Thursday, December 28, 2017

Boxing Day in Bondi: My mystical dog day afternoon

Like many of you I'm sure, I've long wondered why "Boxing Day" bears that very name. Seems it's vaguely to do with boxes (as opposed to the sport) and there are various theories about it.

Well, whatever its exact origins mine was more of a "Boxers' Day", due to the spooky mutt-themed synchronicity I experienced ...

See, I headed down to Bondi Beach, planning to shuffle about and take a few snaps. I got out of the bus just near a distinctive piece of street art that I'm sure most Sydneysiders know well.

Snoozing on the pavement opposite was this adorable little fella. I couldn't help noticing how much he looked like the hound on the wall nearby.

Maybe he was the artist's original model, I thought. Perhaps he felt a craving for his old glory days, and had lobbed there hoping to be recognized by passersby. Tired of the adulation (or disappointing lack thereof) he was enjoying some much needed shuteye ...

Or maybe it wasn't ego, but love that had brought him there. Could the image have reminded him of on old flame? Maybe he was pining for the poochy past; yearning for a long lost puppy love?

Well, whatever his motivation, I felt there was some sort of spiritual significance in this canine coincidence for me. It just had to be a Message from Dog.

But what exactly? The most likely one seems to be that I should just accept that life's a bitch, stop being so pugnacious and let sleeping dogs lie ...

But to be honest, I'm still quite mastiff-ied. 

Any other suggestions, people? 

Monday, December 25, 2017

Never mind the bollards ... it's just Christmas in Sydney

Fascinating to watch the reaction of Western governments and the mainstream media to the problem of Islamist terrorism. Just sooo reluctant to grasp the nettle, eh?

They know the threat is very real because people keep getting killed and maimed by these gruesome goons. So they have to do something.

But they're squeamish about actually identifying the problem. Doing so would mean ditching some of the main foundations upon which their politically correct Empire of Bollocks is built. There's no way they wanna even start going down that road ...

So they keep trying to fool the public with stupid posturing and pronouncements, or tragically hare-brained "preventative" schemes. But aside from a buncha basket-weaving, sandal-wearing inner-city Greens voters, they're only fooling themselves.

This response to the recent Melbourne terror attack from the geniuses at The Conversation says it all.

FFS. Talk about denial!

Obviously the powers that be here in Sydney have been “thinking” along the same right-on lines because anti-terror barriers have been in place at central locations like the Sydney Opera House and the eastern end of Martin Place for a while now.

And more “diversity bollards” have been popping up lately. Take these giant stone baubles at Martin Place's western end, near the corner of Pitt St.

Now I'm not sure if they were installed specifically due to the increased triggering potential of the giant Christmas tree erected adjacent to the GPO. But it certainly seems like it … Pretty sure they are a recent addition. In any case they look like being a permanent fixture.

Then there are the ones in the newly opened section of George St down toward the QVB.

Love how they're all wrapped up like Chrissie presents! Fact that they are shows that whoever put them there is afflicted by two levels of idiotic delusion.

One: that these lumps of concrete will truly make us safer from murderous morons out to eradicate as much infidel “Aussie scum” as possible.

Two: that the Yuletide decorations will make them seem less obvious to passersby.

Gawd. What a crap gift! Worse than finding a Peter FitzSimons tome in your stocking, it is ...

Instead of offering square lumps of concrete to Sydneysiders justifiably concerned about the real possibility that they'll be run over, knifed or shot by some insane, retarded Islamist arsehole shrieking "Allahu Akbar!", both the Government and mainstream media should start by acknowledging the, er, Caliphant in the room, and allowing free, unrestrained debate about how best to actually deal with this massive problem.

That would be the best Chrissie present we've all had in ages, I reckon.

Monday, December 18, 2017

If anything, John Alexander's joke mocked dishonesty more than disability

Disappointed that John Alexander apologized for that joke he made about being eligible for a disabled parking sticker. The SJWS who piled on with the faux outrage over it will take that as an admission of guilt and bash him with it in future, as well as go in harder with their verballing of his jokes and statements. They are cowards and bullies who simply don't know what to do if you stand up to them.

So the Member for Bennelong should have just said "get a life" or words to that effect. Of course doing so would've provoked an even greater explosion of outrage initially, but in the long run he'd benefit. The usual suspects would realize he can't be bullied.

Of course, being triggered by gags is nothing new. You can find absolutely any joke offensive if you want to. And, sure, ultimately everyone has the right to have that reaction. But it's pretty clear if something is massively OTT or not. And that certainly was the case here.

Any sane, rational adult would realize that he wasn't making fun of the disabled. He was mocking politics, and how it makes you compromise your principles.

Much of the "reporting" of Alexander's quip removed context in an effort to make it seem mean spirited. Take the Guardian:

"The doctor at the time said you have eligibility for a disabled sticker. I said, I still have some pride,” Alexander told supporters at his victory function on Saturday night.

He then quipped: “That was before I entered politics.”

That short extract, and the deceptive headline, is meant to make you focus on the lead up. But check out the other stuff he said:

"When I thought my tennis career was finished, because I hurt my back, I started coaching there at one point, and then the back got better," he said.

"I was actually eligible for the disabled sticker on my car! And then I got to about number 14 in the world.

"The doctor at the time said, 'You have eligibility for a disabled sticker'. I said 'I still have some pride'.

"That was before I entered politics! I digress."

That makes it clearer what he was getting at. He was implying that he didn't really need the sticker, though technically he qualified. To have used it under those circumstances would have been dishonest.

It would have been like being eligible for the dole when you've actually got a job. Now, would saying that you're too proud to accept government payments under false pretences be mocking the unemployed? Obviously not.

So he wasn't mocking the disabled. (Actually, you could even see it as a form of respect for them. He didn't want to take something from someone who was genuinely in need of it.)

So, the joke's lead up was about his pride in his honesty and how thought he could keep living by it. But that all changed when he entered politics. Boom, boom!

In other words: To succeed in Canberra, you basically have to have no pride (and be dishonest).

Speaking of which, here's Labor's Carol Brown:

“In his victory speech last night, Liberal John Alexander made remarks that could only be interpreted as offensive to people with disability."

Well, actually, there are many interpretations. I think the one I've listed above is very close to what Alexander actually intended.

For shamelessly opportunistic Labor pollies like Brown, almost any joke by a political opponent will be interpreted as offensive because they lack rational arguments, so will happily use verballing instead.

"To suggest that Australians who require a disability parking permit have anything to be ashamed of is repugnant. It’s not funny – it’s stupid and offensive."

As I explained above, the shame Alexander alluded to was not in having a disability parking permit if you are genuinely disabled, but in dishonestly acquiring one.

Brown is conflating shame with disability far more directly and strongly than Alexander did. Which is why I think she's being dishonest. (Actually, looks to me like the kind of dishonesty JA himself was mocking in his joke ... Funny, that.)

Needless to say, it wasn't just fake news peddlers and brazen pollies milking JA's joke for faux outrage. Check out this sanctimonious reaction from a troll to my tweet about this non-story that was all over the love media:

Typical emotive tactics from a PC plonker. Firstly, he goes straight to ad hom and says that JA and anyone defending him is "insensitive" (ie, a bad person).

Later on in a vile attempt to slime another tweep (Taswegian) he associates the idea of a diseased mind with his own family member with MS! Fact that he does this unprompted says sooo much more about Watson's own character than Taswegian's.

Whichever way you cut it, Watson's disgraceful tweet is waaay more offensive than Alexander's joke.

Ugh. What utter scumbags these people are.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Van Badham tells men to "stand up and fight" Milo Yiannopoulos. What a joke!

So funny to watch Milo Yiannopoulos trigger the local MSM snowflakes as he tours Australia. They're trying so dang hard to push this bogus line about him being a neo-Nazi racist. They all just repeat the same fake news talking points like the fricken zombies they are. 

They always highlight the Twitter ban, natch. Vanessa "Van" Badham says he was punted "for encouraging the sexist and racist abuse of Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones".

Such bollocks. He didn't sic his followers onto her at all. He mocked her in tweets, then some tweeps piled on afterwards with really vile stuff and the liberal media blamed him for that.

When you have hundreds of thousands of followers some of them are gonna be utter arseholes, let's face it. What they do is not your responsibility. But this reverse association trick is a fave leftist tactic. It's like saying that because a sleb has a stalker who commits a crime, the sleb is to blame. Nasty, dishonest stuff.

Sure, Milo trolled Jones big time and mocked her appearance. And he referred to her race in a self-mocking tweet about his own obsession with black dudes. But to call this racist is a helluva long bow to draw, especially since there are countless truly racist tweets -- along with all the other putrid stuff -- still up on the platform unchecked (some of it even from slebs who are!).

The Aussie love media luvvies all repeatedly call him "alt-right" which is now a term that's used to describe neo-Nazi white supremacists like the goons who read Daily Stormer. Our socialist snowflakes are thrashing the hell out of it! But Milo is not like that at all as he explains comprehensively in his best-selling book Dangerous.

Yiannopoulos abhors political correctness, of course. But to say this means he believes in a master race is BS on stilts.

But intellectual dishonesty is the essence of the PC Left, innit? And they're using it in a concerted effort to rile up their credulous acolytes then blame him for creating a "dangerous" environment. Then they can no-platform him -- to keep Australians safe, natch. What devious scumbags they are.

All the local leftie luminaries are packin' death over Milo, since he so fabulously flays their precious PC narrative -- to which they all owe their massively overpaid gigs (funded with money snatched from the very normies they spend their miserable lives sneering at for "wrongthink", BTW).

Vanessa "Van" Badham is more terrified of him than most, which has made her Guardian gargle from last week exceptionally silly. She kicks own goals throughout:

Yiannopoulos’s apologists insist that he can’t possibly be homophobic, racist or antisemitic because he claims some Jewish heritage and is married to a black man.

Actually it's not just these reasons. There's also his many articles and videos, in which he consistently and articulately condemns bigotry of all kinds and exhorts his readers and viewers to apply one standard, one standard for all. But Vanessa, who's always holding her leftie and frightbat pals to a far lower standard than others, simply can't comprehend that.

Which sounds marvellously like claiming men married to women are never misogynists. Oh, please.

Well d'uh! Of course married men can be misogynists -- as can self-described "male feminists". Given the tsunami of revolting revelations about such right-on dudes in America's liberal media and entertainment industries, it looks very much like that's the norm rather than the exception.

Women, too, can be women haters. Just look at the abuse Badham herself and her bolshie bestie Clementine Ford have hurled at chicks who don't toe their stupid victim feminist line. Misogynist indeed.

Then there's her obvious misandry. Badham, along with countless other crybullies, has built her career carping about "the patriarchy" -- just another way of saying "it's all men's fault!".

Then she has the jaw-dropping gall to imply that all her niggardly nagging is really a fricken favour to the blokes. FFS!

How very cancerous of us to insist on a common morality in which disadvantage is righted, difference accommodated and gender stereotypes dissolved

That's hilarious. Victim feminists like her don't want common morality. They want to be given everything on a platter on account of their gender; never to be held to account for anything. And can you think of anyone who stereotypes men as oppressors (and women as the oppressed) more than blowhards like Badham?

It’s an agenda which has now liberated generations of men from destructive, cruel expectation that the performance of dominant masculinity depends on repressed human feelings, social isolation, vocational denial and high-risk competitions of often violent, dangerous physical activity.

Gawd. So feminism has liberated men? Hardly. (Hasn't oppressed them either, BTW. Just annoyed the crap out of them.)

Well, I could never accuse Badham herself of repressing her feelings. Just a shame she possesses such a limited range -- one of which is clearly smug superiority ... Her sense of entitlement is just off the charts. She actually has the gall to demand blokes get bolshie at Milo's events:

It’s for this reason I’d like to see men protesting Yiannopoulos’s visit, especially those so vocal in their “wokeness”, so articulate in their feminist solidarity, so keen to insist they are our allies ... As long as Yiannopoulous enjoys his platforms without active male protest, it’s his own warped ideas of what it means to be a man that are entering the public arena unchecked.

So she basically wants her tragic fanbois to kick up a massive stink at his shows. If it's big enough for them to be cancelled, I suspect she'll be pleased as punch. Blech! What an ugly totalitarian attitude she has. 

May I remind you that Yiannopoulos has lost a book contract, two jobs and a prominent speaking role and yet is still very much breathing.

She says it like it's a bad thing ... And isn't that an intriguing choice of words? If a righty wrote that about Badham herself or one of her fellow travellers, there'd be a conga line of frightbats calling it a dog whistling incitement to violence for sure! 

He claims Australia is his biggest fanbase outside the US. I’d love to know how many more Yiannopoulos may win over, before those men made of better values allow themselves to stand up and fight back.

Another intriguing choice of words. She seems not to mean this figuratively, as in "rhetorical combat". After all, she doesn't want them to argue against Milo. She just wants him no-platformed (silenced).

So, it seems she might actually believe "male violence" is acceptable after all -- as long as she's calling the shots, of course.

In any case, it sounds like her woke-bloke army hasn't exactly risen to the challenge so far. I suppose standing up and fighting is all a bit too difficult -- especially when you're so used to peeing sitting down. 

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

A "Welcome to Country" ... that wasn't very welcoming

Bolshies are brimming. We all know that. They have a right to be, of course. And good on 'em for being passionate about stuff! But what I always find surprising is how clearly their seething rage against injustice -- much of it imagined, BTW -- is at odds with their claims to be compassionate, caring, kind folk. I mean, FFS, how can you be loving when you're filthy mad? Not only that, they seem to be completely unaware of this massive contradiction, and how it might harm their cause.

This odd dissonance was clearly on display at a recent demo for the Manus Island "refugees". Not surprisingly, each of the activists who spoke about the situation there was dripping with disdain for our democratically elected government. But so was the dude tasked with performing the obligatory "Welcome to Country".

I thought this was quite telling because the actual ceremony's purpose is in part to show the "traditional owners'" magnanimous attitude toward their "invaders", innit? But the guy at the rally seemed to display little, if any, of that. 

I didn't catch his name. But when he started his speech he clarified that he was actually from the mid North Coast of NSW, and therefore not one of the local Gadigal people, on whose land this rally was taking place. So there seemed to be an intra-Indigenous land rights hierarchy even he had to pay lip service to!

Anyhoo, unless he explicitly welcomed the crowd in the moments after he was introduced -- when I was finding a position to film him -- no such sentiment was expressed.

He did say "thank you" right at the end, however. So that was nice of him ... Still, this did come after he and the overwhelmingly white middle class crowd present had chanted: "Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land!"

Upon hearing this I couldn't help thinking how many of these pallid hipsters had purchased property themselves. Surely some had -- which would make them big fat hypocrites, wouldn't it? Not that they'd be aware of the irony, though. Whole purpose of them being there was to signal their virtue, not actually live up to the principles they claim to believe in.

As well as vehemently expressing his loathing for the "racist" Dutton, Abbott, et al, he invoked the recent yes vote for SSM. Such a fave tactic of the PC Left, this. They're forever peddling a bogus narrative about the wretched of the Earth all joining forces and rising up against their "oppressors" (y'know, evil white males -- like moi).

So silly ... Apart from anything else, you gotta wonder how many Aborigines actually do support "marriage equality". Highly doubt the percentage is greater than the national average -- prolly lower, actually.

Anyhoo, he said that the postal plebiscite outcome was a sign that he and his fellow travellers "can push back!".

Push back? Push back?


Call me old fashioned, but I'd say this was much closer to "pushing back" ...

But please do check out the video I took below, which shows all but the first few seconds of his "Welcome to Country". I think you'll see what I mean.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Manus Island refugee demo in Hyde Park was typically emotive and incoherent

This Manus Island soap opera is just getting more and more ridiculous. Lefties in Oz are milking it for all it's worth. And they can do this because events are unfolding a long way from the mainland. They can tell the most brazen lies about goings on there and basically get away with it.

They aren't quite as bold when it comes to stuff going on in our cities because even though most of the local media are happy to echo their simplistic, OTT narrative without question there are some journos who ask pertinent questions and collect evidence disputing their outrageous claims.

Recently, they've all been shrieking up a storm about efforts to move the so-called refugees from the old centre on Manus Island to a new one. This would be a pretty straightforward process if the occupants were cooperative. But instead they've been as obstructive as possible (encouraged by activists, no doubt). The authorities have lost patience and are using force. That's unfortunate but understandable.

Local activists are carrying on as if it's the most terrible thing that could possibly happen. Sooo typical of them, innit?

Tortured? Abandoned to perish?

FFS, they're just trying to move them to a new facility ...

Doesn't matter what's really going on. Socialists will always be weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth zif the sky's about to fall in. They're always doing their damnedest to demonize their opponents. Also, they're getting off on the drama of it. They're screaming: "Pay attention to us. We're important! Look how much we care!"

Saw some of this on the weekend down at Hyde Park. There was a rally in support of the men on Manus, see. Like all leftie demos, it was full of incoherence and virtue signalling. Lots of silly signs and behaviour. A real show.

The banners were emotive as usual. They'd only appeal to people who don't think too hard about things. The Greens advocated policies that resulted in over a thousand people drowning. Calling them "compassionate" is bloody absurd, clearly.

And by the same token, is it "cruel" to prevent these deaths, even if this is achieved by unflinching application of harsh border policies? Hell, they're the only measures that stop people smuggling. Not pleasant but they do work.

But there were some colourful characters there, I gotta say. It's something you often see at leftie gatherings.

Take this magnificent old dude, who woulda looked right at home in a biblical epic. Coulda been the good lord Himself!

Ironic he was holding up a socialist banner since they tend to be atheists and all. (Though you never know, He mighta lobbed from Heaven to offer the ultimate moral authority. God works in mysterious ways, after all ...)

Dutton has blood on his hands? What, for enforcing a policy that has been proven to save lives? But those whose demands ultimately lure people to their deaths are the good guys ... Got it.

(Just hope this is not real blood BTW. If it is, whoever donated it for the sign needs to eat a big juicy steak, pronto. They're obviously seriously anaemic ...)

I quite like this photo. Seems symbolic somehow ... One interpretation: there's violence and suffering everywhere. By focusing on hyperbolic (and sometimes flat out fraudulent) claims about what's happening a long way away, you could be missing something far worse much closer to home.

Not sure what significance the turtle had ... Maybe he'd endured so many of these sanctimonious rallies over the years that he'd just had a gutful? 

Interesting that leftie activists are forever waxing lyrical about love and compassion. The rally's speakers were clearly driven most strongly by emotions like anger, disgust, rage, contempt, and indignation.

Take the guy in the video below. He was the organizer, an academic who writes for The Guardian. Bloke was brimming! Can you imagine him being able to discuss the issue of border control calmly, even without his powerful sun hat of social justice?

Neither can I. 

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Australia may have said yes to SSM, but Sydney wasn't quite so sure

Still kinda reeling from the outcome of the postal plebiscite for "marriage equality". I thought that the No side had waged a very effective campaign and managed to get a lot of Australians to think long and hard about the issue. After all, marriage is about a whole lot more than just "love" and there are many good arguments for keeping it as it is.

Given what had happened with Brexit and the election of Trump, and how both these results completely confounded the pollsters, I thought we may well have been in for another surprise. Even posted this prediction:

Obviously I was being way too optimistic. I suspect that while a lot of people did realize they were being conned with all the pretty rainbow signs and flags and emotive lovey-dovey rhetoric, this came late in the process. So, while the fusty fighters pegged back the Yes side's lead somewhat, the result was pretty clear nationally.

Not surprisingly there was a clear distinction in the way the two main Sydney papers covered the issue. The Daily Tele employed its trademark politically incorrect abrasiveness, and the Herald was its usual gushy, mushy, virtue signalling self. 

Speaking of distinctions: There was a massive fault line in Western Sydney, where the biggest no vote was recorded. This was really intriguing.

Blaxland had the highest proportion of naysayers. When I first heard about it I thought maybe this was due to the lasting influence of the seat's former member Paul Keating, who said "Two blokes and a cocker spaniel do not make a family".

Obviously not. The electorate has changed massively since then. It was mostly due to the high proportion of working class people from non-English speaking backgrounds, especially Muslims. Among other things this makes Yes zealots undeniably elitist, Islamophobic and hence racist by their own definition.

And it's pretty funny that the sneering hipster crowd still sees silvertail electorates as homophobia hotbeds. Warringah (Tony Abbott's electorate) scored among the highest yes votes in the country. That's another way in which their child-brained PC narrative was confounded by reality. 

But as always with the PC Left, it's not about reality. It's all about having their precious fee-fees validated. The orgy of self congratulation was pretty nauseating. They weren't exactly gracious in victory, that's for sure.

Funny how so many of the Yes side called their opponents "dinosaurs". They should curb their enthusiasm. We just had a survey in which over half respondents said that SSM is fine with them. That is all. The law has not yet been changed. By their criteria, Oz is still "Jurassic Park", innit?

The way the Yes crowd now condemns those who had the temerity to vote no is a bit like the tsunami of claims about Harvey Weinstein, IMO. Everyone in Hollywood knew about his vile behaviour, but heaps are only speaking up now. If "marriage equality" is such a "fundamental human right", why no momentum for it yonks back?

The massive push for SSM is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in ultra-PC Artsville in Melbourne in the 90s I hardly ever heard demands for it, even from gays and lesbians. It's come globally from above (cultural Marxism). The idea that it's developed organically from the bottom up is total bollocks.

If you're a married Yes voter claiming it's "homophobic" and a "human rights violation" to deny marriage to LGBTIQ folk, surely that was always the case ... So why are you only now condemning this injustice, congratulating yourself for your compassion? Where were you when it mattered?

Married heteros pushing the "fundamental human right" line on SSM are yuuuge hypocrites. They're like white South Africans who did sweet far call about apartheid when it was law, then congratulated themselves after it was ditched. If they had any sincerity, they would never have been married in the first place.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Daisy Cousens triggers "The Ferret"

Kinda funny that sneering hipsters detest the Daily Telegraph. They see it as wholly eeevil -- one of the main ways by which those vile right-wingers brainwash Sydney's plebs into believing in quaint notions like freedom of speech. 

But as usual they're way off the mark. While the tabloid does have some high profile columnists (such as Mark Latham) who appeal to the sane, rational adult demographic, a fair whack of the rest of its content is pretty dang PC. In other words, like many News Ltd publications, it actually has a range of views.

Hell, it even includes input from animals -- or as the more extreme activists like to call them, "non-human persons". Take this nosy little critter, "The Ferret".

Rather than condemn the paper, deep green lefties should actually rejoice that the Daily Telegraph is such a staunch ally in the crusade against speciesism. Even the Sydney Morning Herald isn't that non-discriminatory in its employment practices. (Frightbats aren't actual bats, remember -- though I'm sure many of them do sleep upside down.)

Even better, "The Ferret" actually seems to be a bit of a leftie himself -- well, if his last column is any guide. You could even call him a "fur-bolshie" ...

See, he's penned this snarky little item about high-profile young conservative Daisy Cousens.

Now, Ms Cousens has form on provoking the Left. She routinely triggers SJWs into foam-flecked fits of pique, in which they often reveal their own ugly bigotry. The fact that she's now done this to a member of the family Mustelidae is testament to her trolling skills.

The moonlighting rabbit catcher sneers:

"Now, of course, no-one knows who the ferret Daisy is. But among those mincing around in some right-wing circles she has become somewhat of a pin-up girl."

Mincing? Mincing?

Is Mr Ferret unaware that in left-wing circles that term is verboten? It's inherently homophobic, and in a few years could even be classified as hate speech (along with "tranny" and "fag"). 

Anyhoo, doesn't he know that right-wingers don't mince. They stride!

But I shouldn't be surprised at his ignorance given his very sheltered existence. Most of the time he's curled up asleep in a tubby goth's cleavage, after all ...

But the thing that really shat off the bespectacled fur-bolshie (which consequently caught my eye) was what Ms Cousens said on The Bolt Report in relation to the consequences of gay marriage for shop owners:

"Refusing service to people, it happens for all sorts of reasons, a couple of months ago in Melbourne an Asian gentleman who owned a shop refused service to young black males for the simple fact that he had noticed that they had a propensity to commit crime. Should we prevent him from doing that to protect his store because of what he has observed?"

The whiskered busybody's very revealing reply:

"Ah, yes Daisy. Yes we should."

Wow. That's one PC polecat!

Presumably, like his fellow-travelling humans, he's being very selective in his standards here. Does he think that the Rose Hotel in Chippendale should have been prevented from cancelling this regular Christian gathering, I wonder?

And regardless of consistency in application, how could shop owners be forced to serve all customers whether they like it or not other than through the introduction and rigorous enforcement of truly totalitarian laws?

That's one particularly deep and dark rabbit hole this particular ferret is very reluctant to investigate, I suspect. 

Friday, November 3, 2017

Popular Daily Telegraph not PC while right-on Fairfax is failing (and fake anyhow)

A coupla days ago I saw this Daily Telegraph cover story about a stoush over a woman between two beefy Italian rugby league players. It was mildly politically incorrect in its invocation of the Italian theme and certainly gave me a laugh. One of the first paragraphs brazenly included the phrase "cracking on". Frankly I think the writer should win a human rights award just for that!

I suspect the paper didn't receive any complaints for this story. After all, Italy is part of Europe, historically inhabited by white folk. So it would be a real stretch to characterize this as some kinda hate crime, even for a sneering hipster from Sydney Uni. Still, with all the social justice warriors running amok these days, more and more people are getting offended by the most innocuous things.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking about how this paper is perceived by its audience. Obviously, the vast majority of its readers don't take offense to its often abrasive approach, and appreciate this kind of humour. That's one of the reasons it's so popular.

On the other side of the media spectrum there's Fairfax, which is struggling financially. Clearly, a major reason for this is its drearily right-on, humourless approach.

Without a doubt the sneering hipsters who regularly read the Sydney Morning Herald would look at a front page like the one shown above and roll their eyes at what they believed to be its typically crass and culturally insensitive tone.

But does Fairfax truly walk its talk when it comes to being politically correct? If the Chris Gayle defamation suit is any guide it certainly doesn't. The case was a clear win for the Jamaican, who successfully argued that stories published about him were both false and malicious.

If the Daily Telegraph was the paper coughing up defo payments to a black cricketer, you can be damn sure that Fairfax writers would be howling about the "racism" of the journos and editors in question. Maybe they should be applying those same standards to themselves for once? 

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Is "rainbow fascism" too strong a term?

One phrase that's getting used a lot these days is "rainbow fascism". It describes the authoritarian tactics of the "marriage equality" crowd. When I first started hearing it a while back I thought it was waaay OTT. But nowadays I'm not so sure.

Obviously, these shrieking zealots are not going to line people up against a wall and shoot them if they vote no in the plebiscite. But if you take "fascist" to mean one who despises democracy and wages concerted campaigns to control citizens thoughts, feelings and speech then these serious little insects are well on the way to deserving the label IMHO. 

The PC narrative has it the other way around, natch. The cultural Marxists are always painting their opponents as the real Nazis. But the truth is much more problematic, as this excellent book The Big Lie makes clear. In the USA, it's the Democrats who have long been closest in spirit to the National Socialists. And in true totalitarian style, they've turned the truth completely on its head!

Something similar is happening with this SSM push. And one major element of it is the employment of the rainbow symbol to manipulate the masses emotionally.

See, rainbows are like love itself -- they are universally seen as good, beautiful and positive. Only a certified arsehole would abhor those pretty colours in the sky after rain, surely. So, the Yes crowd have made the rainbow a central image in their branding. It's kind of like emotional blackmail: "Vote yes and everything's pretty and nice. Do the opposite and the rainbow gets it!"

They've obviously put a helluva lot of thought, preparation and work into this project. They've been at it for a long while, right across the globe.

I really started to notice the tactic about a year ago when I saw this display in Bondi Junction.

What got me was the fact that even though gay marriage wasn't actually mentioned specifically, it was still being alluded to. And it was very clearly tied in with the shopping centre's own hashtag.

After this I started noticing the symbol everywhere. Recently, I even realized it was in a photo I'd taken of a pub -- though I was unaware of it at the time.

Clearly, the pro-SSM crowd have been very hard at work getting businesses both large and small to literally fly the flag for their revolutionary movement.

Speaking of which, Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore's been doing it for ages -- and at our expense.

And here's another example of this: public art. Over in Fremantle a whole year ago a sculpture called "Rainbow" was installed at significant public expense. The port city's Lord Mayor had this to say:

“I hope Rainbow will not only foster conversation and debate but will put a smile on the faces of locals and visitors and remind us of just how lucky we are to live in such a great place."

That's sooo leftist innit? They always say they welcome debate. But really, it's the last thing they want. He added:

“Like all good pieces of art it will mean different things to different people. For me it represents a variety of things including Fremantle’s strong links to the sea, a celebration of Freo’s renowned arts and culture scene and also a strong statement of hope for greater diversity, tolerance and compassion in society."

Diversity! What a laugh. Conformity more like ...

Dunno 'bout you. But as far as I'm concerned these joyless totalitarians have completely ruined the rainbow. I will never be able to look at a real one in the same way again. 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

City of Sydney's offer of free SSM venues is anti-equality

Pretty clear that the Yes side have little intellectual confidence in their own position. That's one of the reasons they're so determined to shout down the opposition. Basically, they don't want Australians to hear the No case. People are much more likely to actually think things through then. If they do that, they'll almost certainly vote no.

Of course the Yes side's approach isn't entirely about censoring their opponents. They do offer some positive reasons we should totally overturn thousands of years of tradition. Their argument -- if you could call it that -- has two main elements.

The first is highly emotive: "It's all about love." So simplistic! Marriage is clearly more complex than that ... In any case, the most zealous SSM advocates don't really mean it. Their side has shown far more hatred for their opponents than the other way around.

Their other favourite catchphrase is “equality”. Again, they are mostly insincere. To say that their behaviour is Orwellian in this regard is not a stretch. In their minds, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

A vivid example of this double standard is the offer by City of Sydney for free marriage venue hire for same sex couples if the Yes side wins.

Its proponents have painted resistance to it as an overreaction, claiming that it's just a celebratory measure ... Well, even if it is, it's still a big thing. Hiring out public spaces for weddings from the City of Sydney will set you back several hundred bucks at least. So, saying that only straight couples must cough up is pretty rich. Also, most ratepayers are breeders. So, in a way they'll be forking out for the rainbow weddings even if they themselves don't get hitched.

And frankly I don't trust them to make it last only a short while. Lefties have form on making temporary measures permanent, then ratcheting up their demands.

As with so much of their obnoxious behaviour it really makes you wonder: If they are this brazen now in their desire for discrimination, what other plans do they have in mind? Having won the right to marry, will they then demand that the institution itself be only for the LGBTIQ crowd? Will they demand that straights be banished from it?

If they do get their way and eventually there is a concerted push to deny marriage to heterosexual couples I won't be surprised. If anyone had said that even a year ago I would have thought the idea completely absurd. Now I'm not so sure.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Ten American Twitter champs

Twitter is an awesome tool in many ways. But it's particularly good for anyone interested in current affairs. Its lightning speed makes it the best place to break news, or learn about it. The 140 character limit means users must get straight to the point, too. If you can make a powerful point in a unique way you'll stand out from the pack.

The best people to follow are those who do this on a regular basis, combining wit and insight with compelling information. With this in mind I've decided to list some of my favourite tweeps, starting with those from America.

Donald J Trump Being POTUS, his tweets are significant as a matter of course. His abrasive directness, and the fact that his Twitter feed triggers so many snowflakes, makes him hugely entertaining as well.
Dinesh D'Souza Great writer with a fascinating book about how the Left in America have managed to smear their opposition as fascist, when they themselves are far more deserving of the term.
Ann Coulter Another brilliant writer. Has a knack for making her pithy points with laugh-out loud funny tweets.
Mike Cernovich Fearless, prolific new media mogul with some very well placed sources. Breaks lots of significant stories.
James Woods Legendary actor. Relentless in his attacks on the Clintons in particular. Blocks trolls with flare.
Ben Shapiro Super smart conservative with awesome debating skills.
Bill Mitchell Big time Trump fan. Prolific tweeter and Periscoper with a knack for using metaphor.
Ben Garrison Highly skilled and incisive cartoonist.
Kurt Schlichter Funny writer with a military and legal background.
Roger Stone Long time political insider who worked for Richard Nixon. Lefties hate his guts and the feeling is clearly mutual. Doesn't hold back in his ongoing stoushes with them.

So, there are ten brilliant tweeps for you to check out if you haven't already. Will compile other lists in future.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Newtown hipsters lay down the law: It's not okay to vote no!

About a month ago I saw a guy at Newtown station with a sign reading “It's okay to say no”. I found this so intriguing that I took a photo of him and wrote a Facebook update about it (included at the bottom of this post). As I explained then, at that point he hadn't copped any abuse from the Newtown locals.

Anyhoo, yesterday I was at the Italian Forum in Leichhardt and I bumped into him again.


Curious about how that exercize with the sign panned out I asked him if he eventually did end up copping any snark. He said he most certainly did. He was spat on, harangued, told he had no right to have his opinion ... After a while he got so sick of the abuse that he just gave up and left. (BTW, he mentioned that he changed it to read "it's okay to vote no", which is maybe why no one had been triggered at the time I saw him.) 

I asked him what these people were like. We're they all social justice warriors with blue hair?

He said no, many looked like normal folk -- there were some old people and even children!

So, my worst suspicions were confirmed. Heaps of people totally brainwashed by the Yes side. Sure, the inner west of Sydney is chockas with sneering hipsters. Even so, there's clearly something sinister going on here. It's Orwellian for sure.

Speaking of which, expand the comments on the original FB post below. You'll notice some trolling by ABC journalist Peter Lloyd. He actually says those against SSM have “no right to express a view"! FFS. (To his credit though, he conceded that he could be described as a "neo-bigot". Well, at least he's honest ...)

Still, his petty contributions are not a good look. And if he was "working" at their ABC while he wrote them then that's even worse.

Why should taxpayers fund infantile trolling of those whose only crime is to defend the law of the land, and say we all have a right to express our opinion without being shouted down?

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Disingenuous "Petersham Says Yes to Love" signs typical of the PC Left

The politically correct Left are nothing if not predictable. They are one trick -- or rather, two trick -- ponies. Basically all they've got are deceit and intimidation. They lie, then they bully. Lie, bully ... Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat ...

One of their fave methods of deceit is to completely misrepresent political issues in highly emotive terms. By doing this they block thought in the impressionable, while simultaneously appearing to be presenting some sort of compelling case.

The “Vote Yes” campaign is a classic example of this. They say the issue of same sex marriage is only about love and equality, when any thinking person knows it's far more multifaceted and complicated than that.

But by simply repeating the "love" mantra, they neatly sidestep even having to acknowledge -- let alone try to rebut -- the “no” case. And no wonder. If they actually did try to win fair and square by actual argument they would lose resoundingly, and deep down they know it.

They also get to demonize their opponents which -- being the fascists they are -- they really get off on. This behaviour is disturbingly hateful, of course. And given that they're promoting themselves as the “loving” folk, it is highly ironic to say the least.

But they're so emotionally infantile and lacking in self awareness that they can't see the contradiction. It's hatred in the service of love, so to these child-brained muppets that not only makes it okay -- it makes them even more loving still!

Here's an example. Not that far from where I live are three houses adjacent to each other that have identical signs out the front.

Firstly, there's the focus on love. That's disingenuous, thereby mildly deceitful. What it really means is “Petersham is for Marriage Equality”. That too is false because even though Sydney's Inner West is chockas with brainwashed pro-SSM types, there are still some who have and will vote no. I'm one of them.

So, the poster proclaims an obvious falsehood and is thereby deceitful in another way.

Now, this isn't overtly intimidating, sure. Still, it reeks of ostracism, and thereby constitutes a subtle kind of bullying. That's because it implies that if you're not for "marriage equality" you don't really belong in Petersham.

And the arrogance is astounding. I mean, FFS, what right does anyone have to brazenly announce that everyone in their suburb does (or rather, should) be on one side of a highly contentious political issue!

Doubtless, there are far more people than they know living in their midst who don't subscribe to their rainbow fascism. Reason they're none the wiser is that, unlike them, sane, rational adults tend to keep their political views to themselves -- in major part because they actually consider the feelings of socialist snowflakes and don't want to trigger them into narcissistic tantrums by plainly stating their belief in the law as it presently stands.

And it was so telling that they were three of these signs all in a little patch. Yes, in federal, state and local elections people do place ads for their favoured candidates in their front yards and on their gates and letterboxes. But I have never seen three in a row!

Granted, the political make-up of the Inner West means it would not be unusual to find three ardently PC households one after another in the same street. That said, the odds that they all independently went out and bought exactly the same sign are next to zero, surely. So one of the group must've actually knocked on the others' doors -- maybe with said promotional material already purchased and in hand -- to suggest they do the same for the cause.

Now, I would never dream of doing anything like that, no matter the circumstances. And if someone did it to me I would be very unimpressed. Even if I knew my neighbour well enough to talk about politics and agreed with them on most issues I would still consider them suggesting I should place, say, a poster on my front gate just flat out rude.

But clearly, this kind of behaviour is par for the course with the Left. Says heaps.

Interestingly, also in Petersham a somewhat less wholesome sentiment related to traditional marriage was discovered recently, this time inside a building. A sane, rational adult would conclude that this further discredits the claim that "Petersham says yes to love”. But that's not the kind of person who would show that infantile sign, obviously. More likely, they would see no contradiction at all.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Headbutting of Abbott reveals "Vote Yes" side's true, hateful motivation

Not at all surprised that a “Vote Yes” campaigner headbutted Tony Abbott in Tasmania. And while that event on its own will convert many people to the no side, the ensuing tsunami of putrid abuse from the Twitter trollective and hordes of malicious muppets elsewhere on social media will magnify that effect substantially.

While it was clearly an ugly event, in the end it was kind of a net positive for sane, rational adults. Ultimately it may not be enough to ensure that the no vote wins. But it's certainly made it more likely. Definitely a good thing.

The vicious, cowardly attack itself was actually a microcosm of what the cultural Marxists have been up to all along. As Abbott described it, his attacker got close to him by saying he wanted to shake his hand. Tony, who tends to take all people regardless of political affiliation at their word, allowed him into his personal space, and that's when he was headbutted.

This stealth approach is what PC scumbags do every single time, and on a grand scale. They relentlessly present themselves as friendly, kind, loving and compassionate. They have a whole swathe of cashed up, influential allies including most of the mainstream media who reinforce this message for them. That makes almost everyone reluctant to resist their prescriptions from the start. But if you see through their lies and still stand your ground they'll tell everyone they can that you're bad, hateful person.

It's a despicable tactic. It's a heavily watered down but still loathsome version of what terrorists do in the Middle East. By launching attacks from civilian areas and blending into the population these murderous scumbags use the innocent as a shield. They actually like it when civilians on their side are killed by counter attacks because they can use these tragedies as propaganda.

Obviously what they're doing here is not nearly as putrid. But it still stinks. They keep pushing and provoking their opponents, desperate for someone to be attacked or vilified so they can cast all no voters as brazen bullies and their entire side as virtuous victims. About the only time this has actually borne fruit for them seems to have been in the attack on Kevin Rudd's godson. All the other examples of “homophobia” cited in the media have been yuuugely exaggerated, or seemingly flat out concocted by those sympathetic to the "marriage equality" cause -- such as that poster hoax in Melbourne.

The false narrative they've been promoting has been gradually exposed over recent weeks. Spookily, amendments to the graffiti on this wall in Newtown mark the changes ... Got this shot of it at the beginning of September:

After that smug crybully Benjamin Law threatened Andrew Hastie on Twitter it looked like this:

And today ...

These days, anyone with eyes to see knows that the “love is love” crowd are a massive pack of sneering frauds. "Love is hate" more like ... Because of their vicious dishonesty, rainbows will stop evoking feelings of joy, goodwill, compassion and renewal in the hearts of many Aussies for quite some time. God, Gaia or whatever celestial force ultimately creates them is gonna be seriously pissed off!

The malignant narcissists who've so thoroughly trashed the rainbow brand should've chosen a dark, vengeful thundercloud as their symbol instead. Woulda been way more honest!

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

"Vote No" skywritten above Sydney was a brilliant tactical move

Kudos to whoever was behind that "Vote No" skywritten sign above Sydney. There's a widely held belief it was the work of the Coalition for Marriage. But they're keeping mum about it. Might be doing it at arm's length or something ...

It's perfectly understandable why they should keep the details private. Feral lefties have found out who the skywriting company was and have deluged it with abusive messages. Depressing, but typical.

The PC Left are a nasty, bullying bunch. Quack on about love, but motivated by hate. Say they believe in freedom of speech -- but by that they mean "freedom to shout ... other people down".

Well, whoever was ultimately responsible for the skywritten message it was a very good tactic. It was guerrila warfare, in a way. After all, there's absolutely no way the "no" camp could've competed on the ground in this city.

You've got Clover Moore running a totally one-sided "Vote Yes" campaign, shamelessly using money from ratepayers, some of whom are surely against "marriage equality".

Then there are unions and big businesses such as Qantas, along with various leftie organizations -- many of which receive taxpayer funds, no doubt -- all pushing for SSM. Countless impressionable individuals have been caught up in the hysteria, too, plastering stickers and posters thither and yon. 

Where I am, in Sydney's inner west, they're all over the joint. And it's not just the slickly designed rainbows. There's also grafitti like this.

Mass hysteria is not too strong a word!

So, for the no camp to get their message out, there was the sheer number of "vote yes" signs to contend with. Then there's the well established habit of lefties tearing down any opposing promotional material. They do it absolutely shamelessly. 

That's their collective narcissism in action. They keep telling themselves that they are our moral betters, repeating their stupid false narrative in their tiny minds, utterly convinced they can create a utopia through hectoring us all into compliance.

They're so totes committed to this child-brained fantasy that they're utterly convinced anything opposing their own totalitarian view must be nothing less than fascism! Therefore, it has no right to be expressed in the first place. Hence the asonishingly inordinate levels of butthurt they suffer if you do so much as utter one word of resistance.

Which is why they were all massively triggered by two words, scrawled emphatically across a beautiful blue sky ... So great that it was on such a perfect day. Kinda symbolic really. (And remember that for a rainbow to appear, it has to be a crap, wet day to start with ...)

So funny that a fave leftie meme is "old man yells at clouds". That's what the sneering hipsters were doing all over Sydney on Sunday.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Clover Moore's SSM eye candy sweetens Sydney CBD

As the "marriage equality" plebiscite draws near it's very clear that the "yes" side are packin' death. They've been pulling out all the stops with their deceit and intimidation tactics lately. This is because they are terrified of the "no" side being able to get their arguments heard by most Aussies. If this happens and voters are provoked into thinking seriously about this issue, the pro-SSM side will likely lose. And they know it. 

So, they continue to keep things as emotive as possible. They blather that "love is love". And how could anyone be against love? Well, you must be a hater then!

That may seem like an argument but it is anything but. It's actually a very effective thought blocker. And blocking thought is the main aim of the PC Left. Once they've managed that, it's sooo much easier for them to manipulate people into buying their lies.

And this tactic is employed visually as well as verbally. Take Clover Moore's shameless campaign in support of SSM. There are rows of pretty red flags exhorting us to "Vote Yes" hung in Martin Place and Circular Quay. And there are other installations such as the one shown below in Pitt Street Mall.

The word "eye candy" definitely comes to mind here. They even look like big brightly coloured sugar sticks!

The Town Hall itself is being lit up at night.

Each evening, a different colour is displayed.

These visual effects are certainly very appealing. There's no denying that they evoke a strong emotional response, even in a flint-hearted Tory such as myself! So I certainly respect the work and skill that has gone into producing them.

Still, in the end, when you actually think about the issue, they constitute more evidence of the paucity of the "yes" case. They are a desperate attempt to dazzle Sydneysiders into accepting a massive, irreversible change to one of society's main foundations. Which is why this eye candy -- not unlike the real stuff -- ultimately leaves me feeling queasy.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Marriage equality advocates' love-hate relationship with democracy

The main feature of the push for "marriage equality" in Australia has been its overwhelmingly emotive nature. Its advocates hardly ever even attempt to argue their case in the usual sense. They tend to repeat this line that marriage is about love. And there's no denying that gay people are capable of loving each other, so how can you deny them marriage?

This has long been their tactic. Take this ad for the Greens that I saw in Perth several years ago:

That cracked me up when I saw it. First thing I thought was: Well if it's "about love not laws" why the hell do you want the law to be changed? I mean, why can't you be "married" in spirit without needing the official documentation?

Their approach is undeniably irrational. But it's been very successful. Its proponents have managed to draw many "undecideds" over to their view by using it. They now completely ignore the "no" case because it's based on a different, more thoughtful premise: while love is a big factor in marriage it's also about many other things such as the welfare of kids, social stability, and religious freedom.

So, heaps of people have bought the whole "love is love" line. For some, so complete is their commitment to this highly emotive position that they believe any questioning of it at all is must be against love itself!

Living in Sydney's inner west, I've seen quite a few stickers like this. Many of them refer specifically to the plebiscite itself.


I find this quite astonishing. Imagine being in such a permanently emotional state that you believe a flyer describing an opposing view -- something you'd wanna have in a democracy, surely -- was hateful in itself!

Though really, I shouldn't be that surprised. The PC Left has been honing this method of indoctrination for decades now and they're very, very good at it.

Basically, what they do with their pet positions on big issues is to associate them with positive emotions (love, joy, compassion, etc). By constant repetition they manage to con their followers into believing that their views are simply beyond reproach; that any deviation from them necessarily makes you a bad, hateful person.

Oh, and you're undemocratic as well ...

I saw the above poster yesterday. I thought it was so telling.

FFS, it's advertising local elections, explicitly extolling the virtues of democracy. Yet it invokes the trademark "marriage equality" rainbow in its very design!

Here's another example from one of the candidates. He doesn't refer to the issue specifically on his poster, but still includes the same colours.

Now, I know the plebiscite is not a local issue. So it won't be contested by candidates.

Still, isn't it interesting that it's alluded to on both these posters. It's kinda code for: "Hey, hipsters! Of course we're all good people who believe love is love, natch!" It's so dumb, like Julia Gillard saying "we are us".

The irony is that same sex marriage is not above politics; it's as political as an issue can be. And incredible as it may seem to the people behind these posters, there are actually inner westies who will be voting "no" in the upcoming plebiscite -- if it is actually held, that is.

But you'd better not tell them that. They'll think you're a bad, hateful person if you do.