Thursday, November 23, 2017

Manus Island refugee demo in Hyde Park was typically emotive and incoherent

This Manus Island soap opera is just getting more and more ridiculous. Lefties in Oz are milking it for all it's worth. And they can do this because events are unfolding a long way from the mainland. They can tell the most brazen lies about goings on there and basically get away with it.

They aren't quite as bold when it comes to stuff going on in our cities because even though most of the local media are happy to echo their simplistic, OTT narrative without question there are some journos who ask pertinent questions and collect evidence disputing their outrageous claims.

Recently, they've all been shrieking up a storm about efforts to move the so-called refugees from the old centre on Manus Island to a new one. This would be a pretty straightforward process if the occupants were cooperative. But instead they've been as obstructive as possible (encouraged by activists, no doubt). The authorities have lost patience and are using force. That's unfortunate but understandable.

Local activists are carrying on as if it's the most terrible thing that could possibly happen. Sooo typical of them, innit?

Tortured? Abandoned to perish?

FFS, they're just trying to move them to a new facility ...

Doesn't matter what's really going on. Socialists will always be weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth zif the sky's about to fall in. They're always doing their damnedest to demonize their opponents. Also, they're getting off on the drama of it. They're screaming: "Pay attention to us. We're important! Look how much we care!"

Saw some of this on the weekend down at Hyde Park. There was a rally in support of the men on Manus, see. Like all leftie demos, it was full of incoherence and virtue signalling. Lots of silly signs and behaviour. A real show.

The banners were emotive as usual. They'd only appeal to people who don't think too hard about things. The Greens advocated policies that resulted in over a thousand people drowning. Calling them "compassionate" is bloody absurd, clearly.

And by the same token, is it "cruel" to prevent these deaths, even if this is achieved by unflinching application of harsh border policies? Hell, they're the only measures that stop people smuggling. Not pleasant but they do work.

But there were some colourful characters there, I gotta say. It's something you often see at leftie gatherings.

Take this magnificent old dude, who woulda looked right at home in a biblical epic. Coulda been the good lord Himself!

Ironic he was holding up a socialist banner since they tend to be atheists and all. (Though you never know, He mighta lobbed from Heaven to offer the ultimate moral authority. God works in mysterious ways, after all ...)

Dutton has blood on his hands? What, for enforcing a policy that has been proven to save lives? But those whose demands ultimately lure people to their deaths are the good guys ... Got it.

(Just hope this is not real blood BTW. If it is, whoever donated it for the sign needs to eat a big juicy steak, pronto. They're obviously seriously anaemic ...)

I quite like this photo. Seems symbolic somehow ... One interpretation: there's violence and suffering everywhere. By focusing on hyperbolic (and sometimes flat out fraudulent) claims about what's happening a long way away, you could be missing something far worse much closer to home.

Not sure what significance the turtle had ... Maybe he'd endured so many of these sanctimonious rallies over the years that he'd just had a gutful? 

Interesting that leftie activists are forever waxing lyrical about love and compassion. The rally's speakers were clearly driven most strongly by emotions like anger, disgust, rage, contempt, and indignation.

Take the guy in the video below. He was the organizer, an academic who writes for The Guardian. Bloke was brimming! Can you imagine him being able to discuss the issue of border control calmly, even without his powerful sun hat of social justice?

Neither can I. 

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Australia may have said yes to SSM, but Sydney wasn't quite so sure

Still kinda reeling from the outcome of the postal plebiscite for "marriage equality". I thought that the No side had waged a very effective campaign and managed to get a lot of Australians to think long and hard about the issue. After all, marriage is about a whole lot more than just "love" and there are many good arguments for keeping it as it is.

Given what had happened with Brexit and the election of Trump, and how both these results completely confounded the pollsters, I thought we may well have been in for another surprise. Even posted this prediction:

Obviously I was being way too optimistic. I suspect that while a lot of people did realize they were being conned with all the pretty rainbow signs and flags and emotive lovey-dovey rhetoric, this came late in the process. So, while the fusty fighters pegged back the Yes side's lead somewhat, the result was pretty clear nationally.

Not surprisingly there was a clear distinction in the way the two main Sydney papers covered the issue. The Daily Tele employed its trademark politically incorrect abrasiveness, and the Herald was its usual gushy, mushy, virtue signalling self. 

Speaking of distinctions: There was a massive fault line in Western Sydney, where the biggest no vote was recorded. This was really intriguing.

Blaxland had the highest proportion of naysayers. When I first heard about it I thought maybe this was due to the lasting influence of the seat's former member Paul Keating, who said "Two blokes and a cocker spaniel do not make a family".

Obviously not. The electorate has changed massively since then. It was mostly due to the high proportion of working class people from non-English speaking backgrounds, especially Muslims. Among other things this makes Yes zealots undeniably elitist, Islamophobic and hence racist by their own definition.

And it's pretty funny that the sneering hipster crowd still sees silvertail electorates as homophobia hotbeds. Warringah (Tony Abbott's electorate) scored among the highest yes votes in the country. That's another way in which their child-brained PC narrative was confounded by reality. 

But as always with the PC Left, it's not about reality. It's all about having their precious fee-fees validated. The orgy of self congratulation was pretty nauseating. They weren't exactly gracious in victory, that's for sure.

Funny how so many of the Yes side called their opponents "dinosaurs". They should curb their enthusiasm. We just had a survey in which over half respondents said that SSM is fine with them. That is all. The law has not yet been changed. By their criteria, Oz is still "Jurassic Park", innit?

The way the Yes crowd now condemns those who had the temerity to vote no is a bit like the tsunami of claims about Harvey Weinstein, IMO. Everyone in Hollywood knew about his vile behaviour, but heaps are only speaking up now. If "marriage equality" is such a "fundamental human right", why no momentum for it yonks back?

The massive push for SSM is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in ultra-PC Artsville in Melbourne in the 90s I hardly ever heard demands for it, even from gays and lesbians. It's come globally from above (cultural Marxism). The idea that it's developed organically from the bottom up is total bollocks.

If you're a married Yes voter claiming it's "homophobic" and a "human rights violation" to deny marriage to LGBTIQ folk, surely that was always the case ... So why are you only now condemning this injustice, congratulating yourself for your compassion? Where were you when it mattered?

Married heteros pushing the "fundamental human right" line on SSM are yuuuge hypocrites. They're like white South Africans who did sweet far call about apartheid when it was law, then congratulated themselves after it was ditched. If they had any sincerity, they would never have been married in the first place.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Daisy Cousens triggers "The Ferret"

Kinda funny that sneering hipsters detest the Daily Telegraph. They see it as wholly eeevil -- one of the main ways by which those vile right-wingers brainwash Sydney's plebs into believing in quaint notions like freedom of speech. 

But as usual they're way off the mark. While the tabloid does have some high profile columnists (such as Mark Latham) who appeal to the sane, rational adult demographic, a fair whack of the rest of its content is pretty dang PC. In other words, like many News Ltd publications, it actually has a range of views.

Hell, it even includes input from animals -- or as the more extreme activists like to call them, "non-human persons". Take this nosy little critter, "The Ferret".

Rather than condemn the paper, deep green lefties should actually rejoice that the Daily Telegraph is such a staunch ally in the crusade against speciesism. Even the Sydney Morning Herald isn't that non-discriminatory in its employment practices. (Frightbats aren't actual bats, remember -- though I'm sure many of them do sleep upside down.)

Even better, "The Ferret" actually seems to be a bit of a leftie himself -- well, if his last column is any guide. You could even call him a "fur-bolshie" ...

See, he's penned this snarky little item about high-profile young conservative Daisy Cousens.

Now, Ms Cousens has form on provoking the Left. She routinely triggers SJWs into foam-flecked fits of pique, in which they often reveal their own ugly bigotry. The fact that she's now done this to a member of the family Mustelidae is testament to her trolling skills.

The moonlighting rabbit catcher sneers:

"Now, of course, no-one knows who the ferret Daisy is. But among those mincing around in some right-wing circles she has become somewhat of a pin-up girl."

Mincing? Mincing?

Is Mr Ferret unaware that in left-wing circles that term is verboten? It's inherently homophobic, and in a few years could even be classified as hate speech (along with "tranny" and "fag"). 

Anyhoo, doesn't he know that right-wingers don't mince. They stride!

But I shouldn't be surprised at his ignorance given his very sheltered existence. Most of the time he's curled up asleep in a tubby goth's cleavage, after all ...

But the thing that really shat off the bespectacled fur-bolshie (which consequently caught my eye) was what Ms Cousens said on The Bolt Report in relation to the consequences of gay marriage for shop owners:

"Refusing service to people, it happens for all sorts of reasons, a couple of months ago in Melbourne an Asian gentleman who owned a shop refused service to young black males for the simple fact that he had noticed that they had a propensity to commit crime. Should we prevent him from doing that to protect his store because of what he has observed?"

The whiskered busybody's very revealing reply:

"Ah, yes Daisy. Yes we should."

Wow. That's one PC polecat!

Presumably, like his fellow-travelling humans, he's being very selective in his standards here. Does he think that the Rose Hotel in Chippendale should have been prevented from cancelling this regular Christian gathering, I wonder?

And regardless of consistency in application, how could shop owners be forced to serve all customers whether they like it or not other than through the introduction and rigorous enforcement of truly totalitarian laws?

That's one particularly deep and dark rabbit hole this particular ferret is very reluctant to investigate, I suspect. 

Friday, November 3, 2017

Popular Daily Telegraph not PC while right-on Fairfax is failing (and fake anyhow)

A coupla days ago I saw this Daily Telegraph cover story about a stoush over a woman between two beefy Italian rugby league players. It was mildly politically incorrect in its invocation of the Italian theme and certainly gave me a laugh. One of the first paragraphs brazenly included the phrase "cracking on". Frankly I think the writer should win a human rights award just for that!

I suspect the paper didn't receive any complaints for this story. After all, Italy is part of Europe, historically inhabited by white folk. So it would be a real stretch to characterize this as some kinda hate crime, even for a sneering hipster from Sydney Uni. Still, with all the social justice warriors running amok these days, more and more people are getting offended by the most innocuous things.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking about how this paper is perceived by its audience. Obviously, the vast majority of its readers don't take offense to its often abrasive approach, and appreciate this kind of humour. That's one of the reasons it's so popular.

On the other side of the media spectrum there's Fairfax, which is struggling financially. Clearly, a major reason for this is its drearily right-on, humourless approach.

Without a doubt the sneering hipsters who regularly read the Sydney Morning Herald would look at a front page like the one shown above and roll their eyes at what they believed to be its typically crass and culturally insensitive tone.

But does Fairfax truly walk its talk when it comes to being politically correct? If the Chris Gayle defamation suit is any guide it certainly doesn't. The case was a clear win for the Jamaican, who successfully argued that stories published about him were both false and malicious.

If the Daily Telegraph was the paper coughing up defo payments to a black cricketer, you can be damn sure that Fairfax writers would be howling about the "racism" of the journos and editors in question. Maybe they should be applying those same standards to themselves for once? 

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Is "rainbow fascism" too strong a term?

One phrase that's getting used a lot these days is "rainbow fascism". It describes the authoritarian tactics of the "marriage equality" crowd. When I first started hearing it a while back I thought it was waaay OTT. But nowadays I'm not so sure.

Obviously, these shrieking zealots are not going to line people up against a wall and shoot them if they vote no in the plebiscite. But if you take "fascist" to mean one who despises democracy and wages concerted campaigns to control citizens thoughts, feelings and speech then these serious little insects are well on the way to deserving the label IMHO. 

The PC narrative has it the other way around, natch. The cultural Marxists are always painting their opponents as the real Nazis. But the truth is much more problematic, as this excellent book The Big Lie makes clear. In the USA, it's the Democrats who have long been closest in spirit to the National Socialists. And in true totalitarian style, they've turned the truth completely on its head!

Something similar is happening with this SSM push. And one major element of it is the employment of the rainbow symbol to manipulate the masses emotionally.

See, rainbows are like love itself -- they are universally seen as good, beautiful and positive. Only a certified arsehole would abhor those pretty colours in the sky after rain, surely. So, the Yes crowd have made the rainbow a central image in their branding. It's kind of like emotional blackmail: "Vote yes and everything's pretty and nice. Do the opposite and the rainbow gets it!"

They've obviously put a helluva lot of thought, preparation and work into this project. They've been at it for a long while, right across the globe.

I really started to notice the tactic about a year ago when I saw this display in Bondi Junction.

What got me was the fact that even though gay marriage wasn't actually mentioned specifically, it was still being alluded to. And it was very clearly tied in with the shopping centre's own hashtag.

After this I started noticing the symbol everywhere. Recently, I even realized it was in a photo I'd taken of a pub -- though I was unaware of it at the time.

Clearly, the pro-SSM crowd have been very hard at work getting businesses both large and small to literally fly the flag for their revolutionary movement.

Speaking of which, Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore's been doing it for ages -- and at our expense.

And here's another example of this: public art. Over in Fremantle a whole year ago a sculpture called "Rainbow" was installed at significant public expense. The port city's Lord Mayor had this to say:

“I hope Rainbow will not only foster conversation and debate but will put a smile on the faces of locals and visitors and remind us of just how lucky we are to live in such a great place."

That's sooo leftist innit? They always say they welcome debate. But really, it's the last thing they want. He added:

“Like all good pieces of art it will mean different things to different people. For me it represents a variety of things including Fremantle’s strong links to the sea, a celebration of Freo’s renowned arts and culture scene and also a strong statement of hope for greater diversity, tolerance and compassion in society."

Diversity! What a laugh. Conformity more like ...

Dunno 'bout you. But as far as I'm concerned these joyless totalitarians have completely ruined the rainbow. I will never be able to look at a real one in the same way again. 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

City of Sydney's offer of free SSM venues is anti-equality

Pretty clear that the Yes side have little intellectual confidence in their own position. That's one of the reasons they're so determined to shout down the opposition. Basically, they don't want Australians to hear the No case. People are much more likely to actually think things through then. If they do that, they'll almost certainly vote no.

Of course the Yes side's approach isn't entirely about censoring their opponents. They do offer some positive reasons we should totally overturn thousands of years of tradition. Their argument -- if you could call it that -- has two main elements.

The first is highly emotive: "It's all about love." So simplistic! Marriage is clearly more complex than that ... In any case, the most zealous SSM advocates don't really mean it. Their side has shown far more hatred for their opponents than the other way around.

Their other favourite catchphrase is “equality”. Again, they are mostly insincere. To say that their behaviour is Orwellian in this regard is not a stretch. In their minds, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

A vivid example of this double standard is the offer by City of Sydney for free marriage venue hire for same sex couples if the Yes side wins.

Its proponents have painted resistance to it as an overreaction, claiming that it's just a celebratory measure ... Well, even if it is, it's still a big thing. Hiring out public spaces for weddings from the City of Sydney will set you back several hundred bucks at least. So, saying that only straight couples must cough up is pretty rich. Also, most ratepayers are breeders. So, in a way they'll be forking out for the rainbow weddings even if they themselves don't get hitched.

And frankly I don't trust them to make it last only a short while. Lefties have form on making temporary measures permanent, then ratcheting up their demands.

As with so much of their obnoxious behaviour it really makes you wonder: If they are this brazen now in their desire for discrimination, what other plans do they have in mind? Having won the right to marry, will they then demand that the institution itself be only for the LGBTIQ crowd? Will they demand that straights be banished from it?

If they do get their way and eventually there is a concerted push to deny marriage to heterosexual couples I won't be surprised. If anyone had said that even a year ago I would have thought the idea completely absurd. Now I'm not so sure.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Ten American Twitter champs

Twitter is an awesome tool in many ways. But it's particularly good for anyone interested in current affairs. Its lightning speed makes it the best place to break news, or learn about it. The 140 character limit means users must get straight to the point, too. If you can make a powerful point in a unique way you'll stand out from the pack.

The best people to follow are those who do this on a regular basis, combining wit and insight with compelling information. With this in mind I've decided to list some of my favourite tweeps, starting with those from America.

Donald J Trump Being POTUS, his tweets are significant as a matter of course. His abrasive directness, and the fact that his Twitter feed triggers so many snowflakes, makes him hugely entertaining as well.
Dinesh D'Souza Great writer with a fascinating book about how the Left in America have managed to smear their opposition as fascist, when they themselves are far more deserving of the term.
Ann Coulter Another brilliant writer. Has a knack for making her pithy points with laugh-out loud funny tweets.
Mike Cernovich Fearless, prolific new media mogul with some very well placed sources. Breaks lots of significant stories.
James Woods Legendary actor. Relentless in his attacks on the Clintons in particular. Blocks trolls with flare.
Ben Shapiro Super smart conservative with awesome debating skills.
Bill Mitchell Big time Trump fan. Prolific tweeter and Periscoper with a knack for using metaphor.
Ben Garrison Highly skilled and incisive cartoonist.
Kurt Schlichter Funny writer with a military and legal background.
Roger Stone Long time political insider who worked for Richard Nixon. Lefties hate his guts and the feeling is clearly mutual. Doesn't hold back in his ongoing stoushes with them.

So, there are ten brilliant tweeps for you to check out if you haven't already. Will compile other lists in future.