Zaky Mallah fanboi Jonathan Holmes beclowns himself on Lateline

So funny to watch ABC luvvies contort themselves into all manner of excruciating positions so as not to have to concede that planting Zaky Mallah in the Q and A audience was a stunningly stupid thing to do and a flagrant act of bias. There have been numerous examples of this including Mark Scott's weaseling and a debate between Jonathan Holmes and Gerard Henderson on Lateline.

Holmes was hilarious. He wasn't just trying to justify the decision to plant Mallah on the show so he could ambush Ciobo. He was almost speaking for him. It was like he was the convicted criminal's biggest fan. He was saying: "You've got it all wrong. This guy's just a pacifist. He's an ally in the fight against ISIS. Leave Zaky alone!"

So passionate was the former Media Watch presenter's defence of poor misunderstood Zacky that the man himself expressed his appreciation on Twitter. (And as Julie Bishop would no doubt attest, those emojis don't lie.)

Jonathan Holmes YOU ARE A CHAMP! Thanks dude for defending me tonight on Lateline. ❤️👍

— Zaky Mallah (@ZakyMallah) June 25, 2015

Without a doubt there are many other wrong-headed bolshies in lockstep with Holmes. Sheesh, if Mallah keeps garnering their support he could wind being the only al Qaeda sympathizer to become a martyr without having to blow himself up.

That kind of laudatory attention may make Mallah himself less of a "loose cannon". Actually, could even snare him a nice cozy job as a Fairfax columnist. But it could well inspire some other, more hot-headed loon to go over the line and do something crazy for the Caliphate cause. If that's the case then Holmes and his ilk will have to share some of the blame. 

Hell, they say that the Govt publicly warning of the terror risk is adding fuel to the fire of Islamist anger. Then they claim that giving a platform to a terrorist sympathizer so he can implicitly endorse jihad (to crowd applause) is the opposite. Eh? To top it off they then cast Mallah as the victim in a violation of free speech! As usual the outrage is very selective and the leftist "logic" is so arse-about it's unbelievable.

Watch the Lateline debate and you'll see what happens to a lefty when confronted with facts, common sense and reason. They can't handle it at all. Vampires cope with garlic better.

You'll also see the well known primitive tribal allegiance of lefties kick in as Emma Alberici joins forces with her bolshie fellow traveller and rudely hectors Henderson. Yet more life imitating satire from their ABC.
 

The Killing Season reveals Labor's toxic cult of narcissism

Like pretty much every other political tragic in Oz I was glued to the teev the last three Tuesday nights watching The Killing Season. My eyes were agog and jaw was on the floor the whole time. Just couldn't believe the vindictive shenanigans these scheming, screaming, bloodthirsty backstabbers were engaging in for the entire duration of those six ghastly, traumatic years.

Sure, I experienced them at the time like the rest of you. But back then I was repeatedly recoiling in horror and struggling with a persistent feeling of defilement. Not privy to the internal machinations that produced such gruesome dysfunction I, like the other 23 million or so exasperated souls of this poor, afflicted nation, was simply trying to survive the ordeal day to day.

But now, with the adults back in charge and much of the bloody, toxic mess mopped up, we can look back at those events with only occasional surges of nausea. And The Killing Season certainly laid them out in compelling detail. Watching it was akin to being a survivor of a real train wreck being shown a documentary detailing every little mechanical and human error that led to your violent brush with death a couple of years after it occurred. Therapeutic is not too strong a word.

There were numerous serious cultural problems in Labor that the doco made clear. But one of the main ones was the stunning self-centredness of so many of the players.

Many have said that Kevin Rudd himself is a classic narcissist. And I think that's probably true. But almost every other Labor pollie seemed to be just as narcissistic as Rudd, of not more so. And if that man's affliction has shame at its root, theirs was driven by shamelessness.

Take Tony Burke detailing his coded telegraphing of support to Gillard pre-knifing. Then there was Sam Dastyari calling himself by his nickname, "Dasher". And they both actually played themselves in re-enactments!

These childish, self-indulgent arsehats seemed completely out of their league. But alarmingly they weren't at all. They were the league's undisputed champs. They'd done all the hard yards to reach positions of real power in Labor, and had exercized it.

Given how traumatic those events were -- and their respective roles in them -- you'd think they might be a bit reluctant to relive them, or at least be more guarded in interviews. But nup. These guys just lapped up the attention as if that excruciating period was some sort of wild, intoxicating adventure -- which it was for them, I suppose.

There's a saying that "politics is showbiz for ugly people". Of course that's meant to mean that it's a kind of theatre, and perceptions are important -- though not paramount.

But in the Australian Labor Party they seem to think that showbiz is all politics is. It has clearly lost its foundation of concern for workers, the marginalized, and the generally hard done by. It's now completely infested with young ambitious fools whose only goal is glory, power and adulation. No longer even the dregs of the middle class, they seem to be the castaways from Big Brother auditions.

That's very sad. And you really have to wonder how the hell it's gonna reform itself.

Adam Goodes' war dance and the Left's racism of low expectations

The Aussie Left's reaction to the Adam Goodes war dance controversy was so predictable, and revealing. Their prejudice against non-Anglos (Aborigines in particular) is just so entrenched they can never bring themselves to judge them according to standards they routinely hold whitey to.

Abbott winks during a radio interview and they go batshit insane with rage. Adam Goodes mimes chucking a spear at crowd and that's just a dance; a celebration of his culture.

Be great if there were some consistency. I'm all for seeing Goodes' contribution as benign. But then let's not get upset about people miming the slitting of throats or firing imaginary guns.

Truth is, little gestures can mean a lot. And why are some seen as okay when others not? The reasons are usually to do with highly emotive selective double standards defined and enforced by the bullying Left.

The quenelle is a symbol widely seen as anti-semitic. And at least one Pommy soccer player copped a bollocking for using it on-field, though he claimed it was not meant maliciously.

In these days of Islamic State even the holding up of an index finger can mean something sinister. Imagine if a Muslim footy player did that on field here. Lefties would be so torn, wouldn't they? Thankfully, most of them now concede that ISIS are a bunch of fascist barbarians. But given pinkos' gutless kowtowing to mindless PC dogmas, they'd be loathe to condemn it for fear of being labelled "racist".

But back to Goodes: Sadly, the man himself has decided to opt into the patronising racism of low expectations perpetuated by the overwhelmingly Anglo Left. He hides behind his race like so many feminists hide behind their skirts. How tragically piss-weak.

He goes out of his way to provoke and enrage. When he gets that reaction, he says, "Hey what's the problem? What I did was benign. You're being racist." Sooo childish; so passive aggressive.

While Goodes is crying victim, pundits, commentators and tweeps aplenty keep blurting feel-good tosh on this subject. Many have said that we (and I always wonder who they mean by "we") should embrace his war dance. This sentiment is typical:

Every player of every #Football code in #Australia should be learning the #wardance and celebrating every goal with it. #AFL #rugbyleague

— Darcy Conroy (@DarcyConroy) May 31, 2015

Given the astonishingly divisive, vindictive and litigious nature of the captains of the Aboriginal Industry in Australia, you've gotta wonder how they'd react to such a development. Odds are they'd say that Anglo players performing it was act of cultural dispossession in itself and therefore racist.

The Welcome to Country ceremony is another Aboriginal ritual. Imagine if whiteys started performing it without authorization before major events. Outraged activists would unleash the dogs of law for sure!

That's why comparisons with the Kiwi Haka are meaningless. Firstly, it's a ritual that's performed by all players, Anglos included. Also, it's aimed mainly at the opposing team, not the crowd.

Goodes himself performed his war dance in a racially loaded way at the spectators, by his own admission (then backed away from this, the jellyback). Gawd does this guy have some issues when it comes to the crowd! When a 13 year old girl yells "ape" at him (in a way she says was not racist -- and why shouldn't we believe her?) he has her singled out by security, and slimes her as racist before the whole nation. The poor kid will be scarred for life.

But when he mimes waving a spear at the crowd we're all supposed to say how spiritual and wonderful he is; what a role model for his people, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

This guy can really dish it out, including to children. But he he sure as hell can't take it. What a coward. What a bully. And what a typical tool of the Left.

Forget the poverty porn. Australia needs smuggery smut!

Haven't yet watched this controversial doco Struggle Street. But I've got a very good idea of what it's like already. Pretty clear it's one of those shows that purports to be an unflinching expose of capitalism-caused social dysfunction that was created solely out of compassionate concern for its poor, unfortunate subjects. But it's actually more about exploiting their misery to attract as many pairs of eyeballs as possible. That's why some have called it "poverty porn".

As well as this dishonest element, there's a strong undercurrent of superiority about it. The show is clearly meant to confirm the worst stereotypes associated with the area it's covering. Basically, you just know that it's been made by a bunch of ultra-smug, inner-city, latte-slurping, Greens-voting, bong-suckling, beret-wearing plonkers. They're presenting a simplistic take on a diverse bunch of people so that all their fellow travellers out in TV land can roll their eyes and think, "Ugh. Those westies are all such redneck, white trash losers. Just appalling!"

There have been heaps of shows like this. And it would be great if something truly new and innovative were attempted in this genre. Why not aim the cameras at the milieu that produces this kind of doco, and confirm all their worst stereotypes instead? Artsville, Orstraya is chockas with the most grotesque and ridiculous characters you could imagine. They're all just screaming for a gleefully exploitative televisual expose that's not so much "poverty porn" as "smuggery smut".

Take the primping, preening, smirking socialists who dominate Australia's theatre scene. Certainly not living on the bones of their, er, collective arts, these plump little poppets are still quite sad in their own way. Their tragedy is that they've never had to struggle. They constantly get thrown big wads of public money for work that just isn't very good, and that only a few people actually wanna see.

When not fearlessly pushing theatrical envelopes these writers, directors and producers spend much of their time pissing in each others' pockets, quacking on about how they're creative geniuses who can enrich society with their courageous and coruscating insights. But really they just sussed out who the cool cats were, became besties with 'em, cracked the arts funding code, and found a comfy little place of power in the inner sanctum. Positions are definitely limited, so if anyone else wants to receive similar privileges they have to go through the same arduous, soul-destroying process.

If anyone wanted to make a "smuggery smut" doco about these clowns -- some of whom are actual clowns -- it would be pretty easy to do. You'd just have to rock up to some state funded theatre, get access to the movers and shakers within and start filming.

If you have your doubts, then you should have a squizz at a little gem called The Talented Mr Stone, which was broadcast recently on their ABC. Even though it's po-faced and laudatory in tone, the subject of it is such a patently overrated and self-obsessed jerk that it kinda qualifies as smuggery smut already!

Now imagine if this guy and the grovelling, credulous enablers who surround him were filmed by someone who could see them for what they truly were and was intent on presenting that lurid, compelling truth to his audience in the most gruesome way possible. The resultant doco -- which could be titled something like Sneer Circuit or Luvvie Loop -- would not only be comedy gold, it would be a ratings winner too!

But sadly, considering the extent to which lefties rule Artsville, a doco like that would have close to Buckley's chance of being made ... 

I, Furkan Derya

Given all the media coverage related to "I furkan derya" over the last coupla days, it does look very likely to become an oft-used catchphrase -- certainly among the Twitterati.

Clearly, it's no longer just a former youth worker's name. It's also something else entirely. To me, and I think a lot of other people, it's an idiom to challenge "culturally sensitive" posturing. It says: "Garn, compassionista, prove you actually believe all the sanctimonious, hand-wringing shite you're spouting. Bet you can't!"

Others may have a different take on it. But I suspect it will usually be in that general ballpark of meaning. Lefties, fond of hijacking memes for their own petty purposes, might try to use it "ironically" to expose what they see as the right's appalling bigotry. But they'll still be stifling a laugh when they do. So, as is so often the case with the tragic shenanigans of these child-brained quarterwits, it will just be another own goal they're scoring.

And just on that accusation that its use belies a racist attitude: Utter bollocks! Names of people from all races and creeds can be used as joke fodder, as this list so hilariously attests. If anything qualifies as racist it's to demand that monikers common among certain cultural and ethnic groups should be deemed off limits for comedic or satirical usage.

Whatever your view on those aspects of the item of word-play in question, it's certainly worth considering what its, ahem, traditional owner might be thinking and feeling. This Turkish former youth centre worker would be a very good subject for an interview. And if no journo has tried to find and contact him for one I'd be very surprised. But until such a discussion appears it's worth conjecturing about how he might be feeling.

I certainly have some sympathy for the bloke. If he is the shy, retiring type then it would be quite upsetting to know that countless people are laughing out loud (or hypocritically stifling guffaws) whenever they say his name, which has been splashed all over the internet. And if he's politically of the Left and is being encouraged to take offence and be a victim, then he'd be mortified, of course.

Well, if that's the case that's unfortunate. But in defence of the gag I'd say this: It's not mocking Mr Derya himself. Using it is heaping scorn on the idea that some things should never be laughed at, right? Not so much mock heroic; more its exact inverse.

Not that you qualify as a genuine hero for repeating the phrase, mind. Anyone can do that. But there are serious issues at play -- namely freedom of speech. If you're gonna say #JeSuisCharlie then you can't get your knickers in a twist over #IFurkanDerya now can you?

This is why I think that if I were the original FD, I might be a bit miffed, but I'd also be chuffed that my name had became code for the right to make fun of whatever the hell you wanted to, even if it offends some people. That's an essential part of freedom of speech, itself integral to true democracy, after all.

Surely we want to have a society in which everyone is an individual first, regardless of which group, class or tribe he or she belongs too. And given that, we can all slag off, mock and deride each other. It's when this mockery escalates into violence that's the problem. And creating different standards and laws for different groups won't prevent this happening. On the contrary, it will increase its likelihood.

Now, I know a lot of mealy-mouthed jelly-backs on the Left have the opposite view. It gets in the way of their sinister, parasitic goal of controlling our minds and hearts from within. But as things stand in Oz most people don't want it to become the nanny nation these malignant creeps desperately want it to be. And frankly I'd like to keep it that way.

For this reason I hope that the bloke whose name was the inspiration for the phrase can see its significance and is at least a bit proud of it. That would suggest an alternative meaning for it, more along the lines of #JeSuisCharlie.

If we can say I furkan DERYA! in provocative mockery then we're kinda also saying -- in defiant solidarity -- I, Furkan Derya ... right?

Furkan Derya gag an elegant jab at political correctness

As Mark Twain noted, explaining humour is like dissecting a frog. "You learn a lot in the process, but in the end you kill it." So, if you don't want a slimy trail of figurative amphibian entrails sliding down your computer screens, then leave this page immediately. Because explain -- or at least analyze -- a gag is what I'm gonna do here.

And the gag in question was written by Tim Blair in a recent column about another kind of lethal dissection: suicide bombing -- namely that involving a sad, lost young Aussie bloke called Jake Bilardi. In it he quoted a source named Furkan Derya. As a throwaway, he added: "I furkan derya to find a better name than Furkan Derya."

When I read this, I laughed out loud, as I'm sure pretty much everyone else did too. (Well, at least those who got it. Amazingly, plenty didn't!) Even many of those now spluttering with indignation would have guffawed too -- or at least struggled to stop themselves from doing so.

Predictably, the line has caused outrage and consternation on Twitter and similar sites and ultimately in the mainstream media. 

As well as neatly revealing the literal minded stupidity and po-faced pomposity of the PC Left the gag has other things going for it. For example, it has a symmetrical elegance to it on a par with the classic "How do you titillate an Ocelot? Oscillate its titalot."

The other thing I like about the line is that it tells you exactly what it's doing as it does it. It knows there are overblown sensitivities around the context and content that will make people try to stifle a laugh when they read or hear it. It's daring you not to laugh. And that makes it all the funnier. 

Then there's the fact that it's uniquely Orstrayan ...

Hell, it's not just comedy gold. It's bloody satirical platinum! Which is why I think it will be garnering wuckas for years to come. It might even become part of the local lingo like that other offering of Blair's, "frightbat". 

Well, whatever the future has in store for the plucky, pinko-prodding little pun, it's confirmation that too many on the Left have lost their sense of humour. That's sad because they used to be a hoot.

Take the video below, surely the ne plus ultra of silly name jokes. Be great if they could see the funny side again, wouldn't it? If they could do that, they might just see sense as well.

UPDATE: More thoughts on this subject here.

Howard haters helped the then PM. Will the same effect apply to Abbott?

Back in the days of John Howard there was a fascinating process at play. Quite often during his reign, the more the Howard haters whinged and wailed about him, the more he rose in the polls.

As many have said, Howard's ordinariness worked strongly in his favour. He was non-threatening to most, even if they weren't great admirers of him. So when the spiteful, infantile Left arced up about every little thing he did, the majority could see this for the massive ongoing tanty that it actually was. These people are waaay OTT, they thought. Howard doesn't deserve this hate.

And this happened so often often that the Left's infantile squawking became a reliable reverse indicator for many. The more his haters expressed their outrage, the more people suspected that Howard was on the right track. And so his support tended to rise with the volume of their Godawful shrieking -- or at least did not fall as a result of it.

Now, for some reason Abbott hasn't benefited from an equivalent process. I think it's due to several factors, the main one being his devout Catholicism. His love of the monarchy turns off a lot of people too as that Prince Philip knighthood train wreck so vividly illustrated.

Then there's his devotion to physical fitness and his love of boxing. He was also an extremely high achiever academically, having been a Rhodes Scholar. Abbott is a far more extreme character in many ways than Howard was.

The former PM was low-key when it came to religion. And while he was physically fit for his age he didn't swim, run and ride all over the joint like a man possessed. Just did some early morning power-walking in his daggy tracksuit. While obviously intelligent, he was not an academic star in his youth. Unlike Abbott, he wasn't a career high flyer before entering politics. Just ran a modest suburban law practice for many years.

So, there's widespread wariness about Abbott. Even though he craves acceptance and admiration from his countrymen and has clearly won it from those volunteer fire fighters and other ordinary Aussies that he spends to much time with, a high proportion of the population just don't quite trust him. He's a bit too full on and intense for their liking.

But now, after many months in the top job, I think this general mistrust is starting to thaw. They are increasingly willing to see him as a decent but flawed bloke who's competent and rational, and has our best interests at heart. He might make a few crazy calls. But when he does he quickly corrects his mistakes. And he has enough humility to listen to criticism and change his behaviour as a result.

That's why I think that from now on he might start to benefit from the insane rage of his infantile enemies in the same way Howard did. For this reason I think he's got a far better shot at retaining his gig as PM than most of the commentariat believe.

What do you reckon? Will the Abbott-haters win? Or will they win it for him?