I don’t want to talk about it

….how you broke my heart.
If I stay here just a little bit longer
If I stay here, won’t you listen to my heart?
Oh, my heart

Here’s an unscientific test; do you personally know anyone who has died in the last two years? Lets limit the scope to someone who you’ve spoken to at least once in the last five years.

Same question, but someone who’s had an unexpected medical condition or diagnosis?

How about suicides or suicide attempts?

Does it feel like the number of people falling in these anecdotal categories has increased recently? Does it make you ask any questions?

Maybe it’s not just anecdotal:

Excess deaths 13% higher.

Suicide rate per capita 9% higher in “world’s most locked down city”.

Have you seen unusual stories like this recently?

21 year old dies suddenly.

If you only consume news from the traditional sources, you might not have seen this highlighted or given much attention:

Rich countries are having more excess deaths than poorer countries. Who had that on their 2023 bingo card?

The lack of journalistic curiosity to not write more articles on this is bordering on being a superpower.

What was the significant factor impacting the rich countries that poorer countries didn’t have? Was it four letters starting with a lower case m?

I don’t know, but perhaps someone might have a look into it? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

How is 13% excess mortality not yesterday’s, today’s, tomorrow’s headline? In what universe is that not the lead story until we learn the reasons?

How are the faces and names of the public health officials of Victoria and their political masters not being plastered over the media until the excess suicide rates have been explained and addressed?

How many times do editors need to write “died suddenly” before they suspect there might be common causes?

Bill’s Opinion

Something is happening here. Let’s be charitable, let’s call it embarrassment. The people with the final decision rights on what story runs each day are embarrassed at how utterly wrong they’ve been on the seriousness of Covid, the morality and effectiveness of lockdown policies and the broken promises of “safe and effective” vaccines.

They bought and regurgitated the government talking points without question. They sent journalists to press conferences with questions such as, “Premier, should you have locked us down earlier and harder?”, or “Minister, shouldn’t you be considering jail for the unvaccinated?”.

It’s a little embarrassing to now admit how completely disastrous and devastating that position has been to the public health, both physically and mentally.

So instead, they are spiking any pieces daring to suggest the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

How do I know this?

The article above about the poor kid in Queensland was written by Alex Blair. I was going to berate him for his lack of curiosity (sub news category “health problems” really?), but then I looked at his Twitter feed. Oh, he’s curious enough all right, he’s just not getting that curiosity published by his editor.

It’s the same story for Frank Chung. Very carefully edited news articles, but his Twitter feed is more free with the questions.

It’d be fascinating to read Alex and Frank’s spiked articles. Perhaps there’s a book’s worth.

As that famous pederast, John Maynard Keynes, once said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”.

Well, in the case of editors of our main news outlets, we have the answer; plug our fingers in our ears and sing La La La La.

Long Covid – exclusively a left wing condition

As a public service, occasionally I visit the Guardian website to see what’s going on in the hive mind.

Today, the narrative is we should hope the Chinese authorities can sort out these irresponsible protestors otherwise the worst disease since the Black Death will finally take hold and kill billions. Billions, I tell ye.

And jeesh, what an insane take it is, filled with code words and catchphrases to signify the author is in the “in group”:

On Chinese lockdowns, “Yet, despite the cost to civil liberties, it worked in stopping Covid-19 initially”

That cost to civil liberties; no point in detailing anything more than that. No space to describe the utter horrors and crimes against humanity executed en masse just to prevent a respiratory illness 99.97% of people shrug off in three days. Just call it “cost”.

“….several safe and effective vaccines were approved, which meant that widespread protection could be delivered to western populations.”

Safe. Effective.

Even if one is prepared to deliberately look past the statistically obvious vaccine-induced cardiac issues in the demographics least at risk from the virus, you must be living under a rock if you can convince yourself they are effective. Joe Biden had four doses of the damn thing and caught Covid twice. I’d hate to experience your definition of ineffective.

However, perhaps the biggest signal for the in group is the use of the phrase Long Covid.

Nobody, literally nobody in the real world has used this expression for two years. None of us know of someone with this phantom condition, none of us believe it’s statistically significant, certainly not relative to the obvious vaccine injuries we have witnessed.

However, if you are of the mindset that the Guardian is the paper of record and that it gets things more correct than incorrect, this residual fear of the dreaded Long Covid is keeping you from going outside without a mask and prompting you to book your monthly vaccine update.

This attitude is epitomised by this Guardian article and the author’s wiki entry. It’s a world where inconvenient facts are not allowed to enter. It’s a world where the reason the west is out of lockdown is that the vaccines have prevented the spread of the virus, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It’s a world where Long Covid is a real phenomenon, impacting young and old, not just neurotic middle aged left wing women.

Bill’s Opinion

Devi Sridhar has been consistently wrong about Covid for three years. Wrong about its deadliness, wrong about the best approach to deal with it at a population level, wrong about the safety and effectiveness of the rushed vaccines, wrong about the balance of civil liberties and public health in the west and now China.

Look at her wiki entry. At every stage, her expertise failed to accurately predict the future.

Your instincts were exponentially more accurate during this time.

And yet, she is the Professor and Chair of Public Health at the University of Scotland, she’s the one who co-authors books with Chelsea Clinton, she’s the member of SAGE who advised the UK government on how to deal with the virus, she’s the one who gets to write inaccurate Guardian columns (but I repeat myself) and you’re not.

Write about what you know

…is the famous advice offered all nascent writers.

But what if you don’t know very much at all?

You become a self-obsessed female writer, churning out the same words, just in a different order, once a week, that’s what.

There’s a few examples kicking around. My favourite is Kate Mulvey, who Desert Sun has written about a few times, pointing out the repetitive and yet inconsistent bollocks she throws out every few weeks (click the link while it still works – he recently told me he has a huge gender reassignment surgery bill was due, so won’t be renewing the web hosting contract).

We also have Jenna Hates, who writes Dear Diary style columns about annoyances most of us don’t have time to be bothered with.

We have a newcomer to the Gonzo-churn ™ genre; Mary Madigan (and a new category for this organ).

Mary’s output is starting to pick up speed now. The problem is, she’s got nothing to write about but herself. Let’s give this problem a name:

Kevin Rudd Disease; (genetic) – an inability to compose more than two sentences without using a first person singular pronoun. Prognosis: fatal tedium.

Today, Mary comments on Jennifer Aniston’s infertility by telling us we shouldn’t comment on Jennifer Aniston’s infertility (yes, I know). Except before she‘s travelled more than halfway though her column, she’s turned it around to be about Mary:

I’m not famous, and my hair isn’t nearly as lovely or iconic, but once you’re a woman over 25 and you have a partner, there’s no escaping the interest in your fertility. Suddenly, everyone in your family behaves like a tabloid journalist and you are treated like a celebrity, but unfortunately, still asked to wash up the dishes.

Forget being asked, how’s the weather? People go directly to: So, when will you have kids? Do you want kids? Have you had your fertility examined? Would you freeze your eggs? Do you make enough money to have a kid?

One can see how that line of questioning would grate. How annoying for Mary.

That’ll be the same Mary Madigan who authored this introspection about her future fertility and ability to financially support a family, right?

The moment I realised I wanted to become a mother was also the moment it occurred to me that I wasn’t in a financial position to afford a baby. In some abstract way, I’ve always figured I’d eventually have a baby. But it’s only been recently, as I hurl towards the end of my twenties, that I’ve felt that longing.

Bill’s Opinion

Jennifer Aniston tacitly signed the deal with the devil when she took the massive coin from show business; privacy was the price. She knew that. It’s been the deal since the silent movie era.

Mary Madigan wants us to stop talking about the thing she got paid to talk about 6 months ago.

Next month she’ll write a column about how we need a national conversation about it, or some such similar bollocks.

Apparently, she earns $65,000 a year for her brand of Gonzo-churn. That’s not a bad effort, but she’ll run out of combinations of the same words to use before she reaches retirement age, so will probably need to find someone else to write about.

If you’re reading this, Mary, Kate Mulvey recycled a few ex-lovers, changing the names around each time. Just a suggestion.

Dial Triple Zero for the Free Speech Brigade

Free speech is a difficult concept for some to grasp.

As a paid up member of the “Free Speech Brigade”, I’m here to clarify the concept for you.

Let’s start by some definitions of what it isn’t.

Things people say that you agree with.

It’s very easy to defend the speech rights of somebody you like and agree with, isn’t it?

Things people say that are uncontroversial.

That’s just “speech”.

Things people say that other people disagree politely with.

That’s just called “an argument”.

The corollary of these statements is where we’ll find the definition of Free Speech. Don’t expect anyone employed to write for the Sydney Morning Herald to understand that though.

For example, Jack Whelan thinks the netball players have had their free speech rights impacted.

If you recall, they briefed the press about concerns they had with a potential sponsor, who subsequently withdrew the offer of free money. Some idiots then suggested the sponsor should be forced to say some words to earn the right to donate money.

What were the negative consequences of this free speech? None; the People’s Republic of Victoria bailed them out with taxpayer’s money.

Other examples given as free speech issues include the Wendyball players who criticised Qatar but are still going to take the big pay day rather than boycott the competition.

A third example is a cricketer negotiating with his employer for more input on potential commercial deals.

Bill’s Opinion

The one notable example not offered by Jack Whelan, our Sydney Morning Herald champion of Free Speech, is the Israel Folau debacle.

The Sydney Morning Herald was so keen on Izzy’s freedom of speech, they called for him to lose his job.

I think we can guess the Herald’s definition of Free Speech.

Jack Whelan is a barrister barista and adviser to player associations.”

Oh yeah? A strong cappuccino, please Jack.

Do editors have a duty of care?

Remember Mary Madigan, the “writer” for Mammamia who was upset someone managed to lose excess weight, then posted pictures of herself in lingerie and was further upset by the response by rude strangers?

Well, she’s been busy and written another quality column, this time suggesting people with dogs need equivalent time off from work as parents.

In our previous post about her, we suggested the editors were encouraging mental health problems for the purpose of macabre public entertainment:

…..the editors of the publications paying for these columns are encouraging negative health outcomes by printing it. Perhaps the editors are analogous to the circus ringmasters introducing the freak show exhibit.

This hypothesis is firming up to be a strongly-held view.

What on earth do you think the public response is going to be to daft OpEds like Mary’s current offering?

Anyone who has ever met a human or logged on to social media could predict the heap of abuse that is going to be piled on to her from angry parents and people who strongly feel she should have her personal faults criticised.

The consequential cost to her mental health is not zero. Has the editor factored this into their decision to commission and publish her article? How robust is her personality?

Bill’s Opinion

Just because it’s possible for everyone to write their innermost thoughts and emotions for the world to read, doesn’t mean we should encourage it.

So far, the only articles Mary has managed to get published all have the common theme of her exposing ridiculous opinions devoid of reality. She’s being allowed to publish a diary of mental health issues for our entertainment, in effect.

It might be argued she’s a conscious agent provocateur, like Richard Littlejohn or Katie Hopkins, and she has a robust enough sense of self to cope with the opprobrium. Take a look at the comments section beneath today’s offering if you dare.

But what if she’s not? This seems like a dangerous game Kerry Warren is playing, let’s hope nothing goes wrong for her.

Pelosi Smollet

Now, you can say that I’ve grown bitter but of this you may be sure:
The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor
And there’s a mighty Judgement comin’ but I may be wrong
You see, I hear these funny voices in the Tower of Song

Tower of Song, Leonard Cohen

I suspect the hammer attack on Nancy’s husband, Paul Pelosi, will be an excellent case study in how the narrative quickly moves, regardless of credibility or likely truth.

Three days ago, it was reported as a likely politically motivated attack, with President Biden drawing a direct line for everyone to follow.

Later in the day, the President directly tied the assault to growing strains of rightwing extremism in remarks at a fundraising dinner in Philadelphia later Friday.

“This is despicable. There’s no place in America – there’s too much violence, political violence. Too much hatred. Too much vitriol,” Biden said.

From the same CNN article:

With Speaker Pelosi away, there would not have been a security detail at the residence, according to one source familiar with protocol.

Which seems incredible, but then it would explain how Paul was allowed to get in to the driving seat of a car with a couple too many glasses of Paul Masson rosé inside him recently.

One might expect some additional permanent physical security measures to be in place around the residence of the Speaker’s house, however. Perhaps the attacker was a highly skilled cat burglar? Let’s read on…

DePape is a mentally ill, nudist activist”, with a history of believing he was Jesus, which is probably one of the more niche categories on Tinder, to be fair.

Ok, so unlikely to have the stealth breaking and entering skills of Mission Impossible’s Ethan Hunt then. What on earth must be going on?

Yesterday, rumours were abound, one re-tweeted then deleted by Elon Musk, inferring a more salacious reason explaining why DePape could bypass the security systems and protocols of Pelosi Towers.

Who knows?

Bill’s Opinion

As with the Jussie Smollet and the Covington Kids stories, the likelihood of the truth being reported within the first 100 hours is close to zero.

The only question worth asking when reading the initial reports of these politically-charged stories is, “does this news outlet think I am fucking stupid, or are they fucking stupid?”.

Welcome home

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” ― Charles MacKay

Slowly but surely people around us are coming back to their senses. Topics that only 6 months ago would have labelled as conspiracy theories are now being accepted as mainstream opinion.

Venal pond life such as Piers Morgan are channeling their inner Keynes (no, not the pederast bit) and claiming to change their minds when the facts change.

Public figures are suddenly wondering whether, in the face of awkward all cause mortality statistics, lockdowns and universal vaccinations were perhaps not worth the long term cost.

The trigger for each volte face is unpredictable. This excellent article listing all the things Australian politicians said about vaccines preventing transmission to justify their authoritarian and immoral new laws, for example.

The temptation from our side of the argument is to welcome these victories for common sense and move on. But there’s a reckoning to be had first.

A slip of the tongue by a Pfizer exec in a Brussels parliamentary hearing doesn’t seem a credible reason for people to suddenly notice the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission.

When 90+ percent of Australians are vaccinated and yet everyone you know has caught the disease, simple observed reality should have been enough for any conscious human to notice.

Bill’s Opinion

As each individual returns to sanity, they need to justify to themselves their past decisions. They therefore need an inflection point they can state was the moment the facts changed, demanding the change of thought.

Those of us who didn’t spend the last couple of years in denial of reality and with a healthy distrust of official narrative know that this justification is pure bollocks, of course.

Nevertheless, welcome home. It’s a shame it took you so long though.

Perhaps we could start with one of us offering some sort of an apology?

Is it cos I is black?

The Sydney Morning Herald gave a laptop to another intern with nothing much to say, again. The result is a classic “everything is racist and you’re all racists” OpEd and yet another demonstration of Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism.

My phone pings. A friend request from the guy I went on a date with. I feel a sense of dread as I flick through his photos. My shoulders tense and rise to my ears before I let out a sigh of relief – he has friends of colour.

Friends of colour.

Stop. Before we go any further, let’s get some context on the author. Exactly where on the Dulux scale of Reykjavik to Kinshasa skin tone is Emma Sullivan sitting?

I admit to having a mild case of deuteranopia, but I’m seeing a very light olive colour there, a skin tone I can usually achieve by the third day of a beach holiday. So, in certain conditions, could I be your friend of colour?

The older I get, the more I find myself scanning the crowd to find faces like mine.

Really? What a strange thing to do, let alone write down and publish.

Being half white and growing up in a very Anglo-Saxon suburb, this hasn’t always been the case. In high school, I clung to my white privilege as it allowed me to laugh off comments like “you’re not really Asian” or “you don’t count”.

Search no more; we have found the Rosa Parkes and Nelson Mandela Australia has been looking for. “Let my people go”.

In an attempt to show us what other cultures looked like, our school even took a busload of teenage girls to Footscray “to see how refugees and migrants live”. I remember the squeals and grimaces at the markets as we walked past skinned ducks and ox tongue. Tiny noses being turned up at the sight of lunch.

Just girls on the bus? Well, this gives away a little more detail; not just white privilege, but single sex (therefore most likely privately) educated privilege. Do we have some underlying guilt feelings going on here?

But, when almost half of Victorians are either born overseas or have a parent who was born in another country, why do I run into large groups of people out socially where every member is white?

I’m going say the quiet part out loud here; is it because you’re the daughter of upper middle class rich parents, so you don’t hang around with the working class, most of whom have at least one mixed race relationship in their families?

I’ve noticed this most when out in affluent suburbs. From my experience, these people often to end up in workplaces full of their (white) high school peers – creating a vicious cycle that can shelter people from other cultures, and make them close-minded.

Told ya.

I’ve felt it when those around me refuse to use chopsticks. When my culture becomes “too hard” for them, it stings. No one is an expert at their first try – it’s the effort that counts. It’s about the willingness to learn and the eagerness to understand.

What a thing to be upset about in a world where the Uyghurs are in concentration camps.

I’ve felt it when people say they’ve “done a country” after visiting the tourist traps over a week or two. The word “done” is framed as if a country can be ticked off. We’re taught to not judge a book by its cover – so why do it after a fleeting glimpse at other cultures and countries?

Ok, you’re going to hate the context my friend Jako and I used say “done a country” back in our youthful days then. Probably wise I keep the details to myself if I ever meet you.

I don’t think it’s about implementing other cultural practices or rituals into our daily routines. It’s about allowing space for more than what you know.

“Please can more of you swipe left on my picture now?“

Bill’s Opinion

Pure projection. “I don’t see many non whites while I’m out in my chi chi bistros with my old school friends. Therefore you’re all racist”.

Oh do fuck off.

Also, a reminder of the ever accurate law:

Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism is that the most heartfelt journalistic extrusions will be demands for how society must be re-engineered so that, come the Revolution, the writer herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Bob’s yer uncle

Waleed Ally smuggled a thought bubble past the subbies:

Forget a president – here’s another idea.

It’s not all bad news though; the opening sentence probably resulted in an almond chai decaf latte being spat out in a chi chi Mosman café this morning; So, republicanism is now a minority position in Australia.

Put Peter Fitzsimons’ therapist on danger money, baby.

He then proceeds to state the bleedin’ obvious for several hundred repetitive and tautologous words, which he helpfully summarised early on in the piece, to save bored readers time:

…..a huge number found something appealing in it, even when the public relations were terrible. That’s true even with the absurdity of Australia having a foreign head of state, determined by hereditary rules.

Yes Waleed, people are irrational about the Monarchy. Also, the prospect of “President Rudd” or “First Lady Lisa Wilkinson” probably scares the living daylights out of them.

His answer though? You’re going to love it, it’s a doozy:

What if, instead of a monarch or a president, we had an Australian Elder? That is, a recognised Indigenous elder, appointed as our head of state for life.


Can anyone see any potential problems with this? Beuller? Bruce Pascoe? Anyone?

Also, appointed by whom?


Surely not The King?

Also, slightly controversial question; if we could poll the 24 million Australians, how many would be able to name even one recognised Indigenous elder?

Not a famous sports star or TV presenter, but “elder”, with all the inferred gravitas that noun contains.

We could even call our Elder “Uncle” or “Aunty”. And when our Aunty dies, deep rituals of mourning would already exist, ready for us to embrace as a nation.

He’s “thinking past the sale” here, we haven’t been able to think of an example anyone’s heard of yet.

Also, a teensy-weensy task of a communication exercise is required to let the rest of the world know that Australia will now be using “Uncle” in a different context to the two globally accepted norms of (1) parental sibling, or (2) “friend of Mum’s who often comes over when Dad is out”.

This though, is the ultimate in race-baiting projection:

Obviously, this office is racially closed. But so is the monarchy, which is always going to be white…

Which is another way of saying Prince George will be prevented from marrying anyone outside his race if he should wish to do so.

Scenario-play that through for a moment; let’s say in 2035, he’s been publicly dating an intelligent, beautiful, famous Nigerian heiress for a couple of years. Does anyone actually think he’s not going to be able to marry her? Or, that when it’s his turn to take the throne, there will be a law passed preventing the couple becoming King and Queen?

Waleed has the superpower of being able to see future racism from over decade away. That’s impressive.

Ultimately, as Waleed concludes:

It’s rough, and not fully thought through, I admit.

No shit, Sherlock?

(Uncle) Bill’s Opinon

Let replace an illogical tradition that’s evolved over a thousand years in to one the majority of people agree works well enough for them, with a newly invented illogical tradition and hope everything will go ok.

Alternatively, let’s focus our time and resources to crack on with doing something useful like inventing practical fusion energy generation or high speed mass transit or somethin’.

Could G K Chesterton please report to the office?

…and bring fence repair tools.

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

For example, lengthy clinical trials before rolling out new medicines, sometimes lasting 7 years. That kind of “fence”.

Why do we bring this up? Well, the UK Government just quietly changed its policy regarding mRNA vaccines and pregnant or breastfeeding women (aka “pregnant people” and “chestfeeders”, in the vernacular).


Ok, well that’s a bit of a minor change with no negative implications, isn’t it. because previously, there was a significant amount or urging going on. In fact, there were urges everywhere, no corner of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was spared the urge.

Northern Ireland was urged:

England was urged:

Wales was urged:

I couldn’t find the Scotch urge, but it’s probably covered by this catch all:

And this urging:

Don’t forget, they were being urged and put on the priory list:

Let’s not forget, if you weren’t already scared shitless, pregnant people and chestfeeders who definitely had no comorbities could die with of Covid:

Finally, here’s the BBC (mission statement: “to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain“) telling you it’s perfectly safe for the aforementioned pregnant and breastfeeding people to take the vaccine.

Fully vaxxed? Fully tested, natch.

Bill’s Opinion

I sincerely hope you and nobody you hold dear suffered any negative consequences as a result of taking a brand new medicine during pregnancy before the clinical trials had completed.

Someone must certainly have though, else why has this policy been changed now?

How many miscarriages and how many and how severe birth defects are we talking about, I wonder?

The shoes keep dropping.