main culprits due to the early detection of the sex of the embryo (at six weeks). Indians don’t want girls and boy-hungry China only allows one child... but with these countries it has been a social imperative with Asian parents having a financial interest in their child’s marriage.

Gays are defiled as non-productive anomalies yet they are breeding a predominance of boys who have reduced sexual options.

So why a first-world fuss over gay marriage in non tribal Australia where there is a glut of over 100,000 females?

Well, there’s a dishonest homosexual campaign underway with the dishonest title of “marriage equality”. But their demands are about as far from “equality” as you can get!

Now I have nothing against urban homosexuals, people will always do what they want to do. But the promiscuous Oxford Street type of gay males have contributed to an AIDS epidemic, mostly among their own, while conservative gay couples get on with their lives unobtrusively in the suburbs.

Now a reasonable homosexual, and there are plenty out there, would want parallel Marriage Act legislation. Something with wording like, “ you bloke, take this bloke to be your wedded bloke through thick and thin etc.” Or, “... do you sheila take this sheila to be your, etc”. Easy! No-one can object to that! Marriage legislation tailor-made legally for homosexuals! Terrific, let’s get on with it and over it!

But that’s not what they want, is it? Oh bloody hell no! They are demanding the age-old Marriage Act, designed for straight people, be revoked and replaced with sex-neutral phrases. They are insisting male/female references be abolished. And terrified conservatives are falling over themselves to agree under the threat of being called homophobes.

And if the current Marriage Act is changed to non-gender specific it will be impossible to reverse and the Catholic cabal of Abbott, Pyne and Andrews really should stand firm.

It’s about time we said f..k off to Shorten and the radical homosexuals who believe straight people should comply to their Shangri La fantasy of a non sex-specific world.

A separate Homosexual Marriage Act of 2015 is fine by me, but it should parallel, not replace, the Marriage Act of 1961 while millions of Australians still passionately believe in it.

“Marriage equality” is an emotive misnomer... it’s “sexual neutrality” they want. But the radical homosexual lobby is good at this manipulative sort of stuff... do you recall when they got their hands on the Government budget for the AIDS campaigns? They produced a litany of disgusting lies that purposefully embroiled straight people in their self-generated disease.

If you want to argue with that, simply observe the statistics... of the US population 2% is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infections, (similar to ours) the remaining percentage of 39% is taken up with dirty needle exchange, placental blood transfer and HIV positive bisexual men having anal intercourse with women.

Fair dinkum, I’m over this radical arm of well-financed, politically canny homosexuals who want to neutralise the sex rules for the rest of us.

And I’m ashamed of those straight people who are bending to them.


Retirees have plenty of time to look back on their working lives and often they experience great remorse. Tony Abbott should reflect on this as he ponders the same sex marriage issue.

Peter Wellington is another Leibor stooge.He put Anna Bligh and palletchook in the drivers seat.

In the 1980s, gay rights groups in Germany formed an alliance with pedophiles who advocated the legalization of sex with minors. It's a dark period few care to talk about now.

In July 1981, the gay interest magazine "Rosa Flieder" published an interview with Olaf Stüben. Stüben was one of the most infamous pedophiles in Germany at the time. As a writer for the leftist newspaper Die Tageszeitung, he openly advocated for people to accept pedophilia as healthy and moral.

The German Greens Party were associated with this movement.

The only reason for a true natural man to fight for wealth, fame or power is to acquire women, as sexy and young as he can. This is declared by Nature and extrapolation as we see bulls battle bulls, stallions battle stallions, and roosters battle roosters, for possession of females. And then Nature declares only the best shall breed, this for the strength and preservation of the race or specie.

The first and highest Law of Nature is the preservation of one's own kind.

A race whose males are mentally castrated is easy to subdue. But a race whose males have unrestrained sexual libido, and who fight to keep the harem they dominate, cannot be defeated while yet they breathe. That's why our organic indigenous religions were fertility cults. No disrespect to the word cult.

The sex drive of the males of a race that wishes to survive must not be hindered, slandered, diminished, misdirected, and in revolutionary times even its excesses must be excused. A race whose males will not fight to the death to keep and mate with its females will perish.

Although most homosexual activists publicly deny that they want access to boys, many homosexual groups around the world are working aggressively to lower the age of sexual consent. Their cause is being aided by the professional psychiatric and psychological associations, which have moved in recent years toward normalizing pedophilia, much as they did with homosexuality in the early 1970s.

Kevin Bishop, an admitted pederast (pedophile), is promoting the work of the North American /Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in South Africa. Bishop, who was molested at the age of six, is also an admitted homosexual who is blunt about the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. "Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile," said Bishop in an interview with the Electronic Mail & Guardian (June 30, 1997).1 (1. Angella Johnson, “The man who loves to love boys,” Electronic Mail & Guardian, June 30, 1997)

This pedophile/homosexual activist began studying pedophilia while a student at Rhodes University. He also discovered Karl Marx there, as well as other literature that helped form his worldview. His views are being echoed around the world by homosexual activists who are seeking what they call "sexual freedom" for children.

Bishop is on a crusade in South Africa to have "age of sexual consent laws" abolished, and he is looking for help from NAMBLA to accomplish his goal. He says children must be empowered "by teaching them about loving relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to make an informed decision about having [sex]." He also approves of incest, noting, "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to sex for a child should be with their [sic] parents, because it is less threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable." 2 (2.Ibid)

Bishop agrees with NAMBLA that the next social movement in Western politics will be an attack m "sexual ageism," which prohibits sexual contact based on age differences. The movement already is well under way in Europe and Canada.

The same old dream.

In 1970, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “human dignity”:

(43) In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade.

No go? Then let’s try again, this time wrapped in green.

In 2002, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary for “development” and to “conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem”:

Make available the increased commitments in official development assistance announced by several developed countries at the International Conference on Financing for Development. Urge the developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product as official development assistance to developing countries.

Damn. Try yet again.

In 2004, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “peace”, “collective security” and a “more secure world”:

The many donor countries which currently fall short of the United Nations 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA) should establish a timetable for reaching it.

Still not? Hmm.

In 2005, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “millennium development goals” and fight poverty:

Ours is the first generation in which the world can halve extreme poverty within the 0.7 envelope. In 1975, when the donor world economy was around half its current size, the Goals would have required much more than 1 percent of GNP from the donors. Today, after two and a half decades of sustained economic growth, the Goals are utterly affordable.

Still not! OK, let’s go for broke at Copenhagen next month.

In 2009, the United Nations in a draft treaty calls on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This is necessary to ensure “serious adverse effects of climate change as well as threats to their future economic potential due to insufficient access to shared global atmospheric resources”:

[Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:

(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]

The excuses change, and global warming is the most recent. But the hunger for 0.7 per cent of your cash is a constant.


• You probably thought, as I did, that the same sex marriage referendum in Ireland was carried by an overwhelming 62 per cent vote majority in support of changing the constitution.
• In fact, only 34 per cent of the adult population voted in support of the measure.
• There are 3.52 million Irish citizens of voting age, and 66 per cent of them did not vote "yes".
• Two-thirds of the adult population either voted "no", or did not vote, or did not register to vote.

I have been mystified why former conservative independents always end up supporting Labor when it comes to providing the numbers for them to form Government. The answer I think is so obvious that I missed it. Corruption/money.


Premiere Anastacia Pallet Chook is the Miss Piggy of Qld politics & corruption these days...

Premiere Anastacia Pallet Chook is the Miss Piggy of Qld politics & corruption these days...

This idea of bringing up kosher whenever halal is discussed is exactly as Ralf Schumann says; a red herring and an exercise in moral relativism. And who are the experts in moral relativism? The useful idiots of the Left.

What is it with all these name changes are they so ashamed of their own persona?

SHY demands an explanation as she says she has been spied on at Nauru.

I sent an email to MP Dutton to buy them all for returning jihadists to wear in prison

or come back as kiki maybe

Jobs done for me.

I think the little grub has pulled the plug and run off like the coward that it is, into the dark of the night.

The Labor Party is a dirty, rotten, low-down, backward jumping, worm-eaten, inept, rancid, pernicious, exhausted, evasive, dishonest, incompetent, lazy, mendaciously mud-slinging, ignorant, flagitious, disreputable, deceitful, unsavoury, unworthy, unsound, unwholesome, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, untruthful, corrupt, insincere and misleading, as well as reprehensible, weaselling, miscreant, nefarious, tarnished, ill-mannered, snivelling, expendable, foul, abominable, wicked, sinful, soiled, shifty, discreditable, improper, obscene, hateful, impure, degraded, grubby, pitiful, dilapidated, shabby, grovelling, flea-ridden, discredited, disgraced, disgraceful. degenerate, ignominious, depraved, nefarious, toe-curling, perverse, putrid, unhealthy, faulty, opprobrious, insane, diseased, brain-dead, divided, festering clump of vapid fools.
Not to mention peccant, tergiversating, vituperative, insalubrious bunch of lying ex unionist scabs.