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?