Andrew Bolt's Blog,15/10/15; Bolt encourages stabbings here; The second coming of Abbott; Dr of Bolt Divinity; Flags and deals ine the Philipines; Samling the worst and never the best; Defamation yes Bolt is an expert;USA 134 Countries says Bolt knows nothing;

 

 

 

 

Some context

Link SMH

What we have here is the mirror opposite of what right wing extremists do you know the ones who hang with groups like the UDL,PDL,ADL, and RA. Groups Andrew Bolt seeks to give credibility to as the true Aussies. The email Bolt highlights here as an example of ugly comes from an individual who doesn't make claims to represent anyone but himself. Any collectivist assumptions  are ones Bolt hopes we will make. I'm prepared to even go so far as to say how does Bolt even know it came from a member of the Islamic faith which he spends so much time disparaging? He doesn't how do we know Bolt didn't invent it himself? We don't! We do know Bolt was convicted of being loose with facts an poor journalism by our courts. We've all witnessed how bad he can be on a regular basis without any apologies. We don't need to set the dogs loose in a civilized society. Bolt is the very tone Toohey was referring to and when she gave the MPs a sample they didn't like it either.Racism gets hot in Bendigo but elites serve it cold to migrants every day

Let's assume it does come from a Muslim. An individual isn't a representative of Islam no more than a Chritian individual is represenative of Christianity. However it proves just how much antagonism Bolt's religious hate rants can generate and have over the years. Enough antagonism to open the door for ISIS recruiters no doubt.  It also proves the amount of stress vilification from the top down can produce and reason why Australia needs laws to stop it. Bolt's notion of 'freedom of speech" is an ideal we might all agree with and something to be strived for on a level playing field. However it certainly doesn't mean letting visceral hate speech be legislated for.

"Why is it then that the likes of Abbott, Bolt, Jones, Brandis, Bernardi and others need to go beyond common decency, and defend others who cannot express themselves without degenerating into hate speech? Why does this demand for open slather free speech always come from the right of politics and society? They seem to have an insensitivity to common decency that goes beyond any thoughtful examination.They simply want the right to inflict hate, defame with impunity, insult, and promote bigotry if it suits their purpose. And behind that purpose can be found two words. Power and control." John Lord

 

 

 

 

Defending free speech - and sticking with a Liberal promise

A topic close to Bolt's heart the right to be a brute.

 "If people want to insult and offend me, that’s fine, I’m not going to slit my wrists "From the mouth of "a Zed Seselja one of the top eshalon."
"Liberal senator Zed Seselja told the Senate on Thursday that the current act, which makes it an offence to “insult” or “offend” someone on the basis of their race, was too subjective for a court to decide…" Surely this is also subjective so on what basis should a decision be made? Seselja is saying it's fine to denigrate the disadvantaged, the handicapped and others that have less power than me simply because I'm in a position of power.

John Lord's response is far more insightful . I have paraphrased and simplified  it.

It’s Not Funny if it has no Insightful Truth. ‘Free Speech, I Mean’.

• John Lord

Free Speech and an Enlightened Society

I have written about free speech, hate, racial discrimination and the state of our democracy on many occasions and this question will not leave me.
Why is it, in ‘the name of free speech’, that we need to enshrine the right to abuse each other in law?
You would think that an enlightened progressive free thinking society would want to eliminate it not legislate it.

Supposedly we live in an age of enlightenment, a period where the world has made enormous technological advances, but at the same time our intellects have not advanced the capacity to understand simple tolerance.

We would uphold the principle that no one individual or group has an ownership of righteousness. We would seek not to judge but to understand. We would seek dialogue ahead of confrontation.
We would place internationalism before nationalism acknowledging that the planet earth does not have infinite resources and needs care and attention if we are to survive on it. In doing so we would value the future on a timescale longer than our own. We would recognise that the individual has rights but no man is an island and can only exist, and have his rights fulfilled, only by the determination of a collective.
We would insist on equality of opportunity in education acknowledging that it is knowledge that gives understanding. We would seek not to indoctrinate our children in any way but instead teach them how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with us. We would, in our schools open their minds to an understanding of ethics instead of proselytizing religion.
We would never seek to cut ourselves off from dissent, and always respect the right of others to disagree with us.
Importantly we not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Lastly we would question everything. What we see, what we feel, what we hear, what we read and what we are told until we understand the truth of it because thoughtlessness is the residue of things not understood and can never be a replacement for fact.

This is no more empathised than in our understanding of what free speech is. Are we honestly enlightened if we think we need to ‘’enshrine in legislation’’ an emotion people already have and use, to express hatred? There is something fundamentally and humanely wrong with the proposition. There is an intolerable indecency that suggests that we have made no advancement in our discernment of free speech. If free speeches only purpose is to denigrate, insult and humiliate then we need to reappraise its purpose. There are those who say it identifies those perpetrating wrong doing but if it creates more evil than good it’s a strange freedom for a so called enlightened society to bequeath its citizens.

It’s all in the name of satirical free speech but it’s not funny if has no insightful truth.
Is this really what an enlightened society means by free speech? Does it demonstrate our cognitive advancement? Is this what well educated men and women want as free speech or should  we see free speech as being nothing more or nothing less than the right to tell the truth in whatever medium we so choose.
One has to wonder why the so called defenders of free speech feel they are inhibited by what they have now. I don’t.
Why is it then that the likes of Abbott, Bolt, Jones, Brandis, Bernardi and others need to go beyond common decency, and defend others who cannot express themselves without degenerating into hate speech? Why does this demand for open slather free speech always come from the right of politics and society? They seem to have an insensitivity to common decency that goes beyond any thoughtful examination.They simply want the right to inflict hate, defame with impunity, insult, and promote bigotry if it suits their purpose. And behind that purpose can be found two words. Power and control.

Debate, in whatever form, should not include the right to vilify. It is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. It is about an exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form it is simply about the art of persuasion”
The fact that so many people agree with the free speech argument highlights the tolerance we have for the unacceptable right to hate each other, which to me is the sauce of everything that is wrong with human behaviour.
And we want to make it acceptable by legislating to condone it!

After all the dignity of the individual (or individuals) within the collective is more important than some fools right to use freedom of speech to vilify another.
It says something about the moral sickness in our society when the right to abuse each other, in the name of free speech, needs to be enshrined in law.

 

 

 

 

Turnbull socks it to Shorten over his shabby envy politics

Link The Guardian,

So wealth doesn't count, class does not exist only individuals on a level playing field count. These are explanatory concepts.The fact that the top 10%of the country own 90% of our wealth doesn't appear of any concern to Andrew Bolt. Nor that it's a fact. Given that most comes via inheritance and the majority of that class  are rent just collectors and capital gains recipients and not innovative and productive members enhancing Australia's GDP these questions are valid. However Bolt who thinks his celebrity and conservative status gives him a ticket to ride with this top 1% is more akin to the Judas ram a tool to mislead his flock. Bolt lives a lie and fantasizes being something he isn't.

What he and Turnbull claim to be a smear campaign is a legitimate process of discovery to find out who our PM is after all he will have to succumb to it at an election at sometime. One of the reasons Abbott bombed he refused to answer these questions on wether he had the right to even be a Parliamentarian. Is he a dual citizen we still don't know. Americans go through a much harder process than we do. However it's normal and goes with the job.

 

 

 

Neil Brown on the coup: “wrong, unprincipled and unnecessary”

Link The Spectator extremely Conservative .. Neill Brown

The extreme conservative lament goes on and on with professional mourners like Andrew Bolt  Brown Rowan Dean etal wailing like  of professional mourners at Idi Amin's funeral.

"So, let me put it on the record and say that the overthrow of Abbott was wrong, unprincipled and unnecessary." Brown

"Brown’s way is my own:" 

If this lament once came threats by Bolt to start his own Conservative Party which according to him would be a snap but ask your self why it will never happen.

 I believe they deserve the Royal Order of Malcolm Fraser and be given the boot from the Liberal Party. If they were part of a football team and the coach or captain were changed and their crap was over heard in the locker room how long do you think they'd last? Think of any team and ask yourself how long they'd be there?  Bolt's there for Murdoch nobody else and News Corp simply wants to force an early election. He's a tool.

 Neill Brown writes a weekly column for The Spectator Australia and has often been mistaken to be a Howard Government Minister despite Brown having left Parliament in 1991 five years before John Howard became Prime Minister in 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stabbing attacks continue in Israel

" The influence of religion cannot be denied. But it’s not mentioned here, although other factors seem scarily similar to what we’re seeing here:" Andrew Bolt

 Sorry it's politics and not religion but religion is being politically icited for a purpose.Bolt does show just how frighteningly moronic he is linking what's happening in Israel to here. He seems to want it to happen. To see Jews being stabbed on Australian streets. To see people arming them selves would it seem a cause to celebrate for Bolt. His prediction  seems to be encouraging the event which would certainly help his insane hope of right wing incitement to violence by fringe elements.

What you don't hear from Bolt

 

Stabbings linked to Israel's 'systematic violence

Palestinian officials warn that the Israeli government is exploiting a volatile situation to derail peace prospects.

 

Palestinian officials have accused the Israeli government of allowing settlers to commit acts of violence against Palestinians across the West Bank and inside the Old City of Jerusalem.
"Armed settlers are blocking off Palestinian roads and have so far burned over 300 cars," said Ghassan Daghlas, the Palestinian Authority (PA) official in charge of monitoring Israeli settlement policies in the occupied territories.
Daghlas said armed Israeli settlers, protected by units from the Israeli army, were roaming the West Bank, attacking Palestinian villages, burning their properties and setting olive trees ablaze.

Israeli troops clash with Palestinians at Al-Aqsa

In recent days, Daghlas said, there have been mounting attacks by the army and settlers against Palestinian population centres in the West Bank.
"It is clear for us that this campaign is designed to be used as a justification to take away more land from the Palestinians and build more illegal Jewish settlements," he said.

---

ANALYSIS: Why Israel wants a religious war over Al-Aqsa

---

Israeli police have closed off access to the Old City of Jerusalem for Palestinian men who are not residents of the area, after two attacks in less than 12 hours resulted in the deaths of two Israelis.
Saeb Erekat, secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), told Al Jazeera that the latest stabbings were a reaction to "Israel's systematic cycle of violence, its occupation and building of settlements".
"The Israeli actions are an indication that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is trying to avoid his obligations to end this conflict and is trying to legitimise the illegal building of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories," Erekat said.
On Saturday, Netanyahu issued a statement blaming the Palestinian Authority for "wild incitement that leads to acts of terrorism and murder".
Netanyahu said he would speak to Israeli military and security chiefs "about the steps we will take not only to apprehend the murderers, but also to increase security for all Israeli citizens".

It is clear for us that this campaign is designed to be used as a justification to take away more land from the Palestinians and build more illegal Jewish settlements. Ghassan Daghlas, PA official

Contacted by Al Jazeera, a spokesperson for the Israeli government declined to comment on allegations that the army was facilitating settler attacks throughout the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem, and instead referenced the recent statement from Netanyahu.
On the weekend, a six-year-old Palestinian boy was shot in his stomach near the West Bank city of Qalqilya. There have been conflicting reports on what happened, with the Israelis alleging the boy was playing with a gun that misfired, while the boy's family said he was shot by an Israeli settler who then fled the scene.
Erekat accused Netanyahu of exploiting the current volatile situation "to derail the two-state solution".
"Netanyahu is obviously trying to copy the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's 2002 military operation, 'Defensive Shield', which was the biggest Israeli offensive against the West Bank since the 1967 war," Erekat said.
Khalil Toufakji, head of the maps department at the Orient House in East Jerusalem, told Al Jazeera that current Israeli policies for Jerusalem are propelling the situation towards a religious confrontation between Muslims and Jews, altering the nature of the conflict from one of national liberation for the Palestinians into a religious war.
Jerusalem, according to several reports, could once again prove to be the spark to ignite the West Bank into another Intifada against the Israeli occupation.
"Israeli leaders have long strategised and planned to frame this conflict along religious lines," Toufakji said. "All of their designs for Jerusalem, ever since they occupied it in 1967, have been about how to increase the Jewish population of the city and decrease the Palestinian [both Muslim and Christian] populations."
Israeli plans for Jerusalem, according to Toufakji, are to restrict the Arab population to 12 percent, while the remaining 88 percent would be Jewish, with full Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, excluding the villages of Beit Hanina and other outlying areas.
Adnan Husseini, the PA-appointed governor of Jerusalem, cited "unprecedented Israeli military pressure against the Palestinians", in addition to the Israeli government's attempts "to divide al-Aqsa Mosque and encourage Israeli settlers' attacks against the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem".
"The situation is extremely difficult for us," Husseini told Al Jazeera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hounding Abbott

Link Paywall to Murdoch's Australian Nikki Sava

Hounding Abbott? Don't talk about the past Nikki Savva it's too painful. 

" I could see Abbott having a very useful and influential role should he choose, say, to be a backbencher with a media profile and a role in various organisations outside Parliament as well. And why not?" 

Nothing specific mind you but I'm trying to recruit him as taking over from Kroger my current sidekick on the Bolt Report. Organizations to join, News Corp, IPA, or head the Australian branch of the CCC or Coppenhagen Climare Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

Column - No, Islam is not as meek as Christianity

Link Bolt's Column or a Paywall to Murdoch's Herald Sun

Bolt is a twisted soul who like the deviant cop of the unscrupulous research scientist picks out the black sheep to prove the flock is not white.

According to Bolt holding the News Corp amplification system suggests most of the disrespect shown in divided Australia is coming from Muslims. For more than two years he's suggesting his Islamophobic message has been respectfully sliming and vilifying a faith but not the members of it. That he's actually been a stanch example of "mutual respect"

"Heavy, I know. But too many of us have forgotten how Christianity shaped our society, and are blind to how the Koran created radically different societies."

Bolt is little more than a cherry picker that leaves the cherry an "Eye for an Eye"  behind and overlooks a central core of Islam out "to kill one human is to kill the human race " He shows not only his ignorance but his bigotry as well.Honour killings are not only a Muslim act.

Abraham and Jesus are also Islamic prophets whose words aren't regarded as blasphemy Andrew Bolt. Do you know in the UK Muslims give more than twice as much to Charity than Christians do and they are on average poorer. That Muslim banks are the model the world has adopted to tackle poverty in the third world. You wont hear that from Bolt.

However Bolt can own these quotes say he's not a Christian and then quite openly declare he's not a hypocrite for practising the opposite of do unto others as

 

 

 

 

Islamic State flag flies in the Philippines

Do you know Che Guevara was on thousands of Ts worn by Australian kids in the 60s and 70s. That it was on Ts worn by Latin American priests.. Did you know the US flag was flying in Vietnam while  we destroyed the place with napalm. Wow someone likes ISIS. Let's try and do a deal to send people we are holding in detention there. I'm sure ISIS Philipines would be happy to resettle teh at over $10 mill per head.

 

 

 

Speak no evil, see no evil. Yet the police see more than ever

Paywalls to Murdoch's Daily Telegraph. The Australian Link The ABC

Generally Bolt's long blogs are a selected no comment cut and paste that delivers nothing let's explore this one.

 James Morrow like Bolt celebrates and justifies the media finding Islam and religion the culprit behind extremism as opposed to the political psychology employed.The psychology behind Islamophobia produces the ground for ISIS recruiters to succeed.  The resentment felt by young Muslims to  being told they aren't wanted coupled with a systemic lack of opportunity  is  a natural expression of the politics of the situation and not just the faith

 All this seems akin to blaming Indigenous culture for their social problems entitling the government  to intervene  remove their children for reasons of "social welfare" or justifying doing nothing because they are to blame. It wouldn't be to much of a stretch to suggest the same for Muslim children to prevent radicalization. Or even a reason for increasing the counter terrorism budget even further despite the fact that the number of events that have occurred here are statistically insignificant. More people have been killed or injured falling out of bed.

Sheridan deflects the harshness of Morrow. He annoys Bolt  but he's right it is a widespread problem however it's not a "world problem" the psychology is the same  in the Angloshere because the press is Murdoch owned and they are spreading the same Islamophobic message which is not just exclusive to Australia. That  doesn't make it right. It's not the message found in the majority of the Muslim world or even the Christian world. However how many Muslims have changed their names in order to get jobs. How many have been forced to walk in the shadows to feel fully accepted? For how many has hiding their identities been the path to assimilation? Was Ed Husic born Ed? What if he was Abdul?

The fact is the Middle East and Nth Africa did suffer Western colonialism. It  redefined their natural borders and it did produce  the politics and psychology of resentment and tyranny that doesn't simply disappear with the birth of a new generation. Dr Franz Fanon said real psychiatry in Algeria could only begin to be practiced after the French were kicked out along with those who inherited their power and benefited from colonialism. We aren't a disconnected island  why are we demanding Mohamed become Bob or leave? Why do we focus on their dysfunction instead ours? Why don't talk of our success? Why do we hear about Bendigo where the politics has been imported but not Shepparton? That's the bias of the media and not thie bias of Islam. Despite these successes why are they said to be ethical challenge for Shepparton's Imams.  Do we keep demanding Fr Bob speak up on every crime because the perp was Christian? How much does one Muslim Australian have to bear compared with a Christian simply because of the way we amplify a crime to committed by a Muslim. Australians don't bear the shame of the Frontier Wars but we expect all Muslims to bear the shame of a politically misguided murder. 

120 radicals have left the country Australia. They didn't  attack us. However idiots like Bolt amplify it as an event that ought to have 500,000 Australians lashing themselves. Rather than sympathizing with 120 Australian families who are mortified at the loss of their child who can't come back and is now facing a higher likelihood of death in a war zone Bolt is blaming them What would Bolt say if a member of Houli's family left the country? Houli is his token  Richmond and Muslim hero.. it's a hypothetical question only because I also think the mans true blue and I shouldn't have to say it.Racism? Bigotry? Discrimination? No worries, mate, she’ll be right!

 

 

 

 

Shorten sinking

Link The SMH 's Conservative Paul Sheehan

Andrew Bolt prefers others to do his work for him even when we know it's stating the obvious.  He'd hate to be caught putting anything positive in writing about Malcolm Turnbull even if it's in the polls. So why not use Fairfax. Strange just how many times Bolt actually uses Fairfax and the ABC for news.

" Tony Abbott set in motion the royal commission – and personally selected the royal commissioner – that will likely finish off Shorten’s political credibility before the voting coup de grace. His polling numbers are diabolical…"

It's praising Abbott's cunning in setting up the Royal Commission to destroy his opposition. In fact it's about the misuse of taxpayer money for publicity $63 million in fact. All this could have just as easily been done by the police.

  "The combination of dreadful opinion poll numbers, a shrewd and shiny new Prime Minister, and the ominous implacability of Heydon’s royal commission have put Shorten in a vice that appears to be tightening."

What Bolt is celebrating is Abbott's politics and cunning at the expense of the electorate. However it often crashed and was then ignored and loyalty went out the window.Four Corners of Jackson and Lawler

 

 

 

 

A defamation threat that will be harder to forget

Link Paywall to Murdoch's Australian

Bolt is the oracle of Delphi when it comes to defamation. News Corp lawyers have been paid handsomely to keep the man from trouble even though he's been found guilty on several occasions. It's why Bolt has become such an expert  with men and women in pin striped suits acting as his proof readers. All experts in tip toeing through the tulips you could say.

 

 

 

 

 

Pilger’s sick conspiracy theory

 Link Opinion Murdoch's Australian.

"The assertion that opposing dictatorships, theoocracies and communist oligarchies is just a ploy to keep the world “American-owned” is paranoid." Andrew Bolt

  In fact Bolt calls it risible or ridiculous. Rather than offer any substance to show John Pilger to be a fool all Bolt  does  is try to ridicule him, and call him a paranoid sage of the left. Bolt however makes no effort to explain why the USA has a military involvement in 134 + countries. What have you really got to say Andrew Bolt that's meaningful?