Wednesday, March 18, 2015

I, Furkan Derya

Given all the media coverage related to "I furkan derya" over the last coupla days, it does look very likely to become an oft-used catchphrase -- certainly among the Twitterati.

Clearly, it's no longer just a former youth worker's name. It's also something else entirely. To me, and I think a lot of other people, it's an idiom to challenge "culturally sensitive" posturing. It says: "Garn, compassionista, prove you actually believe all the sanctimonious, hand-wringing shite you're spouting. Bet you can't!"

Others may have a different take on it. But I suspect it will usually be in that general ballpark of meaning. Lefties, fond of hijacking memes for their own petty purposes, might try to use it "ironically" to expose what they see as the right's appalling bigotry. But they'll still be stifling a laugh when they do. So, as is so often the case with the tragic shenanigans of these child-brained quarterwits, it will just be another own goal they're scoring.

And just on that accusation that its use belies a racist attitude: Utter bollocks! Names of people from all races and creeds can be used as joke fodder, as this list so hilariously attests. If anything qualifies as racist it's to demand that monikers common among certain cultural and ethnic groups should be deemed off limits for comedic or satirical usage.

Whatever your view on those aspects of the item of word-play in question, it's certainly worth considering what its, ahem, traditional owner might be thinking and feeling. This Turkish former youth centre worker would be a very good subject for an interview. And if no journo has tried to find and contact him for one I'd be very surprised. But until such a discussion appears it's worth conjecturing about how he might be feeling.

I certainly have some sympathy for the bloke. If he is the shy, retiring type then it would be quite upsetting to know that countless people are laughing out loud (or hypocritically stifling guffaws) whenever they say his name, which has been splashed all over the internet. And if he's politically of the Left and is being encouraged to take offence and be a victim, then he'd be mortified, of course.

Well, if that's the case that's unfortunate. But in defence of the gag I'd say this: It's not mocking Mr Derya himself. Using it is heaping scorn on the idea that some things should never be laughed at, right? Not so much mock heroic; more its exact inverse.

Not that you qualify as a genuine hero for repeating the phrase, mind. Anyone can do that. But there are serious issues at play -- namely freedom of speech. If you're gonna say #JeSuisCharlie then you can't get your knickers in a twist over #IFurkanDerya now can you?

This is why I think that if I were the original FD, I might be a bit miffed, but I'd also be chuffed that my name had became code for the right to make fun of whatever the hell you wanted to, even if it offends some people. That's an essential part of freedom of speech, itself integral to true democracy, after all.

Surely we want to have a society in which everyone is an individual first, regardless of which group, class or tribe he or she belongs too. And given that, we can all slag off, mock and deride each other. It's when this mockery escalates into violence that's the problem. And creating different standards and laws for different groups won't prevent this happening. On the contrary, it will increase its likelihood.

Now, I know a lot of mealy-mouthed jelly-backs on the Left have the opposite view. It gets in the way of their sinister, parasitic goal of controlling our minds and hearts from within. But as things stand in Oz most people don't want it to become the nanny nation these malignant creeps desperately want it to be. And frankly I'd like to keep it that way.

For this reason I hope that the bloke whose name was the inspiration for the phrase can see its significance and is at least a bit proud of it. That would suggest an alternative meaning for it, more along the lines of #JeSuisCharlie.

If we can say I furkan DERYA! in provocative mockery then we're kinda also saying -- in defiant solidarity -- I, Furkan Derya ... right?

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Furkan Derya gag an elegant jab at political correctness

As Mark Twain noted, explaining humour is like dissecting a frog. "You learn a lot in the process, but in the end you kill it." So, if you don't want a slimy trail of figurative amphibian entrails sliding down your computer screens, then leave this page immediately. Because explain -- or at least analyze -- a gag is what I'm gonna do here.

And the gag in question was written by Tim Blair in a recent column about another kind of lethal dissection: suicide bombing -- namely that involving a sad, lost young Aussie bloke called Jake Bilardi. In it he quoted a source named Furkan Derya. As a throwaway, he added: "I furkan derya to find a better name than Furkan Derya."

When I read this, I laughed out loud, as I'm sure pretty much everyone else did too. (Well, at least those who got it. Amazingly, plenty didn't!) Even many of those now spluttering with indignation would have guffawed too -- or at least struggled to stop themselves from doing so.

Predictably, the line has caused outrage and consternation on Twitter and similar sites and ultimately in the mainstream media

As well as neatly revealing the literal minded stupidity and po-faced pomposity of the PC Left the gag has other things going for it. For example, it has a symmetrical elegance to it on a par with the classic "How do you titillate an Ocelot? Oscillate its titalot."

The other thing I like about the line is that it tells you exactly what it's doing as it does it. It knows there are overblown sensitivities around the context and content that will make people try to stifle a laugh when they read or hear it. It's daring you not to laugh. And that makes it all the funnier. 

Then there's the fact that it's uniquely Orstrayan ...

Hell, it's not just comedy gold. It's bloody satirical platinum! Which is why I think it will be garnering wuckas for years to come. It might even become part of the local lingo like that other offering of Blair's, "frightbat". 

Well, whatever the future has in store for the plucky, pinko-prodding little pun, it's confirmation that too many on the Left have lost their sense of humour. That's sad because they used to be a hoot.

Take the video below, surely the ne plus ultra of silly name jokes. Be great if they could see the funny side again, wouldn't it? If they could do that, they might just see sense as well.

UPDATE: More thoughts on this subject here.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Howard haters helped the then PM. Will the same effect apply to Abbott?

Back in the days of John Howard there was a fascinating process at play. Quite often during his reign, the more the Howard haters whinged and wailed about him, the more he rose in the polls.

As many have said, Howard's ordinariness worked strongly in his favour. He was non-threatening to most, even if they weren't great admirers of him. So when the spiteful, infantile Left arced up about every little thing he did, the majority could see this for the massive ongoing tanty that it actually was. These people are waaay OTT, they thought. Howard doesn't deserve this hate.

And this happened so often often that the Left's infantile squawking became a reliable reverse indicator for many. The more his haters expressed their outrage, the more people suspected that Howard was on the right track. And so his support tended to rise with the volume of their Godawful shrieking -- or at least did not fall as a result of it.

Now, for some reason Abbott hasn't benefited from an equivalent process. I think it's due to several factors, the main one being his devout Catholicism. His love of the monarchy turns off a lot of people too as that Prince Philip knighthood train wreck so vividly illustrated.

Then there's his devotion to physical fitness and his love of boxing. He was also an extremely high achiever academically, having been a Rhodes Scholar. Abbott is a far more extreme character in many ways than Howard was.

The former PM was low-key when it came to religion. And while he was physically fit for his age he didn't swim, run and ride all over the joint like a man possessed. Just did some early morning power-walking in his daggy tracksuit. While obviously intelligent, he was not an academic star in his youth. Unlike Abbott, he wasn't a career high flyer before entering politics. Just ran a modest suburban law practice for many years.

So, there's widespread wariness about Abbott. Even though he craves acceptance and admiration from his countrymen and has clearly won it from those volunteer fire fighters and other ordinary Aussies that he spends to much time with, a high proportion of the population just don't quite trust him. He's a bit too full on and intense for their liking.

But now, after many months in the top job, I think this general mistrust is starting to thaw. They are increasingly willing to see him as a decent but flawed bloke who's competent and rational, and has our best interests at heart. He might make a few crazy calls. But when he does he quickly corrects his mistakes. And he has enough humility to listen to criticism and change his behaviour as a result.

That's why I think that from now on he might start to benefit from the insane rage of his infantile enemies in the same way Howard did. For this reason I think he's got a far better shot at retaining his gig as PM than most of the commentariat believe.

What do you reckon? Will the Abbott-haters win? Or will they win it for him?

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Margolyes abuses Abbott on Q and A. Love media exultant

Didn't see Q and A last night. But clearly the highlight of the show for the armies of child-brained fans on Twitter and in the mainstream media was the moment when pompous Pommie actress Miriam Margolyes called Tony Abbott a tit. They've all been punching the air, crowing triumphantly about this as if it was a crippling blow landed against the Pugilist in Chief.

"Take that Abbott!" they cry. "The daffy ol' actress who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter movies called you a tit on our favourite leftie love-in! No man alive could withstand that kind of an assault. You're toast, Tony! Just accept it."

Makes you wonder why so many Aussies would attribute such political power to such a clearly balmy ol' Brit. Hell, she's just another luvvy blowhard spouting the same ol' socialist shite they all do. She has no special interest or expertise in politics ... She's clearly a few plays short of the canon, too! I think all those years of playing mad aunts, wizard instructors and Dickensian scrubbers have taken their toll on the poor woman's psychological health.

Or perhaps she was barking to start with? Do a search for her name and in pretty much every photo that turns up she's sporting this strange purse-lipped smile. Loopy lefties, gruesome greenies and others of their ilk notice this alarming smirk and see it as confirmation she's a mischievous eccentric with searing insights into the workings of the world. But any sensible person would shudder at such a weird default facial expression and see her for what she is: an emotionally retarded simpleton who delights in her own spite; a narcissist who's spent her life in pursuit of adulation from complete strangers.

And thanks to their ABC, she's just been given another way to get it. Better still for Margolyes, this new role of "public intellectual" is even easier than the other fictional ones she usually takes on. No lines to learn or rehearsals required! All she need do is hurl nasty, puerile abuse at conservatives and the job is done.

How could anyone fail to see through her? Those poor pinko dupes. They really are the saddest little puppies in the park aren't they?

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

John Birmingham claims racism in reaction to Bali Nine duo

Whenever lefties really don't like something they are fond of explaining it away with a false accusation of some sort of bigotry, usually racism. This is because they themselves are fixated on race to an unhealthy degree. Being so emotionally retarded, they are incapable of seeing others as individuals first and foremost, so they must think everyone else has the same primitive world view.

A perfect example of this simplistic analysis is John Birmingham's take on the reasons Australians generally aren't outraged that Chan and Sukumaran are gonna be shot for their crimes. With no evidence whatsoever he concludes it's because they're not white. So "we" don't give a rat's about their fate.

Apart from it being such a lazy little gargle, his own rather alarming prejudice comes through quite clearly. I mean, who is he actually referring to when he says "we"?

Well, he clarifies this to some degree:

And that bullet's coming, partly because 'we' just don't care.

I use the air quotes because some do. But as a whole, as a clan, we do not. 

Hmm. Let's just unpack that a little more to see what else he means: He's not including those who themselves aren't white, surely. They couldn't possibly be racist -- least of all against other non-whites.

So by "we" he means white people. He also means Aussies generally (clan, whole). So he's relegating non-whites to a category of, er, non-Australian-ness, isn't he?

Hate to burst Birmo's bolshie little bubble. But Australia is actually a multi-racial nation. And many of those he condemns for not kowtowing to his hand-wringing line on capital punishment are from races other than caucasian.

And the reason they have their view is not because they don't care about Chan and Sukumaran. It's because they loathe the drug trade and believe in a sovereign nation's right to make and enact its own laws. They also know that these drug smugglers knew exactly what they were getting into when they set out to break those laws. It gives them no pleasure that two young lives will be ended in this way. They just figure, well, what did these idiots expect?

Aside from the obvious puerility of Birmingham's race-based analysis, there's clear evidence to refute his claim: Barlow and Chambers, who were white as white can be, were also executed for drug trafficking (by Malaysia in this case).

Back then, just as today, there were those in Australia who were appalled by this punishment and campaigned against it, and those who accepted it without complaint. I recall no massive public outcry against their execution. And this was at a time when our population was much "whiter" than it is now. If the "Blunt Instrument" was accurate the whole nation would have been up in arms about their fate. But that certainly wasn't the case.

If Birmingham is not convinced perhaps he'd like to test the issue in the manner suggested below:

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Shark decapitated. Oh buoy!

The shark wars have certainly been pretty intense over here in the wild west from time to time. But lately, aside from the occasional group shriek and placard rattle from the local Carcharodon cuddlers there haven't been any major new developments. Until now that is.

See, down south at a charming little beach called Meelup a shark's severed head has been discovered stuck on a buoy.

No doubt many Gaia-worshipping activists will be brimming with lefteous indignation over this brazen act of ichthyophobic barbarism. Hell, some of them'll be so upset they'll prolly even drop their bongs and forget to lodge their dole forms.

That's kinda funny, and sad. Whenever they hear of the latest human beheading in the name of Islam most deep green socialists are like, "Meh." And if they are at all upset about it the next step is to assiduously avoid the, er, caliphant in the room and blame the bad ol' USA, Rupert Murdoch, or even Tony Abbott. 

Which leads me to the probable identity of the head lopper in this particular case: The obvious choice would be a local surfer or fisherman who takes pleasure in riling shark-huggers. 

But given the watery killing's unique and disturbing modus operandi, there's another less likely but still possible explanation. It might just be the first strike in a new campaign by Islamic State. Tired of battling for lands lost long ago, have they decided to defiantly claim the oceans as their own and rid the depths of infidels?

Remember that these people are crazy enough to kill you over a cartoon, and believe they'll be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves to smithereens in a crowded cafe. When you're that flat out, howling at the moon insane anything's possible, isn't it?

Frankly, I'll be quite relieved if this is the case. More dead sea fauna means less dead land people. And it will be nice to have the greenies on our side for once -- even if it's only 'cause they believe "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And it'll be gold for the tabloids. I can see the headlines now: 

"The way we sea it." Jihadi describes plans for marine caliphate
Aquatic assassins dubbed Four Frogmen of the Apocalypse killed in massive scuba tank explosion
IS recruitment video extols virtues of porpoise driven life, joys of wet work
Islamic State flag lodged in floating, decapitated sea cow carcass. Oh the hu-manatee!
Headless body in topless aquarium
Hashtag #JeSuisSharkie trending on social media

Any others you'd like to suggest? 

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Chan, Sukumaran's impending executions a consequence of their actions

Really getting sick of all the sanctimonious hand-wringing in relation to the impending executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

Some of the coverage is so one-sided it's just embarrassing. If you didn't already know that they were found guilty of smuggling heroin you would not be able to tell from some of the recent reporting. Would look like Indonesia had just decided to choose a coupla Aussies at random and decided to brutally murder them.

The selectivity of the outrage is also nauseating. If you're gonna arc up about how barbaric the punishment is, then why only do so when it's about to be meted out to your countrymen? Why not campaign against it every time Indonesia executes a drug smuggler (or other kind of criminal, for that matter)? They have done it numerous times, including to their own people.

And all this talk about how Sukumaran has redeemed himself through art is just rubbish. Neither the creation nor the appreciation of art ever made anyone a better person. History is littered with renowned artists who were also A-grade arseholes. In any case, Sukumaran seems pretty mediocre as a painter, although he certainly improved greatly (and good on him for that).

I mean, Hitler was a crap artist. Are we gonna give him cool points for that? (Not that Sukumaran's deeds were anywhere near as ghastly, of course. But the point still holds. It's a truly piss weak argument to say that someone's nascent "sensitivity" should be some sort of get out of jail free card.)

As to whether it's a fair punishment? Well, my own belief is that killing someone for smuggling drugs is certainly OTT. But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it either.

These guys knew what they were getting into. They were fully aware they were committing a serious crime and that Indonesian law demanded that drug smugglers be executed.

There were historical precedents, too. Barlow and Chambers were executed in Malaysia back in the eighties. Another drug trafficker called Michael McCauliffe bought the farm there in 93. More recently Van Tuong Nguyen was offed in Singapore for the same crime.

Yes, none of these executions occurred in Indonesia. But the context is still relevant. If a nation says they'll top you for doing something they really don't like, best to take them at their word.

Which brings me to the "if only" argument beloved by child-brained pinkos:
Well, if you're gonna say "if only", why stop there? Why not say: If only Chan, Sukumaran and the other members of the Bali Nine had decided not to smuggle the bloody smack in the first place! None of this would have happened, and we'd never have even heard of them.

But of course lefties will never go that far. That would require a sense of responsibility and morality as well as some common sense. And you just have to give all of those things a wide berth if you wanna build a career out of wringing your hands and wagging your fingers, now don't you?