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

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Defining Who The Jews Are For The Jews At The Conversation.


Yesterday I posted this comment on this discussion thread at The Conversation.

The Jews are a nation.
Why do people like you have so much difficulty absorbing this truth?

18C must go. I have never been more convinced of this than now.

It was a response to a typical antisemitic comment denying the legitimacy and legality of Israel by denying the nationhood of Jews, even in Israel. 

Yesterday the moderators deleted my comment. I do not know the reason for this because they did not say. But they did take the trouble to remind me of the site's "community standards." The original antizionist/antisemitic comment however still stands.

So do these other comments:

Syd Walker

logged in via Twitter
So, we now have it from the pen of a Jewish academic. RDA 18C gives protection to Jews, but not to Muslims. The author seems happy with that - but I for one don't his argument for maintaining a law that's effectively discriminatory at all convincing.
18C should be abolished because it's DISCRIMINATORY.
The real function of 18C is to shield Jewish historiography from public scrutiny. That has been the case from the outset in the mid-1990s when 18C was legislated.
All the rest (eg the travesty of the Bolt case) has been window-dressing.

alan w. shorter

research assistant
In reply to Syd Walker
*The Racial Hatred Act* was passed as part of keating's electoral strategy to build up a "race vote" to compensate for his so repelling so much of labor's base. The *Racial Hatred Act* was an attempt to buy the *Jewish vote* - to turn the very well organized and successful Jewish organizations into grass roots campaigners. And ditto, with the *Indigenous* vote, which he hoped to cement for all time by the multi-billion dollar funding of ATSIC. The Racial Hatred Act was designed to silence any criticisms of Zionism, and of ATSIC. It is very interesting to go back to the time. The Racial Hatred Act was overwhelmingly opposed by liberals, and even by socialists, and other leftists.

I think the Conversation owes me an explanation. I think the Conversation owes us all an explanation. Don't you? So I'm going to ask for one.

The national anthem of the non-nation. Move on please. No Jewish nation here.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The Modern Left? Human Rights And Freedom Of Speech For Me But Not For You


Here's a classic.

An article in New Matilda by Michael Brull which flawlessly demonstrates why the self described modern Left spun out of orbit a long time ago and has no worthwhile place in modern politics, the media or especially the universities and schools. 

Brull, you might recall, is the guy who says that if you are an advocate for women's rights and liberation in Muslim lands then you must be a racist or Islamophobic or something. Even if you are a Muslim. Or a woman. He says this without  the slightest hint of self awareness of how deeply offensive and racist it is. 

What is this? Basic human rights in the West. But not for Arabs in Muslim lands?

Brull's article is about the attack on Charlie, freedom of expression and tolerance.  This is what is most notable about the article and the discussion thread:

* there is no mention at all of the attack on the kosher shop in Paris in the article and virtually none in the comment thread. It is as if it is an entirely unrelated event that didn't happen or it is so irrelevant it can be safely ignored as not fitting the narrative.  The sole comment is so asinine it is laughable. 

*there is no hint of any understanding at all that an attack on the staff of a newspaper is something of a difference of several orders of magnitude to a civil suit for defamation. It is as clear an example of the intellectual crime of moral equivalence that you will see.  

*there is no appreciation at all for the concept of the rule of law. This from an author who says in his bio that he studied a Juris Doctor at a university. I'm not sure what that means but I'm not going to embarrass the university by naming it. 

* how very quickly the comment thread descends into outright Holocaust denial in its vilest and most cowardly form. Some more antisemitic murders in France and an analysis that ignores that fact attracts the ugliest racists with barely a raised eyebrow from the regulars on a leftist site that lays special claim for the human rights of indigenous Australians .

A couple of this blog's comments follow but first the article. 


12 Jan 2015

Charlie Hebdo: Blessed Are The Tolerant

By Michael Brull

Our defence of 'freedom of speech' appears to be qualified by whether or not we actually find the speech offensive, writes Michael Brull.
Since the murders at the Charlie Hebdo office, there have been countless defences of the right of the magazine to publish its cartoons. However offensive, however inflammatory, they had a right to do so, and we have been told by many Western progressives that the proper way to express solidarity with the victims and to oppose the crimes is to reprint the most offensive of the cartoons.
In a way, this represents a strange understanding of how freedom of speech can be promoted. Yet it offers a kind of cathartic revenge in the face of terrorism. They want to kill us for saying offensive things? Well, we’ll say more offensive things.
Continues here.

Here are this blog's responses. The first is to Brull's piece. The other is to a former academic commenter with a grave ambivalence problem with morality (and spelling).  

Posted Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 14:04
It really is a perverse, ugly and dark place up which the modern Australian left has finally managed to gets its head irretrievably stuck. This article exemplifies this.
 The flip side of this is that when people are offended, horrified and disgusted by the speech of others, the offended must be tolerant. They must be willing to put up with things being said that they find unbelievably awful, and find non-violent, non-oppressive ways of responding.
Absolute unadulterated bullshit in a concentrated form.
There is no obligation to be "tolerant" or "non-oppressive" (whatever the hell that means). All that is required of you is to obey the law. 
There is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between gunning down the staff of a newspaper because you don't like its attitude and launching a civil suit for defamation. It is actually morally depraved to suggest there is . The first is an attack on our civilization.  The other is merely exercising one's rights to seek redress within the law.
Toben was not jailed for "Holocaust denial" . He was jailed for defying a court order. If you cannot understand the difference, you have no worthwhile place in this debate. Whether a court should have the power under the law to issue the order it did is a legitimate matter for public debate. Whether someone can flagrantly defy a court order without any sanction at all because you don't like the order is not. This really is not that difficult.
"Holocaust denial" is one of the worst forms of racism imaginable. But it is not illegal in itself in Australia as evidenced by at least one comment on this thread. I am not going to dirty this page by giving examples, that we all easily can, especially Australians of my generation, but think of the vilest form of anti- Aboriginal Australian slanderous racism you can. Far worse than anything Bolt said. Either you believe that people should be free to spread this muck with impunity or you do not. But please stop using "Holocaust denial" as the benchmark limit on freedom of speech when clearly in this country at least it is not.  You are far more likely to be dragged before a court for spreading anti-Aboriginal racism, for example, than for "Holocaust denial".
You can be a firm advocate for freedom of expression but still  appalled by the distribution of child pornography and believe it should be suppressed with the severest criminal laws and sanctions possible. I see not the slightest contradiction in that. The logical extension of Brull's argument is that this is hypocritical.   
No one serious in all of history has ever said that there should be no limits to freedom of expression. That is "Introduction to Law" 101. Brull must have been away that day. The US is the country with the toughest constitutional  safeguards on freedom of speech in the world but you will still go to jail for shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre as the US Supreme Court famously declared. Try burning a cross in the front yard of an Afro-American family and see how far you get. 
It is all all a question of where you draw the line. Do you think cartoon depictions of Mohammed are in the same category as child pornography or do you not?.
People have been taking the mickey out of religion since the Enlightenment and certainly in France since the Revolution where the Church was such a fundamental part of the Old Regime. History is dripping with satiric and irreverent depictions of Jesus and Moses. Life of Brian drew no boundaries in its straight on affront of Jesus, Christianity, Christians Judaism and Jews. The last scene (with the Jewish lady, dripping with jewellery,  insisting on being crucified in the "Jewish section" ) is one of the most antisemitic statements in film I have ever seen.
It also was hilariously funny. 
So where do you draw the line now that Muslims are joining our communities in the West in such numbers? Do we make an exception for Muhammad
No way known, say I. This would be an appallingly bad mistake and most of all a disaster for Muslims. There must be no quarter shown on this. This is a different civilization to the ones many Muslims come from and fundamental to what makes our countries in the West is both freedom of religion ( and freedom from religion) and expression. Of course there is an on going debate about what these terms mean but please understand that we are not going to give these things up without a fight.
If I could I would say just two things to Muslims in the West everywhere now that they have reached the not necessarily enviable position of being a minority in a pluralistic liberal democratic society.
And grow a sense of humour.
You're going to need it. 
Posted Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - 15:22
Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 17:36

Most of the discusson above is about freedom of speech.  But four jews were killed in Paris because the Islamists could not distinguish between a Jew and a Zionist, much like many of us can't distinguish betwen Islam and Islamists. 

I am going to pick on this not because it is the most offensive and idiotic comment on a thread that fair drips with it but because the commenter claims to be a former academic.
 Also it is the only reference in the entire article and thread to the fact that the attack on Charlie was not the only outrage of this cathartic event. That is truly extraordinary.  It says something profoundly unpleasant about this entire side of politics.
And what do we get?
A comment that infers that had these victims not been innocent people going about their business but innocent people who happen to be lawful supporters of the national liberation movement of the Jewish people then they would have been fair game for these hatefilled monsters?
And also infers that Islamists (whatever that means) are also fair targets for terrorist attacks in a Western society?
This is seriously deluded. We need to purge this lazy ideological muck from our universities.
"Fair Game For Terrorists"
It is essential we do this for the sake of academic freedom. 

  cross posted Israel Thrives

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Jews Out Of Europe Now!


Juden Raus!

Before it is too late.

Dr Michael Lumish of US based friend blog Israel Thrives has this to say. I will quote him in full.

I am going to keep this brief.
The Jewish people need to depart Europe for places where Jews can live in peace and dignity.
The very fact that France would invite one of the premier terrorists in the world today to an "anti-terrorism" rally demonstrates this very clearly.
The Europeans, particularly the French and the Swedes, if not the Brits, are lost in a moral forest and simply cannot be trusted.
The Czech Republic is probably the best friend that we have on that continent.
As an American-Jewish admirer of the state of Israel I would like to see as many European Jews as possible make aliyah.
I do not know how much peace that Jews will get in Israel, but they will get the dignity that goes along with knowing that they are living as free human beings in the country of our people.
For Jews who simply want to live free, the United States, Canada, and Australia remain our best options.
This is how Jewish kids in France were greeted at their schools today. 

France is deploying 10,000 extra forces to provide security forces at “sensitive locations.” The BBC quoted Interior Minister Bernard Cazaneuve saying that nearly half the personnel would be dispatched to France’s 717 Jewish schools.

You cannot live like this. 

Michael Dickson

Stormy Weather

Letter From Israel

elinor        אלינור   


I used to live in Canada.  As winter approached, home-owners routinely took down, washed (if they were of a mind to splash dead insects around) and stored their window screens; freed their double windows from wherever the screens had spent the winter and readied the house for cold weather.  Depending on the number of windows, that job could occupy adults and strong, dependable offspring for a week.

Following the windows endeavour came ‘winterising the car’, for no one would need snow tires until after the first Big Snow—which could come at any time, but not before the cold weather began in earnest.  Winterising the car meant putting tire chains into the boot after checking to see that the clips would hold for another year; adding anti-freeze to the windscreen washers and one or two other activities I’ve happily forgotten.

The winter clothing issue was then addressed.  How many family members had grown out of last year’s warmth?  It was always hard to lasso younger kids to try on hand-me-downs unless that child had had an eye on that garment from the previous frost. 

Boots.  How did they multiply over the winter?  They were always kicked off at the door, instantly inhibiting easy passage.  They were always wet inside and out—how Canadian feet ever grew healthy is a miracle.  And no matter how many instructions were issued on the care and placement of boots, they always ended in a colossal mess.  As did the back of the ankle, which was often rubbed raw by the edge of a wet boot when the sock had slid toe-ward.  (This was before the invention of tights for people who did not study ballet.  What an improvement that was!)

Private homes were built with vestibules, a space between the front door and the house, with a second door to stop the wind from bringing the snow right into the kitchen. Not closing the second door brought screams:  CLOSE THE DOOR!!!  Apartment buildings had vestibules but the individual flats didn’t.

Coats were heavy, made of wool and smelled bad by the end of the season.  Same with scarves.  Gloves and mitts were spared that fate, they were usually lost within the first weeks of play.  Little kids wore mittens that were connected with a cord; they were installed on the inside of the coat and frequently pinned to the cuff of each sleeve.  Those were harder to lose but carried an implied danger:  If the kid put the coat on by tossing it over his head, the cord could choke him.   Always ‘him’.  Girls would never do that.  In any case, cords and pins were objectionable once schooling began.

OK, you get the picture.  Shift to Israel in the 21st century.  When I lived in Jerusalem, snowstorms occurred there about every five years.  I was startled to read recently that the rate is now every second year.  And this is the second year.

In 2013, Jerusalemites who had survived any of the big wars must have recognised the symptoms—grocery stores running out of food, fear of leaving home and danger on the streets.  Several feet of snow had fallen.  Streets were impassable; cars stopped wherever their petrol gave out.  With everyone at home, there was nowhere to park. 

The ascent to Jerusalem was clad in a fug of exhaust from cars stuck on the incline, incapable of proceeding toward the Holy City but running their motors to keep warm.  They, of course, ran out of gas. 

The ever optimistic Israeli assumed that he (always ‘he’, about 90% of those drivers were men!) would make it up the hill.  No provisions for any other outcome were brought; not even a dry biscuit for the tens and tens of animals who loyally accompanied their masters—without the ability to scold.  Gotta love them. 

So this year, the mayor of Jerusalem had a great idea:  Close all roads into the city before the storm.  I don’t know how that turned out—we lost TV and Internet on the second day. 

UPDATE:  It didn’t snow nearly enough to justify the expensive protective and preventive actions earnestly carried out by mayors of towns such as Safed and Jerusalem.  Joke’s on you, guys!