Sunday, January 31, 2016

Julie Bishop is polite to animal rights nuts, showing her media savvy

I used to have a lot of respect for Julia Bishop. Then Abbott was knifed, and it became clear that she either knew about the plans to do this way in advance and did nothing, or -- worse still -- was actively involved in the plot.

In the past I saw mostly grace and strength. Now I tend to see calculating self-interest. Here's a small example. At a recent event in Los Angeles JBish was heckled by animal rights activists. Rather than firing back at them or just letting security frogmarch 'em out the door, she actually told them it was okay to have their say.

I think the main reason she did this was because she knew that because they were of the Left, any negativity on her part would have been seized on by the mainstream media, which as we all know is chockas with hand-wringing, finger-pointing SJWs. So, by being so gracious in this situation she guaranteed herself good press, or at last no condemnation from the usual suspects.

Then there's the possibility that she actually sympathized with these shouty loons. But you never quite know with her. She's very calculating and hides her real sympathies well.

If you think that's too long a bow then imagine how she would have reacted if some less PC protesters -- say those against Islamic immigration -- were to start shrieking at her. Think she'd have been so polite to them?

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Ask Izzy app right up Malcolm Turnbull's alley

Yesterday, heard Malcolm Turnbull on the wireless spruiking an app for homeless people to access services called Ask Izzy. Easy to see why he was so over the moon about it. After all, it was an example of the cutting edge digital technology that the ultra-wired PM just adores. So he could use his fave phrases about agility, etc:

“This application, this website, is the type of innovative, collaborative and agile thinking that success in today’s world demands,” Turnbull said.

The cliches were comin' thick and fast. Half-expected him to say "because of this app, there's never been a more exciting time to be homeless!".

The fact that it was meant to help society's downtrodden gave it that touchy-feely, huggy-wuggy element that those full of a sense of their own moral virtue find so intoxicating.

“It’s an example of using all the resources at our disposal to harness the power of technology to make a difference. [What] you’ve done is an example of what can be achieved when a social conscience, when deep love combines with technology, pragmatism and focus on the customer.

“This is an outstanding example of everything successful, progressive, compassionate, 21st century Australia will be. A country that is known for its innovation, for its compassion, for its love and support of those less fortunate.”

Dunno about you, but parts of that passage make a tad queasy -- especially the bit about "deep love". Blech! Last time "deep love combined with technology" was when Malcolm took a selfie. And the same narcissistic emotions were motivating him at the launch, IMO. He was saying "Look at moi. I care!"

So Turnbull was getting a nice big shot of gooey feels by launching the app -- as were the mostly left-leaning hacks present by reporting it. So good press was guaranteed. Much more appealing than making hard decisions about serious issues that affect the whole country. You know, like the threat of terrorism.

Which is not to say that homelessness is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But with an app?

I don't doubt the goodwill of those who created it. They were sincerely trying to help, I'm sure. But how many people are gonna use it, really? Ever seen a hobo with a smartphone?

Me neither.

Friday, January 29, 2016

PC Barbie doll range hopes to placate feminists

I've often wondered what the key psychological driver in the tiny mind of the typical lefty social engineer actually is. Several come to mind including his desperate need to control others, and his valuing of emotions above thought.

But I think the main one might just be plain' ol' arrested development. Emotionally, SJWs are stuck at the level of a spoiled toddler who thinks she is the centre of the universe, and that everything should be absolutely perfect just for her. Her delicate fee-fees must be catered to at all times. And if she wills it, then it must be so!

Nowhere is this pathology more obvious than in politically correct victim feminism. In frightbats' tiny, toxic minds all the world is a playpen, and all the men and women merely dolls. So it's no wonder they've been waging a decades long, er, shehad against Barbie.

Even way back in the nineties I can recall the feminist chicks I knew squawkin' and squealin' about how Barbie was a tool of the patriarchy -- a way of inculcating girls into the "beauty myth". And I suspect that one of the main reasons the iconic Barbie hasn't been selling so well in recent years is because of this ongoing campaign to demonize it.

In an effort to lift sales Mattel has decided to make the dolls more reflective of diversity. So now you can get a whole range of them in various shapes, sizes and skin tones. (I'm surprised that there isn't a transgender version already. But I suspect there will be a "Caitlyn-Barbie" on the shelves before too long.)

Somehow I can't see these new toys -- especially the curvy one -- reversing the company's fortunes. IMO Mattel have opted into the SJW worldview. They are offering consumers what they think they should want, rather than what they actually do want.

If feminists haven't already started to deride this line they will do in time. Like spoiled little girls in the toy aisle, they've demanded yet another doll. But even that is not good enough. They'll chuck a tanty and throw it down on the ground before long. Just you watch.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

The rabidity of the feminists

"The rabidity of the feminists." Hmm. Has a ring to it, eh? It's not unlike The Silence of the Lambs. Could be the title of a comedy horror movie, actually...

And why such a strong link? I think it's because the two words are almost synonymous. Sure, not all rabid ones are feminists, but pretty much every feminist is rabid. (Humour, on the other hand, is rare in them. It's why so much right-on "comedy" makes you wanna barf, not laugh.)

Given this association, it's not surprising that the Oxford Dictionary uses "rabid feminist" as an example to illustrate the adjective's meaning. Hilariously, feminists unwittingly confirmed its validity with their, er, rabidity -- something the dictionary's official Twitter feed elegantly pointed out:
If you click on the tweet they're citing you'll see that the feminist in this case was male, not female -- which might have been one of the reasons that they decided to skewer him. Dread to think what the reaction would have been like if the offended tweep had been a sob sister instead.

She prolly woulda labelled it harassment, and called in the plods! I can just imagine the scene outside the publishing house: "Let's get some muscle over here. Throw the book at the book!" Given how ludicrously thin-skinned, petty and punitive today's feminist chicks are, this is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Kate Smurthwaite hectors Milo Yiannopoulos on The Big Questions

Pretty clear to any sane adult that "feminism" is now a dirty word. And that's not because of what its critics say about it. It's clearly a direct consequence of its proponents' beliefs and actions over many years. The movement is now almost completely dominated by obnoxious, entitled, childish bores who are just running amok all over the joint, getting away with bloody murder!

Feminists say they wanna be equal with men. Then they say all men are arseholes (which is of course bollocks). But hey, if being arseholes is what they aspire to they should pat themselves on the back. They've achieved that goal, sure as shit!

To see just how toxic and balmy these chicks have become you should check out the last episode of BBC's The Big Questions. The debate question itself illustrated the Beeb's anti-male bias: "Does social media reveal men's hatred for women?" So drearily right-on, it was clearly a set up for the bolshie broads to bang on about online misogyny -- which of course they did.

One of them was the socialist sleb Kate Smurthwaite. Her toxic personality came across loud and clear. Most alarming was her obvious lack of a sense of humour. That she's a successful "comedian" says heaps about how poisonously politically correct that scene is these days.

She femterrupted advocate for the "no" case Milo Yiannopoulus (who, unlike Kate and her sob sister Connie St Louis, actually came prepared with some hard data to back his claims up) repeatedly when he was speaking, while he let her and others have their say and remained polite. She even called for him to be locked up -- and she was not joking! Amazingly, the debate moderator just let this pass.

This alleged comic was kinda funny, but in a sad way... She was also scary. Imagine what she and her ilk would do if they had real power? Gawd.

Feminists like Smurthwaite detest the label "feminazi". But she wants to throw someone in jail for tweetin'. What could be more fascist than that?

Can just imagine what her gigs are like: heaps of male-bashing and witless whining about misogyny that doesn't exist. If she does get laughs they're not dinkum, just the strained guffaws of sneering hipsters desperately trying to prove they're not sexist. And what does she do if someone heckles her? Call the plods to arrest her for harassment?

To the left of Milo (literally -- and politically, I think) sat Ella Whelan of Spiked Online. She challenged Smurthwaite's view at one point. When she did, the crybully called this "annoying background noise". Misogyny, much?

Really, it was just a train wreck. I could vent for ages about her, St Louis, the host and even a tragic virtue-signalling mangina in the audience. But I just don't have time.

Anyhoo, have a look. You'll really see what I mean.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Sad story of Leisel Jones illustrates the importance of fatherhood

One of the many toxic beliefs promoted by today's heavily misandrist feminists is that fatherhood doesn't really matter much. They say that there's nothing useful those eeevil, soulless males can supply to the creation and maintenance of a happy family -- apart from the sperm, of course. Therefore the kids won't be damaged by the absence of their biological father -- or a non-related male role model, for that matter.

This belief has been thoroughly debunked in many ways, such as the widespread phenomenon of children of in vitro programs seeking out their sperm donor progenitors in adulthood. It's pretty clear that people really need to know who sired them to get some kind of complete sense of their own identity, even if they don't maintain contact with that person.

I've met several people who have expressed deep regret that they never really knew their dads. I've also known a few blokes who were gutted that they lost touch with their kids. There are countless true tales in the media about the scars such an absence can cause, too. Champion swimmer Leisel Jones's sad story is a recent one.

She had a rift with her father a long time ago which never healed. He's gone and popped his clogs without any sort of reunion occurring. The fact that Leisel Jones says she feels no sadness just makes it sadder still to read about. I don't know the details of course. And I'm no shrink. But it seems likely to me that the hurt is so deep she's presently kinda numb:

'I haven't spoken to him in 17 years but I don't feel any anger or sadness.
'If you are a Dad, please give your kids a big hug and accept them for who they are.
Little girls in particular need a strong male figure in their life that have their back and can teach them things in life that only a dad can.'

Of course the more right-on types would think that such a statement just shows the extent to which Ms Jones has been brainwashed by the patriarchy. But I think she's expressing a deep and universal truth.

Men and women are different but equal. A kid needs a mother and a father -- preferably the ones who contributed the DNA that created her. If for whatever reason this bond breaks (or is not formed in the first place) it causes huge psychological damage.

A situation in which a kid doesn't know or is alienated from his dad should be avoided if at all possible. But now, because so much of what we used to value in society has been trashed by leftie cultural revolutionaries, such alienation is commonplace. Truly tragic. And it looks like it's just gonna keep getting worse ...

Related book: Do Fathers Matter? What Science is Telling Us About the Parent We've Overlooked

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Flakka is the Akka Dakka of designer drugs

Every few months there is news of another horrendous designer drug leaving untold social damage in its wake. Each of them is more terrifying than the last. Flakka is the latest of these. Here's an example of the kind of insanity it causes:

Kenneth Crowder, 41, was high on flakka when he ran through the streets naked, declared himself God and tried to have sex with a tree. After being tasered twice by police, he pulled the probes from his chest and tried to stab a police officer with his own badge while declaring himself Thor.

Just thor? You'd think that after that ordeal he'd be ekthtremely, ekthcruthiatingly thor!

Now that it's available in Australia, odds are it'll wreak havoc in all our major cities. But I'm most worried about Darwin. You can only wonder what terrifying act a typically thrillseeking Territorian might try -- not to mention the headline the local paper will use to report it!

But back to that Crowder bloke: The detail about him trying to have sex with a tree got me really worried. What if greenies start getting into it? And they may well do so given how cheap it is. (At five bucks a pop they could buy heaps of it on every dole day.) And the effects could be horrifying!

Check out the nature lovers below, who all seem to still be, er, on their faces. Can you imagine what they'd be like on flakka?

Crikey! It'd be bye bye virgin forest, that's for sure ...

Monday, January 11, 2016

Was Malcolm Knox derided for being racist, or just uncool?

Assume you've all read that Malcolm Knox piece on Chris Gayle that caused such a twitstorm of derision recently. Sure, it was unutterably awful. But to say that it was genuinely racist is too long a bow.

Then there's the irony of the fact that so many of the SJWs mocking Knox for his column -- which was basically him wagging his, er, male feminist finger at Chris Gayle -- were the same ones appalled by the cricket star's "sexism" in the first place. These chumps really are eating their own.

Fluffy wuffies are quite sad little creatures, aren't they? One trick trolls, that's for sure. You gotta wonder, can they do anything other than shriek "homophobia", "misogyny" and "racism"? That, and play victim themselves, of course ...

Clearly, they're always lookin' to be offended. And that's a fair conclusion to make because that's pretty much all they ever do. Yet they think that even pointing that out is some kinda mini-hate crime. Gawd.

But back to Knox's excruciating article: Many said it was racist because of its use of Jamaican Patois. This was not unlike blackface, they reckoned.

Well, you could argue that's a false equivalent because African Americans and Jamaicans are different cultural groups. And blackface is just loaded with historical baggage. But an Anglo tryin' to sound like a laid back Rastaman? Hardly oppressive. Whitey tighties pushing this conflation angle should really check their privilege.

But let's say they're right, and "blackvoice" is as degrading as blackface. What's next? Is a European cooking a Jamaican dish racist too? And if a whitey using blackvoice in print is racist, what of "blacklocks"? Given how many sneering hipsters are big time bong sucklers, doubtless many palid middle class revolutionaries sledging Knox sported dreadlocks themselves. Their hypocrisy is world class.

Bet some of them were even snorting up a storm at this image:
If only these particular hipsters could laugh at themselves they wouldn't need social media at all. Just have to look in the mirror, wouldn't they? But they don't possess that facility at all. Take 'emselves way too seriously.

Knowing how shallow, vacuous and vain your average counter-culture hepcat is I'm pretty sure the thing that really annoyed a lot of 'em was that Knox was being uncool. He was culturally appropriating an element of a culture that they worship and sometimes even emulate. But unlike them, he did it clumsily, and therefore -- in their tiny bong-smoke addled minds -- disrespectfully. Hence all the posturing about "racism".

Because in the end all these sad little stoners value is fashion. And what could be more fashionable than being pompously, relentlessly right-on?

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Gayle-McLaughlin kerfuffle a storm in a groin cup

Glad I'm not alone in being utterly astonished -- not to mention really bloody annoyed -- by the intensity of the condemnation of Chris Gayle for his clumsy on air attempt to pick up reporter Mel McLaughlin. And the ten thousand dollar fine is so OTT it beggars belief.

As a result of his failed pass faux pas, other details of the cricketer's boorish ways have emerged, including a claim that he whopped it out and waved it around in front of woman in a change room recently. If true, of course that's way out of line. Could rightly be viewed as a crime, I suspect. But even before this particular story reared its ugly head the fun police were poncing about all over the joint, blurting out their incoherent protestations to anyone who'd read or listen to 'em. Still at it, too.

One popular line is that he humiliated McLaughlin. Bollocks! He just made a fool of himself. She swiftly waved away his advances and kept working. If you watch the video she remained in control of the interchange and got it back on track very quickly. If anything it was a textbook example of how to deal with an unwanted advance. She was not the victim, alright!

But sooo many people wanna see her this way. Not surprisingly, many call themselves "feminists". As well as reading plenty of tweets in this vein from the usual suspects, I heard it echoed by a bloke calling 2GB earlier today. He said he thought that the level of outrage over Chris Gayle's actions was reasonable. Without irony he added that Mel McLaughlin was an "extremely attractive woman". Well, d'oh!

The top scoring Jamaican pantsman just did what many blokes (including the talkback caller, I suspect) would like to do if they had half a chance. If Gayle "humiliated" Mel McLaughlin by making a pass at her then didn't the caller do this also by telling hundreds of thousands of listeners she was a top sort?

I mean, FFS, can we stop trying to pretend that female beauty isn't a powerful thing? Blokes (and chicks for that matter) get bowled over by it all the time ...

Another popular excuse for some shameless virtue signalling was the "work context" angle. Po-faced post-feminist male journos liked this one a lot. Every time I heard or read one of these mealy-mouthed manginas wheel it it out I wanted to barf at their brazen hypocrisy. What, so none of them ever hit on a spunkrat co-worker? Really, they should STFU unless they're happy to pay ten grand (and lose their treasured columns) each time they ask some female reporter at work out and she says "thanks, but no thanks".

Basically what happened was what's been happenin' since year-effing-dot. Horndog spotted fox and tried it on. Lost.

Ultimately, the episode illustrates what a waste of time and energy trying to police every little interaction between men and women (and all combinations thereof, to be PC!) actually is. If you don't let people muddle through life on their own you'll wind up very bitter and twisted, and make them miserable in the process.

So don't do it, okay!

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Patrick Stokes's hilarious anti-Briggs hate-gargle on The Conversation

You'd be forgiven for thinking that philosophy lecturers were all detached, contemplative types who enjoy nothing more than strolling through the hallowed halls of academe, thinking long and hard about the Big Questions. Sadly, this appears not to be the case. Clearly some are extremely bitchy types with a hugely OTT view of their own importance who stew for years over issues that most sane adults would shrug off pretty quickly.

Why have I come to this conclusion? Well, I just read a little gem of self-parody on Australia's epicentre of academic arsehattery. It's called The Conversation, but given that most contributors are so uniformly right-on The Pocket Pissing Circle Jerk for Tenured Tossers would be more apt, IMHO.

The author is one Patrick Stokes. This lecturer has clearly been suffering big time butthurt for years because Jamie Briggs made quite a reasonable point about public money being wasted on useless, wanky research grants and the like:

You gave four examples of ARC funded “projects that do little, if anything, to advance Australians [sic] research needs.” As I discussed on this site at the time, two of those four were projects in my field, philosophy.

Of course, ARC funding is insanely competitive, so those projects were more or less by definition world class contributions to the discipline. Yet you chose to ridicule them – and, by extension, the life’s work of people like me – all the same.

Wow. Seems to have taken it all very personally, hasn't he? Not philosophical about it at all ... 

Now that Briggs is going through the media mangler petty Patrick has decided to stick the knife in and twist, offering a philosophy themed reading list for Briggs to "help" him in his travails. His open letter stinks of smug superiority and shows that he is clearly savouring the former minister's public humiliation. 

Given that it has been published on a taxpayer funded site that presents itself as a serious journal of intellectual inquiry, its obvious personal malice is significant. And if a bloke like Stokes is typical of those in his field -- who, by valuing snark above scholarship put the, er, hoarse before the Descartes -- then it just lends more weight to Briggs's point about the waste of public funds, dunnit? 

And since Stokes ended his open epistle with a direct address, I'll reply to him in kind: 

Dear Pompous Prof,

Who the hell do you think you are? As I'm sure many a philosopher would tell you, your feelings don't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. So ditch the virtue signalling to all your sneering lefty mates and present a cogent, well thought out argument instead. 

But if you do wanna pen petty, nasty little rants then don't do so on a forum paid for by the people, okay. Publish 'em on your own dime, you parasitic little Kant, you!

Yours, in sincere stoicism,


Monday, January 4, 2016

Dutton's "mad witch" text provokes faux feminist outrage

Another day in the Land Down Under (where pollies blow it, and lefties chunder). The latest outrage provoking the squitterati is Peter Dutton's "mad witch" text. Sure, it was mean and nasty and in a perfect world he shouldn't have even typed it, let alone sent it (and to the very journo it was about -- FFS what a boofhead!). But at least he owned up to his massive faux pas and apologized quick smart.

And does anyone seriously think that only a Tory bloke would send this kind of secret sledge to a mate? Surely such SMS snarkery is common across the political spectrum. And really, who gives a tinker's? Even the target of his ire, Samantha Maiden, shrugged it off pretty easily.

But of course every leftie on Twitter is utterly outraged about it. The frightbats are having a field day, natch.
(Actually, I think Tara meant to say "warlock". But don't tell her I corrected her tweet. That's mansplaining, apparently, and it's illegal in some of the more right-on suburbs of Melbourne like Northcote!)

Those frightbats, eh! Always sooo desperate to play the victim aren't they? And by pointing out the insult, taking umbrage, aren't they perpetuating its, er, power (for want of a better word)?

Being a "feminist" these days is so passive and pathetic, innit? Not empowering at all.

And given they're so into changing the language and all, why don't they do some paradigmatic recalibrating (or whatever the hell they call it) with this?  If "mad fucking wizard" is not an insult, why not make it one? Or why not defang "mad witch" by not overreacting to it and just goin' "meh" instead?

That's sorta what Samantha Maiden herself did, after all. If the woman who's been sledged in the text can shrug it off, makes you wonder why other so-called feminists can't.

Yet they're still so fond of saying how "sassy" they are, aren't they? "Sassy" my arse! As sassy as a buncha Victorian era dowagers, they are...

Of course they're not at all like dowagers when they're in full bullying mode, attacking individuals en masse -- conservative women in particular.

Memo to the bolshie broads: If you're gonna get all offended over "mad fucking witch" then you should stop using the c-word on other women, shouldn't you?

And if you're gonna imply that calling someone a mad witch somehow leads to really serious abuse like domestic violence, then you'd better be clear and strong in support of all women who allege they were raped -- especially by powerful figures, such as the current Leader of the Opposition.
If you don't do this you're just showing yourself to be a craven opportunist taking politically partisan pot shots. Call misogyny out across the board, or not at all. If you deem some blokes beyond reproach then you ain't no feminist, sis!