Monday, October 29, 2018

Wentworth win inspires Warringah wannabe

As of this writing the Wentworth by-election results have not been finalized. But it's still looking like Dr Kerryn Phelps will be declared the official winner.

Pretty funny that she's run as an independent. She's a full-on, right-on deep-green warmist socialist who ticks all the, er, left boxes.

To think that she said she wants to bring politics back to the "sensible centre". Gawd. Anyone who uses the term "social justice" isn't anywhere near there. "Out where the buses don't go" more like ... 

My guess is that when she gets in she's gonna do a lot of conniving with Labor and the Greens to cause as much trouble as possible for the Government. 

In any case, like so many of the latte Left, she's actually extremely wealthy. This was the Daily Telegraph's front page from a few days back. 

I think it's notable that the Tele, which definitely knows its audience, put this story on the cover. Wentworth is a very different place to the rest of Sydders -- particularly the western suburbs, where the paper is extremely popular. Westies sure as hell don't like BS artists and they can see right through them.

It's a great choice of photo. Immediately I saw it a caption came to mind: "I'm Big Kerryn and I'm excited! Have I got a policy for you!"

Phelps' facade of concern for the little guy is obvious. One fascinating fact from this story is that at her upmarket surgery she charges like a wounded bull. (Er, or perhaps that should be "cow"? Misgendering is practically a hate crime these days. And I don't want any woke folk thinking I'm being sexist, now do I?)

Anyhoo, as things stand, patients must cough up big time up front to see her, and remain substantially out of pocket after Medicare rebates. Makes her claim to want "better health" for Aussies seem insincere, since the position implies a desire for greater access and affordability.

Sure, she may still pass laws that are more egalitarian. But the fact that she herself fronts such a pricey practice is a very bad look.

Also, as Member for Wentworth she intends to keep her gig as a GP, and retain her position on the local council. As well as being what appears to be a legally dubious position given the recent mega-farce over Section 44, it makes her claim to be motivated by concern over climate change ring hollow.

I mean, she pushes the warmist line that we're all gonna die unless we switch to renewables. Obviously that's daft in itself, given our minuscule contribution to the so-called problem in the grand scheme of things. But if she truly believes this then wouldn't she devote all her time to this one issue?

Then there's her impressive real estate portfolio:

This is of course massively at odds with her leftish persona. Then there's the fact that she is so determined to have asylum seekers, and especially their kids, taken off Nauru. But I'll bet that like so many elitist finger-pointing hand-wringers she doesn't want these people staying anywhere near where she lives. She'll dump that task on already overburdened suburbs like Fairfield in the city's west.

If she really walked her talk she'd offer them free healthcare at her surgery and house them in one or more of her plush apartments. But nup. She intends to keep using these resources to keep bringing in the bucks!

FFS, what a massive fake!

Couldn't help thinking of JK Rowling when I learned about Phelps' wealth. The squillionaire wordsmith is a big time remoaner, remember. She wants Britain to absorb more and more immigrants, yet has never offered to accommodate them herself, despite owning a massive mansion with enough space for dozens, if not hundreds of them.

As well as being a globalist elitist hypocrite, she seems to be projecting some very weird occult vibes of late. I mean, WTF is this about?

Well, I hope Phelps doesn't go down that route ... Still, if it does turn out that the Wentworth rich doctor is actually a "witch doctor" I won't be at all surprised ...

Something else that's not surprising: other latte lefties taking advantage of the Wentworth result. Take Jane Caro for example. Like Phelps she's a fervent warmist. And she's thinking about running against Tony Abbott in Warringah.

So, she reckons it's her "duty" to try and save the planet for her grandchildren. M'kay.

Well, AFAIK she's still only considering the tilt at Tony Abbott's seat. So, ultimately if she doesn't run we'll have to conclude she doesn't really give a rat's about their fate after all.

Frankly I think this is what will actually happen. IMO, even if she does run she won't really be serious about it. Her pronouncements in this regard are much more about lifting her own profile than anything else. As an expert in media manipulation with an extensive advertising background she certainly knows how to use an issue for branding purposes!

Hot on the heels of the Warringah wannabe is the Gosford God-botherer.

Gawd ... Call me old fashioned, but if you're a priest running for political office, isn't that a bit of a step down? Aren't they supposed to be above the fray, speaking to our eternal spirits rather than our base materialism -- which is what politics is mostly about, let's face it.

Though, it's not like he doesn't have form. He's been playing politics with his stupid signs for yonks now. The Guardian story cited above describes them as "thought provoking".

Yeah, well, if the thought is "FFS what a tosser!" I suppose that statement is accurate.

Again, like Caro, I don't think he's serious. He does have a book to flog after all. For him to finally put his money where his, er, Godawful wank-placards are and run for office is an ace way to drum up publicity for sure.

It will be a miracle if he wins, of course. And he knows it. Which is exactly why he's running.

And you know what would be the greater miracle? If so-called "journalists" in the mainstream media started seeing through clowns like Bower, Caro and Phelps and stopped giving them softball interviews and free publicity.

Buckley's chance of it happening of course. Still, we can all hope and pray that it does. (Even I do, and I'm an atheist.) 

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Clive Palmer wants to be Australia's Donald Trump. Sad!

I'm sure you've seen these posters up around the place. The first two shots I got below were in Parramatta Rd, Leichhardt. Clearly, Clive Palmer is hoping to become our own version of Donald Trump. As well as the catchphrase, he's even got the thumbs up happening.

But the whole pose is not very convincing, I'm afraid. He just doesn't have his heart in it ... Also, Trump is clearly way smarter than Clive. While the hefty Queenslander is clever enough to make mountains of moolah (though not nearly as much as he claims, it seems) and have some success in politics, he's definitely no "stable genius"!

Trump is always several steps ahead of the competition. And he has laser-like focus and clarity with his messaging. That's why he's never deviated from the "MAGA" mantra.

The same cannot be said of Clive Palmer. Here's another of his posters. This one is further west down Parramatta Rd. Notice how the first one says "Make Australia Great" yet this one says "Put Australia First".

Eh? That's a confused campaign. I don't think Clive has really thought this through ...

I have seen others around the place. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a different catchphrase yet again.

UPDATE: Saw this one in Leichhardt. Not surprised that it had been vandalized. While not quite as right-on as nearby Enmore, the area is very left-leaning.

Actually, if it were in Enmore and someone had scrawled "fat pig" across it, you'd prolly get another activist correcting that with a phrase like: "You can be beautiful at any size. (But Clive's still an arsehole!)"

And it would be spelled incorrectly, of course ... 

Friday, August 10, 2018

Michael Pascoe is an angry old white man

As we all know, white male bashing is one of the favourite pastimes for the Left, especially in "higher education" (lower indoctrination, more like!). Feminists in particular get off on it because it removes the need for actual thought and argument (which they find so terrifying, the poor little poppets). They can feel smug and secure in their sense of victimhood and get to demonize and shout down their opponents at the same time. What's not to like?

It's kinda weird that they've taken themselves to such a stupid place, of course. But it's even more bizarre when a white male himself uses this line of "argument". Take Michael Pascoe, in a recent episode of The Dumb.

Bloviating about Sky News, the pasty ol' pillock arced up big time. What a laugh! If anyone fit the description of "angry old white man" it was Pascoe himself!

And this kind of idiocy is common for the Left. Bolshies are brimming while conservatives are calm, generally speaking. And there seem to be as many (maybe more?) pale penis-persons in the former group as there are in the latter.

I have seen this phenomenon play out time and time again, especially on their ABC. It always amuses me that the moderator (often a pallid dude -- Snowcone Tone, for example) never calls out the irony. 

But that's the first thing any sensible person would do, right? I mean, if I were the panel-wrangler in this case I'd say: "Well you fit that description yourself, Michael. So are you saying that your point of view shouldn't be heard, or is unworthy of consideration?"

To which he would no doubt reply "well of course not", or something similar.

And I'd respond with: "So stick to the actual ideas we're discussing, and quit this stupid ad hom crap ... you fricken arsehat!" Er, or words to that effect.

But this just never happens. The moderators -- and other panellists, for that matter -- just let these idiots quack on because they love to hear their stupid ideology echoed, thereby reaffirming their tribal sense of righteousness.

Speaking of which, angry old white man Pascoe also contributed this gem.

Replace "Sky" with "The Drum" and "Murdoch empire" with "the ABC" and you have a perfect retort for all the luvvies fretting about the looming threat of privatization, and who are now saying Auntie desperately needs more support to remain "independent".

Oh, the irony!

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The Hanson-Young vs Leyonhjelm grudge match has me shagged out already ...

It's prolly about a week ago now that David Leyonhjelm told Sarah Hanson Young to "stop shagging men" to make a rhetorical point in the heat of battle in the Senate. Amazing how it's all blown up since.

Maybe I've missed something, but as of this blogging I don't think SHY has yet actually cried "havoc!" and let slip the dogs of law. She's done a lot of huffing and puffing about it though.

Now I'm no "legal eagle" (not even a beagle). But IMHO by upping the tanty Hanson-Young has made a massive tactical error. Firstly, she is accusing him of "slut-shaming". Well, he never used that derogatory term. (So funny that prior to playing soundbites during his appallingly unprofessional lambasting of Leyonhjelm on their ABC, tragic SHY fanboi Hamish Macdonald issued a trigger warning. But that was clearly more for the word "slut" than "shag".)

Also, Leyonhjelm is Canberra's official "freedom dude". He doesn't think (alleged) mad rooting is bad. So how can he be "shaming" her by using Austin Powers' funny euphemism?

His conduct in the chamber was not edifying, sure. But it was no more offensive than what other pollies routinely get away with.

He was basically calling out hypocrisy because he thought he heard her blame men collectively for rape. And given her form on this subject, it's entirely plausible that's exactly what she did.  (He may have misheard her, sure. But it was a retort, not unprovoked bullying as the fake news-peddling MSM would have you believe.)

The exchange was akin to a pollie known for investing in the banking industry saying "bankers are crooks" and another calling him out by saying "well take all your shares out of Westpac then!" No one would say this was "investor-shaming" would they?

Anyhoo, why is "stop shagging men" sexist, as SHY and all her haughty supporters claim? It's not gender specific because men can shag men, too. Calling it sexist is actually homophobic, innit?

Then there's all the misandrist abuse that's been hurled at Leyonhjelm. Take this classy contribution from Catherine King on Q and A.

Hamish Macdonald was moderating that little jawfest. He didn't pull her up on it, of course. And imagine if any male pollie had said something similar about King herself?

Then there was Virginia Trioli on the 7:30 Report calling him "bitchy" to his face. Again, if a male journo said that to Hanson-Young? He'd be punted from Ultimo within the hour, and would prolly never work in mainstream media ever again.

Trioli is sooo annoying; such a lightweight. Tries to look all sassy and formidable but hides behind her gender ... And it's revealing that Charlie Pickering the "comedian" on The Weekly (fricken weakly, more like) was most impressed by that interrogation. He called it a "mauling". FFS, only a pussy would think that!

Then, in a massive own goal he sexualized Trioli by joking that she could have taken a "post-carnage selfie" with the male senator, a clear play on the word "coital". Now, as any victim feminist worth her salt would be aware, he was invoking "vagina dentata" imagery. Deeply, violently misogynistic! 

Dude is so dim he was clearly unaware of this faux pas. Neither was the airhead Trioli herself, since she hasn't arced up about it. She prolly would though if someone pointed it out to her, and there was a lynch mob she could join ...

Hmm. Maybe I should pose as one of the Twitter trollective, get Jenna Price et al on board, and beat up a campaign against the show: "Quick sisters, organize a girlcott!"

But back to the stoush itself. The sulking soy boys, white knighting wankers and fulminating frightbats of the MSM have all piled onto this big time, thinking that most people in Oz are taking the side of the poor St Sarah, who's had her virtue so violently violated by Evil Lord Leyonhjelm.

FFS, what a joke. I think most Aussies can see that it's a massive beat up. And this tweet confirms my suspicions. 

Both he and his accuser have started crowdfunding campaigns in preparation for the looming battle. I got the screen shots below at the same time yesterday. I thought it was interesting that even though SHY has received more money, she has a far larger support base. Think of all her fellow travellers in the meeja, and the professional activists doing her bidding. Must be squillions of 'em!

As well as being numerous, they're a highly cashed up demographic (professionals, etc). Yet they've clearly donated less per person than those who did for her so-called abuser. Interesting.

Well, I dunno what happens next. But it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

I'm all for Leyonhjelm standing firm against the putrid tidal wave of abuse from SHY, the PC political establishment, and the rest of the Sanctimony-Hectoring Complex (otherwise known as the MSM). Even if he loses legally, he'll still win by refusing to apologize.

That's because the PC Left are all about dominance. The vicious collectivist bullies are going all out to shame this guy into backing down. Like the Maoists with their show-trials, they absolutely must make dissenters recant and show obeisance. In social justice, subordination must occur, and be seen to occur. Only then can they instill fear in the rest of the population. Fact that he won't do as he's told is making them lose their shit big time, and it's glorious!

Anyhoo, given the ribald nature of the term that sparked this whole episode, I thought a limerick was the best way to sum it up so far:

A "SHY" young Hanson named Sarah,
Once claimed the word "shagging" did "scare" her,
While that Leyonhjelm dude,
Like Austin, was crude,
Her threats were clearly an error!


Friday, June 29, 2018

Boys will be boys ... and lefties will be lefties

It's obvious that PC narratives pushed by those at the commanding heights of popular culture can be yugely influential. They really do have the effect of brainwashing a helluva lot of people. 

And they don't just stupefy. They can actually provoke highly obnoxious and antisocial behaviour -- even violence.

We've seen this recently with numerous Trump-hating Hollywood slebs, deranged leftists, butt-hurt Democrats and MSM fake news peddlers brazenly exhorting their fans, followers and supporters to go out and harass Trump officials. This has happened on several occasions, particularly to Republican women.

And here's a small but I think significant local example. In the wake of the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon lefties in general and feminists in particular have been pushing the asinine, misandrist "all men are to blame" angle. This is hardly surprising, of course. Their whole ideology is based on lies.

Predictably, this bogus interpretation was thrashed on a recent episode of Q and A. Check out the very first question below. It was obviously chosen by the producers to echo the PC line that any act of violence perpetrated by an individual male is ultimately the fault of masculinity and to say anything else is blaming the victim:

JACINDA FERMANIS: Thanks, Tony. I suppose following the events of the last week or so, and in terms of the longer form narrative around the safety of women, this was important to me to highlight that, not only myself, but I feel I can speak on behalf of many women that we do have situational awareness, we do carry our phones home with us in our hands, we do carry our keys like a weapon and we are, in fact, aware of our surroundings, and yet, we are followed, we are stalked, harassed, abused, raped and, in this instance, murdered.

So to suggest, you know, the situational awareness narrative needs to continue is nothing less than victim-blaming. The only other step we could take as women would be to simply stay inside, curtailing our own lives massively and even then, we would still be in danger because of the mass amount of women who are abused and harmed by the men within their homes. Voices of authority should be condemning the perpetrators, not the victims, in this case, and every case that should follow. Unfortunately, they will follow. Is this the murderous version of “boys being boys”, and what is the solution?

On cue, countless Aussie frightbats on social media echoed this sentiment. Though consistently daft, Jane Caro is certainly accomplished at summarizing her toxic ideology in tweet form. She did so here, drawing a direct line between the widely used phrase "boys will be boys" and rape and murder.

So silly. The phrase is frequently invoked regarding unedifying blokey antics and bad behaviour including womanizing, sure. But I've never in my life heard any man (or woman) use it to seriously excuse rape or murder. The only times I can recall this particular association being made it was in feminist -- sorry, fear-menist -- propaganda, and some right-on flicks.

But as with all right-on bollocks the aim is not to be factually correct or morally right. It's to push a victim narrative. The goal here is to make women hate men, and men hate themselves. And if this results in public acts of stupidity or damage to a business' profits and reputation, well, bonus!

And that's exactly what happened here.

Pretty clear that this idiot was "inspired" to do this by the social media chatter about the "dangerous" phrase "boys will be boys" cited above. If not, why hadn't she arced up about this jumper before?

These people are amazingly stupid. They actually get instructions on what to be outraged about from their cultural Marxist "thought leaders".

You may have heard the term "weaponized autism". Well, this is a case of weaponized cretinism. It's something the PC Left just can't survive without.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

PC feminist exploitation of Eurydice Dixon murder cynical in the extreme

Sure I'm not alone in being utterly disgusted by the way the usual suspects have pounced on the horrific rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon to push their treasured anti-male PC narrative.

Started immediately after the plods found her body and called a press conference. Because they exhorted women to take precautions, swivel-eyed frightbats from Sydney to Perth squawked up a storm, accusing them of "blaming the victim".

FFS. Saying "be careful out there" is not "blaming the victim". It's just good advice. In a perfect world terrible events like this would not occur. But it's not a perfect world. It's a dangerous place. Always was; always will be. So you should act accordingly.

In the subsequent days they've cranked out radical anti-male propaganda that has been truly alarming in its scale, intensity and shamelessness. Sure, the Left aren't the only ones who exploit crimes for political purposes. If the killer were, say, a known predator who was out on the street when he should've been in jail, it would've been politicized also. That would've been unedifying, but understandable. But in this case the campaign has been purely ideological. 

And it has definitely not been spontaneous and organic. Looks very much like the malignant muppets currently waging it had their whole strategy well prepared in advance. They sat around keeping their powder dry, then when they heard about this particular murder they gave the launch order: "Blunderbirds are GO!" They are as sick as they are cynical. 

The whole campaign is being waged right across the media, mainstream and social. Most ol' codgers like myself can see it for the big lie that it is and laugh it off. But it's gonna cause psychological damage to many younger folk of both genders (and yes there are only two).

It's been going for days already and they'll continue to flog it for the last ounce of toxic misandry they can, no doubt. But here are two examples from the last few days.

Oh, gawd. Where to start ... An entire city? Indefinitely? So OTT it qualifies as BS. Also, coward punch killers often get off lightly. Thomas Kelly's got 4 years for manslaughter ... And cops don't only tell women to stay safe. They are flat out finding and apprehending killers, too.

And check out Elly's replies under the main tweet.

So she wants a curfew for all men. Okay. How to enforce it? What, buncha beefy babes gonna go out on "penis patrol" -- sans guns of course, because I'm sure she's against them too -- and say: "Now, now, home time, testosteroids. It's after ten!" Good luck with that one, sisters ...

I doubt even Elly would be that naive. I think she might really prefer armed males patrolling the streets, arresting all the civilian men for breaking the curfew -- which of course negates her daft idea anyway.

And notice how she then jumps to demanding men be banned from voting and owning property! And from there she switches to another feminist obsession, the (mythical) pay gap. 

So, she's gone from crying crocodile -- sorry, dial-a-crock -- Twitter tears about male violence against women to demands that all men be denied a slew of basic rights.

This is irrefutable proof that Elly Baxter doesn't give a rat's clacker about the victim of this horrific crime. She's just using the murder to push her totalitarian ideology.

Not to be outdone, shameless male feminist "Dan the (Anti) Man" Andrews contributed this nauseating tweet thread:

Notice how he says "we". That's revealing and says something about his character -- or rather, lack thereof.

Male feminists often repeat the "all men are bastards" lie, implicitly (or explicitly) including themselves. This means that they know it's bollocks but go along with it to fit in, advance in their careers, or maybe even just get laid. That makes 'em misogynist cowards.

The other possibility: they know what dirty dogs they themselves are and assume all blokes are much like them.

Which one is Dan? I don't know. Maybe a bit of both ...

He's obviously a coward, because if he were serious about changing "male culture" he would tackle the widespread union thuggery in his state. If your average CFMEU-run building site isn't a breeding ground for "toxic masculinity" I don't know what is. 

In any case I doubt that Dan himself even wrote those tweets. I suspect he hired someone more trained in the practice of peddling politically correct cant. You never know, maybe Badham or Ford, or even Caro was called in (and paid big bucks, natch) to make sure the misandrist message came through loud and clear.

Which is why I'm calling him Van Andrews from now on ...

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Leftie outrage over Nazi swastika flag tanks completely

So funny to watch the usual suspects fulminate over a photo of a swastika flag being flown on an Aussie army truck in Afghanistan ... Sure, not exactly edifying. But it was clearly a joke. And given the violent, bloody context, black humour like this is perfectly understandable.

But of course it was just not acceptable to chief finger wagger Tim Soutphommasane.

Tim is so routinely self-parodic he's a hoot. He must have been so relieved that this snap (from over a decade ago!) surfaced recently. Dinkum complaints of racial discrimination are so thin on the ground, dude has to go out touting for them, like he did with the late great Bill Leak's cartoon.

Says heaps that he's more outraged by jokey or satirical images than he is about, say, the rape of toddlers in Aboriginal communities ...

Also, think of the context here. These white male soldiers in Afghanistan were out killing non-white people in what Tim's fellow cultural Marxists define as a concerted campaign of Western imperialism. And their victims were Muslims to boot. According to the AHRC's own "logic" that clearly makes their entire operation deeply Islamophobic and therefore raaacist! So why isn't he railing about that?

Gawd, but these muppets are a joke, aren't they? Even by their own silly standards their huffing and puffing makes no sense at all ...

Then there's the wider irony of why another totalitarian symbol of mass murder cops no outrage at all. I'm talking about the hammer and sickle, of course. Given the insane amount of death, destruction and suffering communism has caused globally, you'd think there'd be more than a few people traumatized by brazen displays of the creepy symbol.

But not only does hardly anyone in Oz -- of the left or right -- get upset about it, it's even seen as waaay cool by a lot of today's right-on trendsetters. Why, you can even get a spiffy rainbow version to whop on a singlet, like this white male here.

Why the double standard, you may ask? Well, it's that ol' rule "no enemies to the left" of course. So that makes it all okay.

FFS. What a joke.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Their ABC's The Drum is Q and A Lite

As we all know, cultural Marxists are forever peddling bollocks. There's almost never a moment when they actually tell the truth. And when you catch them out telling porkies, they never, ever 'fess up to clear the slate. They just dig in even harder!

Take how they define freedom of speech. Of course they say they're all for it. But what they really mean is, they want the right to shout other people down.

You see this a lot on university campuses in America, and increasingly here in Oz. They quack on about how opposing viewpoints create a dangerous environment; make the students feel unsafe. They say that speech itself is violence. It's so pathetic you almost can't believe it. 

Then, when a conservative speaker does actually lob to politely make her point, the lefties go utterly spacko and trash the joint. They are clearly more violent than the so-called haters whose words and ideas they simply cannot bear to hear. 

This is of course completely obvious to any sane, rational adult. But many leftist quackademics are incapable of perceiving this massive contradiction, which shows how dim they are. That's sad -- particularly when you consider that as so-called educators they're tasked with making the yoof smarter. "Clever country" my arse! 

That said, some of these activist "professors" are well aware of how absurdly inconsistent their behaviour is. But they just don't give a rat's. For them, power trumps truth. They believe that as long as they get to boss people around, any lie is justified. It's a truly sinister attitude. 

To be fair, most lefties are not quite as extreme as this. They can and do let their opponents speak on their turf and are generally civil about it. Still, they make damn sure that they're pulling the strings. They choose the subjects to be discussed, and will ensure the moderator is on their side (while purporting to be objective, natch). If one of the hated righties is about to drop a truth bomb, he'll try to cut her off or change the topic pronto!

They also make sure that lefties outnumber the conservatives. And they invariably label the latter as such, while not doing the same for their fellow travellers (who are often radical activists if not utterly unhinged moonbats) instead describing them merely as experts, writers, commentators, etc -- zif they're sage-like and totally unbiased! FFS. What a joke. 

Q and A is a perfect example of this tried and trusted leftist tactic of stacking the decks in their favour, while purporting to be fair and balanced. (Please check out some of my previous takes on individual episodes.)

Their ABC has another, more low key panel "debate" show called The Drum. Its politically correct bias is not as obvious as it is on Q and A. But it's still there.

In recent weeks this bias has become an issue on Twitter, with the show's host Julia Baird tweeting this:

Maybe Baird is actually being honest here. Perhaps she really does think that she's playing with a straight bat.

But the fact that she touts her post-grad qualifications in her Twitter profile is significant, IMO. It's like she's saying she's smarter than other tweeps.

And this smug, superior attitude is common on campuses across Oz. Tertiary education here is almost totally dominated by cultural Marxism, an elitist ideology if ever there was one. Campus "thinkers" see it as their duty to figure out what's best for the plebs, then get them to go along with their daffy utopian plans whether they like it or not.

While some sane adults do appear on The Drum, they are clearly outnumbered by the sneering hipsters, many of whom are full-time quackademics. Some are broadcasters with that background who've spent years poncing about in ivory towers congratulating themselves for their compassionate far-sightedness. Take Peter Van Onselen for example:

Wow. Talk about intellectual hubris.

He's like Tim Flannery -- another quackademic who's forever predicting the future, only to be regularly confounded by reality.

You've gotta wonder why he has a such a daffy view. Seems to me that because he dearly wants this child-brained utopian vision to come true -- or at least sees it as some kind of moral advancement -- then he believes it's gonna happen for sure.

But one thing you learn as you get older (if you're paying attention, that is) is that people tend to do what they want to do, not what you think they should do. And you can never know for sure what'll happen even in the relative short term. Even a coupla years ago, who would have thought that the UK, that bastion of democracy and free speech, would now be imprisoning those reporting on organized rape gangs to maintain the lies of political correctness?

But even if PVO is correct, and the so-called progressives continue to increase their power over us, he forgets to consider the effects of intersectionality. That is, if animal rights rule then plant rights'll follow, natch. So even veganism will be verboten in time. The woke'll chant: "Meat is murder! Hommus is hommuside!" Eventually everyone'll be so dang hangry they'll all go back to BBQs ...

In any case I shouldn't be too harsh on Van Onselen. He's by no means the silliest of The Drum's guests. Take Vanessa "Van" Badham. She seems to be on there every second week, peddling her trademark brand of sour, self-obsessed wrong-headedness. And she always seems to be wearing weird Carmen Miranda style headgear. One time it looked like she'd stuffed a giant half-eaten doughnut in her locks, no kidding!

One can only guess why she dons such OTT garb. Her verbose and pompous pronouncements are ridiculous enough already ... Maybe it's a feminist version of Pirate Pete's trademark red bandana? She's changed her name to sound more masculine ("Van" -- sounds like "man", geddit?) so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. 

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Hanson-hater Burnside goes bonkers over "blackshirts"

Nothing that your local leftie luvvies love more than sneering at "rednecks", particularly ones from Queensland -- or the "deep north" as they like to call it.

I always find their use of that particular term kinda funny. It comes from America, after all. Given that they routinely confuse countries with cultures, isn't that a clear case of "cultural appropriation"? 

Anyhoo, you often see this progressive racism on Twitter. Earlier this week, for example, Julian Burnside QC indulged in some of it during Q and A.

Take this cheap shot, in which he sneeringly mocks Pauline Hanson's accent.

Explicitly ridiculing a person's speech is cruel because it's something they can't change. It's like making fun of someone with a stutter or a lisp. Not a good look generally. And it's made worse here because this guy is forever fobbing himself off as "Australia's Most Compassionate Man".

And it's so classist! Because Ms Hanson doesn't speak with the clipped elegance of the eminent Melbourne Queen's Counsel and his tertiary educated ilk, he enjoys making jokes at her expense. Like so many of the latte Left, he is basically an elitist snob. Ol' "Crown Jules" really oughta check his privilege.

He's also not the sharpest pencil in the box (or should that be the "loudest gavel"?). Earlier on, he tweeted this about Ms Hanson:

A question for my "learned" friend: Mate, if Pauline Hanson's accent is so, er, boganistically "incomprehensible" to your oh so delicate ear, then how the fark do you actually know that what she's saying is genuinely "racist"?

C'mon Julian. Please explain.

Crown Jules cranked out more unwitting comedy as Q and A wore on. He asked this question about plods' uniforms: 

I'm now living in Sydney, so I'm not sure what exact hue the Victorian constabulary's clobber is. Several helpful tweeps suggested that they wore dark blue, not black. 

In any case, I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that this was another example of Crown Jules' rather worrying tendency to see fascism everywhere. (There was that notorious recent retweet of his about Peter Dutton, remember.)

Seems his febrile, luvvie mind was bubbling with images of jackbooted goons employed by the state to stamp out dissent with extreme prejudice. (So funny, because if the Victorian Police are reminiscent of another force it's not Mussolini's blackshirts, but the the Keystone Cops!)

If you think my conclusion is OTT then check out this other tweet of his:

Gawd. Talk about paranoid ...

Not to mention completely and utterly wrongheaded: Like all regressive lefties, Burnside is gullible enough to think that Parkland shooting sleb David Hogg and his teen team of avenging angels are actually the real deal!

Sooo obvious to any sane, rational adult that they are actually the mere puppets of wily Democrats and fellow "liberals" way older and more powerful than they are. Hogg is definitely more deserving of the "Nazi" tag than Dutton could ever be.

As that other -- far more intelligent and well informed -- Aussie Julian remarked, zealously pushing for gun control is a hallmark of fascist regimes across the globe.

I think I'll be calling my favourite latte leftie Julian Blindside from now on ...

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Julian Burnside's troll list is a silly attempt at public shaming

Thing I find fascinating about regressive lefties is how emotionally driven and tribal they are. Defending the side and not the principle is par for the course for these muppets ... So deep-seated are these psychological forces that many prominent, capable professionals often act in amusingly daft and incoherent ways as a result. And here's a good example of this from Twitter:

Julian Burnside QC is obviously getting severely stressed by the constant criticism and attacks on him on social media. So he came up with the idea of compiling a shame list of right-wing trolls to put on his blog.

Lefties love this kind of stuff, natch. Collectivists to the core, they really get off on demonizing, discrediting and disqualifying their opponents en masse -- just as they love to assemble with scores of their smug fellow travellers and congratulate themselves on how fricken "compassionate" they are!

These days, being "progressive" is all about feeling superior to the rest of humanity. They are the most grotesquely elitist snobs you can imagine ... The fact that they then have the gall to claim they're actually egalitarians makes you wanna burst out laughing and barf at the same time!

Then there's their massive double standard. Trolling is practised right across the political spectrum, of course. But for vicious online abuse, lefties have gotta be the worst. Just look at their infantile insults under any tweet by a conservative commentator or pollie and you'll see what I mean.

And it's a bit rich for Julian Burnside himself to be calling out trolls when he recently tweeted this about Peter Dutton:

Now I doubt that qualifies as defo. Tweeps have a lot of leeway when sledging pollies, it seems. Political speech is routinely hyperbolic, after all. And the targets tend to have much thicker skin than most. (Dutto in particular seems not only rhino-hided but pangolin-skinned and armadillo-amoured as well!) That said, I seriously doubt that many high profile business figures would be so legally indifferent to such an outrageous insinuation. 

In any case that tweet is certainly trolling by any reasonable definition. While Burnside was merely retweeting the Nazi image, he was certainly endorsing the comparison. And he did tag Dutton, who would have seen it for sure.

Not surprisingly, Burnside copped a helluva lot of criticism for that particular tweet, as he describes here.

Pretty clear that butthurt over that condemnation was a big part of his motivation for compiling the troll list. Such a typically leftist reaction, that. Rather then contemplate his own actions and accept that the tweet was beyond the pale (especially for a prominent player such as himself) he doubled down and said "look over there!".

So determined was he to shame his attackers and critics that he put out a call for help to compile this list:

Not surprisingly he got an enthusiastic reaction from his febrile following of leftist losers. Predictably, they were listing pretty much anyone they disagreed with as "trolls". 

To his credit, Burnside actually tried to narrow the definition:

Hilariously, prominent Burnside fellow traveller Vanessa "Van" Badham offered assistance with her block list -- which prolly contains about half the Oz Twittersphere. Soon after, some of Burnside's own -- very "progressive" -- supporters complained that they were actually on it!

Clearly Badham thinks they qualify as trolls, or something similar. And if Burnside values her judgement then he should include their handles in his list, shouldn't he?

Or maybe not ... Looks like ol' Julian's got some sortin' to do!

Such a microcosm for the Left, this. They crave a pile on so deeply that they inevitably end up making fools of themselves.

In any case Burnside is pressing on with his project. The first installment is up now.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Ball tampering furor fuelled by identity politics

I'm not really into sport of any kind these days. And I've never been one for cricket. So I haven't followed this whole ball tampering scandal very closely.

Still, given the intensity of the minute by minute media coverage of this still unfolding story, along with the public's reaction to it, it's clear that Aussies not only absolutely love cricket and its culture, they also take the issue of cheating extremely seriously.

This is strongly related to the Aussie cultural obsession with honourably observing agreed upon rules. You've gotta be fair dinkum everywhere, especially the sports field!

Obviously other nations take the issue of fair play in sport seriously too. But they don't seem to be quite as obsessed with it as we are here.

That said, it seems to me that while what the players did was wrong and they should've been punished, what they actually copped from TPTB was massively OTT. And the gleeful mainstream and social media pile-on has been disturbing, to say the least.

As with so many things these days, a major component in this whole scandal is the current obsession with identity politics. When the story first broke there were heaps of social media updates about how this kind of cheating was so typical of "white male privilege" and an example of "toxic masculinity".

I suspect that officials in Cricket Australia got wind of this infantile wailing by brainwashed tweeps and Facebookers and thought: "Yikes! The whole nation is out for blood. We'd better come down hard or we'll be called raaacist as well ... And that of course is the absolute worst thing in the world!"

So they did. And even when the punished players cried very real tears of shame and remorse many of the same lefties baying for their blood were not satisfied and kept kicking, or gloated at their ability to have such a devasting effect.

Even now in some of the seemingly less judgemental MSM commentary on the fallout from the ball tampering scandal, the same child-brained obsession with "toxic masculinity" remains.

The whole sorry clarsterfark is yet another example of people in positions of power believing a false narrative pushed by the PC Left and acting accordingly. They've really gotta start ignoring these arseholes and their nasty tactics or every institution is doomed, no kidding. 

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Marcia Langton abuses Mark Latham on Twitter. Projection personified!

Now we all know that PC lefties suffer from arrested development. Emotionally, they are like spoiled brats. They think that everything is all about them and their precious feels. And they reckon that when it comes to issues of social justice only they care; that anyone who disagrees with them must be a heartless hater. So they're always falsely accusing others of the intense disdain that they themselves feel for their political opponents. In short, they project.

You see this all the time on Twitter. Here's an absolutely perfect example of it: After reading a typically dishonest Guardian gargle about Mark Latham -- which itself omitted key facts about why the ex-pollie and current cant-buster was criticizing the Bankstown Poetry Slam -- prominent Indigenous academic Marcia Langton expressed her wish that he die a "slow, painful death".

It was just amazingly mean-spirited. What's even more astonishing is that she described him as the truly spiteful one -- implying that his death would erase hate -- in the very same tweet!

Upon reading it any sane, reasonable person would think: "WTAF is going on in this poor woman's head?"

Even some lefties woulda looked at it and said: "Yeah, not nice ... Still, Latham had it coming. He's a hater, no doubt about it."

Sure, Latho can be vitriolic and aggro. And he'll give as good as he gets -- and then some. But I've never known him to actually, seriously wish death upon someone else. Which is clearly what Langton did here.

Even more gob-smacking is the fact that she left the tweet up for quite a while -- a coupla days I think ... It is gone now, so maybe someone had a quiet word to her. Or perhaps she slowly realized how foolish it made her appear.

Still, the level of loathing in the tweet -- not to mention lack of judgement it demonstrated -- is a worry. And there's zero chance she'll suffer any negative consequences for it, of course.

You only have to contrast the professional immunity she enjoys with what happened to Professor Barry Spurr, who resigned from the University of Sydney because of the almighty ruckus over some off colour private e-mail correspondence that was meant to be humorous.

And people wonder why so many uni students are tragically right-on zombies these days. Yeah, well. Go figure.

You don't go to uni to "learn" any more. On the contrary -- "unlearning" is all the rage (rage being the operative word, clearly).

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Menzies Research Center's Twitter event triggers trollective, and trends!

Last night I went along to an informative and entertaining event at the Menzies Research Center. It was aimed at encouraging those of the non-leftist persuasion (otherwise known as sane adults) to get active on Twitter.

There is absolutely no doubt that the platform "leans left", both in the membership and management. Data proves this, and it becomes crystal clear anyway if you haven't been guzzling the PC Kool-Aid all your life and you sign up and start tweeting. Joint is chockas with feral lefties who love nothing more than finding a tweep guilty of "wrongthink" and piling onto him with the most vile, witless abuse imaginable. (For shorthand, I call this tragic tribe of cowardly bullies "the trollective".)

Now, a lot of righties avoid it like the plague because it's so dominated by the Left. Not worth fighting them on their turf, they say. That's a fair point but remember that the MSM repeatedly (and dishonestly) cites tweets zif they are representative of the wider population's views. This allows them to keep peddling their fake news narrative, which they then leverage to skew the debate in Canberra, among other things. 

If growing numbers of normies are on there tweeting up a storm, however, it becomes a bit harder for Fairfax, their ABC, Buzzfeed and the like to keep selling their snake oil. This was one of the main motivations for the event, which was organized and emceed by the Menzies Center's Fred Pawle, and featured noted reporter and columnist Caroline Marcus, the prolific witty tweep Monsterdome, and veteran rhino-hided commentator Chris Kenny.

The event was live-streamed on Facebook and several of those present (including yours twooly) tweeted the relevant hashtag (#MRCTwitterWars) throughout. This gathered quite a bit of momentum and it actually became a trending topic for much of the night.

Now this was quite a small event specifically aimed at non-lefties. So it clearly provoked quite a large reaction from the Left. 

Many of these tweets were as vile as they were stupid, natch. But not all of them were. Some were merely excruciatingly pompous. Take those of one Patrick Stokes for example.

Now, Dr Stokes (for a doctor he is) often brings his powerful intellect to bear on contentious issues, taking prominent political figures to task. Here he is "schooling" Lyle Shelton for "category errors" for example:

There's politically correct "thinking" in a nutshell: Gender and biological sex are separate categories. As Gerard Henderson himself might say: "Can you bear it?" (I would love to see Stokes in a debate with another, far more prominent and clear-thinking academic -- and writer of this best seller -- Jordan Peterson. I think I know who'll get schooled then.)

But back to the hashtag at hand: Dr Stokes zeroed in on the event's "win at Twitter" label and concluded that the participants were guilty of "sophism".

Sophism? Gawd.

I think he was reading far too much into it. I was there and it was pretty much WYSIWYG -- hardly intellectually dishonest. If anything, it was advocating stoicism ... Actually, I think it mighta been Dr Stokes himself who made the biggest "category error", don't you?

And don't you love his line that Twitter shouldn't just be used to win, but "to know more and be better human beings than we were when we started".

Because that's what the Left are all about, right? They're such a learned, edifying bunch aren't they?

Yeah, right ... Take this sophisticated contribution from a self-described "comrade", still holding a kennel for the Chaser.

And here's a perfect example of the kind of "progressive" misogyny Chris Kenny specifically mentioned on the night.

Oh look, here's some more! This delightful tweet was provoked by Ms Marcus's quite reasonable and accurate observation that Twitter is basically people proverbially shitting on each other

Plenty more where that came from. It really was the tip of the shitberg.

Almost refreshingly some of the snark was more subtle. Take this dog whistling about the newly unmasked Monsterdome's appearance:

Predictably, Asher's followers got the hint and piled on with markedly less restraint:

Sure, MD is "no oil painting". Most of us blokes are -- particularly when we get into middle age and beyond. But to imply someone resembles a rapist because you disagree with him is just putrid.

This vicious mockery of opponents' appearance is made worse by the fact that it's lefties themselves who are so keen to condemn others for "lookism". (As a semi-baldie myself, I'm used to the brazen domophobia. Currently compiling an official AHRC complaint as a victim of "pate speech".)

Back to Ms Wolf:

Well, she wasn't watching very closely. There were many good observations on this very subject from all panellists on the night. Take this list of ten tips from Monsterdome, for example:

Go through each of those points in turn. You'll see that the PC leftist approach for each is pretty much the exact opposite. (Spookily, it's a bit like how Satanists view the Ten Commandments.)

When we zig, they zag. When we talk, they squawk!

Triggering the trollective is twitloads of fun. That in itself is reason enough to be on Twitter, so please do feel free to join us ...

UPDATE: Several short videos now up on YouTube.