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, na├»ve 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.