Friday, June 30, 2017

Martin Place barrier confusion shows our leaders lack clarity, unity on terrorism

The barriers placed in Martin Place have caused much consternation. Not surprisingly, people find them both disturbing and depressing.

They also find them deeply confusing. That's because they are, quite literally, concrete evidence that there is a threat of vehicular terrorism in Sydney -- yet the people who put them there can't bring themselves to speak honestly about what's, er driving it!

Leaders say: “Don't worry folks! We've got this terror caper under control. Just keep carrying on as normal ... Oh, but we'll whop these massive lumps of concrete in the heart of the city to stop some maniac running you over, just in case.”

Not only are they in denial about the nature of the threat, they also seem to be at odds with each other about whether the barrier installation was a good idea to start with. In much the same way that state and federal governments clash over issues like the GST, there's been some sniping back and forth between the City of Sydney and the NSW State Government about the new security measures:

Lord Mayor Clover Moore directed dozens of temporary barricades be set up in the CBD thoroughfare last week because of concerns about vehicles being used as weapons by terrorists.

Mr Grant on Thursday blasted the mayor over the installation saying "no notification was sent to NSW Police, myself or the cabinet about bollards being introduced by the local council in Martin Place".

"It is disappointing that the mayor's best intentions instead caused unnecessary panic and confusion, especially when there isn't a specific threat," he said in a statement, adding that it was "inherent upon us all to work together".

However, email correspondence between City of Sydney staff and a NSW Police Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command coordinator - seen by AAP - show council did seek advice on "a quick and cheap solution for vehicle mitigation in Martin Place" days before the barricades were installed.

Needless to say, this does not inspire confidence. You would like to think that on an issue as important as terrorism, all levels of government would be on the same page, and coordinating smoothly.

No one in government seems to want to be honest about why so many members of a certain religion have been running amok across the globe hacking people's heads off, blowing them to bits and crushing them to death with trucks and cars. I'm sure they all know, as do most of the population. But their attitude seems to be: “Whatever you do, don't scare the sheeple!” And they're in disagreement over how best to achieve that aim.

What's interesting is that Grant himself said “there isn't a specific threat”.

That's a bit of a disingenuous statement, IMO. There is a very specific -- or at least unequivocal -- threat that has come from Islamic State. They have repeatedly exhorted their barbaric goons to use vehicles to crush as many infidels as possible -- most recently during Ramadan. And we know they were serious about it because that's exactly what they did in several cities across the globe.

Still, it's possible that the NSW plods don't have any knowledge of detailed, advanced plans to target a specific site. In that case, why choose one in particular (Martin Place) to have barriers in place? Seems pointless if you consider Grant's statement, right? I mean, hell, these maniacs could strike anywhere, so why take any kind of pre-emptive action at all?

I think there are two reasons for this. One, it's symbolic. Our leaders want to look like they are doing something, no matter how ineffectual it appears to be. Then when the inevitable attack does occur, they can't be accused of being completely asleep at the wheel -- or rather, stop sign.

The other reason: Martin Place is far more likely to be attacked than any other location, even if there's no hard evidence for that claim.

That's because ISIS already struck there back in 2014, via their supporter Man Monis. So, if they can pull off another lethal attack in that exact location it will show how strong they are. Not only will it strike even more terror into the hearts of their enemies, obviously a major goal, it will also be a huge propaganda boost for them. (Speaking of which, Channel 7 News is located at that exact location, guaranteeing full, immediate media coverage. Please see video below.)

In any case, the fact that the barriers have been placed in Martin Place first gives the lie to Clover Moore's publicly stated belief that the Sydney Siege was not actually a terrorist attack -- which, as far as I know, remains her position.

She said that Monis was motivated primarily (perhaps entirely) by mental illness; that his actions were not part of some grand political or ideological goal. In other words, they were like a lightning strike.

In that case, why did she (or her office at least) choose Martin Place as the location for these barriers? Does she have some gut feeling that lightning could strike there twice?

Or maybe she isn't quite that daft. Seems more likely to me that she actually believes Islamism (and by extension Islam) is behind the current threat to this exact part of the city, just as it motivated Man Monis's lethal behaviour in the same place two and a half years ago. She just can't bring herself to be honest about it, that's all.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

King Edward VII statue in Sydney

I am now in my early fifties. Almost can't believe, it, because in many ways I've hardly grown up at all! And it seems like just yesterday that I was a mere whippersnapper. No doubt about it, the older you get, the quicker it goes ...

Lots of changes occur as you hurtle towards codgerdom, of course. One of them -- which I suspect is quite common -- is that you start to notice (and warm to) people and objects that are also "getting on a bit".

These days, when I travel through Sydney I've always got my eyes peeled for old buildings and artwork in particular. Take this elegant statue of King Edward VII on horseback, for example.

It's near the corner of Bridge and Macquarie Streets, and it's an impressive sight from any angle. But it's particularly striking when you see it from down the hill a bit, on Bridge St.

Hard to get the full effect in a small shot, of course. But it's definitely a dramatic reminder of days long ago, when horsepower actually meant exactly that!

I got these shots from the front, much closer to it. (They don't show ol' Eddie himself. But the video I took, linked below, does.)

I know monuments like this are not to everyone's taste. But I love them. There is clearly so much skill, care and hard work that has gone into them. They come from an era when beauty and elegance were not sneered at as inherently elitist, oppressive concepts.

On the contrary, they were seen as ennobling and uplifting. Sure, they were meant to glorify the British Empire, reaffirm the status quo and all that. But they also gave people something to look up in awe at and collectively feel proud about. So they were actually there for everyone, contrary to what many angry lefties might say.

As well as being compelling examples of our culture from long ago, they can still have direct relevance today. Take the inscription between the two figures in the shot above. It reads "Empire, Unity". Obviously the first word has no resonance these days. But I'll bet a lot of people would agree we need a helluva lot more of the second!

Sydney, being Australia's oldest city, has plenty of these memorials and monuments. So I'll keep an eye out for more, and take photos and videos of them whenever I can.

Friday, June 16, 2017

PETA protest against KFC in Sydney typical of the Left's lameness

As we all know, lefties are really big on street theatre as a form of protest. They just love it -- almost as much as shrieking stupid repetitive slogans and rattling misspelled placards. The further left you go, the more popular it seems to be. PETA, for example, use it often as a way to make their point, often including heaps of fake blood and gore in their pavement epics. 

And they do tend to get a lot of publicity with it, I'll give them that. But I suspect this has much to do with the fact that journos are often quite far left of the general population themselves. They tend to report on what they sympathize with, and ignore messages and narratives they don't like. 

If the MSM were a bit more balanced I'm sure you'd see much less stupid far-left street theatre in the news. And that's because almost all of it is cringeworthy crap. Most punters who have the bad luck to witness it just shake their heads and walk on, thinking "what a bunch of useless tools". 

Take this utterly pathetic effort from PETA in Sydney today. It was supposed to turn people off eating at KFC. But if the video itself is any guide, they haven't even made that point clear. (Actually their poor messaging is such a consistent issue that even some of their fellow travellers get annoyed about it!)

Really, I think upon witnessing these bleeding bozos in George St today, most people would have assumed that Andrew Bolt had just lobbed in Sydney, and this was the second trio of Antifa goons he'd clobbered

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Bolta brings back biff against Antifa's cowardly crybullies, puncturing PC narrative

Meant to write about the gutless Antifa attack on Andrew Bolt in Carlton soon after it happened. But I've been flat out lately. This is the first chance I've had. Fact that so much has happened since then (eg, the UK election and Comey hearing among other things) illustrates the dizzying pace of political developments these days …

But on the now legendary “Battle of Lygon Street”: Bolt was admirably combative during the ambush that occurred before the Melbourne launch of the book The Art of the Impossible. And I think he (along with his supporters) did a very good job of using the event to build a counter-narrative against the toxic, politically correct one that dominates the MSM, and that we're all so utterly sick of.

Conservatives have long been extremely tolerant and forgiving with their opponents. That's fine if you're dealing with sane, rational adults who have a sense of fair play. But that certainly does not describe the PC Left -- in particular Antifa. They are clearly totalitarian; well on the way to being the fascists they purport to oppose.

So it was good to see him hit back and hard. And it showed how pathetic his attackers actually were. If you don't count the fat cameraman (who fled the scene and claimed he was there by chance -- yeah, right!) there were two young men against one maybe twice their age. They caught him totally by surprise, yet he sent all three scumbags scurrying. As well as delivering his speech as planned, he made light of the scuffle in many ways, including auctioning off the suit he was wearing (now ruined by dye and glitter).

It's important to take advantage of victories like this to laugh at your enemies. Apart from anything else those looking on will see strength, conviction and good humour. They will be much more likely to respect you as a result.

By opening an extra large can of whoopass on his ambushers, he “won the internet” that day and confounded the PC narrative big time. The victory deserves a new term, IMO. I reckon henceforth “bolt” can be used as a verb, not unlike “fisk”. It can be employed to describe a brutally swift counter-attack against a leftie pile on (physical or rhetorical) that totally blitzes the perps.

For example: “Melbourne hospital staff should keep an eye out for simpering beta-males arriving in casualty whose tiny nuts had been severely bolted.”

The so-called “hate media” have been getting plenty of humour out of the whole story. Take the Daily Telegraph itself:

The Rocky stuff is fun, and worth running with for a week or two. But at the risk of seeming a tad pedantic, it kinda ennobles his opponents. See, if he's Rocky, this implies they were brave and formidable in their own right like, say, Apollo Creed.

No way! Appalling weeds, more like…

And rather than aiming to win a contest fair and square, their motivation was primarily to create propaganda. They used the trusted leftist tactic of crybullying: First, bully a lone target. If he doesn't react aggressively then you've cowed and humiliated him. If he does hit back you can cry: "Waaah! No fair!” Either way, it's vital to have footage of the incident that you can use as "evidence" that you are the true freedom fighter and your opponent is a big bad nasty Nazi!

But even the footage taken by Mr Chubby McYouTube himself showed that Bolt's reaction was entirely justified. Pretty much anyone would have gone into fight or flight if set upon so quickly from behind by hooded men and sprayed with liquid, as he was. Then there's the fact that he regularly gets death threats … Remember also that the ambush was so violent that a woman was thrown aside, screaming! (Leftie feminists silent on this, natch.)

Put yourself in his shoes and watch it. If you claim that his reaction was massively OTT then you're totally full of BS, or lying to yourself at the very least.

That Bolta was not the bully, but the victim who fought back is obvious to anyone with eyes to see! Sadly, that doesn't include many leftists. Hell, they could've earned some respect from the Tories, normies and everyone else by accepting reality and saying: “Yeah, those thugs did something truly vile and stupid. Antifa should BTFO, or lift their game at the very least.”

But nup. Like pathetic zombies, the group's online apologists have endlessly tweeted and retweeted the lie that the conservative columnist went totes ballistic over "a harmwess wittle gwittering".

Hell, there's even an online petition to have him arrested by the Melbourne plods! Sure, it seems somewhat satirical. But many of the signatories look genuine, rehashing the asinine line that the glitter twins did something entirely innocent and were actually the victims here. 

FFS! Like dogs returning to their vomit, they are. Just never learn ...

Which, strangely, might not be such a bad thing, in a way. If these bolshie bozos keep this stupid crap up eventually more and and more people will realize how ugly and useless the Left has now become. They'll ultimately lose much of their power in the media, academe and elsewhere ... I just worry that someone is gonna get killed, that's all.