Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Magda Szubanski mouths pro-SSM, anti-plebiscite cant on Q and A

On their ABC's Q and A it's pretty much a given that discussion will veer onto the subject of "marriage equality", even if they're quacking on about something completely unrelated to this. So last night's episode -- which specifically focused on the issue -- was hardly unique. However, the stupidity, incoherence and bloody-mindedness of most panellists was something to behold.

Magda Szubanski in particular came out with some real doozies such as this: "A lot of us in the LGBTQI community don’t want this money spent, and as we see it, wasted, for what is essentially an expensive opinion poll that won’t be binding when we already know from several polls already that the majority of people in the country are in favour."

So funny that she's fretting about wasted money. Has she ever railed against excessive government funding of crap movies that next to no one even watched -- some of which she even appeared in? Many millions of bucks down the drain right there ...

And she presumes to speak for the "LGBTI community". Yeah, well, I'm sure there are many in that same crowd who do want a plebiscite -- and even some who don't even want gay marriage at all, incredible as that may seem. They're just not organized and vocal about it.

Let's face it, the LNP went to the election with the plebiscite as a major promise. Clearly, that's one of the reasons they won. Most Aussies do want a say on this issue, and they certainly deserve one. Marriage is a central social institution that affects everyone, and has developed organically over millennia across the globe. People will be seriously pissed off if a bunch of opportunistic weasels deny them direct input on what marriage actually means from now on. Same sex marriage may become the law of the land sans plebiscite, but public resentment of it will seethe indefinitely due to the dodgy way it was enacted.

Anyhoo, if it's a done deal, as Szubanski claims, then why not hold the plebiscite? (Actually this was the official position of "marriage equality" advocates early on as I remember. Magda was prolly even among them. But now the plebiscite itself is deemed evil and wrong. Hell of an about-face, that.)

Having millions of Aussies vote for SSM would be such a huge vindication of it. There is absolutely no way the public will would not be respected by the Govt if that occurred. That battle will have been well and truly won; the whole issue down and dusted for all time.

But nup. Gotta get the pollies to do it. They can be bullied, cajoled, rewarded for their compliance. Why play fair when you can cheat?

Which begs the question: Why would you wanna cheat, particularly if you say you can win fair and square anyway. Well, the answer's pretty obvious. The "overwhelming support" so often claimed for SSM isn't actually there. They're lying about it, in other words.

Lefties telling porkies to get their way? Who'da thunk it!

Interestingly, Magda also introduced a strawman about the perceived "threat" of SSM.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Can I dispute with you that this is a really... It’s being portrayed as though this is a threat to society. Jimmy and I... You’re saying this is a serious issue.

FIONA NASH
I’m not saying it’s a threat.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
It’s so serious that it requires a plebiscite.

FIONA NASH
No. No. No. Hang on. Hang on. I never said it was a threat.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
No, I’m not saying you said that, but other people are saying that. You’re saying it is such a grave issue that every single Australian must vote on this. Why? Why not vote on other issues like superannuation? Why not a plebiscite on that? Why not a plebiscite on aged care? Those people are living below the poverty line. Why not a plebiscite on that? Now, Jimmy and I are actually family. I’m the godmother of his granddaughter. He’s a Scottish migrant. I’m a Polish-Scottish-Irish migrant. His wife is Thai. I’m a leso. We ARE that modern family. What threat does it pose except that I don’t have the same rights as the other people in my family?

FIONA NASH
It’s not a threat at all. 

So revealing that Magda was verballing Nash in this way. It was a clear case of projection. On absolutely no evidence, Magda was implying that those who believe in traditional marriage are hateful, insecure bigots. Even though she momentarily claimed not to aim this accusation at Nash it was clear that she was doing just that (and this wasn't the only time). It's an oft-used tactic of the PC crybully, this. It's aggressive misrepresentation purporting to be justified self-defense.

Speaking of threats: Pretty clear that the ones making most of them so far regarding this whole issue are the SSM zealots. Their vicious bullying of Mercure staff, for example, resulted in a planned ACL event being cancelled. This was not even mentioned in last night's Q and A, and for obvious reasons. Perpetuating the PC narrative was deemed way more important, of course.

And just on that subject of PC, check out these two egregious violations of gender sensitive language by Tony Jones and Jimmy Barnes, two right-on male persons who surely should have known better.

TONY JONES
Guys, I’m just going to go back to our questioner. Jack Lattimore has his hand up. I’m just going to go back to Jack. Go ahead. 

The later on ...

JIMMY BARNES
Eventually we won’t need you guys.

Guys? Guys? GUYS? 

That deserved a badthink red alert. Shoulda called Gender Avenger David Morrison in! Coulda swiftly re-educated 'em on the correct terminology, then kicked 'em both in the nuts with his high heels for good measure.

FFS, what a joke ...

Back to Magda. Well into the show she used that verballing tactic again on Fiona Nash, though in a much more obvious way:

FIONA NASH
A plebiscite isn’t the thing that necessarily triggers people being nasty.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Can I ask one simple question?

TONY JONES
Yes, I’m going to give you the final point here.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
One simple question. Do you think I’m equal to you?

FIONA NASH
Of course I do.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
If I was your daughter, and being gay, would you think that I should have the right to be married?

FIONA NASH
I’ve been asked this question a lot over the last 12 months and my response was that my view is still the traditional view of marriage. I love my children, regardless of what they ever brought home for me. It would make absolutely no difference at all. I completely respect your view and your desire to see that as equality...

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
But you won’t give me my rights.

FIONA NASH
I just have a different view.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Thanks for nothing.

See what she's doing. She's making it personal and emotive, forcing a confrontation that demonizes the interlocutor, puts them on the defensive. You see it all the time on Q and A. Shanghai Sam Dastyari tried it a few weeks back. But he was such a doofus, he failed spectacularly.

It's sooo dishonest and mean. It's kinda like saying: "When did you stop beating your wife?". It's not debate. It's abuse. But it works for the thick, credulous and plain ol' primitive. And there are plenty of those in the Q and A audience, as we all know. Which was the whole point, natch.

As Fiona Nash noted, it's not necessarily the plebiscite that makes people nasty. But political correctness sure as hell does! And when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage, well, it's pretty clear who the main bullies and threateners are -- at least at this point in the game.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Howard on Menzies enrages the Left on Twitter

Without a doubt the Australian leftist trollective's number one hate figure remains Tony Abbott. Now, as a result of her election to the Senate, Pauline Hanson is clearly the runner up. And not to be outdone, veteran bogeyman John Howard still comes in a close third.

That's undeniably impressive. He lost his gig as the nation's leader about nine years ago now!

JHo's propensity to enrage the howler monkeys was on display last night. They went into meltdown over his ABC show Howard on Menzies. (You should check out his book on the subject, BTW.)

It really was a near perfect storm of political provocation for the poor little poppets. He was on their ABC for starters. And he was extolling the virtues of that other enduring symbol of conservative eeevil "Ming the Merciless". How dare he!

This mass online tanty reminded me of the mid-nineties, when JHo was elected PM for the first time. I was still living in Melbourne then, doing comedy gigs, surrounded by die-hard lefties. One of the most oft-repeated gripes at the time was that Howard wanted to "take us back to the fifties!".

That phrase always struck me as kinda silly, since pretty much all those indignantly repeating it were born in the sixties or later, so could never have truly known what it was like to live in that era. Also, being so overwhelmingly pro-land rights, they were in a way pining for a time long before this -- closer to the 1750s, actually!

Saturday, September 17, 2016

John Alexander's absurd attack on Pauline Hanson regarding Islam

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the political class keep mouthing the same incoherent rubbish when trying to smack down dissenters ... Now, of course you're gonna get heaps of this the further leftward you go. If you look at the shrieking Greens, for example, it's clear they believe that if you keep repeating something over and over then you will eventually make it true. Now I wouldn't say that they're Goebbelsian, because they're so emotional, and generally believe their own BS to start off with. Still, while they are extremely silly, their zeal makes them a tad scary as well.

But you also see the same crap occurring in places you normally wouldn't expect it to. Take the LNP. In recent years they've become almost as obediently right-on as Labor. And now with a narcissistic progressive at the helm, they're even more so.

Their embrace of this absurd "goodthink" is illustrated by Bennelong MP John Alexander trying to smack down Pauline Hanson:

"I subscribe to the Voltairean principle of respecting people's right to say things that I disagree with. But when that speech uses broad-brush strokes to demonise an entire religion and all the observers of that religion it must be called out for what it is - it's racism, it's discrimination," he said in a little-seen speech in Parliament's Federation Chamber.

There's perhaps today's most oft-repeated, classic absurdity, right there. He actually says he thinks religion is a race. Yet he obviously can't recognize this nonsense for what it is. And he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and we should all listen to him?

Gawd.

Now, I personally think Pauline is a tad OTT on Islam. And in the final, er, psychoanalysis it may well be that racial animosity is part of what's motivating her views here. But I really don't think she's any more racist than most pollies. And IMO she's definitely less racist than many of her most intense haters on the Left.

Take the Greens (again). They gotta be the whitiest, tightiest buncha blowhards in Oz. And they're the ones most keen to condemn others for this failing? Talk about projection ... Also, their insistence on seeing non-white people as child-like victims who need special laws made for them is downright sinister, and demonstrably toxic to these same people (Aborigines in particular).

But Alexander wasn't attempting some kinda amateur shrinkage (like I just did then). He was referring specifically to Hanson's comments on Islam. And his confusion is clear for all to see.

His citing of Voltaire made his comments ironic, too. As well as his oft-quoted line about free speech, the great French philosopher also had this to say:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Of course there's absolutely no chance that the former tennis ace will ever end up using his strong right arm to hack off heads. Still, he just served up a little yellow ball of bollocks that can be used to help feed the goals of Islamists who do. Hardly good sports, they routinely exploit it and other nonsense contained in politically correct socialism, a massive global racket.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Hillary's health decline and cover-up like something out of the USSR

If you are stupid enough to believe that the MSM are playing with a straight bat, you'll believe that Hillary Clinton's health is just fine; that all this talk about how she's suffering from a host of serious ailments is tin-foil hat conspiracy nutter stuff.

But the evidence is mounting up that something is seriously awry. She doesn't wanna give a press conference; she's coughing up a storm; she needs stools and handlers galore. Even some prominent liberals are alarmed.

Take Dr Drew Pinsky. He expressed concern about the issue and promptly lost his gig on CNN.

“Dr. Drew” was canceled eight days after Pinsky discussed Clinton’s health on a radio show, saying he was “gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.”

“CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source told me. “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.”

What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and emails. “It was downright scary and creepy,” a source close to Pinsky said.

Scary and creepy alright. There are so many powerful forces -- mainstream media included -- working to have her installed as POTUS it's sinister as all get out.

Watching all this unfold I keep remembering the good ol' days of the Cold War (yes, I'm that old). Leonid Brezhnev was the USSR's leader for, like, forever. You'd see his grim, stone-like visage on news reports all the time.

Finally, Leonid the trooper just kinda ground to a halt. And he was promptly replaced by someone just as dour and expressionless as him called Yuri Andropov. But he was already ailing and drop off is exactly what he did a bit over a year later.

Now this wasn't a democracy, obviously. Still, you'd think they'd try and find someone younger and healthier to replace him. Nope.

Konstantin Chernenko came next. Bloke was at death's door even as he was being sworn in, it seems. And, he popped his clogs (or whatever Russkies wear on their feet) after less than a year.

Historian John Lewis Gaddis describes him as "an enfeebled geriatric so zombie-like as to be beyond assessing intelligence reports, alarming or not" when he succeeded Andropov in 1984.

Hillary Clinton isn't quite zombie-like yet. But she's clearly heading that way. And if she does get wheeled into the White House ... well, I think the Beatles sang it best:

We'll be back in the US, back in the US ... Back in the USSR!

But hey, don't take my word for it. If you really wanna know the truth about Hillary Clinton's health why not listen to someone really close to her, like her hubbie Bill.

Friday, September 9, 2016

OAK's joke provokes vegan ragin'

These days, with so much mainstream media content being consumed online, journos have to crank out loads o' clickbait to keep their gigs. So they scour social media looking for minor stoushes and whinge-fests they can beat up into actual, er, stories. Given how chockas these outfits are with sneering hipsters, you can be sure that a lot of these articles have a politically correct, social justicey flavour to 'em.

Reporting on vegans being outraged by a tongue in cheek advertisement from flavoured milk brand OAK is a recent example of this. Given the fact that the story appeared on a whole mess o' news feeds, you'd think there'd been some kinda serious campaign launched against it. But nup. It was just a few undernourished but over-emotional mung bean munchers getting their hemp panties in a bunch in the comment threads of OAK's Facebook page.

Just so silly ... But sadly also destructive.

Because the little snarkfest got such a huge amount of meeja attention the company seems to have pulled the ad. This suggests that it wasn't actually designed to troll the perpetually offended and thereby generate publicity, as some may have concluded. In any case, buckling under the online outrage is the worst thing the company could have done (as this excellent book on SJW tactics makes clear).

Vegans may avoid eating animal meat but a lot of them have a taste for human flesh, metaphorically speaking. Getting people to accede to their hysterical demands confirms their sense of moral virtue, which is why they are, er, eschewing the chewing in the first place. Gaining corporate appeasement from such a minor bout of online tanty-chucking will just embolden the anaemic arsehats. They'll pounce with far greater vegan vengeance next time.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Not PC to say so, but men are harassed online too, often by women

Contrary to the politically correct narrative, men can actually be the targets of online harassment, as this article makes clear.

Of course, a lot of that abuse is perpetrated by other men. But there's no doubt that women do it too. I've recently seen this quite closely. One of my social media friends had hateful and very personal messages left on his wall by a vengeful woman he'd been involved with. These were clearly meant to be hurtful and embarrassing. And I'm sure they achieved their goal.

Sure, these didn't contain threats of physical violence (at least as far as I could tell. Stopped reading pretty quick because they were so alarming). Obviously these are worse, particularly if they seem dinkum. Definitely a matter for the plods! But hurtful words can leave deep scars also. And women can be very adept at this kind of abuse, let's face it. 

They can also be extremely vicious in their trolling of other women. I recall a report in which Charlotte Dawson -- who ultimately topped herself! -- confronted one of her most relentless haters, who was a woman. 

But back to the article

Norton’s director for the Pacific region, Mark Gorrie, said the study revealed the extent to which men are abused online, and until now the issue had been somewhat overlooked.

I'll say. That's partly because the mere suggestion that it might deserve attention sends frightbats into fits of rage, let's face it. 

Very little research has been done exploring the issues of online harassment and Australian men,” Mr Gorrie said.

“Most commonly, online harassment is very much associated with females, who do suffer from more severe forms of online harassment.

“However, our research shows that men’s experience online is not too dissimilar to women and this is an issue that affects both genders and in particular minority groups.”

Hmm. I find those statements a bit confusing. I mean, if buggerall research has been done on men's experience of harassment, how can you say that women suffer more severe forms of it?... And then it's "not too dissimilar".

Eh?

I suspect part of this incoherence is due to Mr Gorrie being worried about the SJW outrage he might provoke if he says something, er, inappropriate. Could even wind up being like one of the men in his study, then. 

Monday, September 5, 2016

Hillary's health and other issues have hurt her campaign, perhaps terminally

Amazing to watch how the battle for the US presidency is developing. Presently, most of the MSM are still saying Hillary has a comfortable lead over Trump, at least in battleground states. The consensus is that it's pretty much a done deal.

But then there are other polls that have 'em neck and neck overall. Some even have Trump ahead ... In any case, as Brexit showed, polls can be hugely unreliable.

Frankly, I think Trump is in with a much better shot at winning than all the main outlets say he is. Not only are most of them shamelessly supporting Hillary and verballing him -- which I think is actually having a net negative effect on her electoral chances because Americans are so sick of being lied to, and so brazenly -- he's drawing massive crowds at rallies, and has much greater engagement on social media than she does.

Then there's all this stuff about her e-mails being investigated by the FBI. The MSM have to report on it even though they clearly don't want to ... Many of the revelations are absolutely jaw-dropping, like the one about her staff hammering her Blackberries. If these involved anyone else they woulda been toast aaages ago.
Also, even though she and her team are desperately pushing the line that she's hale and hearty, it's sooo obvious that her health is bad. The fact that she hasn't done a press conference for ages clearly supports this view. As a result, the memes about her sickness, tiredness and paranoia -- not to mention general rudeness and crookedness -- are spreading like wildfire across Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere.

So, as we draw closer to the November showdown the pro-Clinton obfuscation, spin and outright lies are all rolling together into a massive wave of sludge that's heading for the floodwalls of truth!

Something's gotta give. If the floodwalls fail and Hillary wins America is in for the most toxic, corrupt presidency ever. It'll be even worse than Obama's -- and that's saying something.

Uggh! The thought of it is just to horrible to contemplate.

That's why I think they'll hold and the people will make a sane decision to elect someone who is far from perfect but will certainly do his best to govern in their interests.

That's if she even makes it to the election, mind. Even that is not certain ... See, a few days ago this tweet appeared.
So, looks like it could well be starting to fall apart for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The stress she's under must be absolutely enormous. It could break the will of a healthy person, let alone someone clearly as unwell as HRC.

I know I'm going out on a limb here. But I think she's gonna have some kinda meltdown before the election. We probably won't learn the details -- at least not straight away. But I think it'll be serious enough that she'll have no alternative but to quit.

What do you reckon?