March in August's low turnout proves pampered petulance of the Left

Recently I heard about the latest latte leftie dummy spit and group sulk called March in August. Read that it was to start at a park in Northbridge.

Now, because these charming assemblies are full of brimming bolshies who can't be arsed actually thinking about political issues and much prefer to play the man rather than the ball, most of the venom the speakers and placard wavers express is aimed at their favourite hate figure, the PM. And considering that Tony Abbott has been even more, er, Abbottesque than usual lately -- what with his comments about white settlement, as well as his condemnation of those adorable head choppers from ISIS -- you'd expect there to be squillions of squealing Tonyphobes at this latest demo.

But nup. It was a total fizzle. As a coupla Twitter wits opined, you get bigger crowds at an under 10s soccer match, or a sausage sizzle out the front of Bunnings.

Left me scratching my head as to why this was the case ... Hmmm. Maybe it was something to do with the lack of a catchy, alliterative title? After all, there was something distinctively meme-ish about "March in March" and it was extra-easy to remember for the severely cognitively challenged -- who clearly constituted most of the many thousands who rocked up on that day. So, would this latest organized outburst have drawn bigger crowds if it had been named, say, "Anger in August"? Maybe ...

But I think the main reason for the tragically piss-poor turnout was the highly immature and emotional nature of the Left. If your actions are motivated by feelings, well, they'll always be inconsistent in nature.

Then there's pervasive pinko tendency to blame others for your own condition. So, in the same way that these child-brained adults accuse decent hardworking folk who never did anything wrong to them for their own misery, they also leave it up to others to tell them what to do. Hell, the spoiled sprogs can't even shift their fat arses down to a local park unless the local commissars motivate them sufficiently.

It's all there in that stupid exhortation so beloved of the bolshie: "maintain the rage". Such "rage" can hardly be genuine and justified if someone has to tell you to maintain it, as well as when and where to express it, right?

Actually, it's not really rage at all. More like wallowing in your spurious sense of victimhood on cue.

Lefties are just cowardly bullies who can't think for themselves

Just a general thought on the sad, stunted psyche of your typical socialist: Isn't it fascinating how they become so fixated on individuals. Abbott Derangement Syndrome is a good example of this, as is the nasty way they gang up on and try to silence dissenting journalists like Andrew Bolt. It shows how utterly piss-weak they are. So funny to watch countless fulminating fluffy wuffies utterly apoplectic over the arguments of just one guy.

This is a key difference between the Left and normal, adult folk. Socialists are scared of individuals they can't control while everybody else (justifiably) fears hectoring packs of primitive idiots (namely lefties) who are trying to control them.

And just as your typical brimming bolshie loves nothing more than joining a baying pack of fellow ferals bent on isolating and intimidating individuals into compliance (or, failing that, silence) he is just as likely to dutifully obey the crazed dictates of a narcissistic, domineering individual.

Look at their well documented tendency to laud "charismatic" leaders like Gough Whitlam, Bob Brown and Fidel Castro. That seems paradoxical at first, but when you ponder just how totally lacking in inner courage and principle they are it make perfect sense. They can't think for themselves and therefore look to a single source of authority to do all their thinking for them.

Basically, the poor creatures are barely sentient cowards. And as we all know, a coward is always the worst kind of bully when he gets the chance.

Why luvvies love calling Mandela "Madiba"

On the weekend Tim Blair asserted that those who use Nelson Mandela's clan name Madiba are "fantastic poseurs". Today he cites definitive evidence for this claim.

There are a coupla reasons leftist luvvies can't stop using the appellation. Firstly, it's familiar -- the inner-city tosser's version of calling Russell Crowe "Rusty".

Say "Madiba" and you subtly infer that you were mates with the guy -- or have at least broken bread with him on occasion. Even if you don't wish to convey that impression, it makes it seem you're an authentic fellow traveller with him. Clearly, you've been a brave and committed activist in the great man's struggle for freedom and equality.

The practice is akin to using a person's first name. Also, like the recently deceased icon's surname, it has the advantage of sounding truly African. Talking or writing about "Nelson" would just sound a bit awkward. Madiba, on the other hand, sounds intimate, affectionate and authentic.

Also, it's kinda esoteric. Not widely used in the meeja -- well, at least not until recently anyway -- it conveys to your reader or interlocutor that you have deep and detailed knowledge of the issues surrounding the person behind the name. Say "Madiba" and you're not just a brave human rights activist, you're also a scholar -- an assiduous student of the struggle against apartheid.

That said, I think it's lost much of its power in this regard. Hand-wringing meeja pseuds have really gone overboard with it, rendering it next to powerless on the socialist sneerer's smugometer. That's kind of sad -- and very much like what they did with the word "pugilist" to describe Tonay Abbott. Hell, even bogans call him that now ...

Julian Burnside QC defends his Tasmanian solution to Ben Fordham

If you want a really good insight into the psychology of the Left, then you can't go past this interview that Julian Burnside QC gave to Ben Fordham on 2GB. In it he argues for turning Tasmania into a big detention centre.

It starts out with Fordham asking: "Are you serious?"

Burnside prevaricates a little and says, somewhat halfheartedly, "It could work". He adds that of course it won't be adopted anyway ...

It's pretty obvious from his tone of voice that he's not offering a serious solution to the whole asylum seeker problem. And if he's not serious, then why suggest it?

It's merely a rhetorical exercize that enables him to demonize the two major parties (LNP mostly). He can look at the machinations of democracy, turn up his nose and sneer: "If only you were all pure of heart and compassionate like me and my fellow travellers!"

If anything it shows how little he truly cares about humanitarian issues. Not only is he unmoved by deaths at sea -- endorsing a policy that will guarantee that they continue -- he's just using them as fodder to show how much cleverer and more visionary he is than those appalling politicians. (And who elects those nasty pollies? Why, those thick, primitive proles, of course ...)

Julian Burnside QC, like all his latte slurping, finger wagging ilk, thinks it's all about him. He believes that anyone who is not in his luvvie elite is invariably cruel and heartless, always driven by the basest motives.

When Fordham says that both major parties are pushing for a hard-arsed border policy to deter arrivals and thereby stop the drowning deaths he immediately impugns their motives, asserting with no evidence whatsoever that politicians "don't care about people dying at sea". Fordham notices the casual arrogance inherent in this statement, asking if he's become a mind reader.

As well as being pompous and sanctimonious, Burnside is also intellectually dodgy as all get out. In a shamelessly deceitful tactic he says that the rate of boat arrivals "tracks parallel with international refugee movements". If that were an accurate statement then every democratic nation on Earth would have experienced an astronomical rise in refugee arrivals. That's simply not the case and he knows it.

He also refuses to acknowledge that even his beloved ABC defines those coming here by boat as "illegal arrivals". When Fordham presses him on this point he quite curtly -- and without a hint of self-parody -- says "Trust me. I'm a lawyer." It's comedy gold.

The interview contains many more gems of self-satire from one of the high priests of hand-wringing. Definitely worth a listen.

Ben Naparstek vs John van Tiggelen and lefty stoushes in general

Conservatives are gleefully yucking up a storm over a falling out between the editors of two prominent lefty publications. In it, editor of The Monthly John van Tiggelen has sent a very snarky email to wunderkind Ben Naparstek of Good Weeked accusing him of poaching writers, among other things. If van Tiggelen's claims are true then Naparstek's behaviour has been disgraceful -- not to mention deeply sexist.

I recall a vaguely similar situation occurring a coupla years back involving The Drum and Crikey -- though I don't think the enmity was nearly as intense.

In any case, this conflict got me thinking about how much white-anting and bitchery goes on within lefty strongholds as opposed to conservative ones. While internecine battles do occur in Toryland, they're generally not nearly as vicious or protracted as the ones that rage in joints like Labor and the unions. Look at the deep level of personal enmity between Rudd and Gillard, for example. It's nasty as all get out.

It's also pretty funny, given lefties' constant claims of compassion, solidarity, and community. Obviously hypocrsiy has a lot to do with it. There's the fact that conservatives tend to be more restrained characters as well. They may feel just as much envy of or hatred for a competitor but because they're more likely to take responsibility for their actions, they usually manage to stop themselves from doing things that they know they'll probably regret later on. Then there's the fact that lefties are more driven by emotion than anything else ...

I think it's got something to do with their ideological mindset, too. And it kinda gets back to that whole "zero sum game" mentality they have. They think of work and wealth as being finite commodities. They're not entrepreneurial by definition. To them, big organizations like the public service, the ABC and Fairfax are the "only game in town". They zone in on a desired position with total, relentless focus.

Now if two or more ambitious lefties are competing for such a gig they will often stop at nothing to get it, keep it and use it to assert dominance over, or get revenge on, their closest competitors. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, will tend to seek elsewhere if it's all getting too full-on. That's not to say they're lazy or unambitious. Far from it. They just realize that there's a world beyond the established organization. There are many smaller businesses in the private sector to work in, or they can even start from scratch and create their own.

What do you think? Is this the reason or is it something else? 

Zero sum games and growing pies

Some general thoughts about lefties and their belief system: One key ingredient in their daft world view is that of the zero sum game. They think there's a set amount of everything in society -- particularly money. So if you have a substantial amount of it you must have stolen it from another person or group.

They see the economy as a pie of finite size. Their job, then, is to make sure the slices are redistributed fairly. (Well, that's what they tell themselves and others but they're usually trying to grab and guzzle as many pieces as possible on the sly.) 

Conservatives say that while fairness is desirable it's more important to grow the pie. And individuals can have bigger slices if they work hard, are entrepreneurial, etc. Of course lefties hate that because they can't get their tiny minds around the idea of creating wealth. They interpret the exhortation to grow the pie as encouraging the haves to grab pie slices from the hands of the have-nots. 

But anyone who has done any real observation and thinking can see how retarded this concept is. Yes, capitalism is destructive. But it's also amazingly creative. And it's the latter force which keeps winning out. It's like a big ugly machine that keeps chugging along.

It's business that funds government through tax, after all. It's not the other way around. 

Speaking of government. There actually is a zero sum game in this sector. Money is handed out to recipients from a set yearly amount in the form of departmental funding, grants, welfare, etc. As we all know, government is what lefties are most attracted to. And they sure do demand more than their equal share of that particular pie. They are nicking it from more deserving people.

Take the arts, for instance. Anyone in that field knows damn well that if you want to "succeed" (get paid for your work) you have to suck up to the Left. Doesn't matter how crap you are at what you do. You just have to strike the politically correct pose and the money is sure to come. (There'll be much more of it if you have some well placed mates, too.)

Conservatives, on the other hand, are considered the enemy by the bureaucratic powers that be. So if you are one of these eeevil people and you have some insightful, original arty idea that you've worked your clacker off developing, you'll almost certainly get diddly squat from the relevant funding bodies. (Er, unless you lie to them about its nature when applying, of course. But you can only do that once or twice. And Tories are less likely to do that anyway. Unlike so many lefties, they believe that the truth exists and should be respected.)

Sure, conservatives rarely ask for money in the first place. They're more likely to try and turn a buck with their projects, or at least work on their own dime. Still, some are on the bones of their arses and have arty projects with little market value. But what are the odds that such plans will get any funding? Very close to nil.

Imagine a play based on the life of Tony Abbott, in which he's shown to be a decent bloke who respects women. Think that'd get any support from the Australia Council? 

So, there's a huge irony here. The Left sees a zero sum game where it doesn't exist, and accuses its ideological enemies of theft. Yet in a field where it does actually exist, they shamelessly grab their unfair share.

Just goes to show that lefties are not just inconsistent with the application of their ideology. They're often grotesquely hypocritical as well. 

Maurice Newman, Robyn Williams and leftie pedo smears

It's not surprising that the ABC decided Maurice Newman's complaints about Robyn Williams linking climate change skepticism to pedophilia have no validity. Their reaction is just so typically leftist. PC luvvies habitually use the most extreme analogies in order to denigrate their opponents, but then shriek and squawk up a storm if the same tactic is used against them.

Remember all the hyperventilating that occurred when Cory Bernardi linked gay marriage to zoophilia? The guy was sledged all over the Oz meeja, and was even demoted as a result of his statements. Yet while even some conservatives might have considered his comments extreme, they were tame compared to Williams's smearing of Newman and his intellectual ilk.

Bernardi's linkage was at least category-consistent, since both gay marriage and zoophilia pertain to sexual behaviour. He also alluded to some actual evidence, namely that there are influential people out there who see nothing wrong with humans schtupping animals -- Peter Singer, philosophical father of the Greens, being one. Compared to this, Williams's sliming of climate skeptics was right out of the ballpark.

In any case it's interesting how fond lefties are of their pedo smears. They tend to equate anything they don't like with sex with children almost as often as they do with racism and Nazism. Take this intriguing bit of graffiti in the Hay St Mall, for example. Not quite sure what the activist was trying to get at, but I think it's a safe bet he had some issues with the likes of Coke and Pepsi.

Pity he didn't make his point more eloquently. Getting up there was no mean feat.

So, what he lacked in coherence he certainly made up for in chutzpah. Have to give him a few cool points for that ...

Julia Gillard abused by Curtin University protestors

One thing that's long fascinated me about the most zealous proponents of political correctness is how brazenly inconsistent they are when dishing out condemnation. Leftie-feminists, for example, will interpret any criticism of their leaders as the most vile misogyny, yet be completely deaf to the clear and overt women-hatred being hurled at their enemies. And quite often they will be the ones hurling it!

An example is the outrage directed at anyone who dares criticize, say, Sarah Hanson Young compared to the complete lack of condemnation of the gleeful sledging of women like Julie Bishop and Gine Rinehart.

Usually this double standard (wo)manifests in the attitude of leftie zealots to eeevil capitalists and conservative pollies. But now, it's even being applied to a woman on their own side of the political divide, Julia Gillard.

Take today's visit to Curtin University, for instance. Protestors forced her to enter the joint via a back entrance.

About 50 protesters, chanting slogans like "Racist, sexist, anti-queer, Gillard you're not welcome here" and "Shame Gillard, shame" blocked the entrance to a university building.

They even chanted that she was a "homophobic whore".

I'm amazed that this insult passed muster, considering who was doing the protesting.

The Left really is devouring itself. It's ugly, but also kinda fun to watch, isn't it?

UPDATE: Well, well, well. How very, very interesting. That "homophobic whore" quote has just been removed from the story I linked to.

Hell, maybe the journo was writing an outright lie to try and make the protestors look like total asshats. But I doubt that very much.

So why was it removed? You gotta wonder, don't you ...

Jeez I wish I'd taken a screen shot of that story when I first saw it.

UPDATE: Have just learned from helpful commenters that the word being chanted was "law" not "whore". So we can blame the media, in the form of the West Australian, for that little faux pas.

I'd like to thank those activists for setting me straight on this. Er, but I'm not sure if that terminology is still legal, considering the context 'n' all ... 

In any case, consider this post corrected -- both personally and politically. (Unlike Media Watch, I have some journalistic standards, you know. So I'm happy to admit to mistakes -- even if they're made by others. How noble is that!)

That said, I do not resile from my claim that the the Left is still chockas with super-hypocritical ultra-numpties. From what I know about the PC squitterati (and I know a helluva lot) they're every bit as misogynist as those whom they condemn, often more so.

Defend Free Speech in Perth group hardly anti-censorship

The term "free speech" is being used a lot lately. However, its meaning seems to change quite a bit according to who's doing the, er, speaking.

Take the Defend Free Speech in Perth group. Sounds like they have admirable aims. You know, the kind of people who'd be appalled at the silencing of Andrew Bolt. They'd be staunchly opposed to the Government's creepy exploitation of the British phone hacking scandal to increase restrictions on reporting here, wouldn't they?

Nope. These guys are a bunch of hectoring lefties. They believe that freedom of speech is not the right to shout what you believe, but the right to shout other people down.

They actually interrupted a Perth City Council meeting, which then had to be adjourned:

The Defend Free Speech in Perth group filled the gallery, holding up signs comparing the council to the Nazis and calling out after they were not satisfied with a question answered by chief executive Frank Edwards.

This group was the, er, brainchild of extreme leftists associated with Occupy Perth. No wonder the poor sprog was stillborn.

Richard Glover, Peter FitzSimons interview to be a taxing exercize

One thing that defines lefties is utter shamelessness when seeking attention. And because they so often lack originality, and are just mouthing meaningless and sanctimonious platitudes much of the time, they are quite fond of using gimmicks in pursuit of this goal.

One good example is the silly 24 hour climate change themed comedy show by Brit Mark Watson. A local, upcoming one is the planned quackathon between smug ABC presenter Richard Glover and child-brained lummox Peter FitzSimons. The pair are going to try and break the Guinness World Record for longest one-on-one interview. 

These two tossers could bore a Sjogren's Syndrome sufferer to tears in a couple of minutes flat. Hell, if Le Boring Festival were dinkum, and not part of a Goodies episode, a mere soundbite of Glover and FitzSimons would be a shoo in for "Gold Bore". So I don't even want to think about what kind of human wreckage they'll leave behind after a whole 24 hours.

Obviously, no one will listen to this epic jawfest for any length of time willingly, unless they are already deeply disturbed. But there are people working in the ABC studio itself who will be forced to endure much of it. I pity them.

But I pity the long-suffering Aussie taxpayer even more. Surely he will be footing the bill for all the long hours of therapy (not to mention heavy duty anti-depressants) these poor souls will require in order to restore some semblance of sanity --- just as he had to cough up for the grotesque uber-wank in the first place.

UPDATE: FitzSimons is definitely a good sport. After finding this post he submitted a comment, which unfortunately didn't get through (which I think was because of default settings, since changed). When I replied to his query as to where it went he responded:

I posted a comment saying "Harsh but fair", even if it was ludicrously unfair.

Went through the whole process, and it was there on your site when I checked. But then it disappeared.

Best, 

Peter.

I think that bolded phrase perfectly captures the spirit of this blog. 

Norm Sanders on The Bolt Report

Having had a lot of contact with lefties and greenies over the years I've got a pretty good idea about what makes them tick. They are driven primarily by emotions, and quite immature ones at that. Basically, they think that ultimately everything is all about them; that only they truly care; and that they can create a utopia by sheer act of will (which invariably involves shrieking a lot and bossing people around).

Of course this quality can make them extremely annoying. But it can also make them quite interesting, amusing, and even likeable. Hell, sometimes they can even be undeniably charismatic! It's that fire in the belly that people respond to, see. (This is one of the reasons you see a lot of lefties and greenies in the performing arts.)

Needless to say, when people are driven less by reason than emotion, they tend not to be very consistent. They can even be downright contradictory.

I saw a perfect example of this on today's episode of The Bolt Report. Veteran environmentalist Norm Sanders was chewing the fat with Bolta and John Hewson.

Now the first thing that you notice is how affable he is. He's technically a senior citizen but seems much younger than his years. He's very energetic and enthusiastic, and also good natured. If you ever met him in a social setting he'd be very hard to dislike. (That may not be the case if you tried to debate him at a demo, but!)

So he's very easy to warm to, but his arguments are just all over the shop. Have a look at the discussion, and take particular note at around the four and a half minute mark. Norm Sanders really hammers home a point about the Earth being in a state of catastrophic decline, repeatedly saying it's a "fact" that the joint is going to hell in a handbasket environmentally.

But a little later he says that there are no facts, just emotions. And he just carries on regardless! 

It's hilarious. And keep an eye out for Bolta's expression. It's a classic. He's clearly thinking something akin to "what the hell is this guy on?".

Well, he's not really on anything. He's just addicted to the endorphins created by his deep and virtuous desire to do his bit to "save the planet". He's hooked on a feeling (and he's high on believing) that nature appreciates his efforts. But the sad fact is that nature doesn't give a rat's about them -- nor does it care about itself, for that matter.

That's just something greenies will never accept. Hell, if they did it would mean that all their fine feelings are ultimately worthless in the grand scheme of things. They simply couldn't bear the thought of that. Consequently they just don't go there.