Wednesday 15 August 2018

Andrew Bolt's Blog, 15/8/18; Bolt is ready to follow the Fox News Line, Immigration,Multiculturalism, Muslim, African the White Supremecist line; Fascism and what Andrew Bolt tries to hide about it;








When you feel the ground move under your feet. Try and Trump




LONDON 'TERROR' ATTACK

London police say the driver of a car which ran down two cyclists outside Parliament has been arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences.

15mLink

Andrew Bolt seems to have an obsession with Muslim and Black crime Immigration and Multiculturalism but he posts this even though he hasn't any idea on which to proceed. He doesn't bother with Caucasian crimes accidents or dramatic events that might draw negative attention. Context is less relevant for than the racial narrative that might be implied and attached suggesting that this was a terrorist act. Terrorist or not that fact doesn't seem to bother Bolt as long as it can be suggested it is. If this turns out not to be Bolt generally won't go back and acknowledge that. He simply moves on or has been known to insist that it is despite what the authorities say as in the case of Orlando. He then says the authorities are in a conspiratorial state of denial. Either way right or wrong Bolt saves the event and lists it in his catalogue of evidence used as proof of his totally biased racial and anti-ethnic conclusions due to a multicultural policy of immigration.
No data is collected about all the crime in an area no history or comparison of rates or any precise demographic distribution made as it might suggest the opposite of what Bolt wants to say. Only selectively chosen facts are alluded to for the purpose of proof just as a bent cop would do to frame an innocent person. Bolt has used this approach more than once, in fact, it could be called his "modus operandi" and will be applied in the future too. Fox & Friends guest immediately points to UK's "immigration situation" after an apparent vehicle attack in London
UPDATE 
Not mentioned by Andrew Bolt
"The car was driven from Birmingham by a 29-year-old British man, according to police. When he got to the scene, he staked out Westminster before smashing his car."

" Scotland Yard believes there is no ongoing threat connected to the attack."

The only reason it is treated as a terror incident is that transport has been used by terrorists in the past and in this case, they don't know one way or the other.
None of this information and analysis, however, has any value for Mr.Bolt.


As I said above Bolt like Anning exaggerates uses false figures selectively lists cases that and says that in terms of a Multicultural nation some immigrants are a huge criminal risk He isn't shy to claim it's their race culture or ethnicity to blame. He does it here as I said this morning dragging out a list of falsehoods to make his point. The South Sudanese aren't the most likely criminal group in this country nor are Muslims. Culturally Australians are after them come New Zealanders and they are Christians to boot as are most Indigenous Australians but you won't hear that from Bolt as they come from that group Bolt and Anning calls the safest.
South Sudanese are Black and are only 6th on the criminality ratings if Indigenous Australians are separated from Australians a tendency of Bolts. The state of Victoria has seen a reduction in crime second only to the ACT. Bolt, however, uses his selective list that even lists cases in the UK as if proof Lebanese Africans and Muslims are the worst here and I assume on the planet. By the way, the man in the UK was a British Citizen something else Bolt avoided saying. Like the fact that the most dangerous countries in the world as far as criminality and Youth crime are concerned are in fact Christian and all located in the Latin Americas It simply doesn't fit his argument.
Bolt's become more careful these days and he hires others to say what he won't Southern. Molyneux, Hanson, and Milo all are given a platform to say what Bolt won't but would if he could. The apology for Fraser Anning is copybook Fox News. Bolt just hopes Australians are too isolated to be aware of the lies he tells for propaganda's sake.

 Image result for Images and of Mussolini and fascism A
Andrew Bolt's two famous Socialist Left-Wingers
4m
It might just have been sufficient to call Martin Sharp a "Philosopher and Academic" but then Bolt does have a two left feet approach to opinion as a professional writer. 
 He prefers" ahistorical approaches " when it comes to humanly constructed social events like "I'm more indigenous that most Aborigines".  Labels seem to hold absolute truths for Bolt like there were no "Stolen Children" or in this case of two very famous "left-wing" organizations  " Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers' Party and Mussolini was editor of Italy’s national socialist newspaper, Avanti." Bolt. The labels are far more important to Andrew Bolt than the reality. Apparently, politics is as simple as the self-appointed name one gives one's self. So Fascism has nothing to do with Mussolini or Hitler but Socialism has.  Bolt used to preferred and referenced Isil's media and propaganda unit over and above any report put out by institutional bodies in Australia or the USA. He was extremely selective as to who he listened to. He keeps strong attention to the ABC for information and news that needs countering along with Education the Arts and just about every other institution in the country which according to Bolt have been kidnapped by the Left even our current LNP  Government. Fascism does shoulder a lot of paranoia.
Bolt the opinionator gives more credence to what people "say" rather than what they "do" and he proves it in the above quote. Yet Mussolini was regarded as the father of Fascism and he called himself a Socialist Fascism, therefore according to Andrew Bolt, it makes him a Left-Wing and not totally opposed to that concept of Socialism as universally understood. Sorry Bolt you've failed that IQ test.
 Bolt calls himself a journalist educated at Adelaide University and Australian Patriot and many other things such as non-racists but when you judge his actions in the context of his and our history he's none of those things. He's not a Journalist, never completed any course at Adelaide Uni, is not an Australian Patriot and is an ultra-racist nationalist and white supremacist. He simply believes in the power of the narrative. He might be entitled to believe all of that but the public record of his actions deny it as it denied Hitler and Mussolini's claim to Socialism and it's what defines the reality in which we live his actions, not his words. Martin Sharp points to what Andrew Bolt "does" as history pointed to what Hitler and Mussolini did.
"One final feature of a fascist (although, again, not she or he alone) is their feeling licensed to use language with scant regard for consistency, clarity or accuracy." Martin Sharpe Fascism: Who is and isn't a fascist, and how you can tell the difference ...
It seems Bolt would have failed first-year Philosophy at any university on this planet and it is what it is a fact. Read Martin Sharpe's article and ask yourself if it put's Andrew Bolt into clear three-dimensional relief? It shows on inspection just how Fascist and Right-Wing he actually is and how much of a failure he's see's Australian Democracy as being.


The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon unless brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.


27m
What did I say above Bolt brings others on to stay clean like Pontious Pilot did, In this case, it's Pauline Hanson? Who is calling for a referendum on immigration as Abbott did on marriage equality? Not because they believe they have a winning argument. Or not because the country should be run by referendums but because they know dog whistling and dividing the nation gains votes. Particularly for the Right.

No comments: