Paul Simon, Steve Martin slimed by SJWs over Carrie Fisher tweets

Not surprising that obnoxious frightbats and other SJWs piled on with abuse of various celebrities tweeting their condolences after the death of Carrie Fisher. When it comes to shaming others, these ghastly bullies have absolutely none themselves.

Two entertainment icons who suffered social media slimings were Paul Simon and Steve Martin. The former had been married to Carrie Fisher at one time and committed the sin of calling her a “girl”.

And now outrage warriors are upset because Paul Simon referred to the late Carrie Fisher as a "girl" in his tweet remembering her. pic.twitter.com/FSLpNiDOvf

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) December 29, 2016

The SJWs did what they always do, which is to be offended on behalf of someone who wasn't. Now, if Ms Fisher were still alive and had found the term offensive I'm sure she would have said so, and presumably to Simon himself.

In any case he was the one who knew her, and extremely well, for many years. If anyone had the right to decide how to describe her it was him. Also, the guy was grieving, and from a deeply personal loss -- not the death of an idol he'd never met. You'd think the perpetually outraged would be capable of a bit of compassion -- particularly when they're always accusing others of being so lacking in it.

Then there's the double standard. If the term “girl” is so appalling, why no outrage over Clementine Ford, who exhorts chicks to fight like one?

And Steve Martin's crime in the gimlet eyes of the tone and thought police? Apparently he objectified and thereby commodified the late Ms Fisher, imprisoning her for all time within the confines of his “male gaze”.

Here's Steve Martin's fine little tweet praising Carrie Fisher that some grumps pressured him to delete. pic.twitter.com/A1W5qYkdwI

— Capitalics (@Capitalics) December 28, 2016

Amazing that this tweet provoked such outrage, given he was also remarking on her shining intellect. Even a decade or so back this would probably have been seen as an exemplary pro-feminist quote. Not now, with so many marauding fauxminist crybullies just itching to be offended.

Martin was obviously mortified by this reaction, and as a result pulled the tweet. Bad move. In the tiny mind of the SJW, to back down or apologize is to admit guilt. So, they just go in harder with the abuse.

It's also more likely to become a mainstream media story because it's a case of a famous person admitting failure and journos can take a “fall from grace” angle. That's obviously more compelling than merely reporting on how a buncha sad leftie losers arced up about something online.

That's exactly what's happened here. Many MSM outlets are running this story about Martin's alleged “sexism”.

Simon, on the other hand, didn't apologize for what he tweeted. It's still up there. Which I suspect is why MSM reports about his tweet focused on his grief over his loss, rather than accusations of wrongthink.

So, there's something for slebs -- and plebs -- to remember. When SJWs attack ignore them, or attack back. But don't back down or apologize. You'll almost certainly make things worse for yourself if you do. 

Tucker Carlson's flaying of liberals is entertaining and educational

If you don't already know about Tucker Carlson, you should. He's a Fox News commentator with his own popular show.

His specialty is politely flaying emotive liberals using reason and argument. (Though even if he didn't do this I think I'd still be a fan. It's just his name. It rocks!)

He utterly destroys 'em one after another. Check out his recent take down of Lauren Duca. This fauxminist frightbat implied in a tweet that Ivanka Trump somehow deserved the abuse hurled at her by a coupla gay Stalinists while she was on a plane with her kids. Carlson called her out on this, among other things.

I love the quizzical look on his face as the ditzy broad babbles on at length. He's patiently letting her have her say, while being inwardly gobsmacked at her stupidity. At one point he says “What does that even mean?” It's a hoot! And it beautifully encapsulates the frustration that all based adults have with the child-brained proponents of political correctness.



The Duca exchange is by no means exceptional. He routinely roasts these tragic tossers to a crunchy crisp. Actually, it really makes me wonder why they keep lining up to go on his show …

Perhaps it's because they are so deluded that they think that by losing their cool and incoherently blathering on about racism, sexism, homophobia and all the rest of it, without ever citing any facts, they are necessarily winning the argument! This total misreading of what actually occurred is then reinforced many times over by their numerous fellow travellers on social media.

It seems the more completely Carlson shows a liberal up to be a sanctimonious know-nothing, the more united and vociferous his fellow liberals are in claiming that their PC pal “really showed him”. As a result the blowhard in question is even more secure in his delusion than he was pre-Tuckering. So silly, because to any sane, rational adult he just looked like a bizarre adult baby sulking, pouting, and sometimes dummy-spitting at his interrogator because he couldn't answer simple, direct questions.

The utter arse-aboutness of their perception of reality is so characteristic of the liberal-left. You see it over and over again in ways both big and small.

It seems their whole worldview is based mostly on completely reversing whatever conservatives believe, regardless of any other consideration. What an utterly idiotic approach!

Van blast at ACL headquarters triggers strange social media reaction

Good to know that the bloke involved in that van explosion in Canberra outside the offices of the Australian Christian Lobby is in a stable condition. (Of course it's a relief that no one inside the building was hurt either.)

Gotta say I'm curious about this guy's identity and motivations. Initial reports pointed to an intentional act, not some bizarre accident:

ACT police confirmed a 35-year-old Canberra man had ignited gas cylinders in the van and caused an explosion, which damaged the vehicle and building.

So this guy -- for ease, I'll refer to him as “Mr Van Splodey” from now on -- seems to have been the event's only perp and victim.

What the plods said after the event seemed odd to me:

In a statement, police said their brief questioning of the man revealed his actions "were not politically, religiously or ideologically motivated".

So they just had a quick chat (over tea and bickies, I assume). And it sounds very much like ruling out terrorism was very high on their list of priorities -- if not at the top of it.

You can understand why, of course. People are worried about this at the best of times. Now the fear is particularly intense because ISIS has put out a hit list of churches in America, and 12 people were crushed to death by a bloody great truck in the Berlin Christmas Market. Most recently, an attack planned for Christmas Day in Melbourne was thwarted by Victorian coppers. (Even if this was not widely known at the time of this incident in Canberra I suspect the local constabulary had knowledge of it.) 

So, with these concerns top of mind, it seems the cops just asked Van Splodey straight up if this was his intention and he said no.

And they went: “Thank fuck for that!”

They promptly told the press who -- keenly aware of their responsibility to not inflame that terrible Islamophobic “racism” that lies in the dark hearts of Australia's Great Unwashed and Unenlightened -- duly reported that a terrorist motive had been “ruled out”.

That's what makes it all seem so strange to me. Hell, they emphatically say why he didn't do something, because he, er, told them. So why not just ask him why he did do it, then tell us (and say “case closed”)? The nation is dying to know, I'm sure …

Anyhoo, aren't they usually much more circumspect in the wake of such events? Isn't finding out why people do, and don't, commit violent acts (even if only the perp is harmed) a long, involved process carried out by detectives with lots of fancy CSI equipment, then concluded after much debate in court?

BTW, in saying that I'm not implying that Mr Van Splodey will likely turn out to be one of the, er, “usual suspects”. The fact that he staggered several kilometres to a hospital throws doubt on that theory IMO. You'd assume most ISIS goons would have topped 'emselves, or immediately gone into hiding. So, perhaps he's of a more secular persuasion.

But does it not seem likely that he was trying to do harm (even of a purely emotional kind) to other people, as well as himself? Given the location, the date (just before Christmas), and the fact that the Australian Christian Lobby has received numerous death threats over the years, it's not paranoid to conclude the act was meant to terrorize those inside. (Yes, this view may ultimately turn out to be wrong. But it's understandable, and definitely not paranoid. That's my point.)

Needless to say, that's not what the Twitter trollective reckoned. Got some of the reaction a few days back in the immediate aftermath of the explosion.


SJW after SJW got stuck into Lyle Shelton in a really vicious way. The predominant line was that he was a bigot who was jumping to conclusions. But that's what they were doing!

And imagine their reaction if a van had burst into flames outside a Greens office?

Also, so funny that they were taking the police statement as holy writ. Usually they see them as lying, fascist pigs.

Now, a few days on, the social media consensus seems to be that it was a tragic suicide attempt that just happened to occur outside the ACL offices.

Clear why such a simplistic interpretation has such strong appeal to the child-brained Left. Still makes Shelton the ogre, and offers a nice opportunity for some tilty Twitter virtue signalling about mental health issues.

Don't think I'm alone in saying that I find their reaction much more irrational, and ultimately unedifying, than Shelton's.

Christmas comfort and joy remains in Sydney ... for now

Gotta say I've never really been a huge fan of Christmas. I've long thought it was a bit OTT in a commercial sense, and certainly incongruous given that its imagery is all European and wintry and it's the hottest time of the year down here in Australia. I'm also an atheist and find all rituals, no matter how tenuously linked to religion, a bit naff. Prolly a bit of a Grinch at heart too, I'm afraid ...

But I'm still very glad Chrissie's still going strong and people really enjoy it and find it meaningful. I find Santa's presence a bit like that of Queen Elizabeth. I'm neither's biggest fan, but I'm damn glad they still keep showing up, year in, year out. They're two benign constants in an ever changing world.

When I say "world", I mean Western world of course. And there are many groups who are trying to subvert, or flat out conquer, that particular civilization, of course.

The right-on Left (or cultural Marxists by another name) seethe with impotent rage at this time of year. (Well, being the losers they are, they're always doing that, natch. But this is an especially painful time for them.) Fact that so many people worship this fictional fat 'n' happy ol' white guy triggers the poor little PC poppets big time. Being the thick, unoriginal bullies they all are, they can't come up with anything more appealing to replace him with, either. That just increases their butthurt. What a laugh!

All these malignant, stunted half-people can do is bitch and moan about how "sexist" and "racist" the festival is and try and ruin it for those who genuinely enjoy it. Telling them that "Merry Christmas" is verboten and should be replaced with "Happy Holidays" is one way. Passive aggressive hijacking of yuletide family get-togethers is another.

Australia's Greens Party is launching a text helpline for Christmas day to help people debate marriage equality with family. #auspol pic.twitter.com/Y9IUqfsJbk

— SJW Nonsense (@sjw_nonsense) December 20, 2016

And when you say that Christmas is under assault -- by them, as well as other groups -- they roll their eyes and say you're being paranoid. That's gaslighting, another favourite tactic of theirs.

But assault is not too strong a word. An Islamist arsehole just rammed a bloody great truck into a crowd of people at the Berlin Christmas Market, killing several of them. And similar plans for Christmas day in Melbourne were foiled by the plods.

As is so often the case, these violent fantasies were reportedly "inspired" by ISIS. (Gawd, how much of a loser must you be to find those head-hacking savages "inspiring"!)

Needless to say, politicians and coppers were very careful to trot out the politically correct line after the arrests. Victorian Premier "Dan the (anti) Man" Andrews made a point of saying the murderous intentions were motivated by evil, not religion -- zif the two are always mutually exclusive. Sooo simple-minded. Fact is, they can also be mutually explosive. Sooner we acknowledge that and say what's actually behind these attacks the better, IMHO.

And we should celebrate the festival without shame. That certainly seems to be the case in Sydney now. Lots of yuletide decorations and displays around this great city -- such as this tree out the front of the Leichhardt Town Hall. (The Santa above was photographed in the nearby shopping centre on Norton Street, BTW. And he was very popular with mums, dads and kids. Good to know.)

Christmas is a lot like the wider culture that spawned and maintains it -- Western Civilization itself. It's still going strong, but that doesn't mean it isn't under sustained attack on many fronts.

You don't have to be an ethnic westerner (that is, of European descent) to be part of and appreciate Western Civilization. And you don't have to be a Christian to enjoy, or at least respect, Christmas. That's the beauty of both. Which is why we should continue to appreciate and not apologize for them. They'll be gone in a heartbeat if we don't.

I may be a cynical godless Scrooge myself. But I'm damn glad the jolly ol' bearded chubby guy still lobs on December 25 to say hi (and ho, ho, ho!). Long may he rein, deer!

Merry Christmas everybody. I wish you all comfort and joy.

No Gender December is a dishonest social engineering campaign

Sure I'm not alone in being creeped out by "No Gender December", an Orwellian campaign by PC social engineers telling people what to buy for their sprogs this Chrissie. What business is it of theirs anyhow?

Sure, they're exhorting you do to this online. So it's not like they're swaggering into your joint on Christmas Day and saying, "This is allowed, but this is verboten!". Give 'em time, though. I'm sure many of them dream of having that much power ...

It's the underlying attitude that is so sinister. The program's promoters are arrogantly telling the people of Oz -- and perhaps other nations given the United Nations involvement, along with the international "voices of support" shown on the website -- that they have a better idea of what's good for their kids than they do. Think about that.

Of course the campaign is chockas with right-on quackademics spouting "society's to blame" claptrap. The smug exhortations on the site itself are classic cultural Marxism. Their view of what's actually going on is completely arse about as usual. An example:

Corporations’ interests lie in making money, not in childhood development. Don’t let them dictate your child’s interests, skills, perspectives… their future.

Yes, corporations are primarily into making money. And they do this by giving kids what they want. They don't tell them what they should want. That's why when corporations do kowtow to this kind of PC madness their sales go down.

It’s time to bring gender equality to the world of toys and children.

Note the authoritarian tone of this statement. Yet in the next section they quack on about freedom of choice. Such duplicitous weasels.

Let’s create opportunities for kids to develop a broad range of skills, support them in discovering a whole rainbow of colours, encourage them to learn about themselves and each other, free from the limitations of gender stereotypes.

Love how they sneak in that little "rainbow" metaphor too. Gee, I wonder what that was about?

We’re raising individuals. Not gender stereotypes.

Bollocks, you're proselytising. You're gaslighting parents and confusing sprogs so they eventually end up psychosexually messed up. It's a sneaky gender based variation on "divide and conquer". It's another small step in the grand cultural Marxist plan to destroy Western civilization from within.

These totalitarian creeps see us all as nothing more than dolls to play with. So it's kinda apt that they're fixated on Ken and Barbie.

Van Badham lambastes the "testosterone left"

You gotta hand it to Vanessa "Van" Badham. She certainly doesn't do things by halves! Check out her latest rant in The Guardian. In it she desperately tries to portray Hillary Clinton as a champion for chickdom and throws shade on the "testosterone left".

Eh? Given how nagged and cowed males are on her side of politics, I'm surprised they even have any testosterone left ...

In any case, isn't reducing gender to hormones verboten these days (in the same way that accusing Islam of misogyny is, er, haram)? I mean, isn't the PC line that everyone is, like, gender fluid, and you can choose and discard your sexual identity kinda like a hairstyle? Clearly Ms Badham, along with her fellow "feisty feminist" Clementine Ford, who is currently exhorting every chick in Oz to "fight like a girl" -- itself now deemed a problematic phrase -- didn't get the memo.

That said, I suppose those so-called standards are never truly meant to be applied equally, across the board. That's "patriarchal elitism" innit? Accusations of misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc are only used to bash those on the conservative side of politics. If you're one of the socialist anointed you get a big fat free pass.

But this pro-Hillary puff piece is notable because Van is having a go at a segment of her own side, in a way ... Clearly her twin obsessions are her gender, and her lunar left politics. And the possibility that an eeevil white male capitalist might actually become the USA's Big Enchilada is stressing her out big time. And when it comes to what she deems the bigger threat it's gender that, er, trumps ideology. So she's dissing the bolshie blokes big time.

So silly ... Those "Bernie bros" (along with their "Sanders sisters") are actually far more authentically progressive than Hillary ever was or could ever be. Trying to make HRC seem like some kinda feminist hero is like trying to polish the world's biggest turd with a thimble full o' spit!

Even an exemplary lefty sleb like Susan Sarandon hates Hillary's guts. She's now endorsing Jill Stein. Then there's iconic blue collar comedian Roseanne Barr, who's loathing of Bill Clinton's wife goes back many years. She's now riding atop the Trump train, telling anyone who'll listen.

Why doesn't Ms Badham have a go at them? Her rant makes absolutely no sense at all ... Not that any of them do, BTW. But this is surely one of her dippiest so far.

Democrat diehards think society itself is rigged. So they forgive Hillary anything

As the American election approaches apace I, like many other Aussies, am watching it with my jaw on the floor. It's just astonishing how obviously corrupt Hillary is -- not to mention her whole bloody party! Without a doubt she's used her political power in the most outrageously selfish and unethical ways, and consistently gotten away with it. But the more lurid, dodgy developments there are the deeper into denial and obfuscation she and her spin merchants go. Dutifully, the MSM keeps trying to cover for her, keeping the focus on Trump (although that does seem to be changing a bit now).

Then there are the polls. Most mainstream pundits are still saying she continues to lead in them. Well, I don't know how reliable they are. And there are so many to choose from. It's a bit like climate science. There's a lot of cherry picking going on. Also, many of the samples have a preponderance of Democrat voters to start with.

Still, given these factors, it's amazing that the contest between Clinton and Trump continues to be so close. You'd think that huge swathes of the Democrat base would have just thrown their hands up in the air and gone, "FFS! This woman is evil. Her party is not what it used to be. I just can't vote for them any more."

But nup. Heaps of them are still gonna vote Democrat -- knowing full well what a buncha dirty dogs control it. You can only conclude that these people just don't give a shit about how utterly corrupt and cynical this ghastly woman is, and how craven her underlings actually are.

And I think this says a lot about the power of indoctrination. Clearly, millions of US citizens really do see society as being rigged against them. So they want to see it rigged somehow in their favour a bit. That's what Hillary says she'll do (although of course she doesn't follow through on that -- just says this to get their vote). The reason they see their nation this way, and believe that only the Democrats can help them, is because they've been taught this from an early age.

It's this victim mindset that is so toxic. In extreme form, it's often a big part of criminals' motivations ... One of the main reasons career crims can be so shameless about what they do is because on a really deep level they think that crime pervades all of society anyway. They think that simply by going to work they're being stolen from. They see cops as thugs and the law as a way of keeping this big ugly scam going. As a result they believe that breaking the law is no biggie. So why not go for it?

So much of what the Left teaches people is a milder form of this criminal mindset. Those who believe it are usually not thugs or thieves themselves, of course. But they see themselves as victims of a rigged system. That's why there's so much derision about Trump claiming that the political establishment and the MSM are rigging the election against him.

Trump is far from perfect of course. But in a political sense he's a clean skin. Nothing he's done so far in this realm (or even in business, I suspect) is anywhere near as dodgy as what Hillary, her vile hubby and their elitist cronies have been up to for yonks. So when the law gives her a pass, and the MSM colludes with her party in a brazen attempt to get her over the line this is rigging the election, no doubt about it.

But those rusted on Democrat voters just scoff at this. "Yeah sure, Donald," they snort. "You've had it easy. Everything's rigged, anyway. So I'll go with the one on my side, not yours."

As Trump himself would say: Sad!

Jenna Price on Jennifer Hawkins and Trump is silly and sad

The relentless right-on campaign to slime Donald Trump is just jaw-dropping, innit? Leftie feminists in particular are desperately trying to portray every little bit of news about him as confirming their Eeeevil Misogynist White Male Oppressor  narrative.

Latest to do so is our own Jenna Price in a surreal gargle about former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins. In it, she spins a benign little public interchange between mogul and stunna as some sorta sinister humiliation!

I feel sorry for people like Ms Price. They see male violence, bigotry and brutality all over the place, mostly where it just doesn't exist. But then when there is true, in yer face misogyny they say nothing or even defend it. Really, what's more oppressive to a woman, being lauded as an icon of beauty all over the globe and being handed mountains of cash for the privilege, or being forced to wear a bloody burka? FFS.

Now, I can see how some people might think that Ms Hawkins is being "objectified" by Trump. But that's her choice. She's playing a role, sure. She knows that. We all do.

A beauty pageant may be many things. But it's certainly not misogynous. If anything it's about worshipping women. It's men's (and women's) way of saying: "Hey! Chicks rock because they're total spunks! Check out these babes. They are truly awesome!"

Like all forms of entertainment, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. (Same is true of comedy. Comics are now so terrified of offending snowflakes that they all now engage in, er, routine self-censorship.)

As well as the sheer joylessness Price exudes, there's her evidently low opinion of the woman in question, Jennifer Hawkins. By characterising these moments where she yucked it up with The Donald as something chillingly vile, she implies that Hawkins is too dippy to even know she's being brutalized. Patronising (sorry, matronising) or what!

Actually this determination to paint the Trump-Hawkins dynamic as completely imbalanced and unhealthy has been widespread in the MSM. No wonder Ms Hawkins has kept comparatively silent on the issue.

I don't claim to have any special insight into their relationship, of course. But I suspect she quite likes the guy. He has been extremely helpful to her career after all. Take this quote for example:

Earlier this year, Hawkins described Trump as a wonderful family man. "I don't think a lot of people know or see that but he just loves his kids," she told Fairfax Media reporter Jenna Clarke.

As well as implying that she has genuine liking for him, it also says something about Trump's personality that debunks the widely held stereotype of him as a malignant narcissist. After all it's well established that those with NPD have poor relationships with their often dysfunctional kids, who usually permanently move as far away from them as possible at the first opportunity. This is definitely not the case with Trump whose offspring are highly competent and successful people who maintain close contact with their father and are very publicly supportive of him.

Ballina shark huggers hurting the NSW surf town's economy

A few years ago when I was living in Perth that city's coastline seemed to be the world's most dangerous when it came to shark attacks. These days West Australian waters are still risky. But Noah Central now appears to be Ballina, not all that far north of Sydney, where I now reside. There have been 12 attacks there, one fatal, in the last coupla years alone!

Sheesh! Maybe I've got something to do with it?

Has Gaia been reading this blog and upon seeing all the anti-green rants decided to launch a program of intimidation against me? Well, if that is the case the tactic is definitely working. There's no way I'm gonna take a dip at any beach in this state unless I know it's got a bloody great shark net protecting it.

That's because I know that these work. They're installed at the main metropolitan beaches and there hasn't been a fatal attack here for yonks. And that's not just because there are no sharks here, either. Hell, if there are heaps of hangry white pointers prowling off the beaches of Ballina, there's gotta be many down here, too. Sydney beaches are absolutely chockas with swimmers and surfers, too, remember.

But they don't have the nets at Ballina, in major part because of the concerted campaign by shark huggers there. Because of the clear and present danger the number of surfers out in the line up there has plummeted, as has the turnover for local surf shops.

Thankfully, it looks like the NSW Govt has seen sense and there are now plans to install nets in the area. Not surprisingly, local moonbats are outraged at this violation of animal rights (completely ignoring the fundamental human right to go for a surf without getting your legs bitten off, natch). Today, they lobbed for a group shriek and wail at Lighthouse Beach. This barmy event included what was described as a "turtle release" (which I suspect is like letting doves fly at a wedding, only waaay slower).

And, in this case it only involved one of the marine reptiles. Name was Kimba, which is an odd moniker for a reptile. (And it could also be an act of cultural appropriation. White lions have rights too, you know -- even if they are cartoons.)

After an extended stay in human hands (which could also be seen as incarceration) Kimba has been set free again. And how did he survive all this time? Well, here's his (benign) jailer on his stay in (politically correct) captivity:

Ms Southwell hopes that Kimba will be released to an ocean with enough fish to support his diet, as he has quite the appetite.

"He's eaten us out of house and home,” she said.

Fish. Exactly. And sharks are -- you guessed it -- fish. So if it's okay to kill little ones in this case (let alone eating them yourself, which I suspect the Southwells do anyway) then why such outrage over some big ones buying the farm?

And while I'm sure Kimba himself was charming company, he is still just a reptile.

Just goes to show how petty and incoherent the anti-shark net campaign is. It looks completely ridiculous, dunnit -- particularly when there are human lives at, er, steak.

Grace Collier triggers Q and A lefties with common sense suggestion

As I've mentioned a coupla times before on this blog, I'm a refugee from Artsville, Orstraya. I was surrounded for years and years by sundry deranged lefties, and somehow managed to maintain my sanity.

Nowadays I can look at that toxic environment with some detachment. And I pity the poor little poppets, I really do. They have been swallowed up by something truly ugly: cultural Marxism. But they think they've got it all sussed. It's hilarious ... and sad.

One characteristic of this collective mental illness (and that's not too strong a term) is a complete aversion to common sense.

This was on display on last night's Q and A. I didn't watch it, but apparently Grace Collier triggered some of the lefties in the audience big time by saying something perfectly reasonable: If you don't have a job, start a business. They actually started heckling her!

Amazing, innit? All Grace was saying was, hey there's nothing stopping you. Why not give it a burl? You can be your own boss, you know ...

Now, I can understand why some might disagree with the suggestion on the grounds that doing such a thing is a lot harder than it sounds. But how could any sane adult find it offensive -- and so offensive that the speaker must be shouted down.

That's what's interesting to me -- the fact that these socialist snowflakes just can't bear to hear this kind of talk. And I think it's because they've been so brainwashed into seeing themselves as victims with no agency that it threatens their very sense of who they are.

It's like the reaction you get when you say to a feminist frightbat: "Hey toots, actually you're not a victim at all. Go and live your life. Be free! Hell you are free, already ... Sure, it's not a perfect world. But you've got it better than just about anyone, babe. So stop whining, eh?"

If they haven't exploded in a massive foam-flecked tanty, and can actually string a few words together they'll come up with reasons for why they're not free. They'll blurt "the patriarchy, rape culture, institutionalized misogyny", etc -- all utter bollocks, of course.

Lefties have such a horrible existence, don't they! They spend their entire lives telling themselves why they can't do stuff, and why other people (whom they absolutely loathe, BTW) must do it for them. How long is that gonna work for, particularly if the whole society is built around this view (which is their ultimate goal, let's face it)? You don't have to be a friggin' rocket scientist to realize that it's a bad strategy; that's it's unsustainable.

Hell, these pinko parasites want the money that business creates. But they say they can't start one themselves. Well, if they can't, with all their fancy uni education and everything, who the fark can?

Really, would be great if even just one of them broke with tradition and actually took Ms Collier's sane advice to do something they're good at and charge a quid for it.

Sure, they only truly excel at being obnoxious, shouty arsehats. Still, there must be a market for this somewhere ...

One Nation keeps rising in popularity. Donald Trump a factor?

Interesting that there's been a big boost in the popularity of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party recently. And she's eating into the LNP's support base. It's really quite amazing.

Newspoll surveys since the July 2 federal election reveal support for One Nation in lower house seats has climbed to six per cent, up from 1.3 per cent on polling day.

In Queensland the minor party is attracting 10 per cent of voters, up from 5.5 per cent in July. In NSW and Western Australia, One Nation's support is six per cent.

Over the same period support for the coalition has dropped 3.1 per cent to 39 per cent, while Labor's vote has increased 1.3 per cent to 37 per cent.

Needless to say, a party's popularity is in a constant state of flux. Still, these are big shifts, and you've gotta wonder what's behind them -- particularly since there haven't been any huge developments in Australian politics lately. Frankly, I think the upcoming election in America has something to do with these rises.

Of course that's just a hunch. But I think a lot of Aussies are watching this epic battle between Trump and Clinton very closely. They're seeing how massively corrupt the whole political establishment is over there -- not to mention the MSM. They can see that Trump is bang on the money when he says the whole system is rigged, and they know it's a lot like that down here.

So, they're feeling a greater level of support for Hanson, who, like Trump is definitely a political outsider -- a kind of "anti-politician" who calls it as she sees it.

Obviously there are other, more powerful local factors at play. Still, I think this has quite a bit to do with it ... What do you reckon?

Flood of false Trump groping claims reminiscent of Gillard's misogyny speech

It's often said that whatever crazy stuff happens over in the good ol' USA will be replicated here in Oz eventually. We follow, not lead -- particularly when it comes to culture and politics. This has definitely been the case with political correctness. It gathered up a head of steam in America in the nineties, and now there's a full blown reaction against it, embodied most powerfully in the rise of Donald Trump.

We're still catching up Down Under. Sure, we've got Pauline Hanson, but she's a marginal force, not leader of one of the big two parties. The one major leader who did react strongly against PC was Tony Abbott, and he was knifed by his own party. So it seems that the discontent has a fair way to go before it reaches current American levels.

But there's one episode that occurred during Abbott's reign as opposition leader that actually kinda pre-empted what's going on in America now. That was when Julia Gillard delivered her seminal (or should that be ovarian?) misogyny speech in an attack on Tony Abbott.

The frightbats were all aflutter about this, triumphantly declaring that she was speaking feminist truth to patriarchal power. But any sane adult with one eye half open could tell it was just a cynical ploy to neutralize the fallout from the controversy embroiling the Speaker of the House.

Gillard was utterly brazen in falsely sliming Abbott (at one point for looking at his watch!) to keep the heat off Peter Slipper, whom she had installed! And why was he in hot water? Well in part because of sexually oriented texts that he'd sent to a staffer, some of which included undeniably misogynous imagery.

The way she totally ignored this highly relevant fact -- followed almost unanimously by the shamelessly pro-Gillard mainstream media -- was jaw-dropping.

Fast forward to the USA, late 2016. Right now we've got a concerted, round the clock campaign to slime a presidential candidate as a serial groper and harasser. New "victims" pop up almost hourly. Their wild claims are published uncritically by huge MSM outfits like the New York Times. Soon afterwards they are revealed to be hoaxes.

Now, this all out campaign to destroy Trump would be bad enough if its prime architects -- the Clintons -- were just garden variety scumbags. But it's well established that Bill himself was a serial groper, and almost certainly a rapist as well. And rather than being some kind of innocent bystander to this carnage, Hillary did all she could to destroy his victims' reputations -- even threatening at least one of them in subtle but nonetheless crystal clear terms.

The hypocrisy is epic. It just makes you wanna hurl. And the fact that the MSM are totally okay with this tactic and are even enthusiastically playing their part in it is deeply sinister. Just as the Hildebeest trashed the reputations of her predator hubby's victims, massive news organizations are actively painting Trump as someone like him! And they are doing it to distract from the damage to Hillary's campaign caused by relentless Wikileaks revelations -- dozens of which show Watergate-scale corruption -- which they should all be investigating fearlessly.

So, in terms of dirty gender politics, it's like Gillard pointing the figure at Abbott, but magnified a hundred times.

Makes you wonder if she had anything to do with it ... Did Hillary call Julia for tactical advice, I wonder?

NSW MPs label Trump a "revolting slug", leave snail trail of rank hypocrisy

Trump Derangement Syndrome is afflicting liberals all over America, of course. But it's caught on big time down here, too, with plenty of Aussies launching into hysterical fits of lefteous indignation about The Donald, making complete idiots of themselves in the process. Take the entire NSW Parliament, for example:

New South Wales Parliament has formally branded US presidential candidate Donald Trump a "revolting slug" who is unfit for office.

Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham tabled a motion on the business paper slamming the Republican, which passed unopposed this morning.

The pettiness and puerility is almost unbelievable, innit? Even obnoxious uni student politicians would generally avoid such childish shenanigans.

And we're paying these arsehats! They should be thoughtfully dealing with issues affecting citizens of New South Wales, not indulging in a collective fit of virtue signalling about a figure on the other side of the world.

Not surprising that a Greens MP tabled it. They all suffer from arrested development, after all. And their entire MO is to endlessly hurl abuse at their political opponents, falsely calling them racist, sexist and all the rest of it.

But it's also pretty funny that Jeremy Buckingham has used "slug" as if it were an insult. Remember that the Greens claim to be champions of all creatures great and small, including the spineless and slimy ones. Speciesist, much?

And speaking of invertebrates: Buckingham's workplace is chockas with 'em! Why, only this week the Baird government backed down on its stupid decision to nuke the entire greyhound industry because they realized the voters were filthy mad about it and would likely punt them come election time. Now, they'll prolly still lose because they've shown themselves to lack the courage of their convictions.

Then there's the fact that Buckingham's asinine motion was passed unopposed. You'd think there'd be at least a bit of resistance to it -- on the grounds of its obvious and embarrassing puerility, if nothing else. But clearly no one in the chamber had the spine to do even that.

Gawd. What a bunch of jellybacks.

The malevolent molluscs must leave a snail trail wider than a Clover Moore bike lane as they sleaze and slime their way through Parliament House each day.

And if Trump wins come November? Well, the putrid goo they exude will be doubly viscous on account of the albumen from the eggs dripping from their stunned mullet faces.

I certainly do hope this will be the outcome -- although I do pity the poor janitors who will have to clean the stinking mess up.

Kristin Lajeunesse cares more about seeming virtuous than animal welfare

Vegan vlogger Kristin Lajeunesse couldn't cope with how livestock were being transported in New Zealand. Very strange. Did she think that they were treated better back in the USA, where she's from?

Her overly emotional reaction is typical of the green left. They seem to care more about the plight of animals (and even bloody plants!) than people ...

Or maybe it's not that at all. Perhaps it's that they care more about themselves, and the way they are perceived by their peers, than anything else.

Interesting that she made a video of herself sooking up and shared it on social media. She was saying, "Look at moi. Look at how much I care!"

If you perceive it this way it becomes clear that those poor herbivores didn't really matter to her. They were just bit players in the passion play she was performing for the camera.

But these child-brained narcissists do this all the time, don't they? They wring their hands about how mankind treats animals, saying that we're no better than those "non-human persons". So, if we're no better than them, why not condemn animals for treating each other badly -- which they do all the time, clearly.

If Kristin Lajeunesse saw the wild in the same way she saw those Kiwi trucks, then she'd be posting videos of her meltdowns while hiking in the forest, wouldn't she?

That would still be extremely daft. But at least it would be consistent.

SSM plebiscite becoming reminiscent of the republic referendum in 1999

Just amazing the way this plebiscite issue is unfolding. As far as I can recall, when it was first offered, "marriage equality" advocates were mostly, if not all, for it. And why not? There seemed to be so much support and goodwill for SSM.

But then they gradually went dark on this proposal. I think the main reason for this was their realization that they would be leaving it in the hands of the hoi polloi.

The gay marriage push is clearly a leftie thing. And lefties are the biggest control freaks there are. They quack on endlessly about how they're for the people, cherish democracy and all the rest of it. But deep down they absolutely loathe the plebs. They just wanna boss them around, let's face it ... So, they've changed tack on this even though it was an extremely promising option for them.

They're desperately trying to bully Malcolm Turnbull into backing down. I think there's still a chance that he will. He is utterly terrified of being condemned by the leftie luvvie set. And he knows that will happen if he does push through with the plebiscite, which the Government clearly has a mandate for.

Meanwhile Bill Shorten is exploiting this very serious issue of whether to change this age old institution for his own political gain. So amazingly cynical and says so much about him. He really doesn't give a tinker's about "marriage equality" either way. But he sees that he can use it to cause trouble for the Government so he's doing that. Blech!

But as Malcolm Farr notes, by pushing as hard as he has, he may well have backed himself into a corner. And George Brandis has said that if things keep going this way the whole issue could just be put on the backburner again.

Obviously it's hard to tell what's gonna happen. A week is a long time in politics and all that.

But it really does look like this relentless push by SSM advocates to sidestep the people, which has been enabled by Labor's cynicism, could blow up in their faces.

So ironic that they are always quacking on about love ... There's that memorable quote about this emotion, remember: "If you love something, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours forever. If it doesn't, then it was never meant to be."

They just can't let it go, can they? Control freaks.

The situation could well be a replay of the 1999 Republic Referendum. In that expensive exercize the agents of change ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The main reason seemed to be because of the model they chose. They wanted the head of state to be selected, remember. Aussies felt it was too elitist, and they lost.

Something similar could happen with same sex marriage. If so, Malcolm Turnbull will have played central, albeit different, roles in each outcome.

Magda Szubanski mouths pro-SSM, anti-plebiscite cant on Q and A

On their ABC's Q and A it's pretty much a given that discussion will veer onto the subject of "marriage equality", even if they're quacking on about something completely unrelated to this. So last night's episode -- which specifically focused on the issue -- was hardly unique. However, the stupidity, incoherence and bloody-mindedness of most panellists was something to behold.

Magda Szubanski in particular came out with some real doozies such as this: "A lot of us in the LGBTQI community don’t want this money spent, and as we see it, wasted, for what is essentially an expensive opinion poll that won’t be binding when we already know from several polls already that the majority of people in the country are in favour."

So funny that she's fretting about wasted money. Has she ever railed against excessive government funding of crap movies that next to no one even watched -- some of which she even appeared in? Many millions of bucks down the drain right there ...

And she presumes to speak for the "LGBTI community". Yeah, well, I'm sure there are many in that same crowd who do want a plebiscite -- and even some who don't even want gay marriage at all, incredible as that may seem. They're just not organized and vocal about it.

Let's face it, the LNP went to the election with the plebiscite as a major promise. Clearly, that's one of the reasons they won. Most Aussies do want a say on this issue, and they certainly deserve one. Marriage is a central social institution that affects everyone, and has developed organically over millennia across the globe. People will be seriously pissed off if a bunch of opportunistic weasels deny them direct input on what marriage actually means from now on. Same sex marriage may become the law of the land sans plebiscite, but public resentment of it will seethe indefinitely due to the dodgy way it was enacted.

Anyhoo, if it's a done deal, as Szubanski claims, then why not hold the plebiscite? (Actually this was the official position of "marriage equality" advocates early on as I remember. Magda was prolly even among them. But now the plebiscite itself is deemed evil and wrong. Hell of an about-face, that.)

Having millions of Aussies vote for SSM would be such a huge vindication of it. There is absolutely no way the public will would not be respected by the Govt if that occurred. That battle will have been well and truly won; the whole issue down and dusted for all time.

But nup. Gotta get the pollies to do it. They can be bullied, cajoled, rewarded for their compliance. Why play fair when you can cheat?

Which begs the question: Why would you wanna cheat, particularly if you say you can win fair and square anyway. Well, the answer's pretty obvious. The "overwhelming support" so often claimed for SSM isn't actually there. They're lying about it, in other words.

Lefties telling porkies to get their way? Who'da thunk it!

Interestingly, Magda also introduced a strawman about the perceived "threat" of SSM.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Can I dispute with you that this is a really... It’s being portrayed as though this is a threat to society. Jimmy and I... You’re saying this is a serious issue.

FIONA NASH
I’m not saying it’s a threat.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
It’s so serious that it requires a plebiscite.

FIONA NASH
No. No. No. Hang on. Hang on. I never said it was a threat.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
No, I’m not saying you said that, but other people are saying that. You’re saying it is such a grave issue that every single Australian must vote on this. Why? Why not vote on other issues like superannuation? Why not a plebiscite on that? Why not a plebiscite on aged care? Those people are living below the poverty line. Why not a plebiscite on that? Now, Jimmy and I are actually family. I’m the godmother of his granddaughter. He’s a Scottish migrant. I’m a Polish-Scottish-Irish migrant. His wife is Thai. I’m a leso. We ARE that modern family. What threat does it pose except that I don’t have the same rights as the other people in my family?

FIONA NASH
It’s not a threat at all. 

So revealing that Magda was verballing Nash in this way. It was a clear case of projection. On absolutely no evidence, Magda was implying that those who believe in traditional marriage are hateful, insecure bigots. Even though she momentarily claimed not to aim this accusation at Nash it was clear that she was doing just that (and this wasn't the only time). It's an oft-used tactic of the PC crybully, this. It's aggressive misrepresentation purporting to be justified self-defense.

Speaking of threats: Pretty clear that the ones making most of them so far regarding this whole issue are the SSM zealots. Their vicious bullying of Mercure staff, for example, resulted in a planned ACL event being cancelled. This was not even mentioned in last night's Q and A, and for obvious reasons. Perpetuating the PC narrative was deemed way more important, of course.

And just on that subject of PC, check out these two egregious violations of gender sensitive language by Tony Jones and Jimmy Barnes, two right-on male persons who surely should have known better.

TONY JONES
Guys, I’m just going to go back to our questioner. Jack Lattimore has his hand up. I’m just going to go back to Jack. Go ahead. 

The later on ...

JIMMY BARNES
Eventually we won’t need you guys.

Guys? Guys? GUYS? 

That deserved a badthink red alert. Shoulda called Gender Avenger David Morrison in! Coulda swiftly re-educated 'em on the correct terminology, then kicked 'em both in the nuts with his high heels for good measure.

FFS, what a joke ...

Back to Magda. Well into the show she used that verballing tactic again on Fiona Nash, though in a much more obvious way:

FIONA NASH
A plebiscite isn’t the thing that necessarily triggers people being nasty.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Can I ask one simple question?

TONY JONES
Yes, I’m going to give you the final point here.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
One simple question. Do you think I’m equal to you?

FIONA NASH
Of course I do.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
If I was your daughter, and being gay, would you think that I should have the right to be married?

FIONA NASH
I’ve been asked this question a lot over the last 12 months and my response was that my view is still the traditional view of marriage. I love my children, regardless of what they ever brought home for me. It would make absolutely no difference at all. I completely respect your view and your desire to see that as equality...

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
But you won’t give me my rights.

FIONA NASH
I just have a different view.

MAGDA SZUBANSKI
Thanks for nothing.

See what she's doing. She's making it personal and emotive, forcing a confrontation that demonizes the interlocutor, puts them on the defensive. You see it all the time on Q and A. Shanghai Sam Dastyari tried it a few weeks back. But he was such a doofus, he failed spectacularly.

It's sooo dishonest and mean. It's kinda like saying: "When did you stop beating your wife?". It's not debate. It's abuse. But it works for the thick, credulous and plain ol' primitive. And there are plenty of those in the Q and A audience, as we all know. Which was the whole point, natch.

As Fiona Nash noted, it's not necessarily the plebiscite that makes people nasty. But political correctness sure as hell does! And when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage, well, it's pretty clear who the main bullies and threateners are -- at least at this point in the game.

Howard on Menzies enrages the Left on Twitter

Without a doubt the Australian leftist trollective's number one hate figure remains Tony Abbott. Now, as a result of her election to the Senate, Pauline Hanson is clearly the runner up. And not to be outdone, veteran bogeyman John Howard still comes in a close third.

That's undeniably impressive. He lost his gig as the nation's leader about nine years ago now!

JHo's propensity to enrage the howler monkeys was on display last night. They went into meltdown over his ABC show Howard on Menzies. (You should check out his book on the subject, BTW.)

It really was a near perfect storm of political provocation for the poor little poppets. He was on their ABC for starters. And he was extolling the virtues of that other enduring symbol of conservative eeevil "Ming the Merciless". How dare he!

This mass online tanty reminded me of the mid-nineties, when JHo was elected PM for the first time. I was still living in Melbourne then, doing comedy gigs, surrounded by die-hard lefties. One of the most oft-repeated gripes at the time was that Howard wanted to "take us back to the fifties!".

That phrase always struck me as kinda silly, since pretty much all those indignantly repeating it were born in the sixties or later, so could never have truly known what it was like to live in that era. Also, being so overwhelmingly pro-land rights, they were in a way pining for a time long before this -- closer to the 1750s, actually!

John Alexander's absurd attack on Pauline Hanson regarding Islam

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the political class keep mouthing the same incoherent rubbish when trying to smack down dissenters ... Now, of course you're gonna get heaps of this the further leftward you go. If you look at the shrieking Greens, for example, it's clear they believe that if you keep repeating something over and over then you will eventually make it true. Now I wouldn't say that they're Goebbelsian, because they're so emotional, and generally believe their own BS to start off with. Still, while they are extremely silly, their zeal makes them a tad scary as well.

But you also see the same crap occurring in places you normally wouldn't expect it to. Take the LNP. In recent years they've become almost as obediently right-on as Labor. And now with a narcissistic progressive at the helm, they're even more so.

Their embrace of this absurd "goodthink" is illustrated by Bennelong MP John Alexander trying to smack down Pauline Hanson:

"I subscribe to the Voltairean principle of respecting people's right to say things that I disagree with. But when that speech uses broad-brush strokes to demonise an entire religion and all the observers of that religion it must be called out for what it is - it's racism, it's discrimination," he said in a little-seen speech in Parliament's Federation Chamber.

There's perhaps today's most oft-repeated, classic absurdity, right there. He actually says he thinks religion is a race. Yet he obviously can't recognize this nonsense for what it is. And he thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and we should all listen to him?

Gawd.

Now, I personally think Pauline is a tad OTT on Islam. And in the final, er, psychoanalysis it may well be that racial animosity is part of what's motivating her views here. But I really don't think she's any more racist than most pollies. And IMO she's definitely less racist than many of her most intense haters on the Left.

Take the Greens (again). They gotta be the whitiest, tightiest buncha blowhards in Oz. And they're the ones most keen to condemn others for this failing? Talk about projection ... Also, their insistence on seeing non-white people as child-like victims who need special laws made for them is downright sinister, and demonstrably toxic to these same people (Aborigines in particular).

But Alexander wasn't attempting some kinda amateur shrinkage (like I just did then). He was referring specifically to Hanson's comments on Islam. And his confusion is clear for all to see.

His citing of Voltaire made his comments ironic, too. As well as his oft-quoted line about free speech, the great French philosopher also had this to say:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Of course there's absolutely no chance that the former tennis ace will ever end up using his strong right arm to hack off heads. Still, he just served up a little yellow ball of bollocks that can be used to help feed the goals of Islamists who do. Hardly good sports, they routinely exploit it and other nonsense contained in politically correct socialism, a massive global racket.

Hillary's health decline and cover-up like something out of the USSR

If you are stupid enough to believe that the MSM are playing with a straight bat, you'll believe that Hillary Clinton's health is just fine; that all this talk about how she's suffering from a host of serious ailments is tin-foil hat conspiracy nutter stuff.

But the evidence is mounting up that something is seriously awry. She doesn't wanna give a press conference; she's coughing up a storm; she needs stools and handlers galore. Even some prominent liberals are alarmed.

Take Dr Drew Pinsky. He expressed concern about the issue and promptly lost his gig on CNN.

“Dr. Drew” was canceled eight days after Pinsky discussed Clinton’s health on a radio show, saying he was “gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.”

“CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source told me. “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.”

What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and emails. “It was downright scary and creepy,” a source close to Pinsky said.

Scary and creepy alright. There are so many powerful forces -- mainstream media included -- working to have her installed as POTUS it's sinister as all get out.

Watching all this unfold I keep remembering the good ol' days of the Cold War (yes, I'm that old). Leonid Brezhnev was the USSR's leader for, like, forever. You'd see his grim, stone-like visage on news reports all the time.

Finally, Leonid the trooper just kinda ground to a halt. And he was promptly replaced by someone just as dour and expressionless as him called Yuri Andropov. But he was already ailing and drop off is exactly what he did a bit over a year later.

Now this wasn't a democracy, obviously. Still, you'd think they'd try and find someone younger and healthier to replace him. Nope.

Konstantin Chernenko came next. Bloke was at death's door even as he was being sworn in, it seems. And, he popped his clogs (or whatever Russkies wear on their feet) after less than a year.

Historian John Lewis Gaddis describes him as "an enfeebled geriatric so zombie-like as to be beyond assessing intelligence reports, alarming or not" when he succeeded Andropov in 1984.

Hillary Clinton isn't quite zombie-like yet. But she's clearly heading that way. And if she does get wheeled into the White House ... well, I think the Beatles sang it best:

We'll be back in the US, back in the US ... Back in the USSR!

But hey, don't take my word for it. If you really wanna know the truth about Hillary Clinton's health why not listen to someone really close to her, like her hubbie Bill.

OAK's joke provokes vegan ragin'

These days, with so much mainstream media content being consumed online, journos have to crank out loads o' clickbait to keep their gigs. So they scour social media looking for minor stoushes and whinge-fests they can beat up into actual, er, stories. Given how chockas these outfits are with sneering hipsters, you can be sure that a lot of these articles have a politically correct, social justicey flavour to 'em.

Reporting on vegans being outraged by a tongue in cheek advertisement from flavoured milk brand OAK is a recent example of this. Given the fact that the story appeared on a whole mess o' news feeds, you'd think there'd been some kinda serious campaign launched against it. But nup. It was just a few undernourished but over-emotional mung bean munchers getting their hemp panties in a bunch in the comment threads of OAK's Facebook page.

Just so silly ... But sadly also destructive.

Because the little snarkfest got such a huge amount of meeja attention the company seems to have pulled the ad. This suggests that it wasn't actually designed to troll the perpetually offended and thereby generate publicity, as some may have concluded. In any case, buckling under the online outrage is the worst thing the company could have done (as this excellent book on SJW tactics makes clear).

Vegans may avoid eating animal meat but a lot of them have a taste for human flesh, metaphorically speaking. Getting people to accede to their hysterical demands confirms their sense of moral virtue, which is why they are, er, eschewing the chewing in the first place. Gaining corporate appeasement from such a minor bout of online tanty-chucking will just embolden the anaemic arsehats. They'll pounce with far greater vegan vengeance next time.

Not PC to say so, but men are harassed online too, often by women

Contrary to the politically correct narrative, men can actually be the targets of online harassment, as this article makes clear.

Of course, a lot of that abuse is perpetrated by other men. But there's no doubt that women do it too. I've recently seen this quite closely. One of my social media friends had hateful and very personal messages left on his wall by a vengeful woman he'd been involved with. These were clearly meant to be hurtful and embarrassing. And I'm sure they achieved their goal.

Sure, these didn't contain threats of physical violence (at least as far as I could tell. Stopped reading pretty quick because they were so alarming). Obviously these are worse, particularly if they seem dinkum. Definitely a matter for the plods! But hurtful words can leave deep scars also. And women can be very adept at this kind of abuse, let's face it. 

They can also be extremely vicious in their trolling of other women. I recall a report in which Charlotte Dawson -- who ultimately topped herself! -- confronted one of her most relentless haters, who was a woman. 

But back to the article: 

Norton’s director for the Pacific region, Mark Gorrie, said the study revealed the extent to which men are abused online, and until now the issue had been somewhat overlooked.

I'll say. That's partly because the mere suggestion that it might deserve attention sends frightbats into fits of rage, let's face it. 

“Very little research has been done exploring the issues of online harassment and Australian men,” Mr Gorrie said.

“Most commonly, online harassment is very much associated with females, who do suffer from more severe forms of online harassment.

“However, our research shows that men’s experience online is not too dissimilar to women and this is an issue that affects both genders and in particular minority groups.”

Hmm. I find those statements a bit confusing. I mean, if buggerall research has been done on men's experience of harassment, how can you say that women suffer more severe forms of it?... And then it's "not too dissimilar".

Eh?

I suspect part of this incoherence is due to Mr Gorrie being worried about the SJW outrage he might provoke if he says something, er, inappropriate. Could even wind up being like one of the men in his study, then. 

Hillary's health and other issues have hurt her campaign, perhaps terminally

Amazing to watch how the battle for the US presidency is developing. Presently, most of the MSM are still saying Hillary has a comfortable lead over Trump, at least in battleground states. The consensus is that it's pretty much a done deal.

But then there are other polls that have 'em neck and neck overall. Some even have Trump ahead ... In any case, as Brexit showed, polls can be hugely unreliable.

Frankly, I think Trump is in with a much better shot at winning than all the main outlets say he is. Not only are most of them shamelessly supporting Hillary and verballing him -- which I think is actually having a net negative effect on her electoral chances because Americans are so sick of being lied to, and so brazenly -- he's drawing massive crowds at rallies, and has much greater engagement on social media than she does.

Then there's all this stuff about her e-mails being investigated by the FBI. The MSM have to report on it even though they clearly don't want to ... Many of the revelations are absolutely jaw-dropping, like the one about her staff hammering her Blackberries. If these involved anyone else they woulda been toast aaages ago.

CNN Stunned when fact checkers confirm #HillaryClinton phones destroyed with hammers. She is disqualified to #potus pic.twitter.com/KT2bm99OoX

— Michael Keyes (@michaelkeyes) September 3, 2016

Also, even though she and her team are desperately pushing the line that she's hale and hearty, it's sooo obvious that her health is bad. The fact that she hasn't done a press conference for ages clearly supports this view. As a result, the memes about her sickness, tiredness and paranoia -- not to mention general rudeness and crookedness -- are spreading like wildfire across Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere.

So, as we draw closer to the November showdown the pro-Clinton obfuscation, spin and outright lies are all rolling together into a massive wave of sludge that's heading for the floodwalls of truth!

Something's gotta give. If the floodwalls fail and Hillary wins America is in for the most toxic, corrupt presidency ever. It'll be even worse than Obama's -- and that's saying something.

Uggh! The thought of it is just to horrible to contemplate.

That's why I think they'll hold and the people will make a sane decision to elect someone who is far from perfect but will certainly do his best to govern in their interests.

That's if she even makes it to the election, mind. Even that is not certain ... See, a few days ago this tweet appeared.

BREAKING: Cannot Verify.
Tweeted by a CBS News producer and removed shortly thereafter. Make of it what you wish. pic.twitter.com/jEEeavDQrb

— Rodger (with a D) (@Noz4news) September 3, 2016

So, looks like it could well be starting to fall apart for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The stress she's under must be absolutely enormous. It could break the will of a healthy person, let alone someone clearly as unwell as HRC.

I know I'm going out on a limb here. But I think she's gonna have some kinda meltdown before the election. We probably won't learn the details -- at least not straight away. But I think it'll be serious enough that she'll have no alternative but to quit.

What do you reckon?

Why I now think Julian Assange is a hero

Amazing how much your views of high profile figures can change as political narratives develop ... When this whole Julian Assange rape accusation saga started and he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy I thought he was being a right tosser.

His claim that it was all a stitch up just didn't seem plausible to me. And the USA couldn't possibly be that dodgy, could it? I laughed out loud when he voiced fears that he'd be offed "Jack Ruby-style" if he wound up in an American jail.

But now I'm not so sure. (I feel a bit bad about writing this post, TBH.)

I think he may have had a point then. And even if he was over-egging it at that stage, it looks very much like his life is in danger now.

The picture that his DNC leaks painted of Hillary and her party was truly alarming. Then there was the murder of Seth Rich, the bloke Assange himself has repeatedly hinted was a WikiLeaks source.

Sure, Assange may be bullshitting. And if not, it might just have been a freak coincidence that the bloke was shot in the back in the wee hours. Still, you don't have to be some tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy nut to think the whole thing seemed very suss. Then there was the "cat-burglar" incident.

16 mins ago at 2:47am a "cat burgler" scaled the side wall+window of the Ecuadorian embassy in London; fled after being caught by security.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 22, 2016

And lately he's been talking about some dynamite dirt on Hillary that he's gonna release soon.

His take on the way the MSM have been covering these issues is also spot on:

Assange accused Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, of "whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia."

"What kind of press environment is this going to lead to post-election?" Assange asked.

He continued: "The American liberal press, in falling over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton, are erecting a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone's necks as soon as she wins the election, which is almost certainly what she's going to do."

This is all getting very ominous. Hillary is a truly sinister control freak, and she's got every major news outlet in the US singing her praises and verballing Trump at every opportunity.

If Julian Assange has a mysterious accident or sudden heart attack that kills him in coming months I don't think there'll be any doubt about who's behind it, do you?

In SSM "shirtfront" Shorten "hectored" by rector but he's the real genuflector

Same sex marriage zealots constantly use deceit. Not surprising. Most if not all are cultural Marxists determined to tear down all our basic institutions, not just this one. If they were honest about their real goals they'd have next to no chance of having them realized.

That's why they've been assiduously pushing this line that anyone who has reservations about SSM is a hateful bigot. And what a steaming load o' bollocks that is. There are heaps of gays out there who are just going "meh" about the whole thing. And there are some who are actively against it. Are these people homophobic bigots too?

They're always on the lookout for even the slightest example of resistance to their Orwellian agenda so they can beat it up into some appalling example of "homophobic hate". Their allies in the meeja are of course delighted to flog the crap out of this asinine PC line.

This snippy interchange between Bill Shorten and Anglican rector Ian Powell is a case in point. In this article about it Malcolm Farr says that Shorten was "accosted" by Powell. Sure, he was forthright and had his say. But he also spoke positively about Shorten.

Also, Farr slimes the bloke by implying he was misquoting the Opposition Leader: "A search of Mr Shorten’s transcripts did not find a reference to opponents to same-sex marriage coming out from under a rock," he writes.

Well, actually Bill did say that, as this article makes clear.

So funny that the Opposition Leader said "don't hector me". That's exactly what the pro-SSM zealots are doing all the bloody time ... Hectoring, nagging and bullying is par for the course with lefties, anyhoo. They're the most hateful, primitive people you'll find. Nothing they love more than amassing in a pack and picking on an individual who won't toe their line and shouting him down, falsely accusing him of a whole slew of thought crimes.

Shorten himself is just a vacuous opportunist with no sincere belief on this issue either way. He's just gonna use it to bash the Government as much as he can, and promote his own career. He worships the god of power at all costs, which is why he tried to present himself as the reasonable one in this little episode. Unedifying, as usual.

Burkinis and burqas protect Muslim modesty and expose feminist flexibility

Without a doubt the issue of how best to deal with the burkini is a tricky one. I can see why many French pollies want to ban it, even if they're having trouble doing so. Their view on the burkinis is similar to their view on minarets (which were actually banned in Switzerland). Both are highly visible symbols of a religious culture that is profoundly at odds with the rest of the nation. So they want to keep a lid on 'em, so to speak.

In any case the controversy surrounding the burkini is a very clear illustration of how times have changed. And it's not just the state's evolving attitude to sheilas' seaside attire that is interesting. The feminist shift on this is notable also.

I can remember talking to bolshie babes in Artsville a coupla decades back. If ever we got onto the subject of Islam, they would almost invariably arc up about that religion's treatment of women, and the burqa would often be condemned in extremely harsh terms. (Now, I know that the burqa and similar coverings are not always demanded by Muslim men. And they're more of a cultural thing. That said there's a lot of subtle pressure placed on Islamic women to wear them. And the reasoning behind their existence is clearly sexist if not downright misogynous.)

I haven't been in touch with these particular women in recent years. But I suspect most if not all of them would have done pretty much a one eighty degree turn regarding the burqa, as the sinister dogmas of political correctness clearly demand.

The burkini is kind of a burqa-lite. So I'm pretty sure they'd also be outraged by anyone saying these garments should be banned at the beach. And it's quite likely they'd see the woman who invented the swimsuit, Aheda Zanetti (actually an Aussie), as something of a feminist heroine.

When asked about former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments where he called the burkini a provocation, she said: “Hasn’t he got anything better to talk about? Doesn’t he need to fix his country and not split it apart? This is a swim suit that represents freedom and sun and surf and happiness and swimming and leisure, family, happiness.”

Well, that shows just how arse-about everything's getting now, dunnit? The reason women wear burkinis and burqas is because they're taught that their uncovered flesh is the provocation, okay.

And who's trying to split the country apart? Those who say you should be able to say what you bloody well want about any and all religions. Or those who cry "behead those who insult Islam"? And haven't there been demands for kaffir pool-goers to cover up in the presence of Muslim women?

And the burkini represents freedom? Well, call me ol' fashioned, but when I look at it I find that a very, very long bow to draw.

You'd think that anyone who sincerely believes in female empowerment would find these aspects relating to the garb, er, problematic, to say the least. But not our feisty "feminists", who can turn on a dime no probs!

Well, all I can say is imagine if a group of high profile white males started demanding -- even merely suggesting -- that feminist chicks along with all other Anglo women cover up in body length Australian flags while at the beach. They'd be all for a selective swimsuit ban then, I'm sure ...

All races can be racist. White supremacist lefties deny this, of course

We all know that by far the most racist people in Australia are the sneering hipsters of the cultural Left. They're mostly of Anglo-Celtic and European descent. And they constantly deny the full humanity of members of racial and ethnic minority groups by insisting on casting them as child-like victims who must be protected from the harsh realities of life.

The Greens are where you'll find the highest concentration of these patronising parasites. They're forever quacking on about "diversity" but that's obviously the last thing they want. Not only do they demand we all conform to their sinister PC world-view; these petulant elves are so dang pallid, they should actually be called The Whites.

They are always stereotyping non-white people -- but in a really noice way, natch. One thing they love to do is assume that ethnic minorities are completely incapable of anything remotely like racism themselves. And they say they're all open to and supportive of "progressive" (i.e. politically correct, regressive) policies. If they're not, then that's always the fault of those eeevil white males in general (and prolly Tony Abbott in particular).

But the truth is quite different. A lot of Asian people really do look down on whitey-tighties in many ways, though of course they're too polite to say so. (Yeah, I know I just made two generalizations based on race. But hey, they're valid. Also, I'm not the one pushing the double standard.)

This is obvious from the way that people hailing from the same Asian nations gravitate towards each other in certain parts of our big cities. Hence you see lots of Vietnamese people in Cabramatta, for example.

One of the things that many Asian people find appalling in the dominant culture here is its comparative lack of sexual restraint. I had a Chinese friend who told me that she and many of her countrymen see westerners as being "like animals" in this regard.

I don't think it's too long a bow to say that the Chinese in particular are more sexually conservative than white Aussies and also less tolerant of non-traditional gender identities, roles and behaviour.

Pretty easy for them to ignore much of this by simply staying away from more "decadent" areas. But that's very hard to do when it comes in the form of state indoctrination like the "Safe Schools" program. As we all know this creepy program is not really about stopping bullying, but is meant to promote gay and lesbian lifestyles by stealth. So I'm not at all surprised that this is the reaction:

A petition against the Safe Schools program with more than 17,000 signatures from the Australian Chinese community has been tabled in the New South Wales Parliament.

This will no doubt confuse proponents of this PC program. And in brushing away this resistance they'll have to be very careful not to invoke any ethnic stereotypes. Could end up with an 18C complaint if they don't watch out! And won't that be a laugh if it happens ...

Sydney not so liveable now because of terror threat

Not surprised that Sydney has dropped out of the top ten in a popular list of the world's most liveable cities because of concerns about terrorism. We've already had two fatal attacks here in recent years. And while the plods are obviously doing their best with the resources they have, I get the strong impression that there's no way they can prevent the inevitable. I think they're just hoping that it won't be a major attack like what happened in Orlando or Nice. It'll just be another lone wolf attack in which one or two people are killed.

But I don't think it's gonna pan out that way. Western Sydney is chockas with Islamists. And Islamic State has already been a factor in both the Lindt Cafe siege and the murder of Curtis Cheng in Parramatta. If they don't try to "go for gold" with something on a big, spectacular scale I'd be very surprised.

Given their loathing of gays and alcohol I'd imagine entertainment precincts like Oxford St would be high on their list of priorities. You'd think that given the perceived threat there'd be some kind of pre-emptive program of awareness raising in such areas. But there's been nothing like that as far as I can tell.

At the risk of seeming like a real misery guts, I think something truly horrendous is gonna happen, and fairly soon ... Some ISIS arsehole is gonna shoot up a nightclub or something. It will change this city forever. And the public lashing Baird's regime will get as a result will make the anger people are now feeling over the handling of the Lindt Cafe siege seem like the cooing of doves.

#FeministAMovie tweets reconfirm the dominant paradigm

There's no doubt that Twitter is chock full of whining right-on social justice warriors. If you're in the reality based community you'll definitely be in the minority on that platform. But that's what makes it more enjoyable in a way.

Tweet by asinine tweet you get a real sense of just how friggin' deluded these poor little poppets actually are. Talk about life imitating satire! So, if you wanna "know your enemy" being active on Twitter is definitely worthwhile. Also, it's important to counter the lies and distortions these arsehats routinely offer, as well as point out their nauseating sanctimony and hypocrisy.

And participating in "hashtag games" can be a lot of fun. The recent one #FeministAMovie certainly produced some memorably funny tweets. (Forgive my immodesty folks, but I am quite proud of my own contribution Look Who's Dworkin ... Sadly, I don't think many tweeps had actually heard of her. I know a lot of self-described feminists haven't.)

Needless to say these politically themed hashtag games will draw on enduring, widely held stereotypes. It may upset many on the Left to say this, but these often have a lot of truth to them. That's certainly the case with feminism (and by that I mean the currently dominant variety: politically correct victim feminism).

There were lot of suggested movie titles playing on the humorless sourness of these tragic frightbats. And whaddya know? Numerous dinkum sob sisters actually reconfirmed this stereotype by tweeting that the popular hashtag itself was proof that feminism was needed more than ever.

On the contrary, I think the whole phenomenon showed how redundant this movement has become, and how desperately these chicks (and their self-loathing male acolytes) need to develop a sense of humour.

De Niro mouths MSM's "Trump is nuts" line, which becomes a story in itself

Really interesting how the MSM is doing Hillary's bidding. They're just going all out to twist everything Trump says and does. It's amazing.

Heaps of examples of this already, like that line they took on Trump talking about the Second Amendment. The way they portrayed it, it was as if he was implying to the crowd that some good ol' boys armed to the teeth oughta roll up outside the White House in a pickup truck to take out Mrs Clinton.

It's even a long bow to draw to say that he was implying that jokingly. What he was actually alluding to was the proven voting power of highly disciplined Second Amendment supporters, and their sterling record of winning political battles.

If mainstream journos were interested in the truth they might like to offer that explanation, or at least include it as an alternative.

But nup. They'll run hard with anything they can use to make Trump look crazy and dangerous.

And you can see why. Do that long enough and you can get some high profile people to reconfirm that very view. If they're famous enough, that's news in itself.

This is exactly what's happened with Robert De Niro. At a recent screening of his classic movie Taxi Driver he said that Trump is "totally nuts":

“But I think now they are really starting to push back, the media. … [F]inally they are starting to say: Come on Donald, this is ridiculous, this is nuts, this is insane,” De Niro said.

Hillary's backers in the MSM must be chuffed as with Bob for saying that. He's completely unaware of how thoroughly he's been conned. They're not pushing back. They've been the ones aggressively pushing forward with the "Trump is crazy" line. And they portray his protestations that he's been verballed by them as more evidence of his delusion.

Fat-shaming is mean but seems better for your health than fat pride

Back in the early nineties when political correctness was just gaining momentum it seemed silly but harmless. But a coupla decades on it's all become very sinister indeed. Ultra right-on policies are actually getting people killed, no doubt about it.

The obvious example is Islamist terrorism (in Europe mainly). Because everyone is in denial about Islamism and terrified of being called "racist" if they criticize a bloody religion (and how stupid is that!) hundreds of people have been knifed, shot and run over by crazed jihadis in recent months.

But there are other less spectacularly gruesome ways in which political correctness is shortening people's life expectancy. Take the growth of "fat acceptance" and "fat pride", and the condemnation of anything that can be construed as "fat-shaming".

Fat pride? Why should anyone be proud of being fat? Sure, a bit of extra lard is no biggie. Some people are meant to be a bit plump and good on 'em. But all the biggest (and I do mean biggest) proponents of this movement seem to be severely overweight. And being in that condition is undeniably very bad for your health. In many cases it's certain to take years, if not decades, off your life. So zealously promoting the idea that fatness is fantastic is just crazy as.

The recent physical transformation of Paul Moore is a case in point. He was grossly overweight and photos of him shirtless were widely mocked on social media. He was traumatized by the experience, but it also seems to have strongly motivated him to lose the excess kilos.

Clearly the guy is a lot healthier now. But if no one had said anything negative when he was massively overweight he would likely still be in that condition and therefore at much greater risk of many health problems.

Mocking people because of their appearance is cruel. But then maybe it's not as bad as telling people something demonstrably false because you don't wanna hurt their feelings. In this case at least "fat-shaming" seems to have been the lesser of two evils.

What do you reckon?