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?

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Sad news about Bernie Slattery

Just found out something upsetting. Veteran journalist and blogger Bernie Slattery has died.

I never met Bernie face to face, or even spoke to him on the phone. But he was one of the first bloggers I made contact with when I started blogging myself back in about 2003.

As well as being a wry, witty writer, he was extremely helpful. When I was starting out I remember being flummoxed about how to put links to other blogs on mine. So I asked him how to do this in an e-mail. He didn't need to answer the question himself. Could have just pointed me to a help article or forum thread or something. But he replied with comprehensive instructions that solved my problem. 

Over the years I had numerous enjoyable conversations with Bernie via e-mail and in blog comments. I also had a silly OTT leftie character that would troll him. He enjoyed playing along with the gag.

If you look at his blog you'll see he's got a kind face and a twinkle in his eye. That photo certainly captured the spirit that came across loud and clear in all my communication with him. So it's really sad to hear that he has passed away at the comparatively young age of 65.

That said, I'm absolutely sure he lived his life well, with grace and humour, and had a positive effect on many people's lives. So there is some consolation in that.

My deepest sympathies go out to his friends and family. 

Monday, February 9, 2015

Abbott leadership spill averted. But how did it get to that point?

Good to know that Abbott has survived this push for a leadership spill. And I thought he would head it off at the pass as he has ...

Really, trying to knife their leader was such a stupid thing to do. You've really got to wonder why it even got to this stage.

Well, there are malicious idiots in the LNP (as there are in all political parties). But they are far less common there than in Labor (where they are the norm rather than the exception).

Take this guy Simpkins, who pushed for the spill. Looking like a white-anting arsehat, and with egg all over his face (not unlike half the press gallery including Laurie Oakes, who said Abbott was "dead meat" as I recall) he says he doesn't think he's made any enemies. What a doofus! 

And I think timing had a lot to do with it. With the Silly Season just over and Canberra not in full gear, there was little going on politically in Oz (except in Queensland, of course). So Abbott's knighthood gaffe got more attention than it normally would have. The press gallery, chockas with brimming pinkos who want Tony's guts for garters, beat it up as much as they could. Libs with personal vendettas like Dennis Jensen, who've been scheming for months, it seems, decided it was time to strike. As a result there seemed to be much more momentum against Abbott than there actually was.

Sure, Abbott has a problem. But I think he can turn it around -- just. There's no one better to lead the party. Turnbull may be more popular than him, but he wouldn't be a shoo in. And there's ages to go before an election. So much can and will change before then.

Anyway, putting Turnbull at the helm would be an absolute disaster for the LNP. He's not really a conservative. He would destroy its soul. Lefties know this, which is one of the reasons the poisonous pinkos pray for this to happen. But to have people in the party pushing for this too? Well, that's deeply disturbing ... 

Friday, February 6, 2015

Abbott leadership spill: Why the luvvies love Turnbull

This upcoming spill for the leadership of the LNP is as surprising as it is depressing. Haven't these backstabbers figured out how damaging all this instability is? Australia had six years of it with Labor. And Abbott is spot on when he says that the voters have had a gutfull of vindictive powerbrokers making decisions that the electorate should be making instead.

Looks pretty clear that much of the motivation behind the spill comes from personal malice. I heard Dennis Jensen interviewed by Andrew Bolt and he came across as a real turncoat who was not at all honest about his motives. Couldn't nominate a potential alternative to Abbott. Just wanted to get rid of him. Nasty and stupid. 

Hopefully the majority in the party are not as selfish and thoughtless as Jensen and can look at things more rationally and long term. Actually I think that will be the case ...

But if it isn't and, say, Turnbull wins next week, it will be a rolled gold disaster. The Government may get a sugar hit in the polls. But they are just polls. Everything changes come election time because that's when the voters get to actually vote. They'll remember that they were denied the right to choose the leader they ended up with. And they may decide to let the party know how they feel about that. That's one big black mark against the LNP IMO.

Then there's the fact that if elected (by the party, not the people) Turnbull will drag it strongly leftward, resulting in a lot of conservative votes being lost. Now he and his supporters may think that this effect will be negated by all the new support he attracts. They hope that there'll be an overall gain.

But that's just silly. No one who votes for Labor or the Greens will vote LNP if Turnbull leads it. It's still the eeevil LNP to them.

But they still want him to lead it, of course. Which says so much about them. They don't like the idea of a real contest of ideas. They are control freaks. They may say they believe in democracy and freedom of speech, but that's just a crock. When they talk about welcoming a diversity of views, they mean all those to the left of Bill Shorten's beliefs. 

They don't just want to get rid of conservatism. They want to get rid of conservatives. Look at what happens in any institution where they get the upper hand. Everyone has to get with the PC program, or else! (Of course they're not up front about this. Being the commie cowards they are, they prefer to do it by stealth. And it must be said they are very good at that ... Well, they would be. They've been doin' it for decades now.)

Look at the ABC. They're so determined to have the whole joint conforming politically that there aren't even any conservatives employed there -- at east not in any significant role. Yet they know that it should display some balance. So what do they do? They fake it by having their lefties occasionally put the conservative view in interviews, etc.

You even see this kind of thing in commercial media, also dominated by the Left. Take last night on The Project. In a way that was quasi-conservative Waleed Aly and that blonde chick whose name escapes me actually attacked Shorten's lack of positive policies (though they were rude and bolshie about it when a conservative would have been polite, of course).

Basically, lefties want to control everything. They want the conservative argument to be a strawman, so they don't like it when a real, living breathing conservative is putting it. Abbott is one of these people. Which is why they hate him so much. Turnbull, however, is actually a closet leftie. Which is why they want him in Abbott's place.

True conservatives, on the other hand, don't want to replace Shorten with one of their own. They'd prefer to have him remain so they can show the people how bankrupt his arguments are. The tragedy of the LNP's situation is that enough of its members have lost sight of that goal to cause the chaos we're seeing now. 

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Greens issue BBQ-stopping directive for Australia Day

The Greens, being the malignant, tiny-minded totalitarians that we've all come to know and loathe, don't just get off on telling others how to live their lives in a political, economic sense. They feel the need to offer instructions about how they should relate to those close to them in personal contexts also.

Take this creepy directive from them regarding Australia Day:

Next Monday is Australia Day — which, for many Australians — means friends, family and BBQs. It also means the opportunity to have a conversation about climate change.

Will you pledge to have a climate conversation on January 26th?

Blech! Doesn't that just make your skin walk? The invasive arrogance of these creepy communards is just jaw dropping. Fancy thinking that the talk that goes on between friends and family in this social setting is their bloody business!

Sheesh. They'll be telling people how to take a shower next!  Oh wait ...

And they're not just gently nudging the conversation in the direction of a certain pet subject of theirs. They're telling their brainless acolytes exactly what to say, too.

We’ll give you everything you need—- a climate conversation guide, some updated facts and figures about climate impacts in your areas... even some climate drink stickers you can print out and stick on the guests’ glasses!

This reconfirms a coupla things: Firstly, greenies generally are just brainless followers. They don't do their own thinking. They just sit there passively waiting to get told what to say by the leaders of their stupid movement, mindlessly mouthing these warmist dogmas without question.

Secondly, their leaders have no respect for them at all.  They just see them as slave bots they can easily program to launch attacks at otherwise friendly get-togethers in backyards all across the nation. Socialist spammers is what they are!

Kinda makes sense that they think that the eeevil Rupert Murdoch is brainwashing the masses. Because they're doing it to their own retarded readership, they think everyone else must be using the same techniques of mind control.