When hatred blinds its sufferers

C

haucer—not the great one born in 1343—writes more about the Indonesia/Australia spying revelation that is no revelation to the worldly. The resultant mistrust, however, and deep resentment toward the ABC and its director Mark Scott, is put into a perspective by exposing further collateral damage caused by those who seek to punish the Abbott government for a decisive victory at the polls.

Patriotic and decent Australians can only hope that the damage done to international reputations was an oversight by the zealots and was not a future template of a mind devouring hatred seemingly beyond reclamation.

GC.Ed.@L.

“Pathetic”, describes the rabble of Neanderthals burning cheap computer printouts of the Australian flag outside our Embassy in Jakarta recently.
Equally pathetic was Indonesia’s blackmail attempt to subdue Australia into bootlicking servility—again.

The UK Guardian, the Australian Guardian, Fairfax media, the ABC and SBS, all comrades in lockstep from the dedicated Left, deemed it clever to publish stolen and untested information from an American traitor whose motive, ideology and psychological condition is unknown. Well known, however, is that every mature person on earth understands the need for collecting intelligence in today’s world of terrorism—except the above-mentioned media and ABC director Mark Scott, it seems.

Read on

 

Rebelling Against A Red Media

Front

Keith Topolski looks at how Rob Ford can admit to drug use, yet retain steady approval as Toronto Mayor.

Basic human psychology tells us that people don’t like to be wrong. They don’t like to be told they’re wrong, either.

In 2010, the city of Toronto was a basketcase because it was being used to create a socialist utopia. As Kelly McParland in the National Post writes:

Voters were fed up with eight years of financial profligacy by a left-wing council that treated the city like a cookie jar they could use to finance personal fantasy projects. Grass roofs, bike lanes, taxpayer-financed self-glorifying retirement  parties, legal crusades on the public dime to defend the wounded feelings of oversensitive councillors, an arrogant union environment in which labour bosses assumed they could have their way if they simply issued enough threats.

 Consequently, the mainstream residents of Toronto (that is, anyone whose politics are to the right of Karl Marx) elected Rob Ford as Mayor.

It is worth remembering that, when he was elected in 2010, Rob Ford’s rather questionable personal behaviour was put out for all to see and, yet, he still pulled 47% of the vote, ahead of the preferred candidate of the progressive establishment, who had a spotty record when it came to spending public money.

I raise this because it goes to the heart of why Ford was elected and why progressives despise him with a hatred rivalled only by the intensity with which Fairfax loathes Tony Abbott.

See, Rob Ford is a fiscal liberal in every true sense of the word. He went after the union movement and pulled them in to line. He repealed a $60 car registration tax implemented by the left. He subcontracted out half the city’s garbage collection. He declared Toronto’s transit an essential service, which, under local laws, transit workers were banned from going on strike.

It’s enough to make any conservative shed a tear of joy. And, of course, enough to make any genuine progressive apoplectic.

Which explains why the progressive media (Sorry for the tautology) have made such a big deal out of going after Ford, and why the rest of the media just don’t get the whole debacle.

To properly understand where the concept of Ford Nation comes from, all we have to do is simply look at the electoral map from Rob Ford’s 2010 victory.

As you can see, The pre-1997 edition of Toronto was Marrickville on steroids. However, in 1997 the old Toronto City Council merged with surrounding councils to form a megacouncil which takes in almost all of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Since then, it has been the progressive Marrickville type issues which very few people have time to worry about (And which they wouldn’t care about even if they had the time) dominating inner Toronto, and more mainstream issues, like roads, rubbish, childcare and taxes, which dominate Ford Nation in the suburbs.

This divide has motivated the inner city to try and take back ‘their’ city, and their media arm has pursued Rob Ford to hell and back. I can’t put it any better, so I’ll let Michael Coren of the Toronto Sun say it:

It says a great deal, however, that a mayor of Toronto with more hidden skeletons than Hannibal Lecter can still run the city most efficiently and far more economically than a leftist predecessor who was a squeaky clean gentleman. It’s that, of course, that so irritates the grimy coalition so enraged at Ford.

Contrast this with the rather softer reception Justin Trudeau has had since he admitted, almost proudly, that, as a serving Member of Parliament who is sworn to discharge his duties in accordance with the law,  to puffing on a joint in breach of the law.

No, Justin gets off easy because he’s part of the progressive love-in. Speaking of love-ins, Justin’s old man, Pierre, Canada’s most famous ex-PM, was no slouch in that department, but everyone thought that was adorable for some reason.

No, judging from the coverage of other scandals, it seems Rob Ford’s real crime has been to be a politician who preaches the virtues of small government, and also delivering on a smaller government.

This is where Ford Nation’s loyalty should end, though.

Ford has delivered what he said he would. Surely, now, is the time to let him go.

Well, actually, no. This is simply the Pauline Hanson phenomenon repeating itself.

When Hanson first came onto the scene, she outlined a philosophical framework which was, save for one or two observations about affirmative action, overwhelmingly out there.

Instead of go after the policies, Labor went after the person. And conservative Australians, who had some sympathy for Hanson’s arguments but not enough to vote for her, were pushed into her corner in order to defend her from the bullying of the big bad leftie.

This is exactly the reaction that Ford Nation is having in defending a man who has, really, behaved in an indefensible manner.

The political apparatus working against Rob Ford even includes the Toronto police chief, who made comments which, if were made about any private citizen, would immediately create grounds for mistrials until the apocalypse.

Federal Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair is even trying to link Ford to Stephen Harper over this episode, simply because all conservatives must now be crack smokers if one of them is. Can’t see why that argument wouldn’t stand up.

So it has come to pass that Rob Ford, a man who should now be in rehab and addressing his considerable personal problems, will continue as Mayor, in a diminished capacity, while the leftist media use him for target practice.

I have always believed that voters can forgive most things in politicians, but never hypocrisy.

However, Rob Ford continues as Mayor with the blessing of, what should be, the very type of conservative voters who would hound a drug addicted hypocrite from office.

This is what happens when a broad movement, in this case the Toronto leftie elite, treat average people with contempt.

If the anti-Ford brigade are to have any chance of stopping Rob Ford, incredulously, being returned as Mayor next year, they must ask themselves, in the manner of Michael Sheen’s portrayal of Tony Blair, “How much Why must do they hate us if they like this lot guy more?”

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

Bleating leftists – bad losers


Terpstra

EXCLUSIVE:

Abbott’s daughters can’t win in white

B.P. Terpstra

The feminist Van Badham claims that, “Australians got to see a lot of the Abbott daughters, usually dressed in white, over the course of the campaign.”  Which raises two questions: where’s the evidence. And, does it matter anyway? 

I do feel that some commentators are trying just a tad too hard. 

For example, Research Fellow in the Centre for Memory, Imagination and Invention at Deakin University, Dr Michelle Smith, describes Abbott’s recent victory speech as “striking” because his three daughters were “coordinated in white dresses.” Seriously. 

As the clearly imaginative Smith saw things, “Though the short hemlines and tight fit would be out of place at a Catholic First Communion, the connotations of religious faith and female moral purity were unmistakeable.”

In other words, then, the Abbott daughters look both religious and irreligious. They can’t win! 

Writing for The Guardian, Jeff Sparrow observed that “the Abbott offspring” (his term) “were front and centre at” the “Liberal victory party, parading in virginal white.” 

Still, what choices did they have now? Harlot red? Whorish green? Butch brown? Girlygirl pink? Of course, Laborites wear just plain white, but young Liberal women parade around in “virginal white” stress pop psychologists. 

Reminding us yet again that leftwing women are good at putting other women down, News Limited’s Tory Shepherd tweeted,  “Abbott daughters all in white AGAIN! Is it a virginal thing???” 

For the Abbott women must not wear white, unless they have permission from the hardLeft. After all, it could be construed as both sexual and antisexual, kind of like being both antireligious and religious at the same time.

Not to be outdone, however, web editor, Ben Cohen tweeted: “Abbott’s daughters in matching white virginal dresses is like watching some Mormon convention. But worse.” Yet, like most critics, he didn’t suggest what they should wear and why. 

Underpinning so many of these criticisms, are, of course, deeply held prejudices against both religious parents and their children, regardless of their personal positions. Indeed, it’s a feature of our establishment. 

They could have congratulated Abbott on his historical victory. Instead, they chose to attack his daughters revealing their own gender issues in the process. 

They could have congratulated Abbott’s daughters for joining Tony’s campaign. Instead, they mocked them, as if they were expected to remain behind closed doors. You see, nothing succeeds like hypocrisy in establishment circles. But where’s the outrage? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incitement to hatred from a madman

"Poverty forced them seek a better life." They paid smugglers $80,000.

 

According to Centrelink Child Care Estimator, that family would be entitled about $4,680 per month. That does not include rent assistance and too many other benefits to research and list here.

You, the taxpayer foots the bill for economic refugees and the SBS who presented this beat-up. GC.

Last week a boat carrying economic refugees flipped just 50 metres off an Indonesian beach after setting off for Australia. 

Read more about this story: [Source] Andrew Bolt blog

Media Watch – Paul Barry’s biased bile

The Editor, Menzies House.

Although a bit late, I nonetheless refer to your post October 1 on this site, Blatant bias at your expense—complain like hell.


BarryAs a taxpayer of no small sum, I object “like hell” to the biased nastiness spewed forth by Paul Barry on his ABC Media Watch segment identified in the above story.

What the ABC, and Mr Barry in particular need to understand is that the majority of Australian taxpayers are opposed to leftist ideology and as such are seriously at odds with not all, but most of our ABC’s productions. There is no regard for balance as required in their editorial policy. It is obvious that a cabal of socialist elitists are calling the piper’s tune and us who pays for all.

While the tears of the loser is like honey on the lips of the winners, it is hard not to feel a little tug of sympathy for Paul Barry despite his displayed bias. The cause he promoted, the Party he followed, the religion he worshipped are as nothing now. His global warming God has feet of clay—intransigent.

Its evidence-free world, its constant rewriting, its failed predictions, its laughable explanations for the fact that no rise in temperatures for sixteen years, is now increasingly a joke. Only the unintelligent or those with ulterior interest care about it.

In impotent rage Barry writhes beggingly for someone, it must be a conservative, withour rebattal, to savage on his nine minutes ad nauseam. At first a partly impartial and often humorous examination of other media, but now, and regrettably so, it presents nakedly as the Australian Pravda. Scolding, excoriating, and despairing at people who have an opinion an inch to the right of Stalin.

It is the equivalent of cheap plonk or the syringe for the wailing losers.

His latest target is Alan Jones—a media personality, like him or not, with fifty or sixty times the viewers of Media Watch, a dream they could only hope to claim.

Barry’s ranting done in the approved ABC style, supercilious smiles, pitying remarks, sad shakes of the head. The only thing missing is a shoulder-shimmy, which he dare not while following his pre-written remarks on the teleprompter. Impotence is what he feels and his vitriolic rage is overt.

We have a new government and I do not advocate the disbanding of our ABC because only public funds can support their many fine productions. But I do believe that employees like Mr Barry have lost their way on the pathway of fairness and good journalism. Only his small audience approves.

To be sent packing might be the only way to rid people like Mr Barry of such deep-seated bile that no commercial enterprise would entertain for one moment.

Please comment on my letter.

Sincerely,

Penelope I. M. Pulchritude.

To view Barry's nasty work

David Suzuki and Q&A—who conned who?

New MH2

For a long time Q&A with Tony Jones has been seen as just another ABC production of farce at the majority of taxpayers’ expense. And no finer example was the recent waste of one hour in a person’s life was the occasion of Canada’s global warming guru Dr David Suzuki.

Skating skilfully in and out of the ABC’s editorial policy, Q&A claim to have a balanced audience in equal concoctions of Greens, Labor, and Liberals. Even a lobotomised monkey could fool the selection process about their political bent as they do resulting in a predictable majority of salivating hyenas programmed to dine on conservatives before they utter a word.

Not present that night was the customary “ABC balance” of five from the left versus two from the right as the panel was of Jones and Suzuki alone. Bill Gates was the only other guest to enjoy that importance. The subject was Suzuki’s pet income generator, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the mob that assures us that the planet is stuffed and every bastard on it will be broiled alive or drowned in rising seas.

Attachment-1

Suzuki, an expert on fruit flies, gave wonderful television entertainment back in the 1960s, but his performance on Q&A was akin to a muddled old moose rutting on the Arctic Tundra. Sadly, his ignorance of the subject was astounding.

Suzuki did peddle the current IPCC mantra that 97% of scientists agree that we are the cause of our impending doom. The IPCC’s new/old/rehashed report claims that 97% of scientists say things are much worse than first thought—the lie is perpetuated.

However, questions will arise for IPCC. According to Christopher Monckton, their data files as of May, list 11,944 reports. Of 4,014 summary reports only 64 of those forecast doom and almost half of those express doubts. We can expect a lot more about this as those who seek scientific truth examine the new 5th Assessment. The IPCC should explain exactly how they arrived at their 97% consensus.

Meanwhile, Q&A’s propping up David Suzuki might have been done without instruction of Suzuki’s past about which many observers question his right to self-acclaimed climate authority and benevolence. Dedicating ones life to saving the planet for fellow man is noble—Suzuki tells us that. But his free reign to spout babble virtually unchallenged on Australia’s taxpayer funded airwaves is wrong and just another reason to question the objectivity and viability of the ABC and or its management.

A few years ago Suzuki insinuated that scientists who did not support his theories were mostly promoting large corporations. When asked the basis of his funding, he complained bitterly that “corporations have not been interested in funding us.” That surprised many as the climate scare doctrine was then in its infancy, and uncheckable data was easily swallowed.

However, the David Suzuki Foundation 2006 annual report listed more than 50 corporate donors that read like the “A” list to Bill Clinton’s black-tie dinner. Microsoft, Toyota, IBM, Bell Canada, Warner Brothers, Canon and the Bank of Montreal are just a few that must have slipped the doctor’s mind.

But, in stark contrast to this Gaia embracing rescuer of all mankind was Suzuki’s acceptance of the donor EnCana Corporation, a big player in oil sand development and natural gas bores. ATCO, the largest gas distributor in Alberta donated, as did the Ontario Power Corporation running several coal-burning generator stations and at least three nuclear installations—Suzuki’s avowed planet-wreckers.

In October 2012 Suzuki told students at the John Abbott College in Quebec that society suffers from an unsustainable fixation with money. “Money isn’t what matters,” he trumpeted to spellbound students. Many would wonder at his fee for $30,000 that was paid prior to engagement—saving the world is expensive.

During global warming apex, Suzuki aimed his campaign at children. “Climate change has forced Santa to pack up his sleigh and find a new home,” he told shocked and distraught children on frequent television plugs claiming to be reporting live from the North Pole, “where Santa will live?” Donations for “Santa” were directed to the David Suzuki Foundation where lots of books could be purchased. In fact, the foundation offers eight innovative ways in which donors can provide—via your will is one of them.

Canadian Alex G. Tsakumis wrote, “…It’s the kind of pathetic rubbish that could only come from David Suzuki, a fruit fly biologist by trade, and the reigning doctor of hypocrisy. Like Gore, he has turned the study of climate into a political tool to enrich himself and his foundation. Even his CBC shows, The Nature of Things, were often full of erroneous information.”

Anyway, brace yourselves for yet another round of climate terrorism and skepticism as two mortal enemies do battle. One for control and spending money, the other for truth and saving money.

Agenda 31: First, castrate all the Conservatives

New MH2

Hatched in the social laboratories and classrooms of our tax-funded learning institutions comes the new Politically Correct, Agenda 31—the neutering of common sense.

The fungoid do-gooders have re-branded as Correctionalists and their mission is to neuter the minds of sane people—social conformity. Last week the Labor inspired Agenda 31 had its trial run.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott attributed the Coalition candidate Fiona Scott with “feistiness” and “sex appeal.” Although the nation is poised to decide what may be the most important federal election in a generation, the Correctioalist choristers crowed in high “C”, “Henny Penny the sky is falling.”

Leading that barnyard charge of cloned battery birds was a brain-dead editor at Fairfax who herded writers like Jonathan Swan and Judith Ireland like Christmas chooks to the chopping block. With fingers removed from their readership pulse it’s no wonder Fairfax newspapers are failing with corporate shares at a shameful 55 cents. People have wearied of uniform bias pushed by boring, socialist dunderheads.

Apart from dole bludgers, Centrelink fraudsters and other social dross who believe the taxpayer owes them a living, the halcyon days of correctionalists’ are numbered. With a change of government likely, perhaps we can dispose of the pests that lead us into this cul-de-sac of gormless souls where uniformity is rewarded and enterprise is sabotaged.

Abbott’s remark set a politically desperate prime minister to suggest court action. It was not the foul retort, “get f****d”. The Correctionalists chose to pervert the incident and batter the notion of natural logic from the brains of those who refuse to be controlled by leftist morons pushing long failed Marxist doctrine.

If “Sex appeal” were to become a social sin what do you suppose would happen? What would become of the kindly compliment, words of praise, and acknowledgement of the obvious? Is that what the correctionalists would outlaw?

Here lies another tenet of social control, further nonsense that seeks to ignore how the world functions. Expression, like love, and freedom to choose has always been the subject of personal approval, that’s what makes us different and interesting.

Fairfax Media may have taken a bit of flack from their advertisers who might view an attack upon Tony Abbott as bad for business in a climate of tough times. And why is that you might ask? Well, billions of dollars are spent every day in every country on earth for goods that ameliorate in one way or another that dreadful “sex appeal.”

High heel shoes, designed to make ladies lower legs look sexy. Jeans to show off a bare belly and curvy bottom. Gowns, blouses, and tight jackets accentuate a bust not to mention cleavage. Hairstyles, perfumes, makeup, soaps, and even fake suntans are used for sex appeal. And so it goes.

Then you have the merchants of quality wines, gourmet foods and fine dining, all of which are enjoyed in pursuit of sexually appealing moments—as a rule. The truth is, just about every person on earth appreciates being told they are attractive regardless of gender and sexual proclivity. 

So why would Fairfax run with a story so silly? Perhaps the editor responsible was blinded by dislike of Tony Abbott? Maybe unanimous applause was expected by again exposing the misogynist Abbott? Well, it backfired. Only the Correctionalists cheered the side.

As the election nears, supporters of the left are panicking. Rudd the saviour is not delivering as hoped. Voters are now smarter having been swindled for six years watching policy after policy bite the dust. They are aware of accumulated massive debt. They remember the promises not kept, and many lies told. Labor has created a gun-shy electorate that craves honesty in politics.

Before that happens, however, we must suffer mud slinging and personal insults that cause cringe. Australian voters like never before stand upon the cusp of changing the behaviour of those who seek to govern us. September 7 presents opportunity for us to get even with those who have betrayed our trust.

Even some of the Henny-Pennys in the many leftwing barnyards might see a bright blue firmament, rather than a falling grey sky. It matters little whether they do or not because a Coalition victory will humiliate the Correctionalists dream of an Agenda 31.

Socialism is pie-in-the-sky ideology never worked and never will while individuality prevails. And thus, the Correctionalists will have neutered themselves.

To my furtive imagination that prospect is appealing—a kind of sex appeal. Not for some I suppose – Is it?