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.