Sunday, February 7, 2016

Is "malsplaining" Turnbull losing favour with tribal leftie luvvies?

One thing you can count on with the Left is that sooner or later they start to eat their own. Sure, they see conservatives as contemptible "unpeople". But often their most intense hatred is reserved for those who are on their side, or once were.

This is due to the obvious impracticality of their stupid ideology. They just can't figure out that demanding special consideration for one group will eventually piss off others.

The ongoing Oscars racism ruckus is an example of this. Leftie (liberal) black actors said they were being treated unfairly. Then Julie Delpy said "hang on, what about us chicks?"! Then Ian McKellen chimed in with "don't forget the gays". And just recently black comedian Chris Rock -- who's actually hosting the supposedly white supremacist awards ceremony (sheesh, no contradiction there, eh!) -- lambasted Jennifer Lawrence (world's highest paid actress, who thinks she's some kinda victim of sexism!) and said "try being a black woman!". And on and on it goes...

Lefties are just so tribal, aren't they? They simply must blame someone else for their own misery. They must form a pack. They must pile on and kick the crap out of their enemies. They just can't help themselves, the poor little poppets.

I think this same process is starting to happen here in Australia with our current PM. Sure, Malcolm Turnbull isn't a leftie radical by any means. (Actually, I don't think he has any strong political passions. Just stole the top job to satisfy his relentless hunger for power and glory.) But he's certainly beloved by many lefties across Oz -- particularly those in the meeja -- and he knows it. That's why he's been showing them so much respect and mouthing their platitudes.

But now I think they're starting to get sick of him. They want action, not talk. They want to see some sort of grand revolutionary program in the tradition of Whitlam -- you know, something that will prove that he's truly one of their number.

But all he does is blather on and talk down to people. Conservatives express their disdain for this by calling him the "Wentworth Waffler". Lefty feminist chicks, on the other hand, call this "malsplaining". Of course this is a variation on their misandrist term "mansplaining". While it's just a snarky little word I think it's quite significant. By associating his behaviour so closely with something they obviously detest, they're saying "you're not one of us, pal".

I believe this sentiment will gather momentum as the days wear on and there's more pressure on him from fellow LNP pollies like Cory Bernardi to satisfy the Coalition's traditional, conservative base. The wider electorate, too, will force him to be less right-on and more realistic -- particularly when it comes to the growing terror threat. If he does make a few hard calls these will further enrage the leftie luvvies.

IMO the leftie romance with Turnbull is close to being over. Sooner or later there'll be a clear falling out. They won't demonize him to the extent they have Abbott. But he will eventually become a bona fide hate figure along the lines of Mark Latham, I reckon.

What do you think?

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Julian Assange saga riddled with politically correct absurdities

Some quick thoughts on this seemingly endless Julian Assange saga. It really shows how crazy the world can become when lefties have so much control over things. Absurdities abound! Too many to list all in one post but here are some:

Assange, who bangs on about freedom of information and the importance of transparency, etc, is a control freak who even threatened to sue The Guardian -- which was always very much in his corner.

Then there's the fact that he divulged squillions of state secrets, yet claims to have not put any lives at risk! Of course his leftie fanboys and girls go along with that line unquestioningly. "Snitching" is only bad when their foes do it... Not surprising that these same dupes, who think of him as such a hero speaking truth to power, are often the ones most determined to see people silenced for their politically incorrect views.

Now, the UN says he's been "arbitrarily detained". Eh? He chose to hide rather than face justice.

Another leftie hero, Edward Snowden, reckons Britain's rejection of the UN's pro-Assange view sets a bad precedent and "writes a pass for every dictatorship to reject UN rulings". Eh? The UN writes a pass for dictators by letting them join in the first place! Everyone knows it's chockas with tyrants. Not only that, it gives them a platform to lecture free, open democracies on human rights! FFS.

Then there's Sweden, where this whole tawdry soap opera began. It's one of the most pro-feminist nations on Earth, with extremely strict rape laws. From what I've read it seems unlikely that in most other Western countries whatever Assange was alleged to have done would have even resulted in charges in the first place. But if he'd been a Muslim? The Swedes prolly would have charged the women instead...

Really, what a clusterf**k.

Well, whatever happens from now on I feel a bit sorry for Julian even though he's a narcissistic arsehat. Being holed up indoors these last few years has not been kind to him. He's aged heaps and is actually starting to resemble Gandalf. For the next biopic they'll have to get Sir Ian McKellen to play him.

(That said, there's another possible explanation for the long grey mane and beard. Maybe he was planning to get away unnoticed from the Ecuadorian Embassy disguised as an alpaca? Given all the other absurdities related to this saga, I wouldn't be surprised if that were actually the case.)

Related book: Inside Wikileaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website

Friday, February 5, 2016

Lisa Wilkinson blasts Clive Palmer, scores own goal

Lots of cheering on of "feisty" Lisa Wilkinson over her clash with Clive Palmer this morn. Can't say I have any sympathy for the bloke. As far as I'm concerned he's a blustering buffoon who got into politics to expand -- or perhaps save? -- his business empire, or to wreak havoc on his foes... or something. Whatever his motivations, they seem not to include sincerely wanting to make things better for Australians generally.

That said, there's no denying that the Today Show host was extremely rude to him. Didn't really ask him questions so much as rattle off a list of accusations. Clearly, she wasn't interested in what he had to say. Just wanted to shame him before her audience by using the "shirt-fronting" approach. (Actually that's prolly not the best phrase to use given the bloke's girth. For the same reason neither is "toe to toe", employed in this article about the clash. Still, I'm sure you get my drift.)

The exchange was truly unedifying to watch. If Wilkinson were clever and professional, she could have asked some hard questions then, er, respectfully let him beclown himself. She could have increased this effect by pointing out the falsity of his answers. That's a much more effective approach.

Another obvious conclusion to be drawn from this little episode was her selectivity. Doubtless there's no way she would use this aggro tactic on one of her own anointed leftie fellow travellers. Take David Morrison for example.

He also deserves to be taken to task for his actions. But can you imagine Wilkinson -- or one of her fellow travellers in the MSM for that matter -- ever treating him with the contempt she showed Clive Palmer? Odds of that happening: less than one squillionth of buggerall.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

David Morrison debacle to spell doom for Australian of the Year?

Pretty obvious that the Australian of the Year award has been totally hijacked by right-on, finger-wagging blowhards. Hell, it should actually be renamed Social Justice Warrior of The Year!

The last few winners have been increasingly PC and sanctimonious -- annoying the crap out of a huge chunk of the Australian population. But the latest recipient, David Morrison, has turned out to be the most, er, problematic by far. His conduct in the years leading up to his winning of the award is coming under increasing media scrutiny. Looks pretty clear that he threw some fine soldiers under the bus as he ponced about before the cameras proclaiming zero tolerance for military misogyny.

David Morrison looks to me like the classic SJW. (BTW, here's a great book on their psychology and tactics.) Like all of them he appears to be what I would call a political narcissist. They claim to care deeply about social justice, equality, fairness, morality, etc. But deep down they don't give a rat's. They think everything is about them and their precious fee-fees. They only seek power and glory for themselves, and are more than happy to destroy the careers of better people on the way up to achieve this goal. And if they are finally held to account for the harm they've caused and forced to leave they'll happily trash the joint on the way out!

I think this is what might happen with Morrison. There's a massive push from within the army to have him hand back his award. And his cynical treatment of one now ex-soldier unfairly linked to the "Jedi Council" scandal was just appalling. (Ben Fordham's interview with this guy is well worth a listen.) Now Jaqui Lambie's gunning for Morrison as well. Crikey! It's a full-on, multi-pronged assault. Just as well he's a battle-hardened former soldier, 'cause it's war, no doubt about it!

And if prominent feminists -- whose support and ideological instruction were instrumental in his rise to prominence -- had any moral courage and principle, they'd be attacking him too. Why? Because he's charging way more for speeches than his female predecessor Rosie Batty did. Pretty poor form for a bloke who bangs on about gender equity, don't ya think?

But of course the frightbats won't do this. He's in the tent with them so, like Tammy Wynette, they'll stand by their man no matter what.

Given the size of the forces lined against him, and the well established fact that SJWs always double down and never surrender the ground they've stolen, then this battle could get bloody indeed.

If he hangs on until the bitter end the award is completely and utterly stuffed. It will be a poisoned chalice for years hence. But if his critics ultimately prevail and he is forced to resign his position as Australian of the Year then his frightbat boosters will be baying for blood. If their chosen candidate doesn't win next year they'll do all they can to discredit the one who does.

It's definitely a lose-lose situation. If subsequent governments have any sense they'll realize this and just euthanase the entire bloody award! That really would be the most humane thing. Unlikely, of course, but possible.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Waleed Aly nails everything, every time!

Sneering hipsters are simple folk. They can't actually think -- let alone think for themselves. They can only obey their precious feelings. And being stuck in a state of perpetual childishness those feelings tend to be pretty narcissistic. Terrified of individualism, they are the ultimate conformists. Needless to say, they roam in packs. When they get told what to think (or rather, feel) by prominent social justice warriors they all dutifully obey.

Part of this process involves the near-deification of certain slebs. These anointed airheads can do no wrong. Every one of their often daffy pronouncements is seen by PC taste-makers as some kind of searing insight into the human condition that's never been expressed before.

Perhaps the most prominent of these right now is Waleed Aly. He strikes all the politically correct poses, natch. Added to this he's a Muslim, which immediately makes him seem rebellious, and therefore cool. Speaking of which, he's also an accomplished guitarist. His gigs as TV and radio broadcaster, academic and columnist mean he just keeps popping up all over the joint. Hell, if it weren't such a Eurocentric (and therefore, Islamophobic) term, he'd be called a bloody Renaissance man!

Pretty much every one of his smugly wrong-headed gargles on The Project or in Fairfax is met with reverence from his squillions of acolytes. Trained to "follow Waleed-er", and each other, they immediately start raving about his latest asinine offering on social media once it's live. Their fave way of doing this is to say Aly "nailed it". It's such a noticeable phenomenon that I tweeted this a while back:
But don't just take my word for it. Even Mark Di Stefano, prominent leftie fan of Aly, just made a similar observation. He wasn't being sarcastic, but.
You can also see the same phenomenon on Facebook and the search engines. Amazing.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Stan Grant and Gordian Fulde on Q and A

So now the silly season is well and truly over for most Australians. But at their ABC, it's only just started. Yep, those democracy hatin', anti-free speech, pro-Islamist, gender warriors have had their tax-funded break and are now well and truly back into the, er, whinge of things.

And perhaps the whingey-est of all their programs -- as well as the most sanctimonious and incoherent -- is Q and A. True to form the first episode of 2016 was chockas with leftie luvvies engaged in a nauseating orgy of right-on virtue signalling. To list every example would take hours. So in this post I'll just focus on one strand of the discussion, namely racial separatism:

MADELEINE CHARLES: Is it right that we continue to hold our national day on a day that marks the invasion of Australia, when we have so many better dates that can be celebrated in Australia? 

Doesn't matter what date is chosen. Lefties, luvvies, and sundry Australia-hatin' activists will find reasons to bitch and moan about it.

STAN GRANT: It’s not an easy one to answer. I also work for National Indigenous Television and we hear from Indigenous people particularly on that day, our people, my people, about how tough it is to come to terms with a celebration around what was an invasion of our land, the dispossession of our people and everything that has come from that, that people still live with every day. You said before that there can many other dates but what other dates are there? Do we celebrate the day of Federation? We haven't even resolved the issues in our Constitution yet, the race provisions in our Constitution, the failure to recognise Indigenous people in our Constitution. Do we celebrate on Anzac Day? Well, that’s only part of our story as well. I think if or when we become a Republic, that will present itself as an obvious and natural day. But I just want to say this: for us, as Indigenous people, there are many aspects to it. One is to mourn the invasion, to mourn dispossession and the consequences of it, to celebrate our survival and that is not to be under estimated, the survival and the resilience of Indigenous people, our families but for me, as well, to acknowledge the fact that Australia is a remarkable country. Now, I’ve spent my life reporting from some of the worst hell holes on earth and Australia is a remarkable country and we need to acknowledge that and I don't want to diminish the right of Australians to acknowledge that day and to celebrate that day but remember the people on whom Australia's prosperity and success has been built and that is often the suffering of Indigenous people. It is very problematic

"Problematic." Luvvies just love that word, don't they? It's code for nasty, wrong and baaaad!

But I'd say Grant's gargle is problematic itself in the more general sense. It's riddled with incoherence and makes no bloody sense at all! He talks about "our people, my people" to refer to Aborigines. This is clearly racially separatist. Then he talks about "our constitution"... Eh?

Any sensible person thinks, "FFS, mate! Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways."

Now of course lefties say that this attitude is in itself racist. But what if a whitey-tighty were to talk about "my people" in such an ethnically specific way? We all know the answer to that question...

TONY JONES: Stan, are you suggesting the whole nation should effectively celebrate and, at the same time, mourn

STAN GRANT: Yeah, I really think it needs to be a much more inclusive day. Noel Pearson has spoken to this and he said you’re looking at a three pronged celebration or commemoration: the original landing in Australia of the first peoples more than 50, 60000 years ago; the coming of Europeans, First Fleet, which was transformative. That is the bedrock of modern Australia, we can't deny that; and Noel has also pointed out the end of the White Australia Policy, which helped give rise to the multicultural society that we have today. To be able to bring all of those elements together on a day where we celebrate, we commemorate, we are able to express ourselves, reflect on our identity, would give that day more meaning but we are not there yet.

Makes the nation sound like a very large family on the way to a picnic. The sprogs/citizens are in the back seat of the bloody great people mover saying "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

Truth is, according to the regressive Left we'll never be there. They don't want us to arrive at any sort of well defined political destination. It's all a process, you see. They just want to keep exploiting discord so they can lambaste people and boss them around.

If Stan and "his people" want to mourn and celebrate at the same time fine. They should go for it. But he's foolish to expect everyone else to feel what he and his activist ilk demand of them. They didn't commit the dispossession, oppression and all the other horrors. Nor do they have any wish to. They just want everyone to get along, and all be treated equally and with respect.

Interesting that later in the discussion Grant said this: "Now, we saw incidents of flag burning on Australia Day as well and that's an indication of the roiling anger that can still exist in Indigenous communities. And in this country, as a democracy, we have a right to express that."

Okay... Wonder what he and his fellow activists would say if the Aboriginal flag were burned?

Speaking of flags, some sane thoughts were expressed by Senior Australian of the Year Gordian Fulde:

GORDIAN FULDE: Very simply, I think what everybody is saying forgive me is that we really want to be Australia is for Australians and one of the things I am conscious of, not that I think a flag is everything, but I'd like to see us all under one flag. New Zealand is changing their flag, whatever. I'm not saying we should change the flag but I think it is sad that we have three flags whenever there is an official occasion. We should have one flag, one Australia for all Australians.

Well said! And isn't it interesting that he felt he had to apologize before expressing this eminently sensible, non-discriminatory idea.

Gotta wonder: will he be invited back on the show? He could have blown any chance of that! As we all know, being a sane, rational, humane adult is verboten on Q and A. The whole point of the show is to reinforce infantile, divisive, politically correct dogma.

The production staff member who suggested Fulde be invited has probably already undergone, er, counselling. Some other minion is probably on the blower to Zaky Mallah to try and erase the damage right now...

(For those interested in the way Australia's past is depicted, The Killing of History is a good book.)

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Julie Bishop is polite to animal rights nuts, showing her media savvy

I used to have a lot of respect for Julia Bishop. Then Abbott was knifed, and it became clear that she either knew about the plans to do this way in advance and did nothing, or -- worse still -- was actively involved in the plot.

In the past I saw mostly grace and strength. Now I tend to see calculating self-interest. Here's a small example. At a recent event in Los Angeles JBish was heckled by animal rights activists. Rather than firing back at them or just letting security frogmarch 'em out the door, she actually told them it was okay to have their say.

I think the main reason she did this was because she knew that because they were of the Left, any negativity on her part would have been seized on by the mainstream media, which as we all know is chockas with hand-wringing, finger-pointing SJWs. So, by being so gracious in this situation she guaranteed herself good press, or at last no condemnation from the usual suspects.

Then there's the possibility that she actually sympathized with these shouty loons. But you never quite know with her. She's very calculating and hides her real sympathies well.

If you think that's too long a bow then imagine how she would have reacted if some less PC protesters -- say those against Islamic immigration -- were to start shrieking at her. Think she'd have been so polite to them?