Friday, February 26, 2010


Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne, Australia, ‘Herald-Sun’ newspaper (owned by who else but Rupert Murdoch), wrote in his column today that “If Israel killed Mabhouh, it was… because of the threat he posed to the lives of Israelis today”.

Based on Bolt’s logic, one could argue that, if it’s OK to assassinate people that are a threat to you, then it would be OK for Hamas to assassinate, say, Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel’s chief of staff, on account of the threat he poses to the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Not only does this sorry excuse for an Australian support the notion of targeted assassinations, but he actually criticises those that speak out against the practise. If this Murdoch-paid racist lunatic had his way, he’d no doubt be happy to extra-judicially execute all of the West’s enemies – particularly if they happen to be Muslims and better still if they’re in Australia if the way he relentlessly demeans and vilifies Islam in Australia is anything to go by.

Bolt wrote: “Fraser’s [referring to Malcolm Fraser, a former Australian Prime Minister] suggestion that Jews are just trading on the Holocaust dead is morally despicable, and bordering on anti-Semitism.”

What Fraser actually was quoted as saying was, “the Jewish state could no longer use the Holocaust as an excuse to justify state-sanctioned murder, and criticism of its policies should not be dismissed as anti-Semitism”.

Clearly, Fraser was not referring to ‘Jews’ generally as Bolt asserts but to the ‘Jewish State’, the Zionist State, whose apparatchiks have indeed invoked the Holocaust to justify killing their enemies claiming that such killings are aimed at preventing another ‘holocaust’. The reality, of course, is that Mabhouh, who certainly did buy arms for Hamas, was not doing so in order to create another ‘holocaust’ but simply to defend Palestinians in the Gaza Strip from the Israelis that frequently invade and indiscriminately kill civilians in the Gaza.

Fortunately, most Australians don’t go along with Bolt’s Islamophobic and other blatantly racist nonsense, but it’s unfortunate that the vocal few that do support him and several others of Murdoch’s propagandists are the ones that are bringing Australia’s reputation as a successful multicultural society into disrepute.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


Andrew Bolt, together with a motley collection of Australia’s leading racists and white racism deniers that included Janet Albrechtsen, John Stone, John Herron, David Flint, Bob Carter, Gavin Atkins and John Howard, gathered in Sydney last night to celebrate race theoretician Keith Windschuttle’s third attempt at denying that there was institutionalised racism against Aboriginal people. Bolt was there to launch Windschuttle’s latest book on the subject entitled ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume 3: The Stolen Generations’.

Bolt, who thinks that white Australian racism is a myth, (I kid you not! See here) and his racist mates have embarked on a concerted effort to prove that, not only are white Australians not racist and never have been, but that white Australians, who Bolt has jingoistically labelled ‘Skips’, are actually being racially discriminated against by non-whites and non-Australian born foreigners in Australia.

What is emerging is a co-ordinated and somewhat transparent effort by extreme right-wing racists to promote racism in Australia by claiming that white Australians are the real victims of racism. Using all the propaganda power they are able to muster, they have attempted to marginalise non-white immigrants by accusing them of coming to Australia to deliberately target white Australians and the white Australian way of life. One of their ilk, the paranoid racist propagandist Piers Akerman, another racist that thinks the stolen generation is a myth, even accused foreign-born Islamists in Australia of having deliberately lit the Victorian bushfires of last year.

The one positive that comes from their racist rantings is the fact that, rather than denying that white racism exists in Australia, the denial itself is so obviously racist that it reinforces the notion that white Australian racism does exist and, indeed, is as strong today as it was in the old White Australia Policy days of yesteryear.

Fortunately, the main bulk of Australia has moved on from the views of these racist dinosaurs and can see through their racist propaganda. Their racist views do not go anywhere near representing the vast majority of real Australians – whether they were born here or not and regardless of the colour of their skin, their religion or their culture.

Friday, February 19, 2010


...and I don't mean Al Gore!

Tim Blair writes:

A friend, the owner of a blue heeler, emails:

“There’s a hole in our floor due to the renovations. Last night, a small, speckled dove came up through the hole, to have a little look around. Lasted exactly 15 seconds: there was a blue streak, an explosion of feathers, and my daughter burst into tears. Was excellent.”

It isn’t often you get nature lessons of that quality without leaving the house.

The idea of a blue heeler tearing a pigeon apart and having one very upset child witness it is one thing. To then say the bloody killing and having a traumatised daughter 'was excellent' is something else.

For Blair to then relate the story to the public as some kind of positive thing is something else yet again. It tells us a lot about both Blair and his friend.

The response from Blair’s bloggies is predictable.

Sick people.

Thursday, February 18, 2010


Australia’s leading racist, Andrew Bolt of the Murdoch-owned Herald-Sun in Melbourne, wrote today that ‘racist thugs are obviously targeting Australian’s, and not Indians’.

Bolt bases this nonsense on an article in ‘The Age’ newspaper also in Melbourne which said:

People born overseas are less likely to be assaulted than those born in Australia according to new Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
The national survey found that those born in Australia were more than twice as likely to be the victim of a physical assault.
It showed an assault rate of 3.6 per cent for Australian-born people, or 445,000 victims, compared with an assault rate of 1.7 per cent, or 82,000, for those born in other countries.

Bolt neglects to mention that nowhere in the report was there any mention of the assaults being racially motivated, only that the statistics come at a time when the debate over assaults against Indians still rages. In fact the report went on to say that:

77 per cent of female victims - as opposed to half of males - knew the offender, with just under half of the assaults occurring in the home.

But for Bolt all this translates to Australian-born Aussies being attacked by foreigners. His assertion that ‘racist thugs are obviously targeting Australian’s, and not Indians’ is not supported at all by the evidence he himself is quoting.

Bolt hopes that his readers will just take his word for it without thinking about the reality. It’s amazing how many ways Bolt tries to use racism in order to actually promote racism. Inferring that foreign-born Australians are ‘racist thugs’ is actually a racist slur in itself. But then, everyone knows what a racist thug Bolt actually is.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


Australian neocon writer and Murdoch propagandist Greg Sheridan has advocated that Israel should bomb Iran though he concedes that there is little chance that they actually will. He claims that “there is really no doubt that Iran has a program designed to produce nuclear weapons.” The reality is; there is a great deal of doubt. There is no actual evidence at all that Iran has any nuclear weapons program. All that there has been is rhetoric and propaganda. Even the US intelligence community in 2007 couldn’t find any. And nor have they found any since. However, this hasn’t stopped the war drums from beating ever louder. And Greg Sheridan is now playing his part in beating those drums.

Israel will not be attacking Iran unilaterally though there is a good chance that it will make the first strike by launching a small raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities which will then be followed up by a full-on assault against Iran’s defences and government institutions by the US with the claim that the US has had no alternative but to support Israel in order to prevent any retaliatory strike by Iran against Israel.

Because of the possibility of retaliatory strikes via Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Israel is likely to launch pre-emptive strikes against both at the same time as it strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities. In this way it will seem as though Israel has acted unilaterally to start the war and then the US has had to join in to protect Israel. This lets Obama off the hook from the point of view of American public opinion which would never support a US pre-emptive strike against Iran but would support a strike if it were to prevent Israel being attacked by Iran.

In order for this ploy to work, it must be made to look as though Israel had attacked Iran without US prior knowledge. This is where the plan comes unstuck. There is absolutely no way that Israel could possibly launch an attack against Iran without US connivance. Israel would need to have massive amounts of military jet fuel to mount such an operation; fuel that it would have to order from the US. Since military jet fuel has a limited shelf life, there is no way that Israel could order fuel discreetly in small batches for stockpiling. Bunker-busting bombs would also need to be ordered from the US. Then there is the problem of trying to get permission to overfly various countries in order to get from bases in Israel to targets over Iran and have tanker refuellers circling over foreign airspace to refuel the strike aircraft. This would be impossible without the US knowing about it.

The bottom line is: Any strike against Iran, even if it seems that Israel struck the first blow, would be a joint assault by the US and Israel.

Sheridan writes: “The truth is that history is littered with states behaving irrationally and pursuing irrational ends, and doing so in often self-destructive ways.” Never a truer word has Sheridan written!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


Garry Morgan, executive chairman of Roy Morgan Research, one of Australasia’s most respected pollsters, has recently accused News Ltd’s Newspoll owned by Rupert Murdoch of deliberately allowing Newspoll figures to be published knowing them to be in error. In other words; Newspoll have been caught fudging the numbers to suit their political agenda.

According to Gary Morgan, in a poll conducted early in November last year Newspoll claimed that coalition support had jumped 7% while ALP support had dropped 7%. Such a large margin of change, coupled with another figure showing the Consumer Confidence Rating going up in contradiction to what one would normally expect given Newspoll’s numbers, should have rung alarm bells that in turn should have led to another poll being taken straight away said Gary Morgan. This did not happen and News Ltd went ahead and published the false figures.

Furthermore, not only were the ‘rogue’ figures published, but figures that showed strong support for Labor regarding their policies about ‘boat people’ refugees were not published.

Morgan said, “That pollsters and those that publish the polls have a responsibility to report the facts and the truth”. He went on to say that, “Polls and their publishers should not seek to set the agenda by selectively releasing polling data”, and that, “Polls and their publishers are powerful but with that power comes responsibility”.

One wonders how many others of Newspoll’s polls have been fudged.

Murdoch’s NewsLies strikes again.