Monday, December 14, 2009


The Murdoch propagandist and racist, Andrew Bolt of Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, has been caught yet again attempting to deceive readers with an utterly dishonest narrative relating to Aboriginal history and the removal of children for racial purposes. Bolt claims that the film, ‘The Rabbit Proof Fence’, was a fraud. He says that there was no attempt by the ‘West Australian chief protector responsible for their removal, Auber Octavius Neville, to “breed out the colour” by marrying off half-caste Aboriginal girls to whites as depicted in the film’ endorsing historical revisionist Keith Windschuttle’s view.

Yet we know for a fact from letters from A.O. Neville that he was concerned about half-caste girls marrying full-blooded Aboriginal men. Even Windschuttle in this instance concedes that Neville’s concern was to support a program to “breed out the colour”. Bolt denies there was any program to “breed out the colour” yet the letters from Neville held by the West Australian government show that there was.

Monday, December 7, 2009


In his column today Tim Bliar told his readers that: “Taliban maniacs have killed more than 2600 people in Pakistan in the last couple of years”. He attempts to support this assertion by linking to an article which, if one reads, actually says: “…Lahore has frequently been targeted by Taliban militants waging a two-and-a-half year insurgency that has killed more than 2,600 people in Pakistan.” It does not say that the Taliban have killed 2600 people; it says the Taliban insurgency has resulted in the deaths of 2600 people. Included in that number are Taliban fighters themselves who have been killed by both CIA drone bombing attacks and by Pakistani forces. While Pakistani military claims of over 1400 Taliban killed during anti-Taliban operations during May and June 2009 is likely exaggerated, Taliban casualties over the last two years would account for many of the 2600 people killed. At least another 700 of that figure include civilians also killed by the CIA in drone bombing attacks and written off as ‘collateral damage’.

While I have little time for the Taliban’s ideology and its culture of summary executions and suicide bombings, I have even less for the hypocrisy and arrogance of the US and their allies who go to foreign countries and indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the name of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘Big Business’, and even less still for the lying scum in the Western media that support and perpetuate these wars.
The real ‘maniacs’ that are doing the killing in Pakistan are the US and their allies. The Taliban have resorted to extremist behaviour in a desperate effort to get the foreigners to leave their lands alone. The more the US and their allies push them, the more extreme they’ll become, but one thing is for sure; the US and their allies will never be able to defeat them.


Just in case Akerman doesn't see fit to publish it, this is what I said:

Tens of thousands across Europe demonstrated for action on climate change over the last weekend.

However, there were no reports of any pro-pollution demonstrations. None. What does that tell you, Akerman?

Tuesday, December 1, 2009


Last night on the 7.30 Report, Tony Abbott told Kerry O’Brien: “Look, we all want to do the right thing by the environment. This is not about climate change science; (Emphasis added) this is about the mechanism for appropriately dealing with it.”

Tony Abbott is likely to be the very last Howardite stuck-in-the-last-century religious-right paleo-conservative leader that the Liberal Party is likely to ever have. It is for that reason that the Liberal Party will quite possibly fade into oblivion as Australian politics begins its shift from the old unions-dominated Labor versus Liberal mode of the twentieth century to the Green realist versus New Labor frame of the twenty-first century.

The majority of Australians, regardless of party politics, are now green-leaning. They might not vote Green but they certainly are far more interested in the environment today than ever they were before. Most accept, despite the recent nonsense about a few scientists trying to fudge the numbers, that climate change is a very real problem that the world cannot afford to ignore.

What the recent spat amongst the Liberals was about was not whether or not the environment needs fixing as the likes of the extreme right wing pundits like Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and Piers Akerman would have us believe, but, rather, what is the best way of going about it. Bolt, Blair and Akerman, et al, don’t believe there is a problem that needs fixing up; Abbott, as he inferred last night on the 7.30 Report, seems to think we do need to “do the right thing by the environment”. What Abbott is against – as are many Australians – is the idea of paying polluters to stop polluting us. Where Abbott is wrong, however, is in his motivation for objecting to the money being spent. For Abbott it’s not about compensating polluters but about raising a tax to pay for it.

For many Australians who also object to the tax to compensate polluters for the cost of not polluting, it’s about the basic principle of being forced to pay people not to pollute us anymore. Rather than pay the polluters to stop polluting, we should be making them pay a penalty to the people for continuing to pollute us. The money about to be paid to them for not polluting us any more would be far better spent on research and capital for alternative non-polluting renewable energy resources and finding ways to increase their efficiency by improving the technology and decreasing their costs.

We should be looking after our long term interests rather than simply worrying about the immediate costs to businesses and jobs. Sooner or later, and looks like sooner rather than later the rate the world’s growing at the moment, we’re simply going to run out of the stuff we’ve relied on so far. At the beginning of the last century we thought we had an inexhaustible supply of oil and gas; now, we’ve realised that we are quickly running out of it and are frantically running around in search of more. Eventually, though, it’ll all be gone. We’ve got no alternative but to find other ways. If we don’t pay now to find alternatives, the costs in the future will be impossible to meet.
Abbott wants businesses to profit today without any of the costs for tomorrow. God, so Abbott believes, will look after tomorrow.

Sunday, November 29, 2009


At his blog today the racist and pro-Pollution propagandist Andrew Bolt once again confirmed his racist credentials by denying indigenous identity to a person on the basis that they didn’t appear to be indigenous.

Andrew Bolt, who for years has supported the notion that Australian aboriginality should be “washed out by generations of mixed ancestry”, would prefer that Australians that identify themselves as indigenous but visually do not appear to be, should not be referred to as ‘indigenous’ even if that is the choice of the person in question. For Bolt it’s all a matter of appearances. He writes: “Could we stop obsessing about racial differences almost invisible to the naked eye”, adding, “It makes us look a little bit, well, racist.”

Considering this not the first time Bolt has denied an indigenous person their identity based on their appearance, one can safely say that the only person “obsessing” here is Andrew Bolt; and that’s because he is, well, a racist – and more than just a ‘little bit’.


In another post today, Bolt has confirmed his support for fascist and racist ideologies as he tells us that "Europe is pushing back" against Islam by banning minarets on Swiss Mosques. The law had been pushed through via referendum prompted by the fascist and racist extreme right-wing Swiss Peoples Party.Bolt supports these discriminatory and racist ideas. Spires and towers of Christian churches, of course, are not a problem.

Thursday, November 26, 2009


Tim Blair’s dishonesty is glaringly transparent in his column at Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ today as he attempts to hoodwink readers yet again.

Quoting from a ‘New York Times’ report, he writes:

A flotilla of hundreds of icebergs that split off Antarctic ice shelves is drifting toward New Zealand and could pose a risk to ships in the south Pacific Ocean, officials said Tuesday.
The nearest one, measuring about 100 feet tall, was 160 miles southeast of New Zealand’s Stewart Island, Australian glaciologist Neal Young said …
But he cautioned against linking the appearance of the bergs in New Zealand waters to global warming.

As a result of cherry-picking this article Blair is attempting to infer that the ‘bergs in New Zealand waters has nothing to do with global warming.

However, if one reads all of the NYT article Blair links to, one will find what the article was actually inferring:

Icebergs are routinely sloughed off as part of the natural development of ice shelves, but Young said the rate appeared to be increasing as a result of regional warming in Antarctica. ''Whole ice shelves have broken up,'' he [Young] said, as temperatures have risen in Antarctica, where they are up as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) in the past 60 years.

Young ‘cautioned against linking the appearance of the bergs in New Zealand waters to climate change’ only inasmuch that climate change had nothing to do with why they were actually in New Zealand waters and that the reason they were in New Zealand waters had far more to do with ‘weather patterns and ocean currents as on the rate at which icebergs are calving off Antarctic ice shelves’.

While Blair and his fellow Pollutionists have deluded themselves into believing that climate change is some kind of hoax which once exposed will allow them to continue polluting our world, Blair’s dishonesty reflects the desperation the Pollutionists have resorted to as the world moves a little closer to realising that ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ is a real threat to all of mankind, a threat that we cannot afford to doubt.

The fact is; even if there is no ‘global warming’ or if ‘climate change’ is not man-made, the practical steps that mankind are taking anyway to find alternative, sustainable and renewable energy resources can only be good for the planet no matter who you believe or who proves to be right or wrong.

If the sceptics and deniers are wrong, then the planet is doomed unless we do something about it now. And, of course, if they are right… well then, we end up with a better planet anyway. Can we afford to take the risk?

The real argument isn’t so much about ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’; it’s about managing diminishing non-renewable resources in the face of an exponentially increasing demand for energy and profits at the expense of our future. The sceptics and deniers are only interested in the financial costs of doing something about it. They wish to protect the Pollutionist businesses that produce non-renewable energy and, at the same time, not be burdened with the costs of compensating Pollutionist businesses through taxes for obliging them to stop polluting.

The pursuit of wealth has in the past led to wars and death on a global scale. The world cannot afford to now allow the Pollutionists to perpetuate global misery that ultimately could lead to our demise.

Monday, November 23, 2009


You have to wonder what it is that makes extreme right-winger’s become pro-Pollutionists. Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Piers Akerman and other right-wing extremists of their ilk around the world have become obsessively intent on preventing the planet from becoming an environmentally nicer place for us all to live in. Not content with merely objecting to governments taxing their carbon producing big business net-worked clients, these people are actively pro-Pollution.

To prove the point – and how desperate is this – they even protest the introduction of power-saving light globes by scurrying around trying to find any smidgen of evidence to present to consumers that will deter them from using these energy-saving devices. Andrew Bolt in his column today got so desperate about these devices that he actually published a piece that attempted to deny that energy-saving light globes are not as good as they are cracked up to be on the packaging. The fact is; they’re probably not, but, despite Bolt’s ludicrous nonsense, they are still a lot better than the ones they’re replacing both in terms of economy and energy efficiency. But, if we had Bolt’s way, we wouldn’t have them at all.

These right-wing pro-Pollution propagandists are being paid to bring down the world-wide green-leaning movement. Instead of encouraging the development of renewable energy resources, they are actively discouraging it as a waste of time and money. They want us to continue using non-renewable resources like coal, oil and gas. They argue that the world’s economy revolves around these resources and that we should continue to enrich ourselves by mining them and selling them to the highest bidder. In order to substantiate their view that this practice continue, the pro-Pollutionists attempt to argue that, contrary to scientific opinion, the world is not experiencing any ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ that can be attributable to man’s excessive use of non-renewable energy resources and that, rather, any ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ that mankind is experiencing on the planet is actually due to natural phenomena.

One of the pro-Pollution propagandists other arguments for the world remaining Pollutionist are that the costs of researching and developing alternative renewable non-polluting energy resources are too prohibitive. They argue that the currently available renewable energy resources are nowhere near efficient enough to meet our ever-growing energy needs. They are, of course, in this regard, quite right. But is the answer simply not to bother continuing to develop alternative renewable energy resource systems and just carry on using non-renewable energy resources until it runs out? Regardless of whether or not using carbon-based energy resources are causing ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’, there is absolutely no doubt that we are polluting the atmosphere with toxic fumes that are, at the very least, creating an unhealthy environment for life on our planet particularly those that live in or near cities. In other words, ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are not just the only concerns we have about the planets future; our own health is at risk as we slowly choke ourselves into oblivion by the continued use of carbon fuels.

Ignored entirely by the pro-Pollutionists is the problem of what we do once the non-renewable resources actually do run out. Our use and reliance on coal, gas and oil has multiplied almost exponentially since mankind started seriously using it less than a couple of hundred years ago. Back then we believed we had an all-but inexhaustible supply of the stuff; now we’re battling to find enough to keep us going for today let alone for the future when our kidz and their kidz will be needing more and more of the stuff. As the world’s population increases, so our demand for energy will increase. There will come a point sooner or later, however, when there is simply none left and future man will be cursing their forebears for not having had the foresight to do something about it when they had the opportunity.

Some scientists and environmentalists are wondering if it’s not actually already too late and that we should have begun looking seriously at finding ways of using renewable energy resources when we first realised back in the second half of the last century that we don’t have an inexhaustible supply of non-renewable energy resources. Hopefully, it’s not too late and mankind will ignore the Pollutionists money-centric arguments about continuing to use resources that will inevitably run out one day, and that we will make a determined effort to find a way of living that doesn’t pollute and is sustainably limitless.

Regardless of the arguments about ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, going ‘green’ can be nothing other than good for all of mankind across the planet no matter what way one looks at it. The ‘live for today and to hell with tomorrow’ creed of the money-grubbing pro-Pollutionists should be ignored. The world collectively must re-organise itself to prepare for the creation of a sustainable planet and move away from the pseudo-nationalistic, money-centric, war-mongering, resource-squabbling, people-ignoring world that we live in today.

Whether you go along with ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ or not, or regardless of whether you think ‘carbon trading’ and ‘compensating polluters’ is a good thing or just another money-grabbing idea for big-business, we cannot afford to turn our backs on the reality of diminishing energy resources and a world which we are slowly but undeniably polluting to death. The world must change its fundamental outlook on life; the alternative is that mankind will ultimately be responsible for its own demise.


This entire article was posted at Blair's blog (as well as others) with little expectation of it being published. However, Blair did respond with this:

[Note: edited for clarity. Moderators]
Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Piers Akerman … have become … nicer. These people are … a lot better than the ones they’re replacing. They want us to … continue to enrich ourselves.
They are … good for all of mankind.
Damian Lataan of Verdun, SA (Reply)

It demonstrates just how utterly dishonest and gutless Blair actually is.

Oh well. What else could one expect from a Murdoch propagandist.

Monday, November 16, 2009


The Australian pro-Pollutionist and ultra-racist Andrew Bolt has sunk to new and desperate lows in his efforts to malign green-leaning Australians. In his blog yesterday at Melbourne’s online ‘Herald-Sun’, Bolt actually attempted to equate green-leaning Australians with the Nazis of Germany.

This is but part of Bolt’s delusional effort to recast the ‘right-wing’ label – which Bolt is happy to use for himself – as some sort of force for good which he somehow believes he now represents. However, ever since the last century, the ‘right-wing’ label has always been associated with Nazism and Fascism. This has not deterred Bolt from continuing to cast himself as right-wing (if for no other reason than he would never be able to call himself ‘left-wing’) but, at the same time, because he is now pro-Zionist, he does not want to be cast in the same mould as the Nazis and, because Bolt is also an Islamophobe and is apt to calling Muslim governments and Jihadist fighters ‘Islamofascists’, he does not want to be cast in the same mould as Fascists either.

Bolt thinks he’s found a way out of his conundrum; he’s now pushing the line that Nazis and Fascists weren’t right-wing at all but, in fact, were ‘left-wing’. He seems to think that because the Nazis called themselves ‘National Socialists’ that this is proof enough of their ‘left-wing’ credentials. Bolt has now taken this a stage further and is now equating green-leaning Australians (left-wing) with Nazis (who he sees also as ‘left-wing’) based simply on the Nazis own green-leaning tendencies.

Bolt needs to seek urgent help if he actually believes this nonsense because, if he does, he really is slipping over the edge into delusional obsession. But the worst of it is this; there are actually a few, thankfully only a very few judging by the number of responses at his blog, that are dumb and gullible enough to believe this garbage.

Saturday, November 14, 2009


The Australian ultra-racist Andrew Bolt in taking his usual swing at President Obama has managed to show his true colours when it comes to the Japanese by criticising Obama for bowing too low when meeting the Japanese Emperor yesterday. Bolt then reminds his coterie of mindless followers that it was the Japanese Emperor’s ancestors that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans but neglects to mention that Japan is now one of America’s greatest Pacific allies.

Bolt also points out that Obama has also grovelled (but not bowed) to the Saudi king when they met. Bolt hastens then to add that the Saudi king is the leader of an autocratic regime. Again, Bolt neglects to mention that Saudi Arabia has been, and, indeed, still is, one of America’s greatest allies in the Middle East next to Israel of course.

Bolt then displays his hypocrisy by criticising Obama for not having bowed to Queen Elizabeth the Second of England despite England being, as Bolt puts it, America’s ‘greatest ally’. Bolt neglects to mention that just over a couple of centuries ago Queen Elizabeth’s ancestors were slaughtering Americans as they attempted to put down the American Revolution. That may be water under the bridge but apparently the events of the Second World War aren’t.

Bolt’s racism knows no bounds. As the above shows, Bolt holds nothing but contempt of anything non-white. He is anti-black as demonstrated by his utter contempt for Obama, and make no mistake here; Bolt hates Obama because he is black, not because he is a Democrat, he hates Asians as manifested by his comments regarding the Japanese and recent comments he has made regarding Tamil boatpeople, and he hates all things Islamic as evident in his assertions regarding the Saudi’s coupled with remarks he has made in the past about Islam.

Yesterday, Bolt attempted to paint himself as the caring racist. Bolt wonders when commenting about benefits boat people might or might not get when they arrive in Australia, if “we’d stand by and let even asylum seekers here - including the able bodied - go without a cent to feed themselves or their children? To be forced, if they can’t find work, to live instead by begging or stealing?”

One can rest assured that Bolt was not thinking of non-white Asian boatpeople when making this remark; he was considering the far more acceptable (to him) hordes of white European illegal immigrants that arrive here weekly by airline on visitor visas obtained under false pretences by lying about their true intentions for coming here.

Monday, November 9, 2009


It’s been nearly two whole weeks since J.F. Beck, the loony extreme right-wing wannabe journo now blogging at Asian Correspondent, has mentioned the object of his obsession, Antony Loewenstein. One wonders if he took my advice some weeks ago to seek help for his problem.

With just a little more therapy poor old racially insecure Beck might also be able to be cured of his Islamophobia. Who knows; he may even step back from his support of ultra-Zionism.

Sunday, November 1, 2009


Robert Manne recently said that scepticism is a good thing whereas ‘denialism’, as in Holocaust denial for example, is unhealthy. Manne made the remark in order to demonstrate that those that deny ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ should more appropriately be called ‘climate change denialists’ or ‘global warming denialists’ rather than ‘climate change sceptics’ and so on.

Tim Blair, a climate change denialist himself, has taken offence to this. Apart from denying he’s a denialist, Blair writes:

This seems a rather clumsy and emotional shame-by-illogic tactic from someone who claims to base his arguments on science and reason. Disagree with Manne about future weather patterns? Well, that means you're an apologist for the Third Reich, or as bad as one.

Interesting attempt at duckspeak is this. Blair is almost, but not quite, trying to imply that Manne reckons if you deny climate change then you’re denying the Holocaust. Blair scrapes out of it by adding the rider; ‘or as bad as one’.

In terms of analogy, Manne is quite right to say that ‘climate change denialism’ is like being a Holocaust denier, but, of course, they are not the same as Blair attempts to imply – being one does not necessarily mean your are the other as well.

The problem stems from the fact that, while most ‘climate change’ denialists like Blair, et al, are not Holocaust deniers; it does seem that most Holocaust deniers are also climate change denialists. And, naturally, the likes of Blair and co would want to be lumped in with them.

Their way out of the conundrum is simply to accuse Manne of smearing the victims of the Holocaust – an ignorant and tasteless insult considering that Manne had lost his own grandparents to the Holocaust.

But, such tasteless ignorance merely demonstrates the depths to which the climate deniers will go in order to peddle their denialist nonsense.

Thursday, October 29, 2009


which he took down after he realised how embarrassing it was to him, this is what I wrote:

You say your opinion is shared by many that watched the ABC QandA last night... Upon what evidence do you base that assertion, Bolt?

I suspect that the only people that would share your opinion are the usual tiny crew of anti-asylum seekers that gather here. I wonder how many viewers who don't normally bother coming to your site will leave a comment here to support your presumptuous delusions.

Reading the comments of Bolt’s Bloggies confirms exactly what I said.

Bolt's rhetoric about why he deletes my comments?


Like most supporters of expansionist Zionism, Bolt confuses anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. The reality of why Bolt deletes my comments?


Wednesday, October 28, 2009


Australian Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, an ex-immigration minister in John Howard’s government famed for his role in the notorious Dr. Haneef Affair in which Andrews insisted that Haneef, an Asian Muslim, be kicked out of Australia despite being found to have played no part whatsoever in any ‘terrorist plot’ that a relative was involved in, is now, again, demonising by inference Muslims that are in this country. Andrews is now calling for a debate on what he calls ‘Muslim enclaves’ in Australia.

Andrews call for the debate comes at a time when the debate about immigration and boatpeople is raging over the plight of a boatload of Sri Lankan refugees, all Tamil, who were recently rescued by an Australian ship when their own vessel was in imminent danger of sinking while on their way to seek asylum in Australia.

Andrews was speaking with Alan Jones, the ultra right-wing Sydney radio broadcaster and well known fellow Australian Islamophobe and racist agitator. Andrews told Jones that to “have a concentration of one ethnic or one particular group that remains in an enclave for a long period of time is not good”.

Andrews views are, of course, supported by other ‘journalists’ and ‘commentators’ in Murdoch’s Australian media stable. Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor for ‘The Australian’ newspaper, unashamedly demonises the current crop of asylum seekers as being ‘illegal immigrants’ ignoring altogether the fact that are not immigrants since they are not actually in Australia yet, and that there is absolutely nothing illegal about seeking asylum in Australia.

Naturally, Murdoch’s other propagandists working at some of Murdoch’s metro newspapers are also mounting a determined attack against these asylum seekers and Muslim immigration generally. Three of Murdoch’s most outrageous racist bloggers, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, have for days since the so-called ‘crisis’ began, all used their newspaper’s online hate sites to foment anti-Islam and anti-Asian racism.

Akerman in Sydney uses the propaganda of fear in his rhetoric endorsing the notion “that possible terrorists could slip into the nation among the asylum seekers the RAN is busily ferrying to our shores”. Akerman then leaves it the usual mob of bloggie followers that comment at all three blogs.

Tim Blair, also in Sydney, who’s not over-keen on actually writing too much himself preferring instead to cut and paste suitably cherry-picked quotes from other peoples work to make his point (that way, if it proves to be wrong, he can always blame someone else) works in a similar way to Akerman letting his coterie of predictable bloggies actually say what he might otherwise be sued for saying.

Andrew Bolt, Murdoch’s Melbourne propagandist, follows the predetermined demonising game plan but attacking Rudd from a slightly different angle saying: “Kevin Rudd’s dilemma is this: he must order the Sri Lankans to be forcibly evicted off the ship and into Indonesian jails, thereby looking the utter bastard and hypocrite. Or he must relent and bring the asylum seekers to Christmas Island, signally to people smugglers everywhere that all they need do now to get here is to do as these boat people did - send out a distress signal when near some Australian ship, after first disabling their own boat.” Bolt’s bloggies respond predictably.

For the sake of the those asylum seekers now in distress as a result of being used as the racists political football, and for the sake of others that wish to seek asylum in Australia, I hope that Rudd does the right thing for our fellow humans and gives them the refuge they seek here in Australia without any further delay and that we as Australians put an end once and for all this nonsense of abusing people who are different from us.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


Murdoch propagandist with Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, Piers Akerman, seems to think that the war in Afghanistan “is about the Taleban, terrorism and the Afghan people”.

He needed reminding what it was really all about so I wrote this in response:

Akerman, your inane rhetoric about the West, including Australia, being in Afghanistan to free the Afghan people from ‘medievalists’ is baseless propagandising nonsense.

The war in Afghanistan was never about the Taliban or the Afghan people; it was and has only ever been about gas pipelines and regional hegemony. Al Qaeda and their involvement in 9/11 were merely used as a casus belli to start a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda that had been planned long before 9/11.

To believe that Bush, Blair and Howard actually cared about the Afghan people is utterly delusional. The only ‘terrorists’ in Afghanistan as far as the Afghan people are concerned are the Western allies that have been attacking and killing Afghani and Pakistani civilians in their thousands.

It’s time for Australians to ignore your warmongering rhetoric and propaganda and wake up to the geo-political realities of what’s really going on in their name.

His reply was totally predictable:

“Reply: This post should have carried a Spooky Conspiracy Nutter Alert.”

My response to that went thus:

“There’s no conspiracy here Akerman; only geo-political realities. Check it for yourself.”

Needless to say, having been confronted with reality, Akerman has refused to publish my post.

Readers can check it out for themselves.

Sunday, October 18, 2009


A few weeks ago I told how the myriad of right-wing bloggers are inter-linked with each other and then all link back to the mainstream media right-wing blogs run by the Murdoch propaganda empire thus forming a seemingly large network of blogs which, while it might seem extensive and well read, is actually not so much read by a broad readership, but just by each other feeding off themselves.

I mentioned how many of them had aspirations of becoming part of the mainstream media as ‘journalists’ following in the footsteps of the likes of Tim Blair, a propagandist blogger with Murdoch’s Sydney Daily Telegraph.

Well, it seems one of those amateur bloggers I mentioned, J.F. Beck who runs, or ran, a blog called RWDB, which apparently stood for Right Wing Death Beast, (right-wing, death and beast all being words closely associated with each other when describing fascist and fascist-like people) has made it, well, not quite big-time, but is now writing for some online blog called ‘Asian Correspondent’; not quite mainstream media, but Beck has probably deluded himself into thinking that it is.

One of his first pieces at ‘Asian Correspondent’ is a parting shot at a left-wing blogger who Beck says is a ‘lame response’ to the likes of Islamophobes Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt and their mainstream blogs.

Beck is a pedantic-style propagandist which means he ignores the mains issues and points of any given argument by honing in on some tiny grammatical or factual error made by anyone on the left. He then, regardless of whether or not the error has actually anything to do with the pain point of the debate, attempts to blow the error out of proportion in an effort to demean or trivialise the debate and the person who is making the argument.

Beck seems to be obsessed with writer Antony Loewenstein. One mistake from Loewenstein, no matter how trivial, and Beck is on to it like a shot for some twisted reason. If Loewenstein says the Israelis killed ten Palestinian civilians when in fact they’d killed nine, Beck would be there to expend hundreds of words demonising Loewenstein to the hilt for making such a ‘massive’ error of fact, but, of course, Beck would ignore entirely the fact that Israelis killing even one Palestinian civilian would be a crime.

As Beck himself says, what he is best known for is “Accuracy – my ideological opponents (progressives) get all upset when the facts prove them wrong”. Most times accuracy of facts has little to do with the ideological aspect of debate; while facts should be corrected when needed, they often are totally irrelevant to the subject of the debate.
But that wouldn’t stop Beck – especially if the debate was one Beck was otherwise intellectually unable to take part in.


And, as if to prove the point, Beck launches straightaway into some pedantic criticism of Loewenstein over a simple mis-spelling. Why? Because he is utterly incapable of actually arguing any point with Loewenstein. The very best he is able to do is pick him up on a spelling mistake and hope that is enough to somehow stop Loewenstein doing what he does.

Well, at least Beck’s reading Loewenstein’s stuff and then linking to it – even if it is just over a spelling mistake.

Or maybe Loewenstein is deliberately inserting spelling mistakes knowing that Beck will link to him.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009


Tim Blair, Australia’s own ultra racist and hate blog host at Murdoch’s ‘Sydney Daily Telegraph’, has joined the clamour to defend his American opposite number, the ultra right-wing commentator and uber racist Rush Limbaugh.

After reading Blair’s post yesterday about boat people coming to Australia being illegal immigrants and the comments from his band of right-wing bloggie racists, one shouldn’t be surprised.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009


After having spent the last few days exposing Tim Blair of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and his tiny but vocal coterie of bloggies as a deceitful and lying bunch of racists over a faked and demeaning video, Blair and the same bunch of right-wing goons that support him are now extracting as much mileage as possible out of Prime Minister Rudd’s remarks that refer to the latest boatload of asylum seekers that have been turned back to Indonesia as being ‘illegal immigrants’.

Blair has pounced on the remark claiming that, because the Prime Minister has said they are ‘illegal immigrants’ then they, indeed, must be. The racist comments that then follow are staggering in there blatancy. There’s this from one of Blair’s more lunatic fringe bloggies who calls himself “Habib of Wilston’ who writes:

BTW, I wonder if any of the vocal advocates are going to volunteer to house the new crop of potential pyros? I trust they’re not going to relocate them to around Kinglake.

This is a rather sick reference to another of Murdoch’s racists, Piers Akerman, also of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, who, during the Victorian bushfires earlier this year, outrageously accused Muslim ‘terrorists’ of deliberately lighting them.

Then there is this nauseating comment from one who calls himself ‘boy on a bike’:

Regarding the Refugee Action Collective, I have a simple suggestion that I am sure most Blairites will support.
It’s called “one-in, one-out”.
That is, for every refugee we let in, we kick out one member of this ratbag collection of soap-dodging dole bludgers.
Even if only one refugee per boatload ends up in a productive, private sector job, that will still be an improvement on allowing the mung bean eating crowd to remain. And I’m sure the refugees won’t smell as bad (even after being crammed into the hold of a fishing boat for a week in the middle of summer).

And Maggie of Childers comes out with this ignorant and blatantly racist nonsense:

It pings me off to know that our Defence Force Men and Women have been and are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan while we are affording shelter to men who have abandoned their country and our ADF.
Send them back post haste. Do not allow them into Australia, if they are not willing to defend their own Country and have no respect for our borders or laws I doubt they will be willing to defend our Country.
What are you thinking Mr. Rudd or is that question too hard?
Do you think for one nano second they will be loyal citizens?

Perhaps if Australia respected Iraqi and Afghan borders and not invaded and killed their peoples, there wouldn’t be the problem in the first place.

Very sick people.


Blair, obviously fearing further embarrassment, has refused to publish the comment I left at his blog. for those intersted, this was it:

Hate to be pedantic, but first, one can't be an immigrant, legal or otherwise, unless one is actually here. Second, just because Rudd has been quoted as saying these people are 'illegal immigrants', doesn't make it so; Rudd might be the Prime Minister but he is not a judge and has no jurisdiction to make any decision about their legal status. These people are simply refugees who wish to come to Australia and they don't pretend to be anything else. They are not illegal immigrants’ because, apart from anything else, they’re not actually here.

People that arrive here by airline on tourist or business visas with the intention of staying here beyond their visa requirements are illegal immigrants. People that come here by rickety boat, or by whatever other means, but with no paperwork at all and seeking refuge are simply asylum seekers. If they then check out as genuine asylum seekers – which the vast majority do – then they get a protection visa and from there can apply for permanent residency or citizenship.

What’s the problem with that?

Friday, October 9, 2009


Tim Blair, Murdoch propagandist and blogger with Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, strutted his Islamophobic credentials yesterday by presenting at his blog a video made by MEMRI, the notorious neocon propaganda organisation that specialises in blatant lies and anti-Palestinian propaganda.

The video purports to show a Hamas-produced kidz show depicting how Palestinian kidz are taught to hate and offer themselves for martyrdom. The inference is that this video has been made by Hamas but had been subtitled by MEMRI. The propaganda, however, was so transparent that when I pointed out the transparency, (the storyboard that was part of the show was written in English) Blair and his coterie of bloggies quickly tried to cover Blair’s embarrassment by highlighting the now apparent stupidity of it and then claiming that it was all just ‘extremely smart satire’.

It most certainly was not ‘extremely smart satire’; it was extremely transparent propaganda and there was nothing at all smart about it or the comments from the racist Islamophobic followers of Blair’s blog that followed my comments there.


Methinks Blair protesteth far too much!

Now he’s dedicated a whole segment in his column in trying to wriggle out of his deceit and, at the same time, attempt to belittle me. Blair is now attempting to claim that the video is a work from 'creative types' designed for our entertainment. Blair and his followers have a very sad and sick sense of humour if they find this sort of stuff 'creative' entertainment.

The more you wriggle Blair, the more transparent is your deceit.

Blair, the most deceitful person on the internet and, to use his own words, it is a crowded field.


Blair seems to be getting really desperate to avoid embarrassment; he's added an update to his piece about the faked MEMRI tape and has succeeded in embarrassing himself even further.

It seems that everytime he puts finger to keyboard on this subject as he tries harder and harder to wriggle out of it, he ends up shoving more and more of his foot into his mouth.

Face it Blair; no matter what way you spin it, you've exposed yourself as the deceitful little Islamophobe that you are. The tape is a sick piece of entertainment - and you're just the sick little person to show it. Murdoch should be really proud of you.


One always knows when one has hit a raw right-wing nerve; the degree of rawness is directly proportional to the amount of words they expend in trying to cover up the raw nerve and wriggle out of their predicament.

In Tim Blair’s case, he’s found it necessary to issue ‘three’ updates to his original piece that tried to cover up his faux pas of presenting a sick but fake MEMRI tape as a Hamas kidz program. (Actually, it’s only two updates, but Blair, so absorbed in trying to prevent his foot from going deeper into his mouth, has lost count.)

Perhaps I’ll expend a few words just to demonstrate how Blair and the other bloggers on the extreme right work in these sorts of cases.

A few right-wing bloggies that flit between the myriad of right-wing blogs have assembled at Blair’s blog to provide him with much needed support. Most have made multiple posts there already, as can be seen, in some sort of effort to make it look as though there are more of them than there actually are. Many are well known throughout the rightwing blogosphere and tend to pop up everywhere as part of the Israel Lobby propaganda machine supporting platoon of bloggies.

One particularly nasty extreme right-wing Zionist thug in their ranks, who calls himself ‘geoff’ on Blair’s blog, is Geoff Pahoff. Pahoff was responsible for this exceptionally disgusting piece of hate speech about the old, blind and wheel-chair bound Palestinian Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who was murdered in the Gaza Strip by the Israelis:

I celebrated wildly when that filthy bag of puss [sic], ‘the old blind wheel-chair bound spiritual leader’ finally kissed what was left of his miserable fanny and did the world the enormous favour, albeit somewhat forced, of departing from it for all eternity. Thereby correcting a major anomaly in the order of things by being born in the first place. Or not drowned slowly at the first opportunity. The slimy ignorant lying slice of toxic shit.

Obsessive hatred like this is not confined to Pahoff. A fellow traveller of his, Noelene Konstandinitis, another equally obnoxious extreme right-wing Zionist that used to do the rounds of the right-wing blogs, including Blair’s, once came out with this gem of super hatred:

Of course it is EXCELLENT news that Israel is FINALLY sticking up for itself! What neither the Pals, nor the western bourgeois left, seems [sic] to be able to get their think [sic] heads around is that Israel could have destroyed Egypt, Syria, AND Jordan AND kicked the Pals out in 1948, 56, 67, 73, etc. The only thing stopping them every single time was the US! All this would have been over DECADES over [sic], if the U.S. had just let nature take its course.The wretched camel-jockeys have NO right to be in the Holy Land and the sooner they catch the next magic carpet or camel sleigh to Jordan, Syria, or Egypt the better! The Israelis MUST seize this opportunity to totally turn around the whole tedious farce of the middle east. It is time to bitchslap the fetid Mohammedans into next week. Vaporize the pigs! A world without Muslims would be a lovely world indeed!

These are the sort of sick people that Blair needs around him to support his efforts of creating the illusion that they are many – they are not many at all. There are only a very few them but all, as can be seen when one visits Blair’s hate site, are very vocal. But hey; Blair needs all the support he can get - even from the deranged and delusional (David Elder wants to get Zeeva David from NCIS to 'put me out of my misery!!??) that gather like vultures at his blog.


It seems Blair has seen the need to resort to sarcasm in order to wriggle out of his predicament. His dedicated followers have succeeded only in highlighting Blair’s Islamophobic obsessions by virtue of being even more Islamophobic than he is.

In typical right-wing propaganda style, Blair and his band of predictable attack dogs have attempted to distract from the original argument by making ridiculously pedantic observations, ad hominen attacks and insults but the fact remains that Blair used the video to deceive readers and ridicule Palestinians. It was a blatant piece of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

The situation between Palestinians and Israel are bad enough as it is and, indeed, propaganda is used by both sides to indoctrinate kidz and to teach them about violence and death, but the use of this particular video, a video produced specifically to demean, ridicule and inflame already heightened tensions by instilling even more hatreds, is simply a disgusting act of racism.

Blair's racism should not go unchallenged.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009


As well as Murdoch’s mainstream media blogs, by that I mean major newspapers that employ professional propagandists who euphemistically call themselves ‘journalists’ and who run online blog columns, there exists a peripheral world of amateur bloggers who support Murdoch’s professional propagandists. These blogs are directly linked to via the mainstream propaganda blogs and who then, in turn, link to each other.

In the main, these minor right-wing bloggers consist of wannabe ‘journalists’ in search of their big break into the professional mainstream media world of blogging. Extreme right-wing blogger, Tim Blair of Murdoch’s ‘Sydney Daily Telegraph’, for example, is an Islamophobic racist and extremist Zionist supporter who has made the leap from amateur blogger to become one of Murdoch’s professional propagandists. To the right of his column, appropriately, there is a blogroll which links to a whole range of right-wing blogs, including other mainstream right-wing blogs within Murdoch’s propaganda empire, and also to other amateur but more extremist right-wing blogs that has Blair’s favour. They, in turn, return the favour by constantly posting at his ‘Sydney Daily Telegraph’ blog under various names and avatars. They then also go on to post at each others blogs thus creating the illusion that the right-wing has some broad appeal through the blogosphere whereas in reality there are only a handful of them that have evolved to make it appear as if there are many more.

Part of the right-wing’s blogging modus operandi is to indulge in what has become known in the blogging world as ‘sock-puppeting’ whereby a commenter creates more than one avatar who will usually post under some identifier name which is not the posters actual name, or post anonymously. Usually they make multiple postings using their various identifiers or anonymously and may even use a mixture of both as in when, having made a post using an identifier avatar, they then make a follow-up post using another avatar or anonymously, that is in full support of the intial post. This may be done using two, three, and sometimes more identifiers. The idea is to create the illusion that that there is far more support for a particular argument than there really is with the intention of intimidating those that argue against them.

One of the blogs on Blair’s blogroll is J.F. Beck who runs a small extreme right-wing Zionist blog that seems to specialise in little more than criticising anti-Zionist left-wing Australian-Jewish writer Antony Loewenstein. Beck in the main, however, only ever seems to able to criticise Loewenstein for the occasional grammatical errors he makes rather than actually criticising any argument Lowenstein is proffering, believing somehow that, because Loewenstein makes the occasional grammatical error, that his entire philosophy must therefore also be wrong. Beck is never able to rebut, refute or offer viable counter argument to the substance of whatever Loewenstein writes but, nonetheless, Beck’s faithful handful of supporters, all three of four of them, then launch into a tirade of abuse, insults and ad hominen attacks against Loewenstein without any of them actually being able to directly counter any of Loewenstein’s arguments. Basically, Beck simply cuts and pastes something that Loewenstein has written – preferably something with a grammatical error in it – and then feeds it to his faithful few bloggies who then rip into it in a vain attempt to ridicule Loewenstein for the errors but who never actually argue the point that the error is in.

Now, one normally wouldn’t be in the slightest bit bothered by such blogs because they have such a tiny audience who mostly are already converted to the cause to the point where the blog is simply reduced to a chat room for, in this case, right-wing extremist frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobic Zionists. However, when they get linked to a blog like Tim Blair’s in a mainsteam Australian newspaper, these otherwise non-entity blogs start to get a wider audience and, since most people that go to Blair’s blog are generally to the right already, these blogs that he links to can wield a little more influence that they actually deserve.

I recently visited Beck’s blog (I won’t link to it; I wouldn’t want to encourage anyone to waste their time visiting it) and found the sort of nonsense noted above. My comments certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest of three or four of his bloggies that immediately morphed into about seven or eight of them as they each pulled on their ‘sock-puppets’ for some multi-posting that didn’t even bother attempting to disguise themselves. After a while Beck decided that I had got the better of them and was making them look fools (which really wasn’t that difficult) as they began to contradict and repeat themselves, and so he switched on his moderation function and then simply deleted my comments.

On Beck’s blogroll there is a link to another right-wing blog, Iain Hall, which, while supporting extremist Zionism, specialises more in Australian nationalism and its associated racism with Islam being the current culture to hate. Hall practices his deceit in another way. Rather than adopting the sock-puppet method of deceit, Hall prefers to re-write comments that dissent from his own. The ruse, of course, is quite transparent and is intended to deflect those that wish to comment from actually doing so by attempting to embarrass them. Naturally, in doing so, those that practice this plainly obvious deceit succeed only exposing themselves as deceivers while, at the same time, also exposing their arrogance.

These are just a few examples of the way the extreme right-wing Zionist blogosphere operates at it spreads its tentacles out from the Murdoch-owned mainstream media into the murky and deceitful world of blogs that Murdoch bloggers link to.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009


Once again Murdoch propagandist, Piers Akerman, a blogger with the Sydney Daily Telegraph, has exposed himself for the racist that he is. In his rant yesterday Akerman once again laid into people who he calls ‘illegal immigrants’ but who are in fact asylum seeking refugees that have arrived in Australia by boat.

I pointed out to Akerman that these people are not ‘illegal immigrants’ and that as asylum seeking refugees they have every right under international law to come to Australia.

His response was this:

And Australia used to have an orderly migration program to deal with those wishing to come here - that’s has disappeared under Rudd.

This was my response in reply:

Ackerman, Australia has never had an orderly migration program for those wishing to come here. If it wasn’t turning Jews away after the war, it was the old White Australia Policy; once that had gone, it was having to deal with Asians fleeing countries that we had a hand in all but destroying; under Howard it was incarceration at any cost and using our Special Forces to prevent refugees from yet more countries we’ve had a hand in destroying from coming here.
Orderly migration program? What nonsense.

Akerman then displayed his either total ignorance on matters he claims to know something about, or, he deliberately attempted to mislead and deceive with this rubbish:

This is one of the most ridiculous posts ever submitted. Australia’s post WW2 migration system was the wonder of the world when Labor’s White Australia Policy was overturned by the Coalition government, it is now the global laughing stock.

The fact is; the White Australia Policy was effectively legally ended by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973. Malcolm Fraser only buried completely long after it was already dead.

So, where does that leave Akerman; ignorant racist moron or deceitful lying racist?

You be the judge.

Sunday, August 23, 2009


Just a quick observation.

The Israelis seem to be protesting too much over the Swedish claims that the Israeli Defence Forces have been deliberately killing for the purpose of organ harvesting. The Israelis have been jumping up and down shouting ‘Blood Libel, Blood Libel’. Problem is; no one else is talking about ‘Blood Libel’, only the Israelis.

But here’s the hypocrisy; last year the Israelis neocon supporters at Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Weekly Standard’ were writing exactly the same kind of stuff about the Chinese as the Swedes are about the Israelis.

I don’t recall the Chinese carrying on about ‘Blood Libel’.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009


Both Tim Blair at Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’, and Andrew Bolt at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’, both Murdoch newspapers, seem to think that the things that define race, particularly Aboriginal race, begins and ends with skin colour, eye colour and facial features.

For Blair and Bolt ancestry has nothing to do with race if you are an Aborigine that doesn’t look Aboriginal. At that point you are a white person and therefore not entitled to any of the benefits that one may be entitled to if one were Aboriginal. Bolt and Blair believe that Aboriginality is only bona fide when measured against the sensory function of sight. In other words, you are only Aboriginal if you meet the perceptions of what they consider an Aboriginal person should look like.

One wonders if there were special entitlements to other races because of their race if the same kind of criteria applied. For example, if there were, say, scholarships being awarded to Jewish students by a Jewish endowment foundation, would the students only be eligible for those scholarships if they looked Jewish? What if they looked like white Europeans as, indeed, many Jews do and the only way of telling if they were Jewish or not is to simply ask them to provide evidence of their Jewish heritage?

If these Aboriginal people that do not look Aboriginal are able to provide evidence of their Aboriginal heritage then who could deny them of their entitlements any more than a Jewish person could be denied of their entitlement just because they didn’t look Jewish?

For Blair and Bolt racism is in the eye of the beholder - both literally and metaphorically.

Thursday, August 13, 2009


In his column today Andrew Bolt writes: “Yale University, through sheer fear, decides to follow the rulings of the most censorious Muslim fanatics rather than defend the spirit of free inquiry that was once a glory of Western civilisation.”

Bolt, of course, knows all about censorship through sheer fear.

It's the fear of me exposing him for the racist that he is that causes him to project his racism personally on me, thus censoring me saying I'm 'banned for racism'.

Classic Bolt hypocrisy.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009


In his blog yesterday, 11 August 2009, Bolt wrote about the Reverend Peter Adam, who had been quoted as saying that, “All non-Aboriginal Australians should be prepared to leave the country if the indigenous people want that”, adding that, “If they stayed, they would have to provide whatever recompense indigenous peoples thought appropriate”. Bolt said that Adam was being “Not just racist, but divisive, naive and utterly impractical”.

Adam, of course, far from being ‘impractical’, was merely hypothesising to emphasise a point about how Europeans had abused Aboriginal peoples ever since arrival. Bolt in characteristic fashion has attempted to use Adam’s words in order to deflect his own racism by attempting to highlight what he believes, or what he’d like others to believe, is someone else’s racism.

Such transparent hypocrisy from Bolt is now commonplace but in this particular example it is far more pronounced.

In this case Bolt is accusing Adam or being racist because Adam has suggested that non-Aboriginal people leave the leave the country. However, only a few days earlier, shortly after the so-called ‘terrorists’ were arrested in Australia, Bolt wrote: “there are fundamentally two options before us. One is to ‘drain the pool’ - or slash Muslim immigration.”

‘Drain the pool’ and ‘slash Muslim immigration’ really is racist. It is also divisive, naïve and utterly impractical. Slashing Muslim immigration is akin to slashing Catholic immigration through fear of some IRA fighters coming to Australia or slashing Chinese immigration through fear of communists sneaking in.

Bolt thinks that asking non-Aboriginal people to leave is racist but ‘draining the pool’ of Muslims isn’t.

Make no mistake about who the racist really is here.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009


Australia has always been a racist nation. Between 1901 and 1973 it even had a blatantly racist policy, generally known as the White Australia Policy, of excluding non-whites from coming to Australia. White Australia’s history of ill-treating its indigenous peoples is also well-known, and continues covertly even today. The racism of blood and biology has always been a part of white Australia’s past and it continues into the present.

But this last decade has seen the introduction of a new kind or racism; the racism of religion and culture, a racism that was first framed for the benefit of the public by Australian historian Robert Manne. Manne wrote his article, ‘Beware the new racism’, a year after 9/11. He observed how, soon after 9/11, the phenomenon of Islamaphobia had emerged within Australian society.

It wasn’t long before the two racisms merged. The so-called ‘war on terrorism’ has provided new grist for the Australian racist’s mill; an excuse to continue their racist rhetoric disguised as ‘anti-terrorist opinion’. The recent arrests of a so-called ‘terrorist cell’ in Melbourne have been heaven sent for Australia’s racists. It has provided them with the cover they need to voice their blatant and outrageous racist views.

Leading the racists on their new-found crusade against non-white and Islamic Australians are the likes of Murdoch propagandists Andrew Bolt of Melbourne’s ‘Herald-Sun’ newspaper, and Tim Blair of Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’.

Bolt’s column has featured a number of pieces about the arrests of the so-called terrorists in Melbourne. One, for example, is titled ‘Importing Trouble’ and another is titled ‘Time to talk about Islam’. No prizes for guessing where Bolt is going with these two pieces. The thing is with Bolt is, he’s not quite dumb enough to be directly racist; he does it, instead, by inference and then allows those bloggies that comment on his blog to do the rest for him. In doing so Bolt exposes his own racism and, of course, his bloggies don’t hold back expose their own racism which Bolt revels in.

Let’s take a look at a few of Bolt’s Bloggies comments. You can see these and others via the links above.

‘Kerry of Brisbane’ responds to ‘Time to talk about Islam with:

Good points Andrew, especially point 5. Why do we bring people into the country who by culture and religious conviction are incapable of integrating with us. Islam is totally theocratic and has no teaching of “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God’s” as we find in Christianity. And how many of them will submit themselves to civil authorities as “ministers of God for the common good”? And even so called “good Muslims” still carry the book that says they must fight (make jihad) until Islam is the only religion. It just cannot work.

Then there is ‘Neville’ who reckons:

Absolute crock of crap, they don’t fit in with a Christian country, piss ’em off! When they start to out these militants themselves, and kicking them out of the country, I will start listening to apologies. Till then, I believe they know about these Jihadists in their midst but choose to turn a blind eye. If you knew you had a murderer living next door would you turn a blind eye?

Habibi of Melbourne writes:

Fantastic column Andrew. The regular occurrence of Islamic violence happens somewhere on the globe daily, it’s only a matter of time until everyone gets their share. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise as nationalism loses currency with the newer generations and people turn to religion for identity. Even if only 10% of Muslims hold fundamentalist views we’re dealing with over 100 million fundamentalist’s world wide. There is indeed an elephant in the room.

In his ‘Importing trouble’ piece Bolt writes: “…while jihadist ideology flourishes, there are fundamentally two options before us. One is to “drain the pool” - or slash Muslim immigration.”

‘Maggie of Childers’ responds with this nonsense:

If this behaviour and lack of respect is not enough to have alarm bells ringing in the ears and minds of do-gooders and apologists I do not know what will, perhaps that the alleged terrorists could have been martyrs having massacred our men and women who fight for the freedom of all people.

Maggie thinks that ‘our men and women’ are fighting ‘for the freedom of all people’, forgetting entirely that our men and women are doing no such thing. They are actually over there in Islamic lands killing thousands of Muslims – which, of course, is why they are over here trying to kill Westerners.

‘Upto of Brisbane’ says:

Sally Neighbour suggests that simply screening Muslim refugees more carefully is not the answer: I’d agree. Stopping their emigration altogether to Australia makes a lot more sense. If they are not here, we have less problems to deal with.

Meanwhile, at Tim Blair’s blog, ‘Lefroy’ comes out with this gem:

To even hint that Australians - the fairest, least racist, most welcoming people in the world, who have unconditionally thrown open their doors to these wretchedly poor people - to even hint that Australians have “overreacted” or “behaved unjustly”, is beneath contempt; and to say so in “the Age” is just guilt-mongering and race hustling.

‘Most welcoming people in the world’? After John Howard sent in Australian commandos on to a Norwegian ship at sea to send a message that the asylum seekers definitely weren’t welcome in Australia?

‘Lefroy’ is the quintessential Australian racist.

See for yourselves exactly how racist Australia is.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009


One of the characteristics of today’s modern fascists is their propensity to project their own fascism onto those they regard as ‘our’ enemies.

Most fascists these days don’t actually like being called fascists so today’s modern Western fascists, like ‘The Australian’ newspaper columnist, Janet Albrechtsen, is more than happy to call Islamic radicals ‘Islamo-fascists’ in order to deflect her own fascism from being noticed. It serves two purposes; first, it demonises those she is calling fascists and, second, it gives the impression that, because she is calling someone else a fascist, that she can’t be one herself.

The hypocrisy and the irony, however, though Albrechtsen can’t see it because she only sees things from her point of view, are utterly transparent. While she thinks she is exposing some ideology she calls Islamo-fascism, what she is actually doing is showcasing to the world her own racist Islamaphobia and fascist inclinations. She’s so arrogant that she thinks people are generally too thick to see it.

It’s a classic Murdoch propagandist trait. They all suffer from it.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


Australian Murdoch propagandist and blogger Andrew Bolt of Melbourne’s ‘Herald-Sun’ newspaper has published a piece that links to the ‘read after death’ letter of 19-year-old British trooper Cyrus Thatcher who recently was killed in Afghanistan.

Bolt deliberately aims his piece at the right-wing bloggies that comment at his blog successfully stirring up pro-Western right-wing schmaltz to such an extent that it borders on vomitous to actually read. Any attempt at a dissenting view at his blog is immediately pounced on and, if it gets too close to the truth, Bolt simply refuses to publish it.

Read some of the comments. You have to wonder if these people are actually for real.

Friday, July 17, 2009


Many of Murdoch’s foremost so-called ‘journalist’ bloggers have adopted the ‘cut and paste’ method of propaganda whereby they simply copy and paste large lumps of cherry-picked text that suits their argument and then publish only comments that support that argument. Every now and then they throw in an occasional dissenting comment just to make it look as though the right-wing support is from your ‘average reader’ thus giving the impression that their line is middle of the road public opinion when in fact it is extreme right-wing.

This kind of ‘journalism’ allows the propagandist blogger to cite other peoples work without having to take on of the journalistic responsibility for it. If it turns out to be wrong or misinformed or plain dishonest the propagandist then needs only to blame the writer and replace it with a correction, though, of course, most stuff that’s wrong or misinformed or dishonest will usually get through without being noticed.

Several of Australia’s right-wing bloggers use this method of propagandising. Take the Islamophobe and racist Andrew Bolt who blogs for Murdoch at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper for example.

Let’s have a look at the first three stories that come up as I open Andrew Bolt’s blog today. First we get this which waffles on about one of Bolts other pet hates – climate change and other assorted anti-green stuff. Notice how some 91% of the text is not his.

The next story down is this. He’ doing a bit better here; he managed to write almost 22% of the piece.

Then the third one in which he hops onto his racism hobbyhorse. In this piece Bolt manages to write some 36% of the piece himself. The rest is cut and pasted.

It doesn’t matter really what any of these pieces are about – suffice to say they are all a reflection of his right-wing thinking and they are all pieces that he mostly hasn’t written himself.

Tim Blair at Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ does exactly the same – he cherry-picks a bit of text written by someone else and then surrounds it with a little of his own garbage. In this randomly selected piece Blair manages to personally scrawl a massive 43% of the words in the piece.

These pieces are usually designed to stir up their right-wing bloggies; those who share their extremist right-wing views and then some. Because they are mostly anonymous bloggies, they can get away with saying the most outrageous stuff; stuff that Bolt or Blair couldn’t get away with themselves but are quite happy to let others say it for them.

Place these people where they belong – they are propagandists; they are certainly not journalists nor do they belong in the blogosphere. They merely abuse the blogging world to peddle their sick racist and warmongering ideas.

Sunday, July 5, 2009


In the rush to protect Sarah Palin, the recently resigned governor of Alaska and 2012 presidential hopeful, a Murdoch propagandist has inadvertently made life even more difficult for her by trying to malign her detractors.

Australian Murdoch propagandist, Andrew Bolt, who runs a right-wing blog at Melbourne’s ‘Herald-Sun’, wrote: “When Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska, Leftist bloggers decided to slime her all over again, on the assumption that anything she did must be sinister.” Not content to simply say that ‘left-wing bloggers are trying to slime her’, Bolt is dim-witted enough to then actually quote those ‘left-wing bloggers’ repeating what he thinks is ‘slime’ and, not only that, links to the leftist bloggers sites. While all Bolt achieves on his blog is simply to whisk up anti-left sentiment and hatred among his die-hard regular core of right-wing bloggies that comment there, the left-wing bloggers that Bolt links to actually provide cold hard and very compelling comment and analysis as to why Palin really resigned – comment and analysis that is far more compelling than the argument that Bolt doesn’t even attempt to put up.

Palin, if she knew of Bolt’s blog, would be asking: “Who needs enemies when you have friends like Bolt?”

Well done, Bolt. Keep it up!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009


As the Zionists of Israel drift further to the right and increasingly demonstrate how their racial and expansionist policies for Israel are parallel to the policies of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the extreme right-wing in the blogosphere seems to have become confused and increasingly unable to distinguish their left from their right.

The main cause of their confusion is rooted essentially in the irony of history whereby those peoples who suffered most at the hands of the Nazis are the same people that are now causing the most suffering – and for exactly the same reasons – to others.

The extreme right-wing is quite happy to call themselves right-wing because, even if for no other reason, it distinguishes them from their mortal enemies, the ‘Left’. The problem arises however, when it is realised that in calling themselves ‘right-wing’ they share the same ‘right-wing’ label as Hitler does and, because most of today’s modern right-wing are actually Zionists or Zionist supporters, they don’t, for obvious reasons, want to be associated with Hitler and the Nazis. Because there are still some on the outer fringes of the far right who really are Nazis inasmuch that they are white-supremacist style anti-Semites with an intense hatred of Jews – and, indeed, anyone else who isn’t white – today’s modern Zionists and their extreme right-wing supporters have constructed a new propaganda strategy to distinguish themselves from their Nazi look-alikes.

This new construct is designed for the rank and file dumb and gullible of the right. It argues that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t actually ‘right-wing’ because they were called ‘National Socialists’ and, according to the Zionist propagandists and their supporters, they had socialist ideals. The new propaganda further argues, because the name of Hitler’s party also included the word ‘Workers’ in it, (the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party), that this was further proof of the Nazis ‘left-wing’ roots. There is also certain convenience in this new construct for the Zionists and their supporters because, not only do they think it disassociates them as right-wingers from the rather embarrassing and similarly labelled Nazis, but it now allows them to cast anti-Zionists, most of whom have a tendency to lean to the political left and who Zionists attempt to demonise as anti-Semites, into the newly constructed ‘Nazi is left-wing’ mould.

The new ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda construct is currently being pushed via the right-wing blogs. Andrew Bolt, a Murdoch propagandist and blogger at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, a couple of weeks ago highlighted the new propaganda in his column in which he argues that Jewish groups in Europe who worry about the recent gains the anti-Semitic right made in European elections should be far more concerned about the left-wing anti-Zionists in Europe and that the right-wing that are not anti-Semitic are the ‘Jews real friends’. Bolt then allows his bloggies to launch into the ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda. Here are a few examples:

Bolt Bloggie ‘larrikin’ writes:
“it [sic] was the German socialists who formed the Nazi party that instigated the holocaust and it is the left that now demonise Israelis and act as apologist for the islamists [sic] threatening to annihilate Israel. own [sic] it, leftard [sic].” ‘larrikin’ goes on to comment elsewhere:
“…you can’t be ‘right’ and neo-Nazi because Nazism is a creature of the left. If by ‘right’ you mean the opposite of leftism then you are referring to someone who is, essentially, a supporter of the classic republic as a legal and political model. Therefore the ‘right’ is always opposed to dictators and oligarchs, whatever they call themselves and regardless of the form of goose stepping they practice. the left on the other hand ultimately and invariably support dictators and oligarchs.”

While another Bolt bloggie, Alan Mears, writes:
“Hitler was actually from the left, the NAZI party was the Workers Nationalist Socialist Party. What is it with the left? They always attribute the evils deeds committed by their own by using the word “Extreme” with the word Right.”

Regular Bolt bloggie ‘Verax’ responded to Mears’ remark that “Hitler was from the left” saying:
“You are wasting your time with this one, Alan. I have posted that there are two kinds of socialism, national socialism (often called fascism) and Marxian socialism (communism), here ad nauseam.”

And so it goes on.

The new right-wing propaganda has two aims; first, it attempts to cast them as the true right-wing by implying that the Nazis were really ‘left-wing’, and, secondly, in doing so, they think they have created a bin into which the left, because of their anti-Zionism, can now be thrown.

As most true German socialists of the day would attest, or would if there were any actually left, there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up most of the socialists in Germany, and wherever else he could find them, before trying to exterminate them along with everyone else that didn’t fit their political, cultural and racial mould of his Greater Germany.

In the early days there were some Germans deluded enough to actually believe that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity. The delusion was shattered and the myth was dispelled in July 1934 when Hitler and his SS and Gestapo purged the ranks of the massive Brownshirt movement which was the SA. In part this was done more than anything else to appease the extremely un-socialist German military that were beginning to see the SA rabble as a rival to their own power. In short, for Hitler, the SA had fulfilled their role and what few ‘socialists’ had found their way into the Nazi party soon found themselves purged from it or converted to Nazism.

But here’s where the propaganda really back-fires on the right-wing Zionists and their supporters in the West. This early history of the Nazi party to which some deluded socialists, and even communists, initially flocked to, actually reflects much of the early history of Zionism as it established itself in Israel. The early rank and file Kibbutzim movement was made up predominately of those that thought of themselves as socialists, communists and generally left-wing. Many leftish Europeans and Americans, both Gentile and Jewish, made the ‘pilgrimage’ to a Kibbutz in Israel for a year to experience a taste of socialist life. Israel’s early economic and domestic and social policies were essentially left-wing and, indeed, to a certain extent, still are.

Essentially, the new propaganda is really just another attempt to prop up the ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’ meme which the Zionists have been trying to push with vigour in an effort to counter the influence that Mearsheimer and Walt’s best-selling book ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ had on the anti-Zionist movement since it was published.

The new propaganda, in the end, does nothing except demonstrate how desperate the right-wing have become in trying to protect Zionism from its inevitable collapse.

Sunday, June 28, 2009


Today Bolt writes a piece on his blog about the how the Iranian police broke up a protest using tear gas and batons. I wrote the following comment in response though I doubt it’ll be published.

Last Friday Bolt, indeed, while you were in Israel, Israeli fascist occupying troops opened fire with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets on unarmed peaceful protesters at the village of Bil'in near Ramallah in the West Bank.

No doubt you'll be reporting this in your forthcoming feature article about your visit to Israel.

I won't hold my breath.

The hypocrisy in this is two-fold. Bolt is quite happy to jump on the bandwagon of Western propaganda against the Iranian government but ignores entirely the years of Israeli police and IDF violence against protesting Palestinians and Israelis.

The other hypocrisy is just another example of Bolt’s projection propaganda technique whereby he accuses others of being what he actually is himself; in this case he labels the Iranian leaders as ‘fascists’ thereby attempting to deflect the fact that he is a fascist himself.

Typical Bolt propaganda.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009


Janet Albrechtsen, a Murdoch propagandist with ‘The Australian’ newspaper and one of Australia’s most ardent anti-democracy practitioners, has attempted to talk about the merits of ‘democracy’ relative to events in Iran.

She comes unstuck straight away when she told a group of German school kids that “Australia was one of the world’s oldest continuing democracies”. Blogger ‘Daoud’ soon put her right, telling her:

“Janet, Australia is not one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies. Do you know Aboriginals only had the right to vote in 1967… This was along time after countries such as New Zealand and Norway gave all their citizens the right to vote.”

‘Daoud’ then went on to provide Albrechtsen with a perspective that she had conveniently overlooked when discussing democracy in Iran:

“I find it terribly sad that right wingers like yourself critisise Iran, which is arguably one of the most democratic countries in the middle east after Iraq and Lebanon, and fail to critisise your favourite allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Yeman, Oman et al which are some of the most brutal autocratic regimes in the world.”

Well said ‘Daoud’.

Sunday, June 21, 2009


For the right-wing Western media it is really unimportant who won the election in Iran; the important thing is that the resulting turmoil, chaos, and deaths works against the ruling Mullah’s and in favour, no matter how little, of the right-wing of Israel and the US and their supporters in Iran. Greg Sheridan, a Murdoch propagandist with The Australian newspaper, sums it up: “In many ways, a savagely weakened Iranian regime is the best result Israel and the US could have wished for.” Democracy per se, as far as the right-wing are concerned, actually has very little to do with it as long as it’s a good ‘result for Israel and the US’.

It’s quite clear that the reaction to the announcement of the results of the election were planned in advance well before the election took place. Some pre-election polls had Ahmadinejad well in front by some 2-1 so the outcome, contrary to what the Western media would have us believe, wasn’t exactly a surprise to anyone.

However, since the likely outcome was not entirely unexpected, it gave the opposition an opportunity to plan a false claim to election victory, a claim which they voiced as soon as the polls closed. And then when the results were announced, they simply cried ‘foul’. All of this has been helped along by the right-wing Western media who supported the opposition’s claims by focusing the news on the opposition’s rallies and demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and ignoring the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies which were on some occasions much bigger than those of the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi. So desperate were the Western media to push the pro-Mousavi cause they even, on at least one occasion, actually claimed that pictures of a massive pro-Ahmadinejad rally were of a pro-Mousavi rally.

It’s quite clear that agent provocateurs have been employed to push along the oppositions agenda. They have encouraged the violence on all sides by provoking the police and by setting fire to buses, cars, motorbikes and buildings. The Western media have claimed that the authorities have violently cracked down on dissenting demonstrators when in fact they have been cracking down on those that have set fires and been running riot. The vast majority of both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi demonstrators have been peaceful. It is only the anti-Mullahs professional agent provocateurs that have stirred up the trouble by running riot and setting the fires and claiming to be supporters of Mousavi.

For the right-wing of the US and Israel, as Murdoch propagandist Greg Sheridan infers, it doesn’t matter whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi end up getting the nod, nor does it matter how many Iranians have to die in the process, the important thing is that it stirs up trouble for the Mullahs.

For the Israelis it’s just another step along the road toward their final confrontation with Iran.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009


Murdoch’s bloggers in Australia somehow think that supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi who ran against President Ahmadinejad in last Friday’s election in Iran will be good for the Zionists of Israel and be one in the eye against the Mullahs of Iran as they pursue their war against Islam.

For days ever since the election, Murdoch’s loons have been barracking hard for Mousavi in the mistaken belief that in doing so it could lead to ‘regime change’ in Iran. It’s only now that it is dawning on them that, regardless of who the election is handed to, the Mullahs will remain the ultimate power in Iran and that the only difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is over the economy and some other domestic issues. The people of Iran will continue to support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian people against Israeli aggression and will continue to support the Mullahs in their quest to generate nuclear energy.

Bolt and Blair seem to have absolutely no idea of what is actually going on in Iran at the moment.

Thursday, June 11, 2009


The only difference between Andrew Bolt, an Australian Murdoch propagandist and blogger at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, and James Von Brunn, the white supremacist Nazi who shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial in the US, is that Andrew Bolt supports Zionism whereas Von Brunn is also an anti-Semite and, therefore, also sees anything that has connections to Israel and Jews, including neoconservatism, as something to be scorned. As a Zionist supporter, on the other hand, Bolt supports neoconservatism but otherwise has similar views towards other non-white peoples as Von Brunn has; both, indeed, are white supremacists.

Like many extreme right-wingers, Bolt and his entourage of bloggies don’t see them selves as extremists but, instead, delude themselves into believing that they are representative of most ‘ordinary’ people. As such, they prefer to detach themselves from labels such as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ and for the last couple of days Andrew Bolt has been making frantic efforts to distance himself even further from these labels.

One method used by the extreme right-wing to deflect the use of labels against them is to inappropriately label the left with those same labels. A classic example of this is their continued deceit regarding those that are anti-Zionist whom they label as being ‘anti-Semite’. While anti-Semites by definition would be anti-Zionist, it does not follow that anti-Zionists are anti-Semite; indeed, there are many anti-Zionists that are actually Jewish and who clearly are not anti-Semite. The right-wing in this case are simply trying to blur the differences between Semitism, which is simply a racial descriptor (just as Nordic is sometimes used as a descriptor for northern Europeans or Negroid is used as a descriptor for peoples of African origin) and Zionism which is a political ideology and has nothing to do with race per se. However, like Nazism which is also a political ideology that had racial connotations inasmuch that it excluded Jews and other peoples the ideology deemed inferior, the ideology of Zionism generally precludes those that are not Jews either by religion, religious birthright, race or racial birthright or conversion.

Some misguided extreme right-wingers (such as Bolt bloggie ‘markusbondi’ commenting on Fri 12 June 09 at 09.14am) even try to deflect being labelled right-wing racist extremists and cast in the same barrel as Nazis by suggesting that Nazis were really socialists because they called themselves ‘National Socialists’ who, according to ‘markusbondi’, apparently “implemented socialist policies”. To ensure the deflection is complete ‘markusbondi’ adds that these ‘socialist policies’ are “not unlike what the Greens want to implement right now”. What stops this nonsense from being merely laughable is the fact that there are some people around who are dumb and gullible enough to actually believe this stuff.

And it is this that brings us back full circle as far Murdoch’s propagandists are concerned. Bolt himself would never get away with writing this nonsense in so many words as ‘markusbondi’ has, however, because Bolt runs his column as a blog, people like ‘markusbondi’ are invited, even encouraged, to strut their paranoid nonsense thus reflecting Bolt’s owns views without Bolt actually having to say it.

When something happens like the killing at the Holocaust museum by someone who is just as much a racist as Bolt is, then Bolt and his followers become desperate to the point of confusion as to how to deal with it without looking like neo-Nazis and racists themselves. The easiest way out for them is to simply use deceit though the only people in the end that they end up deceiving is invariably themselves.

The comment I left at Bolt's Blog - which, of course, is unlikely to be published - went like this:

You're clearly quite confused aren't you Bolt? And your frantic efforts to disassociate yourself from the likes of the Nazi lunatic James Von Brunn will not succeed in making you any less a white supremacist and racist. The only difference between the two of you is that he's an anti-Semite whereas you're pro-Zionist; otherwise there is no difference - no matter how hard you try to spin you're way out of it.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


Andrew Bolt, the Australian racist journalist and blogger at Murdoch’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper in Melbourne, has today shown his support for the racist neo-Nazi ‘British National Party’ which has recently won a couple of seats in the European Parliament.

Apparently, the fascist and racist Nick Griffin was giving a press conference at Westminster when some anti-fascist demonstrators pelted him with eggs thus effectively ending the press conference. One of the demonstrators, Donna Guthrie from the Unite Against Fascism organisation then gave an interview to the BBC explaining why they demonstrated against Griffin and his fascist thugs in the way that they did. Bolt defends the fascist’s right to what he called ‘freedom of speech’.

Bolt, a fascist and racist himself, believes that these people deserve the right to peddle their sick politics of racist hate. Bolt, no doubt, would have equally defended Hitler’s right to free speech had Bolt been in Germany at the time.

The right to freedom of speech is one thing, but the abuse of that right in order to ferment racial hatred is something else. Bolt’s support of the fascists shows exactly where his sentiments lay.

Friday, June 5, 2009


Tim Blair, a Rightoid conspiracy theorist, attempts to childishly debunk reality but ends up showing himself up as a loser at his blog here when he attempts to delete reality.

For those that have arrived here from Tim Blair’s blog, this is what Blair deleted:

RebeccaH, Stormbringer did not see the two 747’s that crashed into WTC 1 and 2. And nor did you or any one else.

The aircraft that flew into these buildings were both twin-engined 767’s; not four-engined 747’s. Furthermore, the gigantic fire was nothing more than a free fuel burn-off from ruptured fuel tanks. The fire certainly was nowhere near fierce enough to bring down the entire building into its own footprint as the official conspiracy theory that you and your fellow dumb and gullible right-wing conspiracy theorists believe. Not only that, but we are also asked to believe that this happened three times on the same day. And the third time was to a building that wasn’t even hit by an aircraft.

There are none as blind as those that are too thick to think for themselves.