The Daydreaming Australian Is In For A Big Surprise

Did everyone read today's editorial in The Australian? It's been at least three months since the anonymous twit over there has had another explosion so this one was long over due.

'THERE is the real election campaign in which a centre-left challenger is fighting to regain the middle ground from a centre-right pragmatist. And then there's the fantasy election in which a left-liberal socialist is fighting to end 11 dark years of despotic rule by a scheming far-right culture-warrior.'

It must be getting itchy over there with all the straw men they've created over the years so why they're intent on creating more is a mystery. Considering that Rudd has himself denied being a socialist I'd be very amazed if anyone on the left believed he were one. Not that he needs to deny it, when one claims to be an economic conservative one need not denounce socialism as well, it's implied. As for Howard being a culture warrior, let's call a spade a spade here. The man has stood firm against symbolic reconciliation, "black armband" history, denounced all forms of leftism and spoken out against so-called left wing bias in all areas. What the hell is a culture warrior if not Howard?

'In an essay in The Monthly, Robert Manne details the manifesto of the fantasy Labor leader.'

Robert Manne again!? The obsession continues.

"If Rudd is elected, the kind of mimetic foreign policy that followed our blank-cheque endorsement of the US in every twist and turn of policy in its war on terror, which led us into the catastrophe of Iraq, will be reversed," Manne muses.

And considering Rudd's different approach toward Iraq, I'd say that Manne muses correctly.

"If Rudd is elected, the industrial relations laws will be softened and humanised ...'

Again, Manne muses correctly.

'universities will most likely be more generously funded ... some elements of the former independence of the public service and of the former vigour of the parliament (may) be revived ... the gulf between the government and the country's creative artists will be bridged." Well dream on.'

Dream on about what exactly? And since when was "dream on" a rebuttal?

'The banal truth is that Howard's Australia was never the nightmare of the Left's imaginings and Rudd's Australia would not be the liberal utopia of its dreams.'

Itchy itchy! How can they stand it!?

'These must be dull times for the class warriors who refuse to accept that the use-by date on Das Kapital is well and truly passed. Kevin Rudd does not look like Che Guevara and, prudently for a candidate who sees popular election rather than a proletarian uprising as a route to power, he is fundamentally conservative.'

WTF!? Exactly what is this anonymous twit talking about? They must have a serious crow problem over there to need so many straw men.

'He is delivering on his promise in an interview with The Weekend Australian's Christine Jackman earlier this year to "mess with Howard's mind", but his secret has been to outflank the Prime Minister on the Right rather than attack him from the Left.'

No shit Sherlock, this guys a genius. After painting us as guerrilla fighting revolutionaries he skillfully provides us with the truth about Rudd, and what a shock it is folks.

'A sober analysis of the Howard years, however, does not support the portrayal of the Prime Minister as a culture warrior. If indeed he has been waging war against the insidious forces of liberalism entrenched in universities, public broadcasters and publishing houses, Mr Howard has lost.'

Again, what the hell constitutes a culture warrior if not Howard? He's fought on every key conservative cultural concern during his stint, and on a regular basis. And losing the "war" doesn't instantly mean that he hasn't been fighting it. Who do they think he is, the John Rambo of culture warriors?

'As Christopher Pearson wryly observes elsewhere in these columns, Australia's universities are still, in effect, 37 publicly funded leftist think tanks. No fair-minded listener of Radio National or viewer of The 7.30 Report would conclude that Mr Howard's culture offensive, real or imagined, has made any more progress at the ABC.'

These guys are nuts!!! The 7:30 Report? These new McCarthyists will obviously stop at nothing to out the "reds" in the system. For ages now they've attacked Kerry O'Brien as uneven in his interviewing, but no rational minded individual could come to any other conclusion than that O'Brien is an evenly hard interviewer. Both Labor and the Coalition cop it in his studio in even measures. Did anyone see Latham do the rounds at the last election? Geez!

'The agenda of a Rudd government is likely to be much closer to the position advocated in the editorial columns of this newspaper than the outdated, soft-left manifesto supported by our broadsheet rivals.'

ooooh! What utter bullshit! I doubt Rudd was cheering on The Oz's past editorials like, "The Coalition Of The Whining Got It Wrong", or "Psycho Left...etc (forgot the rest)". These guys are clearly worried that they may lose their poster boy culture warrior Howard, so now they're taking credit for Rudd. What else explains such a concoction of fallacies and straw men?

One More Time: KG Spells Out The Mission

'More and more I see posts and comments lamenting the fact that the divide between the left and right side of politics is getting greater, that attitudes on both sides are becoming more entrenched and less open to compromise.I say "good". As someone who leans very much to the right, I don't want compromise with the kind of crap that infests the left. I want the left seen for what it is, the Enemy and I want to see it crushed by whatever means possible and as ruthlessly as possible at whatever cost.No price would be too high, since the price of not acting will be our civilisation itself.'

Posted by KG

Hyperbole? Or KG's not so secret desire? Whatever it is it ain't pretty. This quote clearly demonstrates KG's brand of "liberalism".

As I've been repeating on Hall's blog, all that he needs to do is to get KG to personally clear the air and let us all know that he holds no animosity towards Muslims generally, merely the fanatics. You'd think this would be simple, after all Iain's been adamant that KG does separate the two and is therefore not a religious bigot. I really would appreciate some closure on this, I mean wouldn't everyone?

UPDATE:

KG's gotten wind of my request for clarity and has decided not to comment. You've gotta admit, that's wierd. But check out the reply:

'ROTFLMAO! Well, there ya go--I'm apparently summoned to some kind of juvenile Star Chamber hearing to account for myself. Wish I'd found out about this sooner, it could have provided endless entertainment.Now, eff off kiddies and go back to squeezing zits and ogling your sisters through the bathroom keyhole, eh?"The wolf never worries about how many sheep there are."'

And with that guys lack of intelligence I wonder what he thinks he would have done were he to have found out about it sooner? Provided constant confirmation of my suspicions? Look at how stupid this guy is, he posts this in an argument:

"The Jewish populations of any country are overwhelmingly law-abiding and an asset to their societies. The same can't be said for the muslim populations of Western countries--they're little more than incubators for radicalism and anti-Western activists.When was the last time a synagogue was exposed as a haven for hate-sermons directed at the host country? Or a repository for explosives? When was the last time a Jewish bookshop was found to be selling anti-Western literature which advocated murder?I could expand that list into a full post and still not cover all the ways muslim immigrants and refugees threaten our societies and still the multiculti idiots refuse to see what's happening.The doctors who tried to blow up an airport terminal in the U.K. weren't Presbyterians or Catholics yet multiculturalists and lefty bleeding-hearts still speak of "moderate" muslims. Those docs were fine professional moderate muslim immigrants right up until the moment the bombs went off.There's nothing heartless about refusing to import people who are adherants of a proven, murderous ideology. It's commonsense and simple self-preservation. What you dress up as humanity and compassion is a protracted act of suicide."

And is given this in reply:

'I'm more than happy to let the above comment from KG speak for itself."'

And the idiot doesn't get it:

Bawaaahahaha! what a devastating comeback.

What a moron!

Windschuttle Tackles The Big Issues

As a subscriber to Quadrant the subject of who will be its next editor interests me. There's nothing I love more than reading Paddy McGuiness getting all a fluster about this and that, or the varying rants from the 'don't call me an intellectual' intellectuals. So it was without surprise that I discovered today that renowned culture warrior Keith Windschuttle would be taking over, with a new mission:

'Keith Windschuttle, scourge of leftist historians, will campaign against decadence in the arts when he takes over as editor of Quadrant magazine next year.
Consider Wagner's Tannhauser, that myth of the sacred and profane now on show at the Sydney Opera House. "There's a guy painted in gold (who) stands there with a giant erection - symbolises lust or something," Windschuttle said yesterday. "That kind of gratuitous offensiveness is almost everywhere."'

'But if McGuinness, an atheist, has had a soft spot for religious debate, Windschuttle is not feeling charitable towards luvvies. "I've become concerned in recent years about the cynicism and decadence that you get in the opera, in the theatre, in other parts of high culture - even the dance companies," he said.'

Wow, how exciting, how dare art offend. It seems as though Windschuttle is the kind of guy who arrives in a South East Asian country looking aghast at all the wooden erect penis' lying in caves (as I've found previously in Thailand) or on statues. Sounds like Quadrant's going to be heading into a seriously boring phase as it attempts to beat art into being less naughty and offensive.

I might rethink my subscription.

A Pack Of Whingers, Or The New McCarthyists?

If there's one issue of interest to today's conservative commentariat that consumes more of their time than any other it's bias, or "left-wing" bias to be more precise. They see it everywhere, on T.V, on radio, in newspapers, even in worms and it drives them nuts. Some evidence was on show this week when Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and George Megalogenis got together (two aggressive conservatives and one purely economical one) on the lefty ABC (fancy that) where the first two got stuck into the worm and that champion of the left, Ray Martin:

ANDREW BOLT: That said, I suspect there's something dodgy about that worm. I accept what George said that perhaps it's measuring a voter boredom with John Howard, but for Kevin Rudd to simply draw breath and the worm goes skyrocketing upwards which literally occurred, suggests that Channel Nine wasn't quite honest in saying that this was a group of uncommitted swinging voters split right down the middle. I don't think that was the case and I think Channel Nine polluted the discussion of this debate and influenced poorly I think, the reception that that debate got.

GERARD HENDERSON: As I saw it, the worm sort of stood on its tail and gave Kevin Rudd a standing ovation even before he had started talking. I mean, this was not a group of swinging voters, unless you're talking about voters who are swinging for Kevin07. I mean this... and I think Channel Nine and those who put together the group have got some explaining to do. We don't really need lectures, unprofessional lectures from Ray Martin who is making serious allegations about the Liberal Party and the Government on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I mean, if you went before Ray Martin and made that comment in an interview, he would ask you what your evidence is. But Ray Martin is making all these allegations about improper...

ANDREW BOLT: Hear, hear, Gerard, right on.

GERARD HENDERSON: ...about improper influence. There's no evidence of improper influence. What there is evidence from, is growing incompetence of Channel Nine, which I think a couple of years ago was the leading current affairs organisation in the country, and it's now slipping very rapidly. And if that's the best they can do, then they ought to have their act looked at. And then what then happens is when John Howard has got a very anti... a very hostile media, that kind of very unprofessional gig with the worm then runs into papers like The Age, which are hostile to the Government. 'Rudd's decisive win, 65 to 29'. Well, I thought John Howard didn't do badly.

TONY JONES: Your own main organ of record, the Sydney Morning Herald, did pretty much the same thing?

GERARD HENDERSON: No, much more professional, it didn't run that at all. have a look at the front page. I think the Sydney Morning Herald handled it well...

So what are the implications for Channel Nine now that they've upset the culture warriors? Well Bolt explains today:

'Attention, Ray: The issue at stake is not that of the right to speak, but of the right to a fair hearing. A hearing free for just a few minutes from Nine’s spin - and yours.
Nine’s disgraceful and, in my opinion, deceitful behaviour this past week also raises other issues.
Here’s one: How honest is this Left-lurching station, and how trustworthy its most famous face?'

Oh No! It seems that now Nine joins the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and countless journalists on the naughty naughty bias list.

'As the journalist-run club told the TV stations: “Clean feed of the debate to be available to all media outlets on condition live broadcast is not ‘wormed’ or otherwise changed . . .”
Why? Because the Liberals wanted viewers to be free to watch Howard (and Rudd) debate and draw their own conclusions, without some TV station first trying a stunt to manipulate opinions. '

Is Bolt serious? 'to manipulate opinions'? The most rational reason why Nine wanted a worm is because it's a commercial television station, hence why they love corny gimmicks like these to draw in the crowds. This is far from evidence of a left-wing conspiracy, it's evidence of what the ABC would be like were these guys to get their wish for it to be privatised. The conspiracy continues:

'You’d think Martin would have been pleased, given we read only last month he’d agreed to host a Labor fundraiser.'

Again, Oh No!!! A Labor fundraiser!

'It’s also true that for half the debate the Canberra journalists on the panel steered him on to topics of raging interest for Howard haters - reconciliation, global warming and Iraq - and well away from more practical concerns, such as hospitals, water and jobs for the next generation.'

Once again Oh NO!!! Those dam lefties in the panel! Who put comrade Paul Kelly there? What's alarming is how low Bolt appears to rate the Iraq war, global warming and reconciliation. "let's do away with such rubbish and get to more practical concerns" he cries.

And after all this whinging and alluding to a conspiracy of reds what in the end was the catalyst? A fucking worm. A bullshit gimmick of the sort we're all now very used to from commercial television. Their McCarthy-like behaviour has reached brand new heights all because of a little, silly, tiny worm. Of course Bolt's argument is completely overshadowed by the fact that the National Press Club pulled the feed to Channel Nine, intending for viewers screens to go black, because it had offended a political party.

A fucking worm.

Hall, The Greatest Acrobat There Is

Every now and then there is a man, a man so absolutely blinded by his politics and hatreds that he'll fail to see a bigot when it's before his very eyes. That man today is Iain Hall.

For a long time I've been pointing out to Iain that his association with blogs such as AWH and Crusader Rabbit isn't wise as these particular blogs belong to bigots of many varieties: religious, sexual and racial. But alas, he has never seen "proof" I was told. So even though I was able to provide comments such as these from KG at Crusader:

'You dishonest, slimy piece of dog excreta--the "stormy times" we're going to have are due to people who hate the identity your culture has (well, what's left of it anyway) and what you're saying is that you want to see the little that's left handed over to the primitive goat-humpers on a platter. Why not bend over and beg 'em to do to you what they do to goats? *spit*'

'Tell the whole goddam story about the "honour" killings and the radical imams and the vast army of primitive bastards who are living on welfare even as they destroy your culture--that's the only story that matters. You cowardly piece of shit.'

'Introduce an islamoloathing award, you retarded goat humpers and a lot of us would be lining up for one.'

Iain would cry NO!, this wasn't bigotry: 'In the context of the post KG’s anger is directed at the author he is critiquing and I’ sorry to say the Goat humping epithet is clearly not focused upon every Muslim at all, only those who want to re-create the world in a seventh century idiom.'

If he's not focused on every Muslim then what is this "vast army" that KG refers too? And considering that KG believes that there are no "moderate" Muslims then why would he differentiate between them? Iain had no answer.

Of course this is just one exchange in a long string. Iain has had to perform many a triple back flip to explain the behaviour of these friends he appears intent on defending to the end. The problem is that the problems just keep on a coming for Hall's position as demonstrated devastatingly by Hap recently.

Hap easily pulls back the bullshit "libertarianism" that people like KG and John Ray at AWH use to justify continually pushing the boundary deep into the realm of bigotry. These guys have abused the liberalism, as voiced by old conservative Gods like Hayek, by peddling overtly racist drivel in it's name. It's a telling feature of these people who've bent over backwards to out Hitler as a leftist that they, as rightists, have come so close in manner to the blatant bigotry that so epitomised The Third Reich. Billions of people are denounce due to their religion just as a whole race was dehumanised by Hitler. They peddle a vicious form of anti-leftism which can only be equated to that of Adolf. Anyone who strolls onto these blogs to give a dissenting opinion is abused and booted. They're lovely places.

Now I'm no appeaser of Islamic terrorists, but to distinguish between Islamic criminals and innocent Muslims is absolutely essential, yet I can't find a single entry at either of these blogs that does this. On the contrary, though Iain argues otherwise, they clearly state their belief that ALL Muslims are suspicious. In an environment where political correctness is so intensely loathed the forum is one where he who offends the most, garners the most praise. So if one feels hatred towards Islamic terrorists then why not accuse Islam in general? Why not accuse it's followers? Why not call them names like "goat humpers"? Why not blame everything on them (just as Hitler did with the Jews) and denounce every feature of their culture, religion and being? I mean, why not? It's is an expression of freedom of speech after all and they do hate them.

But the funny thing is that they don't appreciate liberalism at all. Just look at Crusader Rabbit's header:

'Radical islam has two allies here in the West - leftism and political correctness. The fight is with all three.'

So essentially the fight is against "leftism" and "PC", which are thrown in with "radical Islam" (it's amazing considering the content that they didn't just say "Islam", maybe they were more moderate in the beginning) as things which need to be equally fought. Which means that the fight is against divergent views as well as terrorism. I found out first hand:

'There's a lefty in comments seething and whining that we don't like debate.He's right, at least where lefties are concerned. This blog wasn't established to debate with leftists, it was founded to expose them for what they are, to ridicule them and heap derision on their empty heads.Comments by the occasional leftist are tolerated until we lose patience with them and that usually doesn't take very long.We've seen you lot for what you are--the enemy. As much as the jihadist with a bomb or the scumbags of Beslan. I'd be as happy to see you swinging by the neck as I would any other traitor or terrorist, since you lot have done more to undermine Western society than anything or anybody else in history.Now, piss off.'

Hitler would be proud as I'm sure Hall is.

Wormy Troubles

Things are definitely fishy when a channel loses it's feed of a political debate simply because it uses a worm. Conveniently for the Gov, that worm appeared to be cold on them that night:

'Nine Network news boss John Westacott has criticised the National Press Club and the ABC for "doing the bidding of the Liberal Party" when it pulled the network's election debate feed last night.

"It was a disgraceful performance," Westacott told ninemsn.
Westacott said Nine was warned twice — first by the public broadcaster's production chief and then by the Press Club's chief executive — that its live feed would be pulled if it continued using the worm, an interactive graphic that measures audience reaction to the speakers .'

'Westacott described the eventual decision to cut Nine's feed to the debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kevin Rudd as "the most disgraceful act of censorship I've seen in 40 years of journalism".'

It's all a bit odd. Why should the ABC care if Nine uses the worm?

Press Club vice president Glen Milne said the political parties set the terms and conditions of the debate.
"We were chosen as the neutral venue and provider and the broadcasters, of their own free will, entered into agreements about those constraints as well," he said to the ABC.
"Now when Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm, it breached an agreement it had with the parties, not with the National Press Club."

Concerning.

The Oz Kicks An Own Goal

The Australian's Cut & Paste decided today to give a sample of John Hartigan, chairman of News Limited, talking up the diversity of journalists at News Ltd papers. It hasn't appeared on the website for some reason (maybe someone panicked after giving it a good thought) but I tracked down the whole speech. Here's the section that was given:

'I read our newspapers every day. I look at the coverage of politics across the group, the tone and treatment of stories, the leaders, the views of our columnists and our contributors. There is no evidence of a blanket order from the top. Because there simply isn't one. What you will see is our people completely at odds with each other. Piers Akerman giving The Australian a spray and getting one back. Or Malcolm Farr, Denis Shanahan and Christopher Pearson separately taking a different stand from Paul Kelly, Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt. If we are following a script we are doing a very bad job.'

Geez! Would Rupert even need to give these guys a script!? Sure, they may disagree on minor details here or there but we can rest assured that they'll still all be voting for the Coalition this coming election. They certainly aren't "completely at odds with each other" as John argues, in fact they're pretty much completely behind each other.