Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Protocols Of The Elders Of The Academic Left


Stuart Rees (of the War and Jew Affairs Department of Sydney University)  has attacked Malcolm Turnbull for not being Abbott or Prime Minister or something and absolutely committed to the Green/Far Left agenda like Stuart. 

Turnbull has no vision, you understand. Unlike Stuart Rees who is stuffed full of vision. He has vision coming out of every orifice.  

You have to make allowances for Stuart. He's a "left" wing academic. He has written off Tony Abbott but he  knows a fresh enemy on the horizon from the scent alone. Turnbull once worked for Goldman Sachs. Enough said. For Johan Galtung, guru of Rees' creed,  Malcolm may as well be a Jew. He's already an instrument of the Protocols.  

This is the academic "left". What dark and scary places the inside of their heads must be. Full of cobwebs, cockroaches and conspiracies. 

Here is the article:

Myths About Malcolm Being In The Middle: The Q&A Test

By Stuart Rees
The rise and rise of Malcolm Turnbull risks being punctuated by a realisation of what he actually stands for, writes Stuart Rees.
ABC Television’s Monday night Q&A program provides a stage for politicians, plus other, usually more erudite commentators, to give headline-worthy opinions on current economic and social issues.
When appearing on ABC’s Q&A programme on February 16t, and given the turmoil surrounding Prime Minister Abbott, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull must have known that he would have to pretend that he did not want to displace his leader.
That dilemma is not entirely his fault. Numerous pollsters and journalists have created a myth that Malcolm is obviously leadership material, but his performance on that Q&A program suggests the supposed leadership qualities are, at best, exaggerated.
Following the last question from a member of that Q&A audience - concerning the panel members’ visions for Australia’s future – presenter Tony Jones did not immediately turn to Malcolm, so he had more than enough time to craft his answer.
When his time came, Malcolm’s vision amounted to a hoary old set of platitudes plus the familiar jousting about the budget with the representative of the Labor Party. Vision ? We waited.
If he had given a thought about a more socially just Australia, Malcolm would have removed his Goldman Sachs glasses and talked about raising revenue through economic re-distribution. ‘I’d abolish negative gearing, I’d stop taxing Trusts as companies, I’d reduce the discount on capital gains and I might even consider broadening the base of the GST. Despite my advancing age,’- self deprecating humour always at hand in the Malcolm lexicon – ‘I’d reduce the over-generous tax concessions on superannuation, currently estimated to cost over $50 billion by 2016-2017.’ [ my emphasis ]
Goldman Sachs glasses? What a very odd way of describing a political outlook. Very odd. Who would think of it?
I suggest someone with a long memory for names of a certain type and a taste for Nordic conspiracy. There must be hundreds of investment/merchant banks in the world. Many of them are huge.  But only one has a name like Goldman Sachs. 
The stuff you see when you haven't got a can of spray paint.
A long wail about why a professional politician has to tread carefully about "vision" (read "policy") when he hasn't yet got the job and then an even longer wail about why he didn't take the opportunity to parrot the policies of the academic green far left. 
Malcolm Turnbull  had a brilliant and varied career before politics. . Barrister, journalist, media corporate lawyer, founded a law firm,  founded an investment bank (with Nicholas  Whitlam and Neville Wran) and ... and 
Here's a hint.
If he had given a thought about a more socially just Australia, Malcolm would have removed his Goldman Sachs glasses and talked about raising revenue through economic re-distribution.
Goldman Sachs? 
Yep.  Over fifteen years ago, Turnbull was a partner and director of the local unit of Goldman Sachs. The things that stick in the mind 
What the hell has Goldman Sachs got to do with the price of carbon and human rights?
Nothing at all of course in the real world. But this is not the real world. This is a world where academics are capable of saying muck like this.
 I wonder how many of the people who have such strong opinions about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, actually have read it? It is impossible to do it today without thinking of Goldman-Sachs. And here I am in line with Erik Rudström  [a well known conspirationalist)]: it’s hard to believe that the Russian secret police were able to write such an analysis. But that proves nothing, either for or against, moving to the details,
I have not “recommend” the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I have recommended to read it, so you know what you are talking about.
It is extraordinary what sticks in the minds of some people. 
I've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is impossible to do it today without thinking of Johan Galtung. 

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Murdering Words

An article at New Matilda from an Australian academic on something he proves to be very much outside his field. How often do you see that?
In this case the something is freedom of speech. Also geopolitics and the notion of racism.
As a consequence the professor has flung one of the laziest smears of racism that you will see anywhere.The logic will astound you. 
He does not leave it at that. He makes this reflex allegation in a piece in which he contends that freedom of speech is stunted for some by the Prime Minister because Abbott is exercising his right to respond in full force to critiques. Doing his job, anyone else would say. Just as every other PM has since time immemorial. This is called liberal democracy. Fortunately there is still quite a lot of it around.
This is a complaint that the principle of free speech in Australia is warped and restricted by prejudice in an article where the writer smears the PM as a racist. With respect, the professor has had an irony bypass. So many of them have.The very presence of his piece disproves his point. How often do you see that?
How else to explain a phenomenon like Noam Chomsky, for instance. His malign influence in the West is confined to the universities, wider elsewhere, but no one can deny he flourishes under the political culture he has spent a long and prolific career denouncing. His very presence disproves everything he says. There is some kind of dead hand over the minds of the intellectual and academic left that blinds out entirely the main points. 
Part of the problem with the academic left has to be that they have breathed in the freedoms and virtues of our political culture so deep into their bones for so long and for so many generations they have long forgotten the meaning of powerful ideas such as freedom of speech. The abundance and fortune of fresh air freedom has gone to the head. The free air is invisible so it is completely out of mind.  
They need to get out more or something. 
A reply, slightly edited, follows. Here is the  article.

Freedom In Abbott's Australia: Did Someone Say Racism?

By Carl Rhodes

It seems freedom of speech is a pretty subjective thing in Team Australia, suggests Professor Carl Rhodes.
There has a lot been said in 2015 about freedom of speech. In the wake of the Hedbo massacre in Paris pundits and politicians have been hailing it as a central value of democracy.
Never one to pass up on the opportunity to breathe life into his faltering ratings in the opinion polls, Tony Abbott stepped up with vigour. Condemned were the ‘Islamists’ for their hatred of democratic freedom.
Even more recently, after bullets were showered over a Copenhagen café hosting satirical cartoonist Lars Vilks, Abbott was on the front foot proclaiming that “the Copenhagen attack is an affront to one of our most fundamental values - freedom of speech”.
Abbot is clearly making a distinction between who he sees as the ‘us’ and the ‘them’. When he speaks of ‘our’ values it is quite clear who is included and excluded by this possessive pronoun.
When Stephen Hicks shot and killed three Muslim students in the United States earlier this month, Abbott was not rushing to the press gallery to condemn terrorism. He was silent.
The freedom Abbott speaks of appears only to be one that is to be directed against terrorists who he can associate with Islam. Terrorism in Africa and Pakistan is off Abbott’s radar. So is the Islamic condemnation of what he refers to with rhetorical flourish as the ‘Islamic State death cult’.
Did someone say racism? Abbott stands up proud and righteous when condemning Islamic terrorists, but there is no comment when it comes to white terrorists. It seems that the freedom of speech that Abbott himself exercises is most selective. It is reserved for defending Western victims against non-western terrorists.
Continues here.

Posted Friday, February 20, 2015 - 17:49

This is the most sustained, confused piece on the idea of freedom of speech in recent memory..
Nothing in it makes any sense at all. It is striking how often you can say that about an article written by an academic on something even marginally outside their field. It is even more striking that so many attempt it. That alone inspires ungenerous speculation. Why do they do that?  
Let us be clear about this. Freedom of speech does not imply some sort of right to be indulged. Speak up by all means. By doing so you may be confirming only that you are an idiot. Others have the right and freedom to say so and why. That is not a curtailment of your freedom. What you appear to be suggesting is that your freedom of speech depends on somebody else's being suppressed.  
What is this? Freedom of speech for you and those you agree with but not for any critics? Otherwise your freedoms are impinged? Your critiques are good.The PM's, doing his job, and calling it as sees it, are bad?  
Freedom of speech does not infer an obligation on others to take you seriously or even to listen. Speak out if you want. Whether anyone takes any notice of you is their business and theirs alone. If they and the government choose to ignore you, outside of some formal process, then that is entirely their prerogative.
Freedom of speech does not create an obligation to speak.  Perhaps you think Abbott should have said something about that terrible crime in North Carolina but the fact he did not hardly has anything to do with freedom of speech. How on earth do you figure it has? Whose? His? Yours?
Once you raise the North Carolina crime then you have lost the argument. You have merely confirmed you have nothing on the subject worth hearing; and this is an exercise of the freedom to say so. Suck it up or ignore it. The choice is entirely yours. No offence but no one else cares. This is known as freedom. .
The crime in the US, as shocking as it was, was committed by some hateful gun nut against people he knew. Neighbours. What exactly motivated this known nutter may emerge in the trial but it isn't difficult to imagine some form of hatred played a role. But what  truly distinguishes it from the crimes of political Islam is that the monster was immediately grabbed by the state, taken out of circulation and will be subjected to the full force of due process that, this  being North Carolina, will likely mean that  the killer will be on trial for his life.
No one is speaking up in his defence. No one is trying to explain, understand, excuse or justify this crime. Of course he will have a lawyer at trial who will do her important job. However this is a man who has seen his last sun. He is buried forever in one way or another. 
To pick out this single event from abroad and present it as some kind of counterweight to the daily dump of atrocities committed in the sweep of political Islam across the globe has to be some kind of fresh genus of delusion. Maybe an old delusion driven to a new height. Abbott ignored this horrible crime because it is irrelevant to what he was talking about.
Terrorism in Afghanistan and Africa are not under anybody's radar.  On the contrary.There too, terrorism is savage and rampant, also driven by Islamist ideology that inspire gangs and insurgencies that have put Australian service personnel  in harm's way for years. Whose radar is that under? 
The suggestion that Abbott is a racist because the killer in North Carolina was a "white man", and his victims Muslims, is actually disgraceful. This lazy, unthinking smear is the turd icing on a cockroach cake. Loose allegations of racism, like loose allegations of antisemitism, are contemptible.
This is a loose allegation of racism if there ever was one. 
An unhelpful contribution at a bad time. There is something very unpleasant going down in our universities. It's about time it was called. 

cross post  Israel Thrives

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Krazy Kartoon Korner.


If you are an Australian it is likely you do not know this.

A  Palestinian man from the West Bank town of Tulkarm stabbed a dozen commuters early Wednesday morning in a terrorist attack on a No. 40 bus in central Tel Aviv.
At least four of the victims – including the bus driver, who struggled with the attacker – were listed in serious condition, while at least three others were moderately wounded, according to Magen David Adom paramedics. 

 During initial questioning, [the mad terrorist perp] said he had purchased the knife in Tulkarm and carried out the stabbing spree after entering Israel illegally.
He said he had been driven by last summer’s conflict in Gaza, unrest on the Temple Mount, and watching extremist Islamist content that glorifies “the reaching of heaven,” ...
[killer perp] was taken for treatment at a local hospital after his arrest. A remand hearing took place in his absence at the Tel Aviv courthouse on Wednesday.

Fair enough you might think.  Just another mad Middle East thing involving the usual suspects. No one killed, not even the mad killer, so no news here.

Except note this. There was no intelligence on the attack.  The perp is a twenty three old nobody with no criminal history, unknown to police with no evidence of any connection to Islamic Jihad, ISIL,  Hamas, Hezbollah or any of the other murder gangs (although all praised the attack and the "hero" responsible).   

Sound familiar?

So why did he do it? Listen to the man.

Here's a hint about motivation if not motive. Look to the cartoons. The Muslim Arab worlds take cartoons very seriously indeed. Most Muslims do, apparently.

This little ripper was on the "Palestinian street", via Twitter and Facebook, within ninety minutes of the attack. A smiling terrorist is holding a bloody knife and praising the attack, which at the time was reported to have wounded 10 people.

The figure stands in front of a sign that reads “Occupied Tel-A-rabia,” a play on the words Tel Aviv, and a bus with the route number of the target bus and a Jewish star. Blood is depicted pouring from the doors and onto the street.

Brought To You By Palestinian Media. 
The "Moderates" of Palestinian Politics 

Posted by the Palestinian Shehab agency, a smiling cartoon knife. Text, “Good morning, Palestine” in Arabic. The blade of the knife forms the Palestinian flag, with the red portion made by blood. 

Behind the cheerful weapon is an Israeli flag covered in blood. 

How cute.

What's that, someone said about offensive cartoons? Here are a few more choice numbers following recent terrorist attacks on innocent people, including one that murdered a woman and a child.
A luxury car with the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the grill of the vehicle and the roof drawn as the Dome of the Rock. The text reads:  Killing of an Israeli by a running-over operation in Jerusalem. It specifically references the murder of a Druze police officer on November 5.

Text under the cartoon: "#Da'es (i.e., 'run over') - a new hashtag" 
[Facebook, "The Palestinian National Liberation Movement - Fatah,"
Nov. 6, 2014

A terrorist accelerates towards a bloodied Star of David ie a Palestinian terrorist purposely targets Jews with his car. In the background, the dome of the Al-Aqsa mosque is seen in grey.  The text commands: Step on it and revenge Jerusalem. It includes a religious hashtag in Arabic ...

It is not Hamas that broadcasts this. It is Western backed Fatah. The PA, that the Australian Labor Party would have recognised as "Palestine" had it been in charge of Australia's UNSC vote a few weeks ago.

New Zealand would have. NZ is now on the Security Council and just itching for its chance on the world stage to be seen sticking it to Israel and the Jews. After all, what's a few more murdered Jews in the bigger scheme of things? 

On and on it goes. The internet is full of it.

Here's my personal favourite

An Israeli soldier about to rape the Al-Aqsa Mosque portrayed as a woman in jail posted by the National Security Forces of the Palestinian Authority. A woman is weeping in a prison cell while an Israeli soldier is undoing his pants outside the cell, saying: "Come on, sweetheart." The woman is wearing a headdress shaped as the Dome of the Rock. The cartoon has the text: "Daily cartoon: Al-Aqsa is being raped."  

The IDF soldier is depicted as a hideously ugly, hook nosed Jew, of course. The sort of thing that would have done rabid non-antisemite, Mike Carlton, proud. 

The cartoon appears while tension is high in Jerusalem and Palestinian officials are repeatedly telling Palestinians that Jerusalem and its Muslim holy places are in danger.

Which brings us full circle. Why did a superstitious pig ignorant no body from no where try to murder with a knife as many people as he could on a bus in Tel Aviv a few days ago?

He said he had been driven by last summer’s conflict in Gaza, unrest on the Temple Mount, and watching extremist Islamist content that glorifies “the reaching of heaven,” ...

Pig ignorant, murderous, hate filled, fascist ideology. Coming soon to a street near you. Look out for more Mohammed cartoons. Nip them in the bud. You wouldn't want to offend anybody.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Rampant Racism From The Left --- Situation Normal


This is just plain sad. 

An Australia Day racist attack on Australia and Australians delivered to you fresh and clean by New Matilda  on Australia Day.  An attack on all Australians, no matter their colour or "race" . I would reckon this writer has been nursing this little article for some time. 

How very sad.

The blog's response is below. I could have added that no one is responsible for crimes committed before they were born. You are responsible only for what you do in your own life. It is astonishing and disturbing that this needs to be said at this point in the advance of humankind. 

What is going wrong?

26 Jan 2015

Waving the White Flag

By Liz Conor
For Liz Conor, January 26 is a day for set aside for reflection. And avoiding large crowds. And people draped in flags.
Out in the park there is an unscooped dog poo with a tiny Australian flag toothpicked into it. This delicately placed little ensign has given me nationalist yearnings on this, Australia Day. ‘That’s the spirit’, I find myself thinking.
I am bracing for another day of fatuous flag waving by white Australians on Australia Day. In years past, Australian flag wavers have all been white people. Every. Last. One I Saw. The media was, of course, at pains to show Australians of non-Anglo descent under the Cronulla Cape. They embodied Multiculturalism, and shrinking parts of our media still make an effort at being inclusive. Good try.
But it wasn’t representative.
Last year I took a broad survey looking behind the windscreens of every flag-bearing hearse, I mean car, from here to Angelsea, noting all the beach flag paraphernalia on the way. How well our navy blue goes with alabaster, freckled and scorched complexions.
Posted Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - 02:08
This flag waving thing is a recent development. There was none of this, or the boozing, forty years ago. I don't get out much I guess but I didn't even notice this phenomenon until a few years ago.
Around here, there were no yobbos in sight. Heaps of Aussie flags everywhere and the parks full of families having BBQ's and picnics. I did not notice what colour or race they were but I'm pretty certain they were the usual mix. The indigenous Australian lady who has been a carer for one of my frail and elderly parents for some years did not seem to wince too much when he wished her a happy Australia Day. 
Having said this I have to say this piece disturbs me deeply for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it is racist. I'm a white Australian. No one would pick me on sight as any different at all from any other white Australian.   A bit better looking I guess but that is about the sum of it. Yet I don't need to hear any stories about massacres, genocide and second or third class citizenship from anybody, no matter who they are, to know what we are talking about.
There is a real danger in dwelling in and reliving the horrors of the past.  You must put that in its own compartment for your own sake but just as important as that you have a duty to not give the arseholes a posthumous victory.  Nor their present day successors. The best revenge is to rise above them.
Do not defame Australia. That is sad and wrong. None of us has any responsibility for the circumstances of our birth and to attribute any to some one else on that count alone is just plain disgusting no matter who you are talking about.
When you talk about Australia look at how it is today. It is idiotic and defamatory to transplant the past on to the here and now no matter how much you might dislike the boozy yobbos and flag waving parties.  
Worse even than that, it is highly offensive to other Australians, including me, who are from families that for certain haven't been around as long as yours,  but who have been through the grinder a few times in defence of the place over quite a few generations  from the Western Front  to the Burma Railway.
I say again, no one is responsible for the circumstances of their birth. But I can tell you something true for nothing. The world is stuffed to the jawbone with places a damn sight worse than Australia to have been born for those of us who have had that enormous and completely undeserved good fortune. 

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Onya Scott (updated)


Here is an Australian politician doing us proud. Telling what needs to be said just now to a foreign audience the way it needs to be said.

Compere: AL JAZEERA Summary ID: W00059934129
MORRISON: I’m sorry. I have to interrupt here. I’m sorry I am not going to sit here and listen to people stupidly suggest that the French or the magazine or anyone brought this on themselves. Are you for real? We have a dozen people dead, killed in the name of a religious belief and you are seriously going to even slightly justify this?

COMPERE: I don’t think anyone is justifying anything here.

MORRISON: Well that’s not what I am hearing. I’m hearing this vaguely worded defence that France shouldn’t have done this and Sarkozy said that two years ago, and if they didn’t draw Mohammed then this might not of happened or whatever. It is obscene and a gutless way of almost saying they all deserved this. Well if you believe that you are about as bad as the idiot who thinks the pretty girl in the short skirt is asking to be raped so she better watch out.

COMPERE: That’s a ridiculous comparison.

MORRISON: Is it ridiculous? Tell me how? It’s the “you were asking for it” way of thinking. Your logic is those who drew the pictures should have known better and should have known what the response would be. Where as I say, if you can’t accept that people have different views to you then maybe the problem is with you if your response is the pull out an AK and go nuts.

COMPERE: Well, the material was designed to offend.

MORRISON: And so what. A lot of what I’ve heard here today has offended me but if you’re civilised, and I think that’s a major issue with some of the people we are talking about, if you are civilised you just get on with it. We shouldn’t have to have special rules for special people.

COMPERE: No-one is suggesting special rules just an understanding that some things are offensive.

MORRISON: So OK, we can have a bit of fun with the Pope, with Buddha, Jesus Christ on the Cross, The Dalai Lama, The Queen, Barack Obama. Want to add to the list? But not anything or anyone associated with Muslims. They’re special apparently. And that’s where all this free speech talk I’m hearing falls to bits. If you defend free speech then you defend offensive speech as well. It’s real easy to stand up for the nice stuff but sometime it gets ugly and if you are fair dinkum, as we say in Australia, you stand for all. Now, I’m not fond of Jesus Christ jokes but if you crack one you shouldn’t fear a few goons showing up with AK47s and shooting everyone in the office dead at their desks. So please, spare me the justification garbage for these terrorists being upset and just responding to provocation. If you think they are even slightly justified for killing people who drew some pictures then I’m afraid you are over in their column.

COMPERE: OK I take your point but if you deliberately set out to offend there are consequences.

MORRISON: Yes there. People might not buy your magazine or you get nasty letters in the mail from upset people but not a dozen of your workmates dead at their desks, and here we are again talking about consequences. It’s back to the same argument as the pretty girl in the bar example. If you think she’s asking to be raped you are, in my view, unfit for civilised society. You are uncivilised and maybe that’s something we should be spending a bit of energy on.

hat tip Uncommon Sense


Who was it who said these beautiful things?

Scott Morrison? Or this guy?
A straight talking politician? I knew it was too good to be true -- damn