Saturday, December 21, 2013

Van Badham vs Tim Blair

Gawd. I've seen a lot of infantile, egocentric behaviour from the censorious squawkers of Artsville. But one recent reaction has really taken the bloody cake. It comes from nascent socialist squealebrity Van Badham.

Appalled and offended that she's been mocked by Tim Blair for a grotesquely self-indulgent anti-Abbott rant in which she included details about her late father's unseemly behaviour while he was unemployed, she tweeted this to one of her fellow sneering hipsters.
It's called a fair crack, Vanessa.

It could also be said that using your dad's death to score cheap points against your main political hate figure constitutes an insult to his memory. We've all got dead relatives and loved ones. But only the most shameless and selfish use their deaths to slime those they detest -- and so soon after their passing. (It's not unlike Bolt-obsessed bloviator Mike Carlton and others like him using the death of Nelson Mandela to slime conservatives.)

Then there's the sheer irony of the potty-mouthed termagant demanding that everyone bow in sympathy to her fine feelings and respect her in her grief. Just take a look at the petulant princess's Twitter stream and you'll see what I mean. You'll be picking your jaw up off the floor.

She's gotta be one of the most abusive lefties on the site -- and that's saying something. She goes out of her way to provoke and offend people, verballing them at every opportunity.

Is it because she's as batshit insane as she appears to be, or is it just a cynical ploy? Maybe even a bit of both ...

She's certainly cottoned onto the fact that to carve a niche in the the leftoid media too much vile abuse is just never enough. As well as endless adulation from absolute idiots, there are well-paying meeja gigs and grants galore to be had if you can out-crazy your fellow feminist moonbats. To the "victim" the spoils!

Vanessa Badham is what I call a blushing violent. Vicious, aggressive, happy to make the most vile and knowingly false accusations when it suits. Then at other times when it suits she hides behind her gender, and plays victim. It's an amazingly cynical tactic. And sooo typical of the primitive, vindictive, cowardly Left.

My advice to the spoiled brat: Listen, baby cakes, if you don't wanna be mocked because you're still grieving then don't put that sensitive info into the public realm -- let alone for the purpose of a mean-spirited sliming.

Frankly petal, your feelings aren't that important. You show no respect for the feelings of others, so why should they respect yours? You were askin' for it.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Lingerie football sexism claims driven by class snobbery as much as anything

Caught a little of that cringe worthy morning news show Studio Ten. The panellists were yabbering on about lingerie football. Needless to say, the women didn't like the idea and wheeled out the tired ol' victim feminist bleat about how it's demeaning to women, etc. I thought this was pretty ironic since the only reason these ageing barbie dolls still had gigs as talking heads was 'cause some old white blokes had decided they were still passable as eye candy.

Sure, lingerie football is not exactly edifying entertainment (but then what entertainment is?). It's definitely all about the perve factor. But at least it's got the, er, balls to be upfront about that. (Well, at least until some finger wagging journo accuses its reps of sexism and they feel obligated to take a PC line and deny the obvious truth, that is. Always makes them look so silly. Why not just be upfront and unapologetic about it? Would be great if they just said: "Yeah we're exploiting the women for their looks and they're exploiting us for the easy money. So what?")

And the perve factor is everywhere anyway. Without a doubt voyeurism has heaps to do with the popularity of pretty much every outdoor sport (except maybe lawn bowls). Men and women just love to look at young, toned, strong bodies involved in vigorous physical activity. It was ever thus. And there will always be those with an entrepreneurial bent who manage to turn a buck out of it.

But now, thanks to the relentless negativity of so many sexually constipated sisters, there's this stupid double standard in operation that everyone feels they have to observe. The same women who think it's so sassy to openly savour the phwoar! factor when watching beefy blokes in tight shorts playing Aussie Rules footy become puritanical scolds if the game involves sheilas showing cleavage instead.

And one of the main reasons the squitterati are so upset about lingerie football is because of the class element. See, they can't stand the fact that it caters to blue collar men. The born to rule bolshies just loathe anything that pleases those they deem to be from "the lower orders".

This is why middle class feminist chicks who crave the male gaze are in such a bind. They can't do it openly and brazenly like a stripper would. So they opt for burlesque instead.

They claim that this is because the former performance mode is exploitative while the latter is empowering. But really, it's because one is working class, the other is middle (even upper) class. Academic, PC feminism is just sooo sneeringly sanctimonious and snobby, isn't it?

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Lefties are just cowardly bullies who can't think for themselves

Just a general thought on the sad, stunted psyche of your typical socialist: Isn't it fascinating how they become so fixated on individuals. Abbott Derangement Syndrome is a good example of this, as is the nasty way they gang up on and try to silence dissenting journalists like Andrew Bolt. It shows how utterly piss-weak they are. So funny to watch countless fulminating fluffy wuffies utterly apoplectic over the arguments of just one guy.

This is a key difference between the Left and normal, adult folk. Socialists are scared of individuals they can't control while everybody else (justifiably) fears hectoring packs of primitive idiots (namely lefties) who are trying to control them.

And just as your typical brimming bolshie loves nothing more than joining a baying pack of fellow ferals bent on isolating and intimidating individuals into compliance (or, failing that, silence) he is just as likely to dutifully obey the crazed dictates of a narcissistic, domineering individual.

Look at their well documented tendency to laud "charismatic" leaders like Gough Whitlam, Bob Brown and Fidel Castro. That seems paradoxical at first, but when you ponder just how totally lacking in inner courage and principle they are it make perfect sense. They can't think for themselves and therefore look to a single source of authority to do all their thinking for them.

Basically, the poor creatures are barely sentient cowards. And as we all know, a coward is always the worst kind of bully when he gets the chance.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Why luvvies love calling Mandela "Madiba"

On the weekend Tim Blair asserted that those who use Nelson Mandela's clan name Madiba are "fantastic poseurs". Today he cites definitive evidence for this claim.

There are a coupla reasons leftist luvvies can't stop using the appellation. Firstly, it's familiar -- the inner-city tosser's version of calling Russell Crowe "Rusty".

Say "Madiba" and you subtly infer that you were mates with the guy -- or have at least broken bread with him on occasion. Even if you don't wish to convey that impression, it makes it seem you're an authentic fellow traveller with him. Clearly, you've been a brave and committed activist in the great man's struggle for freedom and equality.

The practice is akin to using a person's first name. Also, like the recently deceased icon's surname, it has the advantage of sounding truly African. Talking or writing about "Nelson" would just sound a bit awkward. Madiba, on the other hand, sounds intimate, affectionate and authentic.

Also, it's kinda esoteric. Not widely used in the meeja -- well, at least not until recently anyway -- it conveys to your reader or interlocutor that you have deep and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding the person behind the name. Say "Madiba" and you're not just a brave human rights activist, you're also a scholar -- an assiduous student of the struggle against apartheid.

That said, I think it's lost much of its power in this regard. Hand-wringing meeja pseuds have really gone overboard with it, rendering it next to powerless on the socialist sneerer's smugometer. That's kind of sad -- and very much like what they did with the word "pugilist" to describe Tonay Abbott. Hell, even bogans call him that now ...

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Nelson Mandela and the hypocrisy of the PC Australian Left

It goes without saying that Nelson Mandela was a great man who had a hugely positive effect on South Africa in particular and the world in general. But while he was a total champ in many ways, he certainly wasn't a saint. And I think that is being forgotten in the emotive orgy of idolatry following his death.

Then there's the bizarre PC double standard displayed by so many Aussie commentators and activists. The line that all local lefties are dutifully following is that Mandela's great gift to the world was to show that rather than wallowing in bitter divisiveness you can actually forgive your enemies and affirm the humanity you share with them. In short, you can create a better world by seeing people as individuals rather than members of a group. In this interpretation, Mandela is seen as a visionary unifier in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who famously urged us to judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. I'm in furious agreement with this view.

But what do these same people do when it comes to racial politics in Australia itself? They endorse the polar opposite line. They say that Indigenous Australians are a very different mob to ol' whitey (and everyone else, for that matter). They must not be judged by the same standards everyone else is -- and woe betide anyone who dares criticize them! They must be encouraged to live their lives according to separate customs and laws in lands cut off from those dominated by eeevil European society. And rather than being urged to move on from bitterness over past injustices, they are reminded of them at every opportunity and encouraged to stew in their angry sense of victimhood (much as grizzled Whitlamites are told to "maintain the rage").

While this different treatment is not nearly as brutal and wrong as the system Mandela helped overcome, it's still undeniably toxic and subtly racist. It's kind of like apartheid with a smiley face badge whopped on it. And isn't it ironic that over the last coupla decades, just as institutionalized racism was being dismantled in South Africa, the local caring, sharing version was being increasingly firmly entrenched here.

It's revolting as all get out. Don't these leftie hypocrites just make you wanna vomit?

Monday, December 2, 2013

Rise in shark attacks provokes talk of marine vigilantism

So interesting what's happening "down south" in the wake of these shark attacks ... There's a real feeling amongst locals that the WA Government has dragged its heels on this issue and that enough is enough. Angry watermen are saying it's time to take matters into their own hands.

Not quite sure what that entails. But I'm having visions of blokes on jet skis taking turns to patrol the line-up at Margs armed with sturdy harpoons. And maybe more personal protection is a possibility? I tell you, if anyone can design a wetsuit that includes a holster for a waterproof Luger they could be rolling in dough before too long.

Amazing that things have reached this level. Remember that most surfers are greenies at heart. You'll often hear them wax mystical about the bond they feel with Mother Nature when speeding through a smokin' barrel! And with the best breaks in this state hundreds of miles from the big smoke, West Aussie surfers tend to be greener than most. So, if they are considering taking an aggressively pro-active approach against their fellow sea creatures, well, they must be really pissed off.

It's a little like what's happening politically in European nations such as the Netherlands and Sweden. These havens of liberal tolerance are waking up to the fact that multi-culti has its limits. Having let in a toxic strain of militant Islamism, they are turning hard to the right.

Of course the parasitic Left, so attached to its poisonous policies, is not going to go without a fight. So the battle continues to rage on many fronts.

Similarly, here in the wild west the, er, shark-huggers are still demanding that we tolerate the intolerable. And things are finally drawing to a head. Won't be long before the first white pointer is pre-emptively terminated (with extreme prejudice) by a surfer. If he suffers a hefty fine or worse for his actions, all hell will break lose, I reckon!

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Paul Barry vs Andrew Bolt; socialism vs capitalism

This morning on The Bolt Report, Bolta gave ABC identity Paul Barry a whack. In last week's episode of Media Watch the cadaverous finger-wagger had disclosed his own outrageously excessive salary, paid for by the long suffering Aussie taxpayer, daring the conservative to do the same. Today Bolt gladly revealed the amount he received from the same source: a big fat zero. This eloquently showed those lefty accusations of Bolta's "hypocrisy" for what they were: a beat-up based on a false premise. There's no value in comparing apples with oranges, after all.

Bolta pointed out that Barry didn't include the amount of money he'd earned from book sales, etc. If he had, the comparison might have had some validity. It would have been apples vs apples, then.

I thought this was an important point. Barry does make money from the free market. He is a best selling author after all, a fact he proudly states in his Twitter profile.

And there's absolutely no doubt that the extra exposure the ABC show affords him bolsters his market value greatly. Being so well known and, ahem, respected, he can sell more books and charge higher fees for subsequent media projects than if he operated solely in the private sphere.

And that is very unfair in my opinion. Barry, along with so many other posturing pinko parasites at their ABC, gets the best of both worlds. He is outrageously over-rewarded using money taken from those who have no say in the matter. In effect he promotes himself at our expense, not his own. That's one thing. But the very fact that he uses the very bully pulpit we are made to fund to sulk about the size of the pay packets of his ideological enemies is too galling for words.

Bolt, along with Akerman, Devine, Kenny and others, have earned their place in the market. Sure, they are extremely well compensated for their work. But if they don't keep producing content that engages and sells, their fees drop commensurately. And they may even wind up losing their jobs completely. That's capitalism.

Sure, it's brutal. And you can sneer that this process rewards the "lowest common denominator". But you can't deny that it has a certain justice to it. 

Bolt is paid well because he's worth it. Paul Barry, a journalist so sloppy in his approach that he can't even accurately type in a person's Twitter handle, has piles of other people's cash thrown at him because he dutifully parrots the PC party line. Not only that, Bolt is undeniably prolific. He produces more quality content in a week than Barry and his team of sneering hipsters can create in several months.

Time to privatize the ABC. Then Barry and his fellow travellers will have to learn to make it in a free market in which merit and hard work are rewarded, rather than slavish adherence to outmoded ideology.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Savage, Hitchens, Rosin and Greer on Q and A

Last night's episode of Q and A was a memorable one. As usual the panel was heavily stacked to the left. They usually have three lefties against two conservatives. But this was three on one. Needless to say Germaine Greer, Dan Savage and Hanna Rosin ganged up on fusty fighter Peter Hitchens, even chuckling together when he was speaking. (The photo chosen for the web page for the episode actually illustrates one of these moments. Must have pleased the producer, or something ...)

Dan Savage was particularly annoying. He's clearly a vapid gym junkie who hasn't learned much about life. But he's given respect as a public intellectual because he ticks all the right (on) boxes. Not only is he gay, he also has a husband -- or is that a male wife? (Hell, I'm not sure which is the politically correct term for him. If gender makes no difference in marriage anymore, then surely the terminology doesn't either ...) Savage's gay marriage alone gives him demigod status amongst the Oz squitterati.

Needless to say the show was chockas with examples of the leftie panellists being incoherent, rude, and hypocritical. Take Savage saying that he didn't like cunnilingus. The Germainiac and Hanna Rosin, along with snow cone Tony Jones, all found this amusing. But imagine if Hitchens -- or any other male conservative for that matter -- had said that. Every feminist bimbo in the joint would've been squawking up a storm and "misogyny" would have trended again on Twitter!

Speaking of the audience: It was heavily skewed to the left as usual, too. Near the end of the episode they all cheered some silly interruption by one of the luvvies while Hitchens was speaking. He nailed their collective stupidity by accurately labeling the event a rally. And while you're cheering, he said, I can't speak. (And we're supposed to believe that the Q and A audience contained a representative rage of political views. Yeah, right!)

That extended cheering (and jeering) is sooo leftist. They're always quacking on about how they're all for free speech. But what they really mean is that they support their own right to shout other people down. They know in their hearts they can't win the argument, so they try to intimidate their opponents into silence -- or demonize them so thoroughly that people cease listening to them.

An example of this was when the primitive Savage verballed Hitchens by saying the Christian was arguing that he was being personally oppressed by the gay gym junkie's lifestyle choices. But that wasn't his point at all. Hitchens was merely pointing out the obvious: that if nothing is sacred, people have no shame, and absolutely anything goes then you wind up with Darwinian chaos. People treat each other as things, not as human beings. And that's a recipe for social disaster -- or at the very least pervasive misery and dysfunction.

And an audience member touched on that issue in her question referring to children who spend a lot of time in day care. As a result of missing parental guidance and love, she said, they are becoming increasingly narcissistic.

Speaking of narcissistic children: Savage certainly is one of those. The vain activist even had the gall to say that his motives were entirely selfless. Well, if you believe that, you'd believe pretty much anything ...

But he knows just how stupid and gullible his acolytes are, which is why he lies so shamelessly to them and uses such slimy tactics to demonize his opponents. Hitchens deftly identified one of those: labelling disagreement as pathology. The Christian then added that this was a step in the direction of totalitarianism. Protesting too much as usual, Savage spluttered with indignation.

But what was the dangerous idea he offered at the very end of the discussion? Mandatory abortion for all women for the next three decades. Not only quasi-fascist, it was clearly misogynistic. I mean, why didn't he argue for enforced sterilization for the blokes -- starting with himself!

No chance of that, of course. Wouldn't be able to rent-a-womb and make a new living, breathing fashion accessory with his husband, er, wife, partner, significant other, or whatever the hell he's called -- now would he?

Bet he's also a warmist, banging on about what kind of a world this generation is leaving to the next (i.e. the unborn). What a silly spoiled brat Savage is.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Love media still wedded to image of evil, rorting Abbott

Amazing to watch the socialist squitterati continue to pursue Abbott in such a focused and relentless manner. They clearly haven't learned a thing. It's as if they still believe that he is the Coalition's weak spot, and ultimately unelectable.

Makes you wanna say: "Hey bozos. He's actually got the gig, and the more you slag him off, the more highly people regard him!"

And on their obsession with the Government's so-called dodgy expenses claims: It goes without saying that they're applying a double standard. There were plenty of cases like this when Gillard and Rudd were PM. But the same hacks squawking up a storm now were pretty much silent then.

Then there's all this eye rolling when it comes to the fact that so many claims related to attendance at various weddings. Puffing themselves up with faux indignation, they huff: "How could you possibly claim such an intimate expression of love as a political networking event!"

It's reminiscent of their tactics on "marriage equality". Their sole aim is to cast themselves as big-hearted compassionate types and the Libs as mean-spirited arseholes. This may convince a few credulous cretins out there. But most can see beyond it.

Then there's the ideological inconsistency. They are always bitching about how marriage is a repressive social institution to enslave women; that's it's not about love at all.

If that's what they believe, then why are they shocked that conservative pols would see marriage as a political activity above all. And if the institution is so oppressive, why would they wish it upon gays and lesbians anyway?

But of course it's pointless to ask such questions of these grotesque, hateful numpties. They're driven by emotion, not sense, after all.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Julian Burnside QC defends his Tasmanian solution to Ben Fordham

If you want a really good insight into the psychology of the Left, then you can't go past this interview that Julian Burnside QC gave to Ben Fordham on 2GB. In it he argues for turning Tasmania into a big detention centre.

It starts out with Fordham asking: "Are you serious?"

Burnside prevaricates a little and says, somewhat halfheartedly, "It could work". He adds that of course it won't be adopted anyway ...

It's pretty obvious from his tone of voice that he's not offering a serious solution to the whole asylum seeker problem. And if he's not serious, then why suggest it?

It's merely a rhetorical exercize that enables him to demonize the two major parties (LNP mostly). He can look at the machinations of democracy, turn up his nose and sneer: "If only you were all pure of heart and compassionate like me and my fellow travellers!"

If anything it shows how little he truly cares about humanitarian issues. Not only is he unmoved by deaths at sea -- endorsing a policy that will guarantee that they continue -- he's just using them as fodder to show how much cleverer and more visionary he is than those appalling politicians. (And who elects those nasty pollies? Why, those thick, primitive proles, of course ...)

Julian Burnside QC, like all his latte slurping, finger wagging ilk, thinks it's all about him. He believes that anyone who is not in his luvvie elite is invariably cruel and heartless, always driven by the basest motives.

When Fordham says that both major parties are pushing for a hard-arsed border policy to deter arrivals and thereby stop the drowning deaths he immediately impugns their motives, asserting with no evidence whatsoever that politicians "don't care about people dying at sea". Fordham notices the casual arrogance inherent in this statement, asking if he's become a mind reader.

As well as being pompous and sanctimonious, Burnside is also intellectually dodgy as all get out. In a shamelessly deceitful tactic he says that the rate of boat arrivals "tracks parallel with international refugee movements". If that were an accurate statement then every democratic nation on Earth would have experienced an astronomical rise in refugee arrivals. That's simply not the case and he knows it.

He also refuses to acknowledge that even his beloved ABC defines those coming here by boat as "illegal arrivals". When Fordham presses him on this point he quite curtly -- and without a hint of self-parody -- says "Trust me. I'm a lawyer." It's comedy gold.

The interview contains many more gems of self-satire from one of the high priests of hand-wringing. Definitely worth a listen.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Peta Credlin's DUI charge vs Gillard and the AWU scandal

It's not at all surprising that leftists are already attributing the dropping of Peta Credlin's DUI charge to borderline corruption by the Liberal Party. It's early days with this particular issue but I'm sure they'll keep seething about it for as long as they can. We'll probably even see a coupla competing conspiracy theories ...

Makes a marked contrast to how they reacted to Julia Gillard's alleged involvement in the AWU scandal. Without a doubt she stonewalled for years and even personally bullied media big wigs to keep the story suppressed. And during that whole period lefties either remained completely silent, or actively joined the campaign for censorship of reporting of this issue. They're still saying "nothing to see here folks, move along" even though the Victorian coppers are investigating the former PM.

Sure, these people aren't the sharpest pencils in the box, generally speaking. They'll just believe anything their thought leaders tell them. But the smarter ones creep me out. They must see how condemning Credlin and the Libs while defending Labor and Gillard is an outrageous double standard. Yet they do it anyway. If that's not a kind of corruption in itself, it's pretty damn close.

That said, if Gillard does end up in the clink, it can be seen as a plus for Labor. They will be able to finally truthfully say that they do have at least one conviction politician.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Robotic Rudd heading for mega-meltdown?

Most people think that Kevin Rudd is a bit if a strange one. But I think he's more than strange. I think he might just be a robot.

I mean, watch him. His avuncular nerd persona is so contrived, it hardly appears to be organic. Actually, it seems more like it's been programmed by some geeks having a laugh.

Then there's his emotionless voice, and the absurd verbosity. And watch his hand movements when he points to reporters, etc. Mechanical as all get out!

And what about his astonishing psychological imperviousness. No human -- even a psychopath -- could have survived that all out assault from his own side after his second tilt at the Lodge after being knifed by Gillard. Yet he did, and came back to win.

Kevin Rudd 2.0 is one hard-arsed uber-droid. But even machines have their limits. And it looks like the machine we call the PM is finally starting to fall apart after years of constant pressure and no maintenance.

Take that strange presser in Perth. It was pretty obvious that Rudd was very close to boiling point. He's been programmed to win at all costs, see. And the increasing likelihood that he might just lose -- and big -- simply does not compute. With pretty much every pundit in Oz predicting a Coalition landslide, the odds of the PM chucking a full on cyber flame-out a la the creepy android Ash from Alien are pretty damn high, I reckon.

In the video below the monomaniacal contraption attempts to off Ripley with a rolled up magazine, and is set upon by the crew before winding up as a talking head covered in yicky white android blood.

Dunno about you, but I can easily envisage the Ruddster meeting a similar end after losing it with one of his assistants. 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Greens invoke "love" in gay marriage ad campaign

Walking down Beaufort St yesterday I saw this ad from the Greens. I thought it was typical of their sanctimonious sentimentality. As you can see, it shows a coupla blokes being hitched, and says: "Marriage is about love not laws."



That begs the question: If it's not about laws, then why are the Greens trying to get the laws changed?

There's the other obvious question: Is marriage really primarily about love?

And what about the meaning of love itself? In the words of that great 1980's musical philosopher Howard Jones: What is love anyway?

Well, let's just ignore that wider mystery and assume that everyone knows what the Greens are on about in their ad ...

So, obviously everyone wants to find love. And clearly a marriage without love wouldn't be much fun. Still, many marriages survive without it. Conversely, many marriages between those who do truly love each other ultimately fail. (The course of true love never did run smooth, remember.)

Fact is, marriage has always been about a helluva lot more than just love. It's much more about achieving social stability than delivering personal fulfillment. Among many other functions it's there to keep the ravenous male sex drive in check and to ensure that blokes do the right thing by the kids they sire.

Sure, it doesn't always work out as planned. As lefties love to remind us, life is messy. But it's important to have ideals that the majority of people aspire to, even if many fail to live up to them.

In fact, society wouldn't function without numerous societal norms enforced by laws. Take paying for stuff at the shops, for example. That's a societal norm, enforced by laws. No doubt some lefties would like even that to be given the flick. But imagine if it were. The economy would be stuffed in no time and chaos and violence would reign before too long.

Having blokes marrying blokes and chicks marrying chicks wouldn't be as destabilizing as that. But it would have a huge effect nonetheless. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't think we should throw the codger out with the bathwater when it comes to the definition of marriage. It is one of humanity's most enduring and universal institutions. Radically altering the definition of it looks too much like "policy in the run" to me. If gay marriage becomes the norm it'll be the thought bubble to end all thought bubbles, I reckon.

I'm all for a robust open debate about the meaning of marriage. And if "marriage equality" -- itself a deceptive term -- does come as result of that, so be it. But it definitely shouldn't eventuate because some special interest groups managed to bully pollies using highly emotive tactics and false accusations of homophobia.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

"Abbott's Internet" ad campaign another example of Labor waste

As the spin-obsessed smarties in Labor become increasingly nervous about their chances of holding onto government, they're trying ever more desperate tactics. Abbott-focused smear campaigns are in high gear, and they're really pulling out all the slops.

As well as relentless and vicious personal attacks they're flogging a line about his team being a bunch of utter bozos re the interwebs. The latest example is a daffy online campaign attempting to convince people that they should vote Labor because Abbott's internet plan is way behind the rest of the world.

Even if everything they say in it were true (highly unlikely) how many votes would it garner? Buggerall, that's for sure. Fact is, most people in the country are concerned about slightly more important issues than their bloody internet connections. Only a few vapid tech-heads addicted to file-sharing and movie downloading would think this was a crucal enough issue to alter their vote.

Yet Labor clearly think it's worth a shot and have poured a whole lot of taxpayers' money into this stupid, pointless campaign. They flew a production crew, along with some actors, all over the world to get these reactions from locals that they believe will be enormously persuasive. Imagine how much this would have cost (not to mention the appalling carbon footprint it left!). It's yet another example of Labor splashing (our) cash around in a desperate attempt to cling to power. 

My guess is that it won't win one new vote. On the contrary, its glaring wastefulness will probably have the opposite effect.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Fake "undecided" voter at Brisbane people's forum one of many

Not surprised by the revelation that a zealous young Labor supporter called Gabrielle Ward purported to be an undecided voter so she could ask a question at the Brisbane people's forum recently. As Bolta remarks, there seems to be a lot of this happening lately, particularly on Q and A.

Certainly confirms what I've long thought. At the beginning of pretty much every episode of that show you'll see that those who claim to vote LNP outnumber the other voter categories. But if you look at the actual audience you'll see that the majority are borderline retarded whippersnappers, smug middle class wankers, and dirty, smelly ol' hippies. And we all know that people in these sad demographics overwhelmingly "dress to the left" (if they can dress themselves, that is).

Inevitably, Q and A audience members' questions will focus mainly on tragic ol' leftie obsessions such as catastrophic climate change, the hideous cruelty of the "race to the bottom" by the major parties on border policy, gay marriage, eeevil Rupert Murdoch, the appalling rise of misogyny in Australia and the countless shortcomings of the puritanical pugilist Tony Abbott.

Sure, I can't actually prove this, but it's pretty bloody obvious that as they enter the venue for the taping a fair whack of the crowd will happily lie about their political allegiance in a brazen attempt to discredit conservative claims of left-wing bias at the national broadcaster. And they do it week in, week out, at numerous venues all over Oz.

My suspicion is that some are young Labor luvvies like Gabrielle Ward. But the vast majority of those engaging in this widespread and repeated con are Greens supporters. Labor types will resort to dishonesty far more easily than normal folk, sure. But at least they do usually have a moral code, even if they don't use it that often. Hard core Greens supporters, on the other hand, lie as easy as breathing. They get off on it, too.

After all, their whole mission is to white-ant Western civilization at every opportunity. They hate the very idea of universal morality -- seeing at as some sort of eeevil white male plot to control women, gays, minorities, and, er, bilbies. So in their tiny, often bong addled minds, when they fob themselves off as conservatives they don't see it for what it truly is: gutlessly telling porkies. Hilariously, they actually believe they're bravely striking a blow for the dispossessed! Makes 'em feel like members of the French Resistance during the Nazi Occupation, or something.

Gawd, what pathetic skulking little weasels they are ...

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Rudd, Abbott's character flaws now the focus of voters

Watched The Project the other night -- well, watched it for as long as I could bear (limit: about a minute and a half) -- and the airheaded whippersnappers were bemoaning the fact that much of the meeja coverage of the upcoming election was focusing on the personalities of Rudd and Abbott over more substantial policy issues.

This was pretty funny coming from them. The show itself is pure "heat 'n' eat". Each issue gets an ultra-slick, ultra-swift, ultra-simplistic and predictably PC treatment -- then onto the next. Their adoring audience of sneering hipsters are in no doubt about which positions they're expected to hold, and which are deemed way uncool. And coolness is all they care about anyway ...

But back to their point: Firstly, I think there has been a great deal of policy analysis in the meeja. You just have to look for it. And if you boil it all down now as we head into the campaign home stretch it's very clear what each major party is all about. Basically the Libs offer small, responsible government and are therefore aiming for the adult vote. Nanny-statist Labor, on the other hand, just want to keep power at all costs, and are desperately courting cretins.

Most Aussies have figured this out. And now as they prepare to cast their votes they're looking very closely at the two leaders' psychological make-up. Rupert's tabloids in particular are well attuned to the zeitgeist and are responding to this heightened interest. Hence their focus on the make-up lady story and Abbott's "shut up" comment.

The character of the leader is certainly not the most important factor in most voters' decision making process. But it's a biggie -- as it should be. And I think Aussie voters have pretty much made up their minds about Rudd. They've realized that for all his talk about having changed, he's still the same two-faced, narcissistic, bullying asshat that they were ready to kick out back in 2010 -- just before the faceless men did it for them.

And Abbott? Well, I think for ages they believed the leftie-luvvie lie about him being a woman-hating, puritanical thug simply because it was repeated so often. Now that he's been in the public eye much more frequenty and in many different contexts I think they've been pleasantly surprised and many have changed their minds about him. Interestingly, he's now the most Googled pollie in Oz. Clearly a lot of people are trying to find out as much as they can about him so they can decide for themselves what he's really like.

As Rudd falls in their estimation, Abbott enjoys a commensurate rise in their affection and interest. As a result, it looks almost certain that the Abbott haters' worst nightmare is coming true. The man they loathe more than anything will now be PM!

What a laugh! If he does win on September 7 their complete and utter despair will be the icing on the cake for me and many, many others. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Sanctimonious Scott Ludlam on Q and A in Perth

Disappointed I didn't know that Q and A was in Perth last Monday. If I had, I would have gone along and had a look.

Needless to say it was handled in the simplistic and biased way that we've come to expect from Tony Jones and their ABC. And it featured one of the more pompous hand-wringers in this state, Scott Ludlam of the Greens.

Not unlike his fellow inner urban nature boy from Victoria Adam Bandt, Ludlam has an affected, prissy manner. He's obviously desperate to convey an impression of perspicacity. On the contrary, the po-faced sneering actually highlights his infantile credulity.

Really, some of his arguments were amazingly puerile. Par for the course with the Greens, they were also incoherent and sanctimonious as all get out.

Take this contribution on the carbon tax:

SCOTT LUDLAM: I think it is a really useful question. When the wholesale price of electricity goes up 10% and somebody comes along the next day and slugs you for an import cost that’s 400% higher, I would be with Tony on that. I would be paying very close attention to what the ACCC is doing. But can I just ground this question very quickly as to why we didn’t vote for the first one is because it wouldn't have worked. The carbon price would have been one euro a tonne at the moment. That was why we didn’t vote for it. What Kevin Rudd has just done, for short-term tactical advantage, which I agree with Narelda probably will be quite popular, is sacrificed and cost us another year. This is about the weather itself turning against us. Could we please, just for a moment, ground the conversation about why we pass these kind of laws, why we are trying to prevent the worst and most dangerous impacts of climate change is because they will wreck the economy. They will wreck the economy not just here but all of our supplier and customer countries, within our life spans. This is not something for our kids to deal with. This is on top of us now. That is why we are coming to grips with this situation. I would like to quickly acknowledge and shout out to the kids at Power Shift in Melbourne, who have been conferencing on this stuff all day and over the last couple of days to try to do a better job than the old parties have been doing, quite frankly. Having Tony Abbott marching around the landscape saying, “Oh, it’s some kind of invisible gas. We're just wasting our time,” really, grow up. Grow up.

Eh? He's saying that Gaia has cracked the shits with us and is destroying the global economy via the climate. And the end of the world isn't just nigh, it's now! Then he tells us to grow up? Unbelievable.

Revealingly, Tony Jones let Ludlam deliver that whole balmy spiel uninterrupted, strongly implying that he agreed with it. In marked contrast Jones repeatedly interrupted the rational, measured Julie Bishop during the same discussion. 

Speaking of rational and measured discussion, that's what Ludlam himself says he wants to see more of during election time.

SCOTT LUDLAM: That’s okay. It’s good practice. Thanks to the questioner and thanks to Narelda for framing the discussion. We've both heard really measured contributions, both from Julie and Stephen, and if only that was the case during election campaigns, where we see political parties getting into a law and order auction, tough on crime, tough on kids, lock them up, stay safe, kind of really degraded political debate. What we should instead be looking at are exactly the kind of things that have been said here in a much more measured way, but it's not often what we get. We get things like the intervention, where they sent the army into the Northern Territory and totally disempowered people who are now campaigning against it being rolled out elsewhere. Look for justice re-investment. Look for transferring money out of the criminal justice system and into precisely the kind of services that people are talking about, it's hard to have that conversation if the election debate is degraded. So maybe we can continue this type of discussion over the coming months.  

So the pure and virtuous Ludlam doesn't like a "degraded debate" ...

Hell, this is politics he's talking about! It's not pretty but our elected representatives should be able to, and must, speak freely on these issues, no matter whose delicate sensibilities are offended.

Saying you don't want a "degraded debate" is just another way of saying you don't like debate at all. The last thing he wants is for politicians to "continue the discussion" as he claims. Clearly, he'd much rather they stop arguing and go along with what he and his fellow hand-wringers demand. It would be a refreshing change if he just 'fessed up and said openly that this is what he wanted.

But the height of his brazen hypocrisy came late in the discussion when the panel was discussing asylum seekers.

SCOTT LUDLAM: Just to remind us that these are human beings that we are talking about.

JULIE BISHOP: And they’re drowning at sea. And they’re drowning at sea.

TONY JONES: Yeah, I mean the people were clapping then but Julie Bishop made a very powerful point, it seems to me.

SCOTT LUDLAM: That they’re drowning. Absolutely.

TONY JONES: They are drowning at sea the way things are.

JULIE BISHOP: They are drowning at sea now.

SCOTT LUDLAM: Yeah.

JULIE BISHOP: That’s right.


SCOTT LUDLAM: And if you want to know why they are coming, go and see a film about it called No Fly Zone about what just happened in Sri Lanka that the Australian Government turned a blind eye to. And people will continue to leave there no matter how cheap and nasty the debate gets in Australia, no how many racist billboards go up that Tony Abbott gets to stand in front of. The people will keep coming.

For a start, Ludlam cares more deeply for the welfare of bilbies and quolls than he does about people. And the reason they are drowning in their hundreds is because of the very policies that he and his sanctimonious, censorious ilk espouse. 

What a silly, pompous, spoiled and most of all heartless child he is.

PS: In the ABC transcript, Ludlam's last little brain fart above is incorrectly attributed to Jones. Considering how similar their opinions on such matters actually are, it's easy to see how the error was made.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

"Surrogate grandparents" are a sad sign of the times

Surrogacy is usually defined as having someone else's baby for them. So we often hear about surrogate mothers. But now there's a variation on the term: surrogate grandparents.

It seems that increasing numbers of Australian families are so fractured these days that senior strangers are being asked to fill these traditional family roles. Parents of kids missing the gentle presence of caring codgers advertise for them online so frequently that law firms are issuing warnings about the potential legal complications of the practice.

The whole thing is bizarre and depressing. It's spookily reminiscent of elements of the comedy movie Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star.  In that flick, a former sprog celeb hires a real family to give him the experiences he missed as a child so he can land a part requiring the emotional maturity he never developed. 

Surrogate grandparents -- another phenomenon to go into the "life imitating satire" file, I reckon.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Victorian Women's Trust maintains the rage over Gillard's fate

The way that victim feminists bemoan the fate of Julia Gillard is just too tragic for words. Take those tawdry ads taken out by the Victorian Women's Trust.

In them, they're perpetuating the silly claim that sexism was to blame for Gillard's demise. But as anyone with at least one eye half open and an IQ over fifty knows beyond a shadow of a doubt she lost the top job 'cause she was the worst bloody PM this country's ever known!

If sexism played a part it was that Gillard had a much easier run than a bloke of comparable incompetence. Hell, she was treated with kid gloves by almost all of the mainstream media throughout her prime ministership. And she had the support of the majority of her colleagues for months, if not years, after it was completely obvious she would lead Labor to electoral oblivion. It's highly unlikely they would've maintained support for a bloke in the same circumstances.

Sure, she copped a lot of abuse from punters infuriated by her endless lying and utter disdain for them, some of which was sexist. But she stoked the fire by making such an issue out of it. (One shouldn't feed the trolls, remember.)

And there were a couple of cases of journos saying offensive things about her and to her face. But these broadcasters copped torrents of mud thrown back at them, and one even lost his job (along with two others who dared to bring up issues about her past that were of legitimate public interest).

Most truly independent-minded and strong women would have shrugged the abuse off and got on with the gig. Yet Gillard milked it for all it was worth and tried to turn her reign into a soapie about the scourge of sexism with her as the heroine. Even after this cynical and devious tactic made her popularity plummet still further, thus cementing her fate, the hand-wringers continued to cry "victim"!

The bleating will go on forever, too. After all, there's nothing lefties love more than clinging to their bitter delusions. Think of all the unreconstructed Whitlamites who are still "maintaining the rage" over the Great Helmsman's sacking close to forty years ago, eh!

Still, there's an upside to all this wailing and gnashing of teeth. The more the sob sisters squawk and squeal about what happened to Gillard, the more sick and tired of this particular brand of feminism the electorate will become. As a result the odds of a woman like Gillard ever becoming PM again will be even further diminished.

So, keep shriekin' chickybabes! You're doing the nation a favour.  

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Kevin Rudd on last night's 7.30 Report was creepy and desperate

Fascinating to watch Kevin Rudd back in "7.30 Report Land" again. Like so many are now, I'm immune to his folksy fakery. So as Leigh Sales questioned him I was watching him much more critically than when he was PM previously. 

Rudd always struck me as being a bit robotic; not quite human. But this quality seemed far more pronounced this time. I kept seeing him as a nerdy Terminator, sent back through time to destroy Australia's economy! All through his interview I kept imagining bits of his face falling off, revealing the gleaming metal machinery underneath.

Now that we know what he's been up to over the last three years, the quirky but gentle persona he's so keen to present doesn't just look silly. It's downright sinister.

And the bit where he brushed off talk of vengeance was astonishing:

LEIGH SALES: Is there another reason: revenge?

KEVIN RUDD: Oh, good grief, no. Sort of past all that a long time ago. If I was so sorta wounded by the events of 2010, I would've gone offer whimpering into the corner a long time ago. I'm a positive sort of bloke, get on with the business and had we been travelling in much better circumstances, then I'm sure none of these events would've happened.


So, he's employing the same tactic of outright denial that Gillard used after she knifed him. Except it's even more absurd than when she used it. 

Fact is, he had heaps to do with Gillard's downfall. Spent much of his time plotting, leaking and poncing about in front of the cameras to damage her leadership. And on his third attempt he finally got rid of her! Then he turns around and with a straight face says he has no ill will towards her and had nothing to do with her ousting. Ha!

Clearly, in all that time he hasn't given much thought to how he was going to govern when he reclaimed the top job. The interview makes clear that he's policy light, and even though he dispatched Gillard, he's still totally dependent on her tactic of demonizing Abbott.

His attempt to characterize the conflict between them was truly desperate:

KEVIN RUDD: ... I think it's time you demonstrated to the country you had a bit of ticker on this. I mean, he's the boxing blue; I'm the glasses-wearing kid in the library - come on, let's have the Australian people form a view about whether his policies actually have substance, whether they actually work or whether they're just slogans and I'm prepared on each of these things to take him on directly.

Labor luvvies and pollies are always trying to smear Abbott as a thug and are forever reminding us of his love of boxing. (Actually I'm surprised Rudd didn't use their favoured word "pugilist".)

The reality is that Abbott is a highly intelligent and articulate former journalist and Rhodes Scholar whose arguments against Labor have caused them endless grief. The thug label was tired long ago, and I think that most of the electorate sees through it now.

There was plenty more in that interview that revealed how desperate Rudd is. I think he's going to lurch from one improvised tactic to another from now on. While his reign won't be the rolling disaster that Gillard's was it's sure to result in him being much less popular come election time than he is now. 

Friday, June 21, 2013

Kevin Rudd's popularity is overrated

There's a helluva lot of chatter now about how Julia Gillard will be gone very soon. Clearly many in Labor believe that Rudd really is their best hope of saving the furniture. Some also believe they can beat the Coalition with him at the helm again.

Frankly I think this talk about him being a possible saviour is way over the top. As numerous columnists have pointed out, many of Labor's worst policy disasters actually began under him and not Gillard. And the Libs will be reminding us of that at every opportunity, no doubt. Also, the fact that he gets mobbed by fans in shopping centres doesn't necessarily mean that people will vote for him in droves.

There's something quite strange going on there, actually. It's more to do with mass hysteria than politics. It's kinda like what happens when One Direction are in town and all the schoolgirls go absolutely spacko for the cameras. Part of the reason they do that is because they've seen others do it on previous TV reports. It's a conditioned behaviour; a kind of ritual.

Another example: Gangnam Style. It's a very catchy song with a unique energy about it. And everybody has fun joining in with those signature horse-riding moves. 

Being the outrageous media tart that he is, the former PM has managed to imprint his nerdy and avuncular persona on pretty much the entire Australian population. We've all seen him yucking it up with everyday Aussies in shopping centres right across the land. So taking a selfy while arm-in-arm with the Ruddster and saying "Kevin come back!" for the attendant news cameras just seems like the thing to do.

Many of the same folk being caught up in the circus-like atmosphere that surrounds KRudd on his flesh-pressing jaunts will be in a much more serious frame of mind on election day, however. As a result only his most ardent supporters will actually vote for Labor if he's the leader. And there actually aren't that many of them.

Still, decimation is preferable to near extinction. Which is why the ALP should, and almost certainly will, go back to him. 

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Julia Gillard's conservative hairstyle

Pretty much everything Julia Gillard does is motivated by spin over substance. This includes changes to her appearance. Take the introduction of those serious-lookin' specs. Many pundits opined that she was trying to emulate Hillary Clinton. I think there was a lot of truth to that observation. 

And perhaps her latest hairstyle is another example. First thing I thought when I saw the classically elegant look was that there was an element of Margaret Thatcher about it.

Sure, she was at a black tie ball. But it was still a media event that left a public impression. Had her spin doctors recommended something in a more conservative vein to imply to the voters that she's not such a raging leftie after all?

Sounds insanely desperate. But then insane and desperate are pretty good descriptions of much of what she's done lately.

Well, if equating herself with the Iron Lady was the intention then it won't help at all. As everybody knows, Gillard is no Thatcher and never will be. 

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Akerman sledged for citing Mathieson sexuality rumours

So Piers Akerman mentioned on Insiders that rumours about Tim Mathieson's sexuality had been circulating in the Canberra press gallery for a couple of years. Not surprisingly his statement has provoked widespread condemnation from Piers's, er, peers. Needless to say, countless leftie Twitter trolls are arcing up big time about it. And they're all sheeting home blame to Akerman.

But why condemn him for merely reporting what he's seen and heard? It actually reflects more poorly on the press gallery, in my opinion. Clearly, the vacuous busybodies are mighty interested in the sex life of the PM's beau, and spend a lot of time gossiping about it. But if someone mentions their obsessions publicly, they all go into paroxysms of faux indignation. What a pack of prurient, cowardly hypocrites!

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Julia Gillard gets no respect! Sheesh, I wonder why ...

Lefties are squawking up a storm about how badly Gillard's been treated. They're forever bleating about how she doesn't get the "respect the office deserves".

Well, that's got a lot to do with the fact that she herself has disrespected the office. She didn't actually win the position honourably (you know, by being elected) in the first place. She took the easy, dodgy route by slyly knifing the bloke who had won it fairly. And she's abused her position repeatedly from day one with her constant, shameless lying. 

The sisterhood is particularly put out by the sexist abuse of Gillard. And yes, there's been a lot of hatred towards her -- some of which is misogynous. 

But again, she's brought much of this on herself by zealously playing the gender card -- particularly in the last year or so. Her false accusations of sexism are in themselves sexist, since they're aimed almost exclusively at men. So she shouldn't be surprised when she does cop some anti-female snark coming back at her.

Lots of conservative women in politics get sexist abuse hurled at them (and quite often it's from the same people squealing about misogyny in relation to Gillard!) but they don't wallow in their victimhood. They just shrug it off and get on with the gig. That earns them respect.

Gillard, on the other hand, has courted this reaction, stoked it, and wallowed in it big time. It's gotten to the point where her victim status is now offered as the main reason we should vote for her! It's truly pathetic.

The other annoying claim from Gillard's sob sisters is that as well as all the public loathing, she's been unfairly treated by the media. What a crock that is! On the contrary, they've made a point of protecting her from criticism -- particularly about her dodgy past as a lawyer. The vast majority of Aussie journos avoided that as a subject for ages until finally they could remain in denial no longer.

And ultimately two of them lost their jobs for investigating that, remember. Add Howard Sattler to this list of professional road kill, albeit for simply being a meathead, and the body count stands at three. Now, I know of no reporter who was actually sacked because of his treatment of a sitting PM in the past. (If anyone does, please enlighten me.) Clearly, rather than being beaten up by meeja heavies, she's been consistently treated with kid gloves.

Then there's the treatment she gets from her own party. Would any male politician have lasted so long in the top job if he were so catastrophically unpopular? No way!

Gillard has been our worst PM by a country mile. She's also our most mollycoddled. Roll on September 14 when we finally get to put an end to the whole nauseating bloody farce that this malignant mediocrity has inflicted upon us. 

Friday, June 14, 2013

Gillard prefers role of Prime Victim to Prime Minister

Julia Gillard's self obsession knows no bounds. Rather than attempting to effectively deal with serious issues affecting the nation she's turned her prime ministership into a grotesque and sanctimonious soapie that revolves entirely around her hurt feelings. The way she's twisted her unpopularity into a po-faced diatribe about the evils of sexism is shameless and cynical in the extreme.

Sure, most Aussies don't like her one bit. But that's got nothing to do with her being a woman. It's because she's incompetent, nasty, duplicitous, and a world class hypocrite to boot. The fact that she has the gall to then hide behind her gender just annoys people even more.

Now, brazenly milking Howard Sattler's oafish interview (for which he lost his job, BTW) for her own political advantage, she's wringing her hands about its ramifications for the next generation of female leaders.

Speaking today, Ms Gillard refused to take questions on the controversy, but echoed comments from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick that the treatment of high-profile women could send a damaging message to the next generation.

"I'm concerned about that, too. I don't want to see a message like that sent to those young girls," she said.

"I want young girls and women to be able to feel like they can be included in public life and not have to face questioning like the questioning I faced yesterday."


The sanctimony is breathtaking. Apart from anything else, the one with the greatest right to be angered by Sattler's line of questioning is actually her significant other. But she's cast herself as the biggest victim. Cry me a river, Toots!

And like pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth, she doesn't mean one word of it. Gillard doesn't give a tinker's cuss about Australian girls. She's just cynically exploiting the Perth broadcaster's faux pas to bolster her preferred narrative.

The Women for Gillard launch, along with the menu-gate stitch up, and possibly even that army sexism scandal that surfaced so conveniently, have all been aimed at building up a clear image of her as the brave, virtuous victim of eeevil male oppressors. Her clear hope is that it might get her over the line on September 14. But it has a more immediate goal too: to make sure that any internal move to topple her will be seen primarily in terms of gender politics.

If Rudd, Shorten or another bloke sticks his hand up for the gig Gillard knows that her armies of victim feminist harpies in the mainstream and social media will characterize her attempted ousting as the patriarchy's revenge. They'll all do their darnedest to cast her as a latter day Joan of Arc.

Knowing that Labor blokes like to see themselves as attitudinally reconstructed pro-feminist types (even though many are far more sexist than those in the Coalition) there's a good chance they'll balk at such a move.

But frankly I don't think it will work. Gillard is just so catastrophically toxic to the party's brand that even the Labor males' abundant moral vanity will not stop them from doing what clearly needs to be done. If some bloke in a blue tie doesn't tap her on the shoulder in the coming weeks (or even days) I'll be very surprised. 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Gillard's gender war is poison for future Labor feminists

Like many, I'm just amazed at the cynicism and nastiness of Julia Gillard using abortion to slime the Libs. She brazenly lies that Abbott and his party will play politics with the issue. But that's exactly what she's doing! Considering what a complex and emotional issue it is, that is about as low as you can get.

And how hollow is her claim to be fighting for women when she is flouting her own party's affirmative action rules by supporting a man over women in the seat of Batman?

This behaviour is more confirmation of Gillard's deeply duplicitous character. To her, lying is as easy and natural as breathing. Clearly, she doesn't just take the voters for mugs -- she also has a very low opinion of the women who loyally support her. And I think the women in the electorate are awake to this. So it's likely that her gender war will ultimately alienate more women than it wins over.

And there'll be long term ramifications for this for Labor. After the party has been completely thrashed in the election there'll be a lot of stone-cold analysis of what went wrong. If party members aren't completely retarded they'll realize that Gillard's toxic gender politics had a lot to do with the loss. As a result, they'll resolve to keep anyone like Gillard from having too much influence in the future. So the odds of a left-wing woman leading the party again -- at least for many years -- will be zilch.

And that will be part of the PM's toxic legacy. Not only a disaster for the country, but also a disaster for left-wing feminism. (Not that I'm upset about this, mind. Frankly, I'm chuffed. But if you are a bit of a bolshie babe, then Julia Gillard really should be in your bad books.) 

So if the sisters continue to worship her -- as I suspect they will -- it will just show how utterly lost the poor little poppets actually are. It really is very, very sad. 

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Latham's "realm of evil" line about Rudd on Q and A

Last night on Q and A, former Labor leader Mark Latham characterized Kevin Rudd's white anting of Julia Gillard as being in "the realm of evil". Actually, it sounds like the title of a Hammer horror film. No doubt some mock movie posters will appear online, if they haven't already.

Cinematic potential aside, the memorable phrase is sure to be cited often as the election approaches. I suspect that the Libs might even use it if Rudd does actually wrest the top job back from the woman who knifed him (although right now that is looking unlikely).

Of course, the "realm of evil" line says more about Mark Latham than it does about Kevin Rudd. It reveals his histrionic level of hatred for the former PM. I think it also says something about the psychological make-up of people in the ALP. Frankly, I doubt a Liberal would use such, er, hyperbowl in describing the actions of a fellow conservative pollie. They're just not that emotionally intense.

But Labor is full of world class haters. Just as Rudd loathes Gillard, Latham loathes Rudd. And that's just the start of the Labor loathe-fest. Gawd, what a toxic environment it is!

There is such vicious personal enmity there, it makes you wonder what's going to happen come September 14 (or even earlier). The election itself will of course be a massacre. Then there will be all the bloody reprisals within the party. Canberra will be awash with rivers of blood ...

Which sounds like another Hammer title when you think about it!

Friday, June 7, 2013

"You're having a lesbian" campaign from PFLAG

Something that has long fascinated me about the more zealous advocates of gay rights is how easily and often they ignore the realities of reproduction. They talk about gay male and lesbian parenting, for example, as if there was no one else involved in the child's creation. For myself and so many other flint-hearted conservatives this is both astonishing and annoying.

Let's face it, until cloning becomes old hat it's gonna take a man and a woman to make a baby. So, in the case of a "family" resulting from "marriage equality" there will always be a biological parent (father or mother) who more or less disappears from the child's life after she is born. Their absence is sure to affect the bub -- and not just because of societal conditioning due to "heteronormativism". 

Fair enough if you're going to argue that these issues are negligible. But most of the time gay marriage advocates don't even acknowledge that they are there. They blithely brush them aside, totally ignoring the mechanics of human reproduction. And if you remind them of these cold hard facts they don't like it at all. They do a lot of eye rolling and derisive snorting. They'll often claim you're being heterosexist or homophobic, too. It's bloody infuriating.

That's why I find the latest campaign from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to be quite revealing. In it, a woman gives birth to bub, and the doc says: "Congratulations, you're having a lesbian." Next to her is her male partner -- clearly the father of the child.

So, if they're going to acknowledge the necessity of heterosexual sex in reproduction in their own political advertising, why are they so quick to dismiss it in debates with conservatives? 

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Adam Goodes and the PC emotionalism of the AFL

I'm just looking slack-jawed at this whole Adam Goodes farce. It surely is life imitating satire and vividly illustrates the sheer idiocy of the politically correct culture gripping the AFL. This purported desire to "stamp out racism" has resulted in many people completely losing their judgement and acting hysterically. The absurdity of it is simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing.

I've long believed that a key characteristics of the cultural Left is that they treat adults like children and vice versa. This has certainly been the case here. A thirteen year old girl has been threatened with arrest, interrogated alone for a couple of hours, publicly identified, and branded a racist in the mass media because she was heard to yell just one word (and from deep within a crowd of numerous adults also shouting abusive epithets!). On the other hand practically the entire country has been treading on egg shells so as not to upset the delicate feelings of a highly paid, much-lauded adult male footballer.

While Adam Goodes certainly has good reason to be a tad shat off about what has been said about him by both the young girl and now Eddie McGuire, both of them have apologized like crazy and the immense outpouring of support and empathy he's received from all levels of Australian society has surely been more than sufficient to assuage the hurt caused by their rudeness and stupidity. It's high time for him to just bloody well grow up and stop wallowing in his sense of victimhood.

Then there are the posturing pinko pinheads in the meeja and the halls of quackademe. These emotional exhibitionists are all weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth about the desperate hurt felt by the high profile indigenous footballer. But where's their concern for the plight of Aborigines (kids in particular) in remote communities who have such violent and wretched lives? Most of the whitey-tighty hipsters squawking about how sincerely they empathize with what a poor, oppressed Brownlow Medallist is going through couldn't give a rat's about what happens to these genuine victims of racism. Hell, with their puerile Rousseauvian BS the privileged parasites enthusiastically promote racist policies that make their dire situation even worse

Ugh! Their sanctimonious hypocrisy just makes you wanna puke doesn't it?  

Really, we've got to stop this obsession with people's feelings that the Left encourages so much. By definition they're deeply irrational, and vary wildly according to individuals. If recommended societal codes of behaviour are predicated entirely on what some pampered, egocentric emotional infant feels about how he's been treated then consistency will be rendered completely impossible and nothing will ever be good enough. The silly sporting sookarama of the last few days will become a running state right through society, with sanity and fairness a distant memory.

Thanks to the sinister, divisive culture promoted by Andrew Demetriou and his conga line of suckholes in the meeja the AFL has gone howling-at-the-moon mad. The joint's a bloody asylum until this buffoon buggers off and finds another organization to wreck, that's for sure. Thankfully, Aussie Rules is just a bloody game. But we should take heed of what's happened here and not let this disease spread any further, that's for sure.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Thoughts on the Adam Goodes racism furore

Assorted hand-wringers and finger-waggers are having a field day with this case of a thirteen year old girl calling Adam Goodes an ape. But rather than revealing how much racism still pervades society, the episode illustrates how desperate PC types are to puff themselves up with lefteous indignation over things that are basically pretty small beer.

It wasn't like there was a pack of adults hurling explicitly racist epithets at him. You still see that kind of stuff happening in European soccer matches and it's deeply disturbing. But this local furore revolves around one word yelled out by a thirteen year old girl.

People should just take a deep breath, calm down and try to put things in perspective. That line from the schoolyard about stick and stones versus words is worth remembering here.

Kids can be cruel. But they really don't know what they're doing. Goodes himself said as much in his press conference:

She's 13, she's still so innocent, I don't put any blame on her. Unfortunately it's what she hears, the environment she's grown up in that has made her think it's ok to call people names. I can guarantee you right now she would have no idea, you know, how it makes anyone feel by calling them an ape.

Exactly. So why take so much offence?

And then there's the question of what was actually motivating her to utter the insult. Has she called white players apes as well? If so, then how can you be absolutely sure that she was being racist when yelling this term at Goodes in particular? (That said, it seems likely that racism was a factor in this case. But it certainly wasn't clear cut in the way it would have been if she'd used one of those notorious racist insults starting with "n" or "b".)

This politically correct rule that says that terms like ape, monkey and chimp are only racist if hurled at non-whites seems pretty suss to me. (Dubya Bush was often called a chimp, remember. But no one ever said that insult was racist.) Frankly, this double standard seems borderline racist in itself. In it, offence takers insist on racial specificity as much as or more than the offence givers. In this latest footy furore they are the ones most clearly and repeatedly linking simean characteristics with Aboriginality, after all.

This whole story revolves mostly around Goodes's interpretation of what the girl yelled out. You can certainly understand why he was hurt. But there are lots of people with similar backgrounds to Goodes who have met with similar abuse yet simply shrugged it off.

I blame the cult of victimhood built up by the (mostly white) squitterati. They cast indigenous people as victims as often as possible and are overjoyed when they see them publicly expressing their hurt. Makes them feel virtuous, justifies their fat salaries and sells papers, among other things.

My advice to Goodes: Don't play into their hands by being a victim. And I respectfully suggest that if you're cut to the quick because of what some little girl says then you should probably toughen up a tad.

Media hand-wringers purport to be on this noble mission to "stamp out racism". But of course they will never achieve this goal. Sadly, there will always be racism in society. And of course kids will continue to be thoughtless and rude.

A racism free utopia is the last thing they want anyway. If they don't have an excuse to prance around proclaiming their moral superiority and cultural sensitivity they simply won't know what to do with themselves.

What will happen is that their desire to be offended and outraged will become ever more ridiculous and extreme. Eventually it will get to the stage where a baby in a pram throwing a rattle at an indigenous player will be deemed "racist" and provoke a humungous media dummy spit!

Friday, March 1, 2013

Ben Naparstek vs John van Tiggelen and lefty stoushes in general

Conservatives are gleefully yucking up a storm over a falling out between the editors of two prominent lefty publications. In it, editor of The Monthly John van Tiggelen has sent a very snarky email to wunderkind Ben Naparstek of Good Weeked accusing him of poaching writers, among other things. If van Tiggelen's claims are true then Naparstek's behaviour has been disgraceful -- not to mention deeply sexist.

I recall a vaguely similar situation occurring a coupla years back involving The Drum and Crikey -- though I don't think the enmity was nearly as intense.

In any case, this conflict got me thinking about how much white-anting and bitchery goes on within lefty strongholds as opposed to conservative ones. While internecine battles do occur in Toryland, they're generally not nearly as vicious or protracted as the ones that rage in joints like Labor and the unions. Look at the deep level of personal enmity between Rudd and Gillard, for example. It's nasty as all get out.

It's also pretty funny, given lefties' constant claims of compassion, solidarity, and community. Obviously hypocrsiy has a lot to do with it. There's the fact that conservatives tend to be more restrained characters as well. They may feel just as much envy of or hatred for a competitor but because they're more likely to take responsibility for their actions, they usually manage to stop themselves from doing things that they know they'll probably regret later on. Then there's the fact that lefties are more driven by emotion than anything else ...

I think it's got something to do with their ideological mindset, too. And it kinda gets back to that whole "zero sum game" mentality they have. They think of work and wealth as being finite commodities. They're not entrepreneurial by definition. To them, big organizations like the public service, the ABC and Fairfax are the "only game in town". They zone in on a desired position with total, relentless focus.

Now if two or more ambitious lefties are competing for such a gig they will often stop at nothing to get it, keep it and use it to assert dominance over, or get revenge on, their closest competitors. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, will tend to seek elsewhere if it's all getting too full-on. That's not to say they're lazy or unambitious. Far from it. They just realize that there's a world beyond the established organization. There are many smaller businesses in the private sector to work in, or they can even start from scratch and create their own.

What do you think? Is this the reason or is it something else? 

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Fear, Islam and the Left

Watched that 7.30 Report story on Geert Wilders last night. It was terribly biased, of course. They gave a lot of prominence to some lunar leftie activists, as if they were representative to the wider population.

The little poppets were hilarious. There were shots of them drafting their placards for a demo against the Dutch politician. Being the dutiful collectivists they were, they even had to do this by committee:

HAYDEN COOPER: Ahead of the Wilders arrival in an unassuming Melbourne courtyard on Saturday afternoon, a small group of activists met to plot their protest.

ACTIVIST II: Maybe something like "Refugees are welcome, fascists are not," or, "Refugees are welcome, Geert Wilders is not," or something along those lines.


Gawd. Those poor people. They were so worried about misrepresenting the group's identity, they couldn't even come up with their own stupid slogans!

As anyone who's had anything to do with lefties knows only too well, they are terrified of being ostracised. Those who dominate such tribes know this, and use it to get what they want.

Think of what happens to scabs on the picket line, or the fate of Labor "rats". In a leftie dominated joint like Artsville, everyone is utterly terrified of transgressing the dreary PC dogmas relating to sexual identity, gender politics, climate change, and Islam to name a few. 

And I think this pervasive fear they feel is why the Left is so sympathetic to Islam (combined with that primitive belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", of course).

As Wilders says about Islam:

In the Islamic world, I was always struck by two things. I was impressed by the kindness and helpfulness of many people. But there was also their fear. Islamic societies are ruled by terror. Muslims are good people, but they live under the yoke of Islamic sharia. If they leave Islam, or even just mildly criticise it, they sign their own death verdict.

Contrary to what many Westerners think, Islam, rather than a religion, is a totalitarian political ideology. It is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose sharia on all of us. It is totalitarian because it is not voluntary: once you are in, you cannot get out. Unlike genuine religions, Islam also makes demands on non-Muslims. We, too, are marked for death if we criticise it.


You could use a lot of those phrases to describe politically correct leftism. Sure, you're not gonna get your head cut off live on the internet for making some off colour gay joke at a plonk-sodden fringe festival shindig. But doing so could result in you being marked as One Who Does Not Obey, and mean that you'd suffer severely both personally and professionally.

Lefties know fear. They get fear. They are comfortable with fear. So it's easy to understand why they find what Wilders has to say so threatening. He wants societies that are free from fear, after all. 

Monday, February 18, 2013

Zero sum games and growing pies

Some general thoughts about lefties and their belief system: One key ingredient in their daft world view is that of the zero sum game. They think there's a set amount of everything in society -- particularly money. So if you have a substantial amount of it you must have stolen it from another person or group.

They see the economy as a pie of finite size. Their job, then, is to make sure the slices are redistributed fairly. (Well, that's what they tell themselves and others but they're usually trying to grab and guzzle as many pieces as possible on the sly.) 

Conservatives say that while fairness is desirable it's more important to grow the pie. And individuals can have bigger slices if they work hard, are entrepreneurial, etc. Of course lefties hate that because they can't get their tiny minds around the idea of creating wealth. They interpret the exhortation to grow the pie as encouraging the haves to grab pie slices from the hands of the have-nots. 

But anyone who has done any real observation and thinking can see how retarded this concept is. Yes, capitalism is destructive. But it's also amazingly creative. And it's the latter force which keeps winning out. It's like a big ugly machine that keeps chugging along.

It's business that funds government through tax, after all. It's not the other way around. 

Speaking of government. There actually is a zero sum game in this sector. Money is handed out to recipients from a set yearly amount in the form of departmental funding, grants, welfare, etc. As we all know, government is what lefties are most attracted to. And they sure do demand more than their equal share of that particular pie. They are nicking it from more deserving people.

Take the arts, for instance. Anyone in that field knows damn well that if you want to "succeed" (get paid for your work) you have to suck up to the Left. Doesn't matter how crap you are at what you do. You just have to strike the politically correct pose and the money is sure to come. (There'll be much more of it if you have some well placed mates, too.)

Conservatives, on the other hand, are considered the enemy by the bureaucratic powers that be. So if you are one of these eeevil people and you have some insightful, original arty idea that you've worked your clacker off developing, you'll almost certainly get diddly squat from the relevant funding bodies. (Er, unless you lie to them about its nature when applying, of course. But you can only do that once or twice. And Tories are less likely to do that anyway. Unlike so many lefties, they believe that the truth exists and should be respected.)

Sure, conservatives rarely ask for money in the first place. They're more likely to try and turn a buck with their projects, or at least work on their own dime. Still, some are on the bones of their arses and have arty projects with little market value. But what are the odds that such plans will get any funding? Very close to nil.

Imagine a play based on the life of Tony Abbott, in which he's shown to be a decent bloke who respects women. Think that'd get any support from the Australia Council? 

So, there's a huge irony here. The Left sees a zero sum game where it doesn't exist, and accuses its ideological enemies of theft. Yet in a field where it does actually exist, they shamelessly grab their unfair share.

Just goes to show that lefties are not just inconsistent with the application of their ideology. They're often grotesquely hypocritical as well. 

Thursday, February 14, 2013

ABC's ratings drop due to rise of the right-wing blogosphere?

Just on this recent plunge in the ratings of several ABC shows -- most notably Insiders, which lost 14% of its viewers recently:  It's a pretty noteworthy drop, which makes me wonder what the main cause is. Of course the luvvies are saying that it's got a lot to do with the fact that people are preferring to watch the content on the ABC's other channels or iView. But I think it's much more than that.

It seems to me that even the ABC's traditional audience is starting to tire of the obvious and relentless bias in so many of its shows. And that's because they're finally considering other points of view.

In the past, there was a real lack of outlets with views different to the left-leaning ABC. Sure, the commercial mainstream media organizations were a bit closer to the centre, but they were still "soft left". Even the papers that the Left loves to demonize as conservative, like The Australian, included a range of opinions, much as they do now. The only overtly conservative, right-wing opinions could be found on commercial talkback radio (which was, and remains, concentrated in Sydney) and a few small circulation magazines, the most notable being Quadrant. 

In the last ten years or so we've had the rise of the blogosphere, where anyone who wanted to have a growl about politics was able to do so. While blogs are written from all perspectives, those from the right of the political spectrum have done extremely well. Part of the reason for that was because they were the most passionate and rebellious.

So the dreary PC perspective of the ABC has really had a shake up. Countless people who hadn't considered conservative viewpoints, or were just too scared to express them, were invigorated by the rise of the blogosphere. And this new found irreverence has bled into the wider culture, so that even tragic ABC-watching luvvies have started to think in new ways about the issues of the day.

This process has been magnified by the huge explosion in social media use. While Twitter is dominated by lefties in this country, RWDB tweeps are slowly gaining on them. And I think that on Facebook they actually have the upper hand over the Left. Just type the word Gillard into the Facebook search box and you'll see just how many pages there are devoted to sledging our PM.

Basically, all these factors are combining to increase conservative "mind share" in Australia. As a result, the relentless narrow-mindedness of those behind ABC shows like Insiders is now obvious to a greater number of viewers than ever before. And that's why so many of them are switching off.

What do you think? Is this the main cause or are other factors involved?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Gillard's "captain's pick" of Nova Peris cynical in the extreme

Julia Gillard's "captain's pick" of Nova Peris for the Senate is so cynical you almost can't believe it. The PM has not made this decision to help Aborigines in the Top End. It's just to impress sanctimonious middle class white numpties in the major cities in the next federal election. They'll all know Peris as an Olympic gold medal winner and so be favourably disposed towards her already. And they'll think this is a fine gesture from Gillard (and for these people, gestures are all important).

So Gillard will keep her support amongst this demographic high, and maybe even increase it a bit. (Just watch her saccharine face-pulling as she watches the overawed Peris sook up during the press conference in the video included in this story. Makes you wanna puke!)

Nova Peris is just a pawn and everybody knows it (including herself, I suspect). And she's completely out of her depth. Her breathless response at the press conference was just excruciating. As well as attacks from her opponents, there's much seething hostility towards her from within the party itself. Putting someone in that situation is just too cruel for words.

The former athlete may get on top of things and hang in there, but I think there's a strong chance she'll throw in the towel. If that happens, it probably won't bother Gillard. She will have received the benefit form the invitation merely by making it.

This is classic leftist cynicism in action. Socialists routinely condemn others for being racist, yet place race above all others as a criterion in their decisions. They cast themselves as selfless, empowering "givers". But they're always being selfish and routinely seek power over others. And they usually take much more than they give.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Reaction to Kochie's comments about breastfeeding in public

Just couldn't believe the ruckus over David Koch's recent comments about breastfeeding in public (though I was relieved that no media outlet resorted to that ol' standby "storm in a D-cup" when describing it). The episode certainly did give new meaning to the term "freedom of expression", eh?

The fact that so many chicks with sprogs were so outraged about what he said is another sign that the idiotic hair-trigger bolshevism usually associated with childless leftie feminists has now gone mainstream. While some of them are no doubt lesbian couples a la Penny Wong and her significant other, I assume the majority would have done things the, er, old fashioned way.

And I pity the men in those unions. They'd have to be treading on eggshells the whole time. I mean, if their partners go ballistic over some TV personality's quite innocuous observation about breastfeeding, then you've gotta wonder how they would react to an unwanted answer to the question "Does my bum look big in this?".

But the general over-reaction isn't nearly as much of a worry as some of the specific statements of one of the women who weighed in on the issue:

The Australian Breastfeeding Association slammed Koch's remarks but said it was an opportunity to educate the Australian public about the need to support breastfeeding mothers.

"It is an opportunity to say (Koch's) comments are illegal: you can't discriminate against any mother at any time," spokesperson Meredith Laverty said.


Which just goes to show there are a lot of thick, totalitarian types out there who must be pleased as punch about Nicola Roxon's creepy plan to make offending people against the law.

The censorious Ms Laverty then added this odd observation:

"(Babies) just don't choose when they're hungry. We don't ask people to duck off into the toilet to have their lunch. I thought our society was past this."

Well, no. That would be extremely unhygeinic, apart from anything else. That said, I'm sure members of one extreme minority group, coprophagists, would beg to differ. Hell, they'll prolly be the next group arcing up about how they're routinely discriminated against!

Gawd. Imagine what kind of hijinks would occur at a demo held by these crazy cats. And what would we call them? The bolshie breast-feeders call themselves lactivists, so what would these be, craptivists? Still, at least they wouldn't be scowling, since they'd all be sporting shit-eating grins ... 

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Labor's six point Newspoll bounce to be quickly erased?

Got a shock when I was watching the teev last night. Saw a newsflash saying that Labor had surged six points in the latest Newspoll. I hope this is just an aberration like some of the ones that have occurred before and that subsequent polls will show the Coalition still way ahead. 

But if it's not and Labor have genuinely gained ground, I suspect it's got very little to do with anything they've been saying or doing. It's probably just a bit of collective amnesia on the part of the electorate. With many pols on hols, as well as many journos, there's been little to remind us just how godawful this government actually is.

The AWU scandal in particular has faded from public consciousness in recent weeks. But when Parliament resumes and Julie Bishop can resume needling Gillard on her involvement in it people will remember what a dodgy, vicious character the PM is. Her party's recent poll bounce will be be erased for sure then, I reckon.

What do you think?