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?