Saturday, December 20, 2014

Michael James misses point on #Illridewithyou backlash

If you had any doubt that lefties are totally obsessed with their own infantile emotions to the exclusion of pretty much everything else that goes on in the world you should check out a recent article by the guy who created the first nauseatingly sanctimonious #Illridewithyou tweet on Twitter. It details his reaction to the recent furore over the lack of veracity of the story that so inspired him in the first place.

Michael James is a hand-wringing latte-slurper from Brisvegas. When he saw a saccharine Facebook post by former Greens candidate Rachael Jacobs about her offering to ride with a poor oppressed Muslim woman he tweeted the post without thinking.

Fitting so snugly into the smug anti-western narrative of slacktivist cuddlebunnies everywhere, it rapidly took on a life of its own on the social network. But afterwards, because Jacobs was shown to be a tad loose with the truth when it came to what really happened on that train, a social and mainstream media storm erupted.

It seems that, not surprisingly, poor Rachael was a tad shat off about this development. Who wouldn't be? Though he claims she's showed him no ill will, mortified Michael has tried to make amends in this article about how the whole silly saga raises issues about -- wait for it -- Facebook privacy!

The guy's self-obsessed sanctimony is just stunning, isn't it?

A crazed gunman takes a bunch of Australian citizens hostage and demands an Islamic State flag to be shown in the window. While the poor bastards are still trapped inside, fearing for their lives, James sets off a social media campaign presenting Muslims as the real victims!

Then when the story on which the whole crazy frenzy is based is shown to be mostly false and people vent their spleen at being had, he still doesn't get it. He thinks the issue is actually caring sharing Rachael's Gaia-given right not to be snarked at for makin' stuff up! (And he doesn't even take responsibility for what he did. If he wanted to keep the issue about what he did to Jacobs, why doesn't he do an article about friendship, and how some "friends" callously exploit each other for personal and professional gain and cheap media cool points?)

Gawd. Any sensible person would note the jaw-dropping wrong-headedness of the campaign to start with, then when the truth emerged, the ethical questionability of Jacobs at least partially concocting a story to make herself seem virtuous (even if it was meant for a selective audience, and not the squillions who ultimately latched onto it).

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Sydney siege selfie frenzy and #Illridewithyou two sides of same coin

With the Lindt Chocolat Cafe siege finally over, it's no wonder that the luvvies at their ABC and elsewhere, as well as many Muslim spokespeople all across Oz, are desperately trying to downplay the involvement of Islam in the horrific, lethal event. Some are even saying that it's hard to even classify it as terrorism; that Man Haron Monis was just some crazy individual who could have been a member of any religion.

Yeah, well, imagine if he were a Christian. Think how those who constantly claim that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" would have reacted then ...

But the Left are so consistently, er, inconsistent, aren't they? When it comes to jaw-dropping hypocrisy they are world class, no doubt about it.

And there was certainly much if it in the leftist reaction to the selfie frenzy occurring outside the siege's location in Martin Place itself. Of course this phenomenon was revolting. It was a grotesque display of narcissistic indifference to people who were trapped in the most terrifying situation imaginable -- and only metres away.

And many of those shaking their heads in disgust at this callous behaviour were also singing the praises of the #Illridewithyou movement:


No way. That, that is what sanctimonious arsehats playing with their iPhones do ... to make themselves feel morally virtuous. It was slacktivism pure and simple; a meaningless gesture that would almost certainly never be tested.

Really, how many Muslims would take those retweeting the hashtag up on these "offers"? My guess is a tiny, tiny minority. And you can imagine how many of the slacktivists would ultimately let their newfound transport besties down. Heaps, surely.

And consider who the gesture was aimed at reassuring: members of the religion that the terrorist so zealously associated himself with -- not the poor bastards kept at gunpoint against their will by him!

And remember that #Illridewithyou took off while those hostages were still in that situation. They were the real victims, not bloody Muslims!

But how much of a problem is abuse of Muslims on public transport anyway? Sure, it does occur, and is unacceptable. But it's hardly an epidemic by any measure.

So not only was #Illridewithyou a massive social media wank (or rather, twank); it was also a grotesque display of narcissistic indifference to human suffering -- not unlike the selfie frenzy that occurred simultaneously.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Jokey #SydneySiege tweets are stupid, nihilistic

The siege in Sydney's Martin Place is still unfolding. As I write this a few people have managed to escape. Hopefully the rest will get out unharmed.

I've been keeping up to date on Twitter. And what's interesting is how callous and stupid many of the tweets are. Because the terrifying event is occurring in the Lindt store there, some of the more cynical tweeps are making jokes about chocolate.

Take this from what appears to be the real Mohammed Junaid Thorne:

Others in a similar vein:




And thankfully some common sense:


UPDATE: But even that very reasonable exhortation provokes mindless abuse from the trolls. Amazing.



UPDATE: And still the "jokes" keep coming, all of them as lame as they are revolting.

Take this guy's offering. Well, at least he seems to have some idea of just how pathetic and nauseating it is ...

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Bill Shorten's 7.30 Report performance slammed on Twitter

Here in Perth we get everything three hours later than Sydney and Melbourne. So by logging into Twitter I'll often read a lot of emotive feedback about TV current affairs shows and the like as they're being broadcast in the east, then watch them afterwards when they're broadcast here. This inverted "snark before the cause" process can be quite interesting.

Needless to say, I don't pay much attention to the lefties on Twitter. Being shamelessly, brainlessly partisan, they are sure to be outraged by pretty much anything a conservative says. And they're always desperately trying to create a lot of momentum with their puerile whining so their fellow travellers in the ABC and Fairfax can report on this "social media reaction" as if it's some sort of organic, genuine example of the electorate's take on things.

Conservatives, being generally more rational and restrained, won't snipe at a Labor or Greens pollie unless he truly deserves it. Take Bill Shorten's cringeworthy 7.30 Report interview last night, for example.

This was panned widely on Twitter, and with good reason. He offered absolutely nothing of substance, and was clearly uncomfortable throughout.

Leigh Sales did a fine job of hounding him to give genuine answers to her questions about the tough decisions he would no doubt have to make if he becomes PM. But he just wasn't forthcoming. He was clearly trying to weasel his way into the gig by saying there'll be no pain, only gain for all concerned. Shorten will no doubt employ this tactic for as long as he possibly can, the jellyback.

Sales herself was becoming quite frustrated with him and the whole process reminded me of that jaw-dropping train wreck of an interview between Wassim Doureihi and Emma Alberici on Lateline.

Sure, Shorten wasn't implicitly defending anything as ugly as Doureihi was. But it was nonetheless extremely unedifying to watch. And it says heaps about him that he came across so poorly when even a fellow leftie from their ABC was asking the questions.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Q and A panellist James Cromwell is a vegan activist

We all know that their ABC's flagship weekly jawfest Q and A tilts heavily to the Left. It's also a given that artists in general tend to be petulant pinkos. That's why the show so often includes actors, singers, comedians and the like.

There are many reasons for the general, er, left-leaningness of arty wankers. In major part it's the result utopian socialism's relentless march through the institutions. As a result most people in film, theatre, etc, think that you can only be truly creative if you're a doctrinaire commie! Any half way intelligent analysis will confirm that this doesn't necessarily follow.

That said, I can't blame it all on bolshie brainwashing. I do think there is some self-selection going on. Creativity does require self-indulgence, after all. And that suggests emotional immaturity. As we all know, lefties suffer from that particular psychological affliction big time. So there is a bit of overlap there.

Back back to Q and A: Accomplished actor James Cromwell is on the show tonight. Even though he's a grizzled old bloke, like most of his ilk he does have the mind of a spoiled child. He's had a long history of progressive activism, including support for terrorist group the Black Panthers.

After converting to veganism some years ago he's been doing lots of, er, pro-bonobo work for those loopy losers at PETA. And he engages in silly, sanctimonious stunts from time to time. Coupla years back, for example, he burst into a uni board meeting to protest against "cat torture".

Seems kinda odd given that cats aren't actually vegans ... Hell, if he wanted to be truly consistent, shouldn't he have berated the moggies themselves for their callous treatment of mice and other defenceless little critters?

Clearly, common sense is not Cromwell's strong suit. Which is one of the reasons he was selected for inclusion in tonight's Q and A episode, no doubt.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Ben Elton vs Malcolm Turnbull on Q and A

Way back in the mists of time I thought Ben Elton was a total legend. But now I realize he is and always was basically a smug, loudmouth, leftie bore. That was pretty obvious from his appearance on Q and A last night.

Like so many of his ilk, Elton is not interested in the politics of ideas. He's interested in the politics of emotions. So he flicked the switch to saccharine sanctimony right from the get go, employing that hackneyed and emotive tactic of Abbott bashing.

This approach is favoured by right on movers and shakers on that show because it's really easy to do, you don't have to do cite any real facts or evidence, and you're bound to get a lot of support from the PC numpties in the audience (many of whom claimed to be LNP voters so as to help their ABC claim lack of bias, no doubt!).

Check out his opening salvo:

BEN ELTON: And the critical thing to understand is that we have a Prime Minister who stands before the world and says he wants to talk about economic growth but he is not prepared to talk about climate change. The two are not mutually exclusive. This man has children. He knows - he knows about Newton's third law of mechanics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The combined energy of the sun is locked in a battery in the air. We suck billions of years of energy out in one fell swoop and set fire to it, that is going to have consequences. And in front of the world, our Prime Minister sought over and over again to dodge those issues.

Gawd. What a simplistic analysis.

He was basically saying, "Hell we're destroying the planet with our fuel consumption. There's just no argument about that ... And Abbott is all for this relentless plundering of resources. What a bad, bad man. The fact that he has kids as well makes him even more heartless!"

Sheesh. Like something out of a bloody pantomime ...

Interesting that just as he clumsily tried to demonize the PM he shamelessly sucked up to fellow panellist Malcolm Turnbull. Aware that he's a warmist, he was desperate to curry favour with him:

BEN ELTON: Now, I know you feel very strongly about these issues but you're forced to hide some of that because of the party that you represent.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I've been very bad at hiding things.

BEN ELTON: I know, and I think you’ve done a good job and I’d wish you’d had a tilt at the leadership. But the fact is, this is a crisis. Tony has children. Why - he’s not stupid.

Everything is tactical with socialists, isn't it? They don't just want to have their say in a free and frank exchange of views. They're forever trying to recruit you into something, or elbow you out of it. And they love that whole stick and carrot approach. So they are at turns amazingly nasty, and very warm and friendly.

But being so caught up with their own emotions they never twig that those whom they recruit eventually start to figure out that all the affection and support they offer is conditional. These one time acolytes start thinking for themselves at last and -- not dependant upon the validation of group membership -- see things rationally at last. That's when they start to grow up. And the leftie flattery doesn't work anymore.

That's how Turnbull reacted to Elton, which clearly stung the comic. Not only did he reject Elton's charm offensive. He called him out on his sliming of Abbott.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: So there is a lot but there is a lot of capital committed. I just want to say this, though, in defence of Tony Abbott, just be careful that you don't make the mistake of creating a caricature and assume - which may amuse you - and assuming that that is the real person.

BEN ELTON: No, not not remotely. It certainly doesn’t amused me Malcolm. He has created his own caricature. 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but - no but, Ben, Ben, Ben, the one...

BEN ELTON: I'm trying to understand how a Rhodes Scholar can deny climate science.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Ben, the one thing - Ben, the one thing you've done tonight is prove that Mark Twain was wrong when he said only fiction has to be credible, because, as a novelist, everything you've said about Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party is a caricature. It is a fantasy and it is incorrect.

BEN ELTON: No, not the the Liberal Party. I like your bit of the Liberal Party. 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, right.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Tony Abbot..

BEN ELTON: Look, come on, Malcolm. Tony Abbott stands up and says to the world, I want to tell you how tough it was to cut education cuts and get people to pay for their doctor's fees. This in front of the world. 

TONY JONES: I’m sorry, I’m going to interrupt you there because, sorry...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is just a Tony Abbott sort of hate fest, is it? I mean it’s ridiculous. 

BEN ELTON: Yeah.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Anyway. Well, okay, yeah. Okay. Well, I reckon you - I reckon you, look, he should - you should have your own show on YouTube. You know, get a YouTube channel.

Great smackdown ... Actually it would be great if Elton actually did that and just left the mainstream meeja completely. It would then be obvious how unremarkable he actually is. He'd be there fighting for views with all the other loony leftie doomsayers ranting to camera. He really wouldn't stand out at all.

Turnbull is more of a leftie on some issues than the vast majority of his LNP peers, but he's still conservative enough to see sense and refuse to indulge shameless pinko sanctimony. So that was heartening to see.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Spicer, Harmer and feminist trollective nag Julie Bishop

I'm always amazed at the extreme pettiness of the witless, humourless, emotionally retarded Australian Left -- in particular as it pertains to chickdom. Sheesh, do these whingers ever give feminism a bad name!

Take all that outrage at Julie Bishop refusing to identify as feminist. Hell, if they actually believed in female empowerment like they say they do you'd think they'd be glad she refused to use that label, or at least not be bothered either way.

But nup. The sour faced sob sisters can't handle a truly independent woman who doesn't have to claim victim status like they do and gets by on merit instead. The fact that she's whip-smart, elegant, and super fit to boot just riles the hatchet-faced termagants even more!

Well, they would react like that wouldn't they? Successful women like Bishop just reveal their pathetic, parasitic ideology for what it is: a massive con. As is the case with so many lefty shibboleths, the idea that women still need PC double standards to succeed is just a giant steaming crock of BS.

Gawd but these sheilas are sad and pathetic. Nasty, too. Check out their reaction to Bishop's tweet about an attack on her by perpetually whining airhead Tracey Spicer:
Then there's this from Wendy Harmer:
Astonishing. These frightbats spend all their time carping about absolutely everything the Government does, often attacking Bishop herself in the most vindictive manner. And then they get all upset because she doesn't identify as one of them!

Their arrogant self-delusion is just mind boggling, isn't it?

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Greens' #GoWithTheFlow campaign reveals their totalitarian instincts

As we all know, so much of what the Greens are exhorting the good people of Oz to do is life imitating satire. You just couldn't make it up, that's for sure. (It's invariably "political correctness gone mad" as pollies love to say. But I think that's a misnomer anyway. PC is mad, full stop.)

Here's their latest barking exhortation: pee in the shower to save water -- and they're not taking the piss! As usual, the nuttiness of what they endorse is matched by their zeal and they're impressively organized as well. Hell, the crazy campaign has even got its own hashtag (or should that be "slashtag"?): #GoWithTheFlow.

Coupla things stand out for me here: Obviously it's not going to do anything much to save water. Even if every greenie in the country obeyed orders the effect would be negligible -- not unlike the proverbial "drop in the ocean" (and literally so).

Anyway, if you're gonna "tinkle under the sprinkle" as the spookily aptly named Larissa Waters asks, why not just do without the sprinkle? Actually, I think the introduction of tinkling might actually extend the sprinkling, since participating greenies will probably feel less guilty about the amount of water they use, and so will shower for longer than usual as a result.

There's another aspect of it that I think is quite revealing: Showering and peeing are very private matters. Yet in their characteristically bolshie and domineering way the Greens have no compunction about giving instructions related to them. It's as if they're saying: "You thought your ablutions were your own business. But nup. They're ours, too. And we're gonna tell you how to carry 'em out -- for the good of the planet of course."

It's invasive, dishonest, and quite, er, toiletaritarian.

And it reminds me of how commies have such an inordinate interest in that other most private of human bodily functions: sex. They're always telling us how we are to behave in the boudoir, aren't they? Their attitude is promoted as being pro-sexual freedom, but it's actually not that at all because they're determined to stamp out any resistance to their beliefs -- like that offensive notion that marriage is between a man and woman, for example. Their long term aim seems to be to make everyone into tree-hugging, shrub-humping, bilby-frotting polyamorists who want to marry their significant brothers -- or at least be completely at ease with others doing so.

I think it's all driven by their ferocious, relentless drive to get everyone by the short and curlies. And if they can't do that literally, telling people how to run their sex lives, wash themselves and urinate is the next best thing.

In this context #GoWithTheFlow is another example of the ongoing struggle between extreme left-wing collectivism and conservative individualism -- a real case of "me versus wee".

Thursday, November 6, 2014

"Good father" Gough Whitlam's legacy celebrated by childish socialists

The older I get and the more I learn about lefties, the clearer their psychology becomes. Their core affliction is one of arrested development. Basically, they just wanna remain kids their entire lives. Like spoiled sprogs, they expect the state to provide absolutely everything to them free of charge and without conditions. And if they screw up, they'll never take responsibility for it. They'll always blame someone or something else for their shoddy behaviour then expect the state to foot the bill for the damage they caused.

In the tiny, neotenous mind of the socialist political leaders are parents whose job it is to look after them in every possible way and bail them out when they're in trouble. This is in stark contrast to the conservative ideal, which sees leaders as adults trying to facilitate the emotional and psychological maturation of the electorate. Tories want to encourage responsible behaviour, self possession and self direction so that the state doesn't have to look after millions of crybabies -- many of them in middle age and beyond -- who are such a massive financial burden upon it.

It's pretty clear that perennially petulant pinkos see their (usually male) leaders like fathers. If they get what they want from them they're over the moon, gushing with endless gratitude. If not, they'll whine and sulk up a storm to punish cruel, heartless daddy for his appalling behaviour.

The embarrassing antics of many of the true believers at Whitlam's memorial service were a clear illustration of this sad syndrome. Take their graceless booing of the current PM Tony Abbott. Christopher Pyne nailed it with this tweet.


Then there was the endless adulation heaped upon their dear departed leader. It was all about what Gough gave them. (Well, that's how they saw it. It wasn't what he gave them. It's what the taxpayers did, even though they weren't asked. And they certainly showed their disdain for this by decisively voting him out of office when they got the chance.)

Cate Blanchett's contribution was just cringeworthy. Apart from it being historically inaccurate, the irony of it was just humungous. I mean, here's the most pampered, elitist, and financially over-rewarded woman in the entire country -- who was hardly underprivileged from the get go anyway -- lauding Gough's wealth redistribution in her direction. Hell, if she thinks he was such a legend for what he did why doesn't she emulate him and sling a slice of her next paycheck in the direction of the dispossessed? Doesn't have to be much, even a quarter would do. That's probably a cool million right there ...

Then there was Noel Pearson's "instant classic" speech. Don't deny the guy's a great orator. But some of what he said was a tad OTT, IMHO.

Like that bit about Gough harbouring "not a bone of ethnic or gender prejudice in his entire body". If true, then it would pretty much qualify him as a secular saint. Racism is not all pervasive, but given that each individual is confined to a male or female body, and hailing from a distinct ethnic group, I think it's well nigh impossible to be completely free of prejudice -- even if it is mainly positive -- about groups you know little or nothing of because by definition you are not one of them.

Anyhoo, this was the same guy who uttered the memorable line about "Vietnamese Balts". Sheesh. Just imagine if John Howard had said that. You'd never hear the end of it ...

But when it comes to Gough Whitlam different standards apply. He's the good father, not the bad one, so in his eulogies all is forgiven and history rewritten.


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Ginger Jihadi could easily have been a Green goon

One thing is very clear from the many crazed acts of violence by Islamic State sympathisers in and from the West. That is that the medieval death cult attracts the most tragic human flotsam imaginable. Many of the head hackers, cop stabbers, and soldier shooters featuring in recent news bulletins are certifiably mentally ill. And if not that they're clearly terminally stupid.

Take the "Ginger Jihadi" from Oz. Most seventeen year old Aussie blokes are meatheads, we all know that. But this guy makes even the most moronic beer swilling bogan seem whip smart in comparison.

Have a squizz at the video in which the fired up fighter threatens the West in general and Australia in particular. Abdullah Elmir is so impressionable that even though he's from Bankstown, he seems to have taken on the kind of pommy accent you'd hear in Londonistan. May be too long a bow, but it sounds to me like he's emulating IS's star head chopper "John the Beatle", the former rapper hailing from the Old Dart.

Elmir is one poor, sad bastard. He got sucked into something truly ugly and he hasn't a clue. Odds are he's gonna be blown to bits -- probably by his own hand, the doofus -- before too long ... Sad, because stupidity, while seriously limiting a person's life choices, isn't fatal in most cases.

Speaking of stupidity: When looking at an idiot like Elmir, I can't help thinking about greenies ...

Have another look at that vid. Check out the grim, primitive facial expressions of Elmir's fellow "freedom fighters". You'll see the same kind of child-brained idiocy in the eyes of the nature boyz and girlz assembled at, say, a stupid demo against Colin Barnett's shark mitigation policy. Those shark hugging ecotards, while undeniably sad, lost and extremely annoying, aren't nearly so dangerous as the black clad idiots for Islam. Green goons prefer bonging on to blowing themselves up, after all. Not keen to remove the heads of infidels, they just wanna get off their own!

It's pretty clear that the two malignant movements are targeting the same dim demographic. In recruiting the thick, angry, impressionable and clinically insane, the Middle Eastern death cult is actually poaching would be Greens voters.

That's why I hope Scott Ludlam and his ilk finally quit with the terrorist apologetics and take a stand against the head hackers. Not for any principled reason, mind. They are clearly incapable of that. No, they should do it for the most basic political motive of all: to ensure their own survival.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Wassim Doureihi vs Emma Alberici on Lateline

Like many I sat in awe with my jaw on the floor as Wassim Doureihi of Hizb ut-Tahrir spent his whole Lateline interview evading Emma Alberici's very direct questions last night. The segment was amazing for a few reasons.

There was the way Doureihi repeatedly refused to condemn the barbaric crimes of Islamic State; crimes that include mass murder, mass rape and the beheading of men, women and children! When Alberici, clearly deeply frustrated with his evasions, invoked the ghoulish image of a seven year old Aussie kid holding a human head like some sort of trophy, he couldn't even condemn that.

It was truly chilling. While he didn't outright endorse these gruesome acts, any rational person would have to conclude that he believes them to be acceptable and justified at the very least. Well, he certainly did us a favour by showing what kind of people actually walk among us in this country. Along with other recent events, it proves that the Government's efforts to deal with the threat of terrorism are not some kind of cynical neo-con conspiracy as the Leftist tinfoil hat brigade would have us believe.

Not surprisingly, his approach was typical of the victim-centric Islamist blaming everything on the eeevil West. So dishonest. It's clear that much of the mayhem occurring in Iraq and Syria is theocratic in nature. Islamic State is aiming to create a global caliphate and they are employing extreme violence against innocents to do it. They are pursuing goals dreamed up hundreds of years ago, long before the USA even existed.

But of course Doureihi shamelessly wheeled out all that stupid victim cant. It's the Islamist's way of subverting our freedoms with the goal of ultimately removing them. And lefties have allowed -- even encouraged -- them to do it. Shame on you, pinkos! Time  for you to be more like the principled Bill Maher and less like vain jellyback Ben Affleck and start standing up for liberal values.

Speaking of lefties showing a spine: What a legend Alberici was, eh? My, did she go up in my estimation. I never thought I'd be cheering a journo from the ABC. But I was last night.

Her courage and consistency in pursuing the loathsome Dourheihi was impressive to any Aussie with a heart, a spine and a mind. And as we all know in her organization people like that are rare as hens' balls.

Doubtless the kind of sour anti-Alberici sentiment expressed on social media and included in this roundup will be clogging up the e-mail accounts of the powers that be at their ABC. Which is why I think she may even suffer some sort of payback. Doubt she'll be sacked. But a bit of, er, counselling with extreme tolerance is a possibility ...

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Endeavour Hills violence disproves Q and A conspiracy theories

I suspect that a fair few conspiracy minded leftie arsehats all across Oz will be suffering serious cognitive dissonance today after news of that shooting in Endeavour Hills. After all, it blows a hole in their conviction that the Government's increased security measures are all part of some grand diabolical plan to keep us collectively packin' our dacks about a non-existent terror threat.

Needless to say, even before this act of violence any sensible person could see that being on high alert was completely sane and reasonable. But some people will not be swayed, of course. I suspect that a small proportion of the pinko population will even believe the whole knife attack and subsequent lethal shooting was a sinister act of political theatre engineered by the eeevil Tony Abbott's sinister henchpeople.

Such silliness is fed by Hollywood, of course. But the brimming bolshies at their ABC have done much to promote these delusions, too. Take the most recent episode of Q and A for example. It was an anti-western, conspiracy nut, terrorist apologist sneer-fest.

So ironic that the episode was called "Be Alert but not Alarmed" 'cause the things that any alert Aussie would have found most alarming were the creepy views of the majority of the panelists, not to mention those of the radicals in the audience. And it's stunningly hypocritical of the hand-wringing finger waggers of Aunty's Army to keep condemning Rupert Murdoch for presenting Islam as an overwhelmingly radical, intolerant religion. If anyone's guilty of that it's them!

Just watch that particular episode and you'll see what I mean. It's chockas with jaw-dropping lunacy and nastiness. Plenty of yuks, too. One of the funniest lines comes when Anne-Azza Aly says it's a nonsense to say that Muslims don't integrate, since "you've got two Muslim women sitting here on this panel".

Eh? Being a Q and A guest blowhard is not a sign of integration into mainstream society. Rather, it's the opposite: yet another example of the ABC pandering to a loud minority.

And anyway her claim was factually incorrect. The panel actually had four Muslim women if you included Tony Jones and Scott Ludlam ...

Monday, September 15, 2014

PUP's Jacqui Lambie would be hilarious if she weren't so terrifying

When it comes to Australian comedy you can forget about The Chaser, The Roast, Dirty Laundry and any other pixelated products of their ABC's light entertainment department. Apart from the obvious and undeniable fact that they're all excruciatingly lame and unfunny, they're consistently trounced on the ol' wuckometer by reality itself.

Ironically, the very place where the above shows are made is where many of these cackworthy antics occur. The relentless arsehattery of smug, deluded ABC fat cats and bolshie blowhards is itself a comedy goldmine. Pathetic Mark Scott, surely the most hapless managing director in the history of the organization, is a sad clown if ever there was one. Or take Tony Barry, a pettifogging pinko paid truckloads of our cash to collate a weekly anile spitefest sliming Rupert Murdoch. The po-faced sanctimony of that aural army of sneering hipsters on Radio National supplies round the clock chortles, too.

Then there's Canberra, which delivers an even bigger barrel o' laughs. Every day in the halls of power it's life imitating satire, no doubt about it. Seriously, the nation's capital is chockas with human fart cushions.

For years -- no, decades -- the party that has consistently made satire redundant has been the Greens. The bong-addled ecotards are still at it of course. But their lunacy has become so routine and predictable you hardly notice it anymore. The ongoing farce that is Labor has also lost much of its power to amuse.

Without a doubt Parliament House's newest and reigning comedy troupe is PUP. As George Dubya Bush might say, "that dog don't hunt". But it's repeatedly put on a helluva show, barking, whining and howling up a storm. And for a finale it craps on the floor and humps your leg. Gross out humour at its finest, people.  

For a while this troupe's biggest gutbuster was Clive Palmer himself. But lately he's been eclipsed by another hound in the kennel. Currently Canberra's longest, loudest running joke is Jaqui Lambie.

What a memorable comic character she is! Lily Tomlin herself couldn't create anything so extreme. Firstly, there's the voice. If Gillard's ghastly faux-bogan croak gives you the shudders, Lambie's low growl will make your spine crack. Has there ever been a public figure with such a spectacularly repellent voice?

Then there's the obvious, ignorant malice that animates it. Lambie spits out her stupid thoughts in such an aggressive way you almost can't believe it. But just as well she cuts loose so often. You get the strong impression that if she didn't she'd constantly be on the verge of biffing someone! On a bad day she'd make bikies pack their dacks, I reckon. 

There have been repeated occasions in which she's beclowned herself utterly, trashing her office in the process. Take that cringe-worthy radio interview when she asked if a caller was well-hung. Then there was her and top dog Clive's massive faux pas on China, and her bloody-minded refusal to back down.

But while she's had many Aussies ROFL up to now, the guffaws are set to end. That's because her asinine scheme to have seats set aside for bona fide Aborigines surely has a lot of support from the tiny-minded but nonetheless numerous and immensely influential hucksters of the Oz Left's racial division, er, division.

Considering she herself claims to be Aboriginal and is currently threatening to sue a prominent figure who questions her claim to that status, if her proposal is implemented Lambie may well be around for a helluva lot longer than she would otherwise.

Quite frankly I don't know if we'd be able to recover from the damage such a sustained reign of rolling idiocy would surely inflict on Australia. This chilling possibility takes Lambie beyond a joke, which is why I'm not laughing anymore. 

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The sooner she leaves the better ... but she won't

"The sooner she leaves the better." Has there ever been a more perfect, pithy phrase to describe the toxic legacy of Julia Eileen Gillard?

This priceless line was originally included in the minutes of a Slater and Gordon meeting almost twenty years ago. Its context is extremely significant. This is and was the nation's number one ambulance chasing law firm, remember. It's chockas with the most sneeringly sanctimonious latte leftists you could imagine. They don't just get emotional satisfaction from bashing business like most lefties do. They make a damn fine living doing so! Hell, it's Pinko Parasite Central -- and they couldn't wait to see the back of her.

Fast forward to this century, and the rolling chaos of her disastrous reign as the nation's PM. For what seemed like a bloody eternity, almost the entire country was thinking "the sooner she leaves the better".

Macquarie Dictionary needs to make another Gillard inspired update. Forget about Typhoid Mary. Make way for Ebola Julia.

Now at least the voters have gotten rid of Gillard. But not those unfortunate enough to be members of the more right-on tribes of the Australian electorate. The Labor Party is stuck with her. The union movement as well. Feminists, particularly of the leftist kind will have to carry the odium of this grim, ghastly, relentless woman indefinitely.

You. Poor. Bastards.

Sadder still is that these same socialists will never learn the lesson from the endless, tawdry Gillard saga (or that there is a lesson, for that matter). It, like countless examples beforehand, tells us the bleedin' obvious: Demanding equality of outcome will always bite you on the arse in the end.

If you place gender over merit, judge men and women by different standards, then add narrow ideological requirements to that mix (eg that to qualify as a bona fide woman, you have to be pro-abortion, a la Emily's List) you've seriously denuded your talent pool already ...

And way back when Gillard's career got started, if her ideological boosters thought she was the best of them, how dreadful must the others have been?

Ugh.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

EPA shark cull ruling prompts crowing from creepy Greens

Looks like bong-suckling, Gaia-worshipping crazies over here in the wild west have finally gotten their way when it comes to Colin Barnett's shark mitigation strategy. The EPA, which is clearly afflicted with more than its fair share of wild-eyed shrub humpers, has rejected the State Government's proposal to continue the so-called cull for the next three years.

EPA Chairman Dr Vogel said the decision "erred on the side of the environment". I'd say "erred" is the operative word. Well, if he wants to do some more erring in future, I suggest he should err on the side of humanity for once -- for balance if nothing else.

Cynical opportunist Mark McGowan has leapt in to bitch-slap Barnett in the wake of the ruling. He may well rue the day he did this if he ever becomes Premier and finds himself in a similar position to Barnett.

Not sure what happens next, but looks like it might just be kaput for The West Australian Government's reasonable, targeted and politically responsible approach to a serious problem -- imperfect though it clearly was.

All I can say is that if no noahs are terminated with extreme prejudice in the ensuing summer or next and one of them decides to gobble another human, let it be on the heads of the human hating shark-huggers. And if you think that accusation of misanthropy is a tad OTT then consider this revealing quote from creepy Greens MP Lynn MacLaren:

"Over three-and-half months last summer, 172 sharks, all of which are supposed to be protected in WA, were captured, and most of them we know subsequently died a slow death that achieved nothing to increase human safety.

"We mourn them but for now, today is a cause for a big celebration, for so much hard work by many good people."

This loopy woman is openly grieving over a bunch of bloody fish! Can you believe it? What about the people their toothy brethren killed? Any sorrow for them? Nope. As always, crickets.

Well, I'm glad she's revealed her sickening priorities in such a vivid way. The more humans who realize what she and her fellow travellers actually feel about the human race the better.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

March in August's low turnout proves pampered petulance of the Left

Recently I heard about the latest latte leftie dummy spit and group sulk called March in August. Read that it was to start at a park in Northbridge.

Now, because these charming assemblies are full of brimming bolshies who can't be arsed actually thinking about political issues and much prefer to play the man rather than the ball, most of the venom the speakers and placard wavers express is aimed at their favourite hate figure, the PM. And considering that Tony Abbott has been even more, er, Abbottesque than usual lately -- what with his comments about white settlement, as well as his condemnation of those adorable head choppers from ISIS -- you'd expect there to be squillions of squealing Tonyphobes at this latest demo.

But nup. It was a total fizzle. As a coupla Twitter wits opined, you get bigger crowds at an under 10s soccer match, or a sausage sizzle out the front of Bunnings.



Left me scratching my head as to why this was the case ... Hmmm. Maybe it was something to do with the lack of a catchy, alliterative title? After all, there was something distinctively meme-ish about "March in March" and it was extra-easy to remember for the severely cognitively challenged -- who clearly constituted most of the many thousands who rocked up on that day. So, would this latest organized outburst have drawn bigger crowds if it had been named, say, "Anger in August"? Maybe ...

But I think the main reason for the tragically piss-poor turnout was the highly immature and emotional nature of the Left. If your actions are motivated by feelings, well, they'll always be inconsistent in nature.

Then there's pervasive pinko tendency to blame others for your own condition. So, in the same way that these child-brained adults accuse decent hardworking folk who never did anything wrong to them for their own misery, they also leave it up to others to tell them what to do. Hell, the spoiled sprogs can't even shift their fat arses down to a local park unless the local commissars motivate them sufficiently.

It's all there in that stupid exhortation so beloved of the bolshie: "maintain the rage". Such "rage" can hardly be genuine and justified if someone has to tell you to maintain it, as well as when and where to express it, right?

Actually, it's not really rage at all. More like wallowing in your spurious sense of victimhood on cue.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Bill Shorten rape allegations reveal usual leftist double standards

Everyone is guilty of selective morality from time to time. But leftists seem to have made it their entire reason for living. Take the case of those rape allegations involving Bill Shorten that were swirling around social media for yonks, and which he's recently alluded to in a press conference now that the plods have decided they won't press charges against him.

Aside from some brimming right-wingers on social media, the vast majority of non-lefties have decided to give Shorten the benefit of the doubt. The reaction of the Left has been jaw-droppingly inconsistent, as usual.

They've been very quiet about these claims right across the media spectrum, from snarky tweeps to "professional" journos. Imagine if the same claims had been made about Tony Abbott. Without a doubt there'd be bolshie trolls aplenty tweeting up a storm about it, all utterly certain of the PM's guilt.

Yes, ABC hacks probably would have kept mum like they did in regards to Shorten. But would those from joints like The Guardian and The Age have managed to resist the urge to tell the world about them? Not likely.

Then there's the deafening silence of the frightbats. (Hey, that sounds like a movie title, dunnit?) They claim to champion the rights of women regardless of political affiliation, and are forever claiming that the legal system is stacked against them if they do make an accusation of rape -- particularly against a powerful white male. Not only have these malignant nags been totally silent since every Aussie on social media learned about the Shorten allegations, they've also dutifully kept quiet, or even defended the Opposition Leader since he's gone public about them.

And since when were feminists satisfied that a refusal to charge some bloke for rape constituted a complete exoneration of him? On the contrary, they often see such decisions as yet more evidence of systemic, patriarchal misogyny.

Why aren't any of them sticking up for the accuser in this case? People do know who she is, and Shorten -- an extremely influential individual -- has pretty much implied that she's a liar, or fantasist at best. Come on "feminists", justify your label. Stop being such tragic tools of the patriarchal penis people, why don't ya!

As well as the specific feminist hypocrisy, there's the general leftist double standard regarding their view of the plods. Usually they don't trust anything "the pigs" say, right? And the more extreme of them will glow with pride if they manage to clock a copper with a rock at some stupid demo. But now that the boys in blue have done something the leftards actually approve of, well, their decision is wise, unbiased, unquestionably correct ... friggin' Solomonic even! There is simply no reason on Gaia's green earth to doubt them.

The reaction to my tweet about the issue, comparing two unedifying claims from the mists of time, illustrates this selective credulity. (By the way, when I wrote it I was originally referring to the wall punching incident. And while leftists thought I meant sexual assault charges, their reaction still proves my point.)

Still on these two cases, another double standard: The incident Ash refers to involved Abbott allegedly goosing a female political enemy on stage. Now while that is still bad and wrong, it sure as hell ain't rape now is it?

So, a bit of an apples and oranges type situation there. But no matter. If you're a leftist it's your feelings about something that matter isn't it? (And remember all the leftist lamentation after Abbott winked when that grumpy gran sex worker called in to berate him? Gawd, anyone would've thought that he'd just beheaded the poor old duck right there in the studio.)

There are other inconsistencies in the leftist reaction to this issue that illustrate their stupid childish malice. But I think the ones I've listed will do for now. Any sensible person can see that these squealing quarterwits have no moral authority whatsoever.

Which begs the question: Do they not realize how utterly ridiculous they appear to any rational person when they react in this way? You'd think they might be mindful of that fact ... But I suppose that being mindful and self aware is too big an ask when your ideology is about bossing people around and nothing else.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Elizabeth Farrelly reacts to Tim Blair's frightbat poll

One thing about lefties, greenies, victim feminists and sundry hand-wringing twits that I find particularly exasperating is how they always -- always -- use the same tactics when confronted with criticism. One of their all time faves is to attribute any and all of it to the critic's own feelings of inadequacy. They just never take his words on face value and offer a solid counterargument in their own defence.

Case in point: Elizabeth Farrelly in her snootily sneering response to news of her inclusion in Tim Blair's recent "frightbat" poll. It's classic (feminist) fluffy wuffy: "You're just mocking me 'cause you're actually secretly attracted to me and you feel threatened by the fact that I'm such a brilliant, courageous and insightful woman. You pathetic, inadequate white male, you!"

Sheesh. Liz couldn't be more way off if she tried. The mockery comes not because of the majestic intellect that lesser mortals -- males in particular -- find threatening. It's because she's so ridiculously self-deluded they almost can't believe it. And her ginormous sense of entitlement just makes 'em wanna puke.

She routinely comes up with such daffy, dippy, pompous columns that any rational person reading them is left shaking her head, mumbling, "WTF? Is this chick friggin' serious?" And her obvious narcissism is not remotely attractive. It's not even repellant. It's just so silly that it's surreal and ultimately, well, kinda sad.

If there is fear in the motivation of those who mock Queen Elizabeth and her ilk it's fear of the culture they represent. Alarmingly, it has enough power and influence to irreparably bugger-up many aspects of our society and economy -- which I think is ultimately their main aim anyway ... That's why conservatives mock them.

So if there are any sanctimonious fluffy wuffies reading this, some advice: This one size fits all tactic of saying "it's all to do with your stuff" is lazy and arrogant. It just makes you look like even bigger asshats than you do already. Please try to lift your game in future, children.

Your repeated recourse to this hackneyed deflection method means that you'll never look at your "stuff" or even begin to critically examine your own attitudes. If you did this you might eventually see things in a slightly less insane way -- or at the very least perhaps start to understand why people find you so worthy of mockery and derision.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Feisty feminist frightbats fight back against Tim Blair!

I'm sure you've learned about this latest twitstorm raging among the socialist squitterati. See, blogger Tim Blair posted a jokey poll asking for readers to nominate the nation's leading frightbat. The term has gained real momentum -- particularly on social media -- provoking a fascinating frenzy of reactions including white hot rage, high decibel cackling, fake nonchalance and intense, verbose analysis from post-modernist quackademics.

Personally, I think the term is remarkably apt. After all, the shrieking socialist sisters do closely resemble the eponymous winged mammals in that they habitually see the world upside down and clearly prefer darkness to light. (I could also say something about rabies but being the gentleman I am I just won't go there ...)

Some of the women listed in the poll seemed to concur with this assessment, even urging their pathetically obediant (and disturbingly numerous) acolytes to vote for them. One can only wonder at their motivation ... Perhaps they thought they were landing a blow against the patriarchy. By proudly self-defining as nocturnal flying creatures they felt they were finally "reclaiming the night"?

But not surprisingly most of the feminist trollective confirmed the humourless scold stereotype and were not amused. Take this terse reaction from Wendy Bacon (strangely absent from the distinguished list of nominees, BTW):

Antifeminist propaganda? Calm down Wendy. It was just a joke.

Well, as they keep saying, feminism is a broad church. So there was much impassioned debate -- at least as to the extent to which this one word coined by a humorous blogger constituted heartless oppression of all chickdom. Clearly, frightbat has divided the feminist trollective. It's this decade's The First Stone, no doubt about it!

Not only did feminists en masse fail to present a cogent position, but those who at first seemed to go along with the joke were ultimately confused in their reaction. See, after initially yucking it up, they did what they always do: turned the issue into a stupid bolshie t-shirt campaign:


This is leftie feminist incoherence at its finest, people.  These self-described frightbats are fighting back ... at, er, being called frightbats.

And they wonder why people mock them.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Public health, drug companies, and how doctors often keep us sick

In light of all the furore about this seven buck co-payment proposed by the Government I've been thinking about the role of doctors in our society, and related issues. A few observations come to mind:

Firstly, I find it kind of odd that we talk about medical services as health care. I would say much of what falls under this rubric would be more accurately described as symptom maintenance.

Take general practitioners, for example. They are great if you've got some mechanical problem such as a busted toe or an open festering wound -- or if it's clear there's something deeply awry inside your body 'cause you're pissing blood or there's pus coming out of your ears.

Needless to say they're also great for general check-ups and screenings, etc, so you can be sure there isn't a giant tumour brewing in your arse or something ...

But quite frankly most of the time quacks are just doling out scrips to people! And those scrips are not meant to improve anyone's health (as in seriously address the cause of an issue, delivering a cure if possible). They're just meant to address symptoms.

I've had various ongoing, niggling issues that I've seen docs about over the years. And pretty much every visit I've had to a GP has been the same: The joint is always chockas. You get a coupla minutes with him max. He usually looks like shit warmed up himself, often stressed out and overweight. (That ol' quote "physician, heal thyself" comes to mind here.)

Seems to me that your average GP looks at you as if you're a non-sentient being; a lump of living flesh, basically. He just wants you to describe one or two key symptoms and check your vital signs so he knows you're not hurtling towards a meeting with the Grim Reaper.

If that's the case, of course he'll refer you to a specialist. But usually within a minute or two he'll whip out the prescription booklet -- if it's not open already -- and scrawl the name of some slick-sounding new drug his favourite pharmaceutical rep has just told him about. Then he'll hand it to you and wave you away so he can do the same thing for the next person.

Most of the time he won't even tell you anything about the powerful chemicals he's prescribing (aside from dosage instructions, etc). He just wants you to obey his orders and bugger off pronto. I guess he just figures that if you're still bothered by whatever symptoms you're experiencing you'll come back in a week or two so he can try something else ... and so on until you're satisfied.

This sausage factory approach is due to several factors, I believe. One of them is the immense power of the drug companies. Needless to say they are businesses first and foremost and their business model is usually all about treating symptoms, not curing people.

And it should be remembered that there are heaps of conditions, many of which manifest psychologically in major part, that can be hugely improved if not completely cured with the right approach. Countless people in this country are on several powerful symptom-masking drugs every day. But if they stopped eating crap, got off the cigs and booze, and did some bloody exercize, they could often throw most if not all of them away.

Now I know this anti-capitalist analysis makes me sound like a raging leftie. That's why I would I hasten to add that this business model has a lot in common with the worst aspects of nanny state socialism. As we all know there's a whole "industry" that depends on social dysfunction.

Basically, hordes of hand-wringing social worker types spend their every waking hour whining about the appalling, pervasive misery of various groups of people, then advocate exactly the policies that will exacerbate or perpetuate this dysfunction. It's a real misery go round, no doubt about it. And it creeps me out big time that so many pinko parasites want it to continue for their own selfish reasons.

Same with drug companies, and the countless quacks who are in their thrall.

What do you think? Is our medical system really about health care in the truest sense of the word?

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Dean, King, Krauss and Bernardi on Q and A

Last night's Q and A was one of the better ones. That was partly because it had a higher proportion of conservatives than usual -- though it must be said that Lucy Turnbull did let the side down a bit (not unlike her husband). There was some unbecoming snark, but mostly just spirited jousting which was fun to watch.

The dominant figure was Rowan Dean, who put his arguments succinctly and forcefully. He also came out with the zinger of the night:

ROWAN DEAN: Well, I think it's fascinating and I think - well, I'm sure we will hear a little bit about Malcolm in a moment. But from my point of view, Malcolm Turnbull is a very charismatic, very intelligent, very smart, very talented, a great mind at business. He should be the leader of the party, the Labor Party.

Gold.

At one point he also firmly admonished Labor's Catherine King, who interrupted the conservative panellists repeatedly and babbled away incessantly in agreement when her fellow travellers were speaking. She was kinda like a bolshie version of Magda Szubanski's character Pixie-Anne Wheatley. She was really getting on my nerves after a while so I can only imagine what it must have been like to be sitting near her.

King is another vivid illustration of the dire situation Labor finds itself in. The culture is clearly toxic and only the most sanctimonious, unprincipled and shameless progress in it. Nowhere near a meritocracy any more ...

Not surprisingly King clung to that line about Labor guiding us through the GFC. She also shamelessly touted her party as great economic managers, which was just hilarious. And when Cory Bernardi made a perfectly reasonable point about her inhabiting a virtual world she responded with the accusation that he was attacking her personally.

Just plain daft. But even if true, wouldn't it have been acceptable? She's a leftie feminist, after all, and aren't they always saying the personal is political?

But of course what that really means is we can get personal, you can't. So typical of Labor, leftie feminists in particular. They are always trying to falsely portray their opponents as bullies, misogynists, racists and generally mean types who don't fight fair, etc. At the same time they're making the most viciously personal attacks on them in other ways. Witness the scurrilous sliming of Abbott, his wife and daughters that's been going on lately.

There was an interesting dynamic going on between the religious Cory Bernardi and boffin Lawrence Krauss. While disagreeing strongly I think they quite liked each other. Late in the show, in the corner of the screen, you'll catch an intriguing moment where they share a quiet joke together. Good to see.

The way each conducted himself was interesting given their respective backgrounds. Allegedly Bible thumping Bernardi was probably the calmest presence of the night. He even patiently gave the audience and some in the discussion a mini-tutorial in the Westminster system, explaining that he, as a backbencher, was technically not part of the Government. Revealingly, this detail seemed to be news to Catherine King. (But hey, she's in Labor. You don't have to know anything to rise in that joint. You just have to strike the pose, and regurgitate the spin doctors' talking points, right?)

Just as Catholics are supposed to be all fire n' brimstoney, scientists are supposed to be cool, rational, and detached right? Lawrence Krauss certainly wasn't any of those things. Actually he was the most emotional panellist of the whole night. He was het up from the start and highly critical of anything religious, such as the Government's policy on school chaplains:

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: But aren’t they told - I was reading about this and it seemed that they're not supposed to - they’re not supposed to proselytise. So as someone was saying, it’s like paying a quarter of a billion dollars to invite clowns into the schools and tell them not to be funny.

Well, if clowns are expected to be funny, then surely scientists should not be partisan, right? As well as being emotional he was also highly political, proselytising like crazy about the threat of human-caused climate change. (Also, I think the clown analogy was unfortunate, since he appeared to be dressed as one.)

But just on his obsession with climate change: In a revealing series of statements he showed just how arse-about the "scientific" community is on this subject:

CORY BERNARDI: Well, I do think, in the end, the debate was entirely hijacked by those who were seeking to foster rent seeking, that were seeking to centralise decision-making in unelected bodies.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I mean this is - look, these people who work and spend their whole lives trying to figure out how the climate works and do models, they're just trying to figure out how things work and to say that the scientific community has somehow hijacked or somehow hiding things is this misunderstanding. Because, in fact, if they're wrong, the way you become famous, as a scientist, is to prove your colleagues wrong. That’s what you want to do. And if this data, if the models don't work, then other people become more famous by showing that. These people spend their entire life and, literally, thousands of hours and the people who - and you're one of them - who have these deniers, I would like to ask what do your models predict?

Gawd. What incoherent, irrational and mean-spirited nonsense.

Because of the poisonously censorious atmosphere created by highly politicized warmists such as Krauss himself the skeptical scientists who continue to question and disprove the AGW "consensus" don't become famous at all. If anything they become infamous, often lose their gigs and suffer derision and ridicule on a grand scale. One of the labels they are tarred with is "denier", which Krauss subsequently went on to use (on Dean, by the way, not Bernardi).

He should also know that to debunk a theory you don't have to offer your own prediction. You just have to show the theory's predictions are wrong. And any rational person can see that the so-called deniers have done that time and time again over the last several years.

Lawrence Krauss. What a clown.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Adam Goodes-led Recognise campaign is creepy, racist and wrong

Saw an ad for this creepy campaign of attitudinal reconstruction called Recognise a day or two back. Had well known footy player Adam Goodes fronting a pack of sporty types all urging us to get behind his movement to recognise Aborigines in the Constitution.

The whole thing is as annoying as it is ridiculous. I suspect it's gonna make footy fans even more pissed off with politically correct interference than they are already -- which is a helluva lot. After all, the last thing they want to sit through at a footy match is pompous political posturing and interference from the Left. They get enough of that in their working lives. They wanna see the big men fly -- and if there's biffo, that's a bonus!

And I suspect that most of those fans, er, recognise the classical (and correct) definition of racism -- that it's when you see those of a different race as fundamentally different and therefore inferior to your own. And being fair-minded people from all over the globe, racism is what they abhor.

Overwhelmingly they believe that the best way to combat it is to take the sage advice of Martin Luther King: Judge people "by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin". Implicit in that exhortation is the belief that we should see people as individuals above all other criteria. And when we do come to the category called race, isn't it best to define ourselves and others as members of the human race? Rather than seeing people as members of various minority groups, it's better to see each individual as a minority of one. That's a much more mature, humane and practical way of approaching the whole issue.

So when a bunch of latte-slurping nanny state tossers start telling them that to counter racism you must do the polar opposite of that -- that is, see racial groups as separate and distinct -- well, they don't like it one bit.

Now, smug right-on whitey-tighties like to bang on about how seeing Aborigines as different doesn't mean they see them as inferior. On the contrary, they say, as they puff themselves up with lefteous indignation, we think they're superior.

To that, I say, Bill Shorten! Apart from the well established fact that the cultural Left is incapable of honesty about anything, and is always using deceit to get what it wants -- namely coercive power over others -- you just have to look at their actions to know how insincere their words are. For example, notice how they happily tolerate the appalling suffering of Aboriginal people, particularly in remote communities, that continues partly as a result of the sinister separatism they endorse. There is no way on Gaia's green Earth they would put up with white people -- women and kids in particular -- enduring such misery and violence.

Clearly, this recognition push is about enshrining in law the difference of Aborigines. Difference implies separation. It's a subset of the grand global project of the sanctimonious socialist: apartheid with a smiley face badge whopped on it.

Now I know that the campaign's supporters argue that it is actually proposing the exact opposite of this. But look at what they're pushing for:

Remove Section 25 – which says the States can ban people from voting based on their race;

Remove section 51(xxvi) – which can be used to pass laws that discriminate against people based on their race;

Insert a new section 51A - to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to preserve the Australian Government’s ability to pass laws for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Insert a new section 116A, banning racial discrimination by government; and

Insert a new section 127A, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages were this country’s first tongues, while confirming that English is Australia’s national language.

Firstly, notice the inherent contradiction between the third and fourth points. They want to enable discrimination for a racial group, and simultaneously outlaw racial discrimination.

Eh? That's fluffy wuffy double speak at its finest, people.

Then there's the bit about this country's first tongue ...

Now these changes are not going to unify the country. They are dividing it, by race.

Why can't these bozos recognise that?

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Ray Martin spruiks daughter Jenna's book on The Project

Caught a bit of The Project last night. It really is one of the most nauseating shows there are. As televisual emetics go, it's right up there with Q and A. But while the weekly ABC jawfest makes you queasy with its relentless, bloody-minded bias, it's the Network Ten production's chummy smugness that is so intensely vomitous.

Last night's episode was a perfect example of this. See, "journalistic legend" Ray Martin was on the show, along with his daughter Jenna, who's written a book that seems to have been inspired by living in the shadow of such a famous dad.

Before her appearance, Martin narrated a little segment about troubled celebrity "father-daughter" relationships, the implication being "but Princess Jenna and I are not like that at all". (And I'm sure that's true, by the way. She seems like a nice enough young woman and they're clearly very fond of each other.)

That said, I just found this brazen spruiking just so wrong in several ways -- the grotesque sense of entitlement being one of them. And there was Jenna's obvious excitement at being given this opportunity -- one denied to many far more talented young women lacking the good fortune to have such a well-known and well-connected father, by the way -- as well as the gleeful way she lapped up the obsequious attention from the panel and audience. I mean, wouldn't you be at least a tad ambivalent about this? Wouldn't you wanna do it all, or mostly, on your own steam?

Then there was Ray's creepy delivery. That voice. It's so robotic; so devoid of humanity. Drooling idiots may think it conveys a sense of authority and trust, but to anyone who can actually think it's like the aural equivalent of a Big Mac. It's dreary and bland even when he's narrating some newsworthy event. But now he was telling us about his own daughter -- who'd written a book that seemed to have a lot to do with her relationship with him. Yet his voice was exactly the same. Given that context, his vocal blandness became weirdly repellent. Made me shudder, actually.

The segment was also hugely hypocritical in light of the relentless attacks on Tony Abbott's daughters over alleged nepotism -- many of which I'm sure Ray and other leftie airheads on the show would find not at all unreasonable.

Have a look at the vid. If you don't find yourself gripped by the sudden urge to blow chunks I'll be very surprised.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Sky the dog eaten by sharks. Will animal rights activists see sense now?

Having watched the shark wars unfolding here in Perth, I've been able to see the astonishing misanthropy of greenies close up. These sinister communards purport to care about the human race, but really don't give a tinker's about it. They just care about themselves and their sneering fellow travellers, and would be quite happy for the rest of us to die horribly so that they can inherit the Earth, along with their beloved cockroaches, salamanders and voles.

One of these animal rights creeps was banging on at a demo at Cottesloe a coupla months back. Declaiming against eeevil "Emperor" Barnett's proposed shark mitigation strategy she really let the marsupial cat out of the bag when she said that she didn't care whether his proposed cull would work (ie save human lives) or not. See, she was only concerned with whether it was "just". (You'll hear her say it in this video.) And of course killing sharks was unjust. In other words, she considered human life less valuable than that of big fat toothy fish.

That's why I took note when I read about this sad case of a beloved dog being devoured by noahs up north:

A devastated skipper says his faithful dog Sky was probably trying to protect him when it was taken by a shark off Point Sampson, 1260km north of Perth.

Franz Van Derpoll said he was out catching a fish for dinner with Sky when he saw two sharks circling where he was spear fishing, 6km off Johns Creek Harbour.

"She's probably decided to jump over the side to protect me and when I came up from my second dive there was lots of blood in the water and no dog," he said.

Knowing how deeply shark huggers care about the welfare of non-human persons (animals), I thought such an event might make them start to understand why most Homo sapiens are a tad unsettled at the thought of being guzzled alive during their next dip in the ocean and would like to do some things to reduce the risk of it happening. After all, shark-huggers are indifferent to human suffering, but the suffering of a much loved pet -- sorry, animal companion -- well, their big open nature loving hearts would be able to feel that now wouldn't they?

But on second thoughts I think these hopes were in vain. I'm sure they'd manage to take the sharks' side after some ideological contortions. The dog was enslaved by men -- and fishermen at that. And it was the men who took it onto the shark's domain. So killing Sky was actually an act of of cruel kindness -- a simultaneous act of territorial defence and canine emancipation.

Sharks. Such wise creatures. They can really teach us something, eh?

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Abbott's wink during phone sex gran's call causes comical outrage

Just so funny watching the squealing crybabies of the Left going completely and utterly spacko over what was a comparatively mild budget -- and one aimed not at "inflicting cruelty" as they describe it, but rather to undo the massive economic and financial damage wrought by the previous government, surely the worst in living memory.

The explosion of outrage over Tony Abbott's notorious wink during his interview with Jon Faine is the most recent example of this socialist shark-jumping. So insanely obsessed are the leftist squitterati with every aspect of this man's character that even the momentary movement of one of his eyelids is cause for a nationwide paroxysm of foam-spitting indignation.

Sarah Hanson-Young, for example, believes the wink shows him to be "a total creep". This from an overfed, overrated, mental and emotional infant whose reaction to news of scores of people drowning as a result of her inhumane political demands was "accidents happen". Now that is creepy.

And you've gotta wonder what Faine's immediate reaction to this pensioner's declaration that she worked as a sex line worker to make ends meet was. Did he sit there po-faced, solemnly determined not to denigrate the dignity of this poor denizen of the working class by raising an eyebrow or looking askance?

I doubt it. Odds are he was just as amused by the revelation as Abbott was. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the lefties listening in were also amused -- before their PC programming kicked in and they managed to stifle their smirks, that is.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Adam Goodes called a gorilla by Essendon fan

With academe, the meeja and big business so chockas with sanctimonious politically correct poseurs determined to puff themselves up and ponce around pointing their fingers at alleged bigots I tend to treat each new claim of discovered racism with more than a little skepticism. And if I look a little further I tend to find that my, er, prejudices have been confirmed. The outrages they're squawking about may be offensive and wrong, but are a long way from being certifiably eeevil. And their hysterical reactions often reveal more about their own conflicted psyches than those of the people they're condemning.

Take the latest incident involving Adam Goodes. Moment I read the headline to this story I thought this was gonna be an over-reaction. And it was:

The incident became public when an Essendon supporter submitted an anonymous post on the club’s fan site, Bomberblitz, two hours after the Bombers’ loss to the Swans.

“I could not believe what I heard from an Essendon member,” the supporter wrote.

“Late in the first quarter, Adam Goodes got his first touch when he received an easy mark just inside 50.

“At that stage, we (were) more than six goals down and no one was too happy that Goodes held the ball within kicking distance. There was … the banter you would expect to hear from a footy crowd.”

Then the supporter claimed he heard someone say: “F*** off, Magilla the gorilla.”

“I turned around and asked loudly, “Who said that?” An adult male replied in a cocky manner, “I did.”

“I shook my head in disbelief. After all our club has done to combat racism on and off the field, this individual thought it was OK to refer to an indigenous player in such a manner. He changed his tune when I pointed him out to security.

“He (the abuser) ruined my family’s night at the footy.”

Notice the egocentric sanctimony of the accuser. He was most miffed because he felt his night was ruined. Always the way with these PC types. They think it's all about them and their noble feelings.

That last bolded section is what I find really interesting. The racial specificity is so revealing ...

I'm not saying that the abusive fan was not motivated by racism. But it's quite possible he wasn't. If he also called beefy white players rock apes and Neanderthals, then you'd have to conclude that he wasn't being racist wouldn't you? Or, if he was, then it would be too difficult to know for sure ...

And publicly calling someone a racist, and punishing him as such, is a pretty serious action. (This Essendon fan has had his membership to the club revoked, by the way.) Imagine if criminal trials were conducted in such a punitive, self-righteous fashion. (Being racist can qualify as a crime, remember.)

It's common knowledge that sporting heavyweights of all races are often described in pretty unflattering terms. I can remember a perfect example from my youth as a keen surfer. There was a powerful, stocky Queenslander called Gary Elkerton. His nickname was "Kong". I'm sure that no one then, or since, thought the moniker was racist.

Why? Because they don't immediately associate simean characteristics with white people. Yet they do when it comes to Aborigines. Why is that?

I mean, there was no explicit reference to Goodes's colour or race in the insult -- at least not in what was reported. If there were, well that would have been racist for sure. But there wasn't ... So why do those taking offence think it was racist, when calling a white person a gorilla wouldn't be seen as such? Do those puffing themselves up with indignation think that Aborigines are more like gorillas than white people? Looks that way to me ...

What do you reckon?

Monday, April 28, 2014

Julian Burnside's bizarre Twitter conspiracy theory

We all know that local lefties aren't coping well with the fact that the adults are back in charge in Australia. I'd say that some of them are actually starting to lose their marbles over it -- er, except that most of them didn't possess any to start with.

The poor little poppets seethe, sneer and snark about pretty much everything the Abbott Government does. And while their interpretations are routinely irrational, they are seldom flat out barking.

But here's one that certainly is: Julian Burnside -- world class finger-wagger and Australia's high priest of sanctimonious cant -- seems to have got it into his head that the LNP is actually paying people to troll lefties on Twitter.

Dunno what he thinks this fictional black opp has been named, but here's a suggestion: "Trolling Thunder." (Hmm. I quite like that. I might even start a hashtag for it ... )

Speaking of which: Burnside himself has created one for this nutty theory and he's encouraging members of the leftist Twitter trollective to point out these eeevil people.

He's been bravely leading by example, trolling tweeps he believes are trousering this filthy lucre, or at least would like to be.
And what's his source for his crazy conspiracy theory? Seems to be an SMH article, which he's linked to repeatedly.
As you'll see, the article is titled "Social media trawled as Government spends $4.3 million on research contracts".

You'd have to conclude that Julian Burnside has seen the headline, mistaken trawled for trolled and not read any further.

That, or maybe he has read it thoroughly, and his deep-seated prejudice against conservatives and febrile imagination have combined to create this surreal scenario.

In any case, it seems to me that perpetual lefteous indignation and excessive social media usage have left the poor man utterly befuddled. I think he needs a good long holiday, don't you?

Friday, April 11, 2014

Bob Carr's pomposity comes through loud and clear

Everyone is getting stuck into Bob Carr over his book Diary of a Foreign Minister. But as some have noted, some of the quotes people are having the most fun mocking are actually attempts at self-deprecation.

So why the confusion? The pundits getting stuck into Carr can't all be literal-minded idiots, can they?

I think the reason for this is that his sense of self-importance is so strong and constant that it just won't be shifted. Even when he's trying to send himself up he comes across as a right tosser. And that's because he just is.

This is what makes him unusual as a politician. Most of them have a high opinion of themselves, of course. And they're extremely ambitious. But they also usually have the emotional intelligence to know how they are perceived by the voting public. They manage to speak much more on their constituents' level and generally don't come across as poncing prats. They manage to deal with the relentless abuse that is part of the job by gradually training themselves to ignore it. They grow their thick hides slowly.

Carr, on the other hand, clearly sees himself as special and superior. His ability to ignore criticism hasn't come from bitter experience so much as the sincere belief that he's a blessing on democracy and that anyone who can't see that must be a mental infant.

Have a listen to this interview he gave to Ben Fordham and you'll see what I mean. Fordham flays him left right and centre. Most other pollies would likely lose their composure. But Carr just cheerfully blathers on regardless in the most stunningly arrogant way. You can imagine him hanging up the phone and not giving it another thought!

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Mona Eltahawy on Q and A

Mona Altahawy appeared again on Q and A last night and lectured us on our record on human rights, among other things. As some tweeps observed it was a tad ironic for someone from Egypt to lob here and wag her finger at Australia on this issue.

That aside, she proved herself to be a real bigot, and a censorious one at that. Not surprisingly, she invoked that old "blame the white male" ploy so beloved by left-wing zombies. And, like they almost always do, she used it in a rant in which she was railing against "racism":

MONA ELTAHAWY: Well, you’re talking to someone who got arrested for spray-painting over a racist and bigoted ad in the New York subway and I’m going to stand trial very soon in New York soon for this and I - so I have many thoughts on this. First of all, in the United States, the people who go on the most about freedom of expression and it’s my right to say this and my right to say that are usually old, rich, white men who parade under the term libertarian. And what it ends up basically meaning is: I have the right to be a racist and sexist shit and I'm protected by the first amendment. And it’s utterly ridiculous. Because when you look - if you look at this ad that I sprayed over - now, I’m - I love the first amendment. As a US citizen, because I am Egyptian-American, I love the first amendment. I love that it protects freedom of expression and freedom of belief. But here is the thing: if a racist, bigoted ad is protected as political speech, which it was - the New York subway didn't want this very racist and bigoted ad but a judge deemed it protected political speech?

And what were the words that Mona the moaner felt so outraged by?

MONA ELTAHAWY: I can tell you because it - I mean it’s outrageous. It said: “In the war between the civilised man and the savage, always choose the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” And I thought: are you fucking kidding me? In my subway? How can you put this up? And the subway - the subway authorities did not want this ad, because they said it was going to incite people and so they took it to the hate group and it’s been classified as a hate group by the - it’s the Southern Law Centre, right, Ken? Is that what they’re called?

In "her" subway ... liked she owned it!

Sure, the ad was provocative. But where did it refer to race? Islam is a religion, remember. And it wasn't even referring to that generally. It was attacking jihad specifically, implicitly condemning its employment of barbaric terrorism as a way to achieve its goals. Sounds pretty reasonable to me ...

But Altawahy the censorious bigot had to try to remove it from view. Then she had the gall to say she loves the first amendment! What a hypocritical pig.

Just reconfirms what I've long known about these malignant, marauding meat heads of the Left. Their definition of freedom of speech is the right to shout ... other people down.