Monday, June 25, 2012

Border control is a humanitarian issue after all

Years ago, when I was doing standup comedy regularly, I used to have this routine that began with a play on the word "vegetarian". I'd say if vegetarians eat vegetables, then what do humanitarians eat? I then gave a couple of examples of well known caring, sharing types being engaged in ghoulish acts of cannibalism.

I wasn't trying to make any kind of a statement. I was just trying to get a laugh out of this weird verbal accident (which I suspect many others have stumbled on as well). But considering all these horrific drownings of people coming to Australia in leaky boats in the last few years, I think that maybe this wasn't such a verbal accident after all ... 

There is something truly ghoulish about the hand-wringing Left's insistence that only they are true humanitarians, and that anyone espousing a tough border control policy is a mean, heartless, racist bastard. How much of a humanitarian can you be when your purportedly compassionate policy lures hundred of people to their deaths?

Those espousing a "softer, kinder" asylum seeker policy say that this position is humanitarian because the influx of boats is due to push factors. These asylum seekers are fleeing danger, they say, and so they would be coming here no matter what. But the very fact that this lethal tide can be stopped (as it was in the Howard years) disproves their thesis.

But these aspects of the debate don't bother them -- nor do the deaths, for that matter! "Accidents happen", as Sarah Hanson-Young said. They consider the drowning of hundreds of men, women and children a small price to pay for maintaining their delusions about their own moral superiority.

Given that these same people are so fond of accusing conservatives of racism, it looks increasingly like their position has much to do with their own subconscious prejudice. That is, they see racism everywhere because they themselves are pathologically obsessed with race.

If the people drowning as a result of their "compassionate" policies were white, I suspect that sanctimonious lefties would actually start to see them as people, and not just acceptable collateral damage in the war against conservatism. They might actually start to understand the real reasons why so many Australians detest their stupid policies, and ultimately renounce them. They'd be doing something to save lives, not end them, then.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Dumb Drunk and Racist was entertaining but incoherent

I watched the first episode of the show Dumb, Drunk and Racist the other night. It was entertaining, but I don't think it shed any light on the question it purportedly sought to answer: Are we really dumb, drunk and racist?

Well, who's this "we" that host Joe Hildebrand kept talking about? Hell, there are over 22 million individuals, and numerous cultural, racial and religious groups in Australia ... Or was he talking about the country's official government policy?

Obviously, there are many racist individuals, and even some overtly racist groups here. While many of these people are white -- that is, of Anglo-Celtic or Western European descent -- many are not. (I know that PC lefties find this impossible to comprehend, since they can't see non-whites as fully human individuals in their own right and so believe they are incapable of racism -- a patronizing attitude that is a kind of racism in itself.) But these white bigots, while quite numerous, are surely very much in the minority.

Sure, the Australian government was officially and overtly racist when it had the White Australia policy. But it's certainly not officially and overtly racist now -- although there are some elements of politically correct racism (you know, the compassionate, well meaning kind) that have exacerbated racial tensions, or even created some that didn't already exist.

The whole idea of taking four Indians to a racially and culturally diverse country where many thousands of their countrymen are already living, working and studying seems utterly pointless. I mean, obviously it's not a racist country, because if it were, they wouldn't have been let in in the first place, right? Or if the people here were overwhelmingly bigoted against Indians most, if not all, of them would have quickly found it intolerable and buggered off, wouldn't they?

I know the reason the show's producers chose Indians who haven't been here before was because they wanted to test the very negative stereotype of Australians currently being widely promoted in that country. But surely it would have been equally valid to just ask some Indians who lived here already if all the outrage back home was justified.

Well, there'd be no journey, no confrontation, no drama, no "colour and movement" then. You have to have people cussin' an' fightin' for it to be good TV, don't you?

And there certainly was quite a bit of that. Firstly, there was the clear, vile racism of people abusing Indian call centre workers. That was the classic white racism that people normally associate with the term. Sadly, there's plenty of that here, but I have no doubt that most white Aussies are appalled and disgusted by it. 

Then there was the clear, vile racism of the Muslim passerby who was outraged by the "Say No to Burqas" mural in Newtown.

Watch that scene closely. It's fascinating. If my memory serves correctly the Muslim guy calls the mural's creator, Sergio Redegalli a "wop, dago c**t". He also calls one of the Indians Sergio's "little lap dog", something that understandably riles the visitor.

Of course, hand-wringing lefties will ignore all of that and say that the mural's creator was the real racist. Well, if you believe that, you're conflating race and religion. Cloth is not skin, remember.

And it's a lay down misere that the sneering hipsters with the most frothing foam in their mouths about that mural will be just the kind of people who gleefully applaud the provocative trashing of  Christian religious symbols such as crucifixes and nun's habits. But with so many Christians across the globe being non-white (perhaps even the majority?) then by their own logic that would be racist too, wouldn't it?

Er, no. Lefties are special, see.

But back to Redegalli: Yes, there may be some submerged racism in his motivations for creating such a mural. But it's clearly not the main driver. If he had a big time bug up his ass about Middle Eastern people then the mural would read something like "Bugger off Arabs!" right? Hell, he's gonna be accused of racism either way, so why wouldn't he just say what he truly believes?

Nope. Redegalli is being disingenuous when he says he doesn't want to provoke people -- and he's certainly religiously intolerant. But his mural is not racist in itself.

This outrage about "anti-Muslim racism" (a nonsensical term if ever there was one) says more about the fulminator's own prejudices than anyone else's. Classic case of projection, I reckon.

Hilderbrand's own reaction was revealing too. When the artist gave security reasons for condemning the burqa after originally citing freedom of speech issues the host accused him of being inconsistent and confused.

Eh? So you're only allowed to have one reason for creating political art now?

Then when Sergio drives his car -- emblazoned with anti-Muslim slogans -- through Lakemba and doesn't get any reaction Hildebrand says of the Lakemba locals: "Seems like they're more tolerant than you are."

But hang on. Hilderbrand himself was right there when a Muslim passerby chucked a tanty over the mural. And it's an established fact that it has been defaced scores of times.

The host then contradicted himself again by farewelling the artist with a handshake and the words: "You're a brave man."

That said it all for me. That episode revealed more about the doco makers' fear of offending Islam than it did about whether "we" (whoever the hell that means) are dumb, drunk and racist.

Wonder what the next episode will reveal? I'll be keen to find out.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Selfish conservatives, altruistic liberals and EO Wilson's new book

Every now and then there'll be a story in the media about how scientists are finding the underlying physiological (or even genetic) reasons for differing political belief systems. It'll usually be about how the brains of liberals and conservatives are different somehow.

You know, conservatives are inherently fearful and power hungry, only capable of linear thinking. Liberals are just kinder, gentler beings who have brains that show a much greater level of intellectual flexibility, thereby allowing them to see other points of view ... That sort of stuff. 

Here's another one along these lines: In a new book titled The Social Conquest of Earth eminent biologist EO Wilson proposes a theory of political evolution. It says that humans are doomed to an ongoing struggle between individuals and groups as well as inner competition between selfishness and altruism.

He seems to see human civilization a bit like a constantly evolving ecosystem:

In other words, Democrats and Republicans are not two sides of the same coin, but rather different parts of the same genome. One cannot dominate the other, nor can either live without the other. Like it or not, the two parties are condemned to coexist with one another. 

It sounds interesting but I think he's made a big error in associating the left-liberal side of politics with altrusim. Sure, they've got the altruistic talk down pat. But they certainly don't walk that talk. Hell, they don't even crawl it most of the time.

I've watched liberals (we call 'em lefties here in Oz) close up for years on end and I have no doubt whatsoever that they're every bit as selfish as conservatives, probably more so. They demand responsibility from others but rarely practise it themselves. And morally, they're often all over the shop.

I believe that we're all selfish. Sure, we're capable of self-sacrifice but self-interest tends to trump it most of the time, let's face it. And we all seek power.

It's not pretty but it's the way we are. We heartless conservatives are just more honest and realistic about these potentially destructive aspects of human nature and seek to sublimate them with a worldview that rewards aspiration, self-reliance and self-possession. Basically, conservatives prefer a society in which we all have power over ourselves and ultimately freedom with responsibility. 

Lefties, on the other hand, are basically spoiled brats who haven't grown up. And they will do anything to avoid looking honestly into their own hearts and minds, assuming themselves to be unquestionably virtuous and always motivated by the noblest of intentions. They bang on about compassion, tolerance, and fairness because this tactic gets them what they really want: power over others. No wonder they seek freedom from responsibility so much of the time.

These are some of the key characteristics of conservatives as opposed to liberals. Unlike so many boffins who reckon that such political differences arise from competing genes, I'll be a leftie this time and say:

No way! It's a question of culture, see. Society's to blame.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Julia Gillard on Q and A last night

Julia Gillard was on Q and A last night. I didn't watch every little moment of her appearance because I find her so annoying in so many ways that I have to turn off the TV from time to time. Did see most of it, however.

And there were a few things that stood out. Firstly, I don't think she mentioned Tony Abbott even once. This was really noticeable because she and pretty much everyone else in the ALP have been doing their level best to demonize him for months.

Perhaps the focus group results have shown that Australians are sick to death of the relentless, destructive negativity of this mean-spirited tactic and the spin doctors have told Gillard et al to ease up on it for a while? We'll know this to be the case if Gillard maintains the approach she used last night, and ministers such as Craig Emerson refrain from their endless Abbott bashing in interviews and on Twitter.

The other alternative is that maybe she was just playing with Abbott's mind? That's possible. But frankly, I don't think she's that smart.

As usual, she never really answered any questions. She just used them to wheel out the old platitudes about how she was motivated solely by her desire to improve the lot of working families.

She also used one of her favourite phrases "it was a judgement call, and I made it" at least once. She frequently uses this or a variation thereof to "answer" questions about why she made a certain decision.

This is akin to saying: "Yes, I did decide that. And what I decide goes. That's all you need to know."

It goes beyond the usual obfuscatory poli-speak and reveals a disdain for the public that is really quite sinister. But she's so polished and relaxed in her delivery that she gets away with it. And she'll throw in that stupid little fake giggle of hers occasionally, which also seems to put people off the scent.

And just re that laugh. One time it did actually appear to be genuine was when she concurred with this audience member's observation:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you go by the opinion polls when Kevin was challenging for the leadership, the majority of Australians would have preferred to have him as the leader of the Labor Party but the Labor Party sought different to have somebody else.

JULIA GILLARD: That's true. Well, and the way...

TONY JONES: It is a strange dichotomy, though, isn’t it? The Labor Party wanted someone, the people wanted someone else is what he is saying.

So, she actually admitted that her party brazenly flouted the will of the people. And she thought this was funny. Very revealing.

Needless to say Labor's useful idiots took to Twitter with gusto, saying how assured and genuine Gillard was. True to form the ABC's online editors made sure these nauseating suck-tweets were given inordinate exposure.

Ugh ... Oh well, as galling as this was it's actually a good thing. It merely confirmed that creepy communards are currently in control, as well as the disturbing extent of their influence. When the good people of Oz do get a chance to kick them out of office, they'll be kicking bloody hard, that's for sure.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Olympic shooter Russell Mark condemns D'Arcy and Monk

When this silly gun photo scandal involving Olympic swimmers Nick D'arcy and Kenrick Monk started, several commentators pointed out that shooting was an Olympic sport. They observed that the outrage was all pretty absurd considering that not only were our local sharp shooters not being condemned, they were lauded for their skill in using firearms.

Interestingly, one of them -- Russell Mark -- has weighed in on the kerfuffle. He says that D'arcy and Monk do deserve to be condemned for their actions:

But Mark said the swimmers were holding the weapons in an "aggressive nature".

"One of them did a Chopper Read pose, and I think Nick's got a pistol and is pointing virtually at Kenrick's rib cage, which was an unsafe position. It was an aggressive pose with a firearm ... if I had've done that, I would have been dragged over the coals as well," Mark said.

Maybe he would have been ... And if that were the case it would have been just as silly -- perhaps even sillier -- than the present scandal.

Either way he's certainly identified an aspect of the photos that the AOC finds so offensive. It's the inherent aggression of the pose, and the invocation of the character of a vile Melbourne criminal (who subsequently became a best-selling author, by the way!), that is deemed so appalling.

So the officials' reaction pertains to symbolism more than anything else. The fact that the two swimmers have seemed to celebrate a macho, criminal and coarse side of Australian culture rather than a cuddly, sensitive, caring and sharing one is what the delicate petals at the AOC find so terribly upsetting. 

When such aspects of public behaviour are deemed most important, you know that politically correct lefties are well and truly in charge. Just as well the two swimmers weren't caught on video saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that the carbon tax was a bloody great con.

If that were the case they'd be in even greater strife than they are now!