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.
Often intemperate and sometimes foam-flecked rants about politics, current events and popular culture by Perth blogger and very occasional standup Matt Hayden (obviously not the cricketer). Your problem if you can't spot the sit-down comedy.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Monday, August 29, 2016
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 ...
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 ...
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
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 ...
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 ...
Friday, August 19, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, August 15, 2016
#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.
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.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Greens' census rebellion over privacy concerns is pretty funny
This year's census is proving to be a rolled gold disaster in many ways. The fact that the website crashed reflected very poorly on the Government -- especially if this was due solely to the unforeseen number of wannabe form fillers and not because of some DOS attack, as claimed. Malcolm Turnbull in particular is looking like a real goose after having waxed lyrical about agility, innovation and nimbleness for so long.
Compounding the calamity has been the public outcry over privacy. Pouncing on this issue, ornery senators have staged a mini-rebellion by threatening to refuse to include their names on census forms.
You can understand Nick Xenophon doing this. After all, he never met a meeja stunt he didn't like. And ready-chick Jacqui Lambie is happy to arc up about pretty much anything if it'll make the LNP look bad ... But the fact that several Greens senators are in this group is pretty bizarre given their ideology. I can only assume that they found the opportunity for a bit of propaganda (not to mention party publicity) too tempting to resist.
Their whole party is about controlling the masses, after all. As we all know they are creepy commies in hipster clothing -- "watermelons" for short. (If you think I'm being OTT then look at the, er, herstory of Lee Rhiannon, one of the senators currently so deeply concerned about individuals' right to privacy.)
As well as trying to destroy productive industry, these toxic avengers spend much of their time telling people how to think, act and even feel. They are very pro-censorship and want cartoonists to be be severely punished for pointing out tragic social ills. Now in a disturbing political embrace with Islamism, they demand that mockery of that religion be made off-limits. They also want to invade classrooms to shape kids developing sexuality. Hell, they'll even tell you what to do in the bloody shower!
We can laugh at these silly people now because of their petty, petulant finger-wagging on so many issues. And their electoral support seems to be waning, which is good to know. But can you imagine what such control freaks would do if they ever managed to gain real, pervasive, enduring power over Australian citizens?
The manifold privacy invasions they would surely be happy to commit to create then maintain their imagined socialist utopia would make any potential worries about this particular census seem like very small beer indeed.
Compounding the calamity has been the public outcry over privacy. Pouncing on this issue, ornery senators have staged a mini-rebellion by threatening to refuse to include their names on census forms.
You can understand Nick Xenophon doing this. After all, he never met a meeja stunt he didn't like. And ready-chick Jacqui Lambie is happy to arc up about pretty much anything if it'll make the LNP look bad ... But the fact that several Greens senators are in this group is pretty bizarre given their ideology. I can only assume that they found the opportunity for a bit of propaganda (not to mention party publicity) too tempting to resist.
Their whole party is about controlling the masses, after all. As we all know they are creepy commies in hipster clothing -- "watermelons" for short. (If you think I'm being OTT then look at the, er, herstory of Lee Rhiannon, one of the senators currently so deeply concerned about individuals' right to privacy.)
As well as trying to destroy productive industry, these toxic avengers spend much of their time telling people how to think, act and even feel. They are very pro-censorship and want cartoonists to be be severely punished for pointing out tragic social ills. Now in a disturbing political embrace with Islamism, they demand that mockery of that religion be made off-limits. They also want to invade classrooms to shape kids developing sexuality. Hell, they'll even tell you what to do in the bloody shower!
We can laugh at these silly people now because of their petty, petulant finger-wagging on so many issues. And their electoral support seems to be waning, which is good to know. But can you imagine what such control freaks would do if they ever managed to gain real, pervasive, enduring power over Australian citizens?
The manifold privacy invasions they would surely be happy to commit to create then maintain their imagined socialist utopia would make any potential worries about this particular census seem like very small beer indeed.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Lefties' fearful silence on Al-Faisal College "no gays" claim speaks volumes
Lefties are the most fearful people I know. As well as being afraid of those who lead them, they're terrified of people they themselves cannot control. This drives a lot of their obnoxious, bullying behaviour.
They project a lot of their own fears onto others as well. That's why two of their favourite terms of abuse are "homophobia" and "Islamophobia".
Of course any rational person would see that, given Islam's well known antipathy towards homosexuality, there will be occasions when these two accusations become, er, problematic for those so fond of making them.
And here's a good example: The headmaster of Al-Faisal College, an Islamic school in Sydney, has said that there are no gay kids at the school because they are taught how to behave at home.
Hard to think of a more clear example of "homophobia" than that. And just imagine if a Catholic school principal had made such a statement? Lefties right across this wide brown land would go ballistic en masse!
But forget hypotheticals. You may recall that way back in 1989 Queensland politician Bob Katter claimed that there were no gays in his electorate. So notorious was this comment among the sneering hipster set that it was still being derisively cited in the mainstream media many years later.
So, why no criticism of this recent claim by a Muslim?
Obviously, it's that ol' fear factor again. Gutless lefties are afraid of calling out this example of homophobia, for fear of being accused of Islamophobia.
Gawd but these people are pathetic. Just packin' death the whole time ...
They project a lot of their own fears onto others as well. That's why two of their favourite terms of abuse are "homophobia" and "Islamophobia".
Of course any rational person would see that, given Islam's well known antipathy towards homosexuality, there will be occasions when these two accusations become, er, problematic for those so fond of making them.
And here's a good example: The headmaster of Al-Faisal College, an Islamic school in Sydney, has said that there are no gay kids at the school because they are taught how to behave at home.
Hard to think of a more clear example of "homophobia" than that. And just imagine if a Catholic school principal had made such a statement? Lefties right across this wide brown land would go ballistic en masse!
But forget hypotheticals. You may recall that way back in 1989 Queensland politician Bob Katter claimed that there were no gays in his electorate. So notorious was this comment among the sneering hipster set that it was still being derisively cited in the mainstream media many years later.
So, why no criticism of this recent claim by a Muslim?
Obviously, it's that ol' fear factor again. Gutless lefties are afraid of calling out this example of homophobia, for fear of being accused of Islamophobia.
Gawd but these people are pathetic. Just packin' death the whole time ...
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Talk of an Abbott return on Insiders exasperates Laura Tingle
Didn't see Insiders today. But apparently there was some talk of a possible Abbott resurgence. This was so unpleasant to Laura Tingle that she rolled out her eyes and let out a deep sigh. It was such a memorable reaction that a coupla tweeps remarked upon it.
Wish I'd seen at it. And I will try to hunt this down if I find time because it sounds like a perfect illustration of the Left's view of their number one hate figure. They all think of him as the embodiment of conservative eeevil. And they laboured for years to slay him. With his replacement by Turnbull they thought they'd finally won, and for good.
But now that change has proven to be a rolled gold disaster, and the Delcons are gaining momentum. So we're back to the same old situation we had a coupla years back ...
Sure, people never really warmed to Abbott, and they won't do again. But they definitely do know where he stands on issues. Unlike Turnbull (or Shorten for that matter) Tony Abbott is a conviction politician.
Basically, he's got a spine. And people respect that even if they totally disagree with his positions ... And these days -- particularly with the threat of terrorism ever-present, and growing -- leaders with backbone will gain substantial support in the electorate.
Lefties just don't get that. They have this view of Abbott that is so emotive and deluded it borders on the psychotic. They think they can shape the electorate's perception of him by controlling the media narrative. But the punters aren't that easy to manipulate. They may be influenced, and quite a bit, for a while. But eventually they will end up making up their own minds on the evidence.
Rather than accepting that truth the Left keep on keeping on with their "attitudinal reconstruction" agenda, only to be frustrated over and over again. They're both sad and funny at the same time, the poor little poppets!
Wish I'd seen at it. And I will try to hunt this down if I find time because it sounds like a perfect illustration of the Left's view of their number one hate figure. They all think of him as the embodiment of conservative eeevil. And they laboured for years to slay him. With his replacement by Turnbull they thought they'd finally won, and for good.
But now that change has proven to be a rolled gold disaster, and the Delcons are gaining momentum. So we're back to the same old situation we had a coupla years back ...
Sure, people never really warmed to Abbott, and they won't do again. But they definitely do know where he stands on issues. Unlike Turnbull (or Shorten for that matter) Tony Abbott is a conviction politician.
Basically, he's got a spine. And people respect that even if they totally disagree with his positions ... And these days -- particularly with the threat of terrorism ever-present, and growing -- leaders with backbone will gain substantial support in the electorate.
Lefties just don't get that. They have this view of Abbott that is so emotive and deluded it borders on the psychotic. They think they can shape the electorate's perception of him by controlling the media narrative. But the punters aren't that easy to manipulate. They may be influenced, and quite a bit, for a while. But eventually they will end up making up their own minds on the evidence.
Rather than accepting that truth the Left keep on keeping on with their "attitudinal reconstruction" agenda, only to be frustrated over and over again. They're both sad and funny at the same time, the poor little poppets!
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Rouen bar fire seems suspiciously like terrorism to me
These days there are horrific stories of violence coming out of Europe and to a lesser extent the USA almost every week. Some lunatic goes crazy with a knife, gun, axe or truck. The plods and MSM spend the days afterwards trying to portray it solely as a crazy act committed by a poor soul afflicted with a mental illness.
Slowly but surely other details emerge. More often than not we find out the perpetrator is a young bloke with ties to Islamists. Predictably, the Left hangs on to their PC narrative. But everyone else just shakes their heads in disgust at being lied to yet again, and despair that their governments are so unwilling to act decisively to stop this scourge.
Sure, there's a danger of reading all reports of violence through the prism of Islamist terrorism. As Freud noted, sometimes a cigar is ... just a cigar. And a gruesome spree killing can still be a horrific, insane but non-political act. Still, the odds that Islamism will be proven to be a motivating factor are depressingly high.
That's why I think this report of a fatal bar fire in Rouen, Normandy's capital, seems like it may well turn out to be one of these terrorist acts.
This is the city where that priest was murdered, after all. And it's in a bar, the kind of venue perceived by jihadis to be a scene of wicked Western decadence.
Of course it could well have been an accident. If so it's still a huge tragedy. But I suspect details will gradually emerge pointing to the work of Islamic State or one of its lone wolf sympathisers.
Slowly but surely other details emerge. More often than not we find out the perpetrator is a young bloke with ties to Islamists. Predictably, the Left hangs on to their PC narrative. But everyone else just shakes their heads in disgust at being lied to yet again, and despair that their governments are so unwilling to act decisively to stop this scourge.
Sure, there's a danger of reading all reports of violence through the prism of Islamist terrorism. As Freud noted, sometimes a cigar is ... just a cigar. And a gruesome spree killing can still be a horrific, insane but non-political act. Still, the odds that Islamism will be proven to be a motivating factor are depressingly high.
That's why I think this report of a fatal bar fire in Rouen, Normandy's capital, seems like it may well turn out to be one of these terrorist acts.
This is the city where that priest was murdered, after all. And it's in a bar, the kind of venue perceived by jihadis to be a scene of wicked Western decadence.
Of course it could well have been an accident. If so it's still a huge tragedy. But I suspect details will gradually emerge pointing to the work of Islamic State or one of its lone wolf sympathisers.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
In Rudd vs Turnbull stoush narcissism fuels snarkissism
The ongoing stoush between Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull over the former's dream of becoming UN secretary general is unedifying. But it's also fascinating given how similar they are psychologically.
Now, I'm no shrink. Still, from what I've read and seen I think it's safe to say they clearly both display behavioural characteristics that could reasonably be called narcissism.
Such flawed individuals do not learn from reality. In their minds they constantly replay a gloriously inflated vision of themselves and demand that all those around them reflect it back as confirmation of its validity.
This compulsion is so strong and deep inside them that most people unfortunate enough to be trapped in their orbit die early, go barking mad, wind up addicted to drugs or alcohol, or, most frequently, run away screaming and take months to recover their own sense of self. More psychologically balanced individuals simply can't stand up to them -- unless they're narcissists themselves.
That seems to be what's happening here. And that's why I suspect this bitch-fest is gonna go for quite a while yet ...
And while men like Rudd and Turnbull are formidable, domineering and relentless, they are also extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism. They'll often take the rage this causes out on subordinates by chucking massive tanties over the tiniest of issues. But if that's not an option they'll express it in less dramatic ways.
Take Rudd's revealingly snarky reaction to Turnbull's claims he didn't actually promise him support for his UN push. While advising a bunch of young Labor activists he said this:
'I've got a very dark deep secret for you, sometimes it'll turn to s**t and sometimes it won't turn out perfectly.
'I've had a modest experience of that, just a little bit, including yesterday.
'Part of the collective scar tissue of life.'
This is very emotive language for a politician, don't you think? It clearly comes from a very different part of the brain that produced "programmatic specificity".
I think Rudd is hinting at the level of rage he's feeling now. He's saying he does have a deep, dark side to him. And a helluva lot of scar tissue!
Translation: "I'm a mean mofo with a hide like a rhino."
And from the same article:
Mr Rudd said he wanted to 'make a huge difference' as prime minister and on the international stage in his bid to be Australia's United Nations secretary general.
'I've been seeking to do that on the international stage, and then one of those great brick walls in life presented itself in the form of Malcolm Turnbull,' Mr Rudd said.
The first part shows his grandiosity. The second shows his contempt for Turnbull, whom he dehumanizes in his metaphor.
Translation: "Don't you dare deny me my good and altruistic ambitions. Do that and you are committing a crime against humanity! Watch out, pal. If I get the chance I'll flatten you like a bulldozer!"
Rudd's clearly upped the ante to "No more Mr Nice Guy". It'll be very interesting to see what happens next.
Now, I'm no shrink. Still, from what I've read and seen I think it's safe to say they clearly both display behavioural characteristics that could reasonably be called narcissism.
Such flawed individuals do not learn from reality. In their minds they constantly replay a gloriously inflated vision of themselves and demand that all those around them reflect it back as confirmation of its validity.
This compulsion is so strong and deep inside them that most people unfortunate enough to be trapped in their orbit die early, go barking mad, wind up addicted to drugs or alcohol, or, most frequently, run away screaming and take months to recover their own sense of self. More psychologically balanced individuals simply can't stand up to them -- unless they're narcissists themselves.
That seems to be what's happening here. And that's why I suspect this bitch-fest is gonna go for quite a while yet ...
And while men like Rudd and Turnbull are formidable, domineering and relentless, they are also extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism. They'll often take the rage this causes out on subordinates by chucking massive tanties over the tiniest of issues. But if that's not an option they'll express it in less dramatic ways.
Take Rudd's revealingly snarky reaction to Turnbull's claims he didn't actually promise him support for his UN push. While advising a bunch of young Labor activists he said this:
'I've got a very dark deep secret for you, sometimes it'll turn to s**t and sometimes it won't turn out perfectly.
'I've had a modest experience of that, just a little bit, including yesterday.
'Part of the collective scar tissue of life.'
This is very emotive language for a politician, don't you think? It clearly comes from a very different part of the brain that produced "programmatic specificity".
I think Rudd is hinting at the level of rage he's feeling now. He's saying he does have a deep, dark side to him. And a helluva lot of scar tissue!
Translation: "I'm a mean mofo with a hide like a rhino."
And from the same article:
Mr Rudd said he wanted to 'make a huge difference' as prime minister and on the international stage in his bid to be Australia's United Nations secretary general.
'I've been seeking to do that on the international stage, and then one of those great brick walls in life presented itself in the form of Malcolm Turnbull,' Mr Rudd said.
The first part shows his grandiosity. The second shows his contempt for Turnbull, whom he dehumanizes in his metaphor.
Translation: "Don't you dare deny me my good and altruistic ambitions. Do that and you are committing a crime against humanity! Watch out, pal. If I get the chance I'll flatten you like a bulldozer!"
Rudd's clearly upped the ante to "No more Mr Nice Guy". It'll be very interesting to see what happens next.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Sonia Kruger triggers the Left again, now over LGBTI scholarships
Sonia Kruger is proving herself to be a total champ. Hot on the high heels of her comments about Muslim immigration (which I thought were tad OTT, but nonetheless understandable given recent events) she's now triggering the LGBTI SJW crowd by saying that students should get scholarships on merit, not according to which sex they wanna schtup.
What the hell is so unreasonable about that? It's just common sense. Just the mere fact that she's called the scholarship selection process "reverse discrimination" has outraged many. But that's exactly what it is, innit?
Hell, I can even remember a time when that was what some of its proponents called it. Then they changed it to "affirmative action" to make it sound all caring and sharing. (Lefties have form on this. They're always dodgying up the language to conceal their true motives. "Global warming" morphing into "climate change" is another example.)
Anyhoo, I'm glad Kruger has got the, er, cojonettes to say these things. She's definitely got the support of most of her viewers even if she's surrounded by right-on jellybacks. And the fat cats who are trying to censor her know this. That's why they won't sack her.
I'll bet the tragically PC drip David Campbell thinks he's actually preserving his career by tut-tutting Kruger for her wrongthink. But I think the opposite is the case.
Remember the line "Politics is showbiz for ugly people"? Yeah, well, the inverse holds as well. That is, showbiz is politics for the good lookin'.
The vast majority of Oz commercial TV viewers have had a gutful of this PC shit. And viewers vote with their eyeballs, so in the long run babes with backbone like Kruger will retain their constituencies (and therefore their careers) more than attractive airheads mouthing PC cant.
What the hell is so unreasonable about that? It's just common sense. Just the mere fact that she's called the scholarship selection process "reverse discrimination" has outraged many. But that's exactly what it is, innit?
Hell, I can even remember a time when that was what some of its proponents called it. Then they changed it to "affirmative action" to make it sound all caring and sharing. (Lefties have form on this. They're always dodgying up the language to conceal their true motives. "Global warming" morphing into "climate change" is another example.)
Anyhoo, I'm glad Kruger has got the, er, cojonettes to say these things. She's definitely got the support of most of her viewers even if she's surrounded by right-on jellybacks. And the fat cats who are trying to censor her know this. That's why they won't sack her.
I'll bet the tragically PC drip David Campbell thinks he's actually preserving his career by tut-tutting Kruger for her wrongthink. But I think the opposite is the case.
Remember the line "Politics is showbiz for ugly people"? Yeah, well, the inverse holds as well. That is, showbiz is politics for the good lookin'.
The vast majority of Oz commercial TV viewers have had a gutful of this PC shit. And viewers vote with their eyeballs, so in the long run babes with backbone like Kruger will retain their constituencies (and therefore their careers) more than attractive airheads mouthing PC cant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)