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.