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.