Monday, September 15, 2014

PUP's Jacqui Lambie would be hilarious if she weren't so terrifying

When it comes to Australian comedy you can forget about The Chaser, The Roast, Dirty Laundry and any other pixelated products of their ABC's light entertainment department. Apart from the obvious and undeniable fact that they're all excruciatingly lame and unfunny, they're consistently trounced on the ol' wuckometer by reality itself.

Ironically, the very place where the above shows are made is where many of these cackworthy antics occur. The relentless arsehattery of smug, deluded ABC fat cats and bolshie blowhards is itself a comedy goldmine. Pathetic Mark Scott, surely the most hapless managing director in the history of the organization, is a sad clown if ever there was one. Or take Tony Barry, a pettifogging pinko paid truckloads of our cash to collate a weekly anile spitefest sliming Rupert Murdoch. The po-faced sanctimony of that aural army of sneering hipsters on Radio National supplies round the clock chortles, too.

Then there's Canberra, which delivers an even bigger barrel o' laughs. Every day in the halls of power it's life imitating satire, no doubt about it. Seriously, the nation's capital is chockas with human fart cushions.

For years -- no, decades -- the party that has consistently made satire redundant has been the Greens. The bong-addled ecotards are still at it of course. But their lunacy has become so routine and predictable you hardly notice it anymore. The ongoing farce that is Labor has also lost much of its power to amuse.

Without a doubt Parliament House's newest and reigning comedy troupe is PUP. As George Dubya Bush might say, "that dog don't hunt". But it's repeatedly put on a helluva show, barking, whining and howling up a storm. And for a finale it craps on the floor and humps your leg. Gross out humour at its finest, people.  

For a while this troupe's biggest gutbuster was Clive Palmer himself. But lately he's been eclipsed by another hound in the kennel. Currently Canberra's longest, loudest running joke is Jaqui Lambie.

What a memorable comic character she is! Lily Tomlin herself couldn't create anything so extreme. Firstly, there's the voice. If Gillard's ghastly faux-bogan croak gives you the shudders, Lambie's low growl will make your spine crack. Has there ever been a public figure with such a spectacularly repellent voice?

Then there's the obvious, ignorant malice that animates it. Lambie spits out her stupid thoughts in such an aggressive way you almost can't believe it. But just as well she cuts loose so often. You get the strong impression that if she didn't she'd constantly be on the verge of biffing someone! On a bad day she'd make bikies pack their dacks, I reckon. 

There have been repeated occasions in which she's beclowned herself utterly, trashing her office in the process. Take that cringe-worthy radio interview when she asked if a caller was well-hung. Then there was her and top dog Clive's massive faux pas on China, and her bloody-minded refusal to back down.

But while she's had many Aussies ROFL up to now, the guffaws are set to end. That's because her asinine scheme to have seats set aside for bona fide Aborigines surely has a lot of support from the tiny-minded but nonetheless numerous and immensely influential hucksters of the Oz Left's racial division, er, division.

Considering she herself claims to be Aboriginal and is currently threatening to sue a prominent figure who questions her claim to that status, if her proposal is implemented Lambie may well be around for a helluva lot longer than she would otherwise.

Quite frankly I don't know if we'd be able to recover from the damage such a sustained reign of rolling idiocy would surely inflict on Australia. This chilling possibility takes Lambie beyond a joke, which is why I'm not laughing anymore. 

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The sooner she leaves the better ... but she won't

"The sooner she leaves the better." Has there ever been a more perfect, pithy phrase to describe the toxic legacy of Julia Eileen Gillard?

This priceless line was originally included in the minutes of a Slater and Gordon meeting almost twenty years ago. Its context is extremely significant. This is and was the nation's number one ambulance chasing law firm, remember. It's chockas with the most sneeringly sanctimonious latte leftists you could imagine. They don't just get emotional satisfaction from bashing business like most lefties do. They make a damn fine living doing so! Hell, it's Pinko Parasite Central -- and they couldn't wait to see the back of her.

Fast forward to this century, and the rolling chaos of her disastrous reign as the nation's PM. For what seemed like a bloody eternity, almost the entire country was thinking "the sooner she leaves the better".

Macquarie Dictionary needs to make another Gillard inspired update. Forget about Typhoid Mary. Make way for Ebola Julia.

Now at least the voters have gotten rid of Gillard. But not those unfortunate enough to be members of the more right-on tribes of the Australian electorate. The Labor Party is stuck with her. The union movement as well. Feminists, particularly of the leftist kind will have to carry the odium of this grim, ghastly, relentless woman indefinitely.

You. Poor. Bastards.

Sadder still is that these same socialists will never learn the lesson from the endless, tawdry Gillard saga (or that there is a lesson, for that matter). It, like countless examples beforehand, tells us the bleedin' obvious: Demanding equality of outcome will always bite you on the arse in the end.

If you place gender over merit, judge men and women by different standards, then add narrow ideological requirements to that mix (eg that to qualify as a bona fide woman, you have to be pro-abortion, a la Emily's List) you've seriously denuded your talent pool already ...

And way back when Gillard's career got started, if her ideological boosters thought she was the best of them, how dreadful must the others have been?

Ugh.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

EPA shark cull ruling prompts crowing from creepy Greens

Looks like bong-suckling, Gaia-worshipping crazies over here in the wild west have finally gotten their way when it comes to Colin Barnett's shark mitigation strategy. The EPA, which is clearly afflicted with more than its fair share of wild-eyed shrub humpers, has rejected the State Government's proposal to continue the so-called cull for the next three years.

EPA Chairman Dr Vogel said the decision "erred on the side of the environment". I'd say "erred" is the operative word. Well, if he wants to do some more erring in future, I suggest he should err on the side of humanity for once -- for balance if nothing else.

Cynical opportunist Mark McGowan has leapt in to bitch-slap Barnett in the wake of the ruling. He may well rue the day he did this if he ever becomes Premier and finds himself in a similar position to Barnett.

Not sure what happens next, but looks like it might just be kaput for The West Australian Government's reasonable, targeted and politically responsible approach to a serious problem -- imperfect though it clearly was.

All I can say is that if no noahs are terminated with extreme prejudice in the ensuing summer or next and one of them decides to gobble another human, let it be on the heads of the human hating shark-huggers. And if you think that accusation of misanthropy is a tad OTT then consider this revealing quote from creepy Greens MP Lynn MacLaren:

"Over three-and-half months last summer, 172 sharks, all of which are supposed to be protected in WA, were captured, and most of them we know subsequently died a slow death that achieved nothing to increase human safety.

"We mourn them but for now, today is a cause for a big celebration, for so much hard work by many good people."

This loopy woman is openly grieving over a bunch of bloody fish! Can you believe it? What about the people their toothy brethren killed? Any sorrow for them? Nope. As always, crickets.

Well, I'm glad she's revealed her sickening priorities in such a vivid way. The more humans who realize what she and her fellow travellers actually feel about the human race the better.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

March in August's low turnout proves pampered petulance of the Left

Recently I heard about the latest latte leftie dummy spit and group sulk called March in August. Read that it was to start at a park in Northbridge.

Now, because these charming assemblies are full of brimming bolshies who can't be arsed actually thinking about political issues and much prefer to play the man rather than the ball, most of the venom the speakers and placard wavers express is aimed at their favourite hate figure, the PM. And considering that Tony Abbott has been even more, er, Abbottesque than usual lately -- what with his comments about white settlement, as well as his condemnation of those adorable head choppers from ISIS -- you'd expect there to be squillions of squealing Tonyphobes at this latest demo.

But nup. It was a total fizzle. As a coupla Twitter wits opined, you get bigger crowds at an under 10s soccer match, or a sausage sizzle out the front of Bunnings.



Left me scratching my head as to why this was the case ... Hmmm. Maybe it was something to do with the lack of a catchy, alliterative title? After all, there was something distinctively meme-ish about "March in March" and it was extra-easy to remember for the severely cognitively challenged -- who clearly constituted most of the many thousands who rocked up on that day. So, would this latest organized outburst have drawn bigger crowds if it had been named, say, "Anger in August"? Maybe ...

But I think the main reason for the tragically piss-poor turnout was the highly immature and emotional nature of the Left. If your actions are motivated by feelings, well, they'll always be inconsistent in nature.

Then there's pervasive pinko tendency to blame others for your own condition. So, in the same way that these child-brained adults accuse decent hardworking folk who never did anything wrong to them for their own misery, they also leave it up to others to tell them what to do. Hell, the spoiled sprogs can't even shift their fat arses down to a local park unless the local commissars motivate them sufficiently.

It's all there in that stupid exhortation so beloved of the bolshie: "maintain the rage". Such "rage" can hardly be genuine and justified if someone has to tell you to maintain it, as well as when and where to express it, right?

Actually, it's not really rage at all. More like wallowing in your spurious sense of victimhood on cue.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Bill Shorten rape allegations reveal usual leftist double standards

Everyone is guilty of selective morality from time to time. But leftists seem to have made it their entire reason for living. Take the case of those rape allegations involving Bill Shorten that were swirling around social media for yonks, and which he's recently alluded to in a press conference now that the plods have decided they won't press charges against him.

Aside from some brimming right-wingers on social media, the vast majority of non-lefties have decided to give Shorten the benefit of the doubt. The reaction of the Left has been jaw-droppingly inconsistent, as usual.

They've been very quiet about these claims right across the media spectrum, from snarky tweeps to "professional" journos. Imagine if the same claims had been made about Tony Abbott. Without a doubt there'd be bolshie trolls aplenty tweeting up a storm about it, all utterly certain of the PM's guilt.

Yes, ABC hacks probably would have kept mum like they did in regards to Shorten. But would those from joints like The Guardian and The Age have managed to resist the urge to tell the world about them? Not likely.

Then there's the deafening silence of the frightbats. (Hey, that sounds like a movie title, dunnit?) They claim to champion the rights of women regardless of political affiliation, and are forever claiming that the legal system is stacked against them if they do make an accusation of rape -- particularly against a powerful white male. Not only have these malignant nags been totally silent since every Aussie on social media learned about the Shorten allegations, they've also dutifully kept quiet, or even defended the Opposition Leader since he's gone public about them.

And since when were feminists satisfied that a refusal to charge some bloke for rape constituted a complete exoneration of him? On the contrary, they often see such decisions as yet more evidence of systemic, patriarchal misogyny.

Why aren't any of them sticking up for the accuser in this case? People do know who she is, and Shorten -- an extremely influential individual -- has pretty much implied that she's a liar, or fantasist at best. Come on "feminists", justify your label. Stop being such tragic tools of the patriarchal penis people, why don't ya!

As well as the specific feminist hypocrisy, there's the general leftist double standard regarding their view of the plods. Usually they don't trust anything "the pigs" say, right? And the more extreme of them will glow with pride if they manage to clock a copper with a rock at some stupid demo. But now that the boys in blue have done something the leftards actually approve of, well, their decision is wise, unbiased, unquestionably correct ... friggin' Solomonic even! There is simply no reason on Gaia's green earth to doubt them.

The reaction to my tweet about the issue, comparing two unedifying claims from the mists of time, illustrates this selective credulity. (By the way, when I wrote it I was originally referring to the wall punching incident. And while leftists thought I meant sexual assault charges, their reaction still proves my point.)

Still on these two cases, another double standard: The incident Ash refers to involved Abbott allegedly goosing a female political enemy on stage. Now while that is still bad and wrong, it sure as hell ain't rape now is it?

So, a bit of an apples and oranges type situation there. But no matter. If you're a leftist it's your feelings about something that matter isn't it? (And remember all the leftist lamentation after Abbott winked when that grumpy gran sex worker called in to berate him? Gawd, anyone would've thought that he'd just beheaded the poor old duck right there in the studio.)

There are other inconsistencies in the leftist reaction to this issue that illustrate their stupid childish malice. But I think the ones I've listed will do for now. Any sensible person can see that these squealing quarterwits have no moral authority whatsoever.

Which begs the question: Do they not realize how utterly ridiculous they appear to any rational person when they react in this way? You'd think they might be mindful of that fact ... But I suppose that being mindful and self aware is too big an ask when your ideology is about bossing people around and nothing else.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Elizabeth Farrelly reacts to Tim Blair's frightbat poll

One thing about lefties, greenies, victim feminists and sundry hand-wringing twits that I find particularly exasperating is how they always -- always -- use the same tactics when confronted with criticism. One of their all time faves is to attribute any and all of it to the critic's own feelings of inadequacy. They just never take his words on face value and offer a solid counterargument in their own defence.

Case in point: Elizabeth Farrelly in her snootily sneering response to news of her inclusion in Tim Blair's recent "frightbat" poll. It's classic (feminist) fluffy wuffy: "You're just mocking me 'cause you're actually secretly attracted to me and you feel threatened by the fact that I'm such a brilliant, courageous and insightful woman. You pathetic, inadequate white male, you!"

Sheesh. Liz couldn't be more way off if she tried. The mockery comes not because of the majestic intellect that lesser mortals -- males in particular -- find threatening. It's because she's so ridiculously self-deluded they almost can't believe it. And her ginormous sense of entitlement just makes 'em wanna puke.

She routinely comes up with such daffy, dippy, pompous columns that any rational person reading them is left shaking her head, mumbling, "WTF? Is this chick friggin' serious?" And her obvious narcissism is not remotely attractive. It's not even repellant. It's just so silly that it's surreal and ultimately, well, kinda sad.

If there is fear in the motivation of those who mock Queen Elizabeth and her ilk it's fear of the culture they represent. Alarmingly, it has enough power and influence to irreparably bugger-up many aspects of our society and economy -- which I think is ultimately their main aim anyway ... That's why conservatives mock them.

So if there are any sanctimonious fluffy wuffies reading this, some advice: This one size fits all tactic of saying "it's all to do with your stuff" is lazy and arrogant. It just makes you look like even bigger asshats than you do already. Please try to lift your game in future, children.

Your repeated recourse to this hackneyed deflection method means that you'll never look at your "stuff" or even begin to critically examine your own attitudes. If you did this you might eventually see things in a slightly less insane way -- or at the very least perhaps start to understand why people find you so worthy of mockery and derision.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Feisty feminist frightbats fight back against Tim Blair!

I'm sure you've learned about this latest twitstorm raging among the socialist squitterati. See, blogger Tim Blair posted a jokey poll asking for readers to nominate the nation's leading frightbat. The term has gained real momentum -- particularly on social media -- provoking a fascinating frenzy of reactions including white hot rage, high decibel cackling, fake nonchalance and intense, verbose analysis from post-modernist quackademics.

Personally, I think the term is remarkably apt. After all, the shrieking socialist sisters do closely resemble the eponymous winged mammals in that they habitually see the world upside down and clearly prefer darkness to light. (I could also say something about rabies but being the gentleman I am I just won't go there ...)

Some of the women listed in the poll seemed to concur with this assessment, even urging their pathetically obediant (and disturbingly numerous) acolytes to vote for them. One can only wonder at their motivation ... Perhaps they thought they were landing a blow against the patriarchy. By proudly self-defining as nocturnal flying creatures they felt they were finally "reclaiming the night"?

But not surprisingly most of the feminist trollective confirmed the humourless scold stereotype and were not amused. Take this terse reaction from Wendy Bacon (strangely absent from the distinguished list of nominees, BTW):

Antifeminist propaganda? Calm down Wendy. It was just a joke.

Well, as they keep saying, feminism is a broad church. So there was much impassioned debate -- at least as to the extent to which this one word coined by a humorous blogger constituted heartless oppression of all chickdom. Clearly, frightbat has divided the feminist trollective. It's this decade's The First Stone, no doubt about it!

Not only did feminists en masse fail to present a cogent position, but those who at first seemed to go along with the joke were ultimately confused in their reaction. See, after initially yucking it up, they did what they always do: turned the issue into a stupid bolshie t-shirt campaign:


This is leftie feminist incoherence at its finest, people.  These self-described frightbats are fighting back ... at, er, being called frightbats.

And they wonder why people mock them.