Thursday, May 9, 2019

Dinkum Bill is a fake narrative

Predictably many lefties have been shrieking up a storm about the Daily Telegraph correcting Bill Shorten regarding what he said about his mum on Q and A. But I was surprised when Bolta condemned the story. I think that's because he knows from personal experience how much hurt relatives of public figures can feel when their family history becomes the subject of public discussion.

I can understand that. But Bill Shorten is running for the most important job in the land and an election is only days away now. Perfectly reasonable for the media to have the blowtorch on full blast when applying it to his belly!

Also, strikes me as a bit naive that he didn't expect this treatment. He's been a public figure for many years -- not just as Opposition Leader but also as one of the top dogs in Australia's cut-throat union movement.

He called the story "gotcha shit". But was it?

I don't think so at all. The issue of character is extremely important in a PM. And while it's obvious that politics often requires a flexible relationship with the truth citizens do want to know how trustworthy and genuine a candidate is at his psychological core before casting their votes. Some pollies will dissemble or even lie only as a last resort, while others are just full-on dodgy blokes who tell massive porkies as easy as breathing.

Bill Clinton is the most extreme version I can think of in the latter category. I don't think our Bill is that far gone, but he's getting there ...

And in the way he talked about his mum the other night he was clearly being selective with the truth for political purposes. While he had publicly stated that she was a lawyer at other times, that's irrelevant. On this occasion, in front of an impressionable audience, he wove what was basically a sob story about how she missed out on her ambitions in that regard.

He then invoked that emotive narrative to cast himself as a kinda Gandhi figure who was gonna give the whole nation the opportunities that his mum was so unfairly denied. It wasn't just disingenuous but bizarre. He was talking down her achievements to big note himself!

This is clear from the transcript below and even more obvious when you watch the video.

It’s as... I’m going to finish on this point. I went to this university. The reason I went to this university is ‘cause my mum worked here for 33 years. My mum came from a working-class family. She was the first in our family in the early ‘50s to ever go to university, ever. No-one ever thought... My grandma, English grandma, she was a cleaner and a barmaid. They wouldn’t have thought we’d ever be sitting here, talking to you like this. But if my mum... And she became a teacher, but she wanted to be a lawyer, but she was the eldest in the family, so needed to take the teacher scholarship to look after the rest of the kids. My mum was a brilliant woman. She wasn’t bitter. She worked here for 35 years. But I also know that if she had had other opportunities, she could have done anything.

I can’t make it right for my mum. And she wouldn’t want me to. But my point is this – what motivates me, if you really want to know who Bill Shorten is, I can’t make it right for my mum but I can make it right for everyone else. This is a country... I don’t care who you vote for – I’d like you to vote for us – I don’t care what god you worship, I don’t care how long you’ve been here, your accent, your family, what job they do, but I reckon that if this country can just let people be as talented and as capable by giving them all the same opportunity, we won’t all be the same at the end of the day, but then nothing gonna hold this country back. When we’re equal, when we get equal opportunity, we are going to be the best country in the world, with no arrogance. That’s my leadership style.

There's no doubt about what he was communicating to the audience. Yet some of his MSM supporters were in denial. Take this "journo" here:


Okay, Shorten wasn't actively tryna cover it up. But he did make a glaring omission to make it seem that his mum never achieved her dreams so that he could cast himself as the bloke who, as PM, would help everyone else achieve theirs.

It was pretty damn bogus, no two ways about it! And the ease with which he promoted this fake narrative was a real worry. This aspect of his character is something a lot of people are waking up to, which is one of the main reasons the race has narrowed in recent weeks.


Yet this dude continued to talk Bill Shorten up, zif he's a magical uniter of old foes. But the fact that Gillard, Rudd and Keating sat together at the launch suggests something else entirely: They all know what he's really like, and they're absolutely packin' death that a big swathe of the electorate will realize this too and the election will be lost. The show of unity was a desperate attempt to stop this from happening. 


This cooperation between long time enemies Hawke and Keating is another example of just how worried they are.


Clearly, the party is desperately pushing the line that Bill is just a really lovely caring, sharing bloke who wants the best for everyone -- no fibs! And the muppets at their ABC are doing their part, pedaling this bollocks narrative with gusto. 

"Utter authenticity"? Gawd.

Does she really believe that? Seems she's being a tad disingenuous herself ... If not, well, that's just sad.

To me and I suspect a rapidly growing number of Aussies, Bill Shorten comes across as a kind of latter day Les Patterson -- though not nearly as priapic, disheveled and boozy, of course.

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Leftie ferals are making a truly crappy omelette

Leftist radicals of the sixties and seventies claimed that their main motivation was pacifism. But they were actually hell-bent on promoting communism.

Their conservative opponents often accused them of being OTT and violent. In response to this, one of their favourite phrases was: "If you wanna make an omelette, you've gotta crack a few eggs!"

Fast forward to 2019. The more things change, etc ... Only this time, the protestors are not being metaphorical.

There was that idiot who egged Fraser Anning, and now some stupid girl has gone and done the same thing to ScoMo. Maybe she's tryna make some feminist statement, and strike a blow for gender egg-quality or something. But all she's done is show how unhinged, incoherent and violent the Left have become.


At this stage it also seems likely that she's aligned to the animal rights movement. If that's the case then her gooey stunt was even more of a sad yolk.

Hell, if she wants better treatment for "non-human persons" including chickens then she's definitely gone about it the wrong way. Throwing an egg at someone in the name of animal rights is like a human rights advocate using a small child as a weapon to beat an opponent.

As well as this incident, there have been many other truly nasty acts committed by greenies and lefties. They even killed a dog apparently! And it's just been reported that a hollowed out book with a turd in it has been left at Tony Abbott's electoral office. It included a note that read "unpopular".

Gawd. And they're tryna make him look bad? Whatever Tony Abbott has done in his life, both politically and personally, there's no way he ever did anything as repugnant as leaving a poo in a box at the office of an enemy.

But of course the hateful lefties can't see the irony. They're pushing the narrative that Abbott is such a noxious character that he provokes this kind of reaction in otherwise reasonable people. But that will only work with primitive idiots like themselves. And they would be supporting Zali Steggall or other leftie candidates anyway.

This is truly desperate stuff. I suspect it will backfire on them big-time. But if it actually does the opposite and helps lower his vote on election day then this country is in a far more dire situation than I thought.

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Zali Steggall campaign: top-down directive makes volunteers camera shy

Earlier today I had an interesting experience that I think said something about the way Zali Steggall's campaign is being run. There's a lot of talk about her links to Getup and how she's a kind of cat's paw for globalist forces who peddle warmist bollocks. I had a brief interchange with one of her supporters that seemed to confirm this narrative.

There's a bit of context to it so please bear with me as I fill that in:

See, as well as this blog, I have another one which is not to do with politics or current affairs at all. Basically, it's just a way for me to share photos of interesting landmarks, buildings, and statues in and around Sydney. I have a YouTube channel for it as well.

Now, today I had planned to make a quick video of the Lady of Commerce statue out the front of the Royal Exchange building at 56 Pitt Street. Even did a bit of research so I could include some interesting facts in my narration.

On my way there I made this short video of the Department of Lands building:


Anyhoo, a coupla minutes after doing that I got to the corner of Pitt and Bridge Sts and was surprised to see a bunch of election campaign placards out the front of 56 Pitt St as well as volunteers from the various parties handing out how to vote pamphlets, etc. They occupied the pavement in front of the statue, which put the kibosh on my original plan to do a little video about the statue itself. 

Curious about why they were there weeks before election day I started talking to a Liberal Party volunteer. He told me that this was a polling place for early voting. I joked that I was one of the few conservatives in the inner west before taking one of his pamphlets and walking off.

I didn't want to waste a visit, though, and considered making a video for my more politically themed YouTube channel. During the state election recently I got this video just to give people a sense of the scene at the Newtown polling place. I was toying with the idea of doing another one like that, but decided to opt for a couple of shots instead.

I was keen to incorporate the Lady of Commerce statue because of the link between business and politics. Then I could add a smartarse caption like: "If Zali Steggall wins Warringah, let's hope she's as good for business as the grand old lady behind her. Something tells me she won't be!" (Haw, haw.)


And for this one: "ScoMo spotted at the 'top end of town'. Hmm. Maybe Bill was right after all?" (Thinking emoji.)


I was shuffling around for a few minutes tryna get these shots right. So I understand how it might have looked a little bit suss to the volunteers.

Anyhoo, while I was standing there looking at the photos I had taken one of the Steggall volunteers came up to me and strikes up a convo about the statue. Then he segues into the subject of the campaign itself and mentions that photos of the volunteers were not allowed.

I hadn't taken any photos specifically of the people there at all, and had no intention of doing so. I reassured him of that and said they might just end up as tiny figures in the background.

Then he told me that they'd had some trouble with Tony Abbott supporters and that the boss (whoever that was -- doubt it was Ms Steggall herself) had ordered that no photos of volunteers could be taken (or words to that effect). 

I'm not quite sure what that meant. And was that something that could even be enforced? I suspect things have been getting pretty full-on in Warringah of late and the team was worried about being identified and subsequently doxxed.

In any case it struck me as pretty OTT. And BTW this is not so much a criticism of the dude who told me. He was polite and didn't seem like some jumped up narcissist throwing his weight around. He genuinely seemed to be passing on a directive from someone above him.

I told him I wouldn't be doing anything like that. To which he replied, "Well you don't look like a Tony Abbott supporter ..." This was a reference to my scruffy appearance, no doubt. I'm not exactly a Hugo Boss model on the best of days but today I prolly resembled Grizzly Adams after a three day bender. I nodded and laughed as if to agree.

I could sense he was still a tad suspicious, so I reassured him again. I said: "Don't worry, I'm just here taking photos of statues and buildings for my blog ..."

Then he walked away suddenly saying: "That doesn't sound like ..." He cut himself off in mid-sentence as he strode off so I can't be exactly sure what he meant, but what I think happened was that he concluded that I was dissembling about my reasons for being there, and that I had actually lobbed as some sorta clandestine operative for the eeevil Lord Abbott!

Quite frankly this pissed me off.

Yes I'm a conservative, and I'd prefer ScoMo over Shorten for sure. I also hope Tony wins Warringah though I'll have no effect on that result at all because I'm not in his electorate.

But I really was just there by chance, with no political motivation at all. And I'm definitely not part of any psyop for the Abbott campaign.

If that dude hadn't come up to me to suss out why I was there and -- seemingly -- disbelieved my reasons I would have just made this a general post about the impending election, with the shots and captions included above.

But now it's specifically about Zali Steggall's campaign and how it's being run.

I mean, FFS, telling your volunteers that they can't be photographed at polling places (which implies the right to deny photographers their rights to take them) seems pretty OTT and authoritarian, dunnit?

I know that the stakes are very high this election -- particularly in Warringah -- so I can understand that volunteers for all parties might be more than a tad on edge. But what I thought was interesting was that it was the Steggall volunteer who approached me, not any of the others.

Hell, there was a Greens dude there and he didn't seem perturbed. And this is the kind of behaviour you'd think would be more likely to come from them than any other party, right? 

If what this guy said about being told by "the boss" that they "couldn't be photographed" was dinkum it sounds like a pretty authoritarian operation. This is at odds with Ms Steggall's repeated claims to be "independent" and seems to confirm that there's a big, bossy machine behind her calling the shots.

Now I know this is a pretty long post about something quite minor. Maybe I'm reading way too much into it. 

Also, several weeks ago I was physically attacked in the street by a fricken lunatic who thought I was taking shots of him, and not the charming old cafe he was sitting in, so I do have a bit of an issue when people start telling me -- however subtly -- what I can and can't photograph in a public place. Maybe I haven't yet achieved closure over that and it's clouding my thinking, I dunno ...

Still, the episode struck me as very odd and somewhat significant given the context. Hence the post.

What do you reckon?