Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Grace Collier triggers Q and A lefties with common sense suggestion

As I've mentioned a coupla times before on this blog, I'm a refugee from Artsville, Orstraya. I was surrounded for years and years by sundry deranged lefties, and somehow managed to maintain my sanity.

Nowadays I can look at that toxic environment with some detachment. And I pity the poor little poppets, I really do. They have been swallowed up by something truly ugly: cultural Marxism. But they think they've got it all sussed. It's hilarious ... and sad.

One characteristic of this collective mental illness (and that's not too strong a term) is a complete aversion to common sense.

This was on display on last night's Q and A. I didn't watch it, but apparently Grace Collier triggered some of the lefties in the audience big time by saying something perfectly reasonable: If you don't have a job, start a business. They actually started heckling her!

Amazing, innit? All Grace was saying was, hey there's nothing stopping you. Why not give it a burl? You can be your own boss, you know ...

Now, I can understand why some might disagree with the suggestion on the grounds that doing such a thing is a lot harder than it sounds. But how could any sane adult find it offensive -- and so offensive that the speaker must be shouted down.

That's what's interesting to me -- the fact that these socialist snowflakes just can't bear to hear this kind of talk. And I think it's because they've been so brainwashed into seeing themselves as victims with no agency that it threatens their very sense of who they are.

It's like the reaction you get when you say to a feminist frightbat: "Hey toots, actually you're not a victim at all. Go and live your life. Be free! Hell you are free, already ... Sure, it's not a perfect world. But you've got it better than just about anyone, babe. So stop whining, eh?"

If they haven't exploded in a massive foam-flecked tanty, and can actually string a few words together they'll come up with reasons for why they're not free. They'll blurt "the patriarchy, rape culture, institutionalized misogyny", etc -- all utter bollocks, of course.

Lefties have such a horrible existence, don't they! They spend their entire lives telling themselves why they can't do stuff, and why other people (whom they absolutely loathe, BTW) must do it for them. How long is that gonna work for, particularly if the whole society is built around this view (which is their ultimate goal, let's face it)? You don't have to be a friggin' rocket scientist to realize that it's a bad strategy; that's it's unsustainable.

Hell, these pinko parasites want the money that business creates. But they say they can't start one themselves. Well, if they can't, with all their fancy uni education and everything, who the fark can?

Really, would be great if even just one of them broke with tradition and actually took Ms Collier's sane advice to do something they're good at and charge a quid for it.

Sure, they only truly excel at being obnoxious, shouty arsehats. Still, there must be a market for this somewhere ...

Monday, October 17, 2016

One Nation keeps rising in popularity. Donald Trump a factor?

Interesting that there's been a big boost in the popularity of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party recently. And she's eating into the LNP's support base. It's really quite amazing.

Newspoll surveys since the July 2 federal election reveal support for One Nation in lower house seats has climbed to six per cent, up from 1.3 per cent on polling day.

In Queensland the minor party is attracting 10 per cent of voters, up from 5.5 per cent in July. In NSW and Western Australia, One Nation's support is six per cent.

Over the same period support for the coalition has dropped 3.1 per cent to 39 per cent, while Labor's vote has increased 1.3 per cent to 37 per cent.

Needless to say, a party's popularity is in a constant state of flux. Still, these are big shifts, and you've gotta wonder what's behind them -- particularly since there haven't been any huge developments in Australian politics lately. Frankly, I think the upcoming election in America has something to do with these rises.

Of course that's just a hunch. But I think a lot of Aussies are watching this epic battle between Trump and Clinton very closely. They're seeing how massively corrupt the whole political establishment is over there -- not to mention the MSM. They can see that Trump is bang on the money when he says the whole system is rigged, and they know it's a lot like that down here.

So, they're feeling a greater level of support for Hanson, who, like Trump is definitely a political outsider -- a kind of "anti-politician" who calls it as she sees it.

Obviously there are other, more powerful local factors at play. Still, I think this has quite a bit to do with it ... What do you reckon?

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Flood of false Trump groping claims reminiscent of Gillard's misogyny speech

It's often said that whatever crazy stuff happens over in the good ol' USA will be replicated here in Oz eventually. We follow, not lead -- particularly when it comes to culture and politics. This has definitely been the case with political correctness. It gathered up a head of steam in America in the nineties, and now there's a full blown reaction against it, embodied most powerfully in the rise of Donald Trump.

We're still catching up Down Under. Sure, we've got Pauline Hanson, but she's a marginal force, not leader of one of the big two parties. The one major leader who did react strongly against PC was Tony Abbott, and he was knifed by his own party. So it seems that the discontent has a fair way to go before it reaches current American levels.

But there's one episode that occurred during Abbott's reign as opposition leader that actually kinda pre-empted what's going on in America now. That was when Julia Gillard delivered her seminal (or should that be ovarian?) misogyny speech in an attack on Tony Abbott.

The frightbats were all aflutter about this, triumphantly declaring that she was speaking feminist truth to patriarchal power. But any sane adult with one eye half open could tell it was just a cynical ploy to neutralize the fallout from the controversy embroiling the Speaker of the House.

Gillard was utterly brazen in falsely sliming Abbott (at one point for looking at his watch!) to keep the heat off Peter Slipper, whom she had installed! And why was he in hot water? Well in part because of sexually oriented texts that he'd sent to a staffer, some of which included undeniably misogynous imagery.

The way she totally ignored this highly relevant fact -- followed almost unanimously by the shamelessly pro-Gillard mainstream media -- was jaw-dropping.

Fast forward to the USA, late 2016. Right now we've got a concerted, round the clock campaign to slime a presidential candidate as a serial groper and harasser. New "victims" pop up almost hourly. Their wild claims are published uncritically by huge MSM outfits like the New York Times. Soon afterwards they are revealed to be hoaxes.

Now, this all out campaign to destroy Trump would be bad enough if its prime architects -- the Clintons -- were just garden variety scumbags. But it's well established that Bill himself was a serial groper, and almost certainly a rapist as well. And rather than being some kind of innocent bystander to this carnage, Hillary did all she could to destroy his victims' reputations -- even threatening at least one of them in subtle but nonetheless crystal clear terms.

The hypocrisy is epic. It just makes you wanna hurl. And the fact that the MSM are totally okay with this tactic and are even enthusiastically playing their part in it is deeply sinister. Just as the Hildebeest trashed the reputations of her predator hubby's victims, massive news organizations are actively painting Trump as someone like him! And they are doing it to distract from the damage to Hillary's campaign caused by relentless Wikileaks revelations -- dozens of which show Watergate-scale corruption -- which they should all be investigating fearlessly.

So, in terms of dirty gender politics, it's like Gillard pointing the figure at Abbott, but magnified a hundred times.

Makes you wonder if she had anything to do with it ... Did Hillary call Julia for tactical advice, I wonder?

Thursday, October 13, 2016

NSW MPs label Trump a "revolting slug", leave snail trail of rank hypocrisy

Trump Derangement Syndrome is afflicting liberals all over America, of course. But it's caught on big time down here, too, with plenty of Aussies launching into hysterical fits of lefteous indignation about The Donald, making complete idiots of themselves in the process. Take the entire NSW Parliament, for example:

New South Wales Parliament has formally branded US presidential candidate Donald Trump a "revolting slug" who is unfit for office.

Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham tabled a motion on the business paper slamming the Republican, which passed unopposed this morning.

The pettiness and puerility is almost unbelievable, innit? Even obnoxious uni student politicians would generally avoid such childish shenanigans.

And we're paying these arsehats! They should be thoughtfully dealing with issues affecting citizens of New South Wales, not indulging in a collective fit of virtue signalling about a figure on the other side of the world.

Not surprising that a Greens MP tabled it. They all suffer from arrested development, after all. And their entire MO is to endlessly hurl abuse at their political opponents, falsely calling them racist, sexist and all the rest of it.

But it's also pretty funny that Jeremy Buckingham has used "slug" as if it were an insult. Remember that the Greens claim to be champions of all creatures great and small, including the spineless and slimy ones. Speciesist, much?

And speaking of invertebrates: Buckingham's workplace is chockas with 'em! Why, only this week the Baird government backed down on its stupid decision to nuke the entire greyhound industry because they realized the voters were filthy mad about it and would likely punt them come election time. Now, they'll prolly still lose because they've shown themselves to lack the courage of their convictions.

Then there's the fact that Buckingham's asinine motion was passed unopposed. You'd think there'd be at least a bit of resistance to it -- on the grounds of its obvious and embarrassing puerility, if nothing else. But clearly no one in the chamber had the spine to do even that.

Gawd. What a bunch of jellybacks.

The malevolent molluscs must leave a snail trail wider than a Clover Moore bike lane as they sleaze and slime their way through Parliament House each day.

And if Trump wins come November? Well, the putrid goo they exude will be doubly viscous on account of the albumen from the eggs dripping from their stunned mullet faces.

I certainly do hope this will be the outcome -- although I do pity the poor janitors who will have to clean the stinking mess up.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Kristin Lajeunesse cares more about seeming virtuous than animal welfare

Vegan vlogger Kristin Lajeunesse couldn't cope with how livestock were being transported in New Zealand. Very strange. Did she think that they were treated better back in the USA, where she's from?

Her overly emotional reaction is typical of the green left. They seem to care more about the plight of animals (and even bloody plants!) than people ...

Or maybe it's not that at all. Perhaps it's that they care more about themselves, and the way they are perceived by their peers, than anything else.

Interesting that she made a video of herself sooking up and shared it on social media. She was saying, "Look at moi. Look at how much I care!"

If you perceive it this way it becomes clear that those poor herbivores didn't really matter to her. They were just bit players in the passion play she was performing for the camera.

But these child-brained narcissists do this all the time, don't they? They wring their hands about how mankind treats animals, saying that we're no better than those "non-human persons". So, if we're no better than them, why not condemn animals for treating each other badly -- which they do all the time, clearly.

If Kristin Lajeunesse saw the wild in the same way she saw those Kiwi trucks, then she'd be posting videos of her meltdowns while hiking in the forest, wouldn't she?

That would still be extremely daft. But at least it would be consistent.

Monday, September 26, 2016

SSM plebiscite becoming reminiscent of the republic referendum in 1999

Just amazing the way this plebiscite issue is unfolding. As far as I can recall, when it was first offered, "marriage equality" advocates were mostly, if not all, for it. And why not? There seemed to be so much support and goodwill for SSM.

But then they gradually went dark on this proposal. I think the main reason for this was their realization that they would be leaving it in the hands of the hoi polloi.

The gay marriage push is clearly a leftie thing. And lefties are the biggest control freaks there are. They quack on endlessly about how they're for the people, cherish democracy and all the rest of it. But deep down they absolutely loathe the plebs. They just wanna boss them around, let's face it ... So, they've changed tack on this even though it was an extremely promising option for them.

They're desperately trying to bully Malcolm Turnbull into backing down. I think there's still a chance that he will. He is utterly terrified of being condemned by the leftie luvvie set. And he knows that will happen if he does push through with the plebiscite, which the Government clearly has a mandate for.

Meanwhile Bill Shorten is exploiting this very serious issue of whether to change this age old institution for his own political gain. So amazingly cynical and says so much about him. He really doesn't give a tinker's about "marriage equality" either way. But he sees that he can use it to cause trouble for the Government so he's doing that. Blech!

But as Malcolm Farr notes, by pushing as hard as he has, he may well have backed himself into a corner. And George Brandis has said that if things keep going this way the whole issue could just be put on the backburner again.

Obviously it's hard to tell what's gonna happen. A week is a long time in politics and all that.

But it really does look like this relentless push by SSM advocates to sidestep the people, which has been enabled by Labor's cynicism, could blow up in their faces.

So ironic that they are always quacking on about love ... There's that memorable quote about this emotion, remember: "If you love something, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours forever. If it doesn't, then it was never meant to be."

They just can't let it go, can they? Control freaks.

The situation could well be a replay of the 1999 Republic Referendum. In that expensive exercize the agents of change ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The main reason seemed to be because of the model they chose. They wanted the head of state to be selected, remember. Aussies felt it was too elitist, and they lost.

Something similar could happen with same sex marriage. If so, Malcolm Turnbull will have played central, albeit different, roles in each outcome.

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.

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.

I’m not saying it’s a threat.

It’s so serious that it requires a plebiscite.

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

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?

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.

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 ...

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:

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

Can I ask one simple question?

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

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

Of course I do.

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

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...

But you won’t give me my rights.

I just have a different view.

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.